tallforadwarf's page

'dwarf, I like the "flavor" of being able to burn off HP to fuel rage, but I worry that with HP being a resource that's readily replenished, things might get dicey. Factor in magical regeneration effects or, worse yet, a monster Barbarian with the same ability, and... yikes. A troll with even one level of Barbarian would be sick.

Agreed - that's one of the reasons I don't like posting mechanical suggestions without throughly testing them first. I have a keen eye for balance but not as keen as some. I think it also doesn't help that I'm blessed with a group who aren't interested in abusing the rules. ;oD

I guess I'd say HP is a better resource than ability burn because there are more points to be spent. I was thinking that the HP burn could 'lock out' the HP, i.e. you couldn't heal them, regenerate them etc. Effectively it'd lower your overall HP total. For simplicity, you'd gain all these locked out HP back (but not restored, healing would be at the usual rate) at once, after 8 hours of rest a la the standard mechanics for class features.
When I discussed this with my group we agreed it is an awesome idea, and set the rate at 5HP/1RP. Although we posted this in our playtest reports, no one picked up on it, so I've not much more to say than that on the subject. Could someone take a look at it and other 'burn' mechanics from 3.X to come up with a workable version? Like I said above, HP are a better mechanic because there are more of them - we like the feel of the Barbarian slowly exhausting as they spend everything to keep in the fight. Of course, it could be much quicker if the Barbarian has very few HP left....

Peace,

tfad

No - it's still a steaming of.... I mean, er no. I was pretty anti before, but actually reading the books really p!ssed me off.

Bad English, terrible in places. The few descriptive bits there are read like a not particularly bright 11 year old wrote them for a school project.

Voice activated weaponry! The PHB seriously suggests that shouting the name of your attack is roleplaying. Heck we do sometimes, but that's not roleplaying and we certanly don't sit around joining every one of our class features with an anime battle cry.

Mutilation of the core setting was something we already knew about from the previews, but somehow, when combined with the atrocious writing and poor art (see below) it just seems doubly offensive. In this comment, I include stuff like missing classes and monsters as well as all the cosmology stuff.

Terrible Art and some of it has been reused from 3rd edition! That was something I really couldn't believe. Also, I don't know if this picture was just a re-use or if it is a terrible joke in bad taste, but check out the picture of the medusa in the MM. That's a 3.5 iconic she's turned to stone! My wife and I both thought that was bad....

Reliance on figures is pretty bad too. It's assumed (bad!) and not very well illustrated - the diagrams on LOS were very confusing to look at as it seems like the corner of the square you measure to changes at random.

DMG advise section that was much praised was largely a waste of space. I couldn't believe some of it, e.g. the advice on Prima Dona players: "Ask them to stop or ask them to leave." Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way.

I suppose, if I was being generous and the books came packaged with a large number of card stand in monsters, tiles and 6 plastic hero figures, I'd call it an okay 'My First D&D' set. As it is, I'll just have to admit that D&D has moved on, is now aimed at a younger, more casual gamer audience and thank all the powers that be for Pathfinder and for keeping the spirit of D&D alive.

I don't intend to cause any offense with my remarks and I'm aware they're uncharacteristically aggressive, but those books provoked a very strong negative response in me. More so than I was expecting.

Peace,

tfad

Remember also the goal of Pathfinder is BACK-COMPATIBILITY. This means that when you've got your grubby mitts on the final release, you should still be able to run any of your old adventures with the minimal of fuss/conversion. So far, I've had no trouble using other 3.X sources both official and 3rd party, with the Pathfinder Alphas.

Peace,

tfad

Bonus Spells: charm person (3rd), detect thoughts (5th), levitate (7th), charm monster (9th), telepathic bond (11th), dominate person (13th), greater teleport (15th), mass charm monster (17th), dominate monster (19th).

I also added greater teleport as a nod to psychoportation fans out there.

Nice list - I think it's slightly better for having some different spells spells on there, instead of just better versions of one already possessed. This could be taken further too.

Psychoportation is cool, not my favorite but you cannot argue with the style of Baleful Teleport. Nothing says "Don't f*ck with me!" quite like teleporting chunks off of your foes... Hehe.

Perhaps, if starting this bloodline again from the beginning, the design goal should very well be to include a little from each of the disciplines. To make sure they're all represented. Hmm.

Peace,

tfad

Put me down for keeping Rage Points. I can speak for my group too - they loved them. It even generated interest in the Barbarian class where there was none before.

When I playtested them, as DM, I had no more problems running the NPCs than I would any other and it certainly wasn't hard to keep track of the points/powers.

I hope they stay, although in answer to those who say it's just not 'Barbarian-y' enough, I'll repeat my suggestion from our playtests. There needs to be a mechanic for spending more points than you have, trading HP or Ability Burn for 'instant use' rage points.

Finally, I have to strongly disagree with those who claim that the Barbarian is the 'newbie' class and should be kept simple for that reason. No class should be relegated to this status and anyone who couldn't add up their rage points should ask for help from the rest of the group. They should, after all, be willing to help the newbie. And 'newbie' doesn't mean 'stupid', plus what if they wanted to play the Wizard - with the Str. and Con. rage adjustments etc., I'd argue that's simpler.

Long live Rage Points!

Peace,

tfad

I'd not posted my thoughts on this part of the Alpha yet, despite having gone through it with a fine-toothed comb and testing it next to some of my own creations using the 3.5 MM. I was moved to post a (brief version of) my notes after reading the same section in the 4th Edition DMG - it's handled infinitely better in the Pathfinder Alpha.

Making monsters is largely an art over a science and lots of different things that you cannot anticipate in a rules system will have an effect on the end result. E.g. A fully 'optimized' party (oh lord, do I hate that phrase) will probably go through monsters a lot quicker and of a higher CR. You can't have two CRs, one for flowery thespians and one for die hard munchkins....

That said, some sort of rules system or guide to working within the main rules (i.e. 3.X) is necessary. At the very least it would need to be a part of a 'designers kit' handed to companies who publish compatible rules material. There are some 'gray areas', but this is necessary because the section is a guide and not hard and fast rules. Whilst these guides can be stuck to as immovable rules, it leads to some strange results, which is why 1) it's a guide and 2) it's at least as much an art as it is a science.

Some sections of this guide will always be arbitrary. E.g. Not all monsters that are bigger in size are going to be necessarily tougher. But at least this is an arbitrary assumption that holds true for both common experience (a 60' monkey is going to be harder to kill than 6' monkey) and the majority of monsters (a hobgoblin is a big goblin and tougher to kill).

The Pathfinder system is great, it provides ball-park set figures for the most important measures of the creature. Whilst, as a DM, I'm more interested in what the monster is doing in the game, it can't do it's job in the game if it's stat-block doesn't cover everything it needs to. Thus, the stats, as a reflection of the role the creature is to play in the coming battle with the PCs, are the most important part of the monster.
The Pathfinder monster creation guide gives a choice of values and lets the creator plot the monster on a 'bare bones graph' which gives all the essential stats e.g. AC, HP, Saves, Save DCs, along with the corresponding expected ranges. This is the clever bit because you can check you are hitting these values after you have finished your creation. After you have added special attacks, reduced some stats in favor in of others etc. you can come back to these values and see if you are right. You can even manipulate these values like the other aspects of the creature, creating a range that is easy to apply to the PCs and their ACs, HPs, Saves etc. and see how it fares immediately.

