orcdoubleax's page

I agree that is the rule.

I would say this is something that could be effected by your campaign setting. If you have barbarian tribes you can decide if you want writing to be a part of their culture. Just make sure players know in advance if you change it.

I was thinking of creatures like hags,demons and dragons that use polymorph like abilities. I mean does the hag that is pretending to be a beautiful woman still smell like an ancient old hag? Does the throne room of the demon/devil that is ruling a kingdom as a fake king smell like brimstone?

It doesn't say anywhere that I can find.

This is my question.

Can you use scent to track a Doppleganger.
This is going to come up in a game very soon.
I can not find anything specific to this on line.

Unless some one has a better suggestion this is what I am going to allow.

*they can track them normally with scent until they change shape.
*Once they change shape the creature with scent will have to do a perception check vs. disguise to be able to keep following the scent.
(basically he will have to figure out which of the new scents is really the old scent)

The downside to this is that it is an almost impossible perception check in this situation.

Of course this does not stop them from saying "look the track stop here and there are new tracks leading off in this direction." Then using survival to follow the tracks.

Congrats

I for one hope you are making a great (Obscene even) profit on this. A strong Paizo is the hope for a future for the table top gaming we all love.

I always start with the personality. Figure out who the PC is and what his motivations are.

Then I just pick a class that suits him.

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Intead of poking your party members with a stick you prefer to poke them with your finger ? How that is better ?

The stick costs 750 gold. As another post above already points out, the "unlimited" healing of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is mitigated by a monetary cost. Furthermore when those 50 charges run out, the players will have to spend another 750 gold to get more "unlimited" healing.

Also the DM can limit the availability of a happystick if he wants things to get a little tense. "Sorry, we're all sold out of them. That's a popular item with you adventurer types." or "Um, we're just simple farmers... we don't have a magic shop. I hear they got one in the Big City over the hill... just a week's travel from here."

So yeah, I'm fine with Cure Minor Wounds getting left out. But I suppose I could be persuaded to change my view if there was a material component to cast it... say something like 1gp per casting.

The abuse of the gold limit is always funny.

Gold limit of "random town" is 10,000gp lets say. The party then spends 400,000 gp on very specific magic items that are all close to or exactly 10,000gp. because for some strange reason the town always has exactly what the party needs. lol

I am actually thinking about giving magic stores in my next campaign inventory list before the party ever gets to them. they can buy what he has or they can go to the next stown. Of course in a big enought center they still likly can find anything they want.

The Problem with cheap healing that The Black Bard proposes, is that it'll only replace happysticks. Happysticks aren't used in combat after first few levels, so players will opt for the most cost effective method of healing available.

In mathematical terms, a charge from a wand of cure light wounds heals 1d8+1 hp for 15gp, or one hp for 2.727gp on average
A charge from a wand of lesser vigor heals 11 hp for 15gp, or one hp for 1.363 gp.
A charge from a wand of The Black Bard's restore health would restore 40 hit points for 15 gp, or one hp for 0,375 gp.

This route will only lessen the problem, but the problem stays.

I find Wraith's concern about world balance questionable. Firstly, every cleric who channels positive energy already can heal vast amounts of common folk. Secondly, I don't think commoners deal with hit point damage that often. They have to deal with diseases and exhaustion from hard labour, perhaps the threat of injury and/or death from local bandits, but actual injury shouldn't be that common a problem.

you never lived in a rural area I take it. Farming is still physically very dangerous today let alone when it was all done by hand. Most jobs that commoners would do are extremly dangerous and they would be injuried often. Untreated injury would become infected and they would die.

Dropping something on your toe in the middle ages likly meant your death.

That said I still think the unlimited healing changing the game arguement is flawed. The problem already exist. Healing is easy enought to obtain that people should be hurt. Raised dead is cheap enought that anyone from a rich (even middle class) or noble family should never die until old age.

I mean by any common sense even peasant would have family members raised. They would just be indebt to the locl church for years.

I like this alot

In two of the game I play we have multiple High level rogue who haven't had to actual roll a tumble check in months.

20+Bab would not stop them from going by creatures, but it would make 1 or 2 a fail.

Like it alot

likly just the final, but maybe both.

