I like the fact that rage points are out. I do wonder why a point system was a problem for the barbarian but not for the monk, however.
The problem with the barbarian rage points system (IMO) was that it was a continuous ability that cost a different number of points every round, depending on what you were doing (with a minimum of 1 point to keep raging). So it's an unnecessary hassle to keep track of 2 points in round 1, 8 points in round 2, 3 points in round 3, etc. Not a big hassle, but a hassle nevertheless.
Whereas with the monk, we're not talking about continuous abilities; in each round you can either use a point (or two points for a particularly fancy ability) or not. Also the total number of points is much lower (on the order of 10 instead of 50).
I think the barbarian class looks awesome!
My only nitpicks might be the really high CMD and the hope that high challenge rating monsters got a bump in hit points, now that seemingly all high level PCs do obscene amounts of damage.
The new rage system is what made the barbarian class for PFRPG IMO.
I like the fact that rage points are out. I do wonder why a point system was a problem for the barbarian but not for the monk, however.
I'm one of those not wanting a point-system for the barbarian because of a) another (new) subsystem in the game and PRPG was to "unify" the rules and eleminate them as best as possible and b) another resource to keep track of. So i'm glad the rage points are out.
What irks me, is the fact, that the monk has point-tracking.
So, in the end, i would have been better (possibly) to make both classes use points or none of them, but no again, we have a wischi-waschi-hodgepotge of rules. Not as dramatic as i may sound and i guess i can live with it ;-)
This is possibly part due to the fact that there was a large thread for the barbarian but no one for the monk..
I can't speak for others, but the reason I disliked it is because I've never heard of any barabrian myth in which the main character gains elemental attacks or nightvision simply by means of being a barbarian.
Yeah, we shouldn't have stuff that hasn't been validated in at least two dozen stories!
Oh, wait, what I meant is: we should have. Like totally. :P
In removing them, Paizo keep alot of folk happy since they can easily have non-magical barbarians in their game.
Was possible before. No powers were mandatory.
Also, house-ruling a new rage power isn't as hard as house-ruling one out.
Not to me. I'm the GM. What I say goes. If I have to confiscate your book and rip out the pieces I don't like because you keep whining about how "it's in the book so it should work", it's your fault really, because, by definition, it's never my fault, and I'm always right.
The last definition extends to life in general. I just rule. :P
Great analysis so far, but you guys are missing the most important part! The new barbarian's got full BAB, 40 ft. move in medium armor, and acrobatics as a class skill. It's a whole new ballgame!
*fakes panic* Don't barbarians have reflex saves?!?!
What irks me, is the fact, that the monk has point-tracking.
Well, it had "point-tracking" in 3.5 too (e.g. stunning fist uses, wholeness of body uses, quivering palm uses); it just has more now.
Yeah, we shouldn't have stuff that hasn't been validated in at least two dozen stories!
Or any story, feel free to mention a single mythical barbarin that could ignite his/her blades on fire at will. The last time someone said to me "Theres plenty of examples" was only able to find one. And that example just happened to have a magic weapon (I.E one that can be represent in the rules by, guess what, a magic weapon) and just happened to be a god.
Was possible before. No powers were mandatory.
It was, to the same extent that you can still house-rule the power back in. Besides, mandatory or not doesn't stop players picking it. It would be like saying "Okay, theres a varient ability here for clerics, you can cast spells of your opposite alignment! None of you have to take it, but it's there". Just because it's optional doesn't make it less of an ability which doesn't suit, and doesn't stop players from taking it.
Not to me. I'm the GM. What I say goes. If I have to confiscate your book and rip out the pieces I don't like because you keep whining about how "it's in the book so it should work", it's your fault really, because, by definition, it's never my fault, and I'm always right.
I've have only played under a handful of DM's, but I've never met one who has banned core material. I have, however, had DM's which do ban alot of non-core material. I'm not stating opionin, that's cold hard fact that I've never seen core material banned. If you find yourself more easily able to get core material you don't like uninvolved, then lucky you. Not everyone else gets that.
Also, the "I'm a GM, what I say goes" I feel is a pretty poor mentality. The PC's are also playing the game as well. If a DM thinks that the knock-back power doesn't fit, does that mean I can't use that power either? Without any say? Theres always the possibility of compromise.
Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, folk don't actually like elemental rage and didn't feel it suited? By the sounds of it the Rage Power which granted Darkvision is also gone, and yet I don't hear a single person complaining about that one. Why the need for this semi-wuxian-esc ability to get mad and have your weapons sprout energy as a result?
