Pathfinder Beta Impressions from Beta-Test Campaign


Playtest Reports


Overall the PF Beta rules set is superior to the vanilla 3.5 rules set.

Core Concepts

The variety of character creation options is excellent - although our group found that the 'point buy' systems frankly inhales eggs, even at the highest end write-up. We'll stick with good old-fashioned die rolling - if we want 'point buy', we'll play a different game system that is actually designed for it.

The 6 hit point "kicker" at 1st level is not a game-breaker, unlike the other alternatives. If any of the options are to be considered for integration into the "core" Pathfinder rules set, playtesting showed my group that the 6 hp option was a solidly palatable option. NPCs
with "PC" class levels should also receive this benefit.

I have heard rumors that introducing three tiers of base saving throws is under consideration, similar to the base attack tiers. If this is true, I would strongly recommend this mechanic, as the two-tier effects have demonstrably proven to be too predictable after the past several years' of vanilla 3.5 play.

The revised skills system is overall very acceptable. The DCs for various checks - the fixed DC for wands as an example - may well warrant revisiting.

The recommended gear allowances deliniated in PF Beta are substantially greater than in vanilla 3.5 - and frankly are rather unnecessary save a publication of rules requirement. Combined with the overall greater "oomf" of Pathfinder characters, this is proving to be a flawed concept in need of redress. I am of the opinion that the gear dependancy factored into vanilla 3.5 could be redressed and removed or at least greatly ameliorated with the Pathfinder rules set.

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

Character Classes

Bards frankly are best used as Cohorts, while Monks are best suited to duty as trap-triggerers and critter bait, based on admittedly rather limited play test. The other core classes are, to varying degrees, far more palatable as a player character.

Barbarians should be rescinded to using the Rage Point mechanism or something similar - the 'revised' system in play is far out of line with the Alpha system, making Bubbas rather overwhelmingly favorable as the front-line melee character of choice compared to the Fighter.

Clerics and Druids are fine as-is - although the Animal Companion is subject to abuse by a wild-shaping druid (earth or air elemental form) with Mounted Combat-based feats and a buffed-HD rhinocerous or worse... Were these classes to attain some of the Heirophant abilities - or have access to equivelants of them via higher-CL feats - that would be the icing on the cake.

Fighters need some fine-tuning, but not much. Make Reflex an "average" base saving throw and add Perception to their class skills list and you have an excellent character.

Rogues as written are fine.

Rangers need editing and a bit of tweaking - the animal compaanion and spell-casting abilities can in my opinion go away in trade for reworking their combat style, favored enemy and wilderness abilities. At (Ranger level -3), the animal companion and especially spell-casting caster level would be the minimum revisions alongside a serious overhaul of their combat style feats list and awarding staging of same.

Paladins do not need too much - swap out the horse/mount altogether and tweak the divine bond weapon a bit, make the class more 'universal' against Evil in general and ramp their caster level to (Paladin level -3) should be plenty. An alternative to spell-casting would be most welcome as well.

Sorcerors, along with Wizards, suffer the most short of the Bard and Monk.

Sorcerors could be self-contained with analogies to the Dragon Disciple within their bloodline of choice, gaining a second Good saving throw and improved HD size or the like depending upon the bloodline. The first level ability is suggested to contain two options - one a "status" effect (penalty to this or that and the like) as well as a minor at-will damage effect. The combination should prove to bring them more on-par with the divine casters. I would recommend that each bloodline have a 'favored energy type' or the like with which sorcerors of a particular bloodline yield additional damage per die.

Wizards need the most work (asides from Bard and Monk). Possibilities are endless, although I will presently presume the 'standard' take on Wizards as the bookworms of the arcane casters.

1. Grant them an ability similar to the Bards' - say, Wizards rack up ranks in Knowledge skills as a class ability rather than siphoning off their few skill points. I have come to disagree that the Wizard character is obligated to sink their INT skill ranks into skills that benefit the entire party "because they can" or "should". Wizards could learn the Item Creation and Metamagic feats as another class feature. When they hit the proper caster level 3rd, 5th, 9th and 12th, they can choose an item creation feat. When they hit a new spell-casting level 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, they can choose a Metamagic feat that their highest-accessible spell level supports. Given that they are schooled spellcasters, their INT and WIS modifiers (or INT and CHA, or choice at character creation of INT plus either WIS or CHA modifiers) could stack for purposes of determining their spells' saving throw DCs.