I've compared some monsters I worked out before the Alpha with a copy of that same creature, made with the Alpha guide. It's very easy to use the guide and the results complimented each other perfectly. That is to say, that the monsters that proved slightly too tough came out at higher CR and those that were easily defeated by the PCs came out at a lower DC. Although I have to admit that I only looked at Aberration, Fey, Giant and Undead and all within the 5HD-16HD range.
I should also admit that I've not looked at the monster conversion section as I've had no problem converting any 3rd edition product to the 3P rules.

Well done! I'm looking forward to using the guide again soon, when preparing for our next game session.

Peace,

tfad

I'm dreading the day when the "psionics don't belong in a fantasy game" crowd comes stomping into this thread to have their say... LOL

I'll begin some hastily constructed defenses. At the first sign of danger, we'll smuggle you out in this giant wooden rabbit.... ;oD

tfad

This is a very helpful thread, folks. Please keep the requests coming.

w00t! I did something right! ;o) I was seriously surprised no one else had started a similar thread.

Thanks again, everyone, for helping out with this open playtest. You guys are the greatest!

We really shouldn't get into this, it'll go something like this:

"You guys are the best!"

"No, you guys are the best!"

"Aw! Come on, you guys are the best! We're only here 'cos you guys keep buying our stuff!"

"We only buy it 'cos you guys are the best!"

And so on.... ;OD

tfad

One of our three playtesters will be putting a Paladin/Bard through the paces. We'll be posting here once we've seen the class in action at our game table.

Cool! I've started to recognize your handle from the posts you make and you've got some solid ideas. I look forward to reading this. :oD

In the meantime--seems a few who've posted here and elsewhere are looking for non-LG Paladins. There are the two variants in "Unearthed Arcana", but I have greatly enjoyed the Holy Warrior class first presented in Green Ronin's superb "Book of the Righteous." I also have "The Unholy Warrior's Handbook." There's a PDF update to the Holy Warrior that's unfortunately unavailable from Paizo, but can be snagged from Green Ronin.

All that said... please keep the Pathfinder Paladin Lawful Good.

These are quite good and anyone interested in champions of X would be well advised to get their grubby mitts on these books. Although, you are correct and an Paladin is LG, once it's not LG anymore, it's not a Paladin.

Peace,

tfad

First off, an intelligent Lawful Good mount would most certainly serve as a paladin's equipment bearer if it meant bringing the means to victory against the forces of evil.

That's not very Paladin-y though is it? It's difficult to be an heroic crusader against evil if both you and your trusted mount have chosen to play Dungeons & Accounting instead. As a truly holy creature, a pillar to which the Paladin likely aspires (as you're concerned more with the low level abuse and the Paladin is still a 'mere mortal' until 20th level), I can't see them agreeing to this. The Paladin should have too much respect for his mount and the mount should not put up with being treated as a bag of holding equivalent.

Especially if the mount is a mule.

Surely a Paladin is not going to be picking a mule as their mount. Again, it's not very Paladin-y.

(STUFF)

The more I read your posts, the more I realize that we play in very different games. :oD The PCs don't live in constant fear of losing their valuable items, instead they live in constant anticipation of action and adventure. I can't believe that any of my group would do something like you're suggesting. We never have any trouble with rules abuse etc.

Regarding your comments about the mount's safety, again I have to say it's all about the action. Once the mount is in danger then yes, it could just be dismissed, but what if the Paladin needs the mount? That is what they were given to the Paladin for in the first place, to fight alongside the Paladin. We've had some great moments in our games with the Paladin's mounts, fantastic airborne battles, racing through collapsing dungeons etc.
Action! Adventure! Excitement! :o)
I don't think anyone ever stopped and said, "Hold on! This situation presents an unacceptable level of danger to the party's valuables!"

The characters were too busy saving the world and the players were too busy having fun. :oD

Anyway, I'm only arguing the possible abusiveness of the mount. I myself would prefer it to be summonable any number of times for an unlimited duration (SNIP)

Great! Now we're on the same page, what sort of storage ability should it have? :o) Any at all? I'm not worried about the abuse of the power, but would be happy to see it go if it means the mount is able to be summoned more than once per day. The minimum amount should be equal to the number of times the shiny new sword ability can be used. It is, after all, described as the same thing - a divine bond.

Peace,

tfad

To quote myself, in an effort to make my position clear:

I'm not looking to abuse the calling power. I would not mind if it doesn't get healed in between summons and if it can't take anything with it when it vanishes. What I want is to be able to summon it more than once per day!

My request for a greater amount of summons of the mount per day, relates solely to its use as a mount and has nothing to do with using it as cheap storage. I want to be able to use my mount, which I see as a mount and not some sort of 4-legged Leomund's Chest.

The point with the nasty things is that you can wait until after you've bypassed the mount/bag-endangering situation to summon your mount before the next mount/bag-endangering situation but your bag of holding is with you during one or both situations. Summoning storage is more convenient for securing your stuff than carrying storage.

But isn't danger ever present? You never know what's around the next corner and unless you're speeding through some down time, nothing should be certain in an exciting fantasy RPG.

Also, going with your example, you'd have to summon the mount then retrieve the equipment. If you have a magic bag of sorts, you only need to retrieve it. That's quite the inconvenience. And anything that you might need in a hurry (e.g. wand of healing) would probably not be kept on the mount or in the mount's saddlebags.

The fact that you can make saddlebags of holding should speak more to the extreme convenience of the mount if it can be summoned more often.

Once again, you're homing in on the abusive possibilities of being able to summon the mount more than once per day. This isn't what the mount is designed for - it's there to be ridden into danger by our fearless Paladin.

The rules need to support the assumed use of the ability before we can look at the abusive possibilities. It doesn't seem balanced that the mount, which will likely have less practical uses in a standard game, is less usable than the magic sword ability. The mount requires separate skills and feats to be able to use effectively, not counting the fact that your average dungeon is too small to accommodate them.

Even without saddlebags of holding, 20 wands (remember they're small and light), 100 potion vials (remember they're tiny), and 10 weapons as well as 2 saddlebags full of convenient miscellaneous items can easily be fitted onto or hung from a warhorse mount with custom straps and belts.

That's a lot of money spent on consumables! :o) Again, all of that stuff can fit into a bag of holding or a portable hole or some such. Each of those is much more convenient than the poke-mount ability in terms of retrieval and access.

I have to disagree with your basic assumption that the Paladin will be using their summon mount ability as a free bag of holding. Most mounts are intelligent and would refuse to serve a Paladin who treated them such and for ease of use, most players would prefer another magical means of carrying their stuff. A wand of Leomund's Chest for example would at least be usable by more than one PC and if the Paladin goes down, then the mount will be stuck wherever it comes from.

I can't see your point as something that my group would abuse. If it is a real concern then, get rid of it, that's honestly fine. But the mount still needs to be able to be summoned more than once per day. :o)

Peace,

tfad

If you could change one thing about Alpha 3, what would it be?

This thread was inspired by the awesome 'what you did right' thread, and aims to be a quick list for Jason and co. to look at and see what our core concerns about the Alpha are and what we hope will make the Beta.