I agree with this.
It seems very reasonable to me that a DM limit certain elements to certain character concepts.
Obviously you need a group of players that play nicely to put limits on core options, but it works for me.
Rogues with the arcana tricks fall in this same category for me.
Not "should". "Could". My dogma is "more options = more fun"Barbarian rage isn't just getting angry. It's surrendering to the basic fury of nature. Throw away civilisations pretenses and your senses might become sharper than you think they could be....clearly we have completely different opinions about how mystical and "primal" the barbarian should be, but *shrugs* to each his own.
I'm running a Beta barbarian using rage points, and I don't really have a problem with it. (Of course, she's still only first-level so I don't have that many to keep up with.) However, I think points work for a monk as they don't for a barbarian, for fluffy reasons. Monks are lawful, orderly and completely in control; they are aware of exactly what they can do and how often they can do it. Barbarians lose themselves in the frenzy of the moment and don't care about what happens next round; they're not about resource management. That's why barbarians are fatigued after raging and monks aren't when they use up their ki pool; monks have budgeted their actions, whereas barbarians are spent.
I was told there would BE NO MATH!
By the sounds of it the Rage Power which granted Darkvision is also gone...
That was an assumption that one poster made.
Actually looking in the rules (Beta), both Low-Light Vision and Night Sight are (Ex)traordinary abilities, not Supernatural, and thus are likely *not* removed.
I had some problems with the energy add-on one, but thought the Night Sight one was quite cool and appropriate. Very "Jungle Barbarian", eyes gleaming and all.
I have not read this thread so maybe this has been discussed but wouldn't it have been better to keep rage points for powers only? I think the big issue with rage in beta got down to point cost just too rage, which didn't really bother me but the final solution for the actual rage was IMOP fine, but the powers could have remained, costing rage points. As is rage powers are in effect Barbarian Feats, just with a new cool name.
Is this an improvement, of course, but lets call a feat a feat. And I do hope that beta isn't in effect Pathfinder 2E.
Just two cents worth of thoughts......
TTFNDRE
Actually looking in the rules (Beta), both Low-Light Vision and Night Sight are (Ex)traordinary abilities, not Supernatural, and thus are likely *not* removed.
Possible, though I assumed they were removed since, as Barbarin Powers at least, they were marked with (Su). Also, whilst I didn't see anywhere near as many folk debate that power, it was still one of the few for which I heard requests that it should be removed. So if multiple powers were taken out, I'd be willing to bet that Nightvision was one of them.
Though despite being supernatural I didn't mind that power too much (since the idea of a barbarian's eyes adapting to the night does suit, though whilst it only works in rage might raise confusion).
Looks great. I love the flavor of the "Superstitious" Rage Power - I'm not sure if it was one suggested during the playtest, but it sounds similar in flavor to some of people's ideas for new Rage Powers that I remember from the playtest. Knockback seems scaled back from Beta (now 1/x round only), but I SUPPOSE I can live with that too :-)
If Composite Bows now function effectively at multiple strengths (?), that could be a great aid to Barbarian types who change STR all the time... It also seems to make "found" Composite Bows more broadly useful, instead of the situation where PCs just hope to "get lucky" they find a Bow made for their exact STR (or else the DM just blatantly "cheats" to make things work smoother).
The main thing I'm still wondering... How are Bonus HPs from Con-boosted Rage treated?
And also: Does Bleed Damage bypass DR?
@Matthew:
I also imagined something like that, or even a Scent ability...? (fingers crossed)
|
I had no problem with barbarians and rage points, but the person playing the barbarian looked like they were playing poker...since there were so many and we tracked them with poker chips.
IF dazzling display is unchanged, that combined with howling rage might get a bit broken...like the rogue does dazzling display followed by a terrifying rage of the barbarian...the puny monsters flee in terror at the sight of Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser....or Gotrek and Felix...
I had no problem with barbarians and rage points, but the person playing the barbarian looked like they were playing poker...since there were so many and we tracked them with poker chips.
So is Jason holding out on us, and Bluff & Sense Motive are also Barbarian Class Skills now?
Edit: Also, do you take penalties to your CMB when using a successive attack for your bull rush attempt?Last I checked, no.
Yes. Base attack bonus is a factor included in your Combat Maneuver Bonus, and a maneuver is considered an attack roll (and in this case in place of one). If you're using an iterative attack for a maneuver, use the BAB associated with that attack.
