Yes please post them!!!
Read my post above this in regards to 9 swords. I'm curious about what you opinion is.
I have a solution for the 9 blades. Actually it’s an add-on system. Have any of you guys ever taken a look at Arcana Evolved? Anyho...both books have a kinda similar system.
I always thought of feats as something extraordinary that you can do or ability you have. Weapon Focus, Iron mind, Improved Trip are all good examples.
With Pathfinder, they introduced "COMBAT" Feats. This isn't a terrible idea but how may people are going to use Dodge at higher levels? It almost becomes a wasted Feat. Not to mention, feats are limited and you only gain so many of them. I’m just not a fan of using feats for combat.
My system gets rid of the combat feats. Instead we are developing a system that is partially based on Arcana's combat rituals, and the 9 swords disciplines called Combat Maneuvers or CM for short. It's actually a very easy system (just have to work out a few multi-class and prestige class issues).
CM's have descriptions, action types, prerequisites and benefits similar to feats. Unlike feats, only one can be used a round, you have only so many known and readied to use.
When I have a finalized testing version maybe ill post it. Thus far my players are stoked. It turns the current combat system into a lot of fun.
This is how one looks like for crap and giggles:
Here are a couple more feats. To be honest, I have a ton of them (for all kinds of classesm race, feats, est.
Here are a few more to make a pro-typical fighter feared (for a change), espcially at higher levels.
Some other fighter only feats:
Combat Discipline [Fighter, General] (Original Design for 3.5)
Weapon Insight [Fighter] (Original Design for 3.5)
Misc Feats that have worked out very well:
Riposte [Combat] (Original Design for 3.5)
Single Weapon Style Specialization [Fighter, General] (Original Design for 3.5)
Two-Hand Weapon Style Specialization [Fighter, General] (Original Design for 3.5)
Two-Weapon Fighting, Massive [Fighter, General] (Modified from Arcana Unearthed)
Weapon Tandem [Fighter, General] (Original Design for 3.5)
S W wrote:
The following feats are based on the 2e Combat and Tactics. Greater Weapon Focus and Specialization are obsolete.
If you take this Chain of feats you only have 5 (2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 20th) additional fighter feats avaiable for misc. This chain starts at 1st or 2nd, then 4th level and every 4 levels there after till you automatically recieve Grand Weapon Mastery at 20th (replaces PF Weapon Mastery).
I use a different feat to allow the bonues of Weapon Focus and Specialization to be applied to all weapons. However, Chosen, Mastery, est., can only be used with "one chosen weapon" (not an unarmed attack either).
NOTE: Type [Fighter] stands for fighter only feat (or has to have a certain amount of fighter class levels to select feat). [Prestige] stands for feats not avaiable till 10th level.
This feat replaces Greater Weapon focus and Specialization:
Chosen Weapon Specialization [Fighter] (Original Design for 3.5)
Weapon Mastery [Fighter, Prestige] (Original Design for 3.5)
High Weapon Mastery [Fighter, Prestige] (Original Design for 3.5)
Every fighter gets this feat at 20th level. (Replaces Pathfinders Weapon Mastery). However, if you have Weapon High Mastery you get an additional Bonus attack at +1. 20th Level (20/15/10/5/1 with chosen weapon):
Grand Weapon Mastery: At 20th level, a fighter chooses one weapon, such as the longsword, greataxe, or longbow. Any attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased by 1 (a ×2 becomes a ×3, for example). Special: In addition, he gains a 5th attack with a BAB of +1 if he selected the High Weapon Mastery Feat with his chosen weapon.
I've been using these feats for some time (all are battle tested). Always felt the fighter class sucked at higher levels so I made these feats for a higher level Fighter. Good for players not having to rely on Prestige classes.
Yup! fighters have to have something of their own to combat against raging barbarians and smiting paladins.
Barbarian is far from my favorite class, Johnny- my point is that I never wanted to play one before and now I find myself truly enjoying it.
I have played the Barbarian class several times and it has always been enjoyable for me. There are some feats that make his rage do some wonderful things offensively. A fighter is very hard pressed versus a raging barbarian and normally will have to play very defensively to last an encounter against him. If you really haven't played the class previously how can you honestly compare the two versions?
Out of curious, how many of you even played an epic Barbarian?
