zwyt's page

I hate labels like "mythic", "epic", and "legendary." Do you want more content for levels 15-20? How about levels 21-30? If you want 20+ what would be a reasonable level cap?

James says that popular interest is what best guarantees the genesis of a product. Weigh in with your thoughts folks.

I'm not so much interested in what it would be called but I definitely want high level content / options otherwise I feel as if the rules are forcing me to stop playing my character once I reach 20th level. I think there should always be something to press toward regardless of the level of the character, not everyone has to use it but for those of us who want it, I think it would be cool if it could be built seamlessly into the core rule system.

Standard mail option does not have tracking unfortunately. The estimate is 4-8 business days and your package shipped on March 16th. That puts on business day 6 today, so hopefully it will arrive within the next few days. While we won't leave you hanging if your package does go missing, but we do need to make sure we give this package time to get through the postal system.

thanks
sara marie

Ahh yes, I forgot to take weekends into consideration when I did my initial count. Thanks.

Hi, I just wanted to inquire as to whether or not any tracking info is available on order number 1648678 or if any information on its location is available. I placed this order on the 13th of March and was notified that it was shipped on the 16th of March, the delivery estimate is listed as 4 to 8 days and 8 days have passed and I have not yet received the order. Any help that can be given on this would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Charles

Ernest Mueller wrote:

No revolvers, please. The more you go outside historical tech combinations, the more you end up breaking versimilitude. Tech you need to make revolvers, would have a lot more effects on the world than just producing revolvers. Nonsense arguments about "but but... magic!" excluded.

Have you looked at the alchemist class? How about Craft: Engineering.

Pathfinder and Golarion are EASILY set up in a manner suitable for late 1800's revolvers and repeating rifles.

Yeah I would have to agree, any society that has the metal working and magical ability to craft a golem from iron and make it animate and fight no less can surely scrounge up metal workers (particularly Dwarven metal workers) that are capable of crafting revolvers and repeating rifles, even if the rifles go the route of some in the Borderlands computer game and have large revolver style magazines.

Charles

Admittedly I haven't had the opportunity to play test any of the alternative classes yet but in reading over the Gunslinger something kind of jumped out at me. The text says concerning head shots under the Targeting Deed. "Head: On a hit, the target is damaged normally, and is also confused for 1 round. This is a mind affecting effect."

I don't know if this has been mentioned by anyone yet but this is a very mild effect for scoring a head shot on an enemy, in fact it almost stretches things beyond the level of believability. If this is how head shots are treated then a 5th level fighter with oh lets say 55-65 hit points will take an average of 6 points of damage plus Dex. modifier per successful hit with a musket in the hands of a medium sized character if the gunslinger is level 5 or above if not then the Dex. modifier is removed from damage. Lets say the gunslinger is 5th level or higher then with a Dex of 18 that damage bonus would be +4 for an average of 10 points of damage per hit with a normal un-enchanted weapon or any feats that grant damage bonuses. That fighter if he had 55 hit points could take 6 or more shots to the head before actually going down. Of course the gunslinger is not likely to spend that many grit points in a single combat to bring that fighter down (or to have that many available at 5th level). Of course the gunslinger gets the added effect of confusion for 1 round if he hits on a head shot. This makes the 5th level rogue's sneak attack with a short sword able to do more potential damage than a musket shot to the head on a non-critical hit.

Here is what I propose; instead make a head shot truly something to be feared rather than something to be shrugged off, I think a successful head shot should automatically be a critical hit AND keep the confusion effect for 1 round, BUT if it is attempted during normal combat when the head is almost always in motion then it should be at -4 on the attack roll because the head is a small target, in motion. If it is a shot at a stationary target then it should be at -2 because the head is a small target but it is stationary. All other applicable situational modifiers would of course apply.

Due to the fact that the head shot would be an automatic critical hit already rolling a natural 20 would not therefore allow any chance to make the hit further critical. This would make snipers (I know short range snipers due to muskets but it's possible) particularly deadly, especially at lower levels if they can hit their targets and using muskets and pistols to make head shots in close combat with moving targets would be a bit more difficult but have a nice payoff if successful. Think of all the movies that you have seen, if somebody pulls out a pistol and shoots someone in the face at point blank range it is never pretty. It isn't to easy to pull off if the target is moving but if successful the guy on the business end of that gun is usually pretty much out of the fight if not pushing up daises. Anyway just a suggestion but even if you don't go with this I still think that head shots are not quite deadly enough as they are.

Charles

Joey Virtue wrote:

I also miss these prestige classes but the Feats chains wouldnt be a bad idea either

Disagree. This was a PrC usually for a wizard, but generally a caster, that has put such extreme level of research into spells in such a variety that the spells start to act more like limbs and extensions of their body. I don't think this can be covered as a feat as it is too powerful

Well yeah the 3.5 Arch Mage was/is that but that was not the way of it originally. Originally an Arch Mage in first edition D&D as well as most fantasy fiction is simply a powerful wizard. They may be able to utilize magic like it is a limb or an extension of their body or whatever but that is basically just flavor, you can have that with an Arch Mage any way you slice it. I personally think the best way to build an Arch Mage is with as much flexability in character creation as you ca get, because they have entered grad school as far as magic is concerned, they can select this that and the other thing and become uber powerful in it, they are versatile and as far as mages go should be the most powerful and awe inspiring among arcane spell casters. I honestly don't think you can accurately reflect this type of thing through a prestige class, you have to have the flexability of choosing feats, alternate class features and powers to build your arch mage the way you want him to be. I think this wold be a most satisfying alternative, in fact in might be an interesting idea in Pathfinder if at epic levels characters begin to learn to transcend class, to come out of the box so to speak, perhaps they cease to advance class wise but continue to advance in character level and a whole world of eclectic epic powers and feats become available to them at 21st level. If a fighter character wants to continue focusing on that aspect of his character he would most certainly have feats and powers to choose from to do that but he could also branch out into other areas without having to select another class and change his hit die type and saving throws and all that stuff.Of course he woldn't be able to spend his first 20 levels as a fighter and then take an epic feat and suddenly he is casting 9th level arcane spells, no there would be prerequisites to taking a certain path, but through taking the right path and selecting the right prerequisites the fighter could most certainly slowly work his way toward those 9th level spells if he wanted to, he could just learn more powerful fighter stuff, he could add some kung -fu to the mix, learn to be stealthy, pick locks or just about anything else. Characters can do this some at lower levels but at eppppic levels they cold spend some time on it and become really really good at things that maybe they missed out on before, due to their class or they coold experience entirely new things. I don't know what the system would look like exactly this is only bare bones idea level stuff but I think it is a good concept to work from.

Charles

I also favor rolling Spellcraft into Knowledge: Arcana for arcane casters. Divine casters would use Knowledge:Religion for the same purpose. It never made sense to have these as separate skills in the first place and it is often unclear which of the skills should be used in a given situation. Yes, there is the one is 'practical' and another is 'theoretical', but this distinction is feeble at best, since Spellcraft is used to identify spells and magical effects... Spellcraft would make sense as a separate skill if it somehow was used in casting or magic item creation. I don't know whether this would impact balance though - probably not.

