So balancing a race based on their supposed uberbility of an extra feat and a few skill points seems not thought out.
Don't forget a free martial weapon proficiency and a free +2 to any one ability score and no -2 to anything. That makes them good at everything. Non-humans can equal, and sometimes surpass, humans in special cases, but humans are usually among the best choices, if not the best choice.
And that is always the case. Lighting conditions can be a problem - depending on how where and when the players are adventuring - but +2 to the attribute of your choice, an extra feat and extra skill points are always an advantage.
1. Like most of the rule changes though I've heard that the sorcerer did not change at all and I felt that some bloodlines did not measure up to others in mechanics and ideas.
2.Love the layout.
3.Love most of the art, but... the pics of the races is silly at best. why not either make them naked or put them in skimpy fantasy pieces. Binkis?? are you serious? and the gnome.. dont get me started.
1. Like most of the rule changes though I've heard that the sorcerer did not change at all and I felt that some bloodlines did not measure up to others in mechanics and ideas.
The preview already showed some changes to the arcane bloodline I think, so I'd say i's quite possible that the other bloodlines have been changed.
the pics of the races is silly at best. why not either make them naked
Because americans are apparently unbelievably prudent and would claw their eyes out if they were even in the same store as a roleplaying game rulebook that contained nekkid people.
or put them in skimpy fantasy pieces. Binkis?? are you serious?
What about it?
Because americans are apparently unbelievably prudent and would claw their eyes out if they were even in the same store as a roleplaying game rulebook that contained nekkid people.
Heh how true and sad that is. You can put alot of gore on the cover and in the book, but one pic showing boobs in the inside of said book and it goes behind the counter, or not in the store at all.
Them the brakes
Because americans are apparently unbelievably prudent and would claw their eyes out if they were even in the same store as a roleplaying game rulebook that contained nekkid people.
Prudish?
Yup, we are. Nekkid people are the devil's work.
Also, any human worth his weight in salt owns potions of darkvision or goggles of the night, so lighting issues are irrelevant on all except the first few levels.
You mean like the levels a PC is most likely to die?
So balancing a race based on their supposed uberbility of an extra feat and a few skill points seems not thought out.Don't forget a free martial weapon proficiency and a free +2 to any one ability score and no -2 to anything. That makes them good at everything. Non-humans can equal, and sometimes surpass, humans in special cases, but humans are usually among the best choices, if not the best choice.
The stat bonus is prett much balanced by the other races getting two attribute +2 bonuses. (and a -2 to nothing as well these days)
And that is always the case. Lighting conditions can be a problem - depending on how where and when the players are adventuring - but +2 to the attribute of your choice, an extra feat and extra skill points are always an advantage.
Lighting conditions are usually a problem in a game based on Dungeons & Dragons.
Some people may never play a dungeon crawler campaign. But the game's strengths are focused on that variety of playing.
Heh how true and sad that is. You can put alot of gore on the cover and in the book, but one pic showing boobs in the inside of said book and it goes behind the counter, or not in the store at all.
Them the brakes
I just recently heard a story about someone in a higher position in a company around here. He was to go even further up the chain, but for the position he was to get, he had to have international experience, so they sent him to the US for a couple of months, to lead the company's branch there and get his necessary "abroad time".
The guy was nearly arrested when he went swimming in the appartment building's swimming pool. Because he wore what are regular bathing trunks around here. People were actually shocked at his behaviour, and kept screaming about the poor kids who had to see this.
The stat bonus is prett much balanced by the other races getting two attribute +2 bonuses.
Yeah, and my elf cleric is really happy about those +2 to int and dex - the abilities he has the least use for. Yay!
(and a -2 to nothing as well these days)
Huh? Do you have access to books I don't have? If you say yes, look at the cover. If it says: "D&D 4th edition Player's Handbook" or something like that: Either get the proper books, or go to the proper forum.
Lighting conditions are usually a problem in a game based on Dungeons & Dragons.
Some people may never play a dungeon crawler campaign. But the game's strengths are focused on that variety of playing.
Hm... clerics suck, because they have bad saves against Dragons' most iconic attack.