Is this spelled out in painstaking detail? No. But it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Actually looking in the rules (Beta), both Low-Light Vision and Night Sight are (Ex)traordinary abilities, not Supernatural, and thus are likely *not* removed.Possible, though I assumed they were removed since, as Barbarin Powers at least, they were marked with (Su).
No.. they were marked with (Ex) in the Beta.
I'm sad to see the elemental powers go away. I thought they were an interesting option - not one you have to take, and one that a DM could say "no" to if they were so up-tight that they had to force the players to play the characters the DM wanted, but it did give TWF barbarians a viability that they lack in the standard core. It had a fantastical feel to it, too, which is good in a fantasy game.
And, if it was core, one could use it in, say, organized Pathfinder Society games. It's all well and good to houserule it in, but if you're the DM and putting it in, then you don't get to play with it, and if you're a player, you're SOL if the DM won't let you house rule something in (like in the aforementioned Society games). I will probably put them back in, because it could be appropriate in various areas of my CS, but I wouldn't be able to build a barbarian raging in the Society.
Of course, I'm playing a halfling rogue, so I don't need to worry about it right now, but still...
Since Pathfinder Society is capped at level 12 (when that power became available), you wouldn't get much use out of it.
And, if it was core, one could use it in, say, organized Pathfinder Society games. It's all well and good to houserule it in, but if you're the DM and putting it in, then you don't get to play with it, and if you're a player, you're SOL if the DM won't let you house rule something in (like in the aforementioned Society games)...
The new Barbarian looks great. Love the new PA. The beta was messy.
|
Love the new barbarian. Looks great. I love how the rage powers works now.
Someone was mentioned the "knock-back" and how cool it would be to do that on top of their attacks.
However the doing the knockback replaces an attack and only does the Strength Mod in damage - so I'm thinking the barbarian needs to really want to move the guy to give up his usual massive amounts of damage he can do.
Good job on the redesign. I think it's a step above the Beta and leagues above the 3.5,
As for the elemental power of the barbarian....I didn't care one way or the other. It didn't bother me that it was there - but it wasn't something I had to have either.
I will say that sort of agree with Kae Yoss - it's better to have the option - even if I'm not going to use it - than to deny it altogether. Especially since society players are the ones who are hurt the most; since we homebrew gamers can do whatever we want with our games.
My only complaint about the barbarian is the CMD. Compared level vs total - it's 241% of the character level; which is less than the ranger and the small sized gnome bard!!! Which I detest. But that rant I'll save for another post.
Robert
My only complaint about the barbarian is the CMD. Compared level vs total - it's 241% of the character level; which is less than the ranger and the small sized gnome bard!!! Which I detest. But that rant I'll save for another post.
Hey Robert! It's hard to compare CMD without taking out the base of "10+". If you do that the Barb is ahead at 182%, to Ranger 164%, and Bard 125%.
Director of Games
|
Couple of Notes here this morning...
1. Concerning the elemental rage power. We pulled it because we did not have the space to support the alternate barbarian path that fully utilized supernatural rage powers. I would prefer to have the space to appropriately present this rules concept than to short it. I would look for it in future books. For those PF society players, I would expect it to be a legal option...
2. There is a bit of confusion in the longbow entry. Composite Longbows do still have a Strength rating. I will get this corrected.
3. The darkvision rage power is still in. This has always been an EX ability and it fits with the thought of primal, heightened senses. I am okay with it from both a flavor and mechanics perspective, although I realize that some might differ.
That is all for now...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
((As a small aside, lets not have anymore rants about changes in regards to what some playtesters wanted. Such posts break a couple of forum rules and are ultimately counter productive. Blaming playtesters, who did a stellar job, for a rules change that you do not agree with will not be tolerated. If you want to question the decisions, question me. Leave the playtesters out of it. Thanks))
Edit - cut in response to Jason's post above.
Peace,
tfad
I'd like to see a little more insight on Amiri's seemingly astronomical CMD score. All the other preview characters' CMDs have been within 6 points of their AC (and most of them within 4 points… only Valeros and Harsk vary by 6 points). It looks very difficult to pull any maneuver off on her. Not that that's a bad thing. I'm wondering if Barbarians and Fighters are intended to have the highest CMDs for staying power vs. high CR monsters at the higher levels of play.
10 + BAB (17) + Str (10) + Dex (2) = 39
Where's the extra 1 or 2 points coming from?
