Thurgon's page

Yes I know, not usually a big 4e fan but I have come around a bit. First I have been trying to build a good middle earth game for some time. Using 3e/Pathfinder just makes for some messy stuff because of healing.

Let me explain though what it is about 4e that has gotten my attention and made me think much to my great surprise that it might be the system to use. I envision middle earth as having very little grand magical displays, magic is more obsure. It can be very strong but for the most part no one is whiping fireballs around regularly. More importantly there are no priests running around, no good ones at least and certainly none healing and removing poisons and deases. Healing is a very very rare and special thing and when you find it if you do, it will more then likely be in the hands of very special individuals so players may not have any regular access to it. That fact alone scared me in 3.5, sure I could do something with temp hit points and damage reduction and I have tried that road, but 4e seems built for what I am aiming at. If I stick to martial powers and classes for the most part I have a total package of classes and even "healers" that my players can choose from and still fit the world with very little alteration on my part. The Warlord, I might simply rename him, fits the roll of party "healer"/leader perfectly without magical healing of any kind needed.

Now this will be my first real attempt to really play a long term 4e game so I might be back weekly once the game gets started with questions and such, for now though I need to build the world and get the plot put together. But still I will be coming here to ask how to do things for a bit and any help will be appricated. I tried it as a player some, but not much and really not long at all. My initial reaction to 4e was very negative but many of my issues will not come into play in a middle earth game, for one magic, my players fully expect they will not be playing wizards, clerics, or any magic caster and they want that, no Miai PCs just makes sense to us all. The whole alignment thing that really turned me off, doesn't really matter, I simply allow all 9 alignments and it will not harm the mechanics of 4e which is all that matters.

First issue I see is races though. I need to have a couple that well no D&D game really has well mapped out. I would think the two elves from 4e will work for my Standard elf and wood elf, which is sweet, no PC Noldor they are by this time (Playing around with TA 1660 or so) very old and each is special and powerful. The dwarf and halfing(hobbit) work very well for me as well. No half-orcs yet so I don't need that. But for more diversity in the races we would like three races of Man, High Men (Dunedain/Numenorians), Westron (Bree men, Easterlings and the like) and Savages (Barbarians from Forochel and the like). Half elves as a race do not exist, at some point they either embrace their elven half and for all intents and purposes are elves or they embrace their human side and are Men.

Any thoughts on how to build the racial makeup of the men? I just want a little flavor differences maybe I toyed with simply taking their bonus feat away and giving say High Men +2 Cha, leaving he bonus feat for Westorn, and then taking it away and giving Savages +2 Con. Just thoughts but I would like to make them all good choices balanced but with slightly different flavor.

Another early question I have is what books should I look into getting? I have the core three and phb II only so far. I love the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Warlord for the game, ((And barbarian too)) am not sure but think the bard can work (with some work) as can the warden. I don't really need flavor books unless they directly pertain to Middle Earth. If anyone knows someone who has attempted a middle earth game for 4e that too would be helpful. I do promise when I get done I will post my game somewhere for anyone to use as they like.

Ok enough debate about the pathfinder cleric. What's done is done. Time to get to making a cleric class I want in my game.

My plan: I want to create a class named Cleric that honors the old editions but is rebuilt to be balanced with the other Pathfinder classes and with itself. That means the domains need to be balanced first and foremost. It also means they if they are going to remain the toughest casters (best armor options, best saves, and best hit die) they better not be as good offensively. I also want to use the domains to make each cleric stand out from each other.

My preconcieved thoughts on the cleric:

1) Ability to wear the best armor in the game, that means heavy armor proficency. (I might limited this by domain, I might not.)

2) Able to turn/control undead.

3) Is the most defensive class in the game.

4) Can be more then pure support.

5) Has things to do outside of combat that matter.

Ok now that said I am not ruling out introducing a class like the speciality priests of second edition. It would be for people who want more focus on casting and less on melee.

