Samothdm's page

Thanks everyone! Very helpful. I just glossed right over that "Archive" part at the top of the page.

Firstly, you'll have to forgive me because I'm not super savvy when it comes to using messageboards. But, what I want to know is - is there a "cut-off" for how many topics you'll post in a particular forum? Do you delete old threads?

I was just in the Pathfinder RPG "Conversions" forum, and the topics seem to only go back to September of this year, and I can't seem to find an option to go to the next page. I know there were older topics in this forum, but I can't seem to find them.

If anyone can help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

Hey - whatever happened to your campaign? Are you still running it? I just recently stumbled across this thread, but took great interest. I'd love to hear more.

Sorry - I realize I didn't really fully answer your encumbrance question.

The correct "by the rules" way would be to check Tables 7-4 and 7-5 in your Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

You said that you have a Medium Load. If you read on page 169, the rules state that if you're wearing armor, then you determine your encumbrance by the worse penalty of either your load or your armor. So, if you're wearing Heavy Armor but carrying a Medium Load, your encumbrance is actually just determined by your armor. So, in that case, you'd use the penalties for having a "Heavy" load since you're wearing Heavy Armor.

Make sense so far?

So, continuing with this, if you are wearing Heavy Armor (or carrying a Heavy Load), then you check Table 7-5 and you see that the penalties for this are:

1) Your Max Dex Bonus is +1. That means that, for example, if you had a Dex of 18, your Dex Bonus is normally +4, which you add as a bonus to your AC. However, in this case, you can only add a maximum of a +1 bonus to your AC, because you aren't as agile when wearing heavy armor (or encumbered by a heavy load).
2) Your "Check Penalty" is -6. On page 169, it says that the Check Penalty for being encumbered works like an Armor Check Penalty (which you can read about in the Equipment Chapter in the Armor section). Basically, what this means is that you'll take a -6 penalty to certain skills, such as Acrobatics and Swim, etc., because you are carrying a heavy load.
3) Your speed is reduced. As a human, your base speed is 30 feet, so you'd look in the 30 feet column and see that, if you had a heavy load, your speed would be reduced to 20 feet per round.

I definitely use the Armor penalties when playing, but I've never used the encumbrance rules before in all previous editions of D&D and now Pathfinder. I find that it just doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game. If I had a player who insisted on grabbing every single weapon and trinket from his slain foes and trying to carry it around in a Dungeon with the thought of selling it later, then I would penalize him by making him use the encumbrance rules. But, my players, at this point in our lives, just don't care about that kind of stuff, so we just hand-wave it and move on.

You'll find, as you play more and more, that you'll do that with a lot of the rules. I've yet to play in any group that uses 100% of the rules "as written". But, it's good to know *how* they work, because then you can decide if you want to use them or not.

Happy gaming!

Welcome to Pathfinder! I'm assuming that you're not only new to Pathfinder, but to Role Playing in general? I'm really new to Pathfinder (technically, we all are, since it's only been out since August), but I've been RP'ing since the early 80's.

I'm sure by the time I finish answering this, someone else will have answered your questions, but just in case...

I assumed that the d10 listed next to Hit Die meant that I roll a d10 to get my HP, so I got an 8. Am I supposed to add to this, or do I just get 8?

You add your Constitution Modifier to your HP at every level. So, for example, if your CON is a 14< that's a +2 modifier, and you'd add the +2 to the 8 your rolled to get 10 HP's.

Many GM's also give all players Maximum HP's for 1st level - meaning, that instead of rolling, you just get 10 (since you're a fighter) and add the +2 (or whatever) for your CON modifier. Then, at every level after 1st, you just roll your HP as normal and add them to your total that you already had.

How to I determine my DR?

I'm assuming you mean "Damage Reduction". You don't have that as a Human Fighter. It's usually only something that Monsters get, although Barbarians gain DR as a special class ability as they gain in levels. So, you don't need to worry about it right now. And, you don't really "determine" or "calculate" it. It's just listed in the stat block (for a monster) or in the class abilities table (for a class, such as a barbarian, that gains it as a class ability).

When determining AC, I realize I first need to get some Armor and maybe a shield, but do humans have any natural armor? And if not what race does? I couldn't really find anything about natural armor.

I don't believe any of the standard player character races in the Core Book have natural armor. Again, it's usually only a Monster thing, although some more advanced races (not in the Core Rulebook) have natural AC. As a human fighter, you don't need to worry about this right now. Later on, certain spells or magic items might grant you a natural armor bonus, but don't worry about this right now.

I'm not sure I understand Encumbrance Effects either. If I have a medium load, what exactly does this do?

You use your Strength score to figure out how much you can easily carry without being "encumbered". Check out pages 169 and 170. Honestly, your strength is probably high enough, as a fighter, that you won't need to worry about calculating encumbrance. I've never played in a game wherein we worried about it. We just wing it and try to use common sense rather than rules for this one, because the rules could slow you down if you play "by the letter".

Good luck, and have fun!

Thank you all for the continued help and welcoming!

Thanks, you two. Both of those suggestions helped a lot. I'll definitely be pulling some ideas from your "Dorkistan" site (great name!), Tom.