We will be finishing our campaign soon in FR. We still plan on playing in the realms but not with 4e. However, I am still intrested in the book. I'm curious as to what they will change. If we like some it we will use it, if not we wont.
I've also heard that WotC isn't planning on releasing much for FR 4e anyhjow other than the main campaign setting.
S W wrote:
I agree with you 100%, espcially at higher levels. I have always found the fighter and rouge greatly lacking at higher levels.
I've used a lot of things from 2e (combat and tactics still one of my favorites). I have several fighter only feats such as (but not limited to): weapon mastery, high mastery, weapon tandem, weapon insight (can apply weapon focus to a group of sim wpns), chosen weapon specialization (combines greater weapon focus and specialization), armor specialization, est.
One of these days ill post them. I'd actually like to see what your paths look like or the link to them. I have a feeling in the end i will write my own PHB as there seems to be to many faults not just in 3.5 but pathfinder too.
I own several "Howard books" and some of the first graphic novels. When I said he was stupid I was speaking in generalized terms of "not knowing the great world around him." My appoligies for not being specific.
Perhaps this will explain my point (I'll try to be specific this time):
Main Entry: bar·bar·i·an
Just because Conan was very smart doesn't mean he woke up one day knowing how to read and write. He was taught. Because he was smart prehaps you could say he was a fast learner. However he certainly didn't run over to the great library in his village to learn how to.
1st level Barbarian knowing how to read and write: 100% ridiculousness.
Back to Rage Points:
I understand were you are coming from ZeroCharisma but here’s why I disagree with you:
A barbarian is a specialized fighter in game terms, so is the paladin for that matter. Through-out D&D/AD&D the core classes have always been the cleric, fighter, thief and magic-user. Every other class was and still is, a specialization in some area based off the 4 core classes.
There is only so much room for the diversification of a class such as the Barbarian. In game terms the Barbarian is not that different from prestige classes. The main reason why the Barbarian became a class was:
Incase you haven't noticed, prestige classes are a very specific and focused class, specializing in a specific are. The Barbarian is a specialized fighter, nothing more. if you want more diversification play a fighter or multi-class as a barbarian/fighter (then you will have a true Conan).
Now we can all agree to disagree in regards to who likes or doesn’t like rage points (you know I don't). However and again, some of the powers are not thought out. It’s an oxymoron to have a rage power such as defensive stance.
Rage + Defense =
Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Unfortunately, I'm starting to get the impression that some of you are being biased. Perhaps this class is your favorite? So far I haven't seen a credible post that answers my questions of "how some of these new rules makes sense."
Conan became a fighter (never a rouge). Just because you steal doesn't mean you have to be a rouge. Think of t in terms of why the assassin class was dumped.
And...if you guys remember, Conan was stupid. He didn't know what the hell was going on until some other barabrain jumped on him, and started eating him in the gladiator pit.
Conan didn't learn how to read and write until he became trained (aka a fighter). I see Conan more as a low level barbarian, eventually a high level fighter with a good climb/use rope skill.
Only The Greater Weapons Focus and Specialization feats are fighter only. Specialization used to be +1 to hit, +2 to damage and has always been a "fighter only," since 2e. They changed specialization as to allow monks and rouges to at least gain a +1 to hit.
Though these feats are listed as feats, they are also extentions of the fighter class. The fighter's primary ability is to get feats, even with Pathfinder.
There is also a balance issue. If the barbarain can rage with specialization, as well as the paladin with smite, it allows these classes to over-welm the fighter class.
There is also the matter of the fighter being a trained warrior. It's only through this training (fighter of 4th level to gain specialization) that a fighter gets these feats. Thats why a fighter cant cast spells as a feat, or get uncanny dodge, or shape shift, est.
Thats why there is mutli-classing. If somethings such as specialization wasnt a class only ability, then there would be no need to have the class at all.
I agree that weapon focus should be allowed for a weapon group but only as a fighter class only privlage.
Sorry you feel I'm upset. I'm not. Dissappointent? YES
Sorry to say this but your analogy is based on something that can be roll played when an opponent misses his attack. Rage and anything Defensive for this ability doesn’t make sense. Going on offense and defense is something a trained warrior does…I believe it’s called a “fighter.”