Ok first I need to work on the domains. Tonight my plan is to go over all the current ones and build just one that is at the power level I want my domains to be. One thing to be certain is domains will include feats, more then one spell per level, and increase the spell lists of a cleric. I will also need to come up with a core spell list for all clerics, shooting for 5 - 7 spell per level, with domains each adding 3-5 more.

Any ideas or input would be great. Here however is not the place to continue the debate over the pathfinder cleric, if you like him as published, great but this thread is about a rewrite from the ground up based much more on the D&D cleric then the pathfinder one. So if you aren't commenting about that, I will not be replying to you.

I will post my progress as often as makes sense. I will also read thoughly any ideas you might post up and be more then willing to rethink issues. I am not perfect, I will make mistakes.

Ok basically I am looking to build a barbarian that can do more then fight. It will be for a small group (3 players) and need to be able to cover something other then fighting.

I was thinking I could act as scout and trap remover. Sure I can't do magical traps in pathfinder, but I can find and remove all others assuming I've got the skills. Perception is in class and that helps. But stealth and disable device are not. Because a high dex will help with stealth I was thinking of doing the less then optimal TWF. I know not the best choice but well seems pretty cool in my mind's eye.

I am thinking race wise human is my best bet, feels right to me. Also adds skill points and a feat both things I will be needing.

Ok here's the stat line (25 point buy)

str 14
dex 18
con 16
int 10
wis 12
cha 8

Level 1 feat was thinking TWF

My plan is to take skill focus along the way in disable device and perception.

I have concidered instead of toughness taking skill focus disable device or perception but I really like having toughness for the early levels.

Any ideas, thoughts, or things I should be weary about?

If you all think I am asking too much of the barbarian class for this type of build I am open to ranger who would have more skill points and more feats free because of the weapon style. I was just thinking of Conan and him being part thief and all and building a barbarian in that style.

I was looking at some my players choices for PCs and none want to roll a rogue. I'm ok with that since one is going for Bard and another for Ranger, so two skill monkeys should be good at covering what the rogue did skill wise. Surely the ranger can act as a scout and the bard will be great for bluff, sleight of hand, and the like. Fine. But unless the Gnome Cleric wants to burn one of his two skill points on perception and unless he wants to wait till he has find traps the group has no way to find traps without tripping over them.

The party can live without a fighter, the paladin, barbarian, ranger, or a combat focused cleric can do the job.

They can live without a cleric, if they use a druid or bard to cover the healing, the bard isn't optimal but he can do it with scrolls if needed.

Clearly the wizard can be replaced with the sorcerer, bard or heck a druid or cleric can in a pinch make it happen.

But because no one except the rogue gets Trapfinding, no one can replace him. I see no point in that. Make it a feat anyone can take but that rogues get for free. End of issue.

That's my thoughts what are yours?

Maybe I'm just old, but I don't tend to have places my players can buy many magic items. If a magic item is for sale they are usually low end ones, +1 dagger and the like. People don't sit around making potions that the party can buy, they might have some simple things like a few cure pots but not things the general public has little use for.

And if my party wants a +4 two handed sword of dragon slaying they had better be able to make it themselves, or quest for it. No one is sitting around making such an item just to sell it, too much risk and you better hope someone needs something and can afford something of that magnitude.

I have drilled into my players the need to take magic item creation feats, it not only allows them to make what they want it reduces their power. And trust me the cleric is making his +4 holy mace before he makes the sword for the fighter, more then that he usually charges the fighter list price because thats a ton of his time spent doing jack, and a player making an item is out a few game sessions more then likely. Even if he isn't he isn't getting other things done like social investigations, expanding his flock, or a number of ways players burn non-adventure time. So it wont happen often that the cleric burns that time for someone else.

Anyway that's me. How do you handle it?

Inspired by the "Who wants to use a bastard sword thread" I am asking who wants to use a great club as a way to ask why is it a martial weapon?

It's d10 damage x2 crit mutliplier and crit range of only 20 all make it one of the weakest, if not the weakest martial two handers around.

