D&D 5E Ultimate Magic Playtesting to Start Next Week


log in or register to remove this ad



Nikmal

First Post
It's great to hear that Paizo is taking the lead on watchdogging your own rules bloat. I love PFRPG and I buy every supplement you guys publish (charter subscriber since Runelords #1) but too many more hardcover supplements after UC/UM and you'll be on the way to 3.5-era "unintended synergies."

Paizo has a marvellous thing going... I love the cleanliness (for lack of a better term) with which PFRPG plays. Don't go changing it too much from what we've already got.

Paizo STILL has to make money though and by putting out more product up to and including Hard Covers is the way they do it. Change is going to come whether we like it or not. Right now they are staying on a path where they are adding things slowly and that is more then WOTC ever did and for this I am forever grateful. To much to fast and bloating the genre with TO many books is WOTC's policy. Pathfinder has not even come close to this nor do I think that they will anytime soon. They have kept things to a minimum and in a way that continues to produce quality in their merchandise.
 


Kvantum

First Post
Paizo STILL has to make money though and by putting out more product up to and including Hard Covers is the way they do it. Change is going to come whether we like it or not. Right now they are staying on a path where they are adding things slowly and that is more then WOTC ever did and for this I am forever grateful. To much to fast and bloating the genre with TO many books is WOTC's policy. Pathfinder has not even come close to this nor do I think that they will anytime soon. They have kept things to a minimum and in a way that continues to produce quality in their merchandise.
As far as I understand it, the plan is 2 rules expansion hardbacks a year, along with one bestiary and one World Guide to a continent of Golarion. The rules books are (according to various rumor, hearsay, and scuttlebutt here and there across the 'Net,) Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat in 2011, then Epic and maybe Monsters-as-PCs in 2012, and then maybe a Vancian non-PP psionics version in 2013 along with some other new rules expansion.

Edit: And the confusion on Broad Study is due to the ever-present problem of "class level" vs. "character level". Every 3e/Pf/OGL gamer out there has to keep it in mind when using class level as a prerequisite for things.
 

pawsplay

Hero
I am confused on why it needs to say you need to be 6th level in that class to take a class feature of that class that requires 6th level to take.

Because it's ambiguous. By default, feats and prerequisites are based on character level. Class features are an exception; they are often based on class level. However, that's not an ironclad rule. In the case of something like Rogue Advanced Talents, it's clear from the chart. In this case it's not. Further, the class ability in question involves multiclassing. Do you see what I mean now?
 

Because it's ambiguous. By default, feats and prerequisites are based on character level. Class features are an exception; they are often based on class level. However, that's not an ironclad rule. In the case of something like Rogue Advanced Talents, it's clear from the chart. In this case it's not. Further, the class ability in question involves multiclassing. Do you see what I mean now?

Not at all. A class ability with level requirements always means level in that class unless it stats otherwise. There is no need to make it clearer when it is clear to start with. Its a class ability that requires level 6 before you can take it. There is no need to say you need all 6 levels in that class as that is implied by the fact it is a class ability.
 

pawsplay

Hero
Not at all. A class ability with level requirements always means level in that class unless it stats otherwise. There is no need to make it clearer when it is clear to start with. Its a class ability that requires level 6 before you can take it. There is no need to say you need all 6 levels in that class as that is implied by the fact it is a class ability.

I believe you are under a misunderstanding. I shall quote (emphasis added):

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.
 

Cor_Malek

First Post
I believe you are under a misunderstanding. I shall quote (emphasis added):

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

Um... And your point being? If it's a rule that most of class features require levels at that particular class, then it's logical that clarification is needed only on exception from that rule

Or if it's the other way around, and there has to be a clarification every time... It is possible to have barbarian 1/ anything 10 who will have greater rage? And barbarian 1 / monk 1 / anything 11 with greater rage, and diamond soul and body features? oO (in addition to whatever main class gives). Not to mention all the rage powers he'd have by then (with just one level of barb).
 

Remove ads

Top