that hobo's page

22 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Mikhaila Burnett 313 wrote:

Have you ever considered a career as a modern major general?

Officially a lol comment.

Pirates of Penzance for cool.

Anyhow, thanks all for your input.

My question is, will this be worth buying if I already have the 3.5 Monster Manual?

I mean, I can see how having the CMB/CMD's of creatures will be useful, but it's not worth $40 to me if I can just continue to use the MM.

My question, then, is how many monsters are new? How many are updates to old ones? What is it about this book that would make my broke self want to spend $40 on this, as opposed to continuing to use the old monster books?

Thanks in advance.

Ooooooh dear lord I need this. Please, please reprint soon!

Forgive my ignorance, but why are these so great? I fail to see how having items on cards that can be lost or misplaced and just take up space is more convenient than just writing it down. The artwork is great, don't get me wrong, but I'm curious as to why people pay $10 for this sort of thing.

Kaisoku wrote:

Yeah.. Rangers having TWF is quite silly. They can benefit from it (Favored Enemy bonus multiplied by extra attacks), but it's just weird... not naturey at all.

As for Drizzt... I've read the Dark Elf Trilogy. I would attribute his TWF from Fighter levels (he got it during his warrior training while growing up, not from Mooshie the blind Ranger).

The reason the Ranger had to be given TWF was because in 2e you couldn't "get levels of X" as easily as you can in 3e, so they had to make the ranger have everything Drizzt would have, being the straight classed ranger that he had to be.

Humans could dual class, and no one had multiclass with ranger. There was only fighter/mage, thief/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/thief/mage, fighter/cleric (the non-human paladin), I *think* mage/cleric for some races, and for the gnomes: thief/cleric (hell yeah!).


So you can thank the "man" caving in to the cashable Drizzt fanboyism, and absurdly esoteric and restrictive AD&D multiclassing rules, for creating this particular sacred cow.

I saw this thread and this is exactly what I was going to get on here and say. It seems pointless to me, but I know that my players often use this feature, and many would feel cheated if it was removed now. I can already hear the screams of "blashphemy" and "un-D&D" coming from the fanboys.

It's not going anywhere, that I'm sure of. But no, it really does not make sense.

I will now play a half-elf. They're now perfectly viable as a race, and while they slack behind the others slightly, it's much less noticeable now. I no longer have any problems with them, though admittedly they are a little less powerful than the others.

Good idea, but I really don't see it happening. It's not big enough of an issue for Pathfinder to make a big fuss about changing, because you know that people are going to complain about it.

Plus, since Neutral already does have that aspect, for simplicity's sake they'll just leave it at that. One alignment can mean a very different thing to two different characters (within limitations). My CE Necromancer PC is very different than the CE Orcs I use when I DM. With that in mind, they'll probably just keep it as "to each his own" and leave Neutral (and all the other alignments) alone, for the characters to decide exactly what that alignment specifically means to them.

Thed_of_Corvosa wrote:

Fighters traditionally start quite powerful, in comparison to other classes. However, they settle down once the spellcasters get access to higher level spells and once barbarians get their rage pool full and with powers to use.

One of the common criticisms levelled against 3.5 is that melee classes tend to lack options. This isn't as black and white as many people make out, but it is certainly true that, at the higher levels, a spellcaster is the better animal. I personally like this, as it makes magic into something worth studying and matches a great deal of fantasy literature.

Spellcasters are also quite reliant on having a fighter around for protection. You will find that many casters take on a "chosen melee" partner or a bodyguard of some sort. It is a powerful combination, especially where the caster is a crafter of magic items, which he can hand out to his melee chum.

Fighters take a lot of incoming damage and, if the fighter wasn't there, you would probably notice the other players getting a real battering, or being dead. One also needs to recognise that anyone with a strength as high as you describe probably hasn't got anything else worth talking about on their character sheet. That player has dedicated his life to doing one thing well. Put him against a decent caster or a trap, or a social encounter and there will be precious little for him to do.

I would suggest that you try some higher level campaign testing with the fighter and observe how the other characters compare once they have access to their spells. Then things will seem a lot less scary.

I wholeheartedly agree. This man speaks the truth. In all of my games, the fighters are always prominent at lower levels (but some mages can manage to keep pace under the PF rules), but are less powerful at high levels. However, no matter how much people around these forums groan and complain about fighters lacking power at high levels, they stay right on par with Wizards in my experience, only tapering off a little at the end. They're perfectly viable, though, at low and high levels.

