Archade's page

toyrobots wrote:

I understand eliminating Use Rope, I really do. But how now are we expected to set Escape Artist DCs for captive characters tied up with rope? Without a skill to organize this rule, where should I expect to find it exactly?

Isn't it obvious? It's listed under "Grapple", of course!

Don't you know that wrestlers tie the best knots? :-)

You know, using CMB is an okay default, but if someone had Craft (knots), I'd let them use that instead ...

Good point!

The skill points don't seem unreasonable. Sure, you can't put 1 rank into Craft (origami), but the speed of which you can build a character, or NPC, is HUGE in my book.

Although I want Jason to put about 5 skills back ...

I'm using the point buy to get a feel for a character, and then I'll roll and adjust. It won't be far off ...

Hey all,

I've been invited to play in a pathfinder game, so I'm starting a separate thread to report my findings as a player, not a GM.

So, last night I looked over character options. Nobody has declared what they want to play, so I'm open minded to what class I'll take. I'm trying on different class ideas. To build my character, I'm using the 20 point buy method, and I'll roll my stats and adjust my character at our first session.

The first thing I looked at was Sorcerer. I ended up coming up with a potential Human (Ulfen) Sorcerer named Amrolf the Black
- Bloodline Abyssal
- Skills Intimidate, Spellcraft, Appraise, Knowledge Arcana, Use Magic Device
- Feats Toughness, Skill Focus (Use Magic Device)
- Spells - Burning Hands, Mage Armor

OBERSVATIONS: The bloodlines are great ideas, but a lot of them are very generic choices. I looked through them seeing "touch attack, touch attack, touch attack". Abyssal and draconic seem a lot more appealing than the other choices based on claw attacks (how often has someone run by a wizard or sorcerer, and they didn't get an AoO because they didn't have a weapon in hand?). I think the choices should be more varied at 1st level, not necessarily in power, but in style and flavor.

The skill rank system rocks! How often have I sat with a character pouring over 20 skill points to spend? It was a 5 minute series of choices. Great!

Skill consolidation still seems awkward to me, and my points seem to go a lot further than they used to, but I won't belabour it here.

Feats were the same as before, but Toughness is a clear winner, granting +4 hit points at 1st level. On top of that, taking Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) made sure I had a starting +10 in the skill, which means I can activate a wand 50% of the time.

My spells were chosen with the idea that my character will end up being a hand-to-hand guy (well, a skirmish, close-rang guy). With an AC of 15, 13 hit points, and an area attack, he should be okay in that regard to start.

Overall, building a sorcerer was easier than 3.5, but some of my choices seemed sub-optimal.

Mithril is cheap. It may be rare by the random peon's standards, but the random peons aren't wearing a Christmas Tree worth of equipment as their work uniform. You'll have mithril long before you have strong magic items. In fact, mithril chain shirts cost less than +1 non mithril chain shirts. RAW, rarity is by cost. Anything else is a house rule to make yourself right. The flaws with that approach should be obvious.

High dex also means high initiative and such. You get flat footed less that way, because you go first. Also, Uncanny Dodge isn't hard to get, and stats 'naturally' improve with level. (as in you'll have more and more cash lying around to get Dex items and such) Combine that with a 30 foot speed (might be able to catch some of the faster enemies) compared to 20 (better hope they come right at you) and it's easy to see how badly heavier armors fail.

My players have an ongoing joke "Welcome to the party! Here's your mithral shirt and Heward's Handy Haversack!". Because of the cost, and the benefits, mithral chain shirts (and to a lesser degree, mithral breastplates) are very popular choices, because they give a decent AC bonus, and no speed penalty.

Rarely do I see a character in heavy armor, unless they have a Dex of 10.

I think the Max Dex is a good thing to keep, as well as the existing Armor Check Penalty. But maybe speed can simply be based on encumberance, or the speed penalty could be lessened -- even if movement was slowed by 5 ft, that would be reasonable ...

