OneWinged4ngel's page

That made much more sense.

...No, no it didn't.

A while Back I found the following loosly base on the palladium AL system I like it as a guild line and have been using it in my games for a while now

THOUGHTS ON ALIGNMENTS
By
Steven Wright
<amadeus@uniserve.com>
Hi everybody,
So far a lot of discussion has been going on focusing on alignments, so
I decided to post something my players and I put together. We drew on t
from parts of alignments from Palladium books and things we could come u
p with ourselves. Essentially what it is the code that the various alignments play in everyday life. As always not everyone is always good
or always evil so some variation is allowed.
LAWFUL GOOD characters will
1. Always keep their word
2. Avoid lies (unless absolutely necessary)
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe
4. Never harm an innocent
5. Never torture for any reason
6. Never kill for" pleasure; will always attempt to bring the villain
to Justice
7. Always help others
8. Work well in a group
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor
10. Never betrays a friend
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no breaking and entering, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc.
LAWFUL EVIL characters will
1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable)
2. Lie to and cheat to those not worthy of his respect
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe
4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly children
5. Never kills for pleasure
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although Distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information
7. Never torture for pleasure
8. May or may not help someone in need
9. Work with others to attain his goals
10. Respects honor and self-discipline
11. Never betray a friend
LAWFUL NEUTRAL characters will
1. Always keep his word
2. Avoid lies
3. Not kill an unarmed foe (unless under orders to do so)
4. Not kill or harm an innocent (unless under orders to do so)
5. Only help those in need if the law or...

Wow, I don't think we could ask for a better example of how NOT to do it. Yeesh.

A class is a combination of abilities that fit a theme.

One of the nice things about 3.5 is that you can bring more to your character than just the class abilities. For example, all Rangers have certain 'core aspects' in common. They all have a Fighting Style, they all have Track, and they all have Favored Enemies. Now, they also get feats every three levels.

These feats let a player 'break' the stereotype to a degree. And that is a good thing. Not every Ranger SHOULD be like every other ranger.

So, allowing a class to purchase a skill without the +3 class bonus means that you could have fighters using wands. It is a resource allocation, and it means they're not allocating that resource to something else. And a fighter that has lots of ranks in Use Magic Device may very well be different than one that has lots of ranks in Climb. The explanation for those differences is part of what makes the game appealing.

Except, you know, UMD is far better than just about every other skill.

I'm about 1/2-way thru reading right now, but I had a question. What do the MAD and SAD acronymns mean?

Multiple Attribute Dependency and Single Attribute Dependency.

In some systems, you would be able to achieve extra effects with rolls by raising the target DC. Thus, for example, you could do extra damage if you voluntarily counted the enemy's AC as being higher. The idea is that you're taking a harder shot for extra effects.

D&D already has something sort of like a limited form of this in the form of Power Attack .

It's sometimes risky to refer to one's own essay as being "acclaimed," but in this case, Krome liked it enough that the descriptor is retroactively appropriate. Well done!

Hah, well, it got a lot of acclaim on other boards, and is in a lot of people's sigs. I thought that justified the claim.

It's like every philosophy article I've ever read: the stuff that I agree with seems pretty obvious

Oh, I agree. But I've long since learned that stuff that seems obvious to me isn't obvious to everyone else, so I threw this together a while ago.

I'm not sure I agree with the begining of ths work. One good reason for a class is the setting. If I play dragonlance, I want to play a knight of solomnia, not a figher or paladin pretending to be knight. More has to go into class creation then what you have there.

I think that would go under filling a niche. But that is my interpretation.

It would.

Well, generally, a base class should be versatile enough to cover a variety of concepts. If it doesn't cover a specific campaign-setting related concept, you can usually solve it more aptly with a few new feats, a variant, or a prestige class than with a whole new, narrowly defined class serving to fill a single fluff niche. I'm not familiar with a Knight of Solomnia, but I doubt it's an exception. If it is an exception, though, it would be an example of filling a new niche, as Krome pointed out, which I already said was a good justification for making a new class.

agreed....but Im not for the controlled lockstep that 4e is...rather give me a psuedo balanced game like 3.5 (or 3.5P now) and let me do my own flare to make sure the games are fun and balanced.

:D

Oh, I agree. Fascilitating creative freedom is at least as important as balance. You don't have to create a controlled lockstep to maintain balance, though. And 4e isn't balanced, so I really wish people would stop acting like it was and then blaming 4e's faults on "balance" when that has nothing at all to do with it. :-\

There is a *huge* difference between saying "how can I balance these two options" and "hey, why worry about balancing these options when we can just reduce it to one option?"

Yes, yes and yes. The DM has been, is and will be the greatest unknown factor of this game. A Great DM can turn it into something magical, and a poor one can make you curse. This keys into what I said earlier, a DM can make anything balanced.

I...

And a good, balanced, fun, versatile, powerful system will make it all that easier for that DM to make things magical. "A great DM can make it good" is not an excuse to slack on design.

I've never played in a pbp game, but it sounds fun. In case you didn't notice there is a section on the boards "Gamer Connection" where you could try to get a game together.

I intend to run a real-time chat game on OpenRPG a free, downloadable virtual tabletop program, not a pbp game.

Game Balance is more than class vs class.

Far, far more, in fact. Game balance permeates just about every aspect of the game.

I wish he still posted.

You and me both. It offends and appalls me that Paizo would kick such a constructive poster off their board.

I am thinking of using Pathfinder to run an Eberron campaign. Has anyone tried this already, and if so how well did it work out.

I'm actually looking to play in or DM an Eberron campaign online with 3.P, if anyone's interested.

"OneWinged4ngel wrote:

(Though, it is worth noting that I've also seen an inexperienced player behind the wheels of a bard being about as effective as a chicken with its head cut off. But really, the same can be said of any class. I've seen an ARTIFICER look like a chicken with its head cut off too. I measure whether a class is good or not by what a competent person can do with it)

Amen, brother werecorpse! LOL still!

Uhm, you realize it was me, not werecorpse, who said that right? I mean, that's my name above the post. See where it says that? Right there? "OneWinged4ngel"?

Seriously, how do you make that mistake?

As I pointed out in that other thread, one significant difference in Pathfinder's Diplomacy skill is that you can only shift attitudes by 2 steps and you can no longer rush that aspect of Diplomacy.

