I'm planning on two changes to the monk and one new rule.
Because the monk gets flurry of blows at full BAB, I think the class should have a d10 HD. Not a big change, but it puts the class in line with other melee types. I actually prefer the idea of a d12, but I'm not sure all of the players would appreciate such a big change.
Along with the HD, I think the CMB and CMD should be calculated using the full BAB from flurry of blows.
Finally, I'm also planning to add an optional rule that at 3rd level, monks can charge at normal speed (not double) and can do a flurry of blows instead of a single melee attack. This new rule would allow the monk to get the full use out of fast movement and be a mobile attacker.
Does anyone see any problems with these changes?
On page 11 is a list of Common Terms that includes HP (including starting hit points, BAB, saving throws, and a lot more). The character creation rules don't point to this page, but it is right in the front in Chapter 1.
Just optional rulebooks according to Wizards. Each class in the PHB has at least two different builds (warlock has three). These new classes will introduce new builds just as the current splat books do.
Mike Mearls explains here:
that the new boxed format gives new players the tokens and maps they need. Rather than shelling out money for rulebooks and then needing to go buy dice, minis, and maps the player gets everything in one box.
So someone looking to check out D&D and is completely new to RPGs can shell out $20 only for the red box and get everything to play an adventure from 1st to 2nd level (rules as well as dice, mini die-cut tokens, and maps).
The price goes way up from there, but I can see how dropping $20 just to try the game is more entry-level than the $90 core books plus buying tokens/minis and maps and dice in addition to the books.
I'm not Rodney but I believe it works just like the current DDI. You pick what books to use in the Character Builder now. I would assume that the Essentials books will each get added in just like any other release.
So an Essentials only DM could allow just the books from the Essentials line. Another DM could mix and match. And some DMs would allow every book. Just like the current system works.
DDI would also update the Player's Handbook wizard spells and include the current errata. But again, Wizards already updates for errata anytime you update your Character Builder online so this wouldn't be a change either.
Whimsy Chris wrote:
According to Wizards, the ten-product Essentials line will always stay in print ( I assume with the core books?). So the red box, DM box, monster vault, three tile sets, two player books, the Rule Compendium, and something else I can't remember will always be around for starting players. You'll get rules, maps, and tokens in the red box and can build up by buying other Essential line stuff.
The Essential line gets a version of support in 2011 with the Nentir Vale Gazateer. This location is in the DMG and I would think in the DM box as well. This setting works without the Essentials rulebooks also.
Basically, the Essentials books are being advertised as more splat books aimed at new players. Said splat books are to stay in print so new players can get one red box and try the game out, solo or as a group.
I'm running 4e right now and I already have the problem of identifying what is core and not. A player that has an ongoing subscription to DDI will have a different character than a player who bought it one time in January 2010. For example, the player with an ongoing subscription may have a better racial power for his tiefling avenger but that same avenger can no longer get his armor bonus in leather armor.
I know what is going on and it still confuses me. Essentials won't be any more confusing it will be more of the same just with more pages.
As far as changes, Wizards is putting out the Rules Compendium which is both an Essentials book and 320 pages. If all the recent 32+ pages of errata PLUS the wizard changes to powers are in there, then I'll have three problems as DM.
1.) How recently has each player updated their DDI Character Builder? 2.) Is anyone using an Essential class? 3.) Is everyone using the Rule Compendium?
I'm basically preparing my own doc to explain the options in my game. But I can guarantee it won't work perfectly.
And it is more difficult to play D&D without the Character Builder. I watched two players try this with only 1st level PCs and it didn't work (too much math).
Add to this confusion that skill challenges have never worked. The DMG has two different versions of DCs for skill challenges. The DMG 2 has another set. And two recent modules (the H1 and the free Dark Sun) both have another different set of DCs.
So even Wizards doesn't know all the rules and they get paid to write this stuff.
And yet, everyone around here loves D&D. So I just wing it. Kind of like playing AD&D 1E again actually. The DM just makes stuff up when the core rules don't work and everyone just rolls with it.
It's actually a little crazy seeming, now that I've written it down.
I met Dio after a concert years ago. Even though it was 2 in the morning he greeted everyone with a friendly smile, signed autographs, and even made small talk. He was a true gentleman and I will miss knowing he is out there doing what he loved best for his fans.
I also feel bad for his wife, Wendy, as well. They were together for decades and losing a spouse has got to be rough.
For the witch, I’d like to see them be able to completely replace the cleric in a party. Maybe have a midwife power that gives their familiar all the cure spells, restore/regenerate spells, and rez spells. Maybe have a power similar to the paladin’s lay on hands as well.