I noticed that a crit has no additional effect with the smite variant you are using. Have you considered instead maximizing damage while adding the paladin level? I don't think that would match double-damage but this way the paladin could still get a critical hit on their smites.

Alternately, using your method, perhaps getting a crit on a smite could maximize the damage.

Thanks for the PT reports, it's interesting reading what various groups are reporting.

I thought critting the extra smite damage might be a little much. To be honest, someone made a suggestion of making smite damage like sneak attack damage, extra dice that don't crit and scale with level ... I think that would be a good solution as well.

I'm keeping this ongoing thread to keep all my playtest information straight. It's neat to see what choices my players are making with the rule shift. It's subtle.

Heh. You are clearly in the Smite Constantly camp, while I clearly belong to the Smite Infrequently but Do It Well camp. :)

It is an underpowered ability, for paladins, fiendish and celestial creatures, and other sundry things that have access to such abilities ... on that, we agree.

I'm still kind of slow, so bear with me. Usually he does 2d6+14 damage power attacking. So what is his smiting damage -- 4d6+14, or 4d6+28?

I'm not being clear either, and since I was doing it from memory from work, I'm sure I mis-calculated. And I'm low on sleep. Let's try this again.

The paladin has a Str of 18. His damage modifier is normally +4, and with a two-handed weapon +6. With Overhand Chop it's +8. Because he has a +1 greatsword, it goes to +9.

With his power attack, he takes a -4 to hit, and gets a +4 to damage, so 2d6 + 13 with his greatsword.

When he smites evil *and* power attacks, he got a total of 4d6 + 22 total. Or that's what I recall.

Is that right?

I'm making characters tonight, and some of the racial abilities strike me as mis-named.

DWARVES

Hatred - it's only a +1 to hit, and it dictates what a character feels. How about Foebane or Orcfoe or Sworn Enemy or something?

GNOMES

Hatred - the same

HALFLINGS

Fearless - it's only a +2 to save vs fear, not total immunity. how about Staunch or Bravery or something that sounds a little more moderate?

I don't get it -- you're saying that +7 damage is weak, but +2d6 damage is better? They're exactly the same, on average.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. He did a further 2d6 + 14 (bonuses from his Strength, Overhand Chop, and Power Attack). So, +21 on average ... it seems reasonable and balanced to me, considering he can normally only do this twice a day.

Oh, another reflection on our playtest.

I am not using the existing smite rules, because frankly, I find them weak. Our 7th level paladin with a 14 Cha would gain +2 to hit and +7 damage 2/day.

Instead, I have house-ruled (and it's been in play since pre-Pathfinder Alpha 1) that a smite attempt gains the Cha mod bonus to hit (+2 in this case), and does double damage that can't be increased by a critical.

So, our 7th level half-orc paladin did smite yesterday night (on the gnome) and did his regular (with Power Attack and Overhand Chop) 2d6 + 14 damage, plus an additional 2d6 from the smite. It was dramatic and flavorful (in fact, he spent an action point to get another smite attempt for the day, and missed, but that made his rare ability worth while in the attempt).

Hey all,

I ran the blood pig game last night, and I found it really dragged out. My players were a bit baffled on how to deal with something that didn't involve maiming or killing, so they dawdled over what combat maneuvers to make, but after 2 hours, the score in the first game was 2-0.

My solution was, when the party beguiler called out to the Emperor, asking him why this farce was necessary, and if embarrasing the Shinglesnipes should continue, was to ask for a Diplomacy check. When he rolled a 34, the Emperor agreed, dragged the Shinglesnipe captain forward, and promptly had him beheaded, ending the game.

As well, the game did boil down to one player going for the pig, one player trying to bull rush Shinglesnipes into wolverine pits, one player guarding their pit, and the rest trying to beat the crap out of their opponents.

Did anyone play best two out of three? How long did it take in the session? Did your blood pig games devolve into mayhem?

(I have to say, it was a lot of fun, though ...)

There's three reasons we ordered Urgathoa's art in this pose.