As an experiment, though, here's a build:

Half-elf Cleric 10 (Glory, Good)
18 Cha, +2 Cha item, Skill Focus (Diplomacy), 10 ranks => +21 modifier
Glory domain => +31 modifier
Good domain => +41 modifier

A +41 modifier is enough to automatically convince an Indifferent creature (base DC 15) to give dangerous aid (+10 DC) that could result in punishment (+15 DC), for instance.

Still, it's only a band-aid on a gaping wound. Also, there are more interesting ways diplomacy could be run than "you change your attitude mode."

I saw Interest2's build: it uses 10 classes, Book of Exalted Deeds, paragon levels, substitutions levels, non PhB domains, base 18 charisma, +53 from an item familiar and an item, and psionics. You'll forgive me if I don't find that an especially convincing argument against diplomacy. That guy would be a burden to his party for a long time, especially if everyone else gets to twink out.

I wasn't referring to Interest2's build at all. That's just the (old, I think) world record diplomacy holder. Why are we talking about that? It doesn't take a world record for diplomacy to be broken. Heck, all you need is a level 2 core only half-elf bard.

I am not aware of the CharOp boards but it doesnt sound like any of these characters were Bards- as per the PHB. It sounds like a bunch of other character/prestige class levels with a bit of Bard.

Not true at all. Fascinate abuse is core bard. Inspire Courage pumping doesn't take any other class but Bard. Diplomancy comes from a level 2 bard. And hey, all it takes to give the Bard 9th level spells is TWO levels in a Prestige Class: Sublime Chord.

Such builds no more mean a Bard is balanced than the existence of a pizza means that cheese is a balanced diet.

Who said the bard was BALANCED? I certainly never made any such claim. The class is chock full of balance flaws. They just aren't "he's puny overall."

Yes, they finally released enough splats to make Bards awesome. That and Diplomacy is broken as written in 3.5, which Bards can exploit quite well.

Yes, Diplomacy is one of the few things that truly deserves the Broken label. It's on the CharOp campaign smasher list thread next to Pun Pun himself. Definitely something Pathfinder needs to fix! Because, unlike Pun Pun, it's actually a gamebreaker lodged into the common, basic rules rather than some easily vetoed combo like Pun Pun. A rare exception to the "most broken stuff usually isn't as much of a problem as simply unbalanced stuff" idea.

For example, take the 3.x bard. A common argument against the idea that the bard is underpowered is that, though they're useless in combat

Please, spare us. I'm sorry, but I just HAVE to nitpick this. This is an outdated and frankly unsupported opinion. To quote from the CharOp boards "the old-fashioned notion that the bard is underpowered has long since fallen out of style here."

There's the "fights better than the fighter" bard build, the "casts better than the sorceror" bard build, and of course the diplomancers. The thing is, some of the most powerful builds in the game, including the charop gold standard caster buffer, are *bard builds.* I can give you examples ranging from the 9th level maneuvers TWF blender with swift action songs that give him +16d6 energy damage to all attacks (dragonfire inspiration / song of the white raven bard) to the 9th level arcane casting buff king (sublime chord / war weaver). Not to mention just the bare bones Fascinate abuse or +8 attack and damage Inspire Courage by level 8.

The bard is only weak if you try to make him a jack of all trades. Bards are good at specialization.

The bard isn't weak. He's poorly balanced, and his ability progression is haphazard, and his choices aren't balanced against each other, but he's certainly not WEAK. Heck, in my experience, an experienced player behind the wheels of a bard often results in one of, if not *the,* most dangerous character in the party.

(Though, it is worth noting that I've also seen an inexperienced player behind the wheels of a bard being about as effective as a chicken with its head cut off. But really, the same can be said of any class. I've seen an ARTIFICER look like a chicken with its head cut off too. I measure whether a class is good or not by what a competent person can do with it)

Yes, balance really is all that important. It is a core aspect of good game design. That doesn't mean it's the only one, though.

I thing overemphasizing balance issues leads to one conclusion: A game that doesn't feel like D&D.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you're attributing other flaws in the game to an obsession with balance. 4e isn't perfectly balanced. I wouldn't even say it was WELL balanced. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yes, it's harder to break wide open than 3e, but that doesn't mean that it's well balanced. In fact, one could easily make the argument that "game-breaking" balance issues are actually far less problematic than simpler "this choice is better than this choice" or "this concept isn't viable" imbalances. Such things affect actual games more strongly than, say, Pazuzu Pun Pun, and are significantly harder to eradicate through DM mitigation.

I'm really sick of hearing this "4e balance" thing. It's just not true. For one, there's a laundry list of balance issues with 4e. And for two, it's not good game balance that causes 4e's other flaws. The blame is misplaced here, even if WotC may have created these flaws in the *name* of game balance.

Game balance is a wonderful thing that all game designers should strive for. It's vitally important. But so are other aspects of RPG design, like maintaining and facilitating freedom of creativity.

No, I don't believe that a failure to apply what one person decides is a "logical argument" makes another person's ideas worthless

Neither do I. Are you sure you're reading what I'm saying? I said that the minute you correlate some unrelated personal flaw to the validity of someone's argument, you're committing a logical fallacy. Again, we seem to be agreeing, but you don't seem to realize it :-\

You saying I am a horrible scientist, and thus illogical under your definition of the term, does not mean that my argument is without merit or has been refuted.

Again, I agree completely. I said the same thing. Three times now, actually.

but relying on that to "prove" the superiority of your argument is not a logical place to rest your argument.

I said as much. A few times now. I'm not sure why you think this position is in disagreement with mine.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

Here's where I have a bone to pick. If someone is an alcoholic, I'm going to call them an alcoholic. If someone beats their children, I'm not going to pretend that I'd entrust my child to their care. If someone's an idiot, I'm not going to entrust them with a task suitable for Albert Einstein.

The problem is the correlation between "you're an alcoholic, child beating idiot and thus your ideas are worthless." That's a fallacious argument. I have no problem with the names, just the correlation.

It would be relevent if: 1) I was an alcoholic, 2) I actually beat children, 3) I was an idiot. In my case, I rarely drink, would rather die than hurt a child, and am sitting for the Bar exam after getting Cum Laude for Lawschool. I may be evil, but not for the first two reasons and am definitely not stupid.