And in actual dungeons, low-light vision isn't really helpful: Most of those dungeon critters have darkvision, so they don't need any light, and adventurers arriving with any sort of light source (because low-light vision won't help you in utter darkness) will already be screwed.
Beyond that, dungeons usually aren't that spacy - and a proper dungeon (that isn't populated by darkvision monsters alonge) has adequate lighting, anyway. You have to show off your Depraved Temple of the Evil Creature of Evilness, after all.
Come back when the game's called "Starlit Wilderness & Dragons"
I actually have a Finnish friend that was embarrassed to learn that people in England wear clothes in public swimming pools; shortly after she stepped out of the changing area stark naked.
The stat bonus is prett much balanced by the other races getting two attribute +2 bonuses.Yeah, and my elf cleric is really happy about those +2 to int and dex - the abilities he has the least use for. Yay!
A bonus to Dex is flat out awesome as well as improving your save against the Dragons' most iconic attack. The bonus to Int not only raises certain skill levels it also boosts your skill points (leveling out the skill point bonus with humans).
And lowlight vision may not be the boon that darkvision is in tunnels and such. But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed (since you can see out to 60' shadowy illumination with lowlight and a common lamp).
Remember, we are a country founded by people so uptight they were thrown out of England.Not that we didn't have our own indiscretions.
The sheep I can understand, but a turkey!?
A bonus to Dex is flat out awesome as well as improving your save against the Dragons' most iconic attack.
It's still one of the least useful stats for a cleric. The typical cleric - or the one I speak of if you want to get in a row over what the typical cleric is - wears full plate, so for AC, he doesn't need anything above dex 12. He uses strength for attacks, doesn't count on winning int, and is screwed when he has to do a ref safe, anyway (but can survive it because of his HP).
The bonus to Int not only raises certain skill levels it also boosts your skill points (leveling out the skill point bonus with humans).
And the cleric doesn't need any of this. The extra feat, on the other hand, can be quite useful.
And I'd take +2 wis over +2 Dex and Int any day of the week, if I'm a cleric! And other days, too.
And lowlight vision may not be the boon that darkvision is in tunnels and such. But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed (since you can see out to 60' shadowy illumination with lowlight and a common lamp).
And there are no creatures that can ambush you in spite of your superiour low-light vision? Because they're invisible, because they hide behind stuff (taking advantage of shadows and so on), because they're fast enough to bridge the distance?
"ever" is such a big word. Too big for this, certainly.
No, you're screwed either way. The only real chance you have is darkvision. And that's for dwarves and half-orcs only. Which also have a lot of other nice stuff (penalties to attributes that are irrelevant most of the time, bonuses to nice and powerful attributes, and other really nice things).
So if humans are inferior, dwarves and half-orcs are superior, and there's hardly a reason not to play one of these.
A bonus to Dex is flat out awesome as well as improving your save against the Dragons' most iconic attack.It's still one of the least useful stats for a cleric. The typical cleric - or the one I speak of if you want to get in a row over what the typical cleric is - wears full plate, so for AC, he doesn't need anything above dex 12. He uses strength for attacks, doesn't count on winning int, and is screwed when he has to do a ref safe, anyway (but can survive it because of his HP).
The bonus to Int not only raises certain skill levels it also boosts your skill points (leveling out the skill point bonus with humans).And the cleric doesn't need any of this. The extra feat, on the other hand, can be quite useful.
And I'd take +2 wis over +2 Dex and Int any day of the week, if I'm a cleric! And other days, too.
And lowlight vision may not be the boon that darkvision is in tunnels and such. But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed (since you can see out to 60' shadowy illumination with lowlight and a common lamp).And there are no creatures that can ambush you in spite of your superiour low-light vision? Because they're invisible, because they hide behind stuff (taking advantage of shadows and so on), because they're fast enough to bridge the distance?
"ever" is such a big word. Too big for this, certainly.
No, you're screwed either way. The only real chance you have is darkvision. And that's for dwarves and half-orcs only. Which also have a lot of other nice stuff (penalties to attributes that are irrelevant most of the time, bonuses to nice and powerful attributes, and other really nice things).
