SneaksyDragon's page

I really like option 1, Jason (the second options probably should be used as well, but less often than a sorcerer of course) I would love to see a bit more strategy with what is supposed to be the most tactically cunning of the martial classes and I think this would most assuredly do so.

Thanks you OP for approval ^^

Why dont we give the Fighter one of these abilities

*catching ones breath- a number of times per day equal to CON bonus +1, a Fighter can take a standard action (which does not provoke) to heal a number of hitpoint equal to twice his level+ his CON score

*Fighter Specialization- as long as a Fighter remains single class, he can chose one weapon. He is +1 to hit, +2 to damage, a may make a additional attack as a full round action with a -3 to all attacks. (this is to have a fighter like he was in 2nd ed...he was cool then) at any point a level of another class in taken, this become a regular weapon focus feat.

*Morning training- after resting, the Fighter may reassign any one feat at first level after 30 minutes of practice. The Feat stays fixed until he reassigns it (as per gaining it), he gains the ability to do this for two feats at 10th level and three at 20th

I say this because i just built a fighter who had around 16 feats and when all was said and done, he was just OK. (when you have to waste a to not draw attacks of opportunity for punching a guy, they go fast)

Feats are not the only answer to making the Fighter exciting, their image is to damaged for that to work (P.S. my Fighter build is the first Fighter my group has even though about using. Im not even sure Im excited about it)

anyone who thinks that warblades shoot fireballs, hasnt actually read Bo9S. (that the secondary BAB Swordsage) Ive gone through the Warblades list, from first to 9th level abilities, and found them believable for a "nonmagic" fighter. sure an attack that does straight +100 damage looks broken, but at 18+ level, a full attack may do as much damage.

(I just wish it was a little less monotonous, Steely Wind,Mountain Hammer, Refocus, Steely Wind, Mountain Hammer, Refocus, Steely Wind....etc)

wow, why we are at it, how about we create a actual reason to fight with a single non twohanded weapon. I like the idea that there are four major melee fighting styles rather than three

*Two handed style
+more damage and forced (already does this)
-shoulders squared with foe so is less defensive (need to work on this)

*Single Weapon style
+unsquare shoulders, smaller target to be hit with ranged and melee attacks, greater speed
-mediocre damage

*Two Weapon style
+more attacks when going all out, fighting defensive bonus of some sort (if not using of hand weapon to attack, maybe all hits are sunder attempts against the of hand weapon)
-attack penalty, squared shoulders (but makes up for it when fighting defensively)

*Shield Style
+great ranged protection, Fighting defensive bonus (all hits are sunder attempts against the shield)
-Mediocre damage

...yeah yeah yeah not backwards compatible....

Fighter can remain the simple child of the core classes, thats fine. I just need another class called a "Swordsman" to play the actually COOL and dynamic melee class (nope, dont want to be a slavering, raging swordsman, or a holy and devoted swordsman, or a woodland ,two weapon fighting swordsman)

but can we rename the Fighter, "Warrior" and put in in the NPC classes? and lets do away with all those CONFUSING feats, new players will have difficulty picking them....

I am an experienced player and I would like to play a more complicated Master of Arms. (shouldnt new players be your clerics anyways?j/king)
Lets give fighters a Fighter only skill that gives them temporary access to feats and special abilities if they make certain DCs.

totally agree, Humans are well balanced with the other races now. (I would like to see a touch more love for the Gnome) if you prized versatility more, of course the human will look better to you. but as pre created packages, the other classes are slightly more powerful ( and thats goods, the trade off for being fixed)

Set wrote:

Perhaps a Human could add one weapon to their list, of the lowest tier that they don't already have access to. So a Wizard could add any one Simple Weapon to his list, while a Cleric, who already knows all Simple Weapons, could add any one Martial Weapon, and a Fighter, who already knows all Martial Weapons, could add any one Exotic Weapon.

An interesting fix. It would open things up a bit for the Bard, and the Druid (although they still have their minimal metal issue).

I've already NPCd that, a bit. A character with Martials chose a single Exotic.

You've got my vote. ;)

put me down for a vote too!