1) To avoid showing the nipples.
2) To give her a creepy sort of modesty and messed-up flirtatious look.
3) To poke fun at the USA's weird double-standard re: violence and sex. It's okay to show a woman who's been disemboweled and half-skeletonized... BUT FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY DON'T SHOW HER NIPPLES!

I can see her femurs ... ooo, femurs ...

I don't think the extra hit points are necessary.

Looking back at my long running game, I've killed off a lot of PCs. I mean, a lot. I have a Drawer of Shame where the character sheets go to rot (and be NPCs in a pinch later). It's filled with characters. But I digress ...

Most of the PC deaths in my game have been around the 3rd-6th level mark, not 1st. I don't think adding an extra amount of hit points is necessary to make characters more durable.

That being said, I think the new Favored Class option of an extra hit point per level, the +2 to an ability that Humans and Half-Elves can put into Constitution, as well as the revised Toughness feat, is certainly enough, should a player feel their character absolutely needs more hit points. That's an extra 6 hit points available to a character there.

Amen!

Hmmm ... I forgot to deal with the Base Attack Bonus. That should still be added in.

However, I still think that having an AC, and basing it on touch AC is the way to go, to deal with conditions that might affect a grapple, trip, etc.

Anything that would modify a character's Strength or Dexterity should alter their ability to be grappled.

So, currently we calculate:

Touch AC = 10 + Dex mod + Deflection + Dodge + Size

Maneuver AC = 10 + Dex + Str + Deflection + Dodge + Size + BAB

And as an example, here's what a Troll would have:

CMB Old Target Number = 15 + Str 6 + Size 1 + BAB 4 = 26
Maneuver AC = 10 + Dex 2 + Str 6 + Size 1 + BAB 4 = 23

Not too different, but open to modification from effects, spells, and so on.

Jason?

Well, that's exactly my point. There were over 40 skills in 3.5 if I recall correctly, and around 35 in Pathfinder (again, if memory serves). I'm not suggesting that classes routinely have 15 or 20 skill points - just that they have slightly more than their 3.5 counterparts. So, the fighter could get 4 skill points (+Int) as well as a favored class bonus if he so chooses. 4-8 Skill points seems like a good number for him. You can't do EVERYTHING, but you can do enough things well to be better rounded.

A slippery slope, my friend. Right now I'm building a potential 1st level ranger, with 8 skill ranks, thanks to a +2 Intelligence modifier. I can pretty much choose every class skill.

If you had a fighter with 4-8 skill points, you'd have the same situation. And then, a lot of the fighters out there would all be the same ...

One other bit ... before the session, our group's half-orc paladin levelled up to 6th level, and had to choose a feat. He had Power Attack, and was looking at the next feat in the chain.

Looking at Cleave, it really didn't do him much good -- his modified attack roll with his greatsword was +12/+7. To take Cleave, only under limited circumstances with adjacent foes could he use it, and it simply changed his attack pattern to +12/+12.

He chose Overhand Chop instead, increasing his damage with his greatsword.

Can I recommend that using Cleave be a standard action, rather than a full-round action? That way, at least the paladin could have the option to move, and then attack two adjacent enemies...

Hey all,

Tonight, in a particularly gruelling session of Blood Pig, and many failed combat maneuvers, I reflected on a lot of the posts on these boards saying that the DC for Combat Maneuvers is too high.

While we are playing, I didn't find the CMB DC too high as not as elegant as it could be. Right now everyone has a CMB modifier, and is rolling against a target of 15 + the opponent's CMB. I spent a lot of time tonight looking for CMB numbers buried in my stat block, where the Grapple modifier usually is. To be more elegant, and have reasonable target numbers, why not look at how Armor Class and hit rolls work?

Right now everyone has a standard AC, a touch AC, and a flat-footed AC. Why not have a Maneuver AC? These Combat Maneuvers are attacks, and they simply could be versus a touch AC, at 10 + Dex modifiers + deflection modifiers, and on top of that, add the opponent's Strength modifier. Size is already figured in.

