Biomage's page

I have always considered commoner to be the same as laborer. However, they have a smaller hit die than experts, which I have considered skilled craftsmen. Am I wrong in this thinking?

Personally, I have never liked the way NPC classes are handled. If a character is 15th level it should be roughly equivalent to any other 15th level character. I am not saying that they should be as combat worthy as adventuring classes. They should have abilities related to their place in their community. Is Pathfinder considering to rework NPC classes like they did the adventuring classes?

Why do clerics choose two domains? I know it is standard in 3.5, but it seems like such an arbitrary number. Seems more appropriate to base it on Wisdom modifier or something.

I just wanted to give a quick breakdown of each section of PRPG with a general rating and a brief opinion for each section. I would also like to see what others think of the PRPG in a similar format. Thanks.
.
.
.
Races (9/10) – Favored classes should grant skill bonus for class skills instead of HPs.
Classes (9/10) – Finally, a fighter worth playing.
Skills (7/10) - I liked skill points, but a conversion would be easy.
Feats (9/10) - The combat feats are brilliant!
Combat (8/10) – Changes to grapple were good, but damage should be an option.
Spells and Magic (10/10) – Finally, specialists and domains done right.
Running PRPG (9/10) – I like the alternate experience progressions.

I really enjoyed almost everying in PRPG. When is the next one?

I really like the idea of awarding +1 hit points to races for taking the Favored Class.

However, I think that it would be more appropriate to offer some sort of skill bonus for in class skills, instead of hit points. This would reflect the races affinity for the class. Bonus hit points doesn't do that.

If this has already been addressed, please direct me to the thread.

Are the people at Paizo also having a debate over the use of skill points or is it just here on the messageboard?

My guess is that they are letting us have it out before stepping in and cleaning up the mess.

Regardless, whatever Paizo decides to go with, not everyone will be happy. They should make sure to include optional rules for both sides.

This is one of things about the d20 system that I have never understood. Why is the DC for a spell save based on spell level and not caster level? A 15th level wizard should be able to cast a more effective 1st level spell than a 3rd level wizard.

If PRPG used caster level as the basis for spell DC, higher level spellcasters would still have a use for their low-level spells.

Would this type of rule make high-level spellcasters too powerful?

I really like the rules for the Combat Maneuver Bonus. But, why use 15 + target’s CMB? Why not 10?

If two people roll a d20, 50% of the time you will roll higher than your opponent. Why not have the DC be 10 + modifiers? If you do it this way, it still relies on one roll and has the same odds as standard v3.5. Having a DC of 15 + always favors the defender.

I don’t like critical threats. Part of the excitement of playing 2nd edition was rolling a 20. I just don’t think 3rd edition has the same explosive exhilaration when you roll a 20. Since 3rd edition has been around, I have never heard anyone complain about critical threats. Does anyone else get this feeling? Has anyone considered using straight critical hits in PRPG? Just curious.

First, you have to keep skill points.

While I like the cleaned up spell list, I think there should be a way to specialize in specific aspects of a skill. What if a character takes ranks in diplomacy but wants to specialize in bartering? Why not allow the character to buy a specialization for 2 skill points to receive a +5 circumstance bonus on that skill in the specialized situation? This could be applied to other skills as well. For instance, Appraise (gemstones), Theft (pick pockets), Perception (spot), etc.
Of course, you could only specialize in skill that are class skills.

Opinions?

I like most of the stuff that I see from PRPG Alpha. However, I dislike the magical nature of Gnomes. Admittedly, I have never liked it. But, I do like the idea of Gnomes being innately technical and scientific, like Tinker Gnomes in Dragonlance. Gnomes and magic (illusions) just seems too cliché.

Which do you like, tinker or magic?

Can anyone tell me if there has been an ecology of the orcs?

No?

I would definitely buy a collection containing some of the best ecologies presented in Dragon. Anyone else interested?