Kinda thinking a couple copies of the final version.

I don't understand how people can get upset about this.

This is not a major mechanical change to the rules.

It is point buy. You determine attribute once at the beginning of the campaign. There have always been a multitude of ways to do it and there always well.

Use what ever system you want. This is the easy place in all of the RPG world to create a House rule.

I would just like to add 1 little thing.

I see jump & Climb used extensively.

Jump is very important for being able to charge in less then idea conditions.
Climb I see used more out of combat.

So they were republicans. :)

I ran an evil campaign. It can be interesting. In my games you don't necessarily have to pick an alignment, rather what develops is the character's morality over the first several adventures as chosen by the player. So for example in my campaign there were 5 pcs. Each of them when presented with moral dilemmas in the earlier adventures proved to be increasingly evil, but they were very good players and so it wasn't simply rape and murder but rather an increasing drift from neutral moral flexibility to deliberate seeking after power and wealth by any means necessary.

As the pc group got more powerful they began taking over an entire country in a rather jesuitical fashion--basically starting out by powers behind the powers that be and then either making deals or removing them. It was one of the most fascinating games I ran since the pcs were very much into the intrigue scene. There were occasional bash sessions but a lot of it was sneaking around, assassinating people, bribing, blackmailing and kidnapping. They turned the Assassins' Guild into a tool of the state, adopted slave labour as a means of production, murdered political opponents (if they had to) and subjugated certain smaller countries to serve their purpose. Brutally if need be. I'd say that they were more or less lawful evil. The interesting thing is that they handled it so well that they were popular leaders--they managed to always blame anything nasty they had to do on their enemies.

On the other hand an evil campaign can also be a 'band of desperadoes' kind of game. It could feature for instance people right out of "A Song of Ice and Fire" who are basically brutal folk trying to make a living in a brutal world.

What is your campaign setting? What kinds of things will your pcs have opportunity to do?

D&D Fans Return to Game's Roots in a Marathon Session for Charity

Halifax, NS Once again six brave D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) fans will play for 24 hours straight to raise money for an important and underfunded cause. The group of players, known as The Gelatinous Dudes http://www.gelatinousdudes.com/phpBB2/ will donate the funds raised to Adsum House for Women and Children.

The marathon session will take place on June 14-15, 2008 and is planned to be a tribute to the game’s origins. The players will explore the depths of the classic adventure B2 Keep on the Borderlands. This adventure, or module, was originally included in the boxed set of D&D Basic rules. Fans who got their introduction to D&D in the early to mid-eighties, most likely played this adventure and have fond memories of it.

The players are dedicating the game to the co-creator of the D&D game E. Gary Gygax. Often called the father of D&D, Gygax passed away in March at the age of 69.

The Gelatinous Dudes also intend for their game to be a celebration of the 3rd edition of the D&D game. As a twist they will all create gnome player characters. The diminutive race, has been removed from the standard, or core, options from which players have to chose in the 4th edition of the game. The Gelatinous Dudes are calling the game No Country for Old Gnomes.

Mike Peterson who will act as DM (Dungeon Master) has converted the classic module to the third edition of the rules. “This is a great, classic module,” says Peterson. “I’ve warned the players to bring a few back up characters as there are going to be a few surprises.”

The first 24 hour game was held in July, 2007 and raised close to $600 for charity.

Adsum for Women & Children is a charitable, community based organization located in Halifax, Nova Scotia that supports women and children who are homeless or at risk of becoming so.

The Gelatinous Dudes is a group of Halifax table top gaming enthusiasts. Who not only share a love for gaming, but a passion to be a positive force in their community.

For more information on the 24-hour game for charity, visit the event fourm http://www.gelatinousdudes.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=54.

I guess this is the best place to post this. If there is a better spot for it could a mod move it for me. thank you

Here is the press release for our 2nd annual 24 hour D&D game for charity. for more info http://www.gelatinousdudes.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=54

Once again six brave D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) fans will play for 24 hours straight to raise money for an important and underfunded cause. The group of players, known as The Gelatinous Dudes will donate the funds raised to Adsum House for Women and Children.

