|
Before you get all excited... wait until you get your book because you aren't getting the full picture. It is a little strange, Imp Shield bash does not require TWF but Shield Slam does. Shield slam is a very nice feat though.No that's IT!
I QUIT PATHFINDER FOREVER!
Uh, could you then send me your copy of the Core book. I'll pay for shipping ;-)
Manyshot in 3.5 was a standard action with penalties.
Manyshot in Beta was part of a full-round attack.
What did they do with manyshot in final? is it a standard action again? can you use it as part of shot on the run?
Got a few more curiosities on the cleric:
- Does the cleric get any sort of capstone to discourage PrC dipping? Spells max at 17, domain powers are nifty but many are "meh," and even channel energy caps at 19.
- Are all of the 1st level domain powers 3+Wis per day, or only a few?
- Plant: This domain sucked in Beta, and from what others have said it retained its two basic abilities. Are they more powerful, or still somewhat of a waste?
- Do the elemental domains have some serious elemental standing power, or are they still on the weak side?
- Magic: Is the magic domain still a weird combination of Abjurer/Universalist wizard?
Thanks!
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
I haven't gotten my book yet 8-(
but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that a separate, soft-cover "PHB" will be printed separately at some point. I think at this stage of the game, especially given this sort of response couldn't have been predicted, going with a combined PHB+DMG was the right choice.
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
I haven't gotten my book yet 8-(
but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that a separate, soft-cover "PHB" will be printed separately at some point. I think at this stage of the game, especially given this sort of response couldn't have been predicted, going with a combined PHB+DMG was the right choice.
A soft cover "PHB" would rock and I don't doubt that it was more practical for Piazo to combine the two together. I was just curious what other people thought. There's some obvious benefits and drawbacks and likely some not so obvious ones too. I guess I should've waited until later this week when more people have the book to ask this question.
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
Just got mine today.
I don't mind them being combined, but it would have hinged upon the binding and how easy it is to read when you open it (right down the center).
I'm happy to report the binding looks to be of great quality and the book is very easy to read. Time of course, will be the true test of the binding, but I'm optimistic. I mean, it looks good to my layman's eyes.
But I am bothered by the size? No..
In fact, it's an irritation for me sometimes to fumble with three books. I'm forever grabing the 3.5 MM when I want the 3.5 DMG and vice versa.
|
|
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
I personally like the idea of having one book for all my rules instead of two. It will make the games easier when we are at the table. Especially once I get the pdf and I can make my own notes for houserules :)
Cheers
A soft cover "PHB" would rock and I don't doubt that it was more practical for Piazo to combine the two together. I was just curious what other people thought. There's some obvious benefits and drawbacks and likely some not so obvious ones too. I guess I should've waited until later this week when more people have the book to ask this question.
As a GM, I prefer the book in one form due to the fact that I found myself going back and forth between the DMG and the PHB. Now from a player's stand point, I can see that they may not want the GM information (or use it for that matter) BUT if they choose to do so at some point then they have 'both books' already.
A soft cover "PHB" would rock and I don't doubt that it was more practical for Piazo to combine the two together. I was just curious what other people thought. There's some obvious benefits and drawbacks and likely some not so obvious ones too. I guess I should've waited until later this week when more people have the book to ask this question.As a GM, I prefer the book in one form due to the fact that I found myself going back and forth between the DMG and the PHB. Now from a player's stand point, I can see that they may not want the GM information (or use it for that matter) BUT if they choose to do so at some point then they have 'both books' already.
See, this isn't my school of thought at all- they belong together. The DMG always had the basics of "how to run your sessions," "awarding XP," and some other DM-exclusive material, but a good 70% of the book was important to the players, too. Instead of being called "The Player's Handbook" and "The Dungeon Master's Guide" they might have been called "Building a Character" and "The rest of the Mechanics." Things like leadership, prestige classes, poisons, improved familiar, etc. were never covered in the book they really belonged in.
I personally think it's awesome to have them lumped into one easy to browse tome, since the previous separation had so much bleed between the volumes that it was confusing to remember which one had the rule you're looking for.
|
|
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
Well it is nice to have one book with pretty much everything you might want to look up as a player. From races, classes, skills, equipment, magic items, spells and enviroment aspects. Normally about half the DM book was things players often would have liked to be able to look up on the fly too.