My point was that by calling me things you think may apply because of your perception of the (il)logic behind my statements, you do not address the logic of my statement itself. You just avoid the task of debating with someone who disagrees with you and return to childish forms of debate.

Mudsling does not equal logical behavior.
Logical debate does.

That's... just what I said. Again, it is the CORRELATION that makes it a fallacious ad hominem argument. Saying that your idea is wrong because of "alleged unrelated character flaw XYZ."

You seem to be agreeing with me here :-\

Saying you diagree with me because of facts X,Y,&Z is ok.
Saying I'm a alcoholic, child beating, idiot and thus my ideas are worthless is not.

Here's where I have a bone to pick. If someone is an alcoholic, I'm going to call them an alcoholic. If someone beats their children, I'm not going to pretend that I'd entrust my child to their care. If someone's an idiot, I'm not going to tell them they have an IQ of 150.

The problem is the correlation between "you're an alcoholic, child beating idiot and thus your ideas are worthless." That's a fallacious argument. I have no problem with the names, just the correlation.

Be that as it may, when you reduce yourself to alleging that your debat opponent is a "poor scientist" and thus "a failure of a human" you do not win any logical arguments.

Actually, I would be being hypocritical if I were to say that I didn't think poor scientists (in the sense of not being able to use logical reasoning, etc) were failures of human beings. I've said so on many occasions, though rarely on public forums. I don't exactly see where that opinion entails any logical faults. In fact, you seem to be saying that it's just a "bad idea" and thus wrong. :(

Godwin's law...

As to the ability to share bad ideas, welcome to the concept behing the 1st Amendment (which does not apply to private messageboards), that ideas can and should be expressed even when they are regarded as unpopular.

Turn the situation around. If 90% of Paizo's board thought your ideas were "stupid" and "illogical" would you want them repressed.

A poor example on my part. Apologies.

Additionally, I'll repeat, if you can't address a person's argument in a logical manner without resulting to name calling or personal attacks, then you really should not be debating the topic.

I've had my arguments with Frank, and I generally saw more logical reasoning out of his counterarguments than I did with most other posters.

He never said anything about refuting a statement someone makes.

Yes he did. That's what "discrediting" is!

When I refute an argument successfully, I discredit it, and to some extent the person who made that argument. That's what happens in a refutation.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

HUH? Good ideas are good behavior. Not having good ideas is bad behavior. Get rid of the people with bad ideas!

Sharing good ideas is good behavior.

Sharing bad ideas is good behavior, even if they are bad ideas.

Questioning a person's intelligence and then insulting them because they disagree with you is not good behavior.

That just sounds so horribly twisted and morally wrong to me.

So, apparently, I can go around spreading nazi ideals, and that's good behavior, because it's spreading a bad idea. But I can't so much as question someone's great intelligence when they prove to be incredibly and destructively stupid. We have to treat everyone like they're the smartest person in the world. Not to mention that we can't "insult" anyone, and then considering that people can be insulted by ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, seeing as what's insulting is completely a matter of individual perception on the receiving end (which is potentially just about "the whole wired world" on the internet), and moreover that a great many people are insulted just by the very idea of being disagreed with, that would basically mean it's bad behavior to DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE. So you better not do that either.

If society worked like that, society wouldn't EXIST any more.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Good ideas do not make up for bad behavior.

HUH? Good ideas are good behavior. Not having good ideas is bad behavior. Get rid of the people with bad ideas!

Driving other posters from a thread and these boards with your posts is not acceptable, even if your ideas are fantastic. This does not just apply to Frank either.

I'm sorry, but bad ideas are far more likely to drive me from this board than someone failing to meet strict pretenses of "politeness."

So, if I leave the board because someone's stupid ideas offends me so much, will they get banned? I doubt it. And thus, this doesn't seem like justifying logic to me.

If you can't do that without discrediting someone else or insulting other posters, then perhaps you should hold off on posting until you can.

Wow, am I actually reading this? "If you can't do that without discrediting someone else." Are you kidding me? This is actually saying that it's BAD BEHAVIOR to EXPOSE A FLAW IN SOMEONE'S REASONING OR ARGUMENT. That's right, you can't prove someone wrong. Your idea can't demonstrate how another idea is bad.

I mean, if we take that logic to its conclusion, I can count a large number of other posters who should immediately get a suspension.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

hogarth wrote:

He wasn't banned for the constructive parts of his posts.

Well, then what the HECK would they ban him for? He seemed to be, again, thoroughly constructive every time I spoke with the man, even if we disagree on a number of things.

As far as I know Frank Trollman became involved in an arguement which became too personal with another member of these boards, and both parties were given a one week suspension from posting. Frank Trollman has elected not to post on the Paizo boards since, as far as is known, although some of his friends are still occasionally sighted making posts, so presumably he remains informed of what is passing.

So he's not banned, then? They just drove him off? Still a horrid pity, but doesn't worry me half as much.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

Well, then what the HECK would they ban him for?

Read all about it here...

While I haven't read every post in that thread as of the moment I post this, I don't see a good justification there either.

I can't accept that such a good poster should be banned just because some people can't take a few blunt words. If that's how things are, they'll boot ME, cuz I don't tend to mince words either. I don't see the value in beating around the bush and skirting around the point or dancing around with social niceties for half a post just to make extra sure that some idiot doesn't feel like an idiot when they're shown to be wrong.

As for Frank, there's a LONG thread with people requesting a temp ban (and that's all it was, 1/2 weeks) on Frank along with reasons and examples.

Well, I haven't seen it, and I can't think of one reason.

... I use your rebalanced paladin (or at least I did, no one in my current campaign wanted to use paladin so I haven't needed to choose between it and Pathfinder's).

Heh, well I'm glad you like it, even if I never did get around to finishing it.

He wasn't banned for the constructive parts of his posts.

Well, then what the HECK would they ban him for? He seemed to be, again, thoroughly constructive every time I spoke with the man, even if we disagree on a number of things.

Eek, am I hearing this right? They banned Frank?

Geez, this feels just like WotC. Why would they ban such a thoroughly constructive poster?

This really puts a damper on my dim hope that this might be a savior in the face of 4e. This decision just seems to defy any kind of logic whatsoever.

Why, Paizo, WHY!? I mean, it just makes no sense at all to prevent some of the best minds from participating. Now I'm afraid I'm going to be banned too @_@

My suggestion: Take a note from Eberron's cleric modifications.