Here are the rules:

Keep it civil - there is a lot of incendiary language popping up here and there on the boards. Not necessary - the wonderful people at Paizo are working hard to make products for us, by listening to us. Don't make me sing R.E.S.P.E.C.T at you! ;op

One change only - We'd all like to change more than one thing, no doubt. But in order to keep this thread usable, limit your feedback to the most important thing to you or your group. Too much noise drowns out the signal and this thread is a great chance to be heard.

Be brief - Don't post a full class re-working here, link to it by all means, but keep your posts brief and pointed. Again the signal/noise thingy.

Be realistic - Don't post something here that you know is never going to work, e.g. getting rid of BAB etc. Remember the goal of backwards compatibility.

Without further ado: !tfad's one change!

I'd like to see more fighting styles for the Ranger. There are way more archetypes than the two presented, at the very least we need a mounted style. I'd prefer to see a mounted style, a skirmish/ambush style and something else (2 handed?) for a nice round 5 options.

Peace,

tfad

Your upkeep costs aren't a far cry from my "5 gp for components" simplicity. In either case, we're sort of fudging something to give it a nod, but not full attention.

I'd like to take credit, but like I said, 2nd Ed. DMG. I think I still get more use out of that than I ever have my 3.0/3.5 versions. ;o)

Yeah, like you said, a nod. I gotta say though, it's probably more fair on the Wizard player that everyone is nodding and paying an upkeep, not just them. Otherwise the Wizard player is going to be making a good case for the Fighter's armor rusting etc.

This is another reason why I say it should just be dropped for the non-cost components. Wizards are already paying a little too much for all that special spellbook ink and blank pages....

Peace,

tfad

Both. And hopefully several copies of each - I've learned how quickly RPG books can wear out. :O) You've got to buy the Beta, man, it's a piece of gaming history!

The only reason I've not pre ordered them is that I don't know where I'll be living at the time of release.

I love Indy. In fact I love Indy more than Star Wars. After what happened to Star Wars, you can understand why I was really nervous about this film.

I didn't like it. :o( Worse thing is, it starts off really good.

Then you get to the

On CGI

I never thought I'd ever say this but

I have to say that that bit would have worked if it had been Captain Jack from the PotC movies. But it wasn't.

On the finale

The kid wasn't as bad as some people made him out to be though.

A bad film made worse by the fact it starts off well and only gets worse due to laziness. :o(

Thanks for the chance to vent!

tfad (cries himself to sleep)

I guess one question here is whether material components, as they are written - are either broken or useless.

In the past, I simply tossed out a random number - 5 gp and you have enough components to last you until (select a time). Eschew materials is a fix to the ludicrous nature of this material component quandary.

I'd say a little bit of both broken and useless. It is simply too much of a headache to keep track of, players should only be doing it if they want to be doing it. Other classes are certainly not as limited RAW.

Suggestions?

My suggestion would be something similar to what's mentioned in the 2nd Ed. DMG - upkeep costs. Define an amount and charge all classes an upkeep cost that has to be spent in between adventures. It'd be fair to let Rangers and those with wilderness lore skills to avoid such costs with a successful skill check in the wilds, and to let Thieves and the more larcenous minded to avoid these costs in urban environments etc.

The money would cover things such as room and board, stabling, polish for weapons and armor, spell components etc.

I won't offer an actual amount as it'd have to be something set up for the economies of your game. My suggestion could be too low or high for your game. Also it's not something I'd do for my game - I'd be firmly in the 'ignore it' camp, but hey, you asked for suggestions. You called down the thunder baby! ;oD

(SOME GROSS STUFF)

I can well believe this. We had a similar situation with a zombie of an known NPC, who was particularly disliked, trapped in a zone of animation. The b!tch just kept getting up and it was too freaky for the one player involved in that scene to let go. She was mulched.

As for the 'carving rights' for magical ingredients, I've seen more brutal fights over this than I have for the actual treasure!

Good times.....

Peace,

tfad

(STUFF)

Okay, let me try to explain this another way. :oD

Paizo reworks the Sorcerer, they now gain bonus feats thus: (1st)Weapon Prof: Great Axe, (5th) Weapon Focus: Great Axe, (10th) Weapon Spec: Great Axe, (15th) Greater Weapon Focus: Great Axe, (20th) Greater Weapon Spec: Great Axe

Now, much like the Ranger, the Sorcerer has a list of usable bonus feats that tie the class to a specific weapon choice. Even if Sorcerer A decides to go with it and use the Great Axe and bonus feats, Sorcerer B's opinion that
"An axe just doesn't work for me, my character needs a longbow. Hey wait, why does my class have to use an axe anyway?"
is a valid one.

Just as an axe might not be 'Sorcerer-y', 2 weapons or a bow is not always 'Ranger-y'. In both examples, none of the weapon choices are as tied to the class as the standard class proficiencies usually are. E.g. Wizards have limited weapon choices because they spend all of their time studying magic. As such, in order not to limit players to specific and arbitrary weapon choices then more options should be opened up.

Even if the Ranger had a dozen different 'weapon paths' to choose from, the class still wouldn't be stepping on the Fighter's toes. The Fighter still has a vastly superior number of feats, over twice the current number of Ranger bonus feats, and a wider selection. Not only can the Fighter do everything the Ranger can, but the Fighter can also do it better and do more. Also the Fighter has much better armor prospects, sure the Ranger can pick up the proficiencies and wear heavier armor, but at the cost of using the few bonus feats they get.

Rather than outclass the Fighter, different options change what the Ranger does and what role they fill. E.g. Ranged combat dude. I suppose a parallel would be the Wizard's schools or the Cleric's domains. A Wizard can choose which school (or none) to emphasize, changing their role. Limiting Rangers could be seen as similar to deciding all Wizards must be Evokers, or all Clerics must take the Healing domain - after all, in stereotype world that's all these classes do. ;o)

Removing all restrictions and saying Rangers can pick from any Fighter feats would be unbalanced and would lead to the Ranger 'stepping on the Fighter's toes', offering them a few more choices to get them out of 'cliche-ville' can only be a good thing. Archetypes, however, are a good thing and are largely responsible for defining what our core classes are. There are more Ranger archetypes than just 'bow dude' and 'Drizzt dude'. :o)

RE: Multiclassing, you should only have to multiclass when your character concept spills across the core archetypes. E.g. Common fantasy has built us a shared-world where the warrior-wizard is not a core archetype and doesn't fit into the core classes, that's why there's no Fighter-Mage core class. Any multiclassing beyond this should be optional and not necessary simply because the core classes are not representing the shared-world core ideas.

The Dragon issue where these variant styles were included was 326 (currently available as a download from the Paizo store for the very reasonable price of $4.95).

Thanks Paul, I may just have to check this out. :o)

It won't be a hard fix to make to Pathfinder, if it doesn't include this change, but it's one I'd rather not have to make. And shouting here on the message boards about what we want, is what Paizo has asked us to do. :oD

Peace,

tfad

On the contrary, you can trust devils to keep to any agreement they make. To the letter. Of course, this usually means they're going to mangle the intent, but that's why dealing with devils is a dumb idea. (SNIP)

You've hit it right on the head there. ;o)

tfad

Can I just say I'm really enjoying this discussion! :oD

Question - how many people abide by material components in the first place?