Here’s an analogy of my own: would it make sense for the Drow to see perfectly fine in daylight (without having to take a feat)? If the answer is no, then it doesn’t make sense either that Barbarians can be defensive during Rages or read and write without having to take literacy.
Thats great he has a intelligence of 12. Hell, he could have an intelligence of 18 for all I care. You just dont wake up one day knowing how to read and write. You have to be taught.
Barbarians don't use reading and writing, they use crude art-work and symbols. It's not only a matter of intelligence, it's also a matter of culture!!! Most cultures Barbarains didn't know how to read and write. And for those very few who did, they were taught how to use a weapon, use a tool, hunt, est, well before they learned how to read and write.
I bet Conan the Barbarian would have been a better movie if it was...Conan the "Philosopher" or Conan the "Scholar"? Whats next...the Barbarian school of knowledge skill?
As far as rage points go...again based on actual high level game play testing...there annoying, just another thing you have to keep track of. Its not so hard on the player end but its a another pain in the butt on the DM side, which eventually leads to the slowing down of the game...then eventually it leads to pain in the butt for players because, there now waiting too. And sorry to tell you, pre-sketch or not, its just more added time.
I don't mind spending time on things worth spending time on. But it's just not needed.
Some of the rage powers are retarded too. When in a rage you lose -2 to your AC. You also cant use a couple of skills. All because: thats right you guessed it, YOUR IN RAGE!!!
However, heres one genius Rage power:
Guarded Stance (Ex): The barbarian gains a dodge bonus to her Armor Class equal to 1/2 her barbarian level for 1 round against melee attacks. (2 rage points)
What? How? Who?
You go into "RAGE," "hacking and slashing," "not caring for bodily harm." Now it doesn't matter? You can now go into a defensive stance by spending Rage Points? How does this make "SENSE"???? Sense is the key word here my friends.
It's truly my belief that some of these powers created are not thought out other than to create something new.
It's the same thought process of WotC. Nothing was balanced here. Just more silly non-sense.
I have 2 major problems with the Barbarian class.
1st) Now Barbarians are literate? How does that make sense? They are uncivilized yet they can read and write? Instead of storming a local village for supplies and food, they raid them for their books? What the ****!?!
I can understand a barbarian eventually learning to read and write as he explores new lands, and has friends that teach him how to read and write. However, at 1st level I find it comical at best to suggest the barbarian knows how to read and write.
2nd) Rage points and rage powers: In no manner does this system simplify anything. In fact, it does just the opposite and creates far more work, especially for a DM. After play testing, espcially at high levels, this system sucks.
I can understand the fighter and rouge classes needing a boost above all other classes, particularly at higher levels. However, I don’t believe that’s the case for the Barbarian.
If there is any boosting that’s strongly recommended I think some high-level rage feats could be created and that’s it; you can use some rage powers and convert them to feats. The No Illiteracy and rage points/powers have to go.
Im guess you mean "conditional class bonus"? The armor training is a conditional bonus, I just stated it. His armor doesnt get better just his training. A fighter caught up in a entanglement spell is not going to be able to take advantage of the bonus whether its defensive or armor training.
I know Pathfinder and PHB 3.5 do not have a bonus or feat called "weapon mastery" but other source books do that people may use. Hence the possibility of "Grand" mastery seems more fitting.
Changes made for Agile Warrior:
Uncanny Defense (Ex): The agile warrior can add his Intelligence or Wisdom bonus modifier (which ever bonus is higher or a minimum +1 bonus) to his armor class against all attacks if he is wearing light or no armor at all.
A condition that makes the character lose his Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes him lose this dodge bonus. The character must be aware of the attack to gain this bonus. Also, dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most other types of bonuses.
Heres a idea i created that was just redesign to go along with the pathfinder fighter...I'm including it because it may make for a new addition to the PFHB.
Fighter Variant Templates: (New)
Designer Note: Variant templates are an alternative to using prestige classes for minor class changes. They are also effective especially at character creation (1st level) when a prestige class makes do not apply and not having to create a totally new character class. The variant template is based on the old AD&D 2nd edition of character class kits. I see a character like "Drittz" being an Agile Warrior more than any other type of class created thus far (icluding prestige classes).
Abilities: Dexterity is very important, followed by Strength and Constitution.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: An Agile Warrior is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light and medium armors and light shields. He loses proficiency in heavy armor, heavy shields and the tower shield.