2. Specialists could gain a Good or Average saving throw based on their school - examples: Abjuration specialists could gain all three saves as Good saves. (Given how overall wuss their school is on offense, this could go a lot further...) Necromancers could gain an Average or Good Fortitude saving throw progression. Evokers could gain an Average or Good Reflex saving throw progression, perhaps gaining Evasion at later Wizard levels. And so on.

3. Generalist Wizards could garner abilities formerly belonging to the Archmage prestige class as they attain higher class levels. The "Hand of the Apprentice" should benefit from the clerics' base attack progression, thus bringing it on parity with any Cleric with the Magic domain's 1st level ability. Alternatively, the Magic Domain's version of this ability should share the Wizard's lower base attack progression.

4. The 'bonus' spells for Wizards needs to be treated the same way as the Sorcerors' bloodlines - lumped into the class description rather than shoehorned into the back of the book. I didn't even see it until one of my players pointed it out.

5. While a nice touch, Wizards' ability to 'refresh' at the shortest rest interval in actual play amounted to naught but wasted ability.

6. The requirement to scribe the spellbook et al simply should be discarded - no other core class has such a burdensome requirement to be in play. As long as the GM doesn't go nuts in permitting a Wizard to fill out their known spells roster at mid+ spell levels written into the rules if necessary, this should not be a significant problem.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

This ++.

It doesn't necessarily make them gear independant, but at least the gear will be focused on modifying the pertinent ability score (which they are going to do at higher levels anyway). What it might do is make lower level spells relevant at mid and high levels.

Scarab Sages

nedleeds wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

This ++.

It doesn't necessarily make them gear independant, but at least the gear will be focused on modifying the pertinent ability score (which they are going to do at higher levels anyway). What it might do is make lower level spells relevant at mid and high levels.

I like that...why should a 1st level spell cast by a 1st wizard with 18 int be more powerful than a 1st level spell cast by a 20th level wizard with a 17 int?

Not to mention it would streamline play immenensely! I might house-rule that anyway.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

My group has had this exact same thought, we came up with it after years of high-level epic play in 3.5 - where spell DCs are woefully behind the save bonuses of that level.

One thing to note however, is that Heighten Spell will take a hit since one of its benefits now is a higher spell DC


Mistah J wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

My group has had this exact same thought, we came up with it after years of high-level epic play in 3.5 - where spell DCs are woefully behind the save bonuses of that level.

One thing to note however, is that Heighten Spell will take a hit since one of its benefits now is a higher spell DC

Yeah, but Heighten Spell is pretty much a waste of a Metamagic feat anyway, excepting rare instances were one must bypass the Invulnerability Globe spells. Most of the time when those 2 spells are in effect, the sorry sod within it is dog food in short order any way... ^_^


nedleeds wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

This ++.

It doesn't necessarily make them gear independant, but at least the gear will be focused on modifying the pertinent ability score (which they are going to do at higher levels anyway). What it might do is make lower level spells relevant at mid and high levels.

That is pretty much the objective - and it solves the "number crunching" attitude I've often seen at the table. "Hey, that guy's packing a +11 or whatever ability modifier !!" Insert whining, moaning and complaining here.

I prefer far less gear-dependancy, dependancy being the operative element. Having lots of kewl loot is all fine and dandy - but none of it is worth beans when you're doing the "A4" thing and you no longer have your kewl loot.


Pathfinder X wrote:
nedleeds wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

This ++.

It doesn't necessarily make them gear independant, but at least the gear will be focused on modifying the pertinent ability score (which they are going to do at higher levels anyway). What it might do is make lower level spells relevant at mid and high levels.

I like that...why should a 1st level spell cast by a 1st wizard with 18 int be more powerful than a 1st level spell cast by a 20th level wizard with a 17 int?

Not to mention it would streamline play immenensely! I might house-rule that anyway.

I fully intend to house-rule this one, regardless of whether it is "official" or not.

Of course, official would be nice. ^_^

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.