It would fix a lot of issues -- conditions that affect touch AC (grappled, flat-footed, tanglefooted, and so on) would adjust the target number, it would be often higher than 10 + your opponent's Strength and size modifier, and would put the 'target number' where it needs to be in the stat block -- next to numbers you roll to hit them in the DEFENSIVE section.

What do you guys think?

Okay,

Today's session was interesting. We continued to play a modified version of COTCT, and here is what we found.

First, they went into Old Korvosa and played a game of Blood Pig. Thank god for Combat Maneuvers! This made the game go much more quickly, although the DCs proved unmanageable for the Shinglesnipes. I tried to have them Bull Rush, Trip, and so on, and nothing worked.

They handily defeated the Emperor and Jabbyr, and prceeded to attempt to identify the loot. Again, Appraise DCs seem much too low. The party Factotum had a +8 to appraise, and the only thing that made his life difficult was the most expensive of Salvator's paintings.

RECOMMENDATIONS: I'd say the Appraise skill DCs for found treasure should be 5 higher. Peasant Bob could take 10 to identify anything worth up to 100 gp, but it would have made my 7th level PCs able to take 10 and autmoatically identify anything up to 500 gp.

Secondly, I had a stroke of insight on Combat Maneuvers. Right now everyone has a CMB modifier, and is rolling against a target of 15 + the opponent's CMB. To be more elegant, and have reasonable targets, why not look at Armor Class? Right now everyone has a standard AC, a touch AC, and a flat-footed AC. Why not have a Maneuver AC? These Combat Maneuvers are attacks, and they simply could be figured as a touch AC, at 10 + Dex modifiers + deflection modifiers, and on top of that, add the opponent's Strength modifier. I think it would be more elegant. I'll start a separate post on this ...

Hi there all,

The initial thought on the human weapon proficiency is that this would vary by region, allowing one group of humans to be proficient in one weapon almost universally, while that might differ in other regions. That said, I think their might be other ways to get that, ways that are more campaign specific.

I am strongly considering striking this bonus weapon proficiency.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Jason, I believe removing it is a good idea, to avoid human Wizards with greatswords. However, someone had a marvellous suggestion of changing it so nonweapon proficiency penalties with humans were -2. Would you consider that change?

Good catch on the xp progression. I agree it should go back to half of the master's XP to progress properly in Pathfinder.

A simple clause saying a cohort/follower will not make more than one magic item per month might work (although it's not an ideal fix), or state that anyone who continuously makes magic items has to make a Fortitude save or gain a negative level...

Actually, I think that the level adjustment mechanic should be looked at. The idea of a level handicap in exchange for abilities is great, and works well on lower levels (LA +1, etc) but the fuzzy area that should be looked at is creatures with Racial HD, and creatures with high Level Adjustments are fragile, and lack some basic building blocks -- hit dice, save bonuses, base attack bonuses, and skill points.

Well, under Oil in Equipment, it says ...

"A pint of oil burns for 6 hours in a lantern. You can use a flask of oil as a splash weapon. Use the rules for alchemist’s fire, except that it takes a full round action to prepare a flask with a fuse. Once it is thrown, there is a 50% chance of the flask igniting successfully. "

I think Leadership is too complicated right now to be an effective, reasonably balanced feat.

1) Firstly, Leadership should grant a Cohort, no followers -- most players don't want/need them anyway.

2) The current method of calculating experience means the follower will trail exactly at the same point behind the character, unless they don't go adventuring with their master, in which case they fall further behind. Why not just say 'your cohort is always 2 levels lower than you?'

3) The Leadership score thing is complicated, and subject to change. Why not say the base cohort is 4 levels lower? If you take Leadership again, it is 2 levels lower?

4) Perhaps allow an extra feat taken in Leadership again to grant 5 X the Character's level or Charisma modifier in class levels of followers, each one being no more than four levels below their master? That would mean a 10th level character could have 50 levels of followers, with a maximum of 6th level.