I'm working on some bard variants for my homebrew and am looking for advice on some bardic performance substitutions for a "dancer" bard variant and an "actor" bard variant. Basically, I want to keep the rest of the class mostly the same, but trade out some of the more musically-oriented bardic performances for more dance-oriented and/or more actor-oriented ones.

My general thinking is that some of the dancer ones would involve things like faster movement, gracefully moving through threaten zones, easier ways of flanking foes, etc.

For the actor variant, I'm thinking along the lines of impersonating specific people, maybe mimicking other class abilities in a limited way, etc.

I'm not looking to replace every bardic performance - an actor's rousing speech works well with "inspire courage", and a dancer's seductive dance is sure to "fascinate". I'm just looking for suggestions to help slightly alter each type of bard to make them a little different.

Suggestions and ideas are welcome.

I sent an e-mail on this, too, but wanted to make sure that it didn't get lost in the shuffle after your move.

I placed two orders that were both shipped on 8/20. After checking to see what was taking to long to receive my orders, I noticed that my old address was still in your system. I am hoping that the items got returned to you, because I moved long enough ago that the post office will not forward them.

I updated my address in my profile, but I wanted to see if there is a way you can check to see if the items I ordered were returned to you intact? I would still very much like to receive these items, and I would hate to think they were stolen because I forgot to update my address.

Thanks!

Also, I'd much rather see more base classes then a million prestige classes. I like seeing the lvl 20 rewards for NOT multiclassing. I think it adds more flavor when you have to go with a character concept and discourages min/maxing a bit.

I actually agree with you, although I suspect that we're in the minority. I like base classes because sometimes there is a concept that a character would want to work toward beginning at 1st level that cann't be replicated with a core class, and that doesn't make sense for him to wait around doing something else until he qualifies.

I think the Alchemist is a good example - what other class would you start out as in order to qualify for an Alchemist PrC? A wizard? What if you don't want a spell-casting character?

I guess you could start out as an expert, but that class isn't balanced for PCs.

The champion and the totem warrior were balanced against the 3.0 fighter. Which is to say, weak-sauce. I don't know if I would use the term "sub-par", though; I guess that depends on what "par" is.

I hate to de-rail this thread too much, but having played a Champion in my friend's game, I can attest that it was much weaker than the other players in that game. I just mentioned that to my friend yesterday - what a coincidence.

To me, the Paladin is just one example of what a "Holy Warrior" could be, and why should only LG gods get to have such a champion (or CE gods get the obvious counterpart)? I put this thought aside until some years ago when, in Dragon #310 & #312, articles were written to explore all 6 good & evil alignments. Essentially, Paladin & Blackguard were given equivalent classes for the other 4 alignments.

I put that thought aside for a future homebrew adjustment until just this past year. I then took the idea one step further. Really what D&D needs is a base martial/divine class that can encompass not only all alignments, but even basic domain-like concepts (e.g., war; strength; balance; etc.)

New idea and suggestion for this 5th class: (Divine) Champion (I know Paizo likes the 1-word titles...). Why limit yourself to the Blackguard as a base class when you can expand out the idea behind Paladins & Blackguards to include everything I mentioned above? The versatility would be fantastic, and no longer would the default divine champions of yore be limited to the Arthurian hero/anti-hero. Why can't other gods have their own divine champions w/ completely different paradigms? Try imagining a divine champion for a god of magic, for example? To the horror of many on these boards who complained about clerics losing Heavy Armor proficiency, such a divine champion might look very different from a heavily armored paladin, even if the alignment was still LG.

You get the idea.

This is basically what Monte Cook did for the "Champion" class in his Arcana Unearthed book. You could be a Champion of Magic, Light, Dark, Strength, etc. It was really customizable - people created all sorts of champion ideas. I really do like that concept, but I kind of feel like it waters down the core Paladin a lot. The Paladin, as it exists now, is such an iconic lawful good hero... you really can't get much closer to the "shining knight" examples from Arthurian fantasy.

I guess it all depends on what kind of campaign you want to run.

If you're looking for more inspiration, you should also check out The Book of Righteous Might by Green Ronin, which has a customizable "Holy Warrior" class that, like the champion, takes on different aspects of its god's domains - so, you can be a Holy Warrior who follows follows the Dwarven God of Creation and choose two domains from Earth, Guardian, and/or Creation. The domains grant level-based powers that replace the standard paladin powers (if you wanted to create a standard paladin using this book, you would have your holy warrior pick the guardian and champion domains). The only thing is that it's the older 3.0 rules, so it would take a little more tinkering to convert it to Pathfinder.

There is also a "Paladin" class in the Spirosblaak Campaign Setting (also from Green Ronin) that divides paladins into Good, Neutral, and Evil classes, and gives them different powers and spell lists based on their ethical alignment (but there are no mechanical differences between a Lawful Evil paladin and a Chaotic Evil paladin). This one was based on 3.5, so it'd be a lot easier to update it to Pathfinder.