I agree, I see no real need for two separate skills here. I honestly don't care which one goes and which one says as long as whet you can do remains. I also think that it wold make sense to use whichever skill stayed to identify magic items instead of the appraise skill. I do have a slight preference of which one to keep. I would rather keep Spellcraft but my resoning for it is quite feeble; it is simply because I think spellcraft sounds more cool than knowledge (arcana) then of course there are those dang parenthesese (why coldn't it just be called Arcane Knowledge, I understand that it is so it could fit under the "knowledge" broad skill but still I like names that are flavorful rather than just functional). As far as the concentartion mechanic, I say yes substitute something like a caster level check + the relevant spell casting ability modifier. I think this option is better than using a save because it puts all casters on potentially equal footing as long as they keep their relevant spell casting ability modifier up there, and what caster worth his salt would fail to do this?I think for higher level spellcasters, whether arcane, divine or even psionisists (I know they are not spellcasters but they are functionally similar)that a concentration check shold be a reletively minor thing except in extreme circumstances. In fantasy fiction it is the lower levels who are likely to blow concentration, not the higher levels, though they might on a very rare occasion or at dramatically appropriate moments. I think a caster should use the abiliy that he or she is practiced in most for this check (thus the caster level check with a bonus from the spellcasting ability modifier) because casters who are going to be using magic in combat situations train for just this sort of thing so let them be really good at it just like fighters are really good at brawling and grappling. We cold also use this as a unfied mechanic across the board for any class that uses spells or manifests some sort of power, psionics, incarnum, crap even super powers if you want to put 'em in yer fantasy game.

Charles

I like prestige classes ok but I also like a lot of flexibility in customization of a character and I feel that the prestige class system takes away a lot of this flexibility. Well the class system actually does too, but I can deal with classes pretty well, I can deal with prestige classes pretty well to but I would prefer just to have a collection of alternate class features, feats and the like that would basically to the same thing as a prestige class but you could just pay the price and pin them on as you want. I guess I lean toward what GURPS does with advantages in this area, I think everything would be so much easier to deal with if there was just stuff to add by paying some predefined price rather than having to take the whole package, it a little to much of a cookie cutter approach I guess. I can deal with this much of a cookie cutter approach as long as it doesn't get as cookie cutter as 4e but I definitely lean in favor of ultimate flexibility.

Charles

Mr Baron wrote:

what happened to the Blackguard? What are the plans for this class?

As I mentioned in another thread, the blackguard got cut due the fact that the class deserves to be a base class, not locked away as a prestige class. Unfortunately, I am not sure that we will have the room to explore this option in the core book.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

And ya know maybe this has been brought up before but why not just call him an Anti-Palladin instead of a Blackguard like most everybody has been doing for ages and generations anyway??? Or is Blackguard more cool. I like the name Blackguard but most folks have been making house ruled anti-palladins since 1st edition.

Charles

I just wanted to put my vote in for epic level rules for PFRPG, in fact I think it is cool that this thread has started now because by the time they get around to actually considering working on them there will be no doubt that there is a very high demand for epic level stuff. I do think however that it would be possible to come up with a system that is better and easier to deal with than that which was/is in the Epic Level Handbook. I didn't so much dislike the ELHB but I did find it... well somewhat complex and it was almost like learning a new system. I don't necessarily think that continuing the standard level progression in the same fashion that levels 1-20 do is the best answer either. I have kind of been thinking of something that would kind of be modular in design. It is not very developed because I only began to think about it about 15 minutes or so ago.

I was thinking that Characters could continue to go up in levels in a similar fashion to what they do now, gaining experience points and increasing in numeric levels, but epic levels could become more specialized, kind of like going to grad school after getting a bachelors degree. Epic level characters could kind of transcend the standard class mold and enter into an area in their careers where they could train basically as they choose using experience points gained beyond 20th level to buy epic level abilities and powers. This approach would solve several problems (though it may create a few as well I am not sure)the level progression would never have to stop, once the guidelines were in place GMs would be able to create new powers, spells and abilities suitable for the characters in their campaigns and allow those characters to buy them as they can afford them. You may lose a little flavor of the standard class system but only if the player chooses to and the system could encourage players to buy abilities and powers that were in line with their earlier careers by making those outside of those career paths more expensive.

Epic level progression would not have to be frighteningly complex, it could be kept incredibly simple with this system the complexity would be in designing new powers and abilities for characters as they advance, it would also open doors for many new supplements to be written for epic level characters, showing different ways to design epic level characters, sample epic level characters and monsters, new epic level powers and abilities a whole gamut of stuff. I suppose this could be done with any other system but this is an option that came to my mind. I know it is only in the basic concept stage right now but I hope it provokes some thought and discussion.

Charles

well i don't like the feat myself either, I can do this in real life though it doesn't make my attacks any faster. How i imaged the two-weapon fighting worked was the weapon in each hand attacked at the same time and that's why they got more attacks.

Coming from the perspective of real life martial arts training there are definite advantages from fighting with two weapons (dual Chinese broadswords for instance, dual hook swords, dual nun-chuku and the like)Swapping a weapon from one hand to the other is definitely not even close to two weapon fighting. I suppose that there would be ways to visualize it at least semi-effectively but about all of them take up two much time for anything effectively equivalent to attacking with a second weapon that is ALREADY in the second hand and doesn't have to be swapped. In a combat situation we are playing with fractions of seconds often the attack that kills can come in a 10th of a second and it ls likely to take at least that much time to swap a weapon from one hand to another.

I suppose you could be fighting an opponent on one side of you and then another opponent runs up to attack you from the other side, you quickly stab the first opponent through the heart, yank the sword back out and thrust it rapidly into the path of the oncoming attacker. This could be a way of visualizing it but it still wouldn't be as fast as a weapon that was already in the other hand (not near as fast) and it also sounds like the kind of thing that can already be done via an attack of opportunity, unless the second opponent was already adjacent in which case there would be even less time to swap that weapon to the other hand. I can't see a lot of justification for the feat really.

Charles

While I am sure that this is done the same as the grapple modifier in 3.5 I always thought that the 3.5 core books were a little vague when explaining the grapple modifier in relation to the question that I am about to ask. When calculating the CMB I know that the formula is Base Attack Bonus + Strength Modifier + Special Size Modifier + any Miscellaneous Modifiers that may apply. My question is if the character in question has more than one attack per round on a full attack action do you just use the highest BAB to calculate a single CMB and thus only one Combat Maneuver is possible per round ever? Or do you calculate a CMB based on the BAB for each attack that character has per round on a full attack action? Thus allowing for multiple Combat Maneuvers per round in the case where this is possible and the character in question has more than one attack per round available? I just haven't found a clear answer to this anywhere.

Charles

I disagree. PCs should have a pretty good chance to use thier manuevers with or without a feat. The penalty of "attack of opportunity" is sometimes enough of a deterent.

I agree that the CMB base DC should be 10. We used it in early playtests and it encouraged heroic combat.

Conversely, if the bonus for the Improved feats was raised to a +4, that might also work.

One thing that I can say is that I used CMB in the first real combat that I had used it in last night and it was great. It made grappling actually fun and it ran quite quickly and smoothly. One of my players was running a straight up fighter 10th level and he got into a grapple with the a 5th level fighter/6th level sorcerer that I used the Arcane Mercenary sample complex NPC from the DMG2 for and did some very basic conversions on the fly. Mostly I just checked to make sure his current grapple modifier would be equal to what his CMB should be, no special size modifiers so it was. So the Arcane Merc had a CMB of +10 I am not 100% sure of what the PCs CMB was but I remember it yielded a DC of 30 so he had a pretty high strength score to account for that.