I second this motion, or third it or what have you. I simplifies Spell Save DCs very nicely and makes low-level spells still relevant at higher levels, as it should be. I'm also not opposed to having abilities scale by level, 4e style. I'm not so sure about your other proposed caster upgrades, I think casters have had it pretty good with the PfRPG upgrade, and I personally like having physically weak spellcasters. It gives melee chumps someone to defend. The three-tiered saving throws is a nice idea that I think would warrant some testing.


thefishcometh wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Spellcasting saving throw DCs could be simplified: 10 + 1/2 Caster Level (round up) + pertinent ability score modifier, across the board, rather than being spell-level based. This would make a high-level spellcaster closer to what they should be: feared, without gear dependancies.
I second this motion, or third it or what have you. I simplifies Spell Save DCs very nicely and makes low-level spells still relevant at higher levels, as it should be. I'm also not opposed to having abilities scale by level, 4e style. I'm not so sure about your other proposed caster upgrades, I think casters have had it pretty good with the PfRPG upgrade, and I personally like having physically weak spellcasters. It gives melee chumps someone to defend. The three-tiered saving throws is a nice idea that I think would warrant some testing.

I do not see the melee chumps actually defending those casters - I see them wade into the thick of it as rapidly as their movement rate will allow, leaving the arcane casters to fend for themselves.

Three-tiered saving throws are a logical extension of the game mechanics and should be easy enough to incorporate into the rules set.

Physically weak casters, if you note, are not my primary concern - it is simply that divine casters have long been the King of the Hill of 3e, followed closely behind by Two-Handed Weapon Melee / Rogue characters. Archers and Lancers are a good third. Sorcerors and Wizards are fourth. Bards and Monks are a distant fifth.

Arcane casters are supposed to be the Big Gun of the party (excepting Bards), followed by Fighter-types (paired with Rogues) and lastly Clerics. That is what I would like to see redressed. I do not know if I will, but that's what I'd like to see. :)


I agree with you on the Ranger. Its time to dump the spell casting ability

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
thefishcometh wrote:
...I personally like having physically weak spellcasters. It gives melee chumps someone to defend. The three-tiered saving throws is a nice idea that I think would warrant some testing.
I do not see the melee chumps actually defending those casters - I see them wade into the thick of it as rapidly as their movement rate will allow, leaving the arcane casters to fend for themselves.

This is because martial characters have no way to protect arcane casters except by killing the enemy with massive damage before they can whomp on the arcane casters. If martial characters had some way to limit enemy movement with some consistency, or shield allies with their own skill, interrupt attacks with a parry, they would have some option other than run forward and try to kill the enemy before they reach the arcane caster.

Sovereign Court

Turin the Mad wrote:


Physically weak casters, if you note, are not my primary concern - it is simply that divine casters have long been the King of the Hill of 3e, followed closely behind by Two-Handed Weapon Melee / Rogue characters. Archers and Lancers are a good third. Sorcerors and Wizards are fourth. Bards and Monks are a distant fifth.

Wizards fourth? We haven't been playing the same game, I guess (unless you're talking about blasting wizards, who are bad).


Jess Door wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
thefishcometh wrote:
...I personally like having physically weak spellcasters. It gives melee chumps someone to defend. The three-tiered saving throws is a nice idea that I think would warrant some testing.
I do not see the melee chumps actually defending those casters - I see them wade into the thick of it as rapidly as their movement rate will allow, leaving the arcane casters to fend for themselves.
This is because martial characters have no way to protect arcane casters except by killing the enemy with massive damage before they can whomp on the arcane casters. If martial characters had some way to limit enemy movement with some consistency, or shield allies with their own skill, interrupt attacks with a parry, they would have some option other than run forward and try to kill the enemy before they reach the arcane caster.

Yup, you are quite correct. Fighters do have some degree of terrain control via their threatened area, otherwise, they are either damage sponges or speedbumps...


Bagpuss wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


Physically weak casters, if you note, are not my primary concern - it is simply that divine casters have long been the King of the Hill of 3e, followed closely behind by Two-Handed Weapon Melee / Rogue characters. Archers and Lancers are a good third. Sorcerors and Wizards are fourth. Bards and Monks are a distant fifth.
Wizards fourth? We haven't been playing the same game, I guess (unless you're talking about blasting wizards, who are bad).