The only downside i can see is it might be a bit of a pain finding stuff just cause the book is so flipping big. For that only time will tell.
But for preference I prefer just one book with all the important stuff in it. Though it does make me curious what all is going to be in the DM book now.
I'd love to see three players books, A martial book, an arcane book, and a divine book. There would be tons of overlap but the players would have a small easy to deal with book with all the rules that pertain to their class and little else. The books could also offer expanded rules beyond what is in the core book.
Heck... I wouldn't mind seeing 11 mini books, one dedicated to each class. Then I can give my players a book and say "Everything you need is in this...". I'd probably put a build guide with feat tree suggestions in each book as well.
That said I know I'm in the minority on this perspective most people don't want to see books with duplicate information.
Me personally... I love the big book. I hated digging through 2 books for rules and it took me a long time before I remembered which rules were in which book. So far it's easier for me to find stuff. I haven't really dug around the GM/ combat stuff yet.
I'd love to see three players books, A martial book, an arcane book, and a divine book. There would be tons of overlap but the players would have a small easy to deal with book with all the rules that pertain to their class and little else. The books could also offer expanded rules beyond what is in the core book.
Heck... I wouldn't mind seeing 11 mini books, one dedicated to each class. Then I can give my players a book and say "Everything you need is in this...". I'd probably put a build guide with feat tree suggestions in each book as well.
That said I know I'm in the minority on this perspective most people don't want to see books with duplicate information.
Me personally... I love the big book. I hated digging through 2 books for rules and it took me a long time before I remembered which rules were in which book. So far it's easier for me to find stuff. I haven't really dug around the GM/ combat stuff yet.
11 books would be serious over-kill for me, but when WotC released their class books, pairing two or three classes up for each book, I thought it was an awesome concept. It just needed to be more fleshed out, mechanically speaking, rather than a bunch of fluff and a few useless prestige classes.
Oh, and I'm very much against duplicate information. WotC was awful about that, and it always irritated me to basically purchase the same thing twice.
|
To those who have received their books already...
Do you like or dislike the fact that they combined the PHB and DMG into one huge tome? Would you have rather they sold two seperate books instead?
Well, the first 'DMs' chapter starts on page 408, So really you would have had a 160 page book. I think it was a good call. Besides, it's nice to have everything at had in one place.
I think a "PHB" version should include more than just what 3.5's PHB did (i.e. poisons, PrC's... magic items aren't necessary), which means it would easily end up being ~70% of the combined Core Rulebook.
But for players, if that's all they want/need, and it's a bit cheaper (as much from being soft-cover), I don't see why having the OPTION isn't a good situation, and it lowers the bar for new players to get involved (which is a good thing).
Having all the info in one place for GM's seems a good idea, at least in my book.
I wonder what will happen to these "4 new base classes"?
Do Death Effects automatically kill the creature if he/she/it fails the save?
|
|
Do Death Effects automatically kill the creature if he/she/it fails the save?
No. I believe one of Buhlman's objectives was to eliminate that harrowing beast. Instead, you take a lot of damage (e.g., 10 points per caster's level) if you fail the save; otherwise, something like 3d6 damage if you make it.
ONE (Big A$$) Book to RULE them all
Would liked to have seen updated traits though, no major Beef though, I'll just use the Beta Traits as is until we receive word from Mt Doom
Can someone pretty please flip to the "arcane bond" section for the wizard and see if it still says you can "enchant" an object? That one minor word usage might decide whether I buy the rulebook -- I asked during all three alpha tasts, and for the beta, whether enchantment would stay a school of magic, or become a meaningless catch-all term.
|
|
Can someone pretty please flip to the "arcane bond" section for the wizard and see if it still says you can "enchant" an object? That one minor word usage might decide whether I buy the rulebook -- I asked during all three alpha tasts, and for the beta, whether enchantment would stay a school of magic, or become a meaningless catch-all term.
If you are asking can you turn the item into a magic item, then the answer is yes.
The PFRPG hit Germany! :-)Hit it where?
I see dragonworld got it. Anywhere else?
It was available at a FLGS in Cologne today. I got six for several of my players.
Any German subscribers getting theirs yet? It's early, but not quite impossible.
Not me.
Hi guys, sorry to post again, but can someone verify that manyshot is still a full round action without penalties?
Hi guys, sorry to post again, but can someone verify that manyshot is still a full round action without penalties?