Lastly, if you're looking for some good fluff/flavor text and some funky names for paladins of other alignments, there was a great article way back in Dragon #106 that featured stats and background information for paladins of every alignment. The stats are old AD&D 1E Rules, but it's good for ideas. If you Google for it, I think there was a fansite where the guy running the site was using that article for inspiration for his campaign.

As for the classes in the upcoming Pathfinder book, I think I'd rather that Paizo focus on creating entirely new classes versus just "here's a whole bunch of non-LG paladins." I can pretty much do that myself. I'd really prefer totally new concepts and mechanics for classes. That's why I'm really excited about the Alchemist class.

Alchemist is another concept I like a lot. There was a pretty decent attempt to do this at White Wolf in one of the Ravenloft splatbooks, based via feats, and if the core class is half as cool as that, I'm in.

Not to go off-topic, but quickly - which book was this? I'd like to check it out while I wait for the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide to come out next year!

Alchemist-Conceptually, this is really exciting, as I don't think there's currently a good way to play this. Mechanically, it has me a little bit worried. I think there's trepidation amongst gamers(or maybe it's just me) over systems that are "magic but not" or that "work like magic but aren't," especially with transformation spells already possible. What makes the alchemist different other than fluff? Also, with precision damage (wisely) taken away from splash weapons, there's no real way to make a non-magic bomber, so I'd hope they get increased damage with alchemists fire the way a monk does with fists.

This is the class I'm most excited about, as well. I've been looking for a base alchemist class that doesn't just make a few alchemical items listed in the equipment section plus get bonus "Brew Potion" feats and regular spellcasting. Pretty much every alchemist base class I've ever seen does something along those lines. The ones that don't get spellcasting, however, always seem under-powered.

I agree with the idea that the Pathfinder alchemist should not get "magic, but not" powers. That's very redundant with existing spellcasters.

On the idea of precision damage, I was working on a base alchemist class of my own design for my homebrew campaign, and one of the abilities he had was the ability to cause additional damage (that scaled similar to the rogue's sneak attack ability, but a little bit slower), but only with thrown alchemical items like alchemist's fire.

He also had a list of class abilities he could choose from that kind of mimicked meta-magic feats, but with respect to creating non-magical alchemical items (so, for example, he could choose to "Empower" his alchemist's fire when he creates it, increasing the numerical damage effect by 1/2, by increasing the Craft (Alchemy) DC, as well as the item's final cost).

I'd happily scrap all that, though, for a more "official" and playtested alchemist class in the Pathfinder RPG.

I'm also excited about the cavalier. Basically, I run a lower-magic homebrew setting, so base classes that do new, fun, and different things that aren't spellcasters always get me excited.

I'm starting to second-guess whether I was reading the Open Game License correctly in the past. I had always operated under the assumption that any OGL product (or any d20 System product) that published, for example, a new base class or a new PrC, automatically had to make that class or PrC "open" because it was based on previously existing open game content (meaning, the idea of how the class was built and how it progressed by level used existing OGC from the SRD, regardless of what kind of new class abilities were created for the class).

Now after reading over the definitions of OGC and Product Identity in the Open Game License, I'm seeing that it's a very muddy area because those two things are sometimes defined to be at odds with each other.

Specifically, you're right in that "Product Identity" can include "creatures, characters..."

I always took the liberal view that "characters" meant "the actual name of the character". But, you could take the very narrow and protective view that "character" actually means "the entire character class". At least, I think you could try to make that argument in order to prevent someone from re-distributing your class in another OGL product.

Huh. That makes the whole OGL thing a little less "open". And, it creates confusion on the part of publishers who want to use elements from other games in their games, because they might be afraid of being sued over using what they thought was OGC but come to find out the original author identified it as PI.

I'm beginning to understand why there were so many different, competing rules systems that essentially addressed the same topics over and over, but that never incorporated each other's OGC. Naval combat rules come to mind - I feel like I saw at least three or four competing rules systems for that, and none of them incorporated even the smallest tidbits from each other.

Sorry for going off-topic.

Insofar as Paizo having the resources to create some sort of “Basic” game, I do seem to remember that Jason started working on Pathfinder in his spare time.

I don't necessarily think it's an issue of resources in terms of "people." I think it's an issue of resources in terms of:

1) It will probably have a smaller print-run
2) They most likely will not recoup their print costs (the print-run will probably not be enough to help the print-costs break even)
3) They'll need to get retailers to understand how this new version is not going to cannibalize sales from their core rulebook

Honestly, I just don't see it paying-out. But, I'm clearly in the minority on this thread.

I think printing out individual sheets from the PDF is probably the easiest, and most economical way, to go about this, versus spending the time and money to create a whole new "rules lite" version. But, that's just me.

I mostly just want to try and correct some of the tendency of writers to reinvent the wheel, slap a Japanese name on it, and claim that it's somehow definitive or revolutionary when it's anything but.

Jeremy Puckett

That's definitely something I can agree with, and I've made a similar point earlier in the thread. And, your argument really applies to any new class, Japanese-themed or not.

If the class doesn't have a combination of fluff and crunch that brings something new and different to the game, then it shouldn't be a new base class.