As it should be strength is the maker or breaker for a straight up grapple. at any rate the Arcane Merc would have had to have rolled a natural 20 to have broken the fighters grapple. I think the best way to "fix" any perceived imbalances in this system is through the use of feats that give special training in unique combat styles that focus on grappling. In the real world the weaker guy if he is not trained in a grappling style is always going to be at a significant disadvantage when fighting against the stronger guy, especially if he is a trained fighter. The Escape Artist skill is useful for this kind of thing as is Improved Grapple.

It might be nice to include some specific ground fighting and grappling style feats that reflect a grappling centric style of fighting that can give more bonuses than just a bonus to grappling and escaping from a grapple. Jujitsu and Greko-Roman Wrestling are two real world fighting styles that do this kind of thing. Their are already feats that improve the ability to successfully perform maneuvers through training and special ability with armed combat although I think some fighting style centric ones might be nice. For instance you could have a feat called Blade Dance (and there may already be a feat called this in 3e FR or somewhere) or something like that as a combat feat that basically reflects training in a whole fighting style maybe even introduce a new class of feats called Fighting Style Feats that have prerequisites similar to but not as stiff as those to qualify for a prestige class.

These could give bonuses on things like disarming opponents, avoiding being flanked, flanking and the like all in one big feat. It would probably have some pretty stiff prerequisites because it would be a very useful feat unless the bonuses started out low and increased with level. The problem that I see is that while it seems that a Base DC of 15 seems to make things a bit difficult and nearly impossible for some characters (grappling, disarming and sundering should be difficult for a wizard or a sorcerer with no levels of a combat class) I think if it was lowered to 10 it would make things a bit to easy. In a situation like this I think the best way to deal with it is through feats that offer a +1, +2, +3, or even +4 bonus eventually. On several of the rolls if the Arcane Merc last night had had a +2 bonus or had had the Escape Artist skill maxed out he would have made some of his rolls to escape but there would still have been sufficient chance of failure to produce enough dramatic tension to keep it fun. On the other hand the grappler kept him so busy that he didn't have a good opportunity to get off a spell if he had gotten the opportunity to cast Bull's Strength or something that would have helped considerably, ray of enfeeblement would have been helpful too as would have enlarge person but he simply didn't get the opportunity he was bound up in the grapple to much.

Charles

Ok I started up a new campaign with two players playing a 10th level Sorceress and a 10th Level Fighter and me as DM running a 10th Level Rogue NPC with the party. We got into a fight in a Section of the City of Riddleport in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign world. Well during the fight one of the players decided he was going to throw some grappling moves on a lone archer that was sniping at the party from an upper story window (that is after he had found where the archer was and got to his location)my mind immediately went to what a headache grappling had been under standard 3.5 but right there while we were playing I quickly reviewed the CMB rules and the grappling section and that fighter through that guy all over the place. The CMB rules made this encounter run very simply, quickly and smoothly. We actually had tons of fun running a grappling encounter it was one of the best combats that I had run in a while. Thank you Paizo for CMB it is really a sweet system. I used to say that Pathfinder is the real D&D now but after this encounter I am tempted to say that Pathfinder is not D&D it is ten times better than anything D&D ever dreamed of being.

Charles

Ummm . . .

First, you will at some point in time have to pay WotC to playtest their material.
Let me repeat that:
When WotC finally gets their act together with the DDI, their plan is to charge for the e-zines. That means you will have to pay them for the privilege of editing, reviewing, and playtesting their material.
Let me sum up:
THEY WANT YOU TO PAY TO PLAYTEST FOR THEM!

Second, unless they seriously get their act together, putting out material for review five months before its publication date is a waste of effort. At best they might get some editing feedback. For actual playtest purposes though, expecting people to use the material for the barbarian through multiple levels of play during the time between an October preview posting date and a March release date is a pipe dream. With a minimal three month lead time for the printer, that means all of two months for the paytesters to read, use, and comment on the material, and for the designers to read the feedback, make adjustments, and test the adjustments.
That is one impossible thing I am not inclined to believe before breakfast.

So to compare and contrast:
1. Pay for the material vs. free PDF.
2. 5 months before release vs. 16 months before release.
3. Painfully distended schadenfreude gizzard vs. empty wallet.

Hmmm so in reality there is no way that it can actually be a playtest then it is just a preview the kind of thing that is offered for free everywhere else but they are putting it in their magazine that people will eventually have to pay for access to. A marketing trick getting people to pay for advertising.

Charles

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

What exactly is the point of a playtest for a rules set that's already been released in its finished form? Are we talking 4.5 already!?

They're going to be releasing a new Player's Handbook every year (I think) with new classes, feats, etc.

You know i was just wondering... if they release a new Player's Handbook every year then if a new player comes along does he start with the first Player's Handbook or does he just buy the current one and all the rules that he needs to play the game with the character types covered in it are present or what? How many years can this kind of model continue?

If they release a new Players Handbook every year and the first one is like $34.95 then the next year a new one comes out and maybe it stays about $34.95 after all it is a Player's Handbook so it will probably be priced about what PHB2 was priced at for 3.5 which will be about another $34.95 and they are probably attempting to eventually creep that price up to around the $39.95 mark. Now if 4th edition survives for 5 years then they are going to have 5 Player's Handbooks in print with a price tag of at least $34.95 each. Now it wasn't bad when they had 3.5 splat books for $29.95 each that essentially added to the game what it seems the new Player's Handbooks will add in 4th edition. Now if anyone has been watching the pricing on the Star Wars SAGA edition books each of the little thin splat books (Starships of the Galaxy, Threats of the Galaxy etc.)are selling for $34.95 the same price that a D&D 4th edition core book costs plus they are smaller books not only in page count but in the new square size they have adopted for these books as well. Less product for more money... hmmm.

Now don't get me wrong I like the Star Wars Saga stuff and if there is a Star Wars game on the market I am usually into buying the books (even if I hardly ever get to play the game). But back to D&D 4e if they have all of these Players Handbooks out there what is that going to do for new players? Not to mention that you may have to eventually buy 5-6 (or more depending on how long 4e is around) $34.95 players handbooks in order to have access to all of the Core Classes for D&D 4e.

Um I don't know about you guys but the GURPS approach is starting to look real attractive to me right now. I don't think this model for 4e will fly over the long term a couple of Core books around which the rest of the system revolves is the best model in my opinion. Also if you factor in the fact... now listen everyone that is so die hard sold on 4e D&D I am not spreading 4e hate but it is a fact for anyone that cares to go look to see that on Amazon.com the average rating for ALL D&D core books at present (I just looked about a half an hour ago)is 3 out of 5 stars and it fluctuates downward to 2.5 stars at times especially for the new Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. The game that is known as the "leader in the industry" cannot take this kind of popularity hit for very long, a LOT of people listen to those Amazon reviews. In fact it is where I go to read what actual consumers are saying about products even if I am going to buy them elsewhere. The days of hiding behind a pretty book cover are over folks.

Charles

Zardnaar wrote:

How "open" is the great wheel? can you make demons and devils etc even WoTC ones?

All of the demons and devils in the 3.5 Monster Manual are 100% open. And you can bet they'll all be in the book.