Purely in terms of offense in combat, that is the case. Bad guys far more routinely take half or no damage. They far more frequently have effective Spell Resistance for their CR. Yes, I suppose I am talking about blasting wizards. I love the "swiss army knife" potential of Wizards - many players, however, want to feel that their character is directly contributing to making a bad guy fall over. At 6th level, the 6d6 21 hp/10 hp on a successful save damage spell may not even do anything with a 10-point Resist Energy spell. The comparable 6th level melee guy packing a +1 two-handed sword (8 pts) and a +4 STR bonus (+6 points) deals 14 or 28 points per round, no save, no SR - DR might apply, but at the same level, it is much less common.

Do Sorcerors/Wizards have access to some spells that are "save or die" (for all practicall purposes) at even 1st level play ? Sure do - but it is not always an applicable spell that you have 'loaded' into your head.

All I want is at least some degree of parity re-established between Sorceror/Wizard and Cleric/Druid. This has yet to be accomplished.

Back When:

Fighters at the higher levels could perhaps equate to a damage output on a single target in a single round of 75 hit points. This is a very lopsided assumption: Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, +5 weapon averaging 25 points per hit for 3 hits per round. Critical hits were not a part of the game, and most fighters dealt far less damage per hit, since they reliably had +6 damage from Strength, packed a +3 weapon with a d8 or d10 damage die, averaging 14 or 15 points per hit at 3 hits per round. This is at higher levels of play (13+).

Wizards (formerly known as magic users) and divine casters still have the same damage output by caster level as they always have (more or less), so compared to the non-casters they were rightly feared - and of course rightly squishy if the baddie could get to them fast enough.

Magic Resistance / Spell Resistance was not as common nor nearly as readily available, nor as formidable unless you were unfortunate enough to encounter a few specific critters, so the Wizard was your party's Big Stick.

Sovereign Court

I'd like to see viable blasting wizards, too. I don't thing that the wizard is less useful than CoDzilla, but the blasting wizard is, sure.


To review my impressions of the Pathfinder Beta as the campaign played out, from my point of view as the GM:

Overall, the flow of the game is a bit smoother than it was for me as the GM in 3.5 due in equal parts to the introduction of the CMB / CMB DC mechanic as well as the much smaller body of core classes, prestige classes, feats and magic items with which to contend in the “core Pathfinder” rules set.
As an overall “feel” I do like what has been done with the core classes that we did playtest.

Barbarians very much come across as the “hulking foaming-at-the-mouth brutes” that smash things and knock bad guys away from their softer, squishier allies.

Bards were not a played character class – they still very much come across as an acceptable 5th class or as rather excellent cohorts.

Clerics are the dispensers of curatives, general-purpose combatants and pack plenty-respectable firepower in their own right. The channeled energy effects saw extensive use in play right up until about 11th level when they fell out of favor until all the heal spells had been exhausted. Their domain abilities feel far better than the combination of granted ability and additional spells in 3.5. After 11th level I cannot recall seeing them used except “after combat” to effect patching up of characters’ hit points.

Druids are brutally nasty with their changes in wild shape – now a supernatural ability instead of a dispellable spell-like ability – virtually assuring that they retain physical enhancement bonuses and, at the higher levels, are most likely to “burn” 2 uses a day to become much harder to seriously damage with the combination of untyped damage reduction, immunity to critical hits (and thusly sneak attacks), a unique or high-speed movement mode and some form of special attack. Granted, given how the polymorph sub-college spells pretty uniformly grant enhancement bonuses, this is not a particularly unpleasant trade off per se other than the fact that there is nothing to even attempt to suppress short of antimagic fields. They retain the considerable firepower they’ve always had – although Fire Seeds has one significant flaw in its write-up – and gain access to a domain or the choice of an animal companion. Given time, a druid is demonstrably better as a mounted combatant than any other core class in Pathfinder. At the conclusion of this adventure path, our druid had a rhinoceros with 12 HD that packed a truly formidable offensive ability in its own right, effectively doubling that character’s combat ability in addition to everything else a druid of that level gets. I won’t mention the horror of having gotten an additional 6 hit dice from the Harrow Deck of Many Things’ “Bear” card. This does not quite ‘gel’ with the expected ‘feel’ of a druid, which is more a wielder of nature’s wrath, summoner of deadly animals and evoker of fire, lightning and powerful weather.