5) Please, specify that Cohorts get a half-share of treasure! I've seen niggly parties short-change the cohorts! And add in upkeep, or a fair wage, or something for Followers. Geez.

6) Lastly, keep in mind with no XP costs, a lot of players will consider having a cohort who will sit around and make magic items for the party. This needs to be watched/stopped/guarded against.

Those are my thoughts...

Tarren Dei wrote:

Right, but I mean I want combat maneuvers that use ranged attacks to accomplish things like disarm and sunder ... These would be DEX based combat maneuvers ... The ranger whose well-placed shot forces the hostage-taking villain to drop his dagger ... You know you want it too.

You're right, I do want this.

I mean, who hasn't wanted this since watching any Robin Hood movie? Okay, maybe not "Robin and Marian", that was more grim and gritty.

Something occurred to me ... why not combine the effects of Agile Maneuvers into Weapon Finesse? I mean, your attacks are Dex based anyway, and that would allow your Combat Maneuvers (a type of attack) to use Dex as well. I don't think it would be overpowered.

Or in my opinon - SHOULD stay. I know there are people who think that more combinations are the answer - I don't like that. If the other side wants to do more with less, I'm in favor of keeping them broken out and providing more skill points (particularly to the 2-skill classes).

You could offer more skill points, but I think one of the strengths of the skill system is a wide range of skills and limited skill points. If you had 10 skills to train in, and 15 skills, your variations on a character are limited. If you have 10 skills to train in, and have to choose from 30 skills, while your character may not be as prepared for every single action, your choices of skills make him more unique against other characters, each with their own unique skill sets.

(And I like the favored class option, of 1 extra skill point per level. Another option would be allow a feat called Skilled, that would grant an extra skill rank a level, or maybe even 2 ...)

I ran an 8th level playtest, and what I found is some of the changes to races, including the +2/+2/-2, made the choice of race more meaningful at higher levels.

This just summarizes my opinion ... why eliminate the skills that people use, and enjoy? I think we all agree on Stealth and Perception, and maybe Disable Device but everything else *could* stay ...

Hey there!

So, I'm looking at skills. In 3.5 OGL there are 46 skills (counting each knowledge skill separately). In Pathfinder there are 35. Pathfinder introduced one new skill, being Fly, so they've done away with 12 skills, or 25% of what there was. So, everyone's skill points stretch 25% more than they did before.

I don't have a problem with some skill merging, such as Perspective and Stealth, because it will make the game run more smoothly. I could even be persuaded to see Open Lock folded into Disable Device. However, I don't see a need to get rid of Concentration, Gather Information, Tumble, and Speak Language, all of which were valuable skills worth buying in 3.5, yet leave Disguise or Escape Artist, which I never saw in my personal campaign. Spellcraft and Appraise already saw extensive use, and I don't think they need to be the subject of merging.

I'm of the belief that rather than eliminating skills, offer new choices for the existing skills.

Appraise - find items at 10% off
Concentration - overcome fear or mind-affecting effects in later rounds
Gather Information - find expensive goods in a moment's notice
Heal - allow chance to revive dead character within 1 round

I know this might be a futile exercise, but I did talk to Jason at Gen Con, and one thing he did seem open to was taking away skills takes away options for characters. Really, Skills only takes up 20 pages of rules in the Pathfinder Beta. If we are going to take nearly a page to detail Craft and Profession, why not give Tumble and Concentration a chance to stand on their own?

Today's session was played. The only Pathfinder mechanic that came up was Tumble/Acrobatics. The DC for tumbling past opponents being DC 15 + opponent's BAB / 20 + opponent's BAB was smooth and intuitive. I vote good rule!

Our knight tried to Bull Rush, and was unsucessful, but she rolled a natural 3, so we really can't objectively discuss whether the DC of 15 + opponent's CMB is scaled well. However, her opponent had been sickened, suffering a -2 to ability checks, so I subtracted it from the opponent's CMB ... it only seemed fair.