What monsters make the cut and what ones don't will be a tough set of choices in some cases... Sea Serpents, for example, SHOULD be in the core book, but I'm not sure delvers should be.

In any event... there'll absolutely be more than one monster book. Anything that doesn't make the first round, in other words, will have more than one chance at it eventually...

The goal is, though, to have as many of the core SRD monsters in there as we can fit.

I would actually like to see demon lords/princes and the Lords of the Nine back in the core monster books instead of some supplement on the Abyss or the Hells I don't know if all of them are open game content or not but Asmodeus and Pazuzu must be since I have seen their names cropping up in some Pathfinder books.

Charles

This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.

You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.

*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*

EDIT: To be fair, the "It's not D&D" comment is usually meant as this does not sound/play/feel like what the person expects from a D&D game, rather than an actual denial of its titular reality. I'm sure many of them also feel that 4E does not deserve to be called D&D for it's numerous perceived failings, but, as you say, it is.

Hehehehe I have heard this argument all over the place. Does the D&D logo = real D&D well as far as the brand name goes I suppose. I concur that the current incarnation of D&D is D&D for the moment. However if the reviews on Amazon.com mean anything then I would say that it will be the incarnation of D&D that survives the least amount of time as any historically or that it may well be the incarnation of D&D that kills the brand name. So go ahead and call it D&D if you want to the rest of us will just sit back and laugh or either cry until it either dies and a new rpg is born or until Pathfinder RPG becomes the replacement for the true D&D. There may remain a market for D&D 4e and Pathfinder but you know I foresee Pathfinder RPG taking the market by storm and leaving 4e in the dust. The reason for this is that the folks behind Pathfinder tend to care what the community wants, Wizards of the Coast could care less. They build up a model that they think will do well based upon their current view of the market and they push that through. All the while treating the community as if their opinion is worth crap until it begins to effect sales then they listen somewhat but by then it is a day late and a dollar short. I used to be a major WotC supporter during the 3.5 era because they were producing some bang up material, especially close to the end but not anymore. 4th edition is a miniatures or board game with a few RPG elements thrown in. I have actually thought about getting the rulebooks when they become cheap on Amazon marketplace so I can be sure Wizards will get about 0 income from the sale and basically using them for an expanded miniatures game. So if you like 4th edition more power to you but I will almost bet any amount of money you want to bet that it will be the shortest lived D&D rules set ever. The sooner they get over this little 4e glitch and get back to real D&D the better. I want no mistake about it there is not enough scathing remarks in the whole of the world to express the damage that 4e has done to D&D in general and I make no apologies for my remarks. 4e may have the brand name but in spirit it is simply NOT D&D! Also I do not necessarily think it is by accident that the 4 key on a PC keyboard occupies the same space as the $ key so that is is a simple mistake to type $e rather than 4e. I believe the whole marketing campaign surrounding 4e was a supreme grab for money with a game that looks good on the early levels for the demos and the like but that makes absolutely no sense for anything very far beyond first level. 4E is a bunch of beanie baby characters running around with their little daily and encounter powers that would do well to fight their way out of a 4e brown paper bag because the 4e brown paper bag would likely have 500 hit points for a 1st level party. Nuff Said!

Charles

modus0 wrote:

Okay, I've read over this, and it seems a bit unclear.

What exactly is the difference between a temporary and a permanent bonus?

If I put on a [i]belt of incredible dexterity +4[i] do I gain all the benefits of having a Dex four points higher immediately, or do I have to wait 24 hours?

And if it's the former, what's the benefit of wearing the item after that 24 hours?

As far as I understand it you gain the appropriate benefit as soon as you wear the enhancement item, but you only gain the immediate benefits like you would get with the appropriate buff spell. Only after 24 hours of wearing you can use your now permanently enhanced ability score to eg. fulfill feat prerequisites and/or get more bonus spells.

OK just got to ask the question... What happens if you take the belt/item off? Is the ability increase permanent in that it never goes away even if you don't have the belt/item anymore??? If this is the case then the whole party would pass this item around and after a few days they would all be permanently buffed. <cornfused>

Charles

hi, I like the new quick and fast rule for channeling energy.

Two points:

(1) why not have the ability to do old school turning OR new school "channeling" - all from the same pool of turn attempts

(2) id need to check in the 3.5 rules but im pretty sure the rebuker is getting short changed here? (will check)

http://roleplaygeek.blogspot.com/

As long as they are on equal footing now does it really matter what standard 3.5 says? i am assuming you mean short changed from what he used to get, I don't see how he could be getting short changed against the positive energy channeler now, unless I am missing something.

Charles

Played my gnome sorceror not long ago. We're going through the Isle of Dread part in Savage Tide AP and we came across some of the demons.

Now I have taken the air elemental bloodline (I like lightning and being able to fly around :) ) but many of these creatures were immune to my bloodline abilities (since they eveoke only the energy type of the elemental I am).

This was a bit frustrating as for most of the game I couldn't use those bonus abilities. I still had effective spells and scrolls, but it did make my option a little disapointing. For a sorceror limited options are going to happen but the Beta is trying to address this.

I'd like to see a metamagic feat similar to the one in complete Arcane, where you can swap energy types of effects for spells. I think it will increase the versatility of the sorceror. Not sure how the balance will change for wizards (who already have very high versatility). I realise the flavour of this might not be well matched to my bloodline but I am thinking about your overall goal of increasing the versatility of the sorceror.

I like the fact the bloodline abilities mean I can diversify my spell selection more so not trying to be a blaster, or enchanter all the time. However this scenario certainly then crimped my game a fair bit.

Cheers

I really think that I would leave those limitations in place. I see no reason why you couldn't use the f eat from Unearthed Arcana in your own game if you wanted if your DM approves. I like the idea of having some things that certain characters are somewhat limited against of course that is from a DMs perspective. I think actually that is part of the idea behind bloodlines, they create a character that has some flavor and also is quite potent against some foes but less so against others. Everybody needs a type of enemy that makes them say "oh crap" when they have to fight it.

Charles

Gosh, I hate to say this but I just don't like the name "the Darklands." I mean, I 'll live with it or tweak it for myself, but it's the first Pathfinder name that just doesn't sit well with me.

Maybe just "the Dark" or "the Darkhollows" or "the Darkrealms" or (taking a cue from Bastion Press) "the Black," but the word 'lands' suggests above ground to me.

Like I said, I'll can deal with it, but is anyone else feeling the same way?

Actually I kind like it. The Underdark has been so overused and overdone that I am just kind of sick of that name. I feel like "The Darklands" is a refreshing change. You know something that I am noticing is that Paizos world building and adventure writing goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond anything that Wizards of the Coast ever dreamed of doing. I am liking the PFRPG better than standard 3.5 D&D t he Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting better than anything that Wizards has published the Eberron Campaign Setting comes kind of close in my opinion but it is not classic fantasy the way that Golarion is. In my opinion Paizo has surpassed Wizards of the Coast in quality on every front.

Charles

I'm amazed!

In this weekend the Pathfinder tag in Enworld has grown a lot.
Link

I was just wondering is there something wrong with the EN World website it has been extremely slow for a week or two now and has even timed out my Firefox browser several times.

Charles

By the way, I find this thread HIGHLY illuminating. I encourage everyone to keep spreading the word and to keep posting reports of store visits here in the forums.