The marathon session will take place on June 14-15, 2008 and is planned to be a tribute to the game’s origins. The players will explore the depths of the classic adventure B2 Keep on the Borderlands. This adventure, or module, was originally included in the boxed set of D&D Basic rules. Fans who got their introduction to D&D in the early to mid-eighties, most likely played this adventure and have fond memories of it.

The players are dedicating the game to the co-creator of the D&D game E. Gary Gygax. Often called the father of D&D, Gygax passed away in March at the age of 69.

Over the years, the license for the D&D game has changed hands and various designers and owners have put their own stamp on the game. The current or third edition was released in 2000. A new version of the D&D game, 4th edition, is due out in June. Based on previews, the upcoming edition includes many changes to the rules and has some fans worried that the new game will have little to no resemblance to the D&D they grew up with and love.

The Gelatinous Dudes also intend for their game to be a celebration of the 3rd edition of the D&D game. As a twist they will all create gnome player characters. The diminutive race, has been removed from the standard, or core, options from which players have to chose in the 4th edition of the game. The Gelatinous Dudes are calling the game No Country for Old Gnomes.

Mike Peterson who will act as DM (Dungeon Master) has converted the classic module to the third edition of the rules. “This is a great, classic module,” says Peterson. “I’ve warned the players to bring a few back up characters as there are going to be a few surprises.”

The first 24 hour game was held in July, 2007 and raised close to $600 for charity.

Adsum for Women & Children is a charitable, community based organization located in Halifax, Nova Scotia that supports women and children who are homeless or at risk of becoming so.

The Gelatinous Dudes is a group of Halifax table top gaming enthusiasts. Who not only share a love for gaming, but a passion to be a positive force in their community.

I Think that it is close to perfect. very very nice.
if I had any say I would consider the sank ranks system done.

simple and backward compatable.

In short, there are people who seriously have no problem with the entire Fighter character being made grotesquely obsolete by summon monster IV.
-Frank

Every single serious fight I have seen agaist any important villian in a game in the last year they have had greater dispeal ready to use. Generally several times. A simple protection spell prevents attacks by summoned creatures. Or they could simply disengage for the minute and a half for the thing to disappear.

I am so very very glad that the staff at Pazio will not be taking the direction of this tread. I have been playing for over 20 years and am very happy with the pathfinder fighter.

If they change it in a later version to some super anime death machine that would please Frank I will simple use the 1.1 version. But luckly I will not have to do that, and I will be very please to buy the hardcover as soon as it is avaliable.

There sure seems to be alot of anti TOB people around.I own the book and the outrageous brokenness that so many people mention i never managed to find.

I played a warblade and let him died so I could go back to a fighter. He was a good strong character, but so repeative to play. Every combat I knew exactly what I was going to do for the next four rounds. I tried a warblade because I thought it would give me more options. Instead I found it had no options to it at all.

I am much more in favour of the highly custumizable fighter. I have played 6 fighters in games that have gone for more then a year. Everyone of them has been very different builds. The new Pathfinder Fighter will work well for me.

orcdoubleax wrote:

Didn't any one let you know CR is nearly meaningless and you should just balance your encounters to suit the ablities and weakness of the party.

That's useful if you are writing for a group you know and adjusting experience awards as needed as well. What if you are writing professionally and need to force the CR system to work for you? It would be a lot easier in both cases if it just worked on its own.

I should have put in a smiley face as I was just trying to be funny

For me I would like to see a Witch.

A beef up class worthy caster that combined arcane/divine spells with a few new tricks. Something that could fill the classic fantasy mode better then shoe horning in a sorcerer or wizard.

Some things I would like to see in a witch.

1)Strong cursing ablities. and the ablity to tie curses to objects. ie voodoe dolls etc.

2)Change self ablities and bluff/sense motive as class skills.

3)Brooms baby. They need Brooms.

4)Some ablity to influence or infitrate dreams.

5)Strong Scying and Prophicey ablities.

I like npc classes conceptually, but I do have one problem with them, and that is that they don't scale in the CR rules in the same way as PC classes, and they open up other CR issues. Frex, What's the CR difference between a Level 3 Fighter and a Level 3 Fighter with an additional level of Warrior? Zero. This drives me crazy, even while I abuse the hell out of it to make my challenges tougher than they should be for the CR.