Back to the point (train of thought derailed), what Thed says about them is true. They'll truly shine at low levels, but once you hit mid-level and from then on they'll be perfectly fine.

Zmar wrote:
Brain wrote:


I was unable to find the prices of poisons.,

Everything that is not in PRPG book wasn't changed, so you should use your older books. It will be included in final rules.

Brain wrote:

Sorcerer bloodline powers are greatly unbalanced. For example Draconic or Abyssal bloodline's d6 claw attack vs the elemental's d6+1/2 level ranged touch attack. Same for Destined (+1 save in the suprise round vs resitance to fire 10), or Arcane's metamagic adept.

Elemental gets d6+10 ranged touch at level 20

Abyssal gets 2 claw attacks each dealing 1d8 damage + 1d6 fire + strength (not that hard to buff), they are magic and you are not unarmed with them.

not that bad IMO, I think that you'll just use different build with each of those, although I'd like to see some progress with the claws after level 11.

Brain wrote:

You should do something about the detect evil spell. It can kill every intrigue. A single paladin can convert a carefully created intrigue game into kill the bad guys hack and slash, without a saving throw. No real defense exits against it.

There are protections against this spell even in 3.0 rules. Undetectable Alignment and Misdirection are level 2 spells, ... I think you can look for something else yourself. And hack-and-slashing anyone without a proof in intrigue games (where every third person is less-than-neutral anyway) should tag our heroes as murderers and send the rest of the society after them. DM can handle this easily IMO. So much for the lack of defenses.

Brain wrote:

I don't know if this is on purpose but I think you try to bring the sorcerer to the front line, by giving him power's with touch range: Abyssal, Fiendish, Draconic, Fey, Infernal, Undead all have touch ranged powers.
Or give them something that lets them defend themselves when something runs around the fighter (fairly common thing, not everyone wants to attack the fully armoured sword guy when there are unarmored spellcasters standing nearby -...

I'm in agreement with Zmar. I have had no problems with the sorcerer's effects being overpowering. They seem perfectly on-par to me.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
sacerd wrote:

1. Do away with "save or die" effects and their virtual cousins "sleep spells" etc.

2. Double the cost of all spells

1. Paizo has addressed this to some extent, and nerfing casters a bit is indeed a step in the right direction (although it robs the game of some of its flavor), but in any case an invisible flying wizard is still hard for the poor fighter to hit.

2. Clerics and sorcerers have no such costs.

Problems of mobility, inability to block, and poorly-scaling damage (as compared with monster HD) are still present as well. And, as much as it would be easier to bring casters down to the fighter's level, that would maybe destroy most of the backwards-compatibility that Paizo is shooting for: their motto seems to be to add features, not remove them.

As Kirth said, they're all about adding features. The only issue I've run into while playing high-level fighters is mobility when the mage is flying, as then he's helpless.

Sleep isn't as much of a problem, as any damage wakes them (if it doesn't then we have house-ruled that for a looong time). Save-or-Die's have been revamped, (save for the rogues, they just gained one), check out the spells listing in the PF Beta.

Other than that, the fighters have actually stayed with their power level in my games.

Tarren Dei wrote:

In various playtest-by-post games, I've set up encounters that just call for combat maneuvers ... Just beg for them.

Bullrush that bad guy off the ledge.
Disarm that cleric wielding a holy symbol in a crowd about to channel negative energy.
Unarmed monks jumping from table to table in a bar begging to be tripped.

The PCs seem to be reticent to try a combat maneuver and disappointed when they do. The DC of 15 seems to high for them. At the same time, the DC of 15 has kept them alive when I ...

... had six goblins try grappling one dwarf and dragging him off the edge.
... swung a flaming ogre-corpse at them on a winding staircase.
... had a giant bat grapple a half-orc and drag him off the ledge. (Yeah, I know, ledges, winding staircases, boats, and bridges feature prominently in my games).

I love the simplicity of the new mechanic and could see them creating wonderful options for martial combat-focussed classes. I hope there is a solution that will make these more attractive to players while still not making it too easy for every monster. I figure the solution might be in producing feats that improve chances of success at these maneuvers.