...Holy crap, they did make Dodge take a Swift action. Remind me again why they made it worse?

No, it's better now. As a swift action you get +1 to your AC in general, and if you have 10 ranks in Acrobatics, it goes to a +2. I'm happy with this bump -- it's a feat that's worth something at 1st level and at 10th.

Hey guys,

Something I think we should address in Pathfinder is using swift actions. Most of the SRD still refers to items as free actions, when they should be swift, perhaps.

So, aside from Quickened Spells, the Dodge feat, and some other Combat feats, what else should be swift actions?

I might add one more thing here. When WotC killed off the old Realms for the new, they not only changed a game setting that people know and love, but also think of all the paperback fantasy books. One reason I read those was to stay up to speed on the Realms. And I purchased A LOT of them. Now, having no interest in the new Realms, I've no interest to continue reading the paperbacks. WotC lost in me a customer twice over.

They lost me as well. Once I bought the Grand History of the Realms, and saw what was coming, I switched from my 10 year FR campaign to a homebrew campaign world, and I have no interest in future paperbacks, although I had bought quite a few previously.

I really wonder if WOTC will feel a slump in sales, either from the FR supplement, or from their paperbacks?

Why not just let Humans reduce the penalty for laking weapon familiarity from 4 to say 2 for all weapons. It still lets wizards flourish a sword or an axe or whatever, but leaves an incentive to take a full weapon proficiency. It also lets a Human fighter pick up some exotic weapon they found as loot and use it if they need to.

I like this far better!

The problem to me with extended duration effects for smiting is that they throw the balance of any feat that messes with smites out of whack and therefor kills backwards compatability. Say the tactical feat from complete champion. If smite is extended duration that means I get a free trip attempt every round for the duration or one of two other effects. That's why I think we need to keep the mechanic basically the same and merely tamper with the # of smites a paladin gets, the attack bonus, and the damage bonus. Anything else kinda breaks the backwards comp of splat book feats built around the old version of smite. and after all we want to be able to use all those nifty things out of our 3.5 collection right?

Agreed! To be honest, I wouldn't change frequency, for that same reason. However, the bonus to hit, and damage is open season, and frankly, I think damage should be severely upped.

I'm running it with a house rule of double damage right now, and it doesn't feel broken at all (in our last session, the paladin used 2 smite evil attempts against a Leukodaemon, and as a 5th level character with a +1 greatsword, he handed out 27 points with a smite, and then another 24 points with a smite ability that he gained using an action point -- it worked fine, and felt satisfactory, far more than +2 to hit, and +5 damage).

in my games i always boost all classes 2 points

tis only fair

no balance issues, and the classes with few skill points have a few more options

You guys realize that Pathfinder's elimination and merging of all these skills effectively grants classes more punch for their individual skill points?

If 10 out of 30 skills have been eliminated, that means 3.5 skill points are now worth 1.3 skillpoints in Pathfinder, if you get my meaning.

I think the bonus skill point per level from favored class is a fair addition, allowing tough characters or skilled characters, if that's the player's wish.

One other observation ... when the group looted Rolth's corpse, I updated his Headband of Intellect to a Headband of Vast Intelligence with ranks in Knowledge (arcana). This was a bit odd for the players to suddenly have the wearer receive 1 rank per level in that skill from a magic item, and we have yet to see how it plays out ... odds are the party Factotum is taking this item ...

Maybe they can exchange nonlethal damage or ability damage in exchange for powers (rage-a-hol takes a lot out of you)? eg. Bob the Barbarian is in a fight. He can take up to his level in nonlethal damage at any time during an encounter to enter a rage. For every point of damage he takes, add 1 to his STR and CON. Maybe add your original CON modifier to the bonus, I dunno. As Bob goes up in level, he can take extra damage to gain other abilities. You always know how many points you can spend, because it equals your HP.

Just pulling an idea out of the air.

Hey! That's not a bad idea! Instead of rage points, have the barbarian take nonlethal damage. