MAC III's page

Psionics, at least as I've played them, have made up a "third" type of magic. Arcane, Divine, Psionic. I think that if Pathfinder is to have a psi book, it should take that approach.

The XPH was very well done. Wilder and Soulknife need some love. I wasn't thrilled with all the races. But overall, I think it was well done.

Psionics should become more mental/personal. Powers should either effect just the manifester or the minds of others.

Psionic attack/defense modes should come back. Perhaps expand the amount of attack and defense modes.

I'd almost go so far as to say limit psionics to ONLY attack/defense modes and personal augmentations. Could be fun if you want something different than the XPH.

I dunno, I've always enjoyed psionics and i've always been a pretty open-minded DM. I don't think the whole system's broken, and I'm excited to see what Pathfinder will do with it.

They have said several times before that a compilation of older books would hurt the sales of the current volumes and that they are not interested in self-competing. Someone who wanted a whole AP would not subscribe, but would just wait for the whole things to come out in one book. So get on eBay and search for those missing, OOP books!

Makes some sense, I guess. I was just too skeptical when it first came out, but now that I've downloaded the entire Rise of the Runelords set, I'd much rather have them in print. I can't wait to get that campaign off the ground!

Long-time gamer looking for players (and possible GMs) in Cheyenne, WY area. Male/female gamers welcome. Newbie-friendly!

Looking to run Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, possibly other systems as well. Mostly homebrew campaign settings, although I am looking to run the Rise of the Runelords and the Shackled City at some point.

Contact me here or at mcotignola3 (at gmail).

Mikie

I don't know if this was addressed elsewhere, but does/will Paizo offer the Pathfinder Adventure Paths in one book at some point? I didn't subscribe when this all started, and to get print copies of all 6 parts of a path would be costly. It would be great to get Rise of the Runelords and the others as a 6-in-one hardcover!

Evanta wrote:

Who agrees with me that the base classes are too complicated?

WoTC

Well said!

I like the revised core classes. Ever look at core classes from other books? With a few exceptions, most of them are pretty "complicated." And that's what makes them so darn fun! The class descriptions will be as long as they need to be. ;)

I actually just posted this as a new thread before I found this one. Lesson learned.

What are a character's starting skill points? Is it simply the value listed in the class description, or does the 3.5 quadruple skills at first level still in effect?

Also, for starting languages, is it still racial starting language(s) plus INT modifier in bonus languages?

On a related note, I like the new Linguistics skill.

Are the spells in the PRPG book only there if they are new/replace 3.5 spell? Or were some simply omitted accidentally or to conserve space? For instance, I could not locate the description for the CLONE spell.

It wasn't spelled out in the book (not that I saw), so I figured I'd ask the question:

How many skill points does a starting character have? Is it the amount listed in each class or quadruple at first level?

Also, how many languages does a character start with? The same as 3.5 (1 per INT modifier)?

I really would like to see both male and female examples of each race, preferably grouped by race, not just gender. The co-ed mix shown seems a little deceptive, since mal and females are different sizes and builds.

Group pictures of each race would be nifty. Maybe a few examples of each gender per race, to get an idea of what an old elf, a young elf, a warrior-elf, and a sage-elf all might look like. Male and female, young and old, various jobs.

Of course, that makes a lot more work for the exceptional artists!

The rules are full of tables, some of which are in non-intuitive places (carrying capacity and object hardness/hitpoints, for example, are not in the equipment section.)

That's okay, but I was wondering how it would affect the layout and design, to add more frequent page references. In the Strength section of ability scores, for example, it would be helpful to have a reference to the carrying capacity table on page 125.

I don't know if the usefulness of quick references outweighs the extra text clutter, which is why this is more of an open question than a request.

BOO NON-INTUITIVE TABLE LOCATIONS! HOORAY INDEXES & PAGE REFERENCES!