Fighters are fine in play, although I would definitely love to see both “sword and board” and “unarmored physical warrior” options built into the class. The one fighter in the party FELT like a Fighter.

We had a Monk for about 15 minutes, so I really cannot comment effectively on that class as to how it felt in extended play.

Paladins definitely felt like a Paladin, the more so with the divine weapon stuff rather than the summoned celestial mount which always felt wrong.

Rangers are about right in both execution and feel, although their bonus combat-style feats roster is in need of retooling. All in all, rangers are very acceptable as a core class based upon how the ranger preceding my campaign’s 2nd barbarian character felt in play.

Rogues oddly never saw the light of day during the playtest as a player character, and only one major NPC has been encountered that roughly approximates (due to being rogue 6/red mantis assassin 10). The one time this NPC acted violently in play resulted in immediate character death.

Sorcerers strike very close to “just right” – the bloodlines play very well into foundations for prestige classes. As a feel I wanted badly for the draconic bloodline to lead directly into the dragon disciple prestige class as a draconic bloodline sorcerer transitioned from 10th level to 11th level. I would strongly encourage either (a) staging all the bloodlines to roll into a “bloodline” prestige class at the exact same transition point, or (b) integrating the prestige class into the sorcerer core class, caster level reductions and all built into the bloodline. For sake of simplicity, this might be best done in the prestige class format.

Wizards need some ‘loving’ to feel in true parity to clerics and druids, otherwise I like what was done with them. The more free-form nature of acquiring x/day “always prepared” spells/day is a nice touch, but I remain unconvinced that this is truly of sufficient merit to counterweight all the other ‘better’ factors that clerics and druids receive.

The elven curve blade I personally loved, as compared to most of the “racial” weapons that one actually hits pretty hard whereas most are double weapons (yay, miss more often and hit less hard – bleah) or are not going to be particularly appealing when compared to martial weapons. At least for me it ‘felt’ pretty neat that elves have something unique to their warriors that translates into real hurt.


Turin the Mad wrote:


The variety of character creation options is excellent - although our group found that the 'point buy' systems frankly inhales eggs, even at the highest end write-up. We'll stick with good old-fashioned die rolling - if we want 'point buy', we'll play a different game system that is actually designed for it.

"Old-fashioned die rolling" -- that's roll 3d6 six times and place in order, right? :-)


hogarth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


The variety of character creation options is excellent - although our group found that the 'point buy' systems frankly inhales eggs, even at the highest end write-up. We'll stick with good old-fashioned die rolling - if we want 'point buy', we'll play a different game system that is actually designed for it.
"Old-fashioned die rolling" -- that's roll 3d6 six times and place in order, right? :-)

^_^ Think that'd be "Old School" - which can be truly horrific in generating 'dead characters waiting to happen' - whereas "Old Fashioned" is where you roll variable numeric generators to find out one's ability scores.

I've never found D&D "point buy" systems to be appealing at all as far as ability score generation goes. Skills and Powers was fun stuff for later-2E.


Turin the Mad wrote:

^_^ Think that'd be "Old School" - which can be truly horrific in generating 'dead characters waiting to happen' - whereas "Old Fashioned" is where you roll variable numeric generators to find out one's ability scores.

I've never found D&D "point buy" systems to be appealing at all as far as ability score generation goes. Skills and Powers was fun stuff for later-2E.

I like point buy systems because I'm "risk averse". So when I roll slightly better than average for my stats/hp/character creation stuff, I'm mildly pleased, but when I roll worse than average I'm miserable!


hogarth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

^_^ Think that'd be "Old School" - which can be truly horrific in generating 'dead characters waiting to happen' - whereas "Old Fashioned" is where you roll variable numeric generators to find out one's ability scores.

I've never found D&D "point buy" systems to be appealing at all as far as ability score generation goes. Skills and Powers was fun stuff for later-2E.

I like point buy systems because I'm "risk averse". So when I roll slightly better than average for my stats/hp/character creation stuff, I'm mildly pleased, but when I roll worse than average I'm miserable!

That I can understand - but I had a blast [old man voice] when I rolled a Magic-User with 18 STR and 14 INT [/old man voice] back in the Unearthed Arcana rules 1e days.

