Zephyr Mourne's page

If I'm understanding the optional ability boosts, the dwarf in the example would be (free, free, free, no flaw?)

It sort of sounds like it would be (free, free, done) like what Humans get currently? Though I guess you could do (free, free, free, flaw of your choice) and it would work out the same way.

While your post may be a bit overdramatic

I don't deny it. It was over-dramatic. It's just that this keeps happening to pen-and-paper RPGs and I'm getting really fed up.

Did you see what White Wolf did to BESM? Have you perused the 4th Edition core books? You have to buy three of them just to play the CORE CLASSES from 3rd Edition. And then there's Guardians of Order, the most brilliant and innovative RPG publisher since TSR's golden age, going out of business.

Anyway, after switching my campaign setting over to Pathfinder Beta as soon as I discovered it, it was very disappointing to find another sub-standard product in my hands on release day.

Yeah, this was very disappointing. There was a lot of interesting character creation stuff that just vanished from the beta to the full release. But mostly, I ONCE AGAIN feel cheated and let down by a product I looked forward to for ages.

Man, I hate being a gamer anymore. I haven't gotten a product that wasn't chock-full-o-blunders since D&D 2nd Edition Revised.

So, in this thread, we have discovered that there ARE NO RULES LISTED IN THE BOOKS that state how to determine starting hit points or ability score increases (unless you count an offhand remark in the glossary that only makes sense to seasoned gamers). So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.

Wow.

And it's not like it's an understandable oversight. The rules were in the beta version. So what happened?

So, since some of us paid good money for a product and received only part of it, could someone who helped write and develop this system please post here and tell us what the rules are? We can figure it out, but that's really not the point.

First the evil empire gives us 4th Ed. and now this. I give up.

how do you do "insane damage" with one swing again? unless i'm mistaken, spring attack doesn't allow a full attack...(looking it up...)...nope, just one swing. \...

Fighter, level 20- Let's assume the fighter specializes in close combat with a fairly heavy weapon, say a Greatsword which does 2d6 damage, for an average roll of 7. He's level 20 and has increased his strength a few times, up to a modest 18 for a damage bonus of +6 when wielding with both hands. He also gains a +4 from Weapon Training and a +2 from Weapon Specialization. Now let's say he's spent his money wisely and his greatsword is a +5 flaming weapon. So add another 1d6 fire for an average of 8 additional points. We are now up to 27 points. Also, the fighter's crit range, thanks to Weapon Mastery, is now 18-20 and does not have to be confirmed. The multiplier is now at x3, for a potential damage, with average rolls on the damage dice and a lucky attack roll, is 81 points.

This compared to...

Wizard, level 20- Meteor Swarm does 6d6, so with average rolls, that's 21 damage. Fireball by now does 10d6, for average damage of 35 points. In both cases, the target can save for 1/2 damage and spell resistance is an issue.

There are a whole host of other variables (the maximized, empowered fireball, for example), of course, but...

Wizards are more powerful at this level, but the fighter isn't any less competitive than any other class when compared to the wizard.

Not to mention Spring Attack is torching three feats to be ineffective offensively and still get full attacked defensively.

So your stance is that the ability to move, attack, and move again would fix the problem, yet you state that taking a feat that does exactly that is "torching."

I've been playing and running fighters for a very long time, and have yet to feel useless at higher levels. Yes, the role changes, but they still have value. And most fighters in my games wind up with Spring Attack at higher levels. It allows them to get in, do some insane damage, and get out before the Wizard tosses fire or meteors in to the mix. And Dodge and Mobility certainly aren't wasted at low to medium levels.

I think you guys are doing it wrong... Let the Wizards fend for themselves at higher levels. They can. Fighters don't have to be the party's buffer anymore at higher levels, which gives you the freedom to play with some other concepts for them. I agree with you on a lot of the mechanics you are discussing. Fighters are lousy meat-shields at higher levels. I just don't think that should be the goal. It's the playing style you suggest that I question.

Don't forget the "R" in RPG. I know MMOs and console "RPGs" may have confused some younger gamers, but that "R" is the most important thing, and it doesn't involve min-maxing your fighter in to a mathematical and statistical icon or assigning every player a specific task in combat based on his choice of class.

Okay, now I'm just rambling... please continue with your previous conversation.

Apparentlly Paizo & Wizards feel that elves aren't beuatiful if they're not tall. And they're catering to the present day generation, who's only vision of elves were the LOTRs movies. (note: they were tall but not taller than humans). Best way for middle of the road humans would be make new pc races! Don't change something that already works.

I was never a fan of DarkSun because the elves were so tall. May sound like a lame reason, but it's true.
Doesn't mean they need be only 5'. The 4e elves are a little taller than I'd like, but not too tall.

I would just like to point out that there are quite a few, by which I mean a majority, of gamers who read Lord of the Rings long, long, long before the movies. I first read them at age 11, 22 years ago, about a year before I first started playing D&D. By the time I was 14 and running my own games, I had a house rule that elves were taller than humans, because in every piece of high-fantasy literature I read, that was the case. D&D was the exception, and it took away some of the majesty of the elves.

This change is definitely not "catering to the present day generation." If anything, it's catering to an older one. Given how little Wizards seems to think of my generation of gamers based on 4e, I'm giving Paizo extra points for this one.

More like... you may move a distance equal to secondary attacks sacrificed/total attacks available as a move action (so if you have two attacks, and only take your primary, you can move half your speed as an Immediate action) or better yet and more clearly written just make it 10 feet per secondary attack you choose not to take which doubles with haste. You can also save attacks, which is what someone else here said.

So if you have 3 attacks you can swing once, save two. Then as an Immediate action move 10 feet and attack again. Something like that.

Did I miss something here? I'm pretty sure this is already possible within the rules. It requires a feat, but surely nobody is suggesting that a fighter is short on those?

Spring Attack allows you to move before and after an attack. The restriction is only that you must move more than 10 ft. before the attack and the total movement cannot exceed your normal move. This would allow you, even if you only have one attack in a round (unlikely if you are a fighter with Spring Attack, but...), to move ten feet, make your attack, and then retreat another 10-20 feet depending on your race and the armor you are wearing.

Granted, the feat in question has some prerequisites, but Dodge and Mobility can come in handy for a fighter, especially when your Wizard or Sorcerer is about to lob an AoE, so it's not a huge sacrifice. I really think this whole thread under-estimates the innovation of the player within the current rules.

Howabout this?

Rangers may optionally chose to Forsake spells. If you do so gain the following benefits.
1) Gain an Additional Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain.
2) You gain both Benefits of the Hunter's Bond.
3) You gain additional Bonus with Favored Enemies and Terrains equal to the highest level of spell you would be able to cast.

Not quite enough to compensate for the lack of spells. I think an easy fix would be to make the animal companion more powerful (suggested earlier in the thread) and/or give them some list of talents. I like the idea of the ranger as a loner/hunter. Aragorn, let's remember, did not cast spells. He had a healing touch passed down from his ancestors, more like the Paladin's Lay on Hands than a Cure__Wounds spell.

Tolkein... The Lord of the Rings stories, which spawned the general outline of most of the type of fantasy that D&D is inspired by, described the Elves as being taller than humans... I've always disliked the "Keebler" approach to elves in previous editions. I was thrilled to see the elves taller in Pathfinder.