So if humans are inferior, dwarves and half-orcs are superior, and there's hardly a reason not to play one of these.
If your going to base an argument on stereotyped clerics and a constant stream of "what if they hid behind a rock" scenario knowing full well they can do so in broad daylight as well then I rest my case.
If your going to base an argument on stereotyped clerics
Doesn't matter if it's stereotyped or not. What matters is that it's an example where the fixed +2+2-2 you get from a race is useless to a character concept. I could conjure up any number of cases where the the existing combinations of attribute adjustment from elves, dwarves, half-orcs, halflings and gnomes really suck while a human's +2 is always helpful.
Are some of the cases I'd bring up stereotyped? Sure. Does that mean I cannot play them, that they're irrelevant? Hell no! Stereotypes are there for a reason, and that reason is often enough that they are only too true for a the majority (or at least a significan minority) of cases.
a constant stream of "what if they hid behind a rock" scenario knowing full well they can do so in broad daylight as well
I never claimed that you couldn't be ambushed in broad daylight.
You made the claim that with low-light vision, you could never be ambushed. I have it on tape:
But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed
That's simply false.
If your going to base an argument on stereotyped clericsDoesn't matter if it's stereotyped or not. What matters is that it's an example where the fixed +2+2-2 you get from a race is useless to a character concept. I could conjure up any number of cases where the the existing combinations of attribute adjustment from elves, dwarves, half-orcs, halflings and gnomes really suck while a human's +2 is always helpful.
Are some of the cases I'd bring up stereotyped? Sure. Does that mean I cannot play them, that they're irrelevant? Hell no! Stereotypes are there for a reason, and that reason is often enough that they are only too true for a the majority (or at least a significan minority) of cases.
a constant stream of "what if they hid behind a rock" scenario knowing full well they can do so in broad daylight as wellI never claimed that you couldn't be ambushed in broad daylight.
You made the claim that with low-light vision, you could never be ambushed. I have it on tape:
That's simply false.
But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed
First of all; learn english.
The statement "At least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed" means that the non-lowlight vision guys are constantly in danger. Not that lowlight is a constant protection. I hope english is your second language. If so, my apologies and that is just the way it goes.Your main argument hinges on the fact that if you make cookie-cutter characters and the DM runs the game so that everyone is ambushed from angled terrain then the human race is over-powered. You may be right there. But that is a hefty load of circumstances weighing your argument down.
|
That's simply false.
But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed
First of all; learn english.
The statement "At least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed" means that the non-lowlight vision guys are constantly in danger. Not that lowlight is a constant protection. I hope english is your second language. If so, my apologies and that is just the way it goes.
Your main argument hinges on the fact that if you make cookie-cutter characters and the DM runs the game so that everyone is ambushed from angled terrain then the human race is over-powered. You may be right there. But that is a hefty load of circumstances weighing your argument down.
First, someone who types "your not ever" shouldn't be telling someone else to learn English. (Hint: It's supposed to be a contraction of the words "you" and "are".)
Second, "not ever" is poor English for "never", as in "[Lowlight vision characters] are never one round away from being ambushed flat footed."EDIT: Third, How's your German?
I was told there would be NO TEST.
|
I was told there would be NO TEST.
You know that reminds of that dream. You know the one, the one where you're late for Biology class and everyone laughs at you as you enter the room, because you're naked! You start to freak. Then you see that Seoni is there... and she's naked too! And you're like this is so hot! But then your teacher says your lab partner for the day is going to be Harsk, who's also naked!!! You wake up screaming, vowing you'll never play 36 hours of non-stop Baulder's Gate while listening to podcasts of Jason Bulmahn and Erik Mona again!
What?? You mean that's never happened to you? And why's everyone staring at me? Wait a second, why am I naked????
What were we talking about?
Humm Seoni ,Harsk sandwich...humm you bring the whip cream
I was told there would be NO TEST.
You just made my whole day better.
First of all; learn english.