Boom, problem SOLVED.

It would be a great idea if Pathfinder have a guid to create characters : how to choose race, wich class, why, wich feat, wich skill...

For new players it's very important to create a nice character in "short" time.

Example :

If you want to be someone how life in forest, use bow and is very skilled, do a Ranger, human or elf. This feat is recomended (....), and this skill...

I think you may be underestimating how much space would be required by a decent chargen guide.

Markus:

Yeah, the boards software sucks.

Hah, yeah, that's quickly become apparent, sadly :(

My boilerplate response to paladin code discussions.

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment, and abide by a higher standard of morals and honor than the average Good-aligned person. Indeed, she is the paragon of heroic Good, drawn to a higher cause. Truly she is a person of high calibre, moral and otherwise.

There is a code of conduct presented in the PHB, but it really is better classified as an example of a generic paladin's vows and code. However, in your game being a paladin may mean quite a different thing altogether! After all, not all settings are the same, nor are all paladins. They serve various causes and deities, and the nature of Good and Evil is not always so stereotypically straightforward in all settings. Your code should represent the beliefs of your church or cause or whatever it is you, as a paladin, fight for!

Talk with your DM about what it means to be a paladin in your campaign, and the implications of it. If you are the DM, consider this, and what it really to be the paragon of good in your campaign. It should be noted that a single mistake or lack of perfection should not make a paladin fall. Indeed, is it not the lack of perfection and ultimately human(oid) nature of such a heroic figure that makes him all the more endearing and, truly, notable in calibre? After all, any old celestial can be perfect, but a man has to work for it.

Instead, the paladin falls from grace if she grossly violates her code (as stated, yet all too often overlooked, in the PHB. This means that some minor infraction would *not* make the Paladin fall), or if she changes alignment from Lawful Good. Your alignment should be your overall personality and outlook, not the result of the last action you took (although that last action *could* be considered to grossly violate the paladin's code, of course. The paladin's code is not synonymous with alignment). It should be extremely rare for a single act to alter your alignment, and it certainly shouldn't be so if the act was not done with wrongful intentions. Alignment changes should usually be the result of fairly consistent behavior of a character.

PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOUR OWN MORAL STANDARDS OR NARROW VIEW OF WHAT A PALADIN SHOULD BE ONTO THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GAME. And yes, I think the caps are justified there. It makes me sick when I read things like "Your paladin is wrong if you don't fall for disobeying one of the Ten Commandments." Ugh. The game is supposed to be designed with everyone's Pathfinder games in mind, not just yours.

Facilitating creative freedom should be a primary goal of Pathfinder.

Also, some ideas for various paladin codes:

http://www.dndarchive.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=370

aaaand...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=936469

If that doesn't instill in you the notion that you should be able to switch around the paladin code rather than having some hardcoded anachronistic opinionated shill, I don't know what will.

'm all for that - if your idea of streamlining isn't the same as in 4e: "Let's cut all those options, they slow down play".

My idea of streamlining is not the same as 4e. I gave examples of my ideas expressly to dispel that potential misinterpretation of my intentions.

The versatility of the system and its ability to facilitate creative freedom are more or less my top priorities.

I think you'll find a lot of these things were already done, or at least started. Look around a bit (e.g. look at my attempt for multiclassing rules), and then throw out your ideas and see what grows out of them with the help of the community.

Some, maybe, but I think there's much more than can be done.

And don't forget, poor execution of a fix with good underlying ideas can be worse than the original problem! 4e itself has examples of this in spades.

Anyways, right now I'm wondering where the heck to start XD

There's a big obssession with 'balance' in 4e.

And for all that that's said, 4e is NOT balanced. Not even close. Just take a look at the CharOp boards already.

For all their claims of balance, all they did in many places was gut out a lot of the game, restrict your options, and dumb the game down *without any good reason.* And still end up with an unbalanced game.

Anyways, that said, balance is an important design goal, but one should not lose sight of other aspects of good game design in its pursuit. It's one thing to balance two choices against each other. It's another to say "hey, why bother balancing these two choices against each other? Let's just axe one of the choices. Problem solved."

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

A more even progression, setting the system to "3/4 average," would be...

d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3
d10 = d6+4
d12 = d7+5

This is the same as saying "you reroll everything below the halfway mark."

Quoting from my own house rule list:

-Hit dice are rolled for each level. However, characters may reroll hit dice that are lower than half the maximum for their die. E.g. Wizards reroll 1s, rogues rerolls 1s and 2s, rangers reroll 1s, 2s, and 3s, fighters reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s, and barbarians reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s. This way, no one gets screwed on hp, but no one gets favored more by the odds.

I actually went out of my way to not incorperate non-existant dice into any system i came up with as i feel they just complicate matters.

HUH? Did you not notice that my system did *not* use nonexistant dice, but instead just used the same ones originally used to generate the scores? Please read my entire post before replying...

No. Wizards were designed to be bad-arsed at higher levels because they were so boned at the lower ones. They want to be able to Gate powerful outsiders while the now secondary fighters mops up the attacking ogres.

And this is a really bad design choice because...

Uneven progressions suck. There are two common sides of the coin here. There's toploading, and there's the "suck now, but own later" mentality. Both of these ideas generally suck. Toploading is bad because it means that most of your class's progression is actually useless (for instance, the Swashbuckler is often considered a 3-level long class. The other 17 levels are wasted). And "pay for it now for power later" and similar such uneven progressions *really* don't actually work that way in play. Sure, many PrCed up gish builds will be pretty lame at low level, and killer at higher level, but the reality is that most campaigns aren't actually played from levels 1-20. They'll be more like "5-12" or "1-14" or "12-18" or whatever. So that "evening out cost and benefit over levels" doesn't really exist. Making a class good at one level and crappy at another is a bad thing. Ideally, a class progression should be as even as possible and a class should contribute to the party in a level-appropriate way at *every* level. No more, no less. It doesn't actually have to be perfect... but it should be a fairly even progression of cool class features.

I think this honorable Crane puts it fairly well here.

