Lord Zordran's page

Lord Zordran wrote:

The following rules worked rather well in a recent Pathfinder campaign I ran.

If I can draw on your personal experiences here, I was just looking at these rules (along with the armor as DR rule) and am attracted to the idea. I did some quick number crunching, though, and wasn't sure it was going in a direction I wanted.

The big flag I got was in converting a basic orc warrior from the Monster Manual. According to my math, the intro-level beasty would get an armor class of 17, a pretty big jump from the 13 they have under the original system.

Am I doing that right? Did that turn out to be much of a problem for you as it seems to me?

I didn't have any problems with the defense bonus rules. I only used them for player characters, while simply using the stats as written in the Bestiaries for monsters. Furthermore, I used a special house rule to compensate for the lack of magic items, so no player characters ever used armour or even wanted to use armour. Which suited me just fine, as the campaign was set in a desert setting where most armours make no sense at all. Spellcasters benefit maybe more than other classes, as they receive a defense bonus which is higher than what they would normally have, but this was not really a problem. The mage armor spell becomes redundant after a certain level.

The following rules worked rather well in a recent Pathfinder campaign I ran.

The wording in the Advanced Player's Guide is a leftover from the playtest version of the Inquisitor, which had the bonuses from the Judgement class ability start at +1 and then increase each round up to a certain maximum. This was deemed to be too much bookkeeping to be worth the effort, so the the Judgement class ability now provides a fixed bonus based on the Inquisitor's level. The errata for the Slayer class ability reads:

Slayer (Ex): At 17th level, an inquisitor learns to focus her judgment. Whenever an inquisitor uses her judgment ability, she must select one type of judgment. She is treated as if she were 5 levels higher for the purposes of determining the bonus granted by the judgment. Unlike other types of judgment, the one enhanced by this ability cannot be changed for the remainder of the judgment.

The following two quotes are from the Combat chapter of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:

Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied.

Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

I have always understood this to mean that on a critical hit all static damage bonuses such as your Strength bonus, enchantment bonus, Weapon Specialisation feat bonus, Smite Evil bonus, Challenge bonus, etc. are multiplied on a critical hit, and any variable damage bonus i.e. all extra damage expressed as +XdY is not multiplied.

You can find the rule in the "Getting Started" chapter, in the section describing the six ability scores:

Intelligence (Int)

[...]

You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:

* The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
* The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
* Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.

A wizard gains bonus spells based on his Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level.

One thing though, Smite requires you add CHA bonus to attack rolls, and + 1 per HD to your damage, personally, I'm going to make that only if it's a bonus, not if it's a negative, although it doesn't say that in the description that I found. Otherwise, Entropic Animals will have huge penalties to use it, and have a harder time hitting when smiting, since most animals have negative cha mods.

This is already in the rules, as the Smite ability granted through the Fiendish and Celestial templates states that you add your Charisma bonus to attack rolls. In Pathfinder a bonus is always a positive number. So you only add the creature's Charisma bonus if it actually has a bonus. If it has a penalty, the attack roll is unmodified. Otherwise, the rule would say that you add your Charisma modifier to the attack roll when smiting, but as it says bonus you ignore any negative modifier when smiting.

The spell will end at the beginning of your next turn, just before you start taking your actions for round 2.

The rules on combat rounds on page 178 say:

Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

I always wanted to see clerics get a core group of spells they all know. But most of their spell list comes from the god they worship. So gods player a much bigger role in what clerics can or can't do.

This is one of the things I really liked about AD&D 2nd Edition, where divine spells were divided into various spheres of influence and depending on their god a cleric either gained minor/major/or no access to various spheres. I also really liked the supplement that took the notion further giving each cleric different class powers depending on their god's portfolio. I always felt that domains are a watered down version of this. Of course, the old system was anything but balanced and made certain clerics even more awesome and powerful.

I do, however, like the idea of sub-domains to allow for even more differentiation between various gods and faiths and their clerics, inquisitors, and other assorted divine casters. And, no doubt, the various alternatives for Channel Energy in Ultimate Magic will add even more flexibility to clerics.