I think where we might have to agree to disagree is that, I'm totally fine with the fluff and crunch of a samurai base class not necessarily mimicking historical Japan, as long as it's substantially different than just a fighter with more/different skills and a different selection of bonus feats.

I'm out... it's 4am here!

I'm trying to argue that the narrow meaning normally applied to a word should be broadened out back to its actual historical context.

There are also a lot more productive ways to frame your argument.

Jeremy Puckett

You're right - I could've been more productive if I were trying to frame a real argument. But, I wasn't. I was just having some fun.

On topic, though - I think what most people are saying is that they aren't necessarily interested in trying to build their fantasy RPG characters around the "actual historical context", but instead are looking for ways to create the characters they've seen in movies, fiction, and comics.

The knights of King Arthur stories and the barbarians of Conan stories bear no more resemblance to historical knights and barbarians than the samurai depicted in anime like "Samurai Champloo" resemble the real-world historical samurai.

But, this is a game, not a rules set for trying to recreate historical battles/scenarios. So, we get knights (paladins) who cast spells and channel energy to vanquish undead, barbarians who gain strength and endurance by "raging", and samurai who draw upon inner ki powers to perform martial feats beyond those available to other mere mortals.

I can see as a student of Japanese history that you would find huge holes in logic and consistency when looking at RPG classes like samurai, shinobi, etc. It's no different than a student of Western history would have problems with the D&D version of the druid. There were real, historical druids in Western Europe. The D&D druid uses the name, but little else resembles its historical counterpart. The changes were made to make the game more fun.

While you are obviously correct in that term samurai originally was a "social" class and not an "occupation" (I use the word occupation instead of "character class", because it can be a character class), at this point in RPG development, the "samurai" has been corrupted to be something far different than its historical namesake. And, there's nothing wrong with that. They're fun to play. I've played one in my most recent campaign. At no point did I think I was recreating a true depiction of historical Japan. I just had fun with my character and his class and borrowed liberally from fantasy-conventions of what Medieval Japan was like in order to play my character. It worked just fine.

The Cavalier is a horse-riding battle leader. He gets a special mount (like a paladin or a ranger), but most of his class abilities involve "being a jerk" (Jason's words). He can berate his allies to stoke them into battle fury, insult his enemies so they make mistakes, and taunt powerful enemies into single combat. (Eric the Cavalier from the old D&D cartoon was mentioned.)

[sarcasm]

WHAT?!

Wow. I am frequently stunned by the amazing misconceptions that still persist about the cavaliers. A lot of those misconceptions are ones invented based on a 1980's cartoon and a 1E supplement called Unearthed Arcana, which in turn was based on a class which debuted in Dragon magazine #72.

"Cavalier" cannot be a character class. It is actually the name the Parliamentarians gave to the Royalist supporters of King Charles I during the English Civil War. Cavaliers were part of a social class of horse-mounted soldiers who dressed well, who owned rural estates that they managed from afar.

To use the term "cavalier" to refer to anything other than this very narrow, historical description and instead apply it to a broader, more fantasy-based context for the enjoyment of the game, is a signifier that the players and writers don't know anything about 17th Century England.

[/sarcasm]

And I'd start expecting the Second Coming of Jesus the day Paizo starts designating their rules stuff closed content. All the Pathfinder rules are OGC (and with Pathfinder I mean all the Pathfinder).

Since the Pathfinder RPG is based on the Open Game License, I don't think they can designate any of their rules for new base classes as "closed content." If it's a base class that's based on the Open Game License (i.e., you roll it up following the standard procedures, and it gets HD and skills and stuff as you advance in level, etc.), then it's automatically open content.

AFAIK, the only "closed content" rules they could create would have to not be based on anything that's already part of the Open Game License (for example, if they decided to create rules for determining weather changes of your campaign world), but those rules couldn't reference anything already existing as part of the Open Game License. And, that would just be weird anyway. It would be confusing to have "open" and "closed" rules.

As a rule of thumb, I think the only stuff that stays "closed" is story-based elements (aka "fluff").

We'll definitely want to watch out for carpetbaggers. :)

Well done! Congratulations on making the first "carpetbaggers" reference of 2009.

That cracked me up.

I think my previous post got too long and "preachy" so a lot of people probably skipped it.

But, I still stick by the idea that I don't believe the Pathfinder RPG is a gateway game, nor should it be. It's really a game for experienced gamers, most of whom were probably playing 3.5. The fact that the book is too heavy or too long or has too many chapters or whatever is irrelevant. It's not a good game for people who are brand new to the hobby and who are trying to learn to play an RPG by themselves (i.e., without an experienced friend to help them).

If you start stripping stuff out of the Pathfinder book in order to make it more "newbie-friendly", then what you have is really a different game, and that creates confusion. It's kind of like "Basic D&D" versus "Advanced D&D" in the 1E days. You didn't progress from one to the other - they were completely different systems (albeit, somewhat alike). It created a lot of confusion on the part of costumers.

I think the best idea for an entry-type game would really be a completely different, stripped-down system that did away with things like alignment, maybe only has four classes, no "half-races", etc., and reduces all of the options (no choosing your feats and skills - you just get them automatically depending on level).