To me, generating the ability scores at least in part tell me a bit of how the character came into being and why they're not dead yet. Doing so with point-buy - and no other form or fashion of grubbing up personality without figuring something else out - robs me of that precious little ceremony. ^_^


Turin the Mad wrote:
Wizards need some ‘loving’ to feel in true parity to clerics and druids, otherwise I like what was done with them. The more free-form nature of acquiring x/day “always prepared” spells/day is a nice touch, but I remain unconvinced that this is truly of sufficient merit to counterweight all the other ‘better’ factors that clerics and druids receive.

Could you clarify this Turin? Do you mean the 1 bonus spell per spell level that Wizards set when they hit the even levels?


Majuba wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Wizards need some ‘loving’ to feel in true parity to clerics and druids, otherwise I like what was done with them. The more free-form nature of acquiring x/day “always prepared” spells/day is a nice touch, but I remain unconvinced that this is truly of sufficient merit to counterweight all the other ‘better’ factors that clerics and druids receive.
Could you clarify this Turin? Do you mean the 1 bonus spell per spell level that Wizards set when they hit the even levels?

Yes - Wizards get (1/2 CL) bonus/day of one 1st level and then 1/day each of spell levels 2 through 9 as they advance far enough up the food chain.

I was intending not to delve overmuch into the mechanics as the sticky for this section indicated was not desirable.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Could you clarify this Turin? Do you mean the 1 bonus spell per spell level that Wizards set when they hit the even levels?

Yes - Wizards get (1/2 CL) bonus/day of one 1st level and then 1/day each of spell levels 2 through 9 as they advance far enough up the food chain.

I was intending not to delve overmuch into the mechanics as the sticky for this section indicated was not desirable.

Ah, the more freeform as compared to the Alpha set lists - gotcha, thanks!


Majuba wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Could you clarify this Turin? Do you mean the 1 bonus spell per spell level that Wizards set when they hit the even levels?

Yes - Wizards get (1/2 CL) bonus/day of one 1st level and then 1/day each of spell levels 2 through 9 as they advance far enough up the food chain.

I was intending not to delve overmuch into the mechanics as the sticky for this section indicated was not desirable.

Ah, the more freeform as compared to the Alpha set lists - gotcha, thanks!

I get, in some cases, well into the mechanical aspects on the appropriate sections Majuba. :)

In some cases I believe I have already made my point back in the fall of '08 depending on the class. In other cases, other forumites have more than eloquently made my point(s) for me.

And of course in some cases I've just tossed something out there as grist for the mill, to be chewed on and mulled over.


For character creation i use a system from 1st ed unearthed arcana with some modifications

The system used assigned die rolls for the score, for each class. ie
Thief
Str 6
Dex 9
Con 7
Int 5
Wis 4
Cha 8

or something like that, i just adapted it to 987654, you assign the number of d6's to the stat before you roll, then roll the dice, keep the highest 3 and see where everything lands.
This way you have some choice, but at the same time, 9d6 doesn't always roll 18, it just increases the chances of it. so far it's turned out some intresting characters. had a rogue with a 18 str (on 4d6) and a 14 dex (on 7d6)

i know this is not a system that creates average people, that save the day, for that i'd use 3d6 straight down, with picking classes after stat rolls, but who the hell wants to play your s~~~ty life d20.


Eric Stipe wrote:

For character creation i use a system from 1st ed unearthed arcana with some modifications

The system used assigned die rolls for the score, for each class. ie
Thief
Str 6
Dex 9
Con 7
Int 5
Wis 4
Cha 8

or something like that, i just adapted it to 987654, you assign the number of d6's to the stat before you roll, then roll the dice, keep the highest 3 and see where everything lands.
This way you have some choice, but at the same time, 9d6 doesn't always roll 18, it just increases the chances of it. so far it's turned out some intresting characters. had a rogue with a 18 str (on 4d6) and a 14 dex (on 7d6)

i know this is not a system that creates average people, that save the day, for that i'd use 3d6 straight down, with picking classes after stat rolls, but who the hell wants to play your s**&ty life d20.

Aye, I recall that one quite well, and have always enjoyed using it. Your spin on it is a great one as well, worth using!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Pathfinder Beta Impressions from Beta-Test Campaign All Messageboards
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
Rangers