I really like the APG and think that overall it is a great adition to the game. While I am not a fan of all the base classes and archetypes, my main gripe is that the book could have done with a bit more proofreading and spellchecking. But those are only very minor gripes.

The number of feats an eidolon has at any given level is also listed on Table 2-9: Eidolon Base Statistics on page 59 of the Advanced Player's Guide.

In my current Pathfinder game I am playtesting a house rule, which does not just affect barbarians, but they certainly benefit a lot from it. Inspired by Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG I have gotten rid of negative hit points altogether. When reduced to below 0 hit points characters fall unconscious and start dying, but they don't have a negative hit point total. Instead they die at the end of (2 + Con bonus) rounds unless someone stabilises them or they receive healing of some sort. All other rules (i.e. the Diehard feat, the stabilise spell, etc.) apply normally. I have not quite decided yet how to handle stabilisation rolls, but it will probably be a Constitution check each round with a DC of [10 + 2x(number of rounds they have been dying for)]. For barbarians the number of rounds is determined by their non-raging Con bonus.

I introduced this rule after a particularly viscious fight during which the party suffered two character deaths due to massive critical hits from ogres. One of the characters was a barbarian who barely survived the damage from the hit, but then died when his rage ended due to him being unconscious. I have only just started using the rule, so I do not know yet how well it will work, but my players all like the idea.

I am currently running a Pathfinder game set in my own homebrew setting for a group of seven 5th level characters. I am normally rather stingy with magic items and even more so in this game. Instead of using the WBL chart characters receive a +1 inherent bonus to AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, CMB, CMD for each four levels (i.e. +1 at 4th level, +2 at 8th level, +3 at 12th level, +4 at 16th level, +5 at 20th level). I am tempted to allow the same bonus to be added to any class feature that has an ability score modifier added to its DC (to compensate for not handing out ability score increasing items). I still allow minor magic items such as wands, potions, and scrolls, and I intend on giving characters special weapons such as a flaming sword which will do extra fire damage (but not have any +X bonuses attached to it). That way magic items can be special and truly magical, without becoming a necessity. Special materials work as per normal for overcoming DR. I haven't decided yet whether I should let the +1 bonus at 4th level count as overcoming DR X/magic or whether I should require actual magical weapons for that (such as the aforementioned flaming sword).

So far the system is working rather well and there haven't been any issues with encounters and such.

If I were to implement a rule like this I would have the players do all the work i.e. players roll their AC versus a fixed monster attack bonus when they are being attacked, but when players attack they roll attack rolls versus a fixed monster AC. I would probably not have an attack roll versus an AC roll as that might slow the game down a bit too much depending on the number of players and their maths skills.

I am not a great fan of players using laptops during gaming sessions. Especially not after a game I ran for new players about two years ago where one of the players would use his laptop to write down every single word I said. Literally! When I told one of the other players that the sorcerer invoked Horazkan's Burning Hatred against his character for 12 points of fire damage the player with the laptop would ask how to spell Horaskan and then write down that the character had taken 12 points of fire damage from Horazkan's Burning Hatred. He had pages and pages of notes, and yet whenever it was his turn he never knew what was happening in game, despite just having written it all down in minute detail! He was quite terrible at interacting with the other players and characters in general. If the game hadn't been a beginners' game aimed at people new to roleplaying I would probably have kicked him out. I've made sure not to invite him back to any of my games since.

I don't have a strict no-laptop policy, but each player only gets one chance to prove that their laptop won't disrupt the game. If it does disrupt the game they have to decide between the game and the laptop.

The best is when you have two players in the party, each trying to "out-mysterious" or "out-loner" the other. :-)

I was running a game at a convention a few years ago, and I had the misfortune of having two players in it that tried to "out-paladin" each other. It was one of the most ridiculous gaming situations I ever had. At one stage, after a battle in a tavern Paladin A declared that he was going down on one knee in front of his sword (held like a cross before him, hilt near his head, tip on the wooden planks of the tavern floor) and giving prayers of thanks to his god for aiding the party in the combat they had just survived.