Does anyone else feel like gnomes getting +2 Charisma doesn't make a whole lot of sense? In addition, I feel like gnomes don't have a good "niche" if you will. I propose returning gnomes to their old roots as illusionists and tinkerers. As they stand, gnomes just have an odd combination of halfling and dwarf cultural characteristics. I propose that gnomes be granted a +2 to Intelligence in place of their +2 Charisma and change their favored classes to Wizard and Rogue. Has anyone thought about replacing their spell-like abilities with the ability to prepare one cantrip like a sorcerer or wizard does? I never liked the gnome-fey connection, did not feel natural for the way DnD gnomes are presented, or were presented, anyway. Thoughts, feelings, criticism?

I love me some Gnomes.

That said, I'm not 100% happy with the updated gnombres. I am happy that PRPG is moving gnomes back to their "historical" connection with nature, but there's one sticking point for me: spell-like abilities. I never liked that gnomes could use them.

In my last 3.5 campaign, I took them away, and instead gave gnomes the choice of a bonus feat that granted SLAs (there were a bunch in the Complete series of books). That way they weren't totally alien to my players, but it changed things up a bit. I also experimented with gnomes who lacked SLAs and instead had the Scent extraordinary ability (hearkening back to the big-nosed gnomes of 2nd edition). That went over well with my players at the time.

Just some thoughts.

Oh, and with the re-emphasis on the gnome/fey thing, +2 Cha makes total sense. I'd like to see PRPG declare gnomes Fey instead of Humanoids, but that's just me.

Ok, I wonder what you all think about the Vitality/Wound point system.

I found it quite interesting, because they actually make it "understandable" what "Hitpoints" are and give players a faster healing progression so they don't need a priest THAT much.

Wait, is it OGL?

PRO:
- better understanding
- faster healing w/o priests

CON:
- Two pools to remember

NEUTRAL
- lucky hits more deadly
- no non-lethal damage (but I would reintroduce them once all vitality points are used up: critical hit with a sap, *bumm*, victim unconcious)

It's an interesting system, but I actually liked the ALTERNITY health system better. You had Stun points, Wound points, and Mortal points. Stun = CON score, represent light damage, and is healed at the end of the encounter. Wound = CON score, represents serious damage, and needs to be healed. Mortal = 1/2 CON score, represents severe wounds, and once it's gone you're dead. Once you run out of Stun you take Wound, then Mortal, etc. If you score a good enough hit with a weapon, it skips stun and does wound or mortal (depending on the weapon). A complicated system but much more realistic.

its unbalanced.

the tiefling and aasimar back in 3.5 had pieces of cheese for abilities that did not make the ECL worth it. if pcs of planetouched races got that feat for free, it would have been different.

as for the other races, they were not really worth it either

In the last 3.5 campaign I ran I allowed one player to start the game as a half halfling/half silver dragon paladin of Bahamut. The other players were standard elves and half-elves and the like, nothing that would incur an ECL.

Yes, the half-silver paladin was more powerful at first level, but any major advantage she had seemed to disappear by about 3rd or 4th level, when the party's warblade and wizard got cool powers. And the party was thankful to have someone who was slightly more powerful out of the gate, because she helped to keep them alive!

I never liked the level adjustments and/or ECL. Hopefully that'll be a thing of the past in pathfinder.

AWESOME!

Glad I ordered a hardcopy. I've been talking this up to my friends for the better part of the year. I'm now reading over the PDF and aching to hold the beta in my hands...

The revolution will not be televised...

Heck, of the shiny new races, Goliaths seem far more popular...

Speaking of goliaths, I'm surprised that the new races introduced in the "Races Of" books weren't better utilized for 4e. I guess Dragonborn count for that, since they came out of Races of the Dragon, but that being the case, why didn't WotC make kobold a PH race? Especially with all the kobold love we've seen over the past year or so?

Yup, sorry Meepo. They got rid of those gnomes you hate, but they decided to give the job to the new guy. Said something about your being "over-qualified."

Assuming I actually get to play, I'll likely end up trying a tiefling warlock and wizard, because those are two classes I like a lot.

Otherwise, gnome...something. Maybe warlord.

No gnomes until the new MM, remember?

That irks me, esp. since I've always preferred the little gnombres to halflings.

Obviously from what we've seen so far, the race entries will include some details about this assumed setting, but if the rest was simply relegated to the back of the book in its own separate section, do you think you'd feel less up in arms about it?