We've never really used them 'as is'. It's just too much of a headache, doesn't make much sense for Sorcerers ("How did you learn to do that?" "Well, I was angry once after a large number of bats all sh!t on me...."). It's great that Eschew Materials is now a bonus for Sorcerers.

However, in the days of 2nd Ed., we used them a bit more frequently. This was because our Wizard player loved them. Or maybe he just loved cutting up everything after he killed it.... ;o) Although again we had to be quite liberal in places and let him use all sorts of different components and added 'on the fly' changes to his spell effects. We certainly didn't penalize him when he didn't have the things he wanted/needed.

Peace,

tfad

Every god should have access to their own holy warriors

I agree with this. But I disagree with the idea that Paladins are simply holy warriors. The Paladin is a Lawful Good holy warrior. A holy warrior of any other alignment is not a Paladin, but a holy warrior of another alignment.

It's also worth remembering that a holy warrior does not need to have a specific class attached to it, i.e. a barbarian can be a holy warrior, a bard can be a holy warrior etc. etc. (I won't type out a list of every class here.)

There was a great feat, something along the lines of 'Ordained' in Monte's Arcana Unearthed. Basically, it meant you held a title and position within your religion, as well as offering a small mechanical bonus. It's this kind of feat, with attached fluff, that I love most.

Peace,

tfad

That'll teach me for not re-reading the feat list....

D'oh!

tfad

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I've taken them all seriously, including Stormcrowe's. Trust me, if I believed for a moment that Paizo would include enough actual psionics rules to make the psion class viable, I wouldn't waste time with this. As it stands, it'll be easier to ask for an additional 3/4 of a column worth of text for the Sorcerer than to try to include true psionics.

As for the other suggesions thus far, here's a slightly revised version of my entry...

You've nailed it, I think. Well done! ;o)

Now we just have to hope that it makes the cut!

Peace,

tfad

PIRATE BOOTY ITEM CARD DECK:

Awesome! I'd consider buying one of those.

tfad

Define the mind thrust to be a mind-affecting effect, with typeless damage, or reduce the damage. Force damage is a bit too overpowering for an at-will (all the other at-wills are an energy type for their damage, and VERY few things have resistance to force, as well as force's massive benefits vs. ethereal creatures), unless you make it a force effect AND dial the damage down to a d4 +1 per 2 sorcerer levels.

Missed that - good catch!

Psychic Awakening (Su): At 20th level, you realize your full psychic potential. You gain full immunity to all mind-influencing spells and effects. All critical strikes made against you are confirmed only on a roll of a natural 20. You gain telepathy with a range of 60 feet.

Okay, so I just took a couple of minutes out and looked through the Alpha 3 and the PHB to try to come up with a good substitute. How about, using the Fey Bloodline as a base, something like this:

Psychic Awakening (Su): At 20th level, you realize your full psychic potential. You gain full immunity to all mind-influencing spells and effects. You gain telepathy with a range of 120 feet. Once per day you may cast either True Seeing or Mass Suggestion as a bonus spell. Once this choice has been made it cannot be changed.

PCs then get the choice as to which one of the two 'psychic archetypes' most easily covered by spells, that they want to emulate. Also, I have increased the range of the telepathy as it is not two way, i.e. the character has to contact the target or actively listen for mental shouts before any information can be exchanged.

Still not too sure about the bonus spell list though. Just didn't want to criticize without offering an alternative. :o)

Peace,

tfad

Because I feel that psionics can have a very real role in some fantasy campaigns, and I also feel that injecting a "psionic" like character into the PFRPG should take up as little room as possible, I would like to suggest the following bloodline for the Sorcerer class... the Psychic bloodline!

Yes! What a great idea! Brilliant! Simply brilliant! I hope that this thread gets picked up. :o)

That said, I'm not too sure about the abilities chosen. There should be an even split between ESP-esque and Charm-type bonus spells. The bloodline should cover more than 1 psychic archetype if possible. Also the 20th level power:

Psychic Awakening (Su): At 20th level, you realize your full psychic potential. You gain full immunity to all mind-influencing spells and effects. All critical strikes made against you are confirmed only on a roll of a natural 20. You gain telepathy with a range of 60 feet.

needs a little work to make it more 'mental' in flavor, in the middle.

"You gain full immunity to all mind-influencing spells and effects." - good!
"All critical strikes made against you are confirmed only on a roll of a natural 20." - bad - needs to be 'mental' not 'physical'.
"You gain telepathy with a range of 60 feet." - good!

All the other bits, skills, feats, etc. look great - well done! Perhaps someone with more of an eye for mechanics could check this over?

Awesome work!

Peace,

tfad

Just out of curiosity, where'd you come up with the 3+?

Standard for abilities, like Channel Energy etc. Just seemed to fit, also it's one smaller than the most powerful (core) metamagic spell slot adjustment.

Just a thought. ;o) Like? No?

Peace,

tfad

(and Boo!)

Go for the eyes Boo!

Maybe, you can apply a metamagic feat a number of times equal to 1 + Int/Cha/Wis Mod per day?

Now you're getting a good discussion - see! ;o)

This is a good idea, but I see a potential problem with a fixed number for all feats - some metamagic feats are plain better than others, hence the difference in magic slot level. As another example, you'd offer cantrips at will, but not 3rd level spells.

I'd suggest this:

3+ spell casting ability modifier, minus the spell slot level adjustment of the metamagic feat times per day.

E.g. If the Boogie spell metamagic feat uses up spell slots three levels higher and your wizard's In is 20 (+5), then the feat would be usable:

3+5=8, 8-3=5 >>> 5 times per day

That way the weaker feats could be used more often than the stronger ones. This is especially important because without the spell slot prerequisites, PCs will gain these feats earlier and be able to apply them to higher level spells than the rules would normally allow.

That'd be a little better balanced. I hope. ;o)

Great chattin' with you!

Peace,

tfad

The advantage the mount has over a bag of holding is that you have to carry the bag of holding while the mount is safe and sound on another plane of existence. Said bag could be stolen, eaten, sundered, subject to antimagic field, etc. during the course of an adventure.

All of these apply to the mount also, well perhaps not technically sundered, but any number of nasty things could happen to a mount. Also, I don't think you could summon it inside an anti-magic field.

I think the key point here is that, as a champion of the don't forget the trusty mount cause, I'm not looking to abuse the calling power. I would not mind if it doesn't get healed in between summons and if it can't take anything with it when it vanishes. What I want is to be able to summon it more than once per day!

The special mount eventually exceeds even a Type IV Bag of Holding. How is this far less carrying capacity?

But all of that stuff has to actually physically fit onto the horse (or whatever type of beast the mount is). That's not going to be possible without saddlebags of holding.

Peace,

tfad

I called up Staples here in the U.K. this morning.

£20 - Black and White, spiral bound, double sided

£52 - full color, spiral bound, double sided

I thought I'd wait to get the Beta in August for those prices. ;o) I'd rather that money went to Paizo!

Peace,

tfad

Oh! Just finished running through the DR changes in detail - Something else the 'Big J' got right. ;o)

tfad

Yeah, but I thought that it would be an idea to decrease every lvl adjustment by 1. that way the overpowerfull race stay penalised, but in accodance to the newly enhanced races.

We've had a couple of strange races in our games that have featured in our Alpha playtests. What we've been doing is this:

1) Look at the race in question and decide if they they at the upper end of the LA or the lower end of the LA.