BUT... I still don't know if this is Paizo's responsibility. Should they be responsible for trying to bring new, younger gamers into the hobby with a different version of the game? It's a huge (and expensive) under-taking, and I just don't see random people buying an "Introductory Pathfinder RPG" game set off the shelf when they've never played an RPG before, even if it does look easy. They're much more likely to buy the same thing offered by WotC because it has the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand name associated with it.

I think the better idea would be to rely on Paizo fans and the community of local game stores to set up "Learn to Play" days, and advertise them at local schools or what not. Kind of like the 4E Worldwide Game Day, where you show up and the GM hands you a character sheet and explains to you what to do. That's something that you can learn even if you've never played an RPG before in your life.

THEN, hopefully the person gets hooked and buys the core book later.

I'm simplifying my thoughts because this post is getting too long again. Hopefully you all get the idea.

On another note, I also agree with another poster, the idea is not to make the historically accurate samurai, it's to make the 'Romantic' Samurai, such as you see in various Anime and movies (Samurai Champloo, despite it's really over the topness, is an excellent example of 'Romantic' Samurai, almost supernatural in his abilities). If you're going for the supernatural version of the samurai, he should be another class, almost a cross between knight and monk. If you're going for the 'Really really good but not supernatural' Samurai (such as the bad guys in most of the Blind Samurai Zatochi movies) then an alternate build of a fighter is best.

I agree with this. I think this example can apply to a lot of different class concepts, too. I don't really think the cleric (or druid) as written do a good job of filling the niche of an Asian-themed priest, like a Brahmin from India or a Buddhist-style priest from China or Japan. The Pathfinder cleric is too martial-oriented, IMO, to fill in for these kinds of priests.

A shaman is another idea that I don't think can really be well-done using the existing core classes.

Basically, I think it kind of starts with "fluff" - is there a cool, different character concept that fills a niche that can't be created using the existing rules? If so... can it made mechanically different enough from the core classes to require a new base class? And, is it necessary to have the class - does it fill a new and different role?

A Samurai would lose heavy armor (Samurai wore at most lacquered bamboo, similar to banded mail in protection). An oriental adventures setting would not have metal armor (metal is rare). A Viking setting would use hide or light armor (same reason), and an African setting might give the fighter (or barbarian) no armor at all.

A Samurai would gain some special abilities a core fighter didn't have, gain more skill points, but would also probably lose some things as well (some of his fighter feats being replaced with class abilities as certain levels). This would make him a specialized fighter (but still built off the core class). He'd have 20 levels of Samurai, and those levels would count towards his 'fighter' level for purposes of taking feats.

I see where you're going, and I think this isn't really a bad approach. My only thought is that, once you...

1) Take away the Fighter's heavy armor proficiency
2) Give him more skill points and more class skills
3) Delete some of his bonus feats
4) Add some level-based class abilities
5) (you didn't say this, but most likely I think there would be an alignment restriction, such as Any Lawful, and perhaps some tweaking of the weapon proficiencies, and as someone else said - they would probably lose all shield proficiencies)

... those are enough changes that I think you're looking at a new class, not just a fighter with a few alternate abilities. And, if you're not going to change the class enough to require a separate class, then... why do it at all?

I do like alternate class abilities, like the stuff in the 3.5 [/i]Unearthed Arcana[/i] and some of the newer books that came out toward the end of 3/5 that gave examples of things you could alter on a racial or class level. Those are cool. But, I still think it leaves room for creating new classes from whole cloth, as long as they are substantially different from the existing core classes.

I can see the point that if you don't have a specific book dedicated to a certain part of a campaign world, you don't need to have new or alternate classes. But, if you're going to have a book that is dedicated to covering a specific culture, I would expect that book to have new classes as well as tips and ideas for converting the standard 11 core classes to match the setting.

Taking the "viking" example noted above, if you're just talking about the standard fantasy-Europe campaign setting, then it's true, you could just call a "viking" a fighter and be done with it. However, if a company is going to come out with a book that focuses on a viking-style culture (which would be really cool, HINT HINT) then I would really expect to see a berserker class (that's different from the standard barbarian), a rune-based wizard type class, and a skald-type class that is better at fighting and not quite so well-versed in magic as the standard bard class. I would also want alternate class abilities for the other core classes to show how they can be more easily integrated into a viking-style culture.

The same works for an Asian-themed book or any other culture that you want, really (Greek, Roman, etc.). Green Ronin, back in the 3E/3.5 days, put out a bunch of historical supplements (Trojan Wars, Roman Empire, etc.) and they all included new classes that were specific to that setting. An Oriental Adventures book is no different.

Speaking specifically of Asian-themed classes, I think the key is determining what makes the class different (historically-speaking) from the core classes, and then capitalizing on those differences in the class construction to make them different from the core classes.