I love hearing about what is happening with the products after they leave our warehouse!

Thanks, guys!

I was at my FLGS just last night and ran a friend of mine bought the last copy of the Beta and the Campaign setting though the people at the store said they have more of both coming in on Tuesday. We noticed the same t hing about the way 4e books vs. 3.5 and Pathfinder books were arranged on the shelves, all of the 4e core books were on side shelves and on a circular display rack, with a few in the front of the store on the WotC display and the 3.5 and recent Pathfinder stuff and Gamemastery and PF modules were displayed face out on the main shelves where anyone walking by could get the full view of their covers. I will be getting my copy of the Campaign setting this Friday (already have my beta). We also ran into three gamers when in the store in the D&D section who shared our opinion that 4e just wasn't it and of course we showed them the PF Beta and talked to them about PF for a while and they all sounded like they were going to become customers. I know no gamers in my area who are switching to 4th edition D&D and the number that I know that are going Pathfinder/3.5 is steadily increasing as time passes.

Charles

F. Wesley Schneider wrote:

She was the Brand Manager for D&D Minis for a while and

That's reason enough to hire her right there. Pathfinder needs some good prepainted plastic minis, maybe she can help out. ;)

Yeah and wouldn't it be nice if they were not in boxes that you can't see through so that you never know what you are getting. Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually buy the minis that you NEED for your game without getting a bunch that you would never buy unless you were on cheap drugs? They could still have stat cards and you could still play a minis game with 'em if you wanted to but it would sure be nice if you could get the ones you wanted. So Linae if they hire you and you do PF minis please read this. :)

Charles

I know when I first made this post, I was tying myself to the stake to get burned at. I wanted to make a point that people shouldn't say that 4th is not D&D. I've read all the remarks and comments and posts about the feel of a game or the lack thereof. But it's not the rules that make the game fun. We've all house ruled things - added rules and taken them away.

I love 4th. I love 3.5. I like Pathfinder. I think all of them have room for improvement. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, supporters and detractors. Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo. It doesn't make me evil. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think WotC is evil. I think they've made mistakes, but so have we all. No one is perfect. No company is perfect. No game is perfect.

So, I'm ready to let this go. I just felt a need to make a point that has obviously been beaten to death. I didn't expect this to go on the way it did. I'm sorry if it bothered people and I apologize. I knew people would be passionate and I knew I was going to get a lot of heat. But I've learned a lot from this thread. One of which is a good piece of advice. Much like the advice of, "Never mess with another man's religion," there is now, "Never mess with another man's D&D."

Arovyn

Oops totally messed up my previous reply by getting it mixed in with the quote. So here goes again...

Yeah but at this point Pathfinder is the only one that is making an active open effort to listen to the feedback of the community in order to do something about its "room for improvement" which i think is growing smaller all of the time.

Charles

I know when I first made this post, I was tying myself to the stake to get burned at. I wanted to make a point that people shouldn't say that 4th is not D&D. I've read all the remarks and comments and posts about the feel of a game or the lack thereof. But it's not the rules that make the game fun. We've all house ruled things - added rules and taken them away.

I love 4th. I love 3.5. I like Pathfinder. I think all of them have room for improvement. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, supporters and detractors. Loving 4th, though, seems to be put me categorically in other people's sights as a possibly evil person who is supporting an evil corporation who is out to screw other people and publisher's like Paizo. It doesn't make me evil. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think WotC is evil. I think they've made mistakes, but so have we all. No one is perfect. No company is perfect. No game is perfect.

So, I'm ready to let this go. I just felt a need to make a point that has obviously been beaten to death. I didn't expect this to go on the way it did. I'm sorry if it bothered people and I apologize. I knew people would be passionate and I knew I was going to get a lot of heat. But I've learned a lot from this thread. One of which is a good piece of advice. Much like the advice of, "Never mess with another man's religion," there is now, "Never mess with another man's D&D."

Yeah but at this point Pathfinder is the only one that is making an active open effort to listen to the feedback of the community in order to do something about its "room for improvement" which i think is growing smaller all of the time.

Charles

Arovyn

All right. fair enough. I suppose I'll just have to go back to silently disagreeing with the negative reviews and leave it at that. I enjoyed it, apparently no one (and i mean i havn't found a single person other then my brother) else did. although i suppose i can understand the having expectations thing. I certainly had them when the dune miniseries came out a few years ago. And i suppose the acting was fairly bad (compared to some better performances i guess), but isn't it a little harsh to say that it isn't DnD? couldn't it just be DnD with a bad DM? or one with his own world and rules? maybe in that setting the monsters are all dumb and the serious threat comes from the NPCs and theives?

I really don't know what i'm trying to get at here, so i'll just stop.

Well now you have found another person. I liked the D&D Movie. I have no problem saying that. Was it everything that I wished that a D&D movie would be? No. Could it have been better? Yes. Still though it was a decent fantasy film. It was no Lord of the Rings by any stretch of the imagination but it wasn't a bad fantasy film. Actually the biggest thing that I didn't like about the D&D Movie was Damodar's (I think that was his name) blue lipstick, he was a decent bad guy even with the blue lipstick but without it he would have been so much better. Profion was a decent villain, and the final battle scene was pretty good too. We see a few recognizable spells in the movie and the main character wasn't to bad as a rogue, Snails was just comic relief until he got kilt. Anyway it wasn't to bad in my opinion.

Charles

kijeren wrote:

I read that as "You can't use a magic wand or a scroll while using Bardic Performnce, EXCEPT for Comedy and Oratory. Because Comedy and Oratory are spoken, you are able to use magic-word-activated items such as wands."

Yes. It's effectively saying "The disadvantage of using oratory/comedy is that it's language-dependent, but the advantage is that you can still use wands and stuff."

Ok that was one of my possible interpretations for that section. I will have to say that I am quite impressed with what Paizo has done with the bard, they have come further than anyone else I have seen at "un-sucking" the bard (considering that past consensus was mostly that bards suck). I think I would consider playing one now.

Charles

tergiver wrote:

I might give true vampires a second save versus destruction, but not vampire spawn

You mean like if they took full damage on a positive energy channel and it was enough to drop them below 0 they would get a 2nd save to try and make it 1/2 damage instead? Or after they drop below 0 they would have to make another save at the same DC (minus turn resistance I would think since it's no longer vs the channeling, but against destruction) or be destroyed?

It fits with the classic vampire story though. True faith has always been the bane of the vampire, holy water would do tremendous damage to one if they were submersed in it and the channeling positive energy is similar to submersing the vampire in something holy, at least for a short time. I would say yes though that ole fang face would be destroyed now the really powerful vamps in some D&D adventures and the like have had ways of getting around this whether it be via a magic item or a feat or whatever. I like the idea of a feat as opposed to a magic item, the old powerful vamp has fought against priests using positive energy so many times that he has built up a resistance to it and while he is still repulsed by it and it causes him great pain and discomfort he can fight through it though with some penalties to all actions or something like that, maybe even the really really powerful vamps can be given the opportunity to buy off even this weakness with a more powerful feat or something, giving you the truly powerful vamp that just marches into the presence of the cleric , strides right through his turning attempt, grabs him by the throat and casts him aside. Perhaps to borrow a term from 4e the old powerful vamps body exudes an aura of necrotic (negative) energy that serves to protect him against all but the most powerful of positive energy effects. He has embraced his identity as one of the "damned" so completely that he no longer strives against it at all and even the gods are somewhat repulsed by his presence. Just some thoughts.

Charles

Shadowcat7 wrote:

I also like the concept of "holding them at bay" or something like that. Having the priest standing, with his allies close beside him, holding out his holy symbol and having the ravenous undead clawing and pacing a short distance away, but not able to get any closer due to the holy power being displayed just makes a great picture in my mind.

But how to turn that into a game mechanic? Beat's me. Hopefully a real game designer can help with that, because I surely am not.

Maybe the priest simply has to keep spending standard actions every round to keep the turning effect up?

Well, if it is run as sanctuary, the undead would get a save each round to directly attack or target the cleric. I like the idea of sheltering allies behind your holy symbol, so you could say that all allies within 5 feet also share the sanctuary effect.

Well... I am not a real game designer yet anyway. :) But... the turning effect as is has a radius of something like 30' already right? Perhaps have the undead held at bay just beyond this radius, they can attempt to approach closer than this with a will save but doing so causes them to be burned by the positive energy and when that happens they have to make another will save at -2 (due to intense pain) or recoil back out of the radius if they survive. Most undead after being burned a time or two are going to have some healthy respect for that radius and not cross it after being burned once. You could even include a type of morale save where after being burned once they have to make a will save at -4 or something like that to even approach the border of the radius again. This would I believe create tense scenes with the undead being held at bay just beyond the radius of the clerics power (perhaps that radius increases by 5' per level or something). It makes turning pretty powerful and perhaps there should be a rule allowing more powerful undead to resist the turning, there may already be a rule for this I don't have my book in front of me. Just some thoughts.

Charles

There are no changes in goblins.

Except maybe in attitude...

"We be goblins, you be fooooooooood!"

Charles

OK, I've got to talk about this:

Halflings treat weapons with the word "halfling" in it as a martial weapon. They are proficient in slings.

A) There are no weapons with "halfling" in the name.

B) Slings are simple weapons. The only class that can't use them (inexplicably) are wizards.

My suggestion would be to have halflings proficient in either the net or bolas. Alternately, they can treat these as martial weapons. I could also - possibly - see them proficient in hand crossbows.

My second topic here is about humans. I'm one of those who also disagree with having them be able to pick a martial weapon. Humans already gain a free feat at lvl 1, which they can use to become proficient in a martial weapon if they so with. I have trouble with the notion that Joe Dirtfarmer is highly familiar with the exquisite art of two-handed katana weilding.

-Steve Bennett

The easy and most likely explanation for this is that this is only the beta and there are going to be PDF updates and additional things in the near future and these things will likely be there soon.

Charles

zwyt wrote:

It Concerns the Bard:

Ok the text says the following:

One more reason why the Perform skill needs to be a Class Feature equal to the Bard's level (or at very least 1/2 Class Level), and not used as a skill for them.

But, specifically, there are elements in that section which are just confusing/goofy/etc.

You are not alone in this matter.

Well I guess that is why its a beta it will be cleared up soon in some eratta or an update probably. There is lots of other good stuff that is not confusing though. :)

Charles

JoelF847 wrote:

For sheer damage output, I'd say make a 5th level raging barbarian using a 2 handed weapon and using power attack with a strength of 18 or 20. They'll be dishing out 30+ damage a hit every round, and more on crits. Compare that to the wizard's 1 fireball (assuming there's a good tactical situation to use it in even.) You can get similar results at different levels, as the barbarian will hit more often (and more than once a round).

I don't think there's a problem. Having the different classes play differently is a good thing, but I don't think it makes any class or group of classes better overall. You can't mathmatically compare them, but a bard could be viewed as way better than a barbarian or a wizard if their high diplomacy and/or bluff skills avoid fights, or make them much easier.

Skip the fireball, lets talk about a 2nd level spell, Glitterdust. Sure it doesn't kill anyone and does no physical damage. DC 16-17ish(higher if you try) will save or everything in a 10' radius is blind. Most of the time this is used against a group of fighterish types who have a +2 will save or so. Yeah, the barbarian may have almost killed one of the fighters but the wizard just effectively took out 7 out of the other 10. "Hey Krusk and Lidda, make sure you kill all my victims, thanks." and the wizzo can do stuff like this alot if he keeps scrolls of most spells that don't have DCs or are strictly utility and use his slots for this type of stuff.

And let's not even think about the idiocy that can happen around 10th-11th level. I saw 2 spells ruin an encounter that was 4-5 above the party's EL just last week in my game. Sculpted Black tentacles and sculpted Glitterdust. The caster has pumped his DCs a bit resulting around DC23 for the Glitterdust and DC 25 for the tentacles. Almost all the melee baddies were blinded and any that weren't were grappled. All the caster baddies that weren't blinded were grappled. All with the wizard floating 200ft away and 35 feet off the ground. Big deal if...

Yeah but isn't this why we have parties that have different powers and abilities? In a super hero game (or comic) Thor can't do what Dr. Strange can do either if he could he wouldn't be Thor. But you get a big nasty breaking through Docs mystical shields and shrugging off mystical bolts like they were paper streamers the big guy is handy to have around and so is Doc Strange when some magical baddie captures Thor in the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak.

Charles

zwyt wrote:

I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. *snip*

Well, in the fantasy that I've read, healing magic is hard to come by and wounds have lasting effects, taking days or weeks to recover from. Additionally, death is actually a significant (generally unassailable) hurdle. That doesn't mean that either of those things actually make for a better game. We are talking about fantasy roleplaying here, not fantasy fiction, it's not the same and it's foolish to compare the two. The game should be balanced, or at least attempt to be. No class should do everything well, it eliminates the need for other classes.

Um well no it isn't foolish to compare the two. In the early days of fantasy role playing (in other words the early days of D&D) one of the goals of a good fantasy role playing game was to emulate at least to some degree fantasy fiction in a game. It also depends on what fantasy you read. If you read Conan then yeah healing magic is rare death is almost always final and magic itself is rare. If you read Smost of Steven Brust's novels, raising the dead is so common that they created Morganti weapons that steal the victims soul in order to prevent it from happening, magic and psionics are almost everywhere and they are darn fine fantasy not the cheap stuff (not in price in quality) usually written to support a RPG campaign setting. The idea for D&D magic came from a series of fantasy novels Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" series I believe. Please let me say this loudly and clearly because I don't happen to be one of these new fangled worshipers of the god called "game balance." Yes I believe balance is important up to a degree but I have absolutely no problem with threats existing in a game world that will cause a party of PCs to grab their hats and RUN. We did it that way in the old days and it was dang fun, created a lot of good suspense and tension when you didn't have the almighty Challenge Rating trying to make sure everything was survivable.

Don't get me wrong I am not a killer DM I give my players more breaks than they need probably and I am quite sensitive to designing my encounters so that they are fun and not blood baths but sometimes there is that foe that just cannot be beat without some thinking and planning, and you might have to run a time or two in order to survive long enough to figure that out. Quite honestly I wish someone would take the whole challenge rating system and throw it out a twenty story window somewhere. Hit Dice were enough of a balancing factor for me. So no I have no problem with powerful spellcasters whether they are divine or arcane they are supposed to be powerful that is why they choose the path of magic, they are weak at lower levels but they are powerhouses when they mature. But it was Steven Brust who wrote: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." If Sethra Lavode ever shows up in one of my games I pray that she is not "balanced" if so she just wouldn't be Sethra. If you don't know who Sethra Lavode is go read some Steven Brust man.