Since Pathfinder Society is capped at level 12 (when that power became available), you wouldn't get much use out of it.
And, if it was core, one could use it in, say, organized Pathfinder Society games. It's all well and good to houserule it in, but if you're the DM and putting it in, then you don't get to play with it, and if you're a player, you're SOL if the DM won't let you house rule something in (like in the aforementioned Society games)...
There will be 3-4 "capped" scenarios every year. You'll get some use out of it. :-)
|
|
My only complaint about the barbarian is the CMD. Compared level vs total - it's 241% of the character level; which is less than the ranger and the small sized gnome bard!!! Which I detest. But that rant I'll save for another post.Hey Robert! It's hard to compare CMD without taking out the base of "10+". If you do that the Barb is ahead at 182%, to Ranger 164%, and Bard 125%.
I don't necessarily agree with that. The +10 is part of the equation for all - it has to be factored in for the overall success. What I did was I compared apple to apples - a ratio of CMD to character level
my problem with it is:
CMD is a product of the "touch attack" mentality which is in my opinion a broken system of 3rd edition (clearly not Paizo's doing); an overwhelming love or interest or penchant for rewarding agile, nimble, dextrous types far over those who can or will deck themselves out in armor - which leads to worse momvement, worse skill checks, and in all honesty worse ACs (with the sole exception now of the fighter with armor training) - and stack all that up - AND significantly worse touch ACs. It has led to an overwhelmingly large benefit package to those who build nimble warriors over armored ones - the combat mechanics clearly favor them from most aspects. This has always been my major bone of contention with 3rd editon (again no Paizo's fault) - and it saddens me to see that this tendency has now infected the CMB mechanic as well.
If you want an even more accurate comparison - discounting the monk, the small sized bard is the best CMD of the other 8th level classes: druid and cleric - the latter of which is iconically known as a stout and tough melee opponent AND one size category larger and yet three points lower. The monk is nearly twice that of the cleric of same level. I expect the monk to be superior, don't get me wrong....but that's more than just a bit superior. That I believe is proof that backs the crux of my complaint/concern - that the dodge based mechanics are far more rewarded in 3rd edition model - to the point of gross display.
I'm not saying that I could come up with a better system - it's just one of those things that I felt didn't need any more homage paid to it than it already has - or to rings of protection (deflection bonus part of touch AC).
Personally I think that the ability to dodge a foe should be factored in - but adding it as "touch AC" carte-blanche is too far in that direction. As a compromise I might have considered "Dodge bonuses apply" - but DEX bonus only applies if that feat Agile Manuevers was taken (but not as automatic). I think that would have mitigated a large part of the problem.
Here's a breakdown of the class preview comparisons:
Class / Level / CMD / Percentage that CMD is of their respective level
Fighter / 14 / 34 / 242%
Sorcerer / 10 / 17 / 170%
Ranger / 11 / 28 / 254%
Paladin / 13 / 28 / 215%
Cleric / 8 / 17 / 212%
Bard / 8 / 20 / 250%
Druid / 8 / 17 / 212%
Monk / 8 / 29 / 362%
Barbarian / 17 / 40 / 235%
My problem with is not specific to Paizo, however, I think overall its a fish in a pond where the pond is significantly better than it was and pathfinder is awesome overall for the most part - with only this being one of two aspects overall that i do not like. Jason and team has done a tremendous job and although this is a large part of the way combat works, I know that touch AC is simply part of 3rd edition combat system, and not an element he created; just bummed that it's been perpetuated even further; because I've always had a problem with it.
Robert
I'd like to see a little more insight on Amiri's seemingly astronomical CMD score. All the other preview characters' CMDs have been within 6 points of their AC (and most of them within 4 points… only Valeros and Harsk vary by 6 points). It looks very difficult to pull any maneuver off on her. Not that that's a bad thing. I'm wondering if Barbarians and Fighters are intended to have the highest CMDs for staying power vs. high CR monsters at the higher levels of play.
Well, she is Very strong, that increases it a bundle. She also has a ring of protection +4 which adds to it. Dex mod isn't negative. She needs a 14 'maneuver' herself while raging, but a -5 to hit herself.
The very high CMD is mostly a symptom of being high level. The difference between it and her AC is mostly a symptom of being very offense focused over defense.
I don't necessarily agree with that. The +10 is part of the equation for all - it has to be factored in for the overall success. What I did was I compared apple to apples - a ratio of CMD to character level.