My opinion is that player should be able to decide on target archetype (or build) and than customize it through feats.

So, while the core class abilities of the fighter should make him him more durable and stronger over levels, its the customization angle which should provide a selling point to customers, er, players.

In order to reign in feat suggestion, I would advise to produce a quick list of archetypes suitable for Fighter class, and verify that such fighters are doable.

Example fighter character archetypes:
1. Armored Juggernaut - monstrosity with high defenses and high offenses. Particularly effective against groups.
2. Skirmisher - highly mobile skirmisher with good protection against ranged attacks and attacks. Particularly effective against single opponents.
3. Commander - officer leading armies. Often mounted. Decent offense, defense, diplomatic skills, decent mobility. Particularly effective with morale boosting abilities.
4. Protector - typical MMORPG tank character, i.e. fighter type with high defense, high hitpoint reservoir, ability to withstand SoD. Particularly effective at stopping opponent advance (Attacks of opportunity, Trip, Bash and so on).
5. Sheriff - self-sufficient fighter. Jack of all weapons and master techniques, able to self-heal, decent in all fighter areas.

Also, there are special aspect of fighter which should be important part of possible character development - these are not archetypes per se, rather aspects to be added to basic archetypes as per player wishes:
1. Arcane - fighter capable of shrugging off magic attacks.
2. Siege - fighter capable of operating siege machines.
3. Mounted - warhorse rider. Knows how to protect his mount from high level offense.

There are various ways to implement this, one could for example design talent trees (a fighter chooses a few talent trees and bonus feats are added automatically at certain character levels):
- Arcane Protector, Siege Skirmisher or Mounted Sheriff

Another thing is do define feat pools and assign...

Man, I love to hear that there is more to "Fighters" than just Protectors (as you put them) Protecting party members is a useful skill, but it is not the only concept for the battle trained warriors. In most 3.5 games my Fighters feel like crash test dummies. I get into the wreck,get mangled, so some yuppie punk doesnt bruise his shin in an accident. at least crash test dummies are mindless and dont care that they fill a crummy role.

IF your going to deal some damage your going to take some hits, I hope

back to the point, I like your archetypes and fully support building the Fighter class to fulfill these concepts

*crazy idea* how about we make the Fighter a more viable foe to be directing attacks at, hence make them better. the concept of "artillery" bugs me about 4E and I dont wish it being modeled after here. Damage output on a one for one basis should go to the Fighter classes not the wizard classes. (Wizard classes can have Mook management, if the wish, and FIXING ANY noncombat event with magical might!) a single foe should fear the cleaving blade of the Fighter just a bit more than the burn of a Wizard. (make more flexible spells, and more useful utility spells, minimized save or die, and outlandish single hit spells, such as combust)

I like perception the way it is ( I LOVE that it is totally Wisdom based, hated all of the rogues who were as smart as wizards) I just think that the rules for perception as a single group roll needs to be investigated.

sowhereaminow wrote:

Something interesting came up the last session with the Fighter in the game I run. He had recently switched to heavier armor, and was concerned about his speed being reduced, so he was looking to purchase Boots of Striding and Springing. Although the party was in a village where this item would exceed the gold piece limit for the village, the party knew a friendly NPC with extensive contacts who could get some more expensive items from a larger city in two to three days.

After informing the party of the time delay, I figured they would go wrap up a minor matter in a nearby dungeon, and pick up the item upon return. The party decided wait for the item before the fighter could even request for them to wait. The entire group thought it was important for their Fighter to stay mobile!

This got me thinking – every medium/heavy armor fighter I’ve ever ran myself tries to obtain a speed boost item to offset the slowdown caused by medium/heavy armor. I suspect others have seen this need as well, based on the reaction at my table.

With that in mind, would it be appropriate for Armor Training to reduced/eliminate the speed penalty for medium and heavy armor at different levels? Say treating medium armor as light at one level (say 3rd or 7th) and treating heavy armor as light armor at a second (say 7th or 11th). Even though it might cause cherry picking, the earlier this is available, the more benefit it would have to the fighter.

Thanks for reading.