DaidojiTaidoru Quote:

Spoiler:

DaidojiTaidoru;13026219 wrote:

"Suck Now Rule Later" and it's reverse are poor points of game balance and design. Even assuming that all games run from levels 1 to 20 (wildly untrue), and that the characters remain the same throughout all 20 levels (often untrue) that still means that only half your players are having fun at any given point in your campaign, and the others are only hanging on in hopes they'll get a moment to shine at some point via DM intervention. Your players should enjoy every fight they meet and consider every challenge interesting, not singlehandedly win the first 3 fights of the day and stand around useless for fight number 4.

I would also note that Wizards certainly are *not* boned at low levels. They're just not *as* amazingly good as they are later, and it takes a bit more thought to make them run the show.

My acclaimed article about good class design guidelines, reposted because you guys asked me to. Hope it's helpful. Please forgive any oddities in the formatting, they result from the differences between forums. Any advice on that front would definitely be appreciated, by the way...

___

Many people go about creating new classes all the time, but a lot of them aren't particularly good. Here, I'm going to examine a few of the elements of what I view to be good class design, and hopefully help a few people out (since they seem to keep asking me for help in this regard). I would love to get some feedback here to make this guide more complete and better able to communicate its points.

Ultimately, this guide should help people to create fun and balanced classes, while avoiding common pitfalls.

Is there a reason to create a new class?
This is one that people miss out on a lot. I can't count the number of classes I've seen on these boards that actually served very little purpouse, because oftentimes the exact same concept could be managed by existing classes (and done with similar or sometimes better mechanical elegance).

In order for a base class to be a solid new addition to the roster, it has to do at least one of two things:

It must either
A) Fill a new niche. For example, the Artificer fills the item creation and use niche as a class, where previously that was never the focus of any base class.
or B) Be mechanically original. For example, while the Warblade fills the "Fighter" niche, it does so in a new and mechanically unique and elegant way.

If it doesn't do either of these things, it may as well not exist.

This post from Tempest Stormwind helps to illustrate my point:

((Note: This forum doesn't seem to allow nested spoilers, so please note that everything between the "I" border used to be inside of one spoiler box))

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Tempest Stormwind Quote:

For example...

To illustrate further, here's some WotC examples:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

^--It also covers my next point a bit.

Mechanics for mechanics' sake is bad. Seriously. People add little +1s and -1s and tiny little details that don't actually affect the character much based on this and that, and bog it down (and actually can limit the versatility of the character concepts it can fill), when you actually don't need any new mechanics. Some good examples of "mechanics for mechanics sake" are actually some classes that have received high acclaim from some, but criticism from board veterans like myself and Tempest Stormwind, such as Szatany's classes and Frasmage's Gemini Dancer. This is largely because the presentation looks good, but the underlying mechanics are actually rather unnecessary.

Basically, mechanics should have some meaning and significance. They should do something you care about, instead of bogging down the system.

Dead levels suck.
Make sure the player gets something new every level. The reason for this is simple and straightforward: No one wants to take a level where there is no benefit, and moreover dead levels are boring and just plain not fun. Even if it's something minor, you should at least put *something* to fill the void. Ideally, you should be giving a fairly even progression of cool class features.

It is worth noting that gaining a level of spells or something is *NOT* a dead level, because a level of spells actually represents an array of new class features. In fact, it often represents a larger array of new class features at the new level than many other classes get. Don't confuse "class features" with "entries in the special column," because it's just not true. It's also worth noting that if you have a lot of abilities that scale by level, it can also be acceptable to have a few seemingly "dead" levels, since you're actually getting something nifty at those levels even if you don't see it right there in the special column. A bad dead level is one where you're basically the same guy as you were at the last level, except with a bit higher numbers.

You should feel more powerful, more versatile, and generally cooler at every level. A player should not be doing just the same old thing, except with slightly higher numbers.

Tempest helps to clarify, here:

Tempest Stormwind Quote:

Uneven progressions suck. There are two common sides of the coin here. There's toploading, and there's the "suck now, but own later" mentality. Both of these ideas generally suck. Toploading is bad because it means that most of your class's progression is actually useless (for instance, the Swashbuckler is often considered a 3-level long class. The other 17 levels are wasted). And "pay for it now for power later" and similar such uneven progressions *really* don't actually work that way in play. Sure, many PrCed up gish builds will be pretty lame at low level, and killer at higher level, but the reality is that most campaigns aren't actually played from levels 1-20. They'll be more like "5-12" or "1-14" or "12-18" or whatever. So that "evening out cost and benefit over levels" doesn't really exist. Making a class good at one level and crappy at another is a bad thing. Ideally, a class progression should be as even as possible and a class should contribute to the party in a level-appropriate way at *every* level. No more, no less. It doesn't actually have to be perfect... but it should be a fairly even progression of cool class features.

I think this honorable Crane puts it fairly well here.

DaidojiTaidoru Quote:

Make the class for everyone who's going to use it, not just you. Basically, this follows a principle that when designing something for public consumption, you want to make it adaptable to everyone's needs. A class shouldn't look like "your specific character's build choices." It should be able to embody a variety of concepts. Writing extensive fluff on the history of some order and the exact way a certain character fights and so forth doesn't actually make for a better class in any way. We've all seen these classes that look like one guy's character, instead of a real base class that can be adapted to a variety of concepts.

Keep it flexible in build. Building on the last point, a class should provide many "viable" build options, allowing it to embody a variety of concepts. With a look at the Wizard, we can see that you can make a tricky illusionist, a war wizard that makes buildings explode, a calculating seer, or a thousand other concepts. Where possible, you shouldn't be restricting the sort of concepts you can use with the class.

Give it options in play. Using the same tactic over and over is boring. If you're a trip fighter with that one trick (trip, trip, trip) then your gameplay is going to become more monotonous. By contrast, the Warblade introduces more versatility and options into every battle.

This is notably distinct from versatility in build. Versatility in build refers to the ability of a Fighter to be built in many different ways, but versatility in play refers to have many options of actions available to you during play.

Plot writing abilities SUCK. Just don't do it. This is a no-no. When I say "plot writing" abilities, I mean stuff like the HORRIBLE Thunder Guide class in the Explorer's Handbook where you get abilities like "Serial Hero: At 8th level, famed Korranberg Chronicle reporter Kole Naerrin writes a serialized account of your adventures appearing over the course of thirteen weeks. You earn 1000 gp per point of your charisma bonus for the rights to your story (minimum 1000gp)." Seriously, WTF? "A guy writes a book about you" isn't a class ability. A class ability is supposed to be some ability that your character has, not something that happens in the plot.