2) If they're at the upper end, give them a +2 bonus to the single most appropriate ability score if their LA is under 3.

3) If they're at the lower end, then reduce the LA by one.

Races with more than 3 LA need to be looked at individually, because they really are weird in a couple of places, we were looking at natural attacks and spell like abilities. These can be difficult to balance, but one of the above options (or both) should work.

We've had no compatibility issues so far. :o)

Peace,

tfad

Chalk me up as happy with this change. It really is the best of both worlds. I'll post more when we've fully road tested it. ;o)

Peace,

tfad

Oh, and using Monk hand damage when using Monk weapons is a rule my group has been using for 2+ years. So, I totally agree with that one.

I'm curious to know how this works with shuriken. I can see some serious abuse there, with 2 weapon fighting etc. throwing 3 shuriken per attack. Did this ever come up? Was it balanced?

Thanks for the comments about the Ranger. I hope that the powers that be are listening... ;O)

Peace,

tfad

I was saving posting here as I thought it would need a bump to get back onto the main page. :O) There are too many good changes to list them all, so I'm settling for a 'best of the changes', thank you.

Races: Half Elf
Class: Sorcerer
Skills: Fly
Feats: Weapon Swap (I'm probably never gonna use this, but come on - it's flynn-tacular).
Combat: CMB(rilliant)
Spells: Reincarnation
Magic Items: Rechargeable staves

And most of all, thank you for letting us, the fans, participate in the playtest and for genuinely listening to us.

Peace,

tfad

Nope, they're gone.

However, I've been suggesting for a while and gotten pretty good responses to the following so I'll try one more time...

The Lordzack Synergy Compromise
Skill synergies could work like Aid Another. You roll the first skill check (using the 'helping' skill) against DC 10 and if you succeed you get a +2 bonus on the second skill check with the main skill. Which skills synergize and under what conditions is up to the DM.

For example, succeed a DC10 skill check with Knowledge (nobility) and get a +2 to your Diplomacy check with the king.

I like it because it doesn't affect the calculation of skill ranks, rather it is situational. AND people who don't want to use it can just forget about it without worrying about their stats being wrong. Everybody gets what they want. How often can you say that?

We had this conversation before, didn't we bud! ;O)

Put me down for liking this suggestion also. It's a simple, optional, extra dice roll that the DM has complete control over. This is good because the DM can suggest it/make it easier for vital skill checks and leave worrying about it for the not-so-important checks, to the players.

Well done!

Peace,

tfad

The Paladin's Mount may only be summoned once per day, but as 5th level ability that lasts for level*2 hours that means a minimum of 10 hours. Adequate for most situations.

But the problem here is that you may need to summon it more than once per day! E.g. Ride to the dungeon, dismiss mount, something evil flees said dungeon, need to chase down fleeing evil thing, can't summon mount again.

Paladins should be able to summon their mount at least as often as they can work their new magic weapon mojo. I think that what's happened here is that the mount has simply been forgotten in favor of the shiny new weapon feature - it can't be over powered to summon a mount more than once per day. Don't mind if the mount healing gets toned down, just want to be able to summon it more than once.

"Help me mount! You're the only one who can save me!"

"I'm sorry, the mount you're calling is unable to be summoned again today. Please leave your name and Paladin level after the tone...."

I'm sure this will be corrected in the Beta and, as it's my major concern with the class, I'll be very happy with the finished result if it looks anything like it does now. :o)

Peace,

tfad

(Stuff)

I understand your frustration with this one. About a week or so before Pathfinder RPG was announced, my wife and I began working on our 3.X Mega Mix collection. The idea was to compile all of the essential 3rd edition resources for our game as the system was going out of print. We took 3P as a blessing and though 3P stopped our project, the game we love is staying around! Rejoice!

Like JoelF847 said, posting your thoughts is the best way to get involved and see the type of changes you want to see. Not everything I'm posting will make the cut, that's okay, because everyone's game is different and what works for us will not work for everyone. Only the stuff that 1) is fully back compatible and 2) works for the majority will make it into 3P. Take your ideas from below and re-post some of the key ones in the various sub-forums here to get the most coverage.

Whilst your fixes are not the sort of changes we're making to our game, I'll try to comment on some of them here. :o)

7. Acrobatics Check = Initiative Roll: I can see what you're going for but, like the current initiative system, it doesn't take into account perception also. You can't react to something you can't sense. I don't think either of us will be able to change the current system officially, although that's what house rules are for, right? :o)

12. Metamagic Feats: This wouldn't work for us. We like Sorcerers deciding which feats to use on the fly and we like Wizards memorizing their spells how they choose. This change really eliminates options for the players. For example, using your system would badly screw the caster players if they were going to face a foe with a magical silence ability, "You mean I can only cast one spell a day at this guy!?!" As the feats are something you've learned to do, it makes no sense to limit them per day either. Magic slots is a superior way of handling this. Your change would also have an effect on how 3rd edition modules would play out - not a concern for us, but it is for some groups.

14. Spell Recharge: Again this is the sort of total revision that has too big an impact on the way the game works, for it to be included. It's a great idea though, but it does need following through on. I.e. How does this work for Psionics and power points? What about spontaneous casters, why do they have to prepare? Is this possible for other class features also e.g. can smite evil be recharged? If not, then that's a massive boost over non-casters that the spell casting classes really don't need.

15. Movement: How does this work with weapon ranges? Also how does this work when flying? We didn't like this change when we saw it for 4th Ed either, basically because it makes no sense. How can a bow fire further if it is aimed diagonally? And how long will it be before evil DMs start putting diagonal-to-the-room alcoves for their evil monsters to take advantage of this? Also, diagonally is completely subjective the moment you stop using squares and not every group uses a battle mat.

Good luck in your quest! May you find the 3rd edition that is right for you!

And if you're not interested in 3P, at the very least, download the free Beta in August and steal what you do like for your game.

Peace,

tfad

I definitely disagree with you about giving rangers more combat styles... I feel that it would step on the fighter's toes, and besides, if my players want to have more melee options/feats for their rangers, they can always multiclass into fighter.

It's not about making the Ranger a more credible fighter, it's about not forcing the Ranger to choose one of two weapon options. As it stands, if a Ranger finds an awesome Magical great axe, he can't use it without sacrificing the use of some of his class features. No other class (except, arguably the Monk) is limited in this way and more combat styles would remove the pressure of having to wield either 2 weapons or a bow. For example, Paladins are not limited in their weapon choice to sword and shield, Sorcerer's are not limited to spear. Also Fighters get so many feats that no one is going to be able to out Fighter them, that's what they do.

For example, my last character was an Ex-military Dwarf Ranger. I wanted him to have a spear and shield, which involved 'wasting' some of my class features. I took the shield bash feat to get something out of it, but that wasn't where I wanted to go with him and there should be some acknowledgment that not all Rangers use a bow or play Drizzt.

At the very least, I think a mounted style should be in there as it's another Ranger archetype and the Ranger has all the skills and a companion to back it up.

Thank you! God, nobody has ever bothered giving that some crunch. I hated fighting players on it as well.

Yeah, it needs to be put in the rules. :)

Peace,

tfad

Meh, don't worry about it. I can't remember precisely, but I suspect I was having a bad day and got my feathers ruffled infinitely easier than I should have. My bad as much or more than yours. That said, let me address a couple of points.