Make it a feat for those fighters that feel its a problem. Otherwise, the ability would be percieved as unnecessary for the dexterous light weapon fighter or archer style fighter (or any mobility driven build).

I would have to disagree, archer style fighters are fine enough as is, so throw a freebee bone to the tank fighter. (power attack, improved unarmed strike and combat expertise should be free Fighter abilities that others can take as feats)

...and if I could get someone to playtest a fighter in one of my games. I am currently running three games, one with back up characters already built ( a particularly dangerous game) and I have 4 barbarians, 2 paladins 3 rangers and NO FIGHTERS. I cant bribe them to play em.

This is a must have for the Fighter in my book.

The only other heavy armor users have ways around their slow movements,( clerics having movement spells at higher levels and paladins having a mount to move them around) I would say that once the armor check penalty was lowered to the armor check of a lighter type of armor, your movement shifts correspondingly. hence once your breastplates armor check became -2, you would then be moving a 30ft.

movement and armor penalty not being worth the slightly higher AC happens to be one of the most lopsided arguments. it is unfortunate that 3.5 relies so heavily on it being a gridded game, but as such mobility is a key to winning, or at least having the chance to get away.

so they was not flying? or mirror imaged? you have to hit for the spell to be released.

so I gotta spend 8000 plus gold and have my WIZARD OR CLERIC friend enchant my weapon to hit the guy. when the bad guy just need to wake up in the morning and memorized a suggestion spell to take me totally out of the fight?

To much other people buffing me so I have a chance. give me a feat like dispelling strike and let me do it once or twice per day. I have plenty of feats that are next to useless anyways

(hey I am actually envious of you, my group knows the ropes to good, and by the book, I dont have much of a chance with my nonspellcaster which I love. F%^&in spellcaster)

heartly disagree with humans being the strongest class in 3.5. (or Pathfinder)

* a +1 skill point per level is not the same as +2 to INT, you get much more from the INT (increased INT skill bonuses, access to better feats)

* humans are the jack of all trades they take ten on all classes, every race has a class (or a couple) that they do better than humans. halfling rogues are hands down better rogues than human rogues (-2 str, dont need it you have sneak attack for damage. +2 dex, nuff said. +2 cha, better at bluffing for feints, disguises, intimidation, and diplomacy. small size is almost nothing but boon for rogues and arcanist (totally worth the human feat all on its own) +2 to perception(sound), Acrobatics and climb are fantastic for rogues, +1 saving throws is great for any class. +2 save vs fear is the only oddball (but bonuses to save are always good)
only weakness if there 20ft move. (dont need to out run them, just find someplace small to hid)
Orcs and Dwarves are better clerics and Druids, Elves are better Mages.

now if you have a particular love for the humans versatility, then that is fine. your love of customization does not make it "better" just preferred

holy warrior variant for the cleric seems way to powerful, primary BAB 1d10 on trade for a bonus spell per level and two domain abilities? sounds like a munchkins paradise. It puts the paladin to shame (Its the first Paizo idea that I have ever fully disagreed with)

the feat that heals you for 1d4+1 per level if you are below 50% health is way powerful (but I like this one) great for games where no clerics or healers are wanted.

at 9th level or higher? I would love to believe you, its just a bit hard. do your wizards buff??? tell me the magics in which the mechanics flow with how the story should proceed. a unprotected mage SHOULD be a sitting duck. NEVER happens in ANY game I have EVER played. only at low levels and only if you get the drop on them. after six round of spells and buffs you prolly want to wait until the greater invisibility, stoneskin and Fly are up.

probably the mage you had to fight only memorized attack spells, that CAN happen (idiotic as it is) better win initiative get a full attack, or pray that he doesnt have anything worse than suggestion left (and better make that save or its game over)

lower levels, for sure. but at 9th level or higher, dont rightly know how.