I like that the npc classes are simpler to build than PC classes for making up mooks, but I'd prefer they be more in line with the regular CR scale.

I have an idea for how to make weaker npcs that works with the system more or less, and probably actually works better with Pathfinder. I won't go into too much detail, but the gist is that a 1st level PC is in many ways like a 4th level creature; what I mean is they get more bonuses (such as 4x skill points, big jump on good save)) at first level than at other levels. I think that there could be substandard levels for npcs that are basically 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of first level. Or something like that.

Honestly, I'd like it a lot better if this design philosophy had been applied to monsters too, but that is probably too massive a change for most tastes.

Didn't any one let you know CR is nearly meaningless and you should just balance your encounters to suit the ablities and weakness of the party.

I use NPC classes a lot.

Most NPC that the party is not going to fight have NPC classes. (mainly because you never know with a party of adventures) Expert is the most important, but I also used adept, warrior, aristocrate a lot. Commoner is my least used one.

I don't care if Pazio removes them, because I will simply keep using them as is. I can't possible see any reason the would remove them. I believe they are essiential for creating a living breathing world.

I know the poster before said it for emphisis only, but if it came down to a choice I would much sooner see Pristige classes go before NPC classes. I don't want to see Pristige classes to go, but if it was a one or the other situation I would even have to think about it.

This is interesting, but not the way I went at all.

I actually restricted raise dead and ressurection.

Raise dead only works on characters above 5th level and Ressurrection only works on characters above 10th level. Below this you are simply not worthy of the gods notice.

It hasn't really effected my PC's very often. generally below 5th level you can't afford to raise dead anyway. It does allow me to explain how the wealthy NPC can die without being raise.

I think making raise dead easier or harder depends on your stlye of game and your players. The amount of magic and wealth avaliable and the general tone you want to set. I don't think this is something that should be set out in the mechanics. I think this must be handle on a campaign by campaign bases.

Quote: ERIC MONA

"You do not need to worry at all about changes of this magnitude. Whether or not an increase in starting hit points has a long-term effect on "portability" of stat blocks between systems is an interesting and useful discussion. Suggesting that we change the core classes or races or that we ditch Vancian spellcasting or what have you is not helpful, as it violates the spirit of the project.

Some of these suggestions are really cool, and I can already see an "add-on options" book forming in my head, but we are not going to reinvent the wheel into a square."

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

At this time, I think I want to see more feedback about the system in actual use. I look forward to reading the reports.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I was curious how a purlpe worm would fair against a fighter in the PFRPG system (for the purpose of its swallow whole ability).

Using a 12th level fighter with an 18 Strength, the fighter has a +16 vs the purple worms +32. The worm needs a 9 or better to grapple the fighter. You may need to define how "held" and "grabbed" would work in this case.

The big problem with all of this is that the fighter can never break free (even with the Escape Artist skill) and that failure would give the worm a +5 to the check to swallow him. Even if a failed swallow attemp gave the fighter a +5 to escape (if the worm needs another "grappled" result), he still could not succeed (worm CMB 32+10=42; Fighter maxed CMB roll 16+5+20=41).

The results are just as bad with the T-Rex.

The problems crops up with high Strength and either size or high BAB. Having a static DC can create situations where a character can never escape. Of course, that existed in 3.5 already.

I will concede, it may be easier to fix the improved grab/swallow whole ability.

of course getting swallow is usally the best thing in that situation. A 16th level fighter could get out in 1 round and likly take less damage then if the worm simply chewed on him.

There are currently dozens of game systems on the market. Many with vastly different magic systems then 3.5. You can always play one of them.

The point of Pathfinder as I understand it is to perserve 3.5 for those of us that don't want to abandon our investment. A different magic system is clearly outside of that goal.

I thought we were suppose to talk about the changes that they are making, not keep bring up stuff that is completly outside of the scoop of what they are doing.

I think it is very unlikly that the design team will even read this thread.

I am currently running one low magic game using 3.5 rules.
Luckly for me it is also a very low combat game. (last two sessions had 1 fight between them. they are level eleven and had had 6 major combats)

It still however takes a lot of work to balance the combats that there are. You can not used the existing rules you have to look carefully at the ablities of each character and the dangers post by the monster.