;)

And... this brings me back to why I'm anxious about rules and abilities based on alignment. We all have different ideas on what they mean.

Yeah, you've cut right to the point with that line. Everyone's game is different and "knowingly associate" means different things to different groups even though it's something that sounds pretty cut and dry. Rules based on morals can be very sticky indeed. ;)

Either way, makes for some awesome debates.

Peace,

tfad

Below is a copy of our group's complete Alpha playtest report, regarding races and classes. Obviously the new A3 stuff hasn't seen as much in game testing as the A1/A2 stuff, as it only came out yesterday. ;op Also don't ask why I've added a nose to all the smilies.

Thanks to Paizo for letting us take part in the play test and thanks to my group for redesigning their characters with each new release and giving their opinions/notes to me upon request!

Game on!

Peace,

tfad

Races

Just to start by thanking the artist responsible for the picture of the Gnome woman, we’ve had to endure all sorts of nasty mental images after one of our players took a liking to her. Thanks. ;op

Dwarf p8 Happy with the Dwarf. When I don’t DM, I play a Dwarf, always a Dwarf, so if I wasn’t happy with the changes then you’d know about it. They’ve been my favorite playable race since Golden Axe and the first supplement I bought for D&D was the old dwarven race book. The wisdom bonus makes sense and it’s nice to see some of their ‘classic’ abilities get explained by some creative re-titling (e.g. greed etc.).
Elf p9 Interesting write up for them – making them nearly eternal is a great choice and I can’t wait to see the age ranges for them. Also, as mentioned in our Alpha 2 report, we’d like to see the ‘does not need to sleep’ thing clarified. There was quite a lot of discussion on it HERE.
Gnome p9 Gnome! The re-write and new flavor for the Gnome has generated a lot of interest in our group. Previously the race struggled to ‘have a place’, they were half dwarf and half halfling. Now, they’re unique. We can’t wait to find out more about the first world too!
Half-Elf p10 Much like the gnomish re-write, the Pathfinder version has generated interest in a race, where there was none previously (interest). It’s great too, that they pop up several generations later, not having to be ‘my mom was an Elf and my dad was a soldier’ etc.
Half-Orc p10 Ditto. The Half-Orc is now an interesting and more balanced choice.
Halfling p11 Again the flavor re-write was most welcome, but the ability score adjustments are too similar to the gnomish ones. Although we’re not a group who loves Halflings, we felt that they could benefit from switching the charisma bonus to an intelligence bonus. They're supposed to smart and adaptable, which would fit, but we can’t see them gaining a charisma bonus when so many of them can’t be trusted not to wander off (often with your stuff), are enslaved etc. etc. The crunch doesn’t quite match the fluff here.
Human p11 Humans will probably remain the most popular racial choice and nothing they’ve gained causes any problems in our test games. The bonus proficiency is quite welcome, although if their class offers full martial proficiencies then they really should get Weapon Focus as a bonus feat instead. We think it’d be the final little ‘boost’ the martial classes need. Of course, this should apply to the Elven-weapon familiarity racial feature also.
Favored Class p9- (All races) It’s great the way this now works. Giving a choice means a greater variety in the culture that the races have and doubles the chance of the races getting that nice bonus HP. Choosing one for the flexible races is a nice way to tone down the crazy multiclassing also. Well done!

Classes
Barbarian p12 Very nice with the rage points p 12 and the rage powers p 14. This generated some interest in the class, which has never wowed us previously. Surprise Accuracy p 15 is awesome and just the sort of thing that jumps the class up out of the ‘martial rut’. In our playtest this power was used by some fire-giant barbarians to deadly effect. It was a good job that they had run out of rocks by the time that they spotted the PCs! We wanted to make two points about the barbarian, both repeated from our Alpha 2 playtest report as our concerns were not addressed.

There should be more rage powers to choose from. In line with Conan, as the stereotypical barbarian, there should be a power that grants a move action (as he's always pouncing like a panther on ape-beasts etc.) and one that eliminates the improvised weapon penalties (as he's always squashing things with giant rocks, fully loaded treasure chests etc.).
There should also be a way of spending more rage points than you have. Barbarians are all about exploding until their heart explodes and a way of trading HP or ability burn for extra instant-use rage points when you have spent all of your rage point pool is an absolute must. We thought a rate of about 5HP per RP was a fair one, although the rules would have to explicitly state that these rage points could not be spent on the Renewed Vigor power.

Starting Hit Points Sidebar p14 Interesting series of options here, any of which would be a good choice if you were concerned about starting h-pees. Racial and Constitution strike us as the best options, focusing more on who the character is to define that bonus. Although we’ve yet to playtest these as we’re in the middle of several on-going campaigns and we’ve never had a problem with starting HP. If we do use them, we’ll post our thoughts.
Bard p15- Okay. First off, it’s great to see the alignment restriction lifted. Bardic Knowledge p 16 is now much more useful. It lets the bard specialize in the areas they want to, without taking away from their ‘jack of all knowledge’ thing. Also, using the standard skills, the Bard might actually know something tangible now! Well done. Their spell choices p 17-18 are also nice, being a little more complete and cantrips at will is, as always, a welcome touch. As mentioned in our Alpha 1 playtest report, we’d like to have seen this go a tiny step further and give Bards prestidigitation as a free action also. The spell doesn’t ‘do’ anything specific (thus would not ‘break’ anything) and this would be great way for the Bard to do everything they do with a flourish. Trails of light following their sword, notes dancing out of their instruments, dramatic trumpets accompanying their tapestry-swinging etc. It would rock. Maidens would swoon. Need we say more? ;op
Jason, I know you’ve already answered this on the boards, but put us down for changing Deadly Performance p 20 also. It’s too powerful and needs to closer in scope, both DC and number of uses, to the Ranger’s Master Hunter ability p 38.
One final point is not so much a suggestion for the Beta, but a general observation/request for the finished product in 2009. Please get a picture of a bard that rocks hard to accompany the class. Like a big Nordic dude with a huge drum and a huge axe. Or some Half-Orc that’s totally metal with massive shoulder pads a skull codpiece and loads of hair (waxed and dyed?). All of the bard pictures we see are never as awesome as the other class pictures and certainly never look ‘showman’ enough. We want KISS not 3’ Morris dancers....
Cleric p20- Not a great deal to say here. We like the Cleric class and there haven’t been any huge changes.
Druid p22- Again, there’s not much to say here that we didn’t report in our Alpha 2 feedback. The class looks much better balanced and has generated some interest where there wasn’t any before. Unlike the Bard though, the artwork is spot on – love the grass hair, reminds me of the old Skullcap Ivy which, if it’s not restricted IP in someway, should make a return in 3P. Well done with the Druid!
Fighter p27- Bravery p 27! w00t! What a great addition – something we never considered, but addresses one of the common most complaints about the class. It would be nice to see what kind of bonus this is though, so we can figure what it stacks with and doesn’t etc. Again, the changes have got some of the group interested in a class they’ve not considered before.

The Monk p 28-31

I’ve put this section slightly separate from the other classes as the 3P Monk has divided the group. I’ve typed two lots of feedback; read them both then choose one to go with (roll a die?) or pick the most relevant comments from each. We’re aware that you can’t please everyone all of the time and, for a class that we don’t use very often, we’ve got a disproportionate amount of feedback!