Welcome Luna! we may be a bit of a bickering family at points, but their still is plenty o love ^^

well in a cookie cutter game this works (when 4/5 characters never get separated, always are conscious, and don't betray the party) and if you run the game like a board game or MMORPG

unfortunately or fortunately, my group operates story first, mechanics second.

in a game where npcs can have the same builds and classes as pcs, a little balance should be encouraged. if your pc party fights a powerful npc party, and the only ones still up at the end of the 6th round happen to be your 9th level Fighter and their 9th level wizard. Your fighter shouldnt have to turn tail and run because he mechanically CANT take on the Wizard. (Lord knows when the fighter is going to be the LAST one to fall, only if hes specialized in ranged combat)

I don't want PVP, and my group doesn't in fight. It is just disturbing when a poorly built wizard can one hit kill my well thought out Fighter (Iron Will just doesn't cut it)

perception had been a must have in my group (you do want to act in surprise round right?) Im trying to hedge that out a bit. one solution is to allow for one perception roll to act as the group perception roll (you dont let everyone roll diplomacy, and take the highest do you?) If one person notices the threat, all he has to do is use a FREE ACTION to make his allies aware. IMHO legolas was the only one of the ranks in perception (Strider did have good ranks in survival though)

perception should be a niche, much like diplomacy or disable device (or stealth for that matter) this is a party game isnt it?

ranger elf stops the party and quietly tells them that "it sounds like orcs ahead" the human fighter rights himself and hustles forward into the now blown ambush

*Sneaksy Dragon hops with delight, but then realizes that he is not hopsy Dragons and once again slinks low behind his wall. the slightest noise of crunching and happiness carries...*

*Sneaksy Dragon peers at the delicious cookies from behind his stone wall*

must...have...delicious cookies, but if i go out into the open I lose my cover...I must be patient and maybe the cookies come to ME!

Welcome all! Ive been here since Alpha 1.0 (only 110 post though) I dispense wisdom or nonsense whenever the little voice tells me to.

pull up a chair and tell us how you see things!

dont try to hide the truth!!! people need to be warned about the inbalance of power. Down with the spellcast'in man!THERE IS A WAR GOING ON FOR YOUR MIND.

but seriously, dont read the post if you hate the discussion ( gloss over every elf discussion to the best of my ability)

My group (and many others for what I hear) are having problems with the enjoyability of non-spellcasters, no one wants to take the "take 10" class when they could play the "take 20 5 times per day" classes. THAT is a problem that I care about. Theses are problems that CAN be discussed maturely and could be backwards compatible, hence, should be allowed to be brainstormed upon for a beta.

I do understand the weariness of these ongoing debates, I feel that too. and I agree that more fixes should be mentioned than just complaints. but I see a substantial sized group that would like to see their need addressed if possible.

NOT trying to bring the debate over here, just want to give a little bit of the view from the other side.

d20 BESM also has a point breakdown of all the standard D&D classes, PLUS Superpowers^^

A T wrote:

I have always been a fan of elves with a +2 Wis (high perception and will save) instead of Int. This could be ok, if there is a wood elf down the pike and the current elf is a high elf.

high elf +2 dex, +2 int, -2 wood elf +2 dex, +2 wis, -2 con
dark elf +2 dex, +2 cha, -2 con

Seems fine, but is a dangerous .concept .. all this custom subraces would just trash all favorite class meaning ... it is a shortcut to give you all you like from every race ... if we start this way, we soon will have three or four subraces for every race ... ( say gold, artic, hill, mountain dwarves, just to make an example ) all different and with different stats ... if we take this path soon or later we would end with the same mess created by splat-books that Pathfinder is trying to avoid ...

If you want a bonus to charisma, just select a different race ...

Great Point! I am still reeling over the "Core" classes of 4th ed (friggin 3 out of them are elves...and no gnomes grrrrrr) im sick of wood elves, artic elves, jungle elves, keebler elves. I am not just picking on elves, dwarves and halflings have there share of mutations. simply put, if you have a type of elf for every class, then the favored class ability is worthless and so is the human and half elf for the most part since they lose the corner as the "fill any role well" race.

as for ability scores, I definitely would go with two +1 bonuses every four levels.

(non related) I would ask for an INDEX, to better locate information in the book itself

and a master magical item list (with percentages and everything ;)

I agree that spellcasters are by nature more powerful, and Im so sick of "its a party game, do your part meatshield" I want there to be a scene in my game where the young master of swords fights the lich king one on one, and have the swordsman have a chance at winning.

how many people defending nonspellcaster classes play mostly nonspellcaster classes? well I play them and as well built as they might be, they lack so much in comparison to spellcasters.

