remoraz's page

It seems like a lot of the posters here either a) haven't read the XPH, or b) have only read what people have interpreted as the rules in "character optimization" forums. The fact of the matter is that if you have a semi-competent DM, who knows how the XPH works, then they are no more powerful than anything else.

Yeah, they can pull off cool stuff, but at an expensive price.

The 3.5 psionics rules work just as much as the core books work.

If you disagree, then all I have to do is mention all the threads discussing how a monk can have an AC of 40 and do 6d8 damage by level 5.

I bought the beta playtest book. And used it. The day after Christmas.

So, I guess I won't post any of my results since I was using old out-dated material, and didn't comb through the message boards to find all of Jason's posts on what's going to change in the final release.

Oh wait, I think I just got it. The Beta playtest is 3.0 and the final is 3.5. That should make some people happy. Too bad I bought the old version. I guess when the final's release I'll just throw my Beta in the trash and be glad I didn't waste any more money on the final.

Thanks for the commitment to making money. At this rate we won't be seeing a Pathfinder 4th edition for another 3 or 4 years. Good job.

A straight up PHB fighter with level appropriate equipment should have AC and hit bonuses that destroy ToB classes. AC especially. Power Attack or TWF "make up" for any lost damage. Again, that IF you're playing with level appropriate equipment. If your characters are under equipped fighters will feel it the most, barbarians second.

I've used the rules, primarily as opposition to pre-existing characters and the CRs that they generate are right on. I'd hazard that, like most of the 3.5 material, it's extremely balanced if used properly.

Honestly, I kept thinking that most of it was underpowered - compared to a wizard or fighter of equal level. (Or a wizard/fighter of equal level, for that matter.)

You really could say the same thing about a lot of the magical effects in the game, like dragon fire. It's dozens of times more damaging that a flamethrower. Dragon acid breath, which apparently will melt trees to nothing in a few seconds (like in Aliens). Being hit with a great club wielded by a colossal creature (which weighs way more than a human). Being hit by just about anything from a colossal creature!

There's a lot of "you REALLY should be dead" moments. But that's why we play the main characters/heroes/villains. Because we're awesome. And lava doesn't hurt us.

My groups pretty much always rule out swim. They figure that by the time they may need to spend a lot of time in water, they'll have some of the magic that makes the skill completely and utterly useless.

My thought is that if a spell can shut down a skill completely, something is wrong. Spiderclimb kills climb, fly is high enough level that it doesn't quite kill jump... and I'm not going to say anything about fly, because it's obvious to me that the old system of how flying works wasn't understood by whoever wrote the rules for the fly skill.

Ross, I like your comments, but I think I kinda' disagree with your idea of evil and undead. As the PHB/PFRPG puts it that's definately a case. But it wasn't long before a neutral necromancer setting was published (Hallowfaust) and after a bit good undead were created (The undying from the end of 3.5).

I don't like the way it's handled in the books, because it's handled in the "classic" way, I prefer to have more interesting innovative ways to view this type of thing. What about an elf asking her ancestors for help with attacking orcs? There's no non-evil way to represent that, unless, of course, you take animate dead/summon undead and modify it.

Anyway, I think the alignment of said spells, relies heavily on the setting/culture in which they're used. I don't think Haitians or West Africans are an "evil" culture, but DnD would certainly brand Vodou (Voodoo) as evil.

Of course, if your player's just trying to be a prick about it... that's a different story.

I'm in agreement that the capstone feats need to be "worth" it. Whirlwind is great at lower levels... when you can't get it. But around 8th level you're fighting things that take a beating. I think if there were more steps in that tree it'd work better. If there was (two maybe) feats afterword that turned whirlwind into spring whirlwind (or whatever), that'd work much better.

In another thread I mentioned at I'd like to see more feats like appeared in PHB 2 that had a laundry list of pre-reqs, but paid out a lot more. Sort of like the tactical feats, but without being "tricks".

I have a tendency to agree. For instance - I really like the idea of the armored mage feats, but why do they ruin your ability to case quickened spells???

I think that reasoning, though, is because you can get more feats that before. Though, it still seems very much in favor of the fighter who gets twice as many feats as everyone else.

Snorter, I believe you're thinking of the expert class. I'm pretty certain the philosophers you mentioned aren't known for battling orcs, which means that they should have NPC classes.

I'd like to see some feats reminiscent of the PHB 2 feats that had rediculous requirements, but were awesome. There were only for fighters (weapon spec. was required) in that book, which sucked. But having a feat with 6 or so pre-req. feats is a great idea for PF, which is much more liberal with giving them out.

That's more of a PFRPG supplement book kind of thing though...

Touche, sir. I think that explanation makes it even better.