3.x was set in the Greyhawk campaign world. Of course, if all you have are the 3 core books, you'll know very little about the setting. No maps, no details about various locales, just some of the gods and some other fluff here and there.

Why do I hate 4e? Honestly, some of the changes seem pretty good (for a functional preview of 4e, go to the bookstore and check out the newest edition of Star Wars RPG rules). I hate 4e because of the mightier-than-thou, condescending tone that WotC takes with us. They try to tell us that we've been playing the game all wrong, and it almost seems like they are purposely trying to push out anyone with a time-investment of over a decade.

WotC has said that this is a money thing. They don't make money off the books anymore, now they only make money off of TCGs and the minis line. So they're restructuring D&D to force players to purchase minis. Personally, I like using minis for combat. It shows everyone exactly where they are in a room, thereby cutting down on players saying, "he can't hit me, he didn't have line of sight" or "I'm totally outside of that fireball's area of effect." That's my choice, though, and it should forever remain a choice. If I want to play a minis-based game, I'll play D&D Minis, or Battletech, or Warhammer or such.

Then, some more personal issues I have. Half-orcs dumped because of their implied history. Gnomes dumped because, um...dunno (gnomes at least are steeped in real-world history, whereas halflings originally came from J.R.R. Tolkien). No druids or bards (bard being my favored class). Now no brass or bronze dragons?

I've got enough material and plans for 3.5 that I won't be needing 4.0 until WotC releases 5.5!

Whatever happened to, you know, buying the D&D books, setting up your characters, your adventure, your encounters, and just...I dunno...do whatever it is you can to make the game fun on YOUR terms?

I remember a time when it was between the DMs and the Players to figure out what type of characters one should or should not play, for the DM to cater to all types of characters, for the group as a whole to come up with their own solutions, their own house rules, and their own ways o playing D&D. To each his own, I believe. And all D&D was supposed to really do was give you the tools and options to do it, and to do it how you pleased.

Do any of you guys remember that?

I do.

Good times.

Now we have WotC doing all the work for us, telling us how we should be playing D&D, and telling us that no matter what you are, you can do it and you can do it like a Super Hero. Whether you stab the unicorn, or talk it into letting you down the forest path, either way you'll be given a "combat scenario" feel and everyone will feel like they can do anything anyone else in the party can if they want to.

Is it me, or is it if everyone is useful all the time, what's the point of a 5-man party in 4th Edition? The way they make it sound, you take one character, multiclass it a few times, and take D&D on by yourself. You can fight, heal, blast, thieve, loot, kill, fly...you can do it all now.

Whatever happened to the verismilitude of D&D, where bad things can and do happen to your character, where everyone has a flaw in some areas but strengths in others, where role play involved actual role play, and not a combat scene where you're rolling dice against each other to see who wins out the debate with the lich?

Now it's just a game built on pure mediocrity, with now flaws, and you can either stick with the mediocrity or start gathering those "cool powerz!"

Exactly.

This almost brings a tear to one's eye...

So I was reading the latest interview regarding the Races and Classes book WotC is putting out and this caught my eye:

Michelle Carter from WotC wrote:

As for half-orcs, we’re still discussing them. But the race intrinsically makes me uncomfortable due to its implied origins, and until that’s solved, I’m just as happy to see them left out for now.

Now I have to assume that the "implied origin" that makes Michelle "uncomfortable" is that half-orcs would be the product of rape of a human woman by an orc. I can fully understand how this might be a problem for some folks.

What I don't get is that WotC is substituting this for a race (tieflings) whose origin comes from pacts with lower planar powers. How is that any better than a race that would be the product of rape? What kind of message do they want to send to the parents of their hoped-for new customers?

Anyway, this struck me as odd.

It doesn't have to be anything more than an implied origin, if that's what upsets Michelle. Or it could be that Thokk the orc swashbuckler came along and saved the human girl, who fell in love with him, and now I'm playing their half-orc love-child. Or maybe one of the players is running a half-orc who was the unfortunate by-product of a brothel, out to find its place in the world?