Charles

Posted this in the main general area with no responses, I thought it must have gotten overlooked because surely somebody has something to say on this so since I see a thread dealing with classes I will toss it out here to see what response I get. It Concerns the Bard:

Ok the text says the following:

"Starting a bardic performance effect is a standard action.
Some bardic performance abilities require concentration,
which means the bard must take a standard action each
round to maintain the ability. Even while using a bardic
performance ability that doesn’t require concentration,
a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell
completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by
magic word (such as wands). Bardic performance has
specific limitations, depending on the type of Perform
skill used to activate it. Bardic performance activated with
Perform (act) or Perform (dance) requires line of sight to
the targets of its effects and does not affect blind creatures.
Bardic performance activated with Perform (comedy) and
Perform (oratory) requires the targets to be able to hear the
bard, and such effects are language dependent (although
the bard can activate magic items that require a magic
word, such as wands, while using these types of Perform to
activate bardic performance). Bardic performance activated
using any other type of Perform only requires the targets to
be able to hear the bard. These requirements are in addition
to those listed with each bardic performance ability."

This seems to say that while using Bardic performance that the Bard "cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by magic word (such as wands)", well it actually does say that. Then it says "Bardic performance activated with Perform (act) or Perform (dance) requires line of sight to the targets of its effects and does not affect blind creatures. Bardic performance activated with Perform (comedy) and Perform (oratory) requires the targets to be able to hear the bard, and such effects are language dependent (although the bard can activate magic items that require a magic word, such as wands, while using these types of Perform to activate bardic performance)."

Um is it just me or is the text contradicting itself here? Am I misreading something, I am talking about the parts concerning the activation of magic items that require a magic word specifically. Just a little confused about this.

Charles

Ok, have just downloaded and am currently looking through the beta, and it appears to me that playing a caster is still the 'best' choice, what I mean is that a pure melee character will be left behind in versatility, damage output, and well usefulness, once the Cleric/Mage/Druid/Sorcerer, gets to about 5th, maybe a little higher, am I missing something?

I hope I am because I am hoping for a system where the sneak attacking rogue, and the fighter with the 2h sword are as deadly, and necessary a part of the party as the spell slingers.

I never had a problem with this. In all of the fantasy I have ever read this is just the way it has always been. Spellcasters are ALWAYS more powerful than non-spellcasters as far as sheer power goes. For it to be otherwise would not be true to the genre. I think the balance of power is pretty close to what it should be right now. The Conan's and t he like still have tricks up their sleeves that are not necessarily sheer power that help them come out on top despite the odds. Having said that though the other classes are definately no slouches these days when it comes to damaging potential. If you want a character that can do everything well... play a spell caster. That is what magic is for.

Charles

Ok the text says the following:

"Starting a bardic performance effect is a standard action.
Some bardic performance abilities require concentration,
which means the bard must take a standard action each
round to maintain the ability. Even while using a bardic
performance ability that doesn’t require concentration,
a bard cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell
completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by
magic word (such as wands). Bardic performance has
specific limitations, depending on the type of Perform
skill used to activate it. Bardic performance activated with
Perform (act) or Perform (dance) requires line of sight to
the targets of its effects and does not affect blind creatures.
Bardic performance activated with Perform (comedy) and
Perform (oratory) requires the targets to be able to hear the
bard, and such effects are language dependent (although
the bard can activate magic items that require a magic
word, such as wands, while using these types of Perform to
activate bardic performance). Bardic performance activated
using any other type of Perform only requires the targets to
be able to hear the bard. These requirements are in addition
to those listed with each bardic performance ability."

This seems to say that while using Bardic performance that the Bard "cannot cast spells, activate magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activate magic items by magic word (such as wands)", well it actually does say that. Then it says "Bardic performance activated with Perform (act) or Perform (dance) requires line of sight to the targets of its effects and does not affect blind creatures. Bardic performance activated with Perform (comedy) and Perform (oratory) requires the targets to be able to hear the bard, and such effects are language dependent (although the bard can activate magic items that require a magic word, such as wands, while using these types of Perform to activate bardic performance)."

Um is it just me or is the text contradicting itself here? Am I misreading something, I am talking about the parts concerning the activation of magic items that require a magic word specifically. Just a little confused about this.

Charles

what?!?

When did people from Kentucky learn to write?
Who taught you these skills?

Hey, I am from KY and I learn't my letters perty early on, I was both readin' an a ritin' by the time I wuz 19 course learnin' ta play thet thar D&D game mighta helped with thet some, good edumacational tool thet thar game. Hehehe...

Really though I am from Lawrenceburg, not far from Lexington, just down the BG Parkway. I really would like to get into another game but I just think I have to many limitations on my time right now. I am running a 3.5 game that is now incorporating Pathfinder Alpha 3 rules with a group of five players one of which is about 12 and I have a little trouble dealing with his attention span, hopefully he'll start growing up a bit more soon.

We tried this as a similar mechanic with the release of the Kalamar campaign setting.

Each cleric was required to have a prayer book (granting a +2 circumstance bonus to Religon checks). A cleric would have to read passages (much as a Wizard studies) from this prayer book to gain the inspiration to memorize spells. Readign a passage with a different perspective might grant a spell that previously was unknown.

Mechanically, there was no difference. It was just for flavor. But some of my players still role-play their cleric characters like this.

I would have to say that I kind of lean in the opposite direction away from learned spells or prayer books for clerics. I think it might be a viable option to say that Clerics don't need to prepare specific spells. They do need to meditate and pray in order to prepare themselves. Then you could use a variant of the spontaneous casting cleric from Unearthed Arcana except that the cleric's spells known list would basically be every divine spell that exists that falls under something that his deity would approve of. The DM of course would have final say over what a particular deity would approve of. The spells per day list would be the same as for a regular spontaneous casting cleric he would just be incredible versatile in his selection of spells as long as his deity approved of his selection. I know that this would make the cleric a VERY versatile character but to me it seems more like how a system for answering prayers might work. Would it really unbalance the game as long as bad guys got it too and as long as the limiting factor of a certain number of spells per day is in effect? It might be a little tougher on players always having to be on their toes as far as selecting which spells to cast but not much more than it is currently. The easiest option though would be to limit the cleric in his spells known and just go with the spontaneous caster option in Unearthed Arcana.

Charles

Love the sheets Salama, and I know I would be interested in seeing your pathfinder 'booklet' for characters when you get done with it.

-Tarlane

Edit: As an additional question(I know this isn't quite the right spot for it) are these the first char sheets you have done, or have you created 3.5 sheets in the past? I alternate running games with someone and he is a pure 3.5 DM right now and I know I'd like to use your style of sheets in that game as well if you have made any before.

I have a question as well, I have kind of been wanting to design some character sheets myself and I was wondering what is some good software that people are using for designing these sheets and making them so neat and uniform?

Charles

Matthew Morris wrote:

Minstral, Oghma, ummm, what's a good term for a half orc?

Failed domestic policy...

Honestly I don't think they would have to change the names of the classes or most of the races especially if they are not going under the GSL. Most of the names for the core classes and races in D&D are quite generic fantasy archetypes that have existed in fantasy literature and mythology long before the first Dungeons and Dragons game was ever penned. Wizards of the coast does not own the names monk, druid, orc, half-orc, as a matter of fact a lot of the races and classes in D&D are not original with either TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Even the name Tiamat is not original with Wizards or TSR. Tiamat was an ancient Babylonian or Sumerian god I believe, I don't know if the 5 headed dragon image holds to mythology or not but the name sure isn't original. Lots of wiggle room there legally I would think.

Charles

Let me check this week, but I believe I've got a fixed version.

One of my gamers does the Adobe thing for a living....

Anyone that wants it can e-mail me at jaye dot sonia at gmail dot com with Pathfinder Character Sheet in the subject block and I'll e-mail it out.

(And Paizo, this goes for you guys, too)

;)

Cheers,
Jaye

The Paizo one from the Alpha 3 book has been the one that I liked best of all the sheets that have been made thus far except for the mistakes on the skills, I too have been waiting for a while for someone to release an updated version of that sheet. All of the other sheets that I looked at had their good points but then they neglected to include something from the Paizo sheet that I liked or they were bigger or more graphically intense than was necessary for a character sheet and then when the person who had the graphically intense sheet did a printer friendly version it printed out to light to be of much use over the long term. I just keep coming back to Paizo's sheet.

Charles

Sebastian wrote:

Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.

Did Scotty ever give out the formula for that?

Actually I think it was transparent aluminum. Translucent would suggest that it glowed even if only slightly like a ghost might. Transparent aluminum was used like glass only much stronger. Ok I didn't have to point that out but I guess it is the Trekie coming out in me. :)

TheErn

A LOT of disgruntled people who just bught their 3.5 books a couple of years ago do not want to stop playing 3e, both becauseof the monetary investment, and because its actually a pretty damn good sytem - the best one to date.

About ½ the people I personally know that play (family, friends, and two LGS's) and tons of people I know through at least eight sites I visit and post on have no intention of playing 4e.

Thats a HUGE number of people sticking with 3e, and those are the people whom Paizo is trying to cater to. WotC is banking on a massive influx of 'new blood' with this new edition (although their non-existent marketing campaign leaves me a bit confused there), and also counting on a lot of folks that used to play coming back to the game. Now if those numbers don't at least equal what they lost, they are screwed.

Now, initial sales figures are showing them they have a huge success on their hands... the Japanese felt the same way when they bombed Pearl Harbor. My point is that they shouldn't be counting their chickens before they hatch, because those sales figures are horribly skewed ATM.

Out of that group of ½ the gamers that I know that will stick with 3e, about half of THEM bought the 4e rulebook just to see what is was all about - and they have no intention of ever playing it. I myself am one of those people - I bought the PHB, read it, and then gave it to my son.

The horrible truth will hit them in the face when they see how little in the way of 'accessories' they sell for this new edition. I'm sure a lot of those shiney, new rulebooks are already sitting on a shelf somewhere starting to collect dust.

The 4e rules are made to appeal to the "I want it now" crowd - those people who have to have the newest version of everything no matter what. Those are the same people that will forget about D&D and 4e in about 6 months to a year. Paizo is working with the long-term D&D customers, which is a smarter strategy.

So 4e D&D will make a phenomenal amount of money between now and...

I honestly question how valuable the D&D license is without the D&D RPG. I think that the WotC brand of D&D will die as well. I look at Amazon.com and every time I go there 4th edition books through Amazon Marketplace sellers are getting cheaper already. They were about 20 bucks on average for a new book and the other day when I checked you could find them for about 18. It might just be that somebody got lucky and got a hold of a few cheap books but this early in the game and prices being that low through smaller third party sellers, that just forecasts bad news for Wizards of the Coast as far as D&D goes I think. What I actually would suspect is that these guys got a hold of to many books due to the hype surrounding the 4e launch and now that they have them they are having more trouble getting rid of them than they thought they would have, thus every week or two the prices come down a little bit more.

If the bottoms falling out of something you can't keep it expensive for to long or you will lose everything you invested in it, you have to drop the price while the product still has some popularity, otherwise it will end up one of those ignored clearance items that no-body wants that just take up store shelf space. When the books get down to about 5-10 bucks each through third party sellers and I am sure that Wizards will make absolutely no money off of me, I might buy the 4th edition books because I like the art and some of the races in them, and I like the idea of rituals, and the minion rules are not a half bad addition but Wizards didn't originate that one. Nope that kind of thing is in Feng-Shui, Mutants and Masterminds, Savage World (I think) and some other systems. I actually found myself wishing Wizards would have some originality when I read the minions rules.

Anyway I think if Hasbro loses serious money from the D&D line they will likely sell it to the highest bidder for top dollar because fans would flock back to D&D if it ever went back to its roots, or WotC could release another edition but even if it went back to the roots of D&D there would have to be a lot of forgiveness on the part of a lot of gamers for it to ever be a success under Wizards again. Wizards has done themselves a lot of damage and I am not sure it is damage that can be repaired.

Charles

The standard 2-page compact sheet (for alpha 3) is a free download. It should be listed at the top of you 'My Downloads' page.

That is a great sheet dude, I actually like that sheet better than any of the others that I have seen but, since when did spellcraft become a dex based skill? I think there was another skill or two that had the wrong ability scores listed as well. Not sure on that one though, spellcraft was the one that really stuck out. Looked in the Alpha and it was still Int based.

Charles

It's the final realization of what Ryan Dancey started. It's community owned gaming. If Paizo releases a splat with a new "Curseblade" class and then decides they don't want to support it because it falls under their profit threshold, a third party publisher willing to publish in B&W and with lower quality art may find it meets their profit threshold. If someone wants to do an adventure with Sinspawn but set in some world other than Golarion, and used with a different origin, they can go ahead and do that.

That's what makes Pathfinder better than Dungeons & Dragons. It's D&D, with almost all of the tropes one expects from D&D, but it's finally, ultimately, ours and not theirs. And that is wicked cool.

Though seriously, I am really going to miss displacer beasts. And mind flayers. And beholders. Stupid %*&@$! WOTC not sharing all of TSR's toys.

Honestly I don't think you'll miss those things in the long run. Because 1. you can still use them as they are from the Monster Manuals, and 2. I was thinking just earlier today, that if you think about it "Beholder" is really kind of a silly name for a creature like the Beholder. That cannot possibly be their racial name the same thing with the Displacer Beast. It is quite possible to model a creature (not copy mind you but model closely the way Reaper does with some of its minis) after these iconics and give them much cooler names. I mean how would a Beholder react to being called a Beholder? I would think their would be some other racial name that Beholder's go by among themselves. The names Beholder, Mind Flayer, and Displacer Beast are all names that people have given these creatures in the standard D&D worlds, wouldn't it be possible that their is another interpretation of these creatures, perhaps even a creature slightly different but still the same in spirit that exists in the standard Pathfinder world(s). Who knows it may even be something better.

Charles

I have a forum that I haven't used for anything really in a while, it's set up and stable. Feel free to use it. I'll update moderation and everything too. You can hate 4e all you want. I may come screetch about it too.

http://community.nat20games.com

I just checked it out it looks like a really nice forum. What do ya say folks shall we create the The 4E Haters Club of America... or um wherever you come from??? Who knows maybe we'll make an impact. Maybe we'll even accomplish something constructive in the process.

Charles