The problem with that comparison is that the +10 is a constant number, whereas level is variable. So +10/8 = 125%, but +10/17 = 59%. CMD and character level do not inherently relate or interact.
To demonstrate, Amiri at 8th level would have about a 25 CMD [8 BAB, 4 Str (16+2enh), +0 rage (+2 str, -2 AC), +1 ring of prot, +2 dex], which would be 312% of her level, much higher than the bard. I think the lack of any full BAB classes previewed at 8th level may have skewed your results a bit (though the Monk is #1, not Bard).
As for the question of Dex-based people getting advantages, you have some good points. However high Str-based people get plenty of damage advantages. Amiri can wallop out 8d6+34 (62 average) as a standard action, with a 95% chance of hitting her own AC.
Oh sorry Anthony - you're missing the Ring of Protection +4, and the -2 to AC for raging. Non-raging the strength drops by 3, but the AC penalty goes away, for a drop of just 1 (to 40).
I'd like to see a little more insight on Amiri's seemingly astronomical CMD score.
10 + BAB (17) + Str (10) + Dex (2) + Deflection (4) - Rage (2) = 41
Where's the extra 1 or 2 points coming from?
|
I don't necessarily agree with that. The +10 is part of the equation for all - it has to be factored in for the overall success. What I did was I compared apple to apples - a ratio of CMD to character level
Those are not apples to apples. Your math leads to a level 1, 10 Dex, 10 Str wizard, with a CMD of 10, to have a ratio of 1000%.
I wonder do the final still have capstone abilities?
The Barbarian (and the monk) ability was a bit weak/boring in the beta. Have they changed?
Off topic: If you still have capstone abilities what abot the cleric? Domain spells end at level 17.
The barbarian does appear very strong. I like the elemental powers going bye bye, they never belonged in the core. Fine as a feat path maybe or a PrC might make a nice feat path that could be barbarian only even, much like all the fighter only feats.
Either way it's a powerful class, as we all would have expected.
Off topic: If you still have capstone abilities what abot the cleric? Domain spells end at level 17.
At 20th level, the cleric gets the capstone ability to use the 3.5 spells. What more could a cleric want? :-)
|
|
The problem with that comparison is that the +10 is a constant number, whereas level is variable. So +10/8 = 125%, but +10/17 = 59%. CMD and character level do not inherently relate or interact.To demonstrate, Amiri at 8th level would have about a 25 CMD [8 BAB, 4 Str (16+2enh), +0 rage (+2 str, -2 AC), +1 ring of prot, +2 dex], which would be 312% of her level, much higher than the bard. I think the lack of any full BAB classes previewed at 8th level may have skewed your results a bit (though the Monk is #1, not Bard).
As for the question of Dex-based people getting advantages, you have some good points. However high Str-based people get plenty of damage advantages. Amiri can wallop out 8d6+34 (62 average) as a standard action, with a 95% chance of hitting her own AC.
Oh...
I'll admit you have a lot of logic there. And the numbers do stack up remarkably better having that parameter.
It doesn't change the overall impetus that "touch AC" has in the game as a whole and how it significantly favors a certain build - as will the the CMD.
You're right Str based has significant advantages to damage; but so many times damage output is secondary to avoiding a horrible attack - touch spells being the biggest culprit; now grapples, swallow, sundered weapons, etc - which all are resisted better by those with better touch ACs, also. That is the basis of my whining complaint.
I realized just how bad of a discrepancy it was when i was playing a paladin in the playtesting in the Curse of Crimson Throne - my wife playing a hobbit rogue. I was decked out in Fullplate and Tower Shield. She had bracers of mithril chain shirt. we had the same AC. She had 5 times as many skills, we had the same movement, her armor check penalty was 0, mine was 16, and when it came to touch attacks.....there was no comparison. High Strength and damage output you say - she outdid me with her sneak attack on a daily basis - with my 20 STR and her 10. All casters chose me as their target for their touch attacks. Sure I had the saving throw advantage - but when you're the usual target - you're not going to make them all. And there are some nasty debilitating touch attacks - many of them without saving throws - just an attack roll against my 12 touch AC (vs her 22) Now shed be just as harder if not harder to trip, or sunder a weapon on, or even bullrush!
As for the barbarian - it was one of my favorite classes before - but always felt there were too many 'dead levels' in the SRD version - it's even better now by leagues and now more dead level issue! And rage no longer has that horrible daily limitation that Smite Evil still suffers. So excellent work on the barbarian.