To be honest, it's a bit of a complex rework (to take in all at once), you might consider adding a bullet-point type of introduction that goes over the main points of what's changed, then go into the rules, then do the exposition about the rules. You know, like you write a report for history - or whatever kids study these days.

I think that would make the entirety of the system a bit easier to swallow all at once. As I read through it I started to think - "Yeah, but..." and then it was answered later on; which is good, but it made it a bit difficult to get into my head on first glance.

Looks like I'm a little late to this party...

The big thing that bothers me about concentration being removed is that there were a number of martial classes that used it for martial things.

I realize Jason's not going to bring it back, his games, like most, didn't use it for what it was originally intended. And I understand that. The question remains, how do we fix compatibility with all these other classes?

That's what I'm concerned with. For these particular instances it seems like a level check + 3 + con mod would be close, but it should probably have something to do with martial classes, which seems to suggest BAB.

I don't know, what do you think?

The problem with your rework here, is that it's so thorough! Which isn't a bad thing, it's just a lot. The biggest concern is how does it exist with the old rules, it looks good to me, honestly. But it's still A LOT to read and then there's so many applications to think about.

I gotta' say, this is probably one of the best thought out, "little" changes that could make a very big difference. I really think you're on to something.

Perhaps I've missed something important, but, why the necessity to add the precision based damage feats? Unless you've got a different PDF than I do, it's unnecessary. Reading the rogue entry, it's not a matter of one per turn, it's a matter of yes/no. Of course, Jason might've said this somewhere and I missed it... which means, we're not all testing the same thing.

I hope I'm not breaking the rules here, but... Complete Warrior AND PHB2 had alot of exactly what you're talking about. You're not trying to incite plagarism, here, are you?

EDIT: j/k, not a real allegation!

No, it is even more of a trap with TWF unless your character has at least one Sun Blade, proficiency with a Bastard Sword or a Dwarven Waraxe or access to splat book feats like Oversized TWF.
Also a TWF char can not omit his lowest attacks with each hand. See Jason's posting here

I think you're reading into that incorrectly. It's ONE full-attack action that contains many attacks.

I.E. I'm performing a full-round attack, I'll give up 2 short sword attacks, to make 4 long sword attacks, 2 short sword attacks, and my bite all at triple damage.

Also, the feat implies that you can choose which attacks you'll give up, so in my example above it'd probably be better to give up that bite and a short sword instead... unless of course it's a dragon making that full round attack, but I digress.

OK, I looked into it. I'm still by my original post.

Example - first level barbarian, rolls a 18 str, +2 racial, +4 raging, puts him at a ridiculous 24 (+7 bonus) This equates to +10 normal, +14 with the feat. Makes sense, OK, 4 damage at first level, that's good, better than PA's 2.
Fifth level comes around, 19 Str, +2 racial, +4 raging, +4 enhancement (spell/item/whatever), +2 something else bonus (sacred/profane... something munchkin-ish from a weird potion) puts him at a strength of 31 (+10 bonus) This equates to +15 normal, +20 with overhead swing, an improvement of 1. PA's gone from 2 to 10 by this point (the negatives to hit are really miniscule compared to the massive STR on this guy anyway).

I guess the genius here is combining them into a SUPER munchkin character. But, I figured that since PA was nerfed, they'd be trying to level the playing field when it comes to rediculous damage...

I guess it's just that I don't like PA being turned into a feat and a separate tree that, when added together (for barbarians, almost exclusively) create the old PA. I.E. damage for frontlines to keep them in pace with the spell casters.

Sorry for the DP...

In a slightly more on topic note - it appears that purpose of IVS is twofold.

First, it helps overcome DR, maybe you just need scads of damage. The creatures at high levels can have DR20, immune to crits and immune to elemental damage, so the extra damage can make all the difference. (That's a harsh example, but lich's are an easy example.)

Second, it's there if the AC is high enough to warrant skipping out on the last two attacks (the 5% syndrome). Attack bonus 26, ac 36 for example, why make all the attacks?

Of course they can get huge damage bonuses against soft targets, but more creatures at this level has laundry lists of immunities/resitances.

Finally, on a side note - the extra damage is not stated as being precision damage as mentioned. This is an important difference, as precision damage doesn't affect creatures that are immune to crits...
I think what I'm saying is this feat is awesome for fighting golems. Thoughts?

As written TWF is the way to go on this - it shouldn't need to be house ruled as such. It almost reads like it's meant to used with TWFs (to beat DR???).

Also, I think the term "weapon's base damage" is probably acceptable here, and it seems like that's what the intention is, but it's worded a bit oddly.

I still can't see the use in it. Having to attack adjacent foes still makes it seem pointless to me. How often do you fight two things that stand side by side in front of you, maybe a Hydra's heads - I'll give you that.