To take it out of the books and replace it with a race that is the end result of dealings with lower-planar creatures is kinda silly.

Then again, so is expecting me to pay $20 for this crap. Should've made it a free PDF or something.

Benoist Poiré wrote:

I was today at my FLGS here in Hungary, and to my big surprise they already had the Races & Classes preview book for sale. I have no interest in buying it, and had no time to read in it for a long time (or to make notes), but here are some details I can remember.
[list]

The book is just fluff, no game statistcs or any rules in it.

Diferent D&D designers have written different parts of the book, it's definatly teamwork. It is always mentioned who wrote which chapter or which paragraph.

The races mentioned in detail are Humans, Dwaves, Eladrins, Elves, Halflings, Tieflings, and the "mystery race", Dragonborn. Each of these races gets some pages, humans I think had the most with 4 or 5, eladrin the least with 1,5. There are 4-5 paragraphs each on some other races as well. I remember drow and gnome, but there were maybe 2 or 3 more. The gnome part was titled "The problem with gnomes" or something like that.

The Dragonborn in their picture looked like big and well muscled lizardmen. They were antropomorphic, had two legs and no wings. It looked as if their hands had claws. If I had to judge by the picture, they should get natural bite and claw attacks.

Halflings looked just as 3ed halflings (no hobbits).

The classes section had details about five classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlock. Each of thes gets 3-4 pages. Then - as with the classes - there is an "other classes" section with 3-4 paragraphes for each class. I remember paladins, rangers, druids, barbarians, swordmages and warlords among those.

I couldn't find any mention in the book why they chose to write about some races and classes in detail, and why some get only some paragraphs. While for some of the "lesser" races and classs it did say that those would appear...

If this is D&D's next stop, I'm not going along for the ride. It's been a LONG and mostly good trip so far but this just smacks of crapulence...

I saw that book sitting on a shelf and picked it up to leaf through it. All fluff, all "this is what we intend to do." Some nice artwork, I'll give it that. $20 for a what-if preview book with nothing I'll be able to use game-wise? Nah, I'm good.

MAC III wrote:

Products we really don't need because the current system is still viable!

Which is not a viable argument.

2nd Edition is still viable. I play it all the time.

1st Edition is still viable. I know a number of people still running this edition.

Classic D&D is still viable. Great, great system.

New editions are not created because an old edition is no longer viable.

Well said.

But I don't recall ever being told before that I'm playing the game wrong or that I'm not having fun just because I'm playing with rules edition x. Now WotC is telling us that 3.x is inferior and not fun and that the only way I'm ever going to have fun again is by buying this new edition and playing that. At least, that's what I'm getting out of all of this.

Uh, no, the point that you sound like you are making is that you think, for whatever reason, that Wizards is magically going to remove any ability to kill things, despite the fact that I keep citing social encounter rules that will allow everyone, not JUST characters who are build for a niche purpose, to contribute.

Can you cobble together a response that explains why this is a bad thing? Allowing every character to contribute in some way to more situations than either combat OR social stuff?

Actually, I thought wizards was going to make it so more people could kill more things more quickly. Now you're just confusing things. ;)

We don't need 4e to make it so characters can contribute to more situations. 3.x does that just fine.

WotC needs 4e to line their purses, and you need to help them with that by defending their (already besmirched) honor and by buying a whole new line of products. Products we really don't need because the current system is still viable!

etrigan wrote:

is this not what DnD is design for.. Dungeoncrawl?

Chainmail, back in, uh, '76, I think, was based on this sort of simple miniature-to-miniature combat. AD&D was a tad more fleshed out, just as GURPS has come a long way since the old 'my dude beats up your dude' Man to Man rules.

But we still have games ideally suited for the Dungeoncrawl and nothing else, such as Warhammer Quest.

And those games are great. If I want to play a strict combat game, give me D&D Minis or Battletech. If I want to play a role-playing game, I want to play D&D. Everything has its place.

I just find it offensive that WotC is telling me I've been playing their game wrong for more than a decade, that I haven't been having fun using noncombat rules or playing characters that can't deliver any appreciable payload in combat and are thus support-characters only (when, to the contrary, that was one of my favorite PCs), and that the only way to have fun with this game is to burn my bookshelf and spend an a$$load of money on their new books and minis line.

