Skara Brae's page

there will always be new GMs who do not know that they are 'supposed to' ignore certain things in the rulebooks, because 'no sane GM would allow that.'

Then perhaps the GM advice section of the book needs some rewriting and clarification to explain that the rules are open-ended and the GM WILL have to make judgment calls on a number of issues that the rules don't cover very well. In those cases, they should make the call that provides the most fun for everyone, maintains internal consistency in their campaign/setting, and is the most balanced. (In roughly that order of importance.)

In what is going to appear to be a contrast to my previous post on this thread, I will freely state that I think mechanical balance is often overrated. You cannot perfectly mechanically balance everything in D&D. The only way to do that is to have one mechanical option and just reflavour it constantly. And even then, some metagaming tool like myself will come along and use roleplaying and the spaces between the rules to gain an advantage. You can powergame Risus; it isn't hard. What the rules need is a rough semblance of balance, while still allowing for a lot of character customization. Of course the GM is gonna have to houserule some things. No open ruleset (such as an RPG) can be exhaustive while truly remaining open. This means the GM HAS to make judgment calls. IMO, providing advice that helps the GM figure out how to make those judgment calls is better than assuming that the GM and/or the players are either too dumb or antagonistic to work something out, and turning the game system into a straightjacket as a result. D&D really can't help you with those kinds of social/relational issues anyway.

....Okay, that was my rant quota for the day. *sheepish*

There's a skill to determine what animals a character knows what about.

There sure is, and I believe there is some fuzzy consensus that the way Knowledge checks work for IDing creatures is less than ideal. (At least for internal consistency and "common sense" reasons...the baby dragon being easier to ID than the adult, and whatnot.)

What's more, the Druid can summon most of the relevant animals.

I think I need enlightenment on what animals, exactly are broken. Of course, with the changes Pathfinder has made to Wild Shape I think this problem as a whole has been tweaked downward just a little?

<soapbox>
In my experience, while this isn't relevent to the SNA debate, a lot of similar problems can be solved by simply defining a list of "base" material for your campaign, letting your players know the flavour/theme of the thing, and saying "See the DM if you want other material". This won't fix things like casters being disgustingly broken compared to melee types, or the power differences between a mixed group of powergamers and non-powergamers. But it does help ensure that your powergamer(s) have some sort of concept to match their unholy build, instead of them degrading into that guy who everyone's afraid to mention D&D around because he'll spout off about his level 37 paladin with garters of Wisdom +10 and a nightmare as his mount... Why? That unholy build now requires DM approval. What the players figure out real quick (so quick you don't even have to tell them) is that approval is granted on convincing story/concept reasons only. If you can sincerely justify a T-Rex in a Pirates of the Caribbean style game to the GM, well, you deserve to have it. However, if you fail to convince the GM that inserting T-Rexes would be fun and flavourful (and this seems more likely), I'm sorry, but no T-Rexes in this game. We might run Jurassic Park next time though.

TL;DR version: not all campaigns and settings are kitchen sinks. Players need to respect that, while DMs need to be open to working with a player so everyone gets to have fun.
</soapbox>

And he can always write a T-Rex into his backstory anyway.

This is a player issue and not a rules issue. A player can write a lot of things into their backstory. And the GM is free to tell them that T-Rexes (or spaceships, or laser beam robots, or ninjas, or paladins, or even elves!) do not exist in this campaign/do not fit the flavour, or "negotiate" with the player in exchange for his/her awesome T-Rex-in-backstory-granted powers. Of course, some DMs might also just look at that and tell the player "If you need it that badly, you're probably better off with another group" or, even less tactfully, "you're being a cheesy #@($*%$&bag. We'll have none of that now." (I'm not fond of the "I am DM, hear me ROAR!" types myself, but they are out there...)

I have two copies of the Pathfinder RPG beta print version sitting in my cart right now, and the system is telling me my shipping will be $25 because it's going USPS priority (and I can't choose another option). Is this an accurate estimate?

If so, do you offer shipping through another courier, even by individual arrangement? (I've had another online store send my stuff thru UPS even though they don't normally, because I wanted the ability to track the package.) $25 seems a bit high for a non-trackable package, especially given the cost of the product. I'm only in Canada guys, not some Siberian wasteland. :P

Frankly, they should take a look at the 4E Powers. They're really easy to read.

...and really fugly.

The name is a little weird, but I was able to look past it.

I am very glad they are changing the race lineup. It looks...kind of silly, to be honest. The Conan he-elf and the gnome superhero are the worst for this. I can't look at them without giggling madly.

And I agree the spells need nicer formatting. The lines look very ugly. At least change them from black to brown. And make the spell titles a different font, not all caps, and a little bigger size. (And also not black -- more like the "level 2" headers for racial traits, or class skills.)

While I don't hold out much hope for this entering into the final Pathfinder rules, this concept came up when my husband and I were re-designing the core races for a homebrew. It led to some lengthy discussions on what exactly constitutes a "race", in D&D, and what sorts of abilities should belong to them. We decided they should only have inherent abilities (we reworked the way language works too, so that wasn't a problem). As I recall, we ended up deciding that certain sorts of things were inherent:

• types, subtypes, and size.
  
• ability score modifiers.
  
• vision, speed, and movement types.
  
• some skill bonuses, tied either to the race's physical attributes or to an ingrained racial psychology.
  
• similarly, most abilities that can be tied to the race's physical attributes or ingrained racial psychology. This includes things like bonuses to saves, humans' extra skill points and feat, and so forth.
  
• most spell-like abilities.
  

As far as Pathfinder's concerned, I'd like to know what its designers think a race should consist of. It would help determine if there is any merit in starting down this path (which, although it is a fun path, can be quite a long one).

It seems like a very minor issue considering the fleeting mention.

We are, however, here to discuss all the potential issues, however minor they may be, in order to help make Pathfinder the best it can be.

YOU have the power to state absolutely in your games that Charisma emphatically is NOT even in the slightest a reflection of physical attractiveness (as you understand it).

It would be pretty hypocritical of him (or her, but I think BlaineTog is a guy, although I don't remember) not to. I run Charisma the same way in my games. However, BlaineTog did not post this here because s/he was looking for advice on whether this was a good houserule.

That said, nothing in the words Physical, or, Attractiveness, are related to appearance or beauty.

Um, what?! My understanding is that "physical" refers to the bodily aspects of a person one finds attractive, aka what we generally think of as beauty and appearance, aka things like hair, figure, facial features, "endowments", and so forth.

please don't jump all over Pathfinder RPG because those two words are in the text and you've got a problem with them.

I don't think Blaine's jumping all over Pathfinder. This is just something that s/he's really wanted changed officially for awhile and now, finally, there is the chance something might actually happen about it. It's one of those many small, annoying things that people houserule to fix what they feel is broken or just plain wrong with 3e -- exactly the sort of thing that Pathfinder is trying to fix.

And frankly, as a person who tends to play high Charisma characters, I've gotten quite sick of the "your character must be hott!!!~~!1" mentality that comes with a Cha 14+. (Don't even get me started on playing a high-Charisma halfling or gnome.) While one can always decline to game with people who make such, ah, comments, it would be a lot easier if the game didn't encourage such an association in the first place.

In case I haven't made myself abundantly clear by this point, I support BlaineTog's position 100%.

Can a Rogue who has taken Major Magic as a Rogue talent use arcane strike?

I asked a similar question here and got snowed under with a bunch of "no" responses. YMMV.

Are these chips an inch across?

Seconded. These look really cool but I have no idea how big they are, so I'm not going to order them until I find out.

Also, what material are they made out of? What's the finish/coating like on them?

Sorry I haven't responded to this thread, I have been busy lovingly fondling the pages. Ahhhhhkkkkkkk! Beta!!!!!!!!....Like this wonderful Beta I am running my fingers over. The pages are so silky and smooth. It speaks to me about things like CMB. Ahhhhhh. :)

I hate you so much right now.

(It's okay, I'll love you again in a week, when I have my beta copies.)

Secondly, favoured class is intended to stop min/maxing and level dipping in a way that breaks the game. Reading the message boards it seems like there is real concern that the rules should prevent this kind of play.

The question is whether the favoured class rule achieves either of these. If it doesn't what are alternatives. I haven't seen any put forward only the suggestion to drop favoured classes.

I don't think favoured class achieves achieves this goal. Many of the worst offenders as far as builds go rely on only one or two base classes. PrC, feats, spells, and racial abilities can be just as much a factor in creating over-the-top characters as base class combos. Furthermore, to stop minmaxing you'd have to take away racial ability adjustments altogether. (And, btw, they already help to function as a favoured class mechanic, by giving you certain higher stats which are more useful for some classes than others.)

Edit with some examples to clarify: anyone playing a changeling is probably looking at rogue or bard because of the Disguise and social skill bonuses, regardless of what its favoured class is. Anyone playing a druid is automatically going to gravitate towards races with a Wisdom bonus.

I would still much prefer to see the Favored Class concept supported by Racial Feats that provide bonuses to standard features of a races favored classes than by any sort of automatic bonus or penalty. Converting aspects of the Racial Paragon substitution levels from Unearthed Arcana (which essentially do this same thing in 3.5) would be a good place to start, and Racial Feat lists could be vetted by individual DMs based on what they felt would be appropriate for any individual game.

Another option might be looking at some of the racial substitution levels and converting them over to feats. (I was a big fan of racial sub levels, although the idea was poorly executed in some instances.)

I can see pro's and con's for both sides so: Ask your DM

I am the DM. :) I was leaning towards disallowing it myself, because the feat is clearly meant for full casters and because an SLA is not technically a spell, let alone an arcane/divine/whatever spell. But it's nice to have the backup. :)

Does a rogue with the Minor Magic talent qualify for the Arcane Strike feat? Why or why not?

The GSL is definitely sucking...

I, and my group, attempted to play 4e. We gave it a good honest go, and heck I even approached it with an unhealthy dose of denial. However the writing is on the wall, 4e is simply unplayable. And more to the point no one likes it. My wife finds the pathfinder PDF, and suggests a one shot to try it out. The group was very enthusiastic, I played COD4, one player even saying he was impressed by it. (coming from him that is high praise indeed) Later that night I looked through it, and honestly, it's one of the best things I've seen in a long time. And better yet, becuase of its backward compatibility, if a player is missing something from 3e, I can, as a DM, just plan bring it back. So long story short, I'm converting my 4e Kalamar game into a 3p Kalamar game.

This thread actually has a point, and it is even related to the title. Despite 4e being unplayable, there are some small things that I do like about it. The biggest one being action points. I really like how the simplified version of action points work. The way 4e does it, players use their action point every second encounter, but i was wondering if perhaps a system of action points similar to 4e could be used. In that they are renewable resource which grant an extra standard action, once per encounter. But they aren't plentiful enough so that they are used every encounter, but aren't scarce enough that players will actually use them instead of hoarding them until it looks like the angle of death is looking them up in the phone book.

Other things about 4e I like are; healing surges, the simplified encounter building system, and well...thats about it actually...