I haven't adjust the players instead I have adjusted the combats to suit what they can do.

I think if I was doing this in a game that had a regular amount of combats (the other game I run is very combat intensive) it would be nearly impossible without some additional optional rules to balance the progression of characters and the challenges they face.

I think one of the biggest problem with the 3E fighter is actually what 3E did to all the non-warrior classes, i.e. increasing their ability to hit. This instantly made the fighter less impressive, and the collection of feats was meant to make up for this, which by the sound of it didn't.

Maybe one fix would be to step up the fighter's acquisition of iterative attacks. Most classes would get their second attack when their BAB hits +6, as normal for 3rd edition, but the fighter would get his when his BAB hits +5.

Something like:
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5/+1
+6/+2
+7/+3
+8/+4
+9/+5/+1
+10/+6/+2

He would still only get four iterative attacks, but he would have more than an equal level ranger, barbarian or paladin.

This can be done. It is used by the weapon master in Iron heroes, but your numbers are a little off. You don't change how iterative attack work. You just spd up the fighter bab progression. the difference is that the attacks are still at -5. otherwise multi-class character will have issuse about when they recieve thier iterative attacks.

+1
+2
+3
+4
+6/1
+7/2
+8/3
+9/4

my current dislike is the amount of post for radically redesigned games that miss the point that Pathfinder is going to maintain 3.5 not create a complete new game.

I mean there are lots of other games out there and if someone whats something completly different they can find it.

Powerful Strike (combat)
You can sacrifice additional attacks for added damage.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, base attack bonus +11
Benefits: When performing a full-attack action, you can sacrifice one of attack to add your Strength modifier on all melee damage rolls this round. You can sacrifice two attacks to add twice your Strength modifer on all melee damage rolls this round. This bonus damage stacks with the normal Strength modifier added to your damage rolls.

You could add a similar feat that allowed you extra movement or other benefits (such as added AC) for sacrificing these less than optimal attacks as well.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

We would also need an option that could be used by fighter that don't emphisis strenght. A dex base fighter whose extra damage comes from specilization would not benifit from this feat.

could there be a similar option to allow you to add your dex modifier instead of your strenght. I think that that they should not be able to be used together of course.

I'm liking the idea of trading in iterative attacks for various things (more damage, small movement, etc). I'm also in the camp that thinks these should be combat options and not feats.

ditto

this looks like the best idea. No change to the mechanics, but simply a new combat option. Will also help fighters and other melee classes stand up to those nasty spellcaster. : )

Like the idea of trading the extra attacks better then the current iron heroes combat stunt systems. simple and easy to apply.

extra damage option, extra move option, extra precision all sound like great options.

if it does come to pass as a universal combat option, at least as a fighter class ablity instead of a feat.

Phil. L wrote:

That's if the wizard has those spells prepared. You're talking about a hypothetical situation there, which doesn't always play out in reality. The last time I saw an ogre attack a wizard (who happened to be 4th-level at the time) the ogre killed him with ease.

Actually, you're right in one sense. A 3rd-level wizard is more of a threat CR-wise than a 3rd-level fighter, but some would disagree with you that wizards are more powerful than fighters, including one of my gaming friends. To tell you the truth, I think both classes need a boost in power.

Thats true, some people do in fact make useless Wizards. They run around thinking that casting Shocking Grasp and Bull's Strength are actual combat actions.

By the same token some people play Fighters.

The CR system doesn't account for people who pick bad classes and make bad choices. Its does work for reasonably good choices with good classes. The fact that the non-spellcasting classes are vastly less able to fight at the point that the CR system says they should is not a flaw of the Cr system, but of the classes.

----------------------------

To the proud meatshields:

Be happy that your Wizard hasn't chosen to use summons or illusions or walls or mind-control magic or necromancy or tactical control spells. Any one of these remove the need for a meatshield.

You job of "soaking damage and attacks" is just something they let you do so that you feel useful and pay for a share of the pizza.

Not worthy of a responds, but here goes anyway.

All those magic options have limits and ways around them. not can compare to a balance group of PC that complement each other.

If you opp can avoid summons or get around walls then that is your DM being nice to you.

1-1 comparsions of who is stronger are not approprate.