As for the rest of the spells, I think the witch should focus on curses, changing shape, poison/sickening spells, enchantment, divination, and illusion. I don’t think the witch needs summon monster at all or blast spells.
As for spells granted by familiars, I think a general list for a type of animal might be helpful (so the list can be expanded). For example, one list for mammals, one for reptiles/amphibians, one for flying creatures, one for marine creatures, etc. So an owl, bat, or hawk would get the flying list and the octopus the marine list.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Thanks for the quick fix. Divine Mark still has a small error, but many of the others were updated.
Steve, thank you for your honesty and great customer service. I'll look over the updated PDF and rewrite my review accordingly.
I do think that trying to switch directly from 3.5 to Pathfinder would be tough just as going from 3.0 to 3.5 was. I stopped playing 3.5 over a year ago, however, and tried some other D20 games and 4E.
When I got PFRPG in August of this year I didn't have problems with a switch because it seemed like a whole new game after a year. I have converted several 3.5 items with no problems.
I don't believe PF is meant to play easily backwards for 3.5. Paizo doesn't have the license for 3.5 stuff out of the OGL, so I wouldn't think trying to keep the 3.5 core rulebook market in supplements would make a lot of sense for them anymore. 3.5 has been gone for over a year now.
I do think 3.5 converts fairly well into PF but I'm not an exact mechanics GM. My players don't check my math and they trust me and I'm as careful as I have time for.
For me, it all comes down to the fact that PFRPG works really well. It works better than 3.5 ever did for me. Since Paizo is having a lot of success with the game, it appears they are meeting a large percentage of the needs of their audience.
Yes, it is a good start. I okay with what we have so far.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
That's actually a very good idea. No, really.
If Paizo tackled the planes of Golarion next they could literally open doors to other worlds as needed. Heck, they could make their next campaign the planes of Golarion and connect the two campaigns of Golarion and the planes of Golarion together.
As with MDT I'm also making a homebrew. I started another thread so as not to threadjack my own race thread, but now I'm threadjacking anyway.
I believe I understand what Paizo is doing. They have only released two core rulebooks while they've written tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?!) of words about adventures and Golarion. So us newbies have to be patient.
However, I did switch my subscriptions to the Pathfinder adventure path but turned away after the ogre incest rape issue. I came back because of the core rules (and the adventure paths coming up seem more my style).
So I'm hoping for variety. Ogre love for those who want it, catfolk for others, and psionic aliens barely surviving on a blasted world cratered by asteroids and overrun by dinosaurs, ninjas, and pirate ships for me.
James Jacobs wrote:
Scooped by Mr. James Jacobs. I wrote my previous post before I read his new post. Sounds fair to me. I'd love to see some new campaign settings and rule supplements. As long as Pathfinder and Paizo isn't going anywhere, count me in for the long haul.
And sign me up for the psionic aliens. Can I preorder yet?
James Jacobs wrote:
I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?
None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.
So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"
To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."
But I can understand that supporting Golarion, which makes them money, and not supporting Dusk, which doesn't make either one of us money, makes more sense to them.
And I appreciate both the honesty and quick response.
Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)
Right, I believe that is what he is saying. We'll see an occasional race like the suli but not many and only if it fits Golarion. Which may bum me out a little, but at least we know the current plan Paizo is using. And many third party publishers are making new races (and for very low cost).
James Jacobs wrote:
Okay, that makes sense. Just want to know what to expect. Thanks for the very quick response.
And you can still put me down for a map tile of the tarrasque's stomach.
In the thread on new races, I found out why adding new races isn't a popular design choice for Paizo (and if you want Comeliness to make a comeback, good luck:)).
Which lead me to this question, is the APG fairly Golarion specific? When I read the core rules and bestiary I got the impression that the rules were for home brews and that Golarion was one option.
If, however, things that don't fit well in Golarion won't be created in the rules area of Pathfinder (which the race discussion seems to point out) then I'm a little bummed. Because that will somewhat limit the options for future rule expansions (for the core rules not the other lines which all are part of Golarion).
I'm wondering how tied I'm going to be to Golarion for my fix of Pathfinder rules. In other words, are the Pathfinder rules just be another support line for the Golarion world or will we possibly see rules for things that exist outside of Golarion? Not right away, of course, but maybe in the future?
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply. Since I'm not looking for new ability scores (but I do miss my Comeliness so I guess I'm not completely against the idea) I'm glad races come first.:)
I agree but then we have prestige classes in the base book and those seem just as world specific.