Weapon Finesse: The agile warrior gains this feat as a bonus at 1st level in addition to his regular bonus fighter feat.
Uncanny Defense (Ex): The agile warrior can add his Intelligence or Wisdom bonus modifier to his armor class against a single opponent in a given round if he is wearing light or no armor at all.
Special Disadvantages: Unlike the core fighter, the use of heavy armor or heavy shields (including the tower shield) prevents the agile warrior from using his defensive training ability (starting at 3rd level), because of his reliance on freedom of movement and dexterity.
This is still a work in progress. any helpful ideas would be appreciated.
I can't say i would feel sorry for the mutli-classer. He would still have tons of benefits.
Regardless, the main reason the core classes are beefed up in Pathfinder is "so" you dont have to go multi-class or prestige class crazy.
It's a wonderful thing to have core classes that are now very intresting to play all the way to 20th level.
Pax Veritas wrote:
Thats my thinking exactly. This whole 4e thing may be the bast thing thats happened.
I've been writing a ton of ideas for the project, and going through some old artwork to use for it too. Maybe in a week or so i'll have some more refined story lines to present.
I'm hoping i can actually get some help with this too. Seeing is believing so perhaps if a few creative minds see how serious i want to take this project i may be able to gather a good design team.
in the mean time, if anyone has some ideas...please post them. I could use all the help i can get.
Does anyone feel the same way? Yes and No.
I think that as a all around fighter he's awesome. He the most versatile warrior around. you can build him into almost anything.
Today I posted something in the "Races and Classes" alpha 3 section that you may appreciate.
Go to: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/racesClasses/issuesWithTheFighterClass61wws
If you noticed I suggested changing some names as we already use a Weapon Mastery feat, (from 2e Combat and tactics) as an example.
Our house rules go as follows:
1) Weapon focus automatically changes to greater weapon focus for free (when reaching a BAB of +8) for dedicated class fighters in the game (mutli-classing forces you to take the actual feat).
Weapon specialization works the same way with a BAB of +12). This is a big boon for fighters as it frees up 2 feat slots at later levels and boost the classes abilities.
Weapon Focus [Fighter, General]
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You are especially good at using this weapon. (If you have chosen ray, you are especially good with rays, such as the one produced by the ray of frost spell.)
Prerequisites: Proficiency with chosen weapon, base attack bonus +1
Benefit: The character adds a +1 bonus to all attack rolls he makes using the selected weapon.
Special: A character can choose “unarmed strike,” “bite,” or “grapple” as a weapon for the purposes of this feat. She also can choose “ray,” which makes her good at hitting targets with ray spells. A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time she takes the feat, it applies to a new weapon.
Improvement: Fighters with a base attack bonus of +8 or higher automatically gain an additional +1 bonus to attack (+2 bonus to attack in total), with their chosen weapon. Treat fighters as having the Greater Weapon Focus feat for prerequisite purposes.
2) We also have a Weapon Mastery Feat (a fighter class only feat, that can be taken at 14th level or higher) though he needs to have Great Wpn focus and Spesicalization and imptoved critical to take it.
With a name change suggested, at 20th regardless a fighter gets "Weapon Grand Mastery" as presented as Weapon Mastery per Pathfinder.
Eventually i'll post all my feat ideas/house rules but I am currently modifing some of them.
As far as adding the extra attack and all...it would be to much I think. With pathfinder...at 20th level a fighter would have a +24 to hit, +4 with his chosen weapon, auto critical and +1 damage mutiplier.
Add in the feats (not including our Weapon master) you have +26, +8 and a -2 bonus to your critical range, auto critical and +1 damage mutiplier.
You could do some serios damage in a round and you dont have to smite or rage to do it with your chosen weapon.
House rule: (Weapon Mastery)
Weapon Mastery [Fighter]
Choose one type of weapon (such as a long sword), for which you have already selected Greater Weapon Specialization. You have mastered the use of your chosen weapon.
Prerequisite: Greater Weapon Specialization, fighter of 14th level.
Benefit: The character receives an additional +2 attack bonus and +2 to damage. In addition, he cannot be disarmed while wielding a weapon of this type.
Me and my group have been play testing this class alot lately using the Aplha 3.