To which Paladin B replied that he would do the exact same thing, except that he would carefully place the tip of his sword in the crack between two wooden planks so as not to damage the tavern even further by nicking the floor and thus causing more grief for the poor tavern owner! The two players basically had an arms race of righteousness and piousness.

At this stage it is really time to not invite that person back to a roleplaying session, ever! If you want to be nice, you could give him one last chance, explaining very clearly that his behaviour is not tolerated and is distracting from everyone else's enjoyment of the game. I've been quite lucky with my gaming groups and I have the benefit of studying at a university with a rather large roleplaying association, but even so we have some members I would never allow in my games. As the person in your case is not a good friend of yours there is no point in putting up with his behaviour at all.

I don't see the character/player you describe as being problematic. I would welcome the roleplaying opportunities and plot hooks he provides. In most of my games the party ends up acquiring all sorts of weird servants, unexpected allies, and strongholds/bases of operation. In the last Pathfinder campaign I ran the party ended up with two wyvern guards for their stronghold, a baby griffon, and Ygro, a sentient flesh golem with the ability to create doors/portals at will (though only for himself). They acquired the stronghold after defeating a powerful shadow demon and decided to set up shop there. Their efforts to rebuild and defend the place added greatly to the fun of the campaign.

In my longest running campaign each of the characters now has multiple strongholds, underlings, allies, minions, etc. as the half-elf paladin is a baron and leader of his own order, the half-orc barbarian is warlord of the Western Hordes, the elf wizard is co-leader of a powerful mages' guild, etc. It makes for great roleplaying opportunities and immersion into the game world.

Of course, this might not be to every GM's tastes, and it does require a bit of extra work now and then, but I find it highly rewarding and good fun. It would also solve the problem of getting the characters in your game motivated if they have to defend their newly acquired stronghold. As for the hobgoblin, well he is a LE creature with Int 10, so if I were to GM him I'd have him appear to go along with being the character's servant/slave until he finds an opportunity to escape/exact revenge, etc. And if the characters force him to fight for them and such, make sure to have him level up and learn a lot to better get back at them.

I have played AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4th Edition, and Pathfinder and I've had fun playing and running games with each rule set so far. Currently my favourite is Pathfiner as it caters more to my sensibilities and tastes than any of the other editions. I recently tried to start an AD&D game, purely out of nostalgia, and the rules proved painful to get back to.

As others have pointed out, nostalgia is a powerful thing. I have very fond memories of my first AD&D games, but they have less to do with the actual rules system than the fact that I was younger, it all was more wonderous, and that I mostly remember the good moments.

From my experience, as long as you have a fun group of players, interesting characters, an engaging story, and a decent GM any variation of the rules can make for a great and memorable game. The rules should never get in the way of having a fun time.

I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.

Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.

My experience is very similar. I still have my full library of 3.5 books, but I find that I am normally only using the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder GameMastery Guide, and now the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide. For my upcoming campaign (starting on Sunday, 19th September) players are only allowed material from the Core Rulebook and the APG. I might still use monsters and classes from 3.5 books, but none of my players have shown any interest in non-Pathfinder material for their characters. The new APG classes are a massive hit and we will have a member of each class present in the campaign. This is not due to any "I hate 3.5 " sentiment, it simply worked out this way. So the backwards compatibility is a perk, but I don't consider it as important as others do.

First of all welcome to the wonderful world of tabletop RPGs. Second of all well done on jumping in at the deep end and wanting to be a GM. It can take a bit of effort, but it is also very rewarding and good fun.

1) When to call for skill checks depends on the situation. Normally it is in response to a player stating that his character wants to perform a certain action that requires a skill check i.e. climbing a wall, picking a lock, bargaining with a merchant, etc. Occasionally, players (especially if new to the game) will not realise that they can ask for a skill check to gain more information, in which case you can happily tell them that they can make a certain check and then give them the extra information if they succeed. Some GMs prefer making certain checks in secret (Perception, Sense Motive, etc.) to avoid players from noticing that something more is going on in case they do not succeed on the check.

