n30t3h1's page

You might have missed this, but Mobility has been changed. Now its a combat action that lets you simply ignore all AoO for the round.

I don't think he was talking about the feat. I think he was talking about the ability to move around in combat, in that heavy armor slows down your character.

Haven't we been over this? There's an older thread about this somewhere. Toughness would open up alot of things like other feat and PrC. If this was to happen it would need to be a class ability something like called barbarian endurance so it would be abused.

Fizz

How would the Barbarian getting Toughness be any different from any other class getting bonus feats? The Wizard gets five free feats, the rogue gets feats from his class ability, the ranger gets Track. I won't even go into the fighter. I think giving them a d10 and the Toughness feat would make their resiliency more pronounced. Even with a d12 you could roll a 1 every level, that just doesn't seem Barbaric.

Does anyone think that the rogue should have the option of not being "the trapfinder"? They should have more options available to them. Something social or combat related. I think they should get a choice of their archetype. Maybe they get a few choices: dungeoncrawler, fast talker, thug (just as a few). The dungeoncrawler gets the trapfinding, the fast talker gets special abilities with social skills and the thug gets bonuses during combat.
I've always wanted this and when the PHB2 came out and I heard about the new class features I was excited. Then when I saw the options, I was disappointed. I think Paizo has the opportunity to help make the Rogue more versatile. I know they are very versatile, but I would like more options to run different archetypes.

I'd suggest it as well.

Another small change I'd suggest for the poor feeble familiar is let them gain feats as they (through the Wizard/Sorcerer) gain HD.

A familiar doesn't gain HD. It gains virtual HD, meaning you use the spellcaster's HD in appropriate circumstances. This means the familiar doesn't gain HD of its own. Which means no HD = no feats. Though I think giving the familiar a number of feats equivalent to half of the master's HD would be nice or at least giving the familiar full access to it's master's feats.

The Arcane Bond ability of the wizard. What exactly does it mean when it says:

A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard knows, just as if the wizard had cast it.

I never understood what a Wizard's "known" spells were. Does this allow him to recall a spell he has already cast? Does it allow him to cast any spell in his spell book? What exactly is a spell "known" for a Wizard? If someone could clarify both this ability and in general what it means to be a spell "known" in terms of a Wizard, that would be greatly appreciated.

I think it also said that druids will be choosing one domain from air, animal, earth, fire, water and plant.

...yeah, I guess it does say that. I didn't read that paragraph closely enough.

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but reading through the domains section in the first alpha test it appears that Druids might be gaining domain abilities.

The cleric’s (or druid’s) level is used when determining the caster level of these effects.

It's not a major glimpse, but it's something interesting.

I think the best current example of this is the Combat Feats system. Instead of completely removing the idea behind the system they could have just changed some of the feats. They could have split the system into Offensive and Defensive or at least changed specific feat trees. I liked the idea of the system, it just needed a few tweaks.

This seems like a stretch, but here is a proposal. Instead of each weapon dealing its own amount of damage. Why not have weapons classified and each classification deals a set amount of damage. This would allow characters to go for something that would be more character oriented instead of just using the biggest baddest weapon to deal more damage.
This proposal is just a raw outline of the idea, obviously it would have to be fleshed out and balanced, otherwise people would only use the weapons from the biggest baddest group.
Maybe have melee weapons work like composite bows, you need a minimum Strength modifier to effectively wield heavier weapon classes.

I think one of the reasons Elves are considered wizardly, as opposed to sorcerous is because they have the TIME to learn wizard magic. Being so long lived, they have plenty of time to study and hone their magic. Being a sorcerer takes very little effort, since they are innately magical and require no study.

I think they are going to leave Climb and Swim alone. Mainly because they are very specific modes of movement. My fish has a high athletics skill, which means he can climb really well? What? I realize they could have a disclaimer stating that fish can't climb and blah, blah, blah. But I think that is their intention in leaving those skills by themselves.

I think the way this needs to be approached is by checking out the class dynamics and see what needs to be filled in, for example:
Martial - Fighter; Ranger; Paladin; Barbarian; Monk
Arcane - Wizard; Sorcerer; Bard
Divine - Cleric; Paladin; Druid
Stealth - Rogue; Bard; Ranger; Monk

Obviously some of these are hybrid classes or specialize in other more streamline areas, such as Ranger and Druid focusing on wilderness related things. Rogues are also useful in martial situations, but that isn't meant to be a large focus of the class. These are the four party dynamics and I guess using this table means we need some sort of hybrid Divine/Arcane spellcaster? Well, maybe it's not perfect, but if you broke it down farther, maybe added something such as wilderness or social to the list of general features. From there you could come up with a combination of features/party roles you want to fill and build a class around that. Basically, that is how each class was conceptualized to begin with anyways.