The idea is a team than fullfills different needs and the team as a whole wins.

The need for your character to be stronger then your buddys goes away in most mature players.

Let me relate the tale of Kailor Axwarden.

Kailor is now 16th level and very useful to his team.
He hardly ever kills anything or does anything immpresive.

What he does do his soak up damage for the party. His 250 hp covered in a AC 42 coating of steel and fort save of 23 will save of 18 makes him a tough nut to crack. every fight his goal is to place him self in the most danger to protect the other members of the party. It is not a glamourous role, but it is an important one.

His role to the party is just a valid as Maglor the elven archer who can drop a 120hp of almost guarenteed damage a round.

So when your looking at what needs to be change in the fighter. relize your not trying to make someone who can beat a wizard of the same level 50% of the time. Your trying to make someone who can sucessful contribute to the parties needs.

I would not give the barbarian imp tougness as a bonus feat. i would sooner give him a different ablity that does the same thing. +1 hp for every barbarian level.

Reasons agaist imp toughness.

you could dip to get it and it would apply to your non barbarian levels.
a fighter could simply take the feat himself.
Barbarians can not take the feat again to increase their hitpoints.

So instead give them this at first level

Barbarian Toughness (stupid name but they can call it whatever) - You gain bonus hp equal to your Barbarian level.

This could even be modified to be your barbarian level+3 if you want.

one of my current games is low magic. in that game i had multiple ablity score incresses. Similar to saga.

I like it because it doesn't require starting stats to be as high.

maybe you could even play 3d6. lol :)

In my next game the only three playable races are going to be goblin, hobgoblin and bugbear. It would be nice to have a new stat set for them.

Since that game will start around next september (after my two current games are finished) there is a chance something will show before then.

The only change I would make is to add a second level of DR/magic.
DR/Magic +3. Other then that I like the current system.

I have never seen 3.5 DR kill a group, and I play a lot.

I am all for keeping iterative attacks.

To switch this up to another system would move far to far from the current game.

Pathfinder is building on 3.5 not creating a new game.

the idea of feats that allow you to trade attacks is soild and doesn't change current mechanics.

Not really a rule, just a campaign thing.

Have used simlar before. It could just go in one of those little blocks at the bottom of the page.

either way doesn't matter to me.

Elimanate the math?????

It is like grade one math.
Uneeded and meaningless change.

Could say more, but no point in being an ass.

I don't understand how anyone can be agaist the three XP charts.

You pick one at the start of the game and don't use the other two. Once you pick on it has no effect on your game. How in any way does this make your game more complex.

It is just 3 different list. can anyone explain how two extra lines of numbers. less then half a page in the book can hurt your game.

If you say that players will not remember which one to use then get smarter players because the ones you have are brain dead.

I sure you are aware of this.

This post is more for my own piece of mind. Reading the ideas on the boards here it is clear that you will never please all the players.

Please don't try. Feedback is good and useful, but keep your vision and make your own game. Too many cooks and all of that.

Cheers

Thanks for keeping 3.5 alive.

I like this thread

Small twicks and simple changes are what is needed.

Not crazy ideas and things that will make it hard to convert existing materials.

Backwards compatable
easy to use
simple

That is the words I want to hear

Not
New stats system
New magic system
etc etc etc

I think that the people suggesting radical changes don't understand that this game will be marketed to those of us with thousands of dollars invested in 3.5 and no intention of changing to something that we can not easly convert to.

The fact is that if it is harder to convert to pathfinder then Iron Heroes then I go to Iron Heroes.

I believe the spell-casting aspect of this is adequately covered with the free 0-level spells and school/domain powers, but want to play-test before making a final judgement. Of course, that will be hard until Alpha 2 and 3 come out, and we have all of the classes.

What my reading tells me is that we could still use more healing. My brother and I came up with a few possible tweaks.

1/ Put Cure Minor Wounds back in. Yes, it will give unlimited healing, but at 10hp per minute of casting, it leaves a lot of time to be interrupted, and becomes almost meaningless at higher levels.

2/ Come up with a similar Orison. Ex. Cure Wounds, casting time 1 minute, allows caster to roll a Heal check DC 10, heals the amount by which you beat the DC (Heal domain gets +1 on this check). This also buffs up the Heal skill, and still takes a lot of time, and scales with increase in level.