Monk Feedback One or Not gone far enough with the changes
Some of our group doesn’t like the 3P Monk as the changes have not gone far enough from the 3.X Monk, which they didn’t like to begin with. The class remains too similar to other members, with 2 Monks only having their own feats to really differentiate them from each other. The bonus feats p29 are a good start but don’t really mean much in the way of difference. What is nice, are the Ki Powers p 30-31, but as all Monks gain all powers, it’s just another ‘oh you can do that too’ power. Opinion in this category divides again, with half this group wanting more Ki Powers a la the Barbarian rage powers, the other half disliking the Ki Powers as they are too similar to the Barbarian rage powers – the Monk and the Barbarian need to feel different as classes. The suggestion from that camp is to replace them uses per day of their class abilities. Everyone agrees not to touch ‘per encounter’ abilities with a barge pole though. ;op

Monk Feedback Two or Done the best possible with the shoddy tools were handed
The second half of our group, including me, votes that you’ve really done the best you can with the Monk class. It was never well designed, although it always has been reasonably well balanced (we’ve seen a Monk keep up with the party a few levels ahead of them and not dominate the show when the party is a few levels behind). You can’t change too much, because that would conflict with the goal of backward compatibility, which limits you from making the type of drastic changes that you may want to. As it stands, the 3P Monk is better than the 3.X Monk, but remains a class we’re not really interested in. Again, primarily, it’s the lack of class options, with all Monks strongly resembling each other.

This is okay because we have the excellent Dragon Compendium Battle Dancer class available if we want to Kung Fu it up. ;op

However, all of our group agrees on two changes that need to made to the 3P Monk. Wholeness of Body p31 is way too steep in terms of Ki cost. Either it should heal twice as much or cost half as much. It doesn’t matter too much which way this goes, but we’d prefer to go high, i.e. heals twice as much. Secondly the Monk needs more Ki points overall p30. They are going to be burning through their points for the dodge bonus every round. They’re only getting half of what the Barbarians get and yet are going to be spending them at approximately 2/3 the rate. We vote to give them a pool of, at least, their monk level plus their wisdom modifier.
We have a few further comments based on things we’ve read on the Paizo boards. The loss of Diplomacy as a class skill is not a problem for us p28. The new cross class skill rules means it is still an option for the Monk, but it is in no way an essential part of the class. As pointed out by Gailbraithe, there is a slight ‘hiccup’ with the low-level Monk being easier to trip etc. than to hit. The following fix was suggested and we liked the look of it because it addresses one of our above concerns, fixes the hiccup and, best of all, is very simple.

Perhaps a scaling ability called "favored maneuver" similar to the Ranger's favored enemies, where a Monk receives bonuses to complete and resist specific CMB-related maneuvers over time, would work nicely. You know: "Stay clear from that one; you don't want to be caught up in his arms and legs!" Or: "She can plow through foes as if they're scarecrows."

That might add a little fighting flair to the monk and allow them to differentiate themselves from one another. That was always my concern with the class--it didn't feel like its own, but instead a Fighter with a more shallow pool of extra feats who punched and kicked instead of Power Attacking with a big weapon or tripping with a spiked chain.

I’ve put it in quotes as I can’t take the credit for this one. Well done Golbez57! If I may quote your response from further into the thread, Jason, we come to another issue that caused a hoo-har the day after the release of Alpha 3.

I think we are starting to see what I felt has been the problem with the monk all along, the fact that they cannot really gain the same kind of bonuses to their unarmed strikes as others can with their weapons without paying a ridiculous cost.

And:

What about allowing the monk to use his 'unarmed strike' damage when using 'special monk weapons'?

We’ve never seen any problems with the Monk’s ability to cause damage and have always read the rules as being able to enchant the Monk’s fist (or anyone’s fist, foot etc. if they have improved unarmed strike) as a weapon. A simple line stating that a Monk can have their hands etc. enchanted as a weapon would not be game breaker (or at least wasn’t for us) and would fix this problem. We (ages ago, in 3.0) even had a Monk with a different element on each limb (with sonic energy being enchanted last, to the forehead!). Very cool. Dealing the improved damage with enchanted monk weapons, although that could lead to all sorts of problems if shuriken can still be thrown 3 per attack, could work. Also, the monk weapons are not all that ‘Monkey’, if you know what I mean. Where are the swords, spears, butterfly knives etc. Perhaps the best solution here would be a longer list of monk weapons which could be used with Flurry of Blows, but requiring a feat to claim the extra damage (noting the shuriken problem with this).

PeteZero pointed out that the monk cannot qualify for the Improved Vital Strike feat p71. This is wrong, it’s a Monk-feat, no doubt about it. It should either be on the Monk list of bonus feats or have the prerequisites lowered so the Monk can qualify without mulitclassing.
Quivering Palm p31 is too limited in it’s use. If it remains only useable once per week then the DC should increase, but we’re in favor of increasing the number of times a Monk can do it to once per day but only able to effect a number of creatures equal to his wisdom (or charisma) modifier. So he could set up several deaths within a government, coinciding them to all die at the same, vital moment. That’d be really cool.
Finally, Perfect Self 31 also needs a re-think. At that level, most everything the Monk faces will bite straight through his DR with magic. 5/- would be much more welcome and more of a reward for sticking with Monk. Although it wouldn’t break the game to go a step or two further as suggested by Quijenoth.

my mind leans towards more definitive immunities, perhaps immunity to critical hits, does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity while moving, cannot be flanked or the like.

Paladin p31- Ah! Our group’s favorite class! In case anyone wants to check our long (positive) rant about Paladins made after we playtested the Alpha 2 Paladin, the link is HERE. We certainly weren’t expecting such a huge change in Alpha 3. As it turns out, it’s a pleasant surprise!

Alignment Requirement & Detect Evil at Will p31 These were a real deal breaker for us and would’ve been very upset if these had gone from our favorite class. It’s great to see they’re still there. We had to post a thank you for this as, with some other drastic changes to the class being made, they could’ve gone and (just to be clear, I’ll use bold) we’re glad they’ve not been changed.
Lay on Hands & Additional uses for p31- Nice. Sort of. The overall healing works out to be a little more, but in smaller chunks until level 18. This does mean that (one of) our Paladin is somewhat hosed for being a front liner, currently at level 17. She’s used to using Lay on Hands whilst fighting away and is capable of filling her HP back up in one go. However, at 17 level, 17 extra HP is not enough to keep her in the fight and most nasty monsters are going to be dealing a lot more damage than this per strike. The change has halved the amount of time she can spend on the front line – not a good thing. The suggested fix (from our player) is to allow you to use up multiple uses of the ability in a single action. The other uses are quite nice, but don’t balance this drop in ability – channel positive energy is likely to heal more per go than Lay- currently.
Charisma Spell casting p32 Big surprise! But a pleasant one – it makes sense and more closely balances the class along side the Ranger. Good move. It could be interesting here, to add spontaneous cure casting so that the other Paladin spells actually see some regular use. It’d not break the class as their spell list is too limited for this to have a massive in-game impact, but it would ensure that some of those spells become a little more frequently used whilst freeing up some options, in the heat of battle, for the Paladin.
Divine Bond p 32-33 Let me just quote myself, from our Alpha 2 report.