Robert
Or any story, feel free to mention a single mythical barbarin that could ignite his/her blades on fire at will.
Sure:
And, of course,
There. I can go on, if you want.
My point is: I give a flying f$%+ about whether every single choice has been there before. In fact, I want new choices. I want stuff that nobody has ever seen. I call it innovation, and I like it.
It was, to the same extent that you can still house-rule the power back in.
Was possible before. No powers were mandatory.
Of course. And, of course, I need the Beta because the rule is out of the book.
Besides, mandatory or not doesn't stop players picking it.
Of course not. I stop my players picking stuff I don't want them to pick.
It would be like saying "Okay, theres a varient ability here for clerics, you can cast spells of your opposite alignment! None of you have to take it, but it's there". Just because it's optional doesn't make it less of an ability which doesn't suit, and doesn't stop players from taking it.
Apples and oranges.
I've have only played under a handful of DM's, but I've never met one who has banned core material.
Too bad. Cause I have. If I don't like something, it's out. Doesn't matter what book it's in.
I have, however, had DM's which do ban alot of non-core material.
Yeah, and their loss.
I'm not stating opionin, that's cold hard fact that I've never seen core material banned.
I've never seen China personally but I still think it's there.
Also, the "I'm a GM, what I say goes" I feel is a pretty poor mentality.
So you agree the guys banning extra material are wrong?
The PC's are also playing the game as well. If a DM thinks that the knock-back power doesn't fit, does that mean I can't use that power either? Without any say? Theres always the possibility of compromise.
Of course there is. It works both ways, too.
Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, folk don't actually like elemental rage and didn't feel it suited?
I never said that everyone has to like it.
I say it doesn't matter whether everyone likes it. Can't all be winners.
By the sounds of it the Rage Power which granted Darkvision is also gone, and yet I don't hear a single person complaining about that one.
I am. I was talking about how it fits the barbarian rage thing. You diverted that to the elemental rage thing (which I wasn't a fan of myself, at least not at first, but I can see how it would fit, and I wouldn't mind a character using it)
1. Concerning the elemental rage power. We pulled it because we did not have the space to support the alternate barbarian path that fully utilized supernatural rage powers. I would prefer to have the space to appropriately present this rules concept than to short it. I would look for it in future books. For those PF society players, I would expect it to be a legal option...
I think it's a good choice. Whole or nothing.
As long as you don't have to choose one path. Mix and match rules.
2. There is a bit of confusion in the longbow entry. Composite Longbows do still have a Strength rating. I will get this corrected.
Too bad. Means we still have to throw away longbows (or have sub-optimal ones) when the characters become stronger.
Unless there is an "adjusting" ability in there somewhere (and if there isn't, make sure to put it somewhere)
3. The darkvision rage power is still in. This has always been an EX ability and it fits with the thought of primal, heightened senses.
May I say "Wohooo!"?
As I said earlier, the primal senses thing made sense to me as well.
I'd like to see a little more insight on Amiri's seemingly astronomical CMD score.
I think the rage CMD is low:
Usually, CMD is CMB + Touch AC. There can be differences (for those of a size other than medium, since the size mod is subtracted from AC but addes to CMB/CMD)
In the base stats, they line up perfectly
I like it!!
|
I'm wondering if the changes to Power Attack will also apply to Deadly Precision and Combat Expertise.
Too bad. Means we still have to throw away longbows (or have sub-optimal ones) when the characters become stronger.Unless there is an "adjusting" ability in there somewhere (and if there isn't, make sure to put it somewhere)
There is the 'Bow of the Wintermoon' in the Magic Item Compendium, but it isn't open content of course and you have to be NG, CG or CN to use it.
KaeYoss: chill.
I'm wondering if the changes to Power Attack will also apply to Deadly Precision and Combat Expertise.
There is the 'Bow of the Wintermoon' in the Magic Item Compendium, but it isn't open content of course and you have to be NG, CG or CN to use it.
Too bad. Means we still have to throw away longbows (or have sub-optimal ones) when the characters become stronger.Unless there is an "adjusting" ability in there somewhere (and if there isn't, make sure to put it somewhere)
Don't have my books with me but I believe the Bow of the Wintermoon is a relic of Corellon L. and as such requires the feat True Believer or being a cleric of Corellon. Not a OGL item I am afraid though I would love to see something like the relics concept and the rune staff concept be adapted into Pathfinders.
Doug
KaeYoss: chill.
Alright, I'm chilling. It's not as if I called him names or anything.