I can.
Do Death Effects automatically kill the creature if he/she/it fails the save?No. I believe one of Buhlman's objectives was to eliminate that harrowing beast. Instead, you take a lot of damage (e.g., 10 points per caster's level) if you fail the save; otherwise, something like 3d6 damage if you make it.
I don't like the 10x caster level damage thing that PF has used. I didn't particularly like save or death either!
I use... Death spells put you at minus hit points [and dying] equal to the spell level.
Example: Finger of Death cast by a Wiz/Sor would put you at -7hp's, the same spell cast by a Druid would be -8hp's. You're in trouble but not dead...yet!
see if it still says you can "enchant" an object?
I do not see any use of the word "enchant" in response to a bonded item. I'll bring the book tonight and we can look then.
Would somebody please be so kind as to provide the list of monk feats (and at what level which feats become available)? Thanks so much :)
Also, do the grapple rules still have the odd little clause that you gain +5 to your grapple attempt if the target has failed its attempt against you in the prior round?
Can someone pretty please flip to the "arcane bond" section for the wizard and see if it still says you can "enchant" an object? That one minor word usage might decide whether I buy the rulebook -- I asked during all three alpha tasts, and for the beta, whether enchantment would stay a school of magic, or become a meaningless catch-all term.
The word "Enchantments" appears once in the bonded item text. Can you send me your unneeded book?
. . . The only downside i can see is it might be a bit of a pain finding stuff just cause the book is so flipping big. For that only time will tell . . .
I have to admit I love its big size.
I have also started to use > Post-It Flags < to help me organize.
:-)
So the arcane archer requirements are these still?
Race: Elf or half-elf.
Base Attack Bonus: +6.
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus(longbow or shortbow).
Spells: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.
And spell progression is now the following?
1.-
2.+1 Caster Level
3.+1 Caster Level
4.+1 Caster Level
5.-
6.+1 Caster Level
7.+1 Caster Level
8.+1 Caster Level
9.-
10.+1 Caster Level
What level of spells and sneak attack dice does the Arcane trickster need?
3rd level spells and +2d6 sneak attack?
The word "Enchantments" appears once in the bonded item text. Can you send me your unneeded book?
"That one minor word usage might decide whether I buy the rulebook"
He hasn't purchased the book, and isn't an RPG subscriber.
Glibness Fail.
So the arcane archer requirements are these still?
More or less like that yes.
What level of spells and sneak attack dice does the Arcane trickster need?
2nd level spells and +2d6 sneak attack?
Fixed. You can now get into AT at 7th level or 8th if you use sorcerer. Roughly in line with other PrCs.
So the arcane archer requirements are these still?More or less like that yes.
Fixed. You can now get into AT at 7th level or 8th if you use sorcerer. Roughly in line with other PrCs.What level of spells and sneak attack dice does the Arcane trickster need?
2nd level spells and +2d6 sneak attack?
One last thing (I promise!). is it 1/2 BAB progression or 3/4 for AT?
I like the word 'enchantment' over 'enhancement.' Sounds more magical, and less like a Viagra ad.Then again, I like the word dweomercraft. :)
I've been using the hell out of "Dweomer" in my own game lately. Great word. So uniquely "D&D" and so very well suited to explaining just how the quirky magic system makes sense in its own way.
Paizo take note:
One last thing (I promise!). is it 1/2 BAB progression or 3/4 for AT?
It's still 1/2 but I think the other changes to the class are good enough that it's Ok. Ranged LD is not limited per day.... still/ silent spell 3 times/ day at 5th level... other nice stuff.
One last thing (I promise!). is it 1/2 BAB progression or 3/4 for AT?It's still 1/2 but I think the other changes to the class are good enough that it's Ok. Ranged LD is not limited per day.... still/ silent spell 3 times/ day at 5th level... other nice stuff.
Yea it looks good I like it. The class does mainly use ranged touch so the 1/2 progression isn't so bad.
Got a few more curiosities on the cleric:
- Does the cleric get any sort of capstone to discourage PrC dipping? Spells max at 17, domain powers are nifty but many are "meh," and even channel energy caps at 19.
- Are all of the 1st level domain powers 3+Wis per day, or only a few?
- Plant: This domain sucked in Beta, and from what others have said it retained its two basic abilities. Are they more powerful, or still somewhat of a waste?
