Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Excerpt: Paragon paths (merged)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MindWanderer" data-source="post: 4181059" data-attributes="member: 64938"><p>Turns are defined, yes: Each character's action is one turn (so the bonus wouldn't apply to AoOs.  Doesn't help for this "retroactive damage" debate--which I seriously doubt is an interpretation anyone considered before now.</p><p>Well, light blade was known as a category already (rogue article), so heavy blade stands to reason.  What I found interesting is that they feel they have to mention it specifically, since warlords get military melee weapons proficiency automatically.  I wonder under what circumstances a warlord might not have that proficiency.</p><p>They mentioned in a playtest report, a long time ago, that's it's possible to be a rogue/wizard at level 1, and in a different report that you can be a warlord/wizard at low levels as well.  But one option might be to "multiclass" via a Class Training feat at level 1, then when you reach level 11, take up a second class "for real" and retrain the original feat into something else.</p><p>Of course.  The math works out the same way at all levels, so if you're trying to hit AC 25 when your attack bonus is +13, then you should be trying to hit AC 35 when your attack bonus is +23.</p><p>I'm hoping they changed their minds about this.  If only 4 paths are unaccounted for, then those 4 paths have to offer something to an awful lot of builds: archer rangers, fey and infernal pact warlocks, and warlords who somehow aren't proficient with heavy blades for starters, then trickster rogues, "pacifist" clerics and wizards, and anyone else who doesn't feel like the fit their class-specific PP.  We also know that one PP allows a wizard to use a sword as if it were a wand, and there must be other, similar paths.  If they stuck with 12, I think it's going to feel really limiting--you either match the archetype they thought up for you, or you multiclass, foregoing the more potent options, like action point broadening, available to those who stayed within the lines.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MindWanderer, post: 4181059, member: 64938"] Turns are defined, yes: Each character's action is one turn (so the bonus wouldn't apply to AoOs. Doesn't help for this "retroactive damage" debate--which I seriously doubt is an interpretation anyone considered before now. Well, light blade was known as a category already (rogue article), so heavy blade stands to reason. What I found interesting is that they feel they have to mention it specifically, since warlords get military melee weapons proficiency automatically. I wonder under what circumstances a warlord might not have that proficiency. They mentioned in a playtest report, a long time ago, that's it's possible to be a rogue/wizard at level 1, and in a different report that you can be a warlord/wizard at low levels as well. But one option might be to "multiclass" via a Class Training feat at level 1, then when you reach level 11, take up a second class "for real" and retrain the original feat into something else. Of course. The math works out the same way at all levels, so if you're trying to hit AC 25 when your attack bonus is +13, then you should be trying to hit AC 35 when your attack bonus is +23. I'm hoping they changed their minds about this. If only 4 paths are unaccounted for, then those 4 paths have to offer something to an awful lot of builds: archer rangers, fey and infernal pact warlocks, and warlords who somehow aren't proficient with heavy blades for starters, then trickster rogues, "pacifist" clerics and wizards, and anyone else who doesn't feel like the fit their class-specific PP. We also know that one PP allows a wizard to use a sword as if it were a wand, and there must be other, similar paths. If they stuck with 12, I think it's going to feel really limiting--you either match the archetype they thought up for you, or you multiclass, foregoing the more potent options, like action point broadening, available to those who stayed within the lines. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Excerpt: Paragon paths (merged)
Top