I've always found it hard to use these maneuvers, especially as a player. You just don't get any bang for your buck, stabbing it is more effective, especially since they'll probably stab you in the process if you DO use a maneuver.

Simple solution for this: our groups have taken to eliminating the AoO when using a maneuver. It's worked pretty well, and everyone now uses maneuvers often.

As for the DC, I think 10 or 12+ your CMB is a lot more reasonable than 15. 15 + CMB has been proven to me to be impossible to beat, especially for low-level characters. It highly, HIGHLY discourages the use of maneuvers when you know you are destined to fail.

Nerfed2Hell wrote:
Mosaic wrote:
Anguish wrote:

It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.

Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier.

For anyone who wasn't involved in the Alpha1/Alpha2 discussions, this is EXACTLY why it is the way it is. A lot of DM complained that creating high-level NPCs - with multiple classes and ability score bumps, etc. - was a nightmare. Getting rid of cross-class skills and x4 at 1st level, and adding a +3 bonus to class skills is all to make those high level NPCs easier to create. What they were 1st level doesn't matter, whether they took a skill classed or cross classed doesn't matter, when they bumped their Int doesn't matter; it's all just one calculation.

For anyone who really hates this, the actual number of points should work just about the same as the old way (1x4 or 1+3) but how will you handle cross-class skills? The old 2 points = 1 rank, or assign a -3 penalty?

As a DM, I never had trouble making mid- to high level characters, so this is why I disagree with the change. I'm sorry the people who had troubles before aren't especially math talented, but the change enforces doing additional math for those converting... making more math to reduce math is my real problem with Pathfinder skills.

If 3.x had been done this new way originally, I might like the new better... but its not how it was done, so the conversion annoys the hell out of me.

I haven't found any problem with either method, though I must say as a DM who makes waaay too many NPCs for his own good that the Pathfinder system has greatly expedited my NPC-generating process.

McPoyo wrote:
It's already starting to slacken off at third level in one of the games I'm running, and it's only going to get worse later on. It's only slightly stronger than giving the wizard a crossbow as it is, since he gets to use his Int score for attacks and damage.

Hold up, I'm confused. Wizards get to add Int to their attacks and damage now? When did that happen?

Oi, I'm a bit behind in reading the Beta.

Godsdog10 wrote:
Wow, 20th level in 2 months??? How often did you play? That seems rather quick to me. My group played every two weeks for like 6 months and were just at 3rd level. *shrugs*

My question is how do you get the players to level so slow? We're in a pretty combat-intensive game, so even under the slow XP chart we level pretty fast. Even as a player, I'd like to level slower for story's sake.

Please enlighten me.

joela wrote:
Mosaic wrote:
ne thing I'm not satisfied with in either system is healing. I just don't like how reliant characters are on magical healing, and thus, how much time Clerics have to spend healing. In the last 3.5 game, I had to resort to magical healing 3 times just to finish the adventure - 1 potion of Cure Light Wounds, 1 scroll and 1 spell of the same. It just felt video-gamy with little bottles that refill your Life-meter. The Beta games were pretty much the same, with the Cleric dropping healing bombs a couple of times to save our butts. I'd really like to see a mechanic in Pathfinder like Second Wind in 4E that recognizes that HP aren't just a measure of wounds and physical damage.
Check out Reserve Points.

Dude... that's awesome! I'm going to start using that. Simple, nice. Less reliance on clerics. Although, like Mosaic mentioned, might make it equal to 1/2 HP.

Still, thank you very much!

silverhair2008 wrote:

I am happy that someone has taken upon themselves to try to maintain the style and fun of playing D&D. While I am a relative newby to D&D (having begun playing with 3.0) I am excited that I don't have to reduce my library to begin a new one (4th). I share some material with some friends who are guests of the State of Texas, and having a continuation of the sets I have sent them is a plus for me.

I made several entries before the actual playtest schedule came out. I just hope some of my comments were helpful.

Overall I would claim to be excited to see what the final product looks like even though I will buy it regardless. See the tag above.

Good work and good luck to all at Paizo. May you all have long and happy lives.

I share many of this man's sentiments. I also am a relative newbie, only been playing for about the past 3 years (though often). I have found Pathfinder to be superior in many ways to 3.5, and even though people moan and complain on the testing boards a lot, I think most of them would agree that the Pathfinder rules only improve on 3.5, not detract from it in any way. Sure, they might not be entirely pleased with how it works specifically, but it's sure better than 3.5.