2) Whether a character can immediately tell others about what he has learned really depends on the situation and the amount of information and time available. Shouting out "the guard captain is the traitor" after making a successful Sense Motive check does not take much time and is easy to do. Relaying detailed information about the weaknesses, strengths, and lifestyle choices of annis hags in the middle of combat will take more than one round so you can rule that only one piece of information can be shouted out each round.

3) Each monster type has a corresponding Knowledge skill that allows players/characters to gain extra information about that type of monster i.e. Knowledge (religion) covers Undead. The DCs are listed in the Knowledge skill description (if I remember correctly). The amount of information you hand out should depend on how well the players roll. You should, of course, always describe any visual, audible, and olfactory details that characters would perceive i.e. players do not need to roll to find out that the guards are carrying swords (unless they have concealed weapons, of course, in which case a Perception check is called for).

4) The gold is coming from loot, payments, rewards, ancient treasures recovered, etc. When and how much to hand out is entirely up to you, but the gamemastering chapter of the Core Rulebook has some guidelines on how much wealth characters should have per level and such. PCs can, of course, use the Profession or Performance skills to earn extra money.

5) This depends entirely on how detailed you want to be. Most GMs I know simply handwave non-costly material components and such (unless they're running a particularly harsh and "gritty" game). Anything costly, characters would either have to buy it in town, or acquire it through some other means (theft, scams, loot).

I hope this helps.

I have been in games where girlfriends or boyfriends joined just because their partner was into RPGs. It occasionally works out well, if they catch the roleplaying bug, but in most cases it just tends to ruin the fun for everyone. And RPGs are all about having fun, so there is no point in playing if no one is enjoying it. The only real solution is talk to the players, see how everyone else feels, and then talk to the problem player and ask her to kindly leave the game if she is clearly not into it (you can, of course, start by asking whether she is enjoying it or not and what would get her more into it, though it sounds pretty hopeless from your description of the situation).

It sounds like those two players would actually enjoy 4th Edition a lot more than Pathfinder as it has a lot of the rules that they are asking for (maximum hit points, no concentration checks, regaining spells/powers more than once per day, etc.).

A lot of good points have been made already, but from personal experience I can say that granting maximum hit points per level is not that big a deal if you also give monsters maximum hit points. It can prolong fights a little bit, but it keeps fights equally challenging while giving players the illusion that their characters are more kick-ass by having maximum hit points :-)

The other changes they ask for are all workable, but create extra work for the GM as every encounter will have to be adapted to the new power level of the characters.

As others have stated the "wealth by level" table is merely a guideline. As long as whatever amount of gear the characters have does not negatively affect gameplay and everyone's fun there is no need to worry. I tend to be rather stingy as a GM, as I prefer for characters to have a few meaningful items, rather than being Christmas trees of magical trinkets.

No, a golem's immunity to magic does not protect it from a witch's hexes. Immunity to magic only makes golems immune to all spells and spell-like abilities that allow for spell resistance. All hexes introduced so far are either supernatural or extraordinary abilities and are thus not affected by spell resistance at all.

It can be rather annoying for a DM when a player decides he wants to change characters once a game has started, especially if the DM has already planned background and plot elements linked to that character. Simply having the character change class is slightly easier, and as you are only level three I would probably just hand-wave it. The best solution from my point of view would be to retire your tengu artificer (which I probably would not have allowed in the first place) and find a way of introducing a new character (I am not familiar with Legacy of Fire, so I have no idea how easy or hard that would be). The main objective of the game is for people to have fun and if you are not having fun playing your character the best solution would be to change it. I am sure, if you work with your DM, you can come up with an interesting way of introducing a new character.

The maths in your example is slightly wrong. Being vulnerable to a certain damage type makes that damage type inflict 50% more damage, not 100% more damage (i.e. it does not double it). Therefore the damage in your example should be 67d6+67 against a white dragon.

Vulnerabilties (Ex or Su) A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure.

The "all elements" category encompasses all spells that can be of more than one elemental type depending on the choices made when casting the spell i.e. Elemental Body I can be an air, earth, fire, or water spell depending on what type of elemental you turn into.

The "Aqueous Orb" spell is the spell depicted on the second image in the preview post. If you click on it to enlarge it, the name "Aqueous Orb" shows up in the URL. As others have pointed out it appears to be a water-based attack spell that does not do cold damage, but either water damage or I am guessing bludgeoning damage, seeing how Pathfinder does not use water, earth, or air as damage types. But maybe the APG will introduce those as damage types.

I have always run it so that merely having Immunity to Cold/Fire does not automatically give you Vulnerability Fire/Cold. Having the cold or fire subtype (and does being a creature strongly aligned with a given element) gives you vulnerability to the opposing element.

In Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which uses a slightly different elemental system, this also works for creatures of the earth and air subtype, with earth creature being immune to earth damage and vulnerable to air damage and vice versa.

I really like the Pathfinder RPG skills system and consider it an improvement over DnD 3.0/3.5 However, one of the house rules I have kept from my days of running DnD 3.0/3.5 is that all classes receive a minimum of 4 skill points per level (low Int can of course reduce the number). I have just finished running a Pathfinder campaign that took characters from 1st level to 20th level and I am playing in another Pathfinder campaign (where we're currently 5th level) and having a minimum of 4 skill points per level hasn't caused any problems in any of the games. Both games were/are quite roleplay heavy and skills were/are used frequently.

I am currently running a Pathfinder game for six players. Their characters were created using 25 points for their ability scores and I have given them maximum hit points for each level. They have slightly fewer magic items than they should have for their level, simply because I am normally a bit stingy with magic items and don't like the so-called "Christmas tree"-effect. The party consists of:

halfling rogue 11/shadowdancer 5
half-orc monk 16
half-orc barbarian 8/druid 8
half-elf paladin 8/angel disciple 8
tiefling sorcerer 16
dwarf cleric 16

As you can see there is a nice mix between melee characters and spellcasting characters and they have access to a fair amount of healing as well.

When creating encounters I normally treat their APL as two higher than what it actually is, one for the 25 point buy and one for having six characters. I also give all monsters maximum hit points. So far this has worked very well. As others have pointed out the trick is to mix things up and tailor each encounter to your party's specific strengths and weaknesses. Having only a single opponent doesn't work as well as all the characters can focus their attacks on one target (this is especially true if you have a paladin facing an evil dragon, evil outsider, or undead). Dragons and beholders work well as single opponents as they have a large number of attacks to balance the party's large number of attacks in a round. I normally send multiple opponents, some melee, some ranged, some spellcasting to keep my party on their toes.

Despite all that I occasionally have fights that end too fast for my liking or that don't necessarily work out the way I thought they would. It's always good to remember that a party of level X is meant to defeat an encounter of level X without too much trouble. If you want to challenge them real good go for an encounter three to four levels higher, with multiple opponents. I find that groups of enemies with class levels make for interesting opponents (I recently had my group up against an evil 16th level cleric with the "antilife shell" spell active. The group didn't have access to the cleric and the sorcerer as they were trying to save 'em from the evil cleric and so they didn't have access to spells or ranged weapons). And in my book there is nothing wrong with throwing some extra enemies at your group and then reducing their hit points or AC slightly when you realise that you have overdone it.

The more you use the system the better you'll get at judging encounters and what will work against your party and what will not. Don't feel like you did something wrong by giving them 25 point-buy and having six players.

I have always played it similar to what WotC stated in "Races of the Wild". Elves grow up physically at a slightly slower pace than humans. Mentally they also grow up at about the same pace, but to truly grasp all concepts of what it means to be an elf and to fully understand one's elven heritage takes much, much longer so elven society only considers an elf adult when they reach 110.

This is similar to the way things worked in Victorian England, where the age of consent was 13, but you were not considered a proper adult until you turned 21 (irrespective of gender and class).

I normally run it as one attack per attack roll when it comes to describing combat. This has never caused any issues and makes gaining extra attacks (through increased BAB, the Haste spell, flurry of blows, etc.) more special. At least for my current players.

That sounds like a really interesting setup for a game. How well it will work will depend on your players and on how mature they are. I have been in one or two evil games, both as a player and as a DM, and they can be good fun as long as you make sure that everyone has the same understanding about how graphic and how far evil can go. If you want the game to last for a while, the characters will need a reason to work together (it is good that no one is playing Chaotic Evil so far). As you have a group of good and evil alignments, you should prepare for what happens when the paladin either falls or has to confront his "allies". Intra-party conflict tends to end games really quickly.

I am currently running an 11th-level Pathfinder game for my university's roleplaying society and one of the characters is a half-orc monk. The group also has a tiefling abyssal sorcerer who is very fond of casting Haste at the start of combat. I have ruled that the monk can spend a ki point to gain an extra attack while under the effect of the Haste spell. So far it has not caused any problems in-game. Ki points are a rather limited resource and he also uses them for other things (and always keeps one in reserve so that his fists count as magic and lawful). At most he maybe has 3 or 4 rounds a day where he actually gets to use flurry of blows plus Haste plus the extra attack from spending a ki point. From our experience it is not unbalancing or overpowered. It works really well in allowing the monk to deal with minions and henchmen. The party also has a halfing rogue with a +1 speed rapier (she does not get to stack Haste with the Speed effect), but so far no one has complained about the monk getting to make the extra attack.

I see where you are coming from and your interpretation works just as well as mine. It is just that to me the whole "if used as part of..." sentence sounds as a qualifier that notes an exception to the normal way of handling the bite attacks. If used as a stand-alone attack it uses the full attack bonus, but if used as part of a full attack action there is a -5 penalty. And given that the damage is not really overpowering, I do not see the problem of allowing the full attack bonus when the bite is used as the only attack made in a round.

It would make things easier of the Animal Fury rage power clearly spelled out whether the bite attack is meant to be a normal natural attack or whether it is something different.

From the PRD

Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on attack rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

This to me, along with the wording of Animal Fury, means that when using the bite attack on its own it does not receive the -5 penalty and the barbarian uses his/her full attack bonus. In all other instances, such as when making a full attack action, or using it as part of a grapple I would rule that the -5 penalty applies. As noted above some natural attacks deviate from the normal damage bonus and Animal Fury specifies that the damage is 1d4 + 1/2 Strength bonus for a Medium creature, as such I would rule that the damage is always 1d4 + 1/2 Strength. In all instances he can only make one bite attack per round, as natural attacks do not use iterative attacks. This is, of course, just my interpretation of the rules and Animal Fury could probably do with a better wording, but I hope this helps.

I think the bite attack follows all the normal rules for natural attacks, and as such should be treated as a primary attack and should use all the rules for primary attacks. The RAW for Animal Fury says that "if used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus -5". To me, this wording means that when you use it on its own (as a standard action) it uses the barbarian's full base attack bonus without any penalties. This is in line with the other rules that state that primary natural attacks take a -5 penalty when used together with weapons.

Iron Heroes (a low-magic, gritty d20 variant by Mike Mearls) has a mix of fixed HP and rolling for HP. The traditional hit dice for classes are broken down and turned into 1d4 + the difference between 4 and the maximum possible number i.e. d6 becomes 1d4+2, d8 becomes 1d4+4, d10 becomes 1d4+6, and d12 becomes 1d4+8. This adds a little element of randomness, but also makes sure that each class has a certain minimum number of hit points reflecting each class' toughness. Of course, Iron Heroes doesn't use the standard DnD 3.5/Pathfinder classes and has no magical healing, so some tweaks might be necessary to adopt this to a normal DnD3.5/Pathfinder game.

I used to have a house rule where you could re-roll certain results of your hit die if the result was too low: 1 on d4, 1-2 on d6 and d8, 1-3 on d10, and 1-4 on d12. These days, however, I just give all characters maximum hit points per level. To balance things, all monsters get maximum hit points, too. I've never had a problem with this in any of my DnD 3.5/d20 games, and it works rather well so far in my current Pathfinder game.

A re-print of Arcana Evolved (including all the latest errata) would be awesome. I finished a 3 year long AE campaign a few months ago that took players from level 1 to level 25 and it was one of the best games I ever had the chance to be involved in. I'll definitely run games again, and having more books for new players would be very helpful :-)