Do you know why we aren't likely to see those races? I may have missed posts about it, so please forgive me if it should be glaringly obvious. I'm just curious why Paizo wouldn't want to add races when they seem so popular and if they have officially commented.
One of the things I like about the ironborn is that they may or may not be under the control of their master. The PCs can never be sure if they can trust an ironborn or if has been ordered to lie to them to achieve another end.
Of course, if they want to free an ironborn, cutting off the head of his master might work.
I'd enjoy seeing a lizardfolk-like race as well as the elemental races. The design book mentioned above sounds worth checking out as well.
I'd say the following seem of interest as possible races:
I'd also throw in the idea of an insect race. The thri-kreen were alien and creepy and the dolmites (spelling?) from psionics srd were interesting as well. different castes with different elemental attachments with colored carapaces to match.
I would politely like to advocate some new races. While I like the idea of statting up aasimar and tieflings I would enjoy seeing some new races as well. Living constructs, like the ironborn from Malhavoc Press, interest me as do a beast race like the litorian or sibeccai for Unearthed Arcana/Ptolus. I'm even okay with a humanoid, dragonman race like the dracha from UA.
Also, for some reason I've always liked gripplis (small tree frogmen). They lurked in Greyhawk and I've always like them.
If we do see new races I'd appreciate the same design idea that went into decisions about then new class. A new race should have both a new mechanical approach and a new roleplaying niche.
For instance, making dragonmen honorable would bump up against what dwarves already do. On the other hand, making them greedy merchants with huge egos that can sniff out treasure and make back room depicts a brand new and unique race.
As to why I think we need new races, I'd say the cultures that could spring from them could be better for my campaigns than even new classes. While I like the oracle, having my players meet one doesn't shake up their world.
But an ironborn cavalier, serving a Machine God and programmed to serve basically as a sentient slave unable to flee, is chilling. Very interesting interaction with the PCs and their larger world.
The ironborn are living constructs and are immune to mind-affecting spells. The oaths don't fit them very well as two provide resistance to enchantment and one to curses, diseases, and poisons. I also rejected Oath of Protection as nearly impossible to ever use.
The current oaths don't support an NPC who will in combat against damage-dealing PCs. I'm not sure if this design choice is deliberate. A bonus +1 to Reflex checks against spells would be useful (Oath of Hope--avoid some type of failure like a failed save) or initiative (Oath of Honor--draw first blood to activate and show honor). Just throwing some more useful options out for oaths.
Also, the mount is a great idea but any cavalier inside a structure at 3rd-level loses a huge class benefit. While the text says the cavalier is powerful without a mount, a 3rd-level cavalier loses two class abilities while inside a small structure that doesn't allow mounts.
If the charge ability worked for the cavalier (while mounted or not) it would be useful but perhaps overpowered. Perhaps a reduced charge bonus while on foot for all the charge class abilities?
1st level under the normal rules is extremely dangerous. One option is to up starting HP.
I just started a new Pathfinder game and I used a suggestion from a player to adjust starting HP (I think he got the idea from Monte Cook). Each PC added his Constitution score instead of his Con bonus to HP at 1st level.
This boost helped the 1st level game run better. I had a vicious axe beak in the game that champed two of them negative and under the normal rules they would have died.
With the adjusted HP the fight was dangerous, could have been deadly, but they could win with careful fighting.
I don't know how Channel Energy plays out at high levels yet, so I'll have to see if it seems balanced or not after 1st level. But adjusted HP might have made the combat more surviable but still dangerous.
Reebo Kesh wrote:
Pathfinder has a slightly less rulebook feel and a slightly more story feel. Short vignettes lead off each chapter for example.
I played my first Pathfinder game last Friday and I found several improvements. DCs for traps (Perception and Disable Device) seemed more accurate for 1st level PCs. The monsters also seemed balanced. If you had no trouble with these things in 3.5 then this may not be a selling point. For me, knowing Paizo crunched some numbers to determine DCs and average damage based on CR was a big selling point.
Rules are still OGL. I believe you have to register here before publishing adventures, but I'm not a game company owner so you'd have to search around on the Paizo site for the requirements.
Here are 10 reasons I bought PF:
4E did hurt my mind, but I have friends who play it and more importantly they are teaching it to some younger players (some who now also want to check out Pathfinder).
That being said, I spent over $100 on D&D 4E nd gave away a few months of my life to it that I can't get back. So I may have to make fun of 4E every once in a while.