For example, with a Samurai class, the designers should go back to the source material (by which I mean actual Medieval Japanese history, as well as pop culture sources like the Kurosawa movies, etc.) and look at what defines a samurai other than just straight fighting. Things like their service to their master, how they had to be cultured in different things like music, art, calligraphy, poetry, etc., how they fit into the social structure (their struggled to maintain their dominance against the nobility and the religious sects)... so, you take all of that material and look for ways to turn it into class benefits.

The original samurai in the 3rd Edition Oriental Adventures took steps in this direction by basically giving the samurai more skill points than a fighter, and a more varied list of skills like Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility & royalty), and Perform (for things like flower arranging and tea ceremonies, etc.). Then to balance that out, they reduced the bonus feat progression to every 3rd level instead of every other level, IIRC. I just don't think they went far enough. So, at that point it's easy to make the argument to just house-rule a fighter to give him more skill points and more skills and take away a couple of bonus fighter feats.

The trick is in looking at what makes these Asian-themed classes fun to play from a player's perspective, and then designing them so that they are significantly different from the core classes so they bring something new and different to the gaming experience, while at the same time being evocative of the historical era as well as the fantasy fiction/movies on which they are based.

It seems like this particular thread kind of has two different topics happening:

1) The core book is too heavy to be practical bringing to the gaming table

2) The core book is too daunting for a beginner (someone new to role-playing) to learn

As for the first point, I don't have too much to say. I think this is clearly a case of "you can't please everyone all the time." If you split the rules into two books, you get people complaining that they have to buy two different books (which would be a lot more expensive than the $50 for the current core book). True, only GMs would need to buy both books, but in my experience, most players who really get into the game at least end up wanting to dabble with GM'ing, or at the very least just want to read some of the information contained in the GM section like the PrCs and magic items.

As far as I know, D&D/Pathfinder is one of the only games out there that requires you do have more than one large, expensive hard-back book to play. As far as I can remember, I believe that the World of Darkness, Rifts, and a bunch of other OGL games like Mongoose's Conan RPG and Green Ronin's Thieves' World and Black Company RPGs, have all the rules contained in one book. Yes, there are supplemental books for all of those games, but they're not required.

I think that most of the disagreement with the Pathfinder core rulebook being just one book (aside from the Bestiary) is mostly just because "that's not how it was done in the past."

Regarding the second point, that it's not conducive for a newcomer to the RPG category, I think it's a relatively fair statement to say that no RPG game corebook is "newbie friendly." It's a difficult task to do. I would imagine that if you were to take a poll of everyone on the boards, the vast majority of people were exposed to RPGs through a group of friends who were already playing. That's really the best way to learn the rules.

However, I do remember working on the advertising for WotC when 3rd Edition came out (I happened to be working at one of their ad agencies at the time when that agency "won" the WotC account b/c WotC got acquired by Hasbro, which was using this agency). Anyway, the original ad campaign for 3rd Edition (before I worked on the account) was pretty clever, from what I remember, because it was aimed directly at their core audience - young men in their mid-2o's who had played the game when they were younger, but had fallen out of the franchise. They ran in publications like Maxim and used cutting edge imagery and somewhat risque (for a Hasbro brand) language to get those young guys interested in the game. They had people actually take the ad from Maxim and go into the bookstore and show the ad to the clerk and say, "I want this."

They did not market the game to a young crowd who were not familiar with role-playing. That would have been a disaster.

Years later, they did come out with a "Beginner's Set", a boxed set that covered only the first three levels, but they didn't really even advertise it, from what I could remember. That boxed set was mostly designed for someone who was curious about D&D, who had maybe heard of it, but would never buy the core rulebooks because they were too daunting to read.

That seems to be what people think Paizo should do - create a "Beginner's Set" to get new people into the hobby.

The only potential problem I can see with this approach is that, the one thing that D&D has going for it is its brand name. Even if you haven't played the game before, chances are you've heard of it, from the movies, the old 80's cartoon (which was being replayed on cable a few years ago), the licensed comic books, or just stories in the news, like when Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson passed away. So, if someone has heard of the name and they see a beginner's box set in the book store, I can maybe see them thinking about picking it up.

As much as we all like Pathfinder, it just doesn't have a household name behind it. People who know nothing about the hobby are going to get suckered into marketing. They'll see a 4E Beginner's Box Set by WotC, with phrases like "Official Dungeons & Dragons Content" or something like that on it, and chances are they'll be much more likely to buy that set, with a brand name they recognize, than they will buy a Pathfinder Beginner's Set.

So, you say, "But I could use a Beginner's Set for my group because they're all new to role-playing, and as the GM, I would encourage them to go buy it, because it's easier to learn than the core rulebook, and won't scare them off because it's not a 5 lb. tome." And, to that I would argue that, while that might be true, I don't believe that there is a large enough market for this type of product to make it a viable business for Paizo. I just don't think they could get a strong enough ROI on such a product to make it worth the production costs.

Lastly, there's the argument about doing a "For Dummies" version (which, I must say, I do like those books - despite the name, they are chock-full of excellent information. I've used them for business as well as for personal reading - the "Tolkien's Middle Earth for Dummies" being a personal favorite). This could be a good alternative to doing a short "rules-lite" explanatory "welcome to the world of RPGs" book, using the Pathfinder system. The problem you have here again is name recognition. Again, a person at the bookstore is going to be substantially more like to buy "Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies" than he would be to buy "Pathfinder for Dummies", because he has heard of the Dungeons & Dragons brand name before. It would make a newbie feel a lot more comfortable that he was learning a game that he's at least heard about.