3/ Use a "Bind Wounds" mechanic. A Heal check that Anyone can make to heal a limited amount of damage (eg. 1 minute to do, DC15 Heal check, heals amount you beat check by). Reduces reliance on Clerics, still takes time, scales, and makes Heal skill more useful.

OOPS SOMEHOW QUOTED THE WRONG POST

It not really the point of how fourth edition works. I don't really know much about fourth edition.

The point is there is a market opportunity of people that were happy with 3.5 and don't want a drastically different game. So if Pazio makes a game with only minor changes they can capitlaize on this. If they make something that is drastically different they will miss the market completely.

I am not a game designer, but I do have a Marketing degree. It is a pretty basic concept that you don't make a lot of change if your going to try to market to the people that were not for change.

As a player, I never want to have to take out a crossbow and miss over and over again. If I want to conceal my magic, that's fine, but it shouldn't be required. I think that the at-will domain and school powers at first level are a great step. I think that a further step should be made by removing some of the higher level abilities and replacing them with more powerful at-will spells.

The at-will powers don't need to be amazingly powerful; they simply need to be enough to continue to have a meaningful effect once the spells are gone. Yes, when the cleric and wizard are out of spells and the fighter at half hit points, the party should rest, but if the wizard has three nifty tools to use at-will, the party won't have to rest once he's out just so the player can still feel like he's having an effect.

It this case then all ablities would have to be at will or the party will still rest once the big ablities are used.

So to make your solution work all spells should get far weeker and at will. then the wizard will be balance with the other clases.

example

wizard learnd fireball. Wizard can cast fireball at will. Therefor fireball only does 1d6/5 level max 4d6 at 20th.

My god people what are some of you talking about.

Magic users are the most powerful class. The problem is that a Wizard need to conserve his power for the entire day. If he blows his load in the first encounter that is his problem.

This was what was always meant to balance them with the weeker classes.

If a party is in my dungean and decide to leave after the first fight they will still have 5 more encounters that same day. The party can't stop time. This is not a computer game you just don't hit the save button. Monsters just don't stand behind the door in suspended animation waiting for some one to open it.

If Pazio go to encounter based ablities, or spell recharging then they will be no different the 4.0 edition. If they are no different then 4.0 then the game will fail.

I don't mind the new fighter that much.

my thoughts.

extra feats do allow you to cutimize him better.

The armour and weapons bonus should apply to all weapons and armour. (or give them weapon aplitude at first)

Make certain ablities class features that a fighter just gets is not a bad idea, but it you simply make a feat a class feature and then give the fighter 1 less feat that is not going to accomplish much.

If the game can be made to go pass 1 fight a day and then rest the fighter comes into his own more. (something that they are trying to work on) The original idea of balance between a wizard and fighter was suppose to be that a wizard had to conserve his ablities. Instead a pattern of going 20' into the dungean per day has developed.

What I don't want.

Fighter are not wizards. I don't want them to have 4th edition stlye super ablities that are simply spells in disguise. A fighter still has to feel like a fighter.

I have played a warblade (a replacement character at 12th level after my archer died) and it was great for the first few sessions, but it lost it appeal very quickly. I was going into a fight knowing exactly what i was going to do for the first 3 turns. Turn one use most powerful attack, turn two use second most powerful attack. turn three attack once and the recall ablities.

What Might be interesting to look at

Powerful fighter only feats that allows specilized fighters to work well.

Look at some of the combat options from Iron Heroes and see what can be applied

here my story

I am mid 30's and have a ton on 3.5 material
50 books and about 4000 minis. I have no need for 4th edition.

I also have no intention to switch no matter how good the new game is. I simply will not walk away from my existing product to rebuy everything. I can afford to I just can't justify the waste of money.

Everything I have seen of the new product has made this decision easier and easier for me. It is simply not a game that is being marketed to me.

So if Pazio contiues with 3.xx material I will buy it. If not I can play for the next 30 odd years with my existing material quite happily.

So what ever you decide I hope you succeed. I just hope there are enought older players like myself to make it viable for you to stay with 3.xx rule set.