Are you always an arrogant, condescending jerk or only when you're losing an argument. Read the board rules. One of them is "don't be a jerk".
That's simply false.
But at least your not ever one round away from being ambushed flat footed
First, someone who types "your not ever" shouldn't be telling someone else to learn English. (Hint: It's supposed to be a contraction of the words "you" and "are".)
Second, "not ever" is poor English for "never", as in "[Lowlight vision characters] are never one round away from being ambushed flat footed."EDIT: Third, How's your German?
This cracks me up. I'm the foreigner with English as his third language (or fourth, depending on how you count it), and he types "your" instead of "you're" like a eight-year-old.
You know the one, the one where you're late for Biology class and everyone laughs at you as you enter the room, because you're naked!
I go everywhere naked in real life. I sometimes have nightmares about showing up somewhere dressed. And then everyone charges me and tears my clothes off. And then I realise the clothes were just painted on. Everyone is smeared with paint. Did I mention "everyone", in this case, means the female cast of Firefly?
And then I realise it wasn't a dream after all.
I was told there would be NO TEST.
Never enter Starstone Cathedral. Rude awakening...
I think this thread is officially dead :) (and yet so alive with laughter)
First of all; learn english.First of all, if we go through all the posts here for bad grammer, this please would be empty.
And since were on the topic, its "First of all; learn English." not "english".
If you want to debate the topic, go ahead. Don't attack the methiod of delivering the debate.
Didn't even notice that. It keeps getting better and better.
I think this thread is officially dead :) (and yet so alive with laughter)
First of all; learn english.First of all, if we go through all the posts here for bad grammer, this please would be empty.
And since were on the topic, its "First of all; learn English." not "english".
If you want to debate the topic, go ahead. Don't attack the methiod of delivering the debate.
Yes, and the debate seemed to hinge on me somehow saying that lowlight permanently prevented ambushes from ocurring when I did no such thing. I may have missed a contraction and a capital letter but at least I didnt misinterprete the whole subject and bang on it like it proved some point. (sort of like the guy who thought that common lamps provided over sixty feet of illumination sort of proves somebody has been handwaving visibility rules and yet thinks that no lowlight vision is a minimal disadvantage at best).
Go ahead. Reread my post where I said it. Laugh if you like it that much.But it is still right.
Don't forget the extra 30' shadowy illumination. You don't have to read the fine print beneath the armour's brand logo to notice that ther's something there.
It is still a serious tactical consideration imo. A common lamp only allows a human to see out to 30'. Which is only a single movement for medium creatures costing humans initiative in many cases.
Proof of lax rules adherance regarding illumination. You would expect no less from a DM who handwaves rules but still wants to get up on a soapbox and tell players what is balanced.
Second, "not ever" is poor English for "never", as in "[Lowlight vision characters] are never one round away from being ambushed flat footed."
No, sorry.
"Not ever" and "never" are not the same thing. "Ever" meaning all the time and "never" meaning not at all then "not ever" simply means "not all the time".At least Kaeyoss only misunderstood the subject. You totally tried to teach me the definitions and got them wrong.
Are you always an arrogant, condescending jerk or only when you're losing an argument. Read the board rules. One of them is "don't be a jerk".First of all; learn english.
I never called you a name and I did apologise (in the post you quoted) if english is your second (or fourth) language. In english one can say "not ever" and it only means "not all the time". Not the same as "never" which was how you read it ...
This cracks me up. I'm the foreigner with English as his third language (or fourth, depending on how you count it), and he types "your" instead of "you're" like a eight-year-old.
And here is he-who-cast-the-first-name-calling-stone. hmmm
I think this thread is officially dead :) (and yet so alive with laughter)
Great! At least your enjoying yourself.
And when your done you can reread the posts you (mis)quoted and realise you lost the argument.
I never called you a name and I did apologise (in the post you quoted) if english is your second (or fourth) language. In english one can say "not ever" and it only means "not all the time". Not the same as "never" which was how you read it ...Are you always an arrogant, condescending jerk or only when you're losing an argument. Read the board rules. One of them is "don't be a jerk".First of all; learn english.