Sorry for the long post - that's all just free-form thoughts with no editing, so hopefully it makes sense.

Just a few random thoughts and comments.

Firstly, I'm one of those kind of DMs and players who really likes new classes. That's the main reason I got this book. I like the idea of the new classes, but sometimes the execution took me a little off-guard.

I was really surprised by the lack of consistency between BAB and HD. That seems to be one of the cornerstones of the new Pathfinder rules. While it's pretty easy to fix on my end, it just seems like something that should have been done in this book.

Somebody pointed out the Spellblade, as a combo fighter/wizard should get full BAB, but split the HD between the Fighter (d10) and Wizard (d6) to get d8 HD. That argument doesn't really work for me. The Eldritch Knight PrC is a combo Fighter/Wizard, and in the Pathfinder Core Rules, it gets Full BAB and d10 HD. In the 3.5 DMG, the Eldritch Knight got full BAB and d6 HD, but they changed it in Pathfinder to be consistent. So, the Spellblade should have been d10. Or else change the BAB to medium.

A few other people have pointed out the wording sometimes gets clunky and so it's difficult to tell what was meant. This is most glaring in the warlock write-up. And, while somebody else above pointed out that they think the Artificer was not supposed to get any weapon or armor proficiencies, that doesn't make sense. If that's the case, there should still be an entry that reads, "The artificer is not proficient with any weapons or armor." It seems silly, though, that they would have to spend a bunch of feats to get simple weapons and light armor proficiencies. The fact that they have full BAB seems to indicate that they should get some kind of weapon and armor proficiencies. I think it's just an omission that the proof-readers didn't catch.

And speaking of proof-reading... there were a lot of grammatical errors in the book. I know it doesn't bother a lot of people, but it does affect my impression of the book as being "professional". It doesn't really take that long to have someone who is good at grammar proof-read a book. I've written d20 books for publication before, and I've always had two different friends read them over for errors. Most glaring in this book is the constant use of the word "their" to indicate a singular possessive. It's very jarring to read. Another example is found in the Warlock entry: "You can use his arcane bolt as a burst effect with a 20 foot radius." (emphasis mine).

I'd love to see a "Revised" edition of this book that corrects the grammatical mistakes and typos, and also cleans up the BAB/HD discrepancies.

That said... overall, I enjoyed the class concepts and how some of the powers were given to the classes to give them different abilities that what can be created with the core rules.

I also really like the section on the alchemical rules. I always like alchemist characters in my games, and this section is useful for adding new items to my game.

Thanks, Adamant, for making material for the Pathfinder RPG. I hope you take my comments as constructive criticism and not as a disparagement of your book. I do like it.

Absolutely, I'm not denying that. At the end, if we're sitting together at the game table , it doesn't matter how we came there, it just matters that we're having a great time together

Well said! I think that statement above could probably apply to 99.99% of all of the disagreements happening so far between people in this particular thread.

Probably depends on why you came to Paizo. When I came to Paizo (five or six years ago? No idea) it wasn't about the rules, it was about content. I loved what they did in Dungeon Magazine and I also loved what they did in Dragon Magazine but not a single time did I bought them because of the rule options. That is not to say that I didn't like those options, but it wasn't the reason for me buying all this stuff.

Sure - I totally understand that. However, that opinion doesn't reflect everybody. There are probably just as many people who are buying the PRPG for the rules and not for the story-based content.

But: regardless of which system I'll chose I'll definitely make heavy use of all the awesome stuff to be found in the AP-, chronicle- and companion line. So you'll probably understand why I'm much more interested in the longevity (and the quality) of those lines than in new rules books.

Absolutely, I do understand.

I guess all I'm saying is that I think it's okay to have both. While some people will dredge out the old "you can't be all things to all people" argument, I don't think that argument applies here. I don't think that Paizo's rules-based content are supposed to necessarily appeal to the people who just like the story-based elements, and vice-versa. So, they probably can't be all things to people, but I think each product line is valid and has a built in audience.

Other people will be "afraid" that Paizo will concentrate too much on the new rules content and that will take away from them spending time on developing the world of Glorarion setting. I really don't see that happening. Although the core rulebook is called "Pathfinder", I kind of look at it as being a separate entity from the campaign world. Yes, the rules can be used to play a game in Glorarion, but you could just as easily use the Pathfinder Campaign Setting Book with another say (say, standard 3.5 rules).

It's kind of like how WotC had (has) D&D and the Forgotten Realms. While WotC was churning out a lot of rules-based material like all of the "Complete" books (Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, etc.), that didn't stop them from continuing to put out largely rules-light setting material for the Forgotten Realms.

Although a bunch of people didn't like the Complete books or the classes contained in them, a lot of other people did like them. So, who's to say who's right? And, who's to say that Paizo can't do both?