MAC III wrote:

Antioch wrote:

In fact, they are trying to create a system that, from the sounds of it, more effectively uses those "new-fangled" Charisma skills that exist in 3E.

They are? Wow, I thought those skills were pretty effective in 3.5. In fact, I was pleased with how useful they made Charisma in 3.x.

Diplomacy is "over-powered". It has some pretty low, set DCs that anyone with Diplomacy as a class skill, Skill Focus, and an above average Charisma can meet or beat pretty early on. I think at 6th-level you can make anything Hostile Indifferent with a roll of 10, assuming you didnt also have ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility), Sense Motive, various feats, or half-elf as a race.

If you want to make the ultimate "talky" character, just make a half-elf bard, take Skill Focus (diplomacy), and make sure to grab ranks in Bluff and Sense Motive (always great for social encounters).
You'll likely get a 1st-level bonus of +12, assuming a Cha of 16 (not unlikely in any typical game).
Then, when you hit 2nd-level, assuming a standard spread of skill points, your bonus will suddenly escalate to +19, since your five ranks in other skills all pile on +2 synergy bonuses.
So, at 2nd-level, you are are virtually guaranteed to make any Hostile creature sympathetic to you. Or, at the least, not likely to kill you right away (since you will drop them to Indifferent).
Of course, this just applies to Hostile things. If they were already Indifferent, it isnt much harder to make them Friendly (you need an 11 or better to do so). Of course, at 3rd-level when you take Persuasive, you can in fact do that on an 8 or better.

Not that people would do that, cause that would be "roll-playing". Or something.

The social skills in 3rd Edition are otherwise pretty good. I just think that 4th Edition will streamline them and allow other people in the party that didnt emphasize specific skills to more effectively contribute, which is a good thing.

Thank you for making my point by providing me with examples of min/maxing. WotC's making 4e just for you!

The point I (and a few others on this board) am trying to make is that D&D isn't a numbers game, it's a role-playing game.

Surely, numbers and combat are very important, but they're not the whole game. WotC has stated time and again they want to take out this less-tangible, non-combat aspect of the game in favor of making everyone effective in combat. No more fairy-rings, and now every kobold lives in a mansion. It offends me as a role-player and embarrasses me more than Mazes & Monsters ever could.

Takasi wrote:

Isn't it possible they ommitted half-orcs and gnomes because they don't like them as a core race, and not because they are holding it back to exploit them?

Nah...Half-Orcs and Gnomes are cool. Im going with exploitation. :)

Preach on.

Marnak wrote:

My question: is this experience unusual?

I think this is close to my players. They were pretty blunt, though: "We're not buying new books, and we're not learning a new game." So, that was their minimum criteria. They know next to nothing about 4e itself, and they don't seem to care to know that much.

I don't want to spend money on 4e merely because I've sunk so much money into 3.x! To my right we see an entire bookshelf full of 3.x (and a few older) books that are still very useful and very fun.

Everyone in my circle of gamers is of the same mind. We've made this huge commitment to the game, not just in money but in time. There's still a lot of distance left in our books, we're still having lots of fun with the current edition of the game, and we don't see any reason to move on.

I kinda hope, for y'all that move on to the next edition, that WotC doesn't inundate you with the volume of books that it did for 3.x. I seem to remember them saying something about not doing that when they bought out TSR way back in the day...

MAC III wrote:

Antioch wrote:

There are plenty of other methods to social-RP aside from using a skill.

I guess so. But not in 4e, because it's a game that's whole purpose is to kill things and loot the bodies.

If you think so.

Apparently WotC thinks so, too ;)

WotC: "We aimed to remove the "an interesting PC or an effective PC" choices in the game."

SWEET! I can finally play in a game with dull, one-dimensional characters and have a mediocre time hanging out with my buddies. Sign me up!

Supposedly in 4th Edition, you can be a fighter, but still do other things besides hit things, which is really all a fighter is good for in 3rd Edition.