Err..no. You're wrong. Check the dictionary. In fact I have one right here. The Canadian Oxford Compact dictionary. The first definition for never reads, "at no time; on no occasion; not ever". In fact, the word never originally derives as a contraction of not ever. They mean the exact same thing. Always have.
Now, can we go back to discussing the game and not language?
I never called you a name and I did apologise (in the post you quoted) if english is your second (or fourth) language. In english one can say "not ever" and it only means "not all the time". Not the same as "never" which was how you read it ...
Um... Charlie. There is a "literal" reading of not ever to mean something like "not all the time". But *most* of the time it means never. With the syntax you used
All that mess aside, I agree human sight is a hindrance that acts as a balancing factor.
I was told there would be NO TEST.Never enter Starstone Cathedral. Rude awakening...
I went, but ya know between naked orgy's and wine of delight...I kinda don't recall much. Well other then waking up in Cheliax with a hanger over a succubus named Wanda a bag of weasels and a tattoo saying "welcome aboard".
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Enough with the English lessons, please.
And ESPECIALLY enough telling people to "learn English". A GREAT many members of the Paizo community are not native English speakers, nor is being so a requirement for being a member of the community or having a worthwhile point.
Let's get back on topic, please.
I never called you a name and I did apologise (in the post you quoted) if english is your second (or fourth) language. In english one can say "not ever" and it only means "not all the time". Not the same as "never" which was how you read it ...Are you always an arrogant, condescending jerk or only when you're losing an argument. Read the board rules. One of them is "don't be a jerk".First of all; learn english.
Err..no. You're wrong. Check the dictionary. In fact I have one right here. The Canadian Oxford Compact dictionary. The first definition for never reads, "at no time; on no occasion; not ever". In fact, the word never originally derives as a contraction of not ever. They mean the exact same thing. Always have.
Now, can we go back to discussing the game and not language?
Check the multiple meanings of the word "ever" and see that it means "continuously". So saying "not ever" means "not continuously" which wouldnt be the same as saying "never".
Your only using the one definition of "ever" to mean "at any time" in whch case "not ever" would mean "not at any time".That was why I apologised if Kaeyoss didnt speak english primarily because there is no easy way to explain that sometimes words have multiple meanings. I might not have explained that too well when I said "that's the way it goes" but I meant that was the wacky way english works.
Alright then. Let's put it behind us. No hard feelings.
I still say the not ever statement is wrong/misleading.
If you mean "never", its wrong because elves can be ambushed.
If you mean "not all the time", then I have to say that humans don't suffer from that, either. Not all the time.
Maybe more often than other races, but as I said, if we're talking about better or worse, dwarves and half-orcs win, because they have it better still (as well as what are probably the best ability mods after human and half-elf)
Alright then. Let's put it behind us. No hard feelings.
I still say the not ever statement is wrong/misleading.
If you mean "never", its wrong because elves can be ambushed.
If you mean "not all the time", then I have to say that humans don't suffer from that, either. Not all the time.
Maybe more often than other races, but as I said, if we're talking about better or worse, dwarves and half-orcs win, because they have it better still (as well as what are probably the best ability mods after human and half-elf)
Okay. No hard feelings. You put more gravy on the stat bonus and extra feat and I put mine on vision enhancements.
Yes, dwarves and orcs do have the best advantage there.Elves are not as good, but still far better then human dudes and halflings. (re: vision)
Halflings have the worst of it. They cant see and get stuck with regular # of feats and a S move rate. I've not played many and neither do most teams I find myself on.
I dont understand how you seemingly underrate vision enhancements but obviously I'm not going to convince you.
I dont understand how you seemingly underrate vision enhancements but obviously I'm not going to convince you.
The 'real life' advantage of having night/low light vision when your opponent has none is nothing short of Earth shatteringly staggering.
Simply put, night fighting becomes a completely one sided affair.In a fantasy context, a bunch of Elves would simply tail their quarry through the woods until nightfall, and then engage at range with bows... fire and move, fire and move. If that enemy didn't have night vision or access to abundant all round cover then the best they could hope for would be a quick death.