This PrC from the Dungeonomicon parodies the plot-writing abilities and "The class is actually just my specific character put into a progression" problems that we see *alarmingly* often, which is just stupid.

Dungeonomicon Quote:

MAD isn't a bad thing.
Now, before you say "What? zomgwtf? MAD makes you weaker!" Well, yes, it does. However, SAD is actually a problem, while MAD is probably a good thing. Allowing a person to excel in different ways by excelling in different stats increases his customizability and versatility in build, which is a good thing. A world where everyone invests in and only cares about the same stat is *not* such a good thing. This goes back to the "make the class versatile in build" point.

Allowing for decent multiclassing is a good thing, too.
You know what's annoying about a lot of full spellcasters? They kinda just feel cheated when you multiclass 'em most of the time. This isn't fun... it impedes on the "make it versatile in build" principle. By contrast, we see a more elegant multiclassing mechanic in Tome of Battle classes, where your maneuvering abilities don't just become completely obsolete if you decide to take a few levels at level 7 or 8 (As opposed to getting magic missile at level 9 with a caster level of 1).

Thankfully, they've got a few PrCs and a feat or two (like Practiced Spellcaster) to mitigate the multiclassing issue of some classes, but it would be better if they didn't have to. However, this is a fairly advanced concern, and people aren't going to mind *terribly* if it doesn't multiclass well, just because multiclassing generally sucks across most of the board in D&D.

This quote from Tempest helps to clarify this point a bit.

Tempest Stormwind Quote:

Choose a paradigm for balance. This is to say, don't just shoot in the dark, then post on the boards saying "is this balanced?" Decide, from the beginning, what you consider to be your standard for balance. Many people will recommend the Rogue or Psychic Warrior as a "middle-of-the-road" point for balance. Frank uses the single-classed transmuter Wizard. It's ultimately up to you. But the point is... know what power level you're shooting for and go for that.

Keep your conceptual goals in mind. You want to know where you're headed. You find a new niche to fill, or you think of a mechanically original way to handle something. From there, keep that goal in mind, and work towards realizing the concept of the class, and moreover keep in mind *how it will work in play.* Synergy matters. If you're making a paladin, don't just throw in a bunch of holy warrior-y abilities for 20 levels... think of the cohesive whole and how the whole thing works together to create an even class progression that fills a useful and fun role.

Capstones are cool abilities, but don't really change the class's playstyle. Basically, a capstone should be something and cool and shiny that says "congrats, you just hit 20th level." However, it should *not* be something that significantly alters the style of play, such as, say, a Duskblade's Arcane Channelling, which is a "meat of the class" ability. You want to get those sort of abilities when you can use them for more than 1 level. Instead, a capstone is something like "you turn into an outsider type," which is cool and all, but doesn't really revolutionize the way the class is played.

Mind the CR system. You want your base class to be balanced, so measure it up against encounters of the appropriate level (including monsters, other characters, encounter traps, and non-combat obstacles and encounters). Look up the CR system, and know what it's supposed to mean. If a character cannot contribute in a way appropriate to his or her level against encounters appropriate for their level, or if they can completely floor all of those encounters, you don't have something balanced on your hands. What you DO NOT want to do is just eyeball it and say "Hey, that looks balanced." Examine it. Scrutinize it. Make comparisons. Playtest it. Get other people to playtest it if possible, so that you can get away from your own biased opinion.

Balance your options. That is to say, each build option should be good in its own way, with no clear "best" or "worst" choice. When you can feel the indecision, that's balance, right there. Pretty straightforward, but worth mentioning. You don't want "Cat's Grace vs. Bite of the Wererat." You want "Invisibility vs. Silence."

Present your class clearly. The last thing is that you want your class write-up to look nice. This doesn't actually have so much to do with class design itself, but it's an important point when designing classes. You want some flavorful stuff to entice the reader to pay attention, like a quote from a character of the class or a picture. You want to have a clear table, clear ability entries, and something that's legible instead of all just kinda blending together in a great blob of text. You might even want to link up your spell list table to stuff in the SRD or something. Whatever. The most important part of this is making the rules clean and concise, to avoid misinterpretations and generally make everything go down smooth. A badly explained ability entry has led to more than one long, heated, pointless argument on these boards. Don't make it happen to your class.

That's all I got off the top of my head. May edit more in as it comes to me. Please have the courtesy to reply maturely, like it was a Regdar's thread. The last thing I want to see is frivolous tangents and opinion bumps corrupting an otherwise valuable resource.

___

PS: With respect specifically to Pathfinder, I think that *versatility in build* is an important thing to keep in mind. Facilitating diverse and creative concepts is a place where I think Pathfinder really has an opportunity to stand out over 4e.

Welcome OneWinged4ngel! I used to frequent the WotC boards a lot more (under the alias angellis_ater) before, but times do change.

*Sigh,* indeed they do. Intelligent voices were rare enough on the WotC boards before, but they've seemed to trickle out to nigh nonexistence now. The old vets seem to be an increasingly rare sight around there, though I do see some posting from time to time.

I think you should make this time before the Beta is released (in about 2 months) to get all of those GREAT ideas out there as soon as possible. Get people's attention and perhaps even mail Jason one or two of those ideas if they're VERY good AND compatible with the basic premises behind Pathfinder.

Well, I will if I have time. As I said before, that's the worry. In retrospect, I guess I shouldn't have procrastinated until I saw my fears confirmed with the final release of the 4th edition rulebook. I mean, I just *wanted so bad* to be wrong about it, but I just wasn't.

Some big things I'm really hoping to address are, in no particular order...

-Weapons and Fighting Style Customization and Viability (as is, many people feel shoehorned into styles that possess clear advantages, which goes a long way in limiting people's conceptual choices)
-Fixing Armor (as is, there is always a "best" armor choice for any given character. Same conceptual restriction issue as the last one)
-Multiclassing. Obviously goes a long way to opening up conceptual options if it's improved. Just look at the opportunities ToB's improvements in this department gave us.
-Making monstrous PCs work better. You know LA just doesn't work.

^--Together, fixing up these things can go a *long* way to improving the versatility of the system, particularly with respect to realizing the unique and creative character concepts YOU want.