Not that I'm dissing 3.5, either. It's a great system with a few major flaws, and Pathfinder aims to fix that. They're already well on their way to solving many of the problems that 3.5 presented, and I'm happy to say that I'm still friggin' excited about the final release.

Now we just need to see them do something about high-level play, heh.


I also wish all of the staff at Paizo long and happy lives. Well-put, silverhair.


Tarren Dei wrote:
I'm excited like a gnoll in heat.

This pretty much sums it up.

lordzack wrote:

I am going to right now say I am not suggesting that Paizo get rid of the Fighter. I am trying to provoke meaningful productive discussion by stating the reasons I am not allowing the Fighter in my game.

1. Too Generic

The Fighter has to cover everybody that can use weapons good. This seriously limits what class features might be available if you want to change it. You have to consider whether it would fit all of the available archetypes.

2. Too Weak

Honestly the Fighter is just too weak. In a world where wizards can use Meteor Swarms and such the ability to hit somebody with a sword really hard just isn't good enough. There are better Fighter classes, such as the Barbarian, but when you try to improve the Fighter you run into problem #1.

3. The Name

Why is the Fighter limited to fighting? I don't want to play a character that has no out of combat capabilities. I want to play an adventurer that has a role in the party including both in and out of combat capabilities.

I admit, some of these are surmountable to a certain degree. But I'm not going to bother. In my game you can be a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Knight or Swashbuckler, but not a Fighter. So what do you think?

Hmm. Really, I haven't run into any of these problems. My players and I have always made our fighters our own, and given them different flavors, even if it's just a knighly-type or a mercenary, solving problem 1 and 3.

My players also don't powergame (after a lengthy campaign where excessive powergaming occurred, we realized it's not so fun), and so far I've seen no problems with power levels with fighters. Sure, Wizards have more damage-dealing capacity, but that's their draw: they give up armor and weapons and are little pansies in melee in exchange for great magical (and thus damage-dealing) capacity. Even if that's not a viable argument for you, a high-level great-cleaving fighter with good bonuses to attacks and damage from Weapon Training, heinously high ACs from Armor Training, combined with the ridiculous damage-dealing potentials of the style specialization feat trees (Two-Weapon Fighting, Overhand Chop, etc) seems to keep pace with a Wizard any day.

Like I said, at least in my groups, it's been a complete non-issue. I really like the Pathfinder Fighter, and I don't see it being too weak or too strong (given the players don't optimize).

Eric Tillemans wrote:
I'd love to see some sort of 'Trap the Soul' capstone ability for assassins. That way an assassin could slay the king and take his soul back to the assassin's employer for safe keeping.

I like this idea. I've always thought of this problem myself, and felt like assassinations were pointless without a Necromancer at your side to get rid of the chance of resurrection.

I, and many other people, are not familiar with the Red Mantis guild, and there are doubtless some others who know of it but do not use it in their worlds. I'd rather it be that all assassins are able to do their job well, rather than have a specific sect of assassins be the only truly effective guild in the land.

Someone mentioned that there's usually a usurper in place for when they kill the king. Sure, but what if the hit's just on someone less important, or in a position that isn't "usurpable" (if I may defile the English language so)? One could argue that resurrection magic isn't an issue there, either, because they're less important, but in cases like an army's general there's a need for that man, once assassinated, to stay dead. Without some preventative force, that army is simply going to spend a few gold, true resurrect their brilliant tactician, and go merrily on their way.

I also don't think picking off every high level cleric within 100 miles should be necessary for a successful hit. It seems a bit tedious to me, and also probably impossible in many circumstances.

And, though funny, I don't think the "our contract didn't mention the resurrection, pay me more to kill him again" thing isn't great in a game, but that's personal preference.

Personally, I like the fancy drawings. Gives me something to go "ooooh, shiny" at while looking through the book. Makes it feel more "epic" to me, ha.

Really, it's entirely a matter of preference.

Hoo boy.

I'm unsure of whether I like this or the rage points system better. It seems like this could get a bit out of hand a first glance, but when you take into account that these Barbarians essentially aren't getting the +Con modifier rage points per level, and just being able to use these abilities at will (probably using about the same amount of points as if they had just actually used the abilities under the rage points system), it seems to balance out a little.

Still undecided which I'm going to use... might have to test both.