NewtoPF's page

From a limited exposure stand point, I think they don't really detract because like several others have said it gives a visual representation along with some tactical allowance based on a visual representation of distance as opposed to the GM saying yes or no if you're in range because I had a GM who would always say no because I wanted to allow his monters to attack first or what have you.

Wow...I go to bed and sleep in and it turns into a pretty good discussion/debate. The first post was baited, my friends and I were drunk. It's also pretty accurate. The campaign lasted for six months because the GM left. This was about a month ago. Since then we have had a few Pathfinder sessions, two, and I am finding that I do enjoy it.

I came here with a questions. In pathfinder Im playing a combat cleric...I was really enthralled by the idea because normally I avoid clerics like the plague because some how my group always makes them out to be the generic band-aid station with a few offensive abilities but primarily their only purpose is to heal and buff. My question, good posters, is what is the most viable way to play an offensive sword-swinging cleric? I like the idea of going straight cleric and being the guy who swings a sword then calls the wrath of god down on my enemies, but looking at it, fighter is much better suited towards the combat aspect and pick up a few cross classes into cleric...or vice versa depending on how you want to look at it.

Yeah, I actually hate the dragonborn...I've hated them ever since they were in dragonlance...I never played DnD or anything before 4e, but I was a big fan of the forgotten realms fiction so I gave DragonLance a try...and while there were some really interesting elements, I loved the high magic setting with almost no real healing abilities at first, I really hated most of the enemies becuase it seemed to be ZOMG look at the half-dragons. Tieflings on the other hand are fun so eh.

Anyway, if someone could give me some tips for playing a more melee combat oriented character that would be awsome.

Oh, Aardvark Barbarian, +1 for the link.

Hello everyone,

My weekly gaming group plays DnD 4th edition, and have ever since we got together. It's the first table top role-playing game I have ever played, but since I play World of Warcraft it was so easy to learn and get into...it's like a pen and paper version of my favorite game of all time.

Anyway, a member of my group brought his Pathfinder book over tonight and after the session, where we finally finished a campaign we had been working on for the last six months, and asked if we could play Pathfinder next. I scanned through the book and was not really interested, it looks so...complicated and bland.

In fourth edition every class has its own set of unique powers, but the only classes with really cool powers in Pathfinder was the magical classes. Also, it looks like every build would be exactly the same in Pathfinder whereas in DnD 4e there are nearly unlimited options for character builds and the game doesn't stop at level 20 like Pathfinder does. For example, the rogue in DnD has so many options available to it and literally pages of powers to choose from, but with the Pathfinder rogue the options are much more limited, plus to be really powerful you have to pick up a prestige class, it's like...the base classes are not good enough on their own, you have to get this class to be really good. I mean, how do you define a character without these powers? With the exception of spellcasters, none of the other classes are really anything--they are just kinda there and adrift with no real purpose.

Also, with DnD 4e we have minis to represent everything, but there are no concrete rules in Pathfinder that I could find for using the minis in the game, so on that front it feels like Pathfinder is only half complete, what is gaming without having to use the minis--I can't imagine doing combat without the map and minis. Also, I love the skill challenge mechanic, it makes using skills feel like you are acomplishing something, but with Pathfinder I really can't find the point of ever using skills.

Also, I usually play a tiefling or half dragon characters, but none of these are in Pathfinder...it just feels so limited, like the creators of the game are saying, you can only use the traditional fantasy races. Plus, the game doesn't spell out the roles for each character. DnD tells me simply that the fighter's whole point is to soak up damage and keep the monsters from hitting the damage dealers, like the rogue and the wizards. With Pathfinder it looks like the Clerics, who are supposed to be healers, could run up and get into melee and slug it out with the bad guys. My point here is the characters lack any real definition as to their roles.

In addition, why are there multi-classing rules. Doesn't that further dilute the characters down because if you're a fighter/wizard you're not really able to totally fulfill your role as a tank or a dps-er.

In conclusion, most of my group seems to be for this, but I'm kind of against it. Can you guys help me out and tell me what the big deal about Pathfinder is because I don't get it. I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazing and some of the prestige classes are cool, but why not just make them base classes as to add more options to players.