-Ability score diversification and balancing. By making different ("nonstandard") ability score focuses a more viable choice for all classes and avoiding "dump stat" pitfalls and the like, this can open up the versatility of the system too. This can actually be a lot easier to accomplish than it might sound.
-Alchemy, craft skills, and mundane itemization. Goes back to the weapon and armor thing a bit.
-Evening out and opening up progressions. Using a weapons issue as an example, it's not cool when you can't use your sword and board style effectively until level 12, or when those static feats you took just become an unwanted burden a few levels after you took them. Also not cool when classes and builds have clear "drop out" or "drop in" points or progression ordering issues (goes back to multiclassing issues).
-Diplomacy. This thing just doesn't work right in 3rd ed at all, to the point that the skill itself is on the CharOp Campaign Smasher list right next to Pun Pun.
-Traps. These things just don't work right in 3rd ed.
-Magic item prices, balancing, and economy tweaks.
-Save or Dies. There's a Better Way than making them all like Harm.
-Class tweaks.
-Problem spells.
-Enhancing and/or expanding combat maneuver mechanics, like grapple.
-Streamlining play, including nonmechanical things like DM tools and tricks that can speed things up, chart adjustments (like listing hardness and other such relevant info such with weapons), or including an extra 2 pages in the MM where we can see the templated summoned monsters stats so that we don't have to waste all that time in game whenever someone brings up the danged things.
-Minor little tweaks on things that never made any gorram sense.

One big thing on my list was afflictions, but it looks like they already did some good work on that. I still gotta get to reading over what they did to it.

Anyways, none of these things would do anything to compromise backwards compatibility, obviously, but as you can see it's hardly a list of insignificant, quick little balance tweaks. And I can't just churn them all out in a day on my own; even if it weren't a big list of stuff, I've got other things to do, and I'm not getting paid this time. ;)

Heck, even if it were a teensy, tiny list of things and I had it pretty much all developed, I'm hearing that the beta's gotta be wrapped up by Friday, and then after that the game will be more inflexible. :'(

Dreamscarred Press is looking forward to supporting Pathfinder, once we get a chance to show compatability. We've already been inspired (which can be seen in our Third Dawn Campaign Setting racial stats).

Glad to hear it. Dreamscarred does good work.

2) It makes multiclass characters more powerful. Multiclassing is already more powerful than single classing a lot of the time. That's why so many optimizers multiclass.

Not true. Multiclassing tends to be SUBOPTIMAL in most cases, and optimizers tend to only do it when a class is toploaded with a few synergistic and important abilities (and then only in dips) or when it is required for a prestige class.

In general, multiclassing in D&D is deeply flawed and underpowered. ToB is probably the best balanced multiclassing in the edition, offering an elegant tradeoff of benefits between staying single-classed and multiclassing, not to mention that there are little to no "jumping out points" or "order of classing" issues that pretty much everything in core (and pretty much everywhere else throughout 3rd edition, for that matter) has.

Remember, Druid 20 is still considered one of the most optimized builds around, not to mention that the first and second commandments of practical optimization are "THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE CASTER LEVELS."

Honestly, an improvement in the multiclassing system, particularly to a level that makes everything work as smoothly as ToB multiclassing, would mark one of the biggest improvements to the game I've yet seen. It goes leaps and bounds towards expanding the versatility and capabilities of the system. It's the thing I would most hope to see realized, or at the very least worked towards, by Pathfinder.

There is a somewhat annoying logical progression with crafted items in both 3.0 and 3.5 that may want to addressed in 3.75.

1.It is not terribly costly to create an item that creates food and water once per round indefinately.
2. It is not terribly costly to create an item that will cure disease in the same manner.

This means that any society that wants healthy and well fed people will ensure that these items are available.

This means that there will be a population boom of epic proportions...the modern industrial revolution doesn't hold a candle to almost free food and perfect health care. Add in items that create walls of stone for roads, disintigration for tunnels/excavation, rock to mud etc...and there will no longer be an even remotely feudal system left, which is where D&D is set.

Any nation that does not invest in crafted items, especially food and disease ones, will quickly be crushed by the overwhelming numbers of neighboring nations; elves will be especially vulnerable since it takes so long for elves to mature into adults...

I realize this is a little silly, but if a D.M. is running a game that emphasizes politics and how nations interact, the D.M. would be remiss in not looking for ways in which those nations could use spells or items to create a more powerful nation; that is what we do with technology after all. Creating these items, however, irrevocably changes the game...pretty hard to have an adventure in the wilderness when there is no wilderness left(an adventure theme that is rather appropriate given the current state of our world, but still...)

Yours in nerdyness,
Jeff

Interestingly, 4e puts the infinite food item out in the PHB as the cheapest wondrous item available.

Gotta love 4e, right?

Suggestions like "Make 20 levels of spells to match each character level) or "Rework feats to function on a point-based system more like skills" aren't helpful though; remember that even though the Pathfinder RPG is a new game, its largest design goal is to maintain ease of use and conversion to 3.5. That's why I maintain that the upcoming round of beta testing (as opposed to the alpha testing) is so important. Truth is... we already KNOW what kind of game we think Pathfinder should be: It has to be a set of rules that lets us write adventures and adventure paths the way we have been. Huge changes that would have made writing Rise of the Runelords or Savage Tide or Age of Worms too onerous (or worse, would have transformed the themes and feel of the adventures into something else) are not what we want.

And I've never had any intention of making any suggestions remotely like that. Heh.

SET BONUS:

1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d6+2 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8+2 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d10+2 - Average: 7.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)

CLASS BONUS:

1d6+0 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d6+2 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d6+4 - Average: 7.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
1d6+6 - Average: 9.5, Minimum: 7 (Per Level)

Your first system favors low HD classes, while your second system favors high HD classes. Unfair either way.

A more even progression, setting the system to "3/4 average," would be...

d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3
d10 = d6+4
d12 = d7+5

This is the same as saying "you reroll everything below the halfway mark."

Quoting from my own house rule list:

-Hit dice are rolled for each level. However, characters may reroll hit dice that are lower than half the maximum for their die. E.g. Wizards reroll 1s, rogues rerolls 1s and 2s, rangers reroll 1s, 2s, and 3s, fighters reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s, and barbarians reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s. This way, no one gets screwed on hp, but no one gets favored more by the odds.

