Martin Gualdarrama's page

I have to agree that I think Fighters should get Perception as a class skill; Stealth, not really.

From the very first Assyrian regular soldier, to Greek hoplites, to Roman legionaries and Praetorian guardsmen, to Viking huscarls, to mediaevel men-at-arms & palace guardsmen, to renaissance musketeers & mercenaries, to modern (1700's to present) soldiers, all of these have stood guard as sentries and piquets over their fellows. These duties have been performed in defensive positions, forward staging areas, in the line of battle itself (during lulls in the fighting), and if they were really lucky, for their leaders in the capitals of their respective nations. So I think it is safe to say that for time immemorial, Fighters have stood watch as part of their regular duties.

Perception, to me, also includes situational awareness. This is also what troops have always strived for: to know what is going on around them in battle. It is for this purpose (as well as to improve airflow for easier breathing) that we have seen the evolution of the helmet. The great helm was eventually discarded in favour of visored helmets, salets, and basinets, all of which offered much better visibility.

Now, for those who say that Perception should be a class skill to only Rangers and Rogues, I would say that these were specialist troops (or auxiliaries) that were available in far fewer numbers than Fighters. Their other skills would dictate that they be given more specialized taskings, and therefore not be as readily available to use as sentries or guards as Fighters were. Such taskings might be to infiltrate a castle under siege, eliminate the sentries, lower the drawbridge, and hold it until relieved by assaulting troops, thus breaking the siege. Maybe to slip into an enemy camp/town and kidnap/assassinate someone or steal something in a completely covert manner. Or to locate and maintain contact with/observation of a mobile enemy force, and pass on the information to the command authority in a timely fashion.

Stealth...

The average guard putting ranks into perception but not getting it as a class skill is not at a disadvantage to the average fighter sneaking into the camp as they don't get stealth as a class skill....

Now those rare specialty troops sneak in and do all the harm cause there aren't usually enough specialty troops to guard against them as you so pointed out.

BTW most sentries aren't fighters either as the bulk of the fighting troops are Warriors not fighters. Fighters tend to be the leaders and the elite troops... and i don't know too many nations (the Mongols being an exception) that used thier elite troops as night sentries.

It is a combat feat, though. You can't use any other combat feat while you're using it. A problem with rogues being overpowered is a problem with rogue, and not with this feat. I won't argue that there's a problem with rogues at the moment.

The "Combat Trick" rogue talent turns their adorable little Rogue Abilities into Fighter Feats With more Options, which isn't a good move if they're going to get them so often (every second level).

The thing about combat feats is that you have to look at the other combat feats that you're "losing out on" by using this one all the time - and if you aren't using it all the time, then you're going to want to have a second weapon that doesn't suck, otherwise there two weapon feats don't quite "pay for themselves."

I don't see the pont of taking this feat unless you are going to use it alot... again a rogue optimized to use two-weapon tree would unbalance this feat... so since that is just a specific concern about one class you will notice I have not said this feat needs to be removed. Just bringing up that specific concern which isn't all that big of a deal.

And you need a combat feat for when your moving (in which case you are usually only getting a main hand attack anyway).

Don't change sneak attack.

they already have

Paris Crenshaw wrote:

I think that the identification function of Spellcraft can be rolled into Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), and Knowledge (nature) skills, depending on the source of magical power.

This is bad.

If this is the system, when you ask a player to roll a check to identify something, you'll be 'advertising' what it is he is identifying by asking for the particular check. So, if your player sees a spell he doesn't know, and you ask for a knowledge (religion) check, you're inadverdently telling him that it is a divine spell.

The knowledge skills already have this problem. Roll a knowledge (planes) check. Hey guys, I failed the check, but it's probably a demon or devil - either way, good is the way to go.

I believe the poster meant the source of power of the caster: Know(nature) for druids/ranger, Know(religon) for clerics/paladins, Know(arcana) for wizards/sorcerors. I could be wrong on his intent however.

The repeated references to real world religous beliefs in discussing the code of conduct for paladins can be construed as offensive by thier followers... so maybe we should avoid it.

In gurps fantasy they explain that gunpowder has been invented at least 3 times but whenever it happens and mages hear about it they wipe out the inventor and anyone he might have taught. Guns do make an unskilled peasant a match for an armored knight or wizard so it stands to reason that the knights and wizards would stop it from being used as weapons.

Yes... the aristocracy of europe did a real good job of keeping the guns out of the hands of the peasants.... and no offense to Steve Jackson, I don't play GURPS.

And remember, backward compatability (that tiny little thing Paizo promised)... there are still people playing Spelljammer or who want to play in FR but not 4e.... there is gunpowder in both those campaign worlds.

My MAJOR problem with Bards is that they can't learn new spells from their travels like Bards in 2nd edition could.

I'd be infinitely more happy with them if you made it so that Bards could actually learn new spells like wizards instead of like sorcerers. I mean, sorcerers learn magic the way they do because they've got some sort of weird bloodline in them. But Bards don't have that distinction, but carry the same limitation.

I'd like to see Bards be the skill monkey/utilitarian jack-of-all-trades they really should be. I'm not married to the whole idea of singing in the middle of battle, but I can overlook that if you fix the other major problems with them.

No arcanist in my any of my parties since 3.5 started have taken the wizard... yes the sorcerer knows less spells but he can bloody cast more of them...and then for the arcanist are only good for blasting types, the warmage is a sorceror with armor to boot.

I don't know. I can see a Fire Giant taking a dip in an evening Lava bath, and that's up to 120 points of fire damage there. Same goes for red dragons and the like.

If you can point me to non-epic spells/effects that can exceed 120 points, I'll consider dropping immunity. Until then, I don't see why it should be reduced. [/QUOTE

A wizard with 9th level slots and energy admixture metamagic feat could cast a CONE OF COLD (ENERGY ADMIXTURE: COLD)that deals 30d6 of cold damage for a possible (but not likely) 180pts of damage.