Anyway - these comments aren't necessarily directed at you, WormysQueue. I'm just offering up my opinion in general.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

I always get confused by people who say they are "worried" that Paizo is coming out with fresh, new game material for the Pathfinder RPG and not just hoping that the sales of the Core Rulebook will keep the game alive for the next 5+ years. Yes, I know there are Adventure Paths and the Companions and Chronicles and all that... but for those of us who intend on using the PRPG rules for our home-brew campaigns, it would really suck not to have new material like base classes, races, etc.

That said, I'm really excited about the so-called "Advanced Player's Handbook". I'm most interested in the Alchemist, and would really like to see a non-spellcasting Alchemist who does more than just create mundane items that mimic existing spells. I think it will be hard to pull-off, but I'm very interested in how Jason and the Paizo team put that together. It's a class that can't be created from the existing rules, as far as I'm concerned.

The oracle and summoner are also intriguing because it's hard to imagine how they will be conceptualized in the rules, since the terms "summoner" and "oracle" evoke a lot of different images.

I've always liked cavaliers, and the description of this new class being somebody who "bosses the other characters around" does sound like a revamp of the Marshal, which is a class that can't be created from tweaking the existing rules, and also the Pathfinder version of the 4E "Warlord".

Can't wait for the new book!

My FLGS received 8 copies yesterday. I went in last night about 10:30pm and bought one of the last two copies they had left. They refused to put any "on hold" so it was all first come, first served.

I also called my local Border's and Barnes & Noble as a back-up in case I couldn't buy it at my FLGS, and both stores told me that the Pathfinder core rulebook "was not published yet."

My guess is:

Cavalier
Blackguard
Shaman
Witch

It definitely won't be Shaman. Eric Mona already said in this post that the four new base classes wouldn't overlap on the classes coming out in Tome of Secrets, and Shaman is one of those classes.

Another new class that I would like to see is some sort of non-magical artificer type - basically, somebody that can make cool (and useful) non-magical creations. I'm thinking of something similar to an alchemist class that someone mentioned a few pages ago.

Most of the "engineer" or "tinker" types classes I've seen, like in Iron Kingdoms and World of Warcraft, and the artificer class in Eberron, ultimately end up just mimicking spells or just creating magic items. I'm looking for something a little less magical, but that can still create unique and useful adventuring items.

Just taking the Expert NPC class and throwing some bonus feats on top of it doesn't work. The class would need to come with some simple rules for creating unique items and there would need to be a list of items they can make, starting with the standard alchemical items but adding to it.

I'm just kind of thinking out loud here, but I would enjoy a class like this.

I'm new here as far as posting, but I've been reading for quite a while and I used to post a lot over on ENWorld.

I just wanted to comment on a few things regarding Pathfinder and the new base classes that are going to be announced.

Firstly, I think that adding new rules, such as classes, is a *good* thing. A set of game rules is a living, breathing entity that should be tinkered with and expanded upon. Otherwise, we might as well be playing Monopoly. While I recognize that a lot of people got into the Paizo products more for the setting (which is cool), there are a lot of us who are interested in the PFRPG as a way to continue our home-brew 3.5 campaigns, and we are looking for new, well-balanced rules to keep our campaigns fresh. Adding new classes is a part of that. I always enjoy reading new base classes and trying to figure out a way to fit them into my own setting. And, if they don't fit - oh, well. I just don't use them.

Regarding the post Lisa made regarding an example "Oriental Adventures" type product that would include the rules in one book and the setting information in a separate book - I see why that seems like a good compromise for people who just want one or the other. I would just hope that there is at leas a *little* setting information contained with the rules book. Reading page after page of straight rules can get pretty boring. I've always enjoyed the synthesis of reading the rules with the setting information, even though nine times out of 10, I don't use the setting stuff. But, it does give me ideas on how to incorporate the rules into my own setting.

As an example, I always thought the old Iron Kingdoms books did a great job of making the rules interesting by integrating them with the setting. I still use a bunch of those rules even though I disregard most of the setting stuff. But, it just makes it much more fun to read.

AND... regarding a potential Asian-themed set of rules for PFRPG - please don't forget that Asia consists of more than just fantasy Japan archetypes. Again, in Lisa's post, she made a list of some potential Asian-themed classes like Samurai and Ninja. While those are classic fantasy-Japan archetypes, by reading through the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book in the description of the Tian peoples, there are clear references to places in Golarion that are based on ancient China, the Mongol-steppes, and Southeast Asia as well as Japan. And, there's also the Vudrani peoples, which (based on their picture and on the names they use) is a loose analogy of the people of India. As far as I know, I don't think any publisher has really done a good job trying to capture the spirit and flavor of an India-based fantasy setting. The closest I can think of is "Mindshadows", but that was almost entirely psionics-based.

I would really love to see an Asian-themed book of optional new rules, classes, etc. But, I would like it to be more than just Samurai, Ninja, and Shugenja (that is - it should be *more* than just a dust-off of the old WotC "Oriental Adventures").

Okay - I have more comments and thoughts, but I'll save them for future posts since this one is getting long.