Ghost Riders's page

Great forum! I have spent most of my gaming years, when I get to play (GM all the time :-( ), as a paladin most often and perhaps a monk, though I have played every standard character at one time or another. What a great class the paladin is if played right. They are a symbol of good, a defender, an avenger and they are not made weaker by the restrictions of the class and alignment, but more interesting. It takes good role-playing to play one right with the correct interactions with the world and the restrictions placed on them. This forum link was sent to me by one of my players, who plays an assimar paladin (nimbus of light paladin) and a human witch, in our current campaign, the Carrion Crown. We near the end and she will be GMing the next campaign, Rise of the Runelords. Finally, I will get to play again. I will be playing an assimar paladin hospitaler and a dwarf monk zen archer. Gotta love the paladins!

Great job, Brodyz, Jadite, Rakshaka, you guys rock. I am running a party of five through the Carrion Crown now. We just finished Chapter 3. I was going to skip Carrion Crown due to one player moving at the end of the year, but it turns out he is not moving, so I am trying to upgrade the CR 5 to challenge a party of strong 9th levels. Thanks for the hard work. I could not have done it.

You guys rock. We start in one month (some vacations, etc.) I will let you know how it goes.

"Until then they can do most everything the wizard can do, only with better base stats (and can do the rest of what the wizard can do depending on their domain choices).

I have to disagree there. While fourth edition defines roles as "leader", "artillery", or "skirmisher" or whatever, that just confuses the issue.

There are only really four roles, "fighter", tank, "magic-user", offensive spells, combat buffs, and some support spells (knock), "thief", skill based support, and scouting/sneak, and "cleric", healing and support spells. Some classes or feat groups can form crossovers (ranger - fighter/thief, paladin - fighter/cleric, etc), which are best used in large parties, each group should have at least one of the four main roles. Those roles should remain separate so all roles depend on other roles to form a balanced party.

(4th Edition fighters can heal themselves, so no need for a healer, so cleric are not healers, so what is the point of having more than one class?)

The game was designed so a party of different individuals from different walks of life could come together and quest successfully, if role-played properly, which is what its all about anyway, right?

"Do you think those changes makes arcanists, bards, rogues and rangers too strong?"

No, I just feel their strength lies in other areas. Magic Users, in AD&D were focused entirely on their magic spells, giving everything in life, including physical agility for the power that one day (at 11th level and above, say, would make them the strongest members of the group. Who could argue the 18th level arch-mage could take any other class, if he could set the environment to his liking? Being weak at 1st level, made his spells most useful, when called upon while regulating him to stand behind the tanks in fights. (Pretty realistic, I think). And a good GM should write the story so every character has a moment to shine no matter what his/her talents/powers are.

I do understand the need for balance, especially at high levels, when all should be strong, but the party compliments each other. The spells of the mage and cleric augment the others when the need exists, the way the rogues trap-defeating abilities circumvent possible deaths for the rest of the party. A balanced party with each member excelling in his/her chosen area (and surely spending years focusing on just those items) beats out a party of balanced individuals, anyday.

Which is exactly what happened in 4th edition. Not only is it an unrealistic "video game" on table-top format, but all the characters are the same. It is metagamed, so even if powers are called different things, they are the same. A first level wizard can stand nearly toe-to-toe with a first level fighter, with ease.

Plus, 4th edition gives an unreal amount of hit points to characters and monsters at first level. Some feel this adds survivability to characters, but since the monsters get the same, it just makes 1st level battles take the same time high level battles take in 3.5 or any other edition and makes the whole concept unweildy and video-game like.

I do agree with max hit points at 1st level, and tend to use an average at every other level, as well as a liberal point buy system for abilities, etc. Dice rolling should be for encounters, all characters should have an even chance at the start of the game, in their chosen vocations, and it should all take a back-seat to role-playing. With good role-players, it is possible to role-play nearly any encounter with characters of any power, and never worry about game mechanics or lining up feats to have the toughest character or whatever. All that numbers stuff can really take from the game, if you let it.

"I never got the rogue HP, compared to clerics. They are more physically fit, they focus completely on physical abilities, while clerics kneel around begging for divine magic."

Not so, Kaeyoss. The clerics of D&D are not the weak temple priests, but more knights of their own accord, trained in battle. These battle clerics train in the wear of armor and use of weapons, perhaps giving up divine power (who knows?) for survivability in places their temple brethren dare never tread. While not as proficient as fighter-types or the knights they rode with, they surely had more hit points than skill-based characters (practicing picking locks and pockets in secret lairs) or arcanists (who spend countless years in dark towers studying musty tomes.

My games do tend to rely more on realism than perhaps the games of others. So perhaps my view is skewed. My world tends to be low in quanity of magic while high in value and magic is a strong ally for those few who possess it and must sacrifice much to have it.

Why changes to character hit points from 3.5?

I just got the Pathfinder RPG book and was reviewing many of the changes, most of which are awesome, really working out some glitches for me. Why changes to the hit dice of certain starting characters? Rogues went from d6 to d8. Monks went from d6 to d8. Sorcerers and wizards went from d4 to d6. Was that necessary? I understand characters should be balanced so anyone may wish to play any character (instead of avoiding one or two for being too weak) and keeping other characters from being over powered, especially at low levels. However, the concept for years, has been that the focus of those characters were in other areas (spells or stealth) and less on melee accounting for lower hit points and necessitating the need for parties to work together at all levels for all to survive. (One of the downfalls of 4th Edition is that all characters are so well balanced as to be equal in every way and eliminating the need for a balanced party). Could you just as easily run the game with dice as per 3.5? Considering of course starting out at max points at first level and at least an average of the dice at every other level? I have a hard time with a scholar/bookworm magic user starting out with potentially 6 hitpoints, plus up to 4 hit points for Constitution for a total of 10 hitpoints, the same as a strong athletic fighter who has spent years in the training field, working out, and training with weapons to have the hardiness and reflexes that make for a high hit point total.

Thoughts? Am I missing something here?

Daarnsk