- Do the elemental domains have some serious elemental standing power, or are they still on the weak side?
- Magic: Is the magic domain still a weird combination of Abjurer/Universalist wizard?
Thanks!
Still no word on this stuff, eh? :D
Got a few more curiosities on the cleric:
- Does the cleric get any sort of capstone to discourage PrC dipping? Spells max at 17, domain powers are nifty but many are "meh," and even channel energy caps at 19.
- Are all of the 1st level domain powers 3+Wis per day, or only a few?
- Plant: This domain sucked in Beta, and from what others have said it retained its two basic abilities. Are they more powerful, or still somewhat of a waste?
- Do the elemental domains have some serious elemental standing power, or are they still on the weak side?
- Magic: Is the magic domain still a weird combination of Abjurer/Universalist wizard?
Thanks!
I'm not a big cleric guy but
1) Not really. Channel stops progressing and the second domain powers kick in at levels 4-8. Some domain powers scale based on cleric levels2) depends on the power. Most are 3+WIS
3) Plant domain still seems pretty weak but a lot of domains are toned down a bit. Overall domain powers are pretty weak (which is fine with me).
4) You get Hand of the Acolyte (Apprentice) at 1st and a dispel ability at 8th.
Some items of interest:
- Spiked Chain no longer has reach
- Animated Shields work more like dancing weapons (activate, then it works for 4 rounds, price changed to +2 bonus)
- Armor Training allows fighters in heavy armor to move without penalty by 7th level
What about the druid`s wild shape after level 12 -- does it get improve, etc.
What about the druid`s wild shape after level 12 -- does it get improve, etc.
No, no further wild shape improvements after 12th level except for number of times per day they can use wild shape.
I watched the PFRPG preview videos and heard Jason say that Perception had been simplified compared to the Beta. How much was removed?
I didn't compare with the Beta, but I can tell right off that all of the racial perception bonuses (such as elves and gnomes got) are not dependant on which sense it affects...they just get a +2 perception bonus.
|
Things like leadership, prestige classes, poisons, improved familiar, etc. were never covered in the book they really belonged in.
Prestige classes were in the proper book to start with. Prestige classes were offered to the GM so he could use them and offer them to players as fit his game. At some time Players decided it was their right to dip into any and every Prestige Class that existed. They really were no longer Prestigious at all, just power bumps.
I would have been happy seeing Prestige Classes being moved to the Bestiary rather than the PFRPG. Either that or just change the name to Power Dip Classes.
:)
|
|
Did they change the wording of CMBs? They had it as an Attack roll plus CMB, and when you look up what an attack roll is it stated it was d20+STR+BAB+size (same as 3.x btw) so the true formula for CMB was d20+2xSTR+2xBAB. The size numbers negated one another. Everyone ASSUMED an attack roll was just a d20, but never has been.
This is a HUGE difference between the way it is played.
Here's what they say in the Bonus Bestiary:
"A creature’s CMB is equal to its base attack bonus + its Strength modifier + a special size modifier. Creatures with the Agile Maneuvers feat and creatures of size Tiny and smaller use their Dexterity bonus instead of their Strength bonus. A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all of the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items, and conditional modifiers."
So it's clear that you don't add your attack bonus twice.
Yes but that is the Bonus Bestiary definition of the CMB itself. Depending upon how it is worded in the PFRPG, it might still be STRx2 and BABx2... just like it was in the Beta. If it stills says, "Make an attack roll and add your CMB," Then unless they changed the definition of an attack roll you would roll d20+2xSTR+2xBAB. Just like it said to do in Beta...
|
Things like leadership, prestige classes, poisons, improved familiar, etc. were never covered in the book they really belonged in.
Prestige classes were in the proper book to start with. Prestige classes were offered to the GM so he could use them and offer them to players as fit his game. At some time Players decided it was their right to dip into any and every Prestige Class that existed. They really were no longer Prestigious at all, just power bumps.
I would have been happy seeing Prestige Classes being moved to the Bestiary rather than the PFRPG. Either that or just change the name to Power Dip Classes.
:)
Of course, now that the base classes have been buffed considerably, they aren't so big of power dips anymore. Now instead of seeing 100% of my players go into prestige classes, I've been seeing (during my time with the Beta) less than half go into them. 2 players in each of two games, one with 4 players and one with 5. The other 5 are all doing a single class.