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

*Sigh* I'm hearing though, that the beta is coming out soon, and with that, everything's near final. I'm afraid I may have come too late to really put in any significant input :(

In fact... the next year or so is actually when input is the most important. The playtest process is going to switch once the Beta's out; it's going to move from the big stuff (does this change to skills work? Do you like sorcerer bloodlines) to the actual "does this game play well?" side of things.

Unfortunately, this is *exactly* what I mean by "too late."

=(

The Beta will go through TEN MONTHS of playtesting before the final is released - plenty of time for you to pitch in.

Yeah, but generally, in a beta, you're fixing little glitches a lot more than you're making new design decisions. Errataing or making minor balance tweaks holds little interest for me. The aforementioned "big stuff" does.

If I start going over how the Bard class designs can be tweaked, or how craft can be overhauled to make it cool, or how skill systems work, or how the weapons and armor system can be opened up and more fighting styles be facilitated, or how the versatility of the game "engine" can improve, WILL IT MATTER? Or will I just be wasting my breath? I'm brimming with ideas, but I'm getting the feeling that it won't matter one whit more than if I was making suggestions for 4e.

*Sigh* I'm hearing though, that the beta is coming out soon, and with that, everything's near final. I'm afraid I may have come too late to really put in any significant input :(

Welcome to Paizo! I remember many a time that you threw a flaming match into the powder keg of the WotC forums.

Never have been one to beat around the bush with social niceties ;)

This has been touched on in other threads but I would like more discussion.

Now that Knowledge(arcana) is doing the work previously handled by Spellcraft don't we really need Knowledge(religion)to do the same thing? Knowledge(arcana) handles Arcane spells/effects and Knowledge(religion) handles Divine spells/effects.

For example, Identifying a Spell that is in Place should be Knowledge(arcana) when it is an Arcane spell and Knowledge(religion) when it is a Divine spell.

For that matter Identifying a Spell being Cast could be Knowledge(arcana) or Knowledge(religion) as appropriate.

OF course then one could let Wizards use Knowledge(arcana) for learning new spells and suddenly you don't need Spellcraft anymore just Concentration. So all those who wanted Concentration back are happy and we get more of a division between the Arcane and Divine.

Thoughts??

So you're basically saying: Knowledge Arcana should identify arcane spells. Knowledge Religion should identify divine spells. Knowledge psionics should identify powers. It's a sound idea; after all, magic comes from a great variety of sources, and this would certainly make for better flavor than every spellcaster being an expert in Arcana rather than their respective fields.

But what of crossovers? Is a master of arcane knowledge clueless when he sees the divine version of levitate? And what about artificer magic? What about druids or bards or others with less conventional magical roots? These are particulars that should be considered.

A simple answer would be to take a note from one of the past "exotic magic" rules from Secrets of xen'drik, where it was harder to identify spells cast by people with the exotic magic feat (forgot what it was called). Quite simply, your spellcraft would be at a bit of a penalty when applied to other fields, but still helps.

Or maybe the answer lies somewhere else altogether. I don't have all the answers, and it bears consideration.

(As for artificer magic, it should probably fall straight under arcana. Not that Pathfinder will have artificers; I'm just thinking of backwards compatibility)

Personally, I've *always* used the house rule that open lock was part of the Disable Device skill. However, there was no issue of "should it be int based or should it be dex based?"

Why? Because *a skill does not have to be inherently linked to an attribute.* The PHB says it right there that they are just the "most common" associated ability scores. NOT the ability scores ALWAYS used with that ability for EVERY task. I always used dexterity for lockpicking and intelligence for cracking the workings of a complex mechanism or tricking up a magic trap, despite both of those things falling under Disable Device in my house rules. Never caused any problem. Another part of the houserule also included the ability to "scrub" locks at a penalty to the roll (something real, particularly skilled lockpicks do to open a lock almost instantly).

And just because old 3.5 kinda encouraged you not to pay attention to that line, I see no reason why Pathfinder should do the same. The key ability score should be whatever the DM feels is appropriate for the specific task.

Mosaic wrote:

BTW, if Pathfinder doesn't go with Int for Disable Devices as you suggest, maybe there could be a feat that switches from it form Dex to Int (like the one that allows Intimidate to be Str rather than Cha), call it Problem Solver or Mechanical Wiz or something. I think key-ability switching feats have a lot of potential, although they might need a little something more to make them worthwhile, an additional +2 to skill checks maybe.

Superb idea for a multiclassed rogue/wizard! I may actually need that when I convert the rules to Iron Kingdoms (if DD stays DEX-based). Plenty of clockwork devices and steam engines to sabotage. :-)

See, I don't see why you even need to have a new feat or rule. You can already decide what's appropriate. Key ability scores and skills are not INHERENTLY linked. It's not a hard and fast rule. The actual rules change would be to say that "yes, they ARE inherently linked." And that's not a rule I'd like.

Oh, one thing: To show your allegience, rename yourself: OneWingedAng3l ;-)

Bah! It was 4e that plagiarized ME! That whole 4dventure thing was MINE first! You hear me? MINE! I made that (admittedly stupid) joke years before WotC but up its "surprise" website screen saying "get ready for 4dventure!" or whatever it was.

XD

Oh no oh One-Winged One, we agree perhaps more than you think. The alchemist or the artificer arent really classes to be taken and stuck with very long. Seems players always take it just for this or that as a class ability and move on.

What? Are you talking about the same Artificer I am? That's one of the few classes that CharOp will tell you it's generally a capital idea to keep straight to 20. That, and the Druid. Not a whole lot else.

By contrast, I pretty much rolled my eyes every time I saw a new 4e picture, for one reason or another, let alone their curious choice of layout (is it just me, or does it seem like MOST of the PHB art seems to focus around tieflings and dragonborn, and trying to make them look "XTREME"? Not to mention the MM, which seemed to be an odd mix of different art styles, recycled art in odd places with mismatched themes(such as the Oriental swaps and the like), corrupted classics (such as the githyanki and githzerai going the way of WoW's draenei, getting prettified to look just like elves with a bit different skin tone), mediocre composition, and more of what I can only describe as "bad art pretending that it's good art"). There was some good work, but...

After looking at Pathfinder, the difference was so striking I just about died. Oh, and *finally* giants are done some real justice in the art department! Loved it.

If they can make all the monsters look that good in the MM, I will raise my hands in praise to the artistic mastery of Paizo.