Realistically, everything will try and flank the fighter, or spread out. It's the nature of the system, it's the reason we have a 5-ft. step and the move-attack turn structure. It just doesn't work in this combat system.

Overhand chop is only worth using if you have a rediculous STR (like a giant) and very low BAB... a creature that doesn't actually exist unless it's an orc that found a belt of Str + 10.

I like reserve points but it adds yet another level of book keeping to the game. Not that it adds so much as to be unusable.

Personally, and I know this will never make it into the game, I would like to see HP represent Non Lethal damage and CON represent Lethal damage. So in effect most weapon damage is turned away to scratches and bruises and lesser cuts and punctures, but crits do REAL damage directly to the CON. Run out of HP and damage goes direct to CON. Then you can have Reserve Points used to refresh those Non Lethal wounds and it makes a tiny bit more sense, a second wind of sorts.

But back on topic, I think the analysis is right on target.

That sounds a lot like the vitality system presented in Unearthed Arcana (used from the SW RPG). You should check out the hypertext SRD, you might find what you're looking for there.

Decent write up. I prefer this system to the rage point system, but I still don't like either as much as the x/day option. I see a barbarian with an abacus thinking about how many seconds he can flip out...

Anyway, my 2 cents:

1) Use the same action type. Make them all swift/standard, unless they're specifically meant to be used outside of your own turn. Too many action types, and too many misunderstandings of the rules as written.

2) I'm still confused as to why it must be a number of rounds per day. It seems like the original version was 2 steps in a different direction, but this seems like a step back. Without having a round cost associated with the powers, why have an odd formula for calculating the length of rage(s).

I think the best answer would be to deal only with rage length. Make the whole system easier, perhaps something like, a rage lasts character level (+ con. mod) turns, activated once per encounter and after a 5 or 6 round rage the character is fatigued, after a 10 or 15 round rage the character is exhausted. Just spit-balling, here.

I know from my personal experience that when the barbarian is out of rages, the party tends to want to rest. Why even have an "out of rages"?

What about removing the "Shield" bonus to AC and making it an unnamed bonus instead? I mean, fighters and wizards with the shield spell are the only ones that get that bonus.

I mean, just make it an item slot - shield. That way if someone wants a ring of force shield it's fine. And the slot is occupied so you can't have stacking bonuses. It's just the take what's better effect (overlap).

Since it's unnamed it will work against touch AC. Maybe a part of the fix, certainly not the whole thing.

Personally, I think a shield (not a buckler) should provide the cover save bonus against AoE attacks.

I think you guys made a good point, then missed it.

The weapon familiarities give races an edge in the middle ground classes, Monk, Cleric, Rogue, and Bard... they don't really affect fighters or spell casters.

They USED to affect spell casters at low levels, since they ran out of spells fast and can hit low level monsters with next to no attack bonus... but now that wizards and sorcerers get unlimited use SLAs, it's really not a big deal, they're going to go for the ranged touch at low levels, vs the higher damage of a martial weapon.

Crap, this is the wrong section. My bad. I got hastey, reading ahead. I guess that's because so little of chapter 2 and 3 changed from alpha 3.

Sorry, all.

Though... I'm glad you all agree.

While it somewhat maintains backwards compatibility, you still have to spend time with old monsters trying to fix them so they work how they're supposed to. It doesn't make the game faster, it slows it down, finally, it invalidates many feats on monsters there were supposed be good fliers... like Dragons, for instance. These creatures all need to be rebuilt to accommodate the new skill. It also makes flying a much less viable spell choice for spell casters, who now need to sink skill points into their spell selection. By that token we should bring back the "control form" skill that lycanthropes used, and force all characters to make a check when undergoing some sort of transmutation/polymorph effect.

The sidebar states that it works on more creatures... but it doesn't explain how it works on more creatures. When sticking with backward compatibility, it makes the power exactly the same as it was, at least when reading the monster books. I'm not sure why it's there, or what exactly it's referring to.

Just a thought, I'm guessing this was done to save space, but...

It seems like there should be more of an... announcement when you get to a new chapter. When I first go to page 11 of the PDF, I thought to myself, "Man, they sure added a lot of stuff to this one chapter." I realize that in the print edition you'll see a big 4 on the right hand page, but it might be handy to, I don't know, advertise chapter transition a bit more.
Not that you need a big yellow page like the DnD manuals, I always hated that big yellow page thing they went with!

The stat blocks look really good. I like that you included many of the stats that are "seldom used", like caster level on the demon.

Any high level caster is going to be rediculous to pick up and run, you're almost going to need a stat block AND a summary cheat sheet just to get through it, if it's not your own creation. Especially one that's got prestige classes and all that stacked on. One the other hand, if the PCs are fighting 20th level wizards it's almost got to be a significant encounter so a significant amount of table space, I think, is justified.