The biggest issue is the Armor Training ability. We like the +1 AC bonuses but the bonuses to Armor penalty and Max Dex we find to be a little to much. If a character has a high eneough dexterity, it really gets over board especially when he starts doing flips in platemail.
This past week we changed armor traing to "defensive training: with the following rules:
Defensive Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, the fighter learns to better avoid attacks. He learns new and better ways to defend himself with a variety mixed styles but not limited to dodge, parry or the use of his shield. The fighter gains a +1 dodge bonus to his AC and Reflex Saves. Every 4 levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), he gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC and Will saves.
A condition that makes the character lose his Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes him lose this dodge bonus. The character must be aware of the attack to gain this bonus. Also, dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most other types of bonuses.
This was also a good alternative for a fighter who wanted to be more along the lines of an archer with out having to play a ranger.
Other minor changes were just name changes do to feats used from other sources. Changes are as follows:
Uncanny Toughness: At 19th level, the fighter at this point has been through so many battles that he has learned to ignore damage much like a Barbarian can. He gains damage reduction of 5/-. (Replaces "Armor Mastery").
Weapons Mastery to Weapon Grand Mastery as it conflicts with a feat of the same name. Being that this ability isn't given till 20th level, it made sense to have a better name to boot.
Play tested the night before with a few streamlined rules and pathefinder alpha 3 for 4 hours at diffferent levels (1st, 5th and 10th).
The 3 big things used were:
1) Skill Consolidation: (most left unchanged)
2) Saving Throws: 1/2 level + ability + (if class had good saving throw we added +1 at 5th and +1 every 5 there after)
3) Minor Changes:
The continuation of 3.5 Realms after DR-1384…
I plan to keep using the 3.5 rules (maybe add some Pathfinder changes or use them entirely or re-write my own PHB house rules).
That said…I also plan on ignoring the 4e FR spell plague and what happens in DR-1385 in regards to the weave being destroyed (per The Grand History of the Realms). I also plan on waiting to see what 4e FR lore will eventually happen, and if I like it, I will use it.
As of right now I have a list of (very rough ideas), events dated from DR-1385to DR-1401 that will happen in my campaign (ideas come from varied sources, many my own). Before writing a finalized version I do plan on waiting to see what 4e Realms looks like first so as I can include them in future time lines if I like the story ideas.
With so many people looking to continue the history of the 3.5 realms and not necessarily follow 4e Realms lore, does anyone plan on creating a general time line of events and story ideas after DR-1384? Would anyone here be interested on working on a “what happens after” DR-1384 3.5 Realms with a timeline with events and stories that could be shared here or elsewhere with like minded 3.5 FR fans? This would be similar to what Brain James did for post DR-1385 (Grand History of the Reams).
I think your missing the whole point.
To use your example of 2 12th level clerics, one with a religion of 15 ranks the other with 5. For arguements sakes lets say they both worship/serve the same deity. It's an easy skill challenge in regards to know something of thier own faith. The Religion skill primarily would come into play with regards to knowing another deity's dogma.
Heres were I still say it doesn't define the 2 clerics "over-all" because you are totally focued on one small aspect of these 2 clerics (thier religion rank). Theres the role-playing aspect, the attributes, feats, other skill ranks, ect. Religion ranks alone would not define one cleric from the other, same deity or not.
Throw in the element of the d20 and a difficulty of 20 as another example: both clerics "could" still know the same thing if they bolth made a good roll. Does one have a better chance than the other? Of-course he does, but ranks in just religion for these 2 clerics would not define the characters as a "whole."
"Over-all and whole" are the key words here.
A few skills grouped together would not hurt the game in the least bit. This includes "over-all" character development.
Going back to my example of jump, swim, climb being combined into one skill group called Athletics:
I have 5 players...one is a pirate, multi-classing with the fighter/rouge classes. Unlike the other 4 characters, this "pirate's backround" comes from having few years at sea before he went adventuring. Again for arguements sakes lets say they are all 6th level and all of them have the Athletics Skill at max rank of 9. Perhaps the pirate should swim better then the rest of the characters? I say yes for this character and he makes a little note with a +2 for swimming and -2 for jumping when he uses his athletics skill.