I would love to see it moved to a common two handed melee weapon. First because it's stats are very much in line with common weapons, second because the common two handers have a noticable missing weapon, something with a big damage die (d10 for a common weapon is big). They have the high crit multiplier weapon (spear d8 x3 fits that.) But no big die low crit multiplier.

I would add it also isn't a complex weapon, it's just a big club and all.

Anyway what do you think? Is it valuable were it is or should it be moved where it would be of use?

Let me break this post into two parts. Part one is a rant about my favorite race. Part two will be my talk about a new campaigne I am running using Pathfinder.

/Half-Orc Rant on

I like the half-orc race. I always have. Misfits, outcasts, tough folk who need to earn their place in the world though strength, dedication, and skill. I have been playing D&D so long that I own 1st ed books with toys 'r' us price stickers on them so I guess you can call me old school.

Being old school I recall the half-Orc in 1st ed as fighters, assassins, and clerics and of course multiclass combos there of. Way back in the day they and half-elves were the only two races able to be clerics. Later with Unearthed Arcana others could but first there was the half races. Another improtant part was Orcs used to be lawful evil, they were tyrants and bullys. Not chaotic engines of destruction they become in 3.X. But out comes 3.X and it was good, the games were fun and the system solid. But my half-orc was left changed and angry about it. His favorite class was barbarian, clearly signifying his anger over the changes he raged against his fate.

Now though in Pathfinder they are allowed to chose between Barbarian and Druid. See I am ok with Barbarian, I would prefer rogue or fighter, but ok. But that I would assume would be for half-orcs raised mostly by orcs. But for half-orcs raised by humans wouldn't they be more inclided to either Cleric or fighter with their stats being what they are? I mean who else would take them in but the church, sure druids might, but much more likely would be clerics.

I would like to see their classes become barbarian and cleric. The first class a nod to the anger over their change to chaotic and the second to honor their traditional place in the game. I ask this because too much of what is wrong with 4e is a lack of respect to the orginal game, let Pathfinder blaze it's path showing it's respect to the classics with this simple yet I think well needed change.

Thanks for listening to my little rant. I do love the Pathfinder system, I really like what it has done to each class and race. But why not aim for perfection I figure.

/Half-Orc Rant off

Panjara is my own world. They are starting in the far north area and simply looking to make a little money. They hired on for a troll hunt and then things got complicated.

I am looking to convert it over from 3.5 to pathfinder. Right now we have a paladin, fighter, rogue, druid, bard, and ranger in the party. Each seems like they will be improved with the change of editions. What if any issues do you think I should look for? (party level is 4 right now, the ranger is a dwarf, the bard a grey elf, the druid a half-elf, the others are all humans.)

From here on my posts will detail how things are going. We will begin play this coming saturday 4/18/2009 and I will keep a running log to explain what rules we found issues with, what rules we really liked, and maybe even a little bit of the story as it unfolds. Thanks for taking your time to read this, and please input anything you think might help.

I would love a new options for rangers. Since second editon on the ranger class has been ... altered to be able to produce Drizzt clones. I dislike that greatly. Now they add the ability to make Legolass/Robin Hood. And that is better but more could be done. See Drizzt was not a two weapon fighter because he was a Ranger, he was one because he was Drow. Stop forcing all melee minded Rangers to be clone of a one of a kind guy.

Allow a more choice. Great weapon Ranger. Using feats like Power Attack, Cleave, Sunder, and the like instead of the two weapon choices. Even throw in medium armor so a ranger with moderate to even poor dex can be made viable.

Honor the 1st ed ranger, add in a great weapon ranger who hunts giants with his great sword wearing chainmail and trading blows in a truly epic battle.

Just a thought and I don't think it would unbalance anything. Otherwise I have been reading pathfinder and loving it. I am trying to get my group to give it a try as well. Thanks for your time in reading this. It matters to me, but maybe not other that I can build a more Strider like ranger.

((Sorry I know I put this elsewhere but I think it belongs here.))