Hello all. I love the ranger, I have never played a paladin, but I think I could enjoy it from a role-playing and roll-playing perspective. There is just one thing that bothers me, the spells. Now, I have nothing against spellcasters, just these classes as such. I don't know where WotC came up with them having spells at all. Maybe spell-like abilities, but not spells outright.
When Complete Warrior came out and I read the Table of Contents having "non-spellcasting" Paladins and Rangers I was very excited. Until I read their "fix". Basically what WotC did was take multiple uses of abilities and make them once per day abilities. At 11th level I can gain the ability to give myself +4 to Str, Wis or Cha for one minute per level only ever ONCE PER DAY. Or I can take my spells normally and eventually prepare a Bull's Strength, Owl's Wisdom or Eagle' Splendor a few times a day.
I guess my point is, please don't give these classes spells, but also don't give them something stupid in return. Not that I expect anything bad coming from Paizo seeing the new classes so far. I guess I've just wanted to vent about the Paladin/Ranger for a little while and this seemed like the time to do it.

I read something about them already releasing errata for the PRPG alpha playtest I. Could someone please give me a link to that information? They said it was four pages and covered the combat feats, if that helps anyone realize what I am talking about. Thanks.

Exactly!

I would actually reduce the Bonus Slot Levels by one while keeping the table it self.
Meaning: You get one bonus cantrip (0 level spell) with IN 12-13, one bonus 1st level spell with IN 14-15 and so forth.

Adding the 0 level spells upfront to the usual table isn't a good idea, since every spellcaster would than always get the extra 0 level spell if it is granted at IN/WE/CH 10-11, since this is already the minimum requirement to cast spells!

I don't think moving all other spell levels up the list is the answer. I think placing your first bonus 0th level spell at the same point as 1st level (12-13) and just give you your second 0th level bonus spell one step earlier (18-19).

That's been changed with the 4 page update to Alpha release.

OT: Where is the update? I haven't been able to find it?

I think that 0th level spells should be added to the table of bonus spells based on ability scores. Even with the new system of infinite Cantrips (and Orisons) it's not that big of a deal. I never understood why they weren't on the table in the first place. For some reason my Wizard can cast plenty of extra spells 1st level and up, but still only 4 0th level spells.

I think that people are missing the point of skills like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate. You can still have your character say whatever you want, the training in the skills represents how your character handles themselves socially. Whether they make the correct gestures or facial expressions.
Also, having your character say the right thing (or wrong thing) may give them a modifier to the roll. For example, a Rogue is trying to Bluff his way out of a situation. He just pick-pocketed a citizen and the city guard happened to notice. The guard asks, "Did you just take something from that citizen?" The character replies, "No, I just accidentally bumped into him." Now the DM has the player make a Bluff check (note this is using the 3.5 skill list). If the player rolls poorly (or at least the guard rolls better in Sense Motive) then the rogue gave a tell (like playing social poker). Given the opposite situation the Rogue played it cool and got away with his lie (the player rolled well). In terms of the bonus (or penalty) if the character added, "Now, if you'll excuse me I was on my way to donate some money to the church." Deciding to make himself look better and cleverly using the coin he just lifted as "evidence of his good faith". He may get a +2 circumstance bonus on the Bluff check. Just for saying the right thing and assuming the DM is paying attention.
Well, I guess I wasn't very succinct, but my point is: Saying the right thing means squat if you say it the wrong way.

Thanks alot. All of my PCs were willing to take them as a regular feat to give their characters some campaign flavor. Now I can reward them for that.

In the Pathfinder Player's Guide in the first paragraph of the Feats of Varisia (pg 13) section, it states, "Subject to your GM's approval, you may choose any of the following feats as a bonus feat during character creation." Does this mean you can take one of these feats in addition to your normal feat at first level (or two for a human)? Or are they using the phrase "bonus feat" as in "these feats are bonus ideas from the campaign's writers."
I'm the GM of this campaign, so I guess it is technically my decision, but I was wondering if anyone else has any input or insight. Thanks ahead of time for your help.