As a continued example, perhaps 1 player's backround comes from an inland kingdom and he's never seen a major water source before per his backround. Perhaps he can't swim at all. So I either increase the difficulty rank for this 1 player when swiming or just take out swim all together till he is taught from the pirate. Being the character has a maxed rank in Athletics it shouldn't take to long till he learns.
"Over-all" the grouping of those 3 skills saved time because 3 didn't have to make any modifications at all.
The easiest solution is not changing the characters rank in Athletics at all for any of the characters. As my final example: 5 players all from previous example. They are on a ship...ship rolls over in a storm...all characters have to make a difficult swim check of 15. For the pirate I make the difficulty a 12 (because hes been at sea) and from the one who doesn't know how to swim I make it a 20 because regardless hes a good athlete. I'm the GM so my word is god (in pertaining to the game).
This would all take all but 2 secounds to do. It was also the characters "backround that defined the characters more than any of thier skill ranks."
Even when skills are grouped it's easy to make fast alternations ingame (a very important aspect). Out of game, it's faster for players to assign ranks when creating and adjusting for new levels, for GM's its faster for npc creation, monsters creation and all of thier uses.
Once again I will state that I fail to see how the grouping of some skills would remotely hurt the game (including character development) other than to make it simpler and faster "over-all and as a whole."
I wasn't being literal with Character A and B. Thought I was being funny...err guess not.
Pangur Bàn wrote:
It defines them in that character A actually had a decent shot at this and B didn't. Luck (or the absence thereof) decided on how it went down here, but it a less extreme situation these ranks show the player what his (viable) options are.
Character B did live because of "luck". Well my friends, that is this game for you...luck, everytime you roll that D20. That said, its a "small" role to say it "defines a character" in regards to who has a higher skill rank in jumping, when you roll that D20, or very little to be honest and fair.
Does a Cleric with a Religion rank of 15 define a character who has a religion role of 5? Yes but only a "small" amount providing there are 2 clerics in a party. In the over-all outlook of a character again, NO.
"Over-all" choice of skills, feats, class, race, role-playing, ect defines a character. A character having a high rank in religion opposed to a character having a high rank in "Athletics/Jump" constitutes defining a character. Who has a higher jump rank or even jump vs climb doesn't or very little. It most certainly doesn't define a character when you take a "over-all" look at the character.
Again, consolidating some skills makes for better, faster game play, especially in regards to NPC's, GMing, and Monsters. This is the key point.
I fail to see, how jump and climb being consolidated makes for improved game play and/or any significant character definition in regards to the "over-all" wellfare of the game.
Making a big deal of a few skills combined is nit picking. Futhermore...in character creation a player saids to me...I have a pirate and he should be a better swimmer but my swim skill is combined with athletics...easy fix...I give him a +2 rank adjustment when swimming but a -2 jumping. I don't need to do that with every character and every npc, ect.
I have always used a combining method for skills as house rules myself.
Athletics: Climb, Jump, Swim. Included also Escape Grabs.
I like the way Pathfinder has already combined skills such as listen and spot into Perception.
It speeds up the game and there is less to keep track of. This to me is the most important feature of combing/grouping skills.
I don't understand where skills define a character. To me role-playing and how a character makes use of his skills ingame defines a character. The over-all selection of trained skills defines a character too. If characters are defined by who had more ranks in jump or climb then it's a sad day for role-playing.
As an example: Character A has a jump rank of 10. Character B has a jump rank of 5 and is wearing plate mail. Faced with a wide jump of 15ft and a ton of monsters behind them both characters decide to risk the jump. Character A rolls a 1 falls and dies, Character B rolls a 20 and clears the jump and lives. Now answer me this: at what point does this example define a character other than who lived and who died?
When it comes to GMing and using tons of monsters and NPC's, its also much easier to use a simpler skill set.
Perhaps in ending, there are those that want a simpler/grouped version of skills and there are those who like tons of skills. I don't see why both systems can't be included with the latter being optional. In an advanced skill set being used give each class more skill points, and thats that.
Thats my 2 cents.
The PostMonster General wrote:
I agree. It's simple and it's easly to convert from 3.5 rules for the most part.
I too, like the idea of adding the "1/2 level" to the armor class. It keeps an honest challage to an AC at higher levels, rather than automatic hits.
I'm not a fan of 4e after playing it but it does have a few useful ideas. The using and adding of "1/2 Level" to Saving throws and AC is one of them.