[...] it is important that if the chosen weapon can be used more than once a day then the Paladin's mount can also be summoned more than once a day. Don't forget the trusty mount in favor of the new, shiny toys.

The shiny new toy that is the celestial spirit enhanced weapon got an increase in the number of uses per day, but did the ever-loyal, trusty old mount, with us for numerous editions? Did it cr*p. I should’ve put money on this happening. Can we please have this ability also increase in usage. We know that by level 12, the mount is available for the whole day, but there will be times when you will want to, no scratch that, need to summon it more than once per day. If this is not going to happen for whatever reason, please can we find out why the ability is only usable once per day?

Also, regarding the shiny new weapon, again repeated from our Alpha 2 report.

[...] for ease of reference the rules need a table with the weapon properties and their equivalent enhancement bonus a la the Soul Knife class in the XPH. We do not want to have to flip through pages of the DMG to get this info, it should be there with the other class information.

Ranger p35- Ooh! When I’m not DM, I always play a Dwarf and have just recently (i.e. my last character) discovered the joy that is the Ranger class. I like the changes and am quite happy with it as is, although I do have a suggestion.

Combat Style p 36-37 I like that the shield has made it’s way into the 2 weapon list (as that’s where my Dwarf went with it) but Paizo has a great chance with the Ranger, they need more than 2 combat styles. There’s no reason not to add more options and it would certainly be a smaller change than some we’ve seen. With a companion and the appropriate animal/ride skills, they should, at the very least, have a mounted option too. It’s an often forgotten Ranger archetype, the man alone against the wilderness with his trusty beast (okay, that sounds, wrong). Drinking the blood from your horse, sharing water with your camel etc. A skirmish style option would also be welcome a la Robin Hood and his Merry Men, with the feats following the mobility/spring attack path. It certainly would not harm back compatibility. I was surprised that this was not in there....
Favored Terrain & Evasion p37 Awesome! Well done!
Quarry & Improved Quarry p38 Again, awesome! Although how much cooler would it be to mark your quarry from the back of your animal companion, with a butt load of mounted combat feats? /not so subtle hint
Rogue p38- Again, there have been no major changes and the class remains only a peripheral choice in our group. Every thing looks okay and our play testing didn’t uncover any mechanical problems.
Sorcerer p41- Again a real favorite with our group and the only serious contender for the Paladin’s ‘most used class’ crown. There have been no major changes, but we had a little feedback on some of the minor changes made.
Class Skills p41 Still no Diplomacy? *sigh* I guess that you guys are not going to budge on that one. Still, at least you can gain it with the infernal bloodline p47 and the cross class skill restrictions are a lot less severe. Can we call it a moral victory? ;op
Eschew Materials p42 He11 Yeah! It’s about time someone got this right! Thank you so much for this!
Bloodlines p42- We like the changes, adding the skill and extra spells is a nice addition and brings the class ability more in line with the excellent bloodline feats that you wonderful people filled the Dragon Compendium with. This really is what we were expecting from the start and are very happy with this change. And thank you for the shout out on page 42. ;op
Wizard p48- Much like the Cleric, nothing new to say here. It’s great, well done!

As a final point, originally suggested by KaeYoss, there really needs to be feats that grant extra uses of the new class features Paizo has added e.g. feat for extra rage points, Ki Points, Lay on Hands etc. This could also be extended to include feats with additional uses for said points e.g. extra rage power feat etc. This is the best way to bring all the new features fully into the system and give us, the players, more chance to play with all of the wonderful new toys you provided.

There should be feats to get extra Ki Power, Extra Lay on Hands, and extra anything else that is granted uses based on class level/ability scores somehow. We already have stuff like Extra Turning (which by the way needs to be rewritten as turning is now called Channel Energy), Extra Rage, and so on.

Agreed!

tfad

Wow - what a thread to wake up to! ;)

Psionics feature in nearly all of our games and this was an issue we discussed and playtested for both Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 releases.

We rolled all of the psionic uses of the concentration skill into the Autohypnosis skill. Our group found this both balanced and preserved the psionic flavor of the skill.

Whilst this does mean that Psionicists use 2 skills compared to Magic Users only using one skill (i.e. Spellcraft), we felt this was balanced.

Psions and Wilders usually have plenty of skill points and (at least in our games) usually take Autohypnosis anyway. The Psychic Warrior can drop Spell/Psi-craft if they want to free up their skill points, as they can subsist on Autohypnosis a la the Cleric (i.e. buff then bash, no need for concentration).

Given the amount that both skills now do, when playing in a game with psionics unless all characters are psionic, then one skill for everything (i.e. Spell/Psi-craft, Concentration, Psi-Concentration uses, Autohypnosis etc.) is plain too much.

Peace,

tfad

Archery:Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Improved Precise Shot

Cavalry:Ride-By Attack, Trample, Spirited Charge

Assault:Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical (any non-light melee weapon)

Skirmish:Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack

2-weapon:2-Weapon Fighting, Improved 2-weapon Fighting, Greater 2-weapon Fighting

These options are very nice. With the ability to have a mount of sorts, the ranger could really use the 'Cavalry' option you've offered there.

Awesome!

Peace,

tfad

Because I've seen enough wuxia flicks to know that it is a fundamental truth that the more calm, wise and reasonable the martial artist, the more likely the idiot who really, really ought to be listening to him will hit him.

I think it's something to do with the bad dubbing.

;P

tfad

Rent it out.

Longsword; 15gp; 1d6; 1d8; 19-20; 15gp; Get your "long sword" at www.naughtyknight.com; 4; 15HP

LMFAO

Brilliant!

tfad

Blah Blah Blah Ghostwalk Blah Blah Blah

I love this book! It's always great when I'm reminded that I'm not the only one who bought it.... ;)

Did I 'ear me name?

Ya 'id! Thanks for the shout on your profile! ;)

Peace,

tfad

I can never wrap my mind around Cha = "Presence".

Wow - really? That was the first thing I thought of and it's emphasis was one of the best moves made by 3.0. It's like when a good performer walks onto the stage and you immediately notice them. It's like the woman who flows that you can't take your eyes off. It's like the ability to carry your alpha with your voice.

Being the pillars that they are, it makes perfect sense for the Paladin.

This stat is rolled the same as the others, but then goes up and down depending on how 'Faithful' a character has served his god - paying 'lip service' doesn't count.

It's a very interesting idea you've got there. Can you post a little about how it works? I'm imagining something like the Humanity and Paths from Vampire the Masquerade, with a number of tenets etc. Could be a very good idea for a faith-focused game, although I'm not sure how it fits with chaotic characters (or is the Paladin the only one with an Elan score?). Also, what benefits does a high Elan score offer other characters? E.g. the non-religious rogue etc. In VTM it has a distinct use for all characters.

except for the fact that it seems uneccessary (A multi- Fighter/Priest is about the same thing).

Gotta disagree with you there. The Paladin is an archetype. That's what the classes are. Sure you could also do a Ranger by mixing fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Druid in one combination or another, but the archetype is strong enough to merit its own class, just like the Paladin.

Peace,

tfad

A day when it is good luck to kiss a Dwarf.

You mean it isn't good luck everyday? Then why am I so damn lucky?

tfad