You seem to be arguing both sides with this one. Hmm...

With the right ability score assignment, feat choices, and skill choices, your fighter can do much more than hit things, and can be a very interesting character.

Of course, fighters are supposed to be combat specialists, it's kind of their thing. Sounds like 4e is trying to not just blur the lines between classes, but remove them.

In fact, they are trying to create a system that, from the sounds of it, more effectively uses those "new-fangled" Charisma skills that exist in 3E.

They are? Wow, I thought those skills were pretty effective in 3.5. In fact, I was pleased with how useful they made Charisma in 3.x.

There are plenty of other methods to social-RP aside from using a skill.

I guess so. But not in 4e, because it's a game that's whole purpose is to kill things and loot the bodies.

Barrow Wight wrote:

So take out anything that doesn't have to do with combat and let the NPCs at the towns do all that. Make sure you save your game before you turn it off.

Of course, if they remove rules that generally arent used anyway, that automatically makes it like a video game! Because, in every MMORPG I know of, there is some kind of craft system...but let's ignore that.

I dont get where you are equating removal of elements that arent used making it more like a...game? It is a game, right?

Oh wait, they are having non-combat stuff in the game, and that has been explained over and over again, but I suppose we can ignore that, since, you know, 2nd Edition didnt even have anything like that, and I'm sure you got by just fine.

In MMOs the only reason to use the craft systems is to create items that either buff your character/characters in your party or so that you can sell said items so you can purchase other stuff to buff your character. In D&D these skills can be used merely to flesh out your character.

YES, it is a game. But WotC is trying to make it very one-dimensional. It's not just about combat.

So take out anything that doesn't have to do with combat and let the NPCs at the towns do all that. Make sure you save your game before you turn it off.

My last character in 3.x was a psychic warrior whose father was the town taxidermist. He put lots of ranks into Craft/Taxidermy. And he hardly used the skill. When he did, it was merely to make something he could wear, like dragonskin boots and such. And at almost every level I chose to improve this skill.

Why? It didn't make him more effective in combat. It didn't give him more hit points. Hell, after about 3 levels I abandoned the idea of taking a feat that played off of this skill (Trophy Hunter, or something like that). But I still spent the points for his skill, and I still mentioned it now and again. Why?

I WAS ROLE-PLAYING!

It gave my character flavor beyond, "I can use my longspear to strike the grick for 1d8+x damage," or "I can use Tumble to avoid Aoo and get behind that demon." I was still very effective in combat, but I had something on my character sheet that rounded out my character and made him FUN TO PLAY and made him FUN FOR THE OTHER PLAYERS TO INTERACT WITH.

S~&@, it's a ROLE-PLAYING GAME. If your only concern is combat and treasure, go play XBox.

CEBrown wrote:

Much as I would LIKE to blame them for being greedy scum, I think this is a case of them trying to meet the demands of the public...

I'm sticking with greedy scum.

Nothing is stopping them from making half-orcs a free download -- except shameless, unbridled, unabashed, unrepentant greed.

Hmmm...so, it's like X-Box Live, where I can purchase downloadable content to expand my game? HOLY CRAP! If I wanted to play video games, I'd turn on my 360 or my Wii.

Thanks, WotC, for doing us dirty.

The thing that still amazes me is that they are trying to tell you what "fun" is, as if it were some universal truth.

The arrogance of their statement regarding the profession skill amazes me.

I don't understand how you can have a marketing campaign which is insulting to anyone who likes various aspects of the game they way this campaign is going. Why would you want to (potentially) insult your customers?

It's like saying, "your homebrew sucks - use our game worlds to ensure more fun."

It's a slap in the face. I seem to recall a great many fun game nights using 3.x game rules, in my homebrew campaign. I guess that wasn't "fun," at least according to WotC.

I feared when WotC bought out TSR all those years ago, and I swore that no good would come of this!

Well, whatever. I'll stick to my delusional version of "fun," and WotC can alienate myself, my family, and friends with 4e.

What edition of D&D do you currently expect to be playing at the end of 2008?

(Note: You may change your vote at any time!)

3.x

All the way.

4e can [censored].