Lumin's page

Does anyone else find it strange that Perception -- the capacity to see, hear and smell

This is the crux of your problem. This is NOT the definition of Perception.

Wikipedia defines it as follows:
"perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information".

Just because you see, hear or smell something doesn't mean you have the understanding of what it truly means.

For example:

John (Perception Roll=4): I search the room.
DM: You see a large door with funny switches and gizmos all over it.

Steve (Perception Roll=28): I search the room.
DM: You see a portcullis with a door-nob, door-bell and keyhole.

And while the upcoming Pathfinder RPG's CMB partially solves issues like grappling, others like determining AoO and high-level play still remain. (Unless you saw something in the production version, KaeYoss.)

I don't know, Attacks of Opportunity never seemed difficult for me in the first place. I just try to remember that if a PC is doing something other than attacking with a weapon during combat, it provokes an AoO.

Doesn't Pathfinder help high level play by removing the base skill multiplier? It's not a huge difference, but it's better than before.

I have to admit, though, that a big part of wanting to switch to Pathfinder RPG, for me, is the new art style. I always hated the 3.5 gritty art style and the cover. It felt very low-fantasy and just depressed me.

I love the way the races, classes and art in general looks. I like the new monster style and am also really excited about what the bestiary art will look like. I really believe that the art in an RPG influences game play and the underlying "feeling". Pathfinder art feels much more high-fantasy and old-school.

Also, I will say that 3e is my favorite D&D system. I have played 1e, 2e and also spent some time with Castles and Crusades (heavily influenced by D&D). I like the options and freedom that 3e gives. There's no restrictions on classes based on race, I like the d20 mechanic (including positive progression for saving throws and AC), and I like the sheer number of systems that can be added. Maybe I don't use grapple or flanking that much, but I'm glad it's there if I need it.

A lot of people will argue that the tactical/miniature focus of 4e is a more authentic D&D because it had its roots in a wargame - Chainmail. When Monte Cook helped design 3x, however, he wanted miniatures to be less of a focus and I like the way he designed the rules around this thought. I think it has the flexibility to be, both a good wargame AND just a P&P game. On the other hand, 1e doesn't have enough built-in options for wargaming and 4e is nearly impossible to be run without minis. So 3e has the sweet spot for me. Pathfinder fixes bugs and takes a page out of 4e to eliminate dead levels, which I think will make it the best RPG ever.

I really, really hope that the new Sorcerer bloodlines don't get cut. IMO, they are the most awesome feature of Pathfinder RPG.

In general, the new class abilities and removing of the "dead levels' is also really, really cool. I like that 4E makes all classes more exciting, but at the same time I hate the word "Powers", as it sounds like every class has magic - and it reminds me of WoW abilities. Pathfinder (beta at least) makes classes feel much more interesting, but still makes me feel like I'm playing P&P game, not a MMO.

So, my two cents are: Keep classes awesome!

Speaking of art, can someone tell me where I can find the images from this You Tube video? Or did this guy just scan images from source books? I tried the wiki, but found barely anything.

Among others, I really like the image at 50 seconds.

I just downloaded and played with this yesterday.

First of all, great job! I really like this tool and can see myself using it regularly for campaigns. Keep up the good work.

Three cosmetic things that bothered me as a new user:

1. Rolling Attributes was very confusing. It took me a while to even figure out where this was to be done at - the button location and wording seemed strange. Once I figured it out, I didn't understand what the pop-up box was even saying.

2. I was confused at seeing green "checks marks" on tabs that were NOT finished yet. A check mark usually signifies something that is done, not incomplete. I'd prefer a red exclamation point (!) or something similar.

3. Another problem I found is that the Rogue can take the talent that gives him weapon finesse when he already has the weapon finesse feat. (By the way, why is there a talent that gives you weapon finesse anyway in Pathfinder, when you can get it from a feat?)

Lumin wrote:

The race part just hit a nerve because I think it's one of the most important images that just needs to be "right".

"Right" is a question that's pretty subjective. I would like it to project the style the RPG designers want to project, because it will affect our visualizations, at least initially, of the characters we encounter and help set the tone for the game.

"Right" meaning, it better darn well match up pretty closely to what the description of an Elf is. If it says "Frail" and takes -2 CON, it better look like it as well.

I feel sorry for the artist who did the original lineup art. It seems like every time his work gets mentioned it's getting slammed.

I really liked his art. That picture and Lini made me want to play a gnome for the first time ever.

I liked a lot of the art as well. Some of the more "painty" bits were very good. Then, some of it looks very JRPG-ish which I don't like very much.

The race part just hit a nerve because I think it's one of the most important images that just needs to be "right".

Okay, the "slap in the face" comment was a bit harsh. I apologize.

I didn't realize that the "cartoony" art in the book would eventually be swapped out for the final print. That's a big relief.

This picture looks MUCH better and the elf looks to be only a few inches taller than the human, not an entire foot like the beta image. Also, I like that he's not blue anymore.

Can anyone site the source from Tolkien's works where it describes Elves as being taller than humans? I understood it that they were only slightly taller or of equal height to humans. The image in the final print looks closer to this representation than the beta that's for sure.

I think the art representation is pretty important, actually, in a RPG - especially of the races. Because that's the image engrained in your head from that point forward about the races. Also, if their average height is not specified in the racial description (which it is not in the beta), I can see players going strictly by the image for the height. This could lead to arguments with the GM about their character getting a height bonus for certain circumstances because the picture says so.

By the way, I'm totally excited for Pathfinder. My friends have all bought D&D 4e, but I just couldn't bring myself to do so because so many things bothered me about it. I had hoped that D&D 4e would be what Pathfinder is going to be.

While I will agree that D&D elves are described as being shorter than man the Tolkien elf (my preference) is actually taller. But the pic in question actually depicts Ar'Neld Shwa'Nizinger the famous elven body builder who later went on to become the ruler of the land of Kalifornia.(Little known fact) ;p

I see your point about Tolkien elves, but this doesn't even really fit Tolkien's description either. The Elf on page eight looks blatantly ripped off from a WoW Night Elf. I thought 4E was the game ripping off MMOs, don't tell me that Pathfinder is falling into the same trap.

Even if this is the way elves in Pathfinder are going to appear, then why are they described as "frail" and get hit with -2 Con modifier? Either the Con modifier needs to be removed, or the art needs to be changed (the latter is preferred obviously). This is a slap in the face to 3.5.

This is only my second post (as I just discovered Pathfinder a couple days ago), and I hear the game has already gone to the printers. I sure as hell hope someone has brought this up already before I did.

Okay, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but why does the Elf on page 8 of the Beta Core Rulebook look like a giant body builder (or a WoW Night Elf)?

The Elf takes -2 to Constitution, but looks like he's on steroids? Doesn't this art depiction go completely against the traditional Elf in D&D's long history? Aren't Elves typically shorter than humans and more graceful?