I feel there will always be those who fight against the nerfing of spellcasters because it hurts their cash-cow. so im going to offer some feats and cheap equipment to equal out the equation.

Fighters sense (combat manuever)
Preq BAB+3, Blindfighting,
all magical concealment bonuses are removed, and you can sense the five foot square that an invisible creature occupies as long as its within your line of sight

Tagged Flyer
Preq BAB+5, point blank shot
if you take a standard action to use a ranged attack against a fly creature/person, you immediately instigate a CMB check, IF you succeed, the flying creature plumments to the ground (taking only half falling damage for being a controlled fall)and lands prone

Dismissive strike (combat manuever)
Preq 1 rank in spellcraft
if you strike a spellcaster who has buffs already up. the spellcaster has to then make a Spellcraft roll vs the 10+damage dealt or lose their highest level buff.

close the distance
Preq BAB+6 lightning reflexes, spellcraft 3 ranks
if a magical barrier is going up (blade barrier,wall of fire/force/stone etc etc) you get an immediate action to use a move to place yourself closer to the spellcaster (note you must be attempting to move towards the spellcaster)

heres a bit of overpowered feats that nonspellcasters need to make the classes more balanced

Jess Door wrote:

If I am a fighter without access to spells, I have to depend on the goodwill of party spellcasters, or the goodwill of the DM to tailor encounters toward me - because otherwise I will not be able to defend myself effectively, I will not be able to attack effectively, and I probably won't even be able to run away. As a gish, I can at least have some basic access to basic defensive, offensive, and enemy defense-piercing abilities.

I disagree with this. I DM for a 13th level party, and the barbarian of the group is ugly tough:

Turk (Half Orc Barb 13)
S20 D14 C16 I10 W10 Ch8
Fort +15 Ref +10 Will +14
move: 40ft +fly 1/day 5min
AC: 26 Flat n/a touch: 14
HP: 127
melee: +2 Adamantite Greataxe, Evil outsider Bane (+21/+16/+11) d12+9

possessions:
+2 adamantite greataxe evil outsider bane
celestial armor
+1 heavy steel shield, animated
cloak resist +4
amulet nat armor +1
ring +2
ring feather fall
+1 animated heavy steel shield
belt of giant str +4
crystal mask of mind armor
potions: various heals, owls wis, prot evil, see invis, haste

This guy kicked serious butt, dealing an average 30hp/round, more when he was lucky and that is without rage, or power attack (then it pushed 60hp/round). If the cleric threw a Freedom of Movement on him (in rough times the mage used Displacement, haste, or stoneskin) with Silence on a dagger he carried, he ruined opponents, even casters.

Looking over his stats and items you can see he had craptastic rolls (20 STR at 13th level with a +4 belt!?) and he was *still* easily a whirlwind of destruction.

I think there can be bad melee builds just as readily as there can be bad caster builds. This character could still be stymied by some things (walls of x, ) but the party was there to help him, and having him putting pressure on the enemies weak points made the caster's jobs much easier. While the mage of the group certainly slapped enemies about, the barbarian had loads of fun and killed many a wizard in his time.

...now apply those Items to a cleric of equal level that has tons of buffs to add on top. now add the metamagic feats that increase duration. he could kick as much butt, and cast heal. hence, combat clerics are broken

SneaksyDragon wrote:

(not in my groups games, wizards out live everyone, most to least likely to die Rogues-Fighters-Clerics-Wizards)

This is interesting to me. I think that I've actually killed more wizards than any other class. Barbarians being the next. Wizards have too few hit points and there seem to be too many times where one save -- regardless of type -- kills off a wizard. (Or the dragon does three attacks on the wizard, or ...) Barbarians get killed because they wade into battle and have a crappy AC.

Every game is different, my groups wizards travel in the middle of the party while moving, stay far out of combat when it starts. have as good of CON's and DEX's as possible ( my newb friend gnome wizard stats are STR 7 DEX 16 CON 18 INT 20 WIS 9 CHA 13), take Improved Toughness. Unless I am trying to single them out, I can rarely get them within a breathweapon, and they seem to always have enough hitpoints to survive a failed saving throw. and, for some reason, they draw less aggro than other classes (by the time they draw aggro both their sudden maximized Fireball and there sudden quickend Fireball finish the job)

I try to disallow alot of spells out of the spell compendium. and Item out of the Magic Item Compendium for their general pandering to the Spellcasters

Rogues are first because they try to do stupid things that get them kill by failing a single roll, and because they tumble into the middle of fights, draw aggro, then die. Fighters are second because the parties dont know they are over their head till the Tank is -15, Barbarians do enough damage and have enough hitpoint to barely make it out alive, much to the dismay of the cleric that has to heal that enormous mound of hitpoints.

my playtest group has been using the "trade out the martial weapon prof for a Weapon focus, and in specific cirumstances, Exotic weapon prof" it has not been unbalanced in the least. with skill consolidation, the bonus skill point (while still very nice) is slightly less powerful

and I will say that any tweaks to Halfelf needs to be minor, I think they are doing fairly good

simply put, it matters whats getting played. in my games (and many I have seen) Tanks are on the way out. People like them in the party, but most astute gamers steer clear of them because they are less mechanically fun (why play mediocre, when you could have finite cosmic power) the minigame is much better for spell casters.

sure you have die hard Fighter fans that love the carnage of melee combat (and newbs that love the IDEA of being the melee guy, I say newbs because anyone who has played the game long enough realizes that the mechanics of the game work nothing like the mechanics of your favorite fantasy story or movie) but in actuality, the cleric can do more melee damage ( and soak more) than any martial class... and have more fun in the process as a better thinking mans game.

Now Im saying cleric only because it relates more directly to being a Fighter. Wizards are much more extreme, but extreme is FUN to many. high chances of death and tactically devastating power is great fun for skilled players ( not in my groups games, wizards out live everyone, most to least likely to die Rogues-Fighters-Clerics-Wizards )

skilled players can make any class seem good, its when you have a party of skilled players that the spellcaster really show how better they are.

This is how it works in many of my gaming groups, no one want to clean the toilets. (I friggin have to fill the role WAY to much)

I am only half as heated because I know many defenders of the "balance" never play non-spellcasters. they dont want people to believe caster are better because that messes with their plans

(to all you players that love playing non-spellcasters and are defending their worth, I apologize, these comments are not directed at you, Pathfinder is doing a great job with rage points, Paladin lay on hands and Monk Ki. Give something to the fighter besides feats and make the Ranger abilities more interactive on a round my round level and we have a beautiful thing)

my group uses bonus skill points (since many classes are 2+ skill points per level) bonus hitpoints makes less sense.

OH sorry, this thread was neither ability scores nor races, I am on the wrong design part of the game. I apologize for my ingorance

A run skill would be fantastic, it would solve the atrocity that is d20 chase scene (alright, the bad guy double moves and disappears around the corner. your PCs chasing after, okay you double move and appear right behind him, On his turn, with a burst of speed, the enemy runs around a corner. when your turn comes around you see around the corner he went there is two other corners and plenty of hiding places. what? you should have been five feet behind him the whole time and he couldnt possible have hid from you? sorry, the way movement works we all take our turns moving.)

with a run skill, a withdraw from combat (or full run drawing attacks of opportunity ) would automatically trigger a contested run check. every five point higher equals five feet more added to your move. If a pursuer closes the distance or passes, they get a free CMB check (that doesnt provoke an attack of opportunity) to grapple the target (difficulty would be 15+ CMB or 10 + escape artist) maybe three successful run checks made by the target lets them shake there tail/tails.

I have seen some rules for chases, but never one that was placed in the main book. Run skill or not, i would greatly appreciate an alternative to the jerky chase mechanics that are used by default

....maybe this is just a use of athletics/ acrobatics, does anyone else have a problem with the chase mechanics?

Well, thanks for the input! I see that others have stumbled on to this concept. As for Constitution, I would see no problem with a rule that had you use the lower of your CON or STR/DEX when fatigued or exhausted. It wont come up that often, but still gives some love to CON (keeping it it FORT saves is also a fine idea)

Side note: swimming may be a CON based Skill, I really wish there was at least ONE CON skill

Me and my gaming group have been playtesting alpha and now beta in three separate games (The beta has only been in effect for two game sessions) I feel with confidence that i can say that a tweak needs to be done with Acrobatics.

In games where just acrobatics was in use (plus climb, swim, fly ) some characters lost alot of there mobility ( fighters cant jump over pits, neither can rangers) and some characters gained abilities that really didnt make much sense ( why is the barbarian as good of a tightrope walker as the cat-burglar rogue?) In the game sessions with this rule in effect I couldnt get my players to agree with the mechanics, they would gripe about the illogic of the physical skills (WTF? Barbarians are barrelrolling under the halflings legs????) and it was brought up that it was strange that acrobatics was three skills but swimmming, flying, and climbing were all individual skills. ( wouldnt flying be an aerial ACROBATICS check?)

I then made a house rule to let pathfinder be more backwards compatible. I created the Athletics skill, made it Strength based, and made it climb and jump (not alot of times will something be a poor jumper but excellent climber and visa versa.)

Acrobatics was playtested as the Dexterity side of Athletics (the finesse in which you jumped, the precision of your movements) I had it incorporate balance, tumble and fly (if you can fly)

I have played with these changes for several months now (straight into beta) and havent seen much in the form of problems with it.

(I am well aware that I can just house rule it in my game, I just thought it was a houserule that made alot of sense and wasnt too much of a change)

I have no problem with spellcraft (sick of Constitution being the second most important stat for all spellcasters)

I do have a problem with Acrobatics, why can my Barbarian cartwheel across a highwire while my ranger cant jump over a creek and always looses his balance while sitting in trees?

The change is SO simple, you have two skills:Acrobatics and Athletics
Acrobatics covers tumble and balance, and Athletics covers jump and climb (if you want to add Escape artist to acrobatics and swim to athletics that just matters how much combining you want to do, at least do theses two skills) Acrobatics uses DEX and Athletics uses STR

If you want to combines swim and fly more power to you. both follow similiar principles of how they are done.

Friendly rivalry or not with WOTC, They left many of us for greener (and younger pastures) I am indescribably happy that Paizo ruled the Ennies (I thought they would, but 4th ed almost made me give up hope for the gaming industry)

you have all brought happiness and hope to a whole lot of my friends so congratulations!

(p.s. please keep showing the big boys how the game is played!)

I have a bias against books that are "childlike" in organization. it is organized well, and they make sure to make small words and direct you to exactly which race to play with which class. fortunately they made every race to fit PERFECTLY with certain classes, how clean (and horribly boring) I know some people like the main artist but he really is not as good as the guy Pathfinder has. The Race and class pictures in Pathfinder have gotten much more praise from my group, people want to actually PLAY those characters! The 4ed PHB did not inspire me to make a character. (the tiefling look stupid, the dragonborn are boring, the elves and eladrin are subraces and dont need to fill the PHB, the halflings are boat folk (whos great idea was that?) and halfelves GET A +2 TO CON! (personal hang up) the humans are the only one i would play.

and having all the special abilities listed with the class made that section of the book very tiresome. (did like the str or con to fort, int or dex to reflex and wis or cha to Will)

it is simple to read, but so is winnie the pooh

if you can fake 4ed as D and D in your eyes, more power to you. I wish i could not sense that Dungeons and Dragons 4th ed failed it save versus Soul steal. I agree that the spells dont feel like spells. all of the flesh has been blasted of the Terminator robot that is Dungeons and Dragons, and it is ugly (if your into pistons and glaring red optic units, great)

there is a subtle dance of mechanics and drama. for example, a spell pool system gives the feeling that you are tapping a reserve of energy. That you can conjurer up magics but at the cost of your endurance. blast to many waves of fire and your head will swoon, to powerful of a spell and you might just knock yourself out!

once per encounter sounds good in mechanics (and is good mechanically) but how is that explained dramatically? and does that explanation match what the genre sells? at will abilities also may be good mechanically, but it takes the magic out of magic, and making it as mundane as a swordstroke. theres reasons why we dont have holidays everyday. one reason is that it would take the "special event" out of it.

outing staples for the flavor of the week is weak

im really tired of people trying to make races so good as certain classes that you would have to me an idiot not to take them. there is a difference between mechanically working and mechanically monkeyed-out. give some fluff and some mechanics for every race. 4ed has the corner of making races specifically for certain classes

I read through the 4th ed PHB and hoped that WOTC was playing the biggest practical joke EVER! The pictures are uninspiring, the layout sucks, the target audience happens to be 8 year olds with learning disabilities, the half elves have a bonus to CON! the races and deities where chosen by superficial, panderers. the mechanics ARE SO BORING, thanks for coming up with a game were everyone get the same boring progression. the writing put a crayon in your hand and directs you to make a Styrofoam hero. the system may be good for table top miniature battles, but does nothing for the entire rest of the game. (oh, and the skills system that fights character customization.) the system may run well, it just it further from what D and D SHOULD be.

I would give this book a c-, a grade that makes it not have enough pedigree to be called Dungeons and Dragons. My group will not be buying these books (thank you Paizo for giving us an options!)

I like "Fly", keep it

that Wotc video shows how shallow Wotc is. why are people trying to make new concepts based on soley mechanical reasons (I KNOW halflings make good rangers and rogues, give them INT and then low and behold, the halfling concept now has a pointy hat)

you want to build uber-races, go talk to WOTC. IF you want to make cool concepts, stick around

Gnomes deserve the INT bonus and need favored class wizard, I get the feeling that many people want halflings to have a INT bonus because its mechanically better than CHA, not for any real aesthetic reason. Gnomes are incredibly more dynamic characters in my regard, their only real weakness is that WOTC stuffed a blunderbuss with abilities and shot it at the Gnome. Its abilities are not great for any class. the bonus to INT really helps give them an edge (now if only we could get some sort of exchange for Gnome arcane spellcasters racial cantrips, really not useful at ALL)

they dont have half the hitpoints now, they got like 4/5th the hitpoints. I understand that every class needs to fight, but every class doesnt need to be able to fight toe to toe with a Fighter. In my mind a true swashbuckler is a multiclass Fighter/Rogue,now I dont think Ill be seeing any of those again (maybe some for the armor specializations) the damage output is even better for a Rogue than before (since they can do it on about everyone)AND they now have access to many feat quality abilities and more hitpoints. The Fighter has been given a okay bump in power, but not enough to warrant everyone getting even better bumps.

I never had problems with people wanting to play rogues (and i dont imagine any less being played if sneak attack was deprived of its stupid flanking component) rogue talents, a condensed skill list and more hitpoints happens to be a incredible trade for a toned down sneak attack

first, I love this character sheet (the little booklet idea is great!)

minor fix though, disable devices still list INT as favored attribute when it should be DEX (I wouldnt worry too much, the official sheet has way more mistakes^^)

the cute ones??? thats 3.0 talking, thats the Gnome that was so uncared for that it got shuffled out of 4.0. Gnomes have had over a decade of being strong wizards before Wizards of the Coast gave them a pointy hat and told them to stand out in the yard. Jan Jansen is furious (if he wasnt so busy making bruiser-mates) in 1st and second ed HALFING COULD NOT EVEN BE WIZARDS!!! they were magically inept (except for clerical magics which makes me start to warm up to a wisdom bonus for them)and the Gnome WAS THE ONLY CORE RACE WITH A BONUS TO INTELLIGENCE and could multiclass as wizard with ease.

grahhhh! give the halfling WIS if CHA doesnt work ( and in the pathfinder system, it almost even better for rogues ) but dont give them INT, it would be a slapped on concept to a race that doesnt need help (the Gnome is still suffering from the "I dont know what this race does?" ailment

plus if the halfling got a bonus to INT, they would be better adventuring wizards than elves. plus they would be annoyingly similar

character sheet has Disable device list INT not DEX as key attribute, Spellcraft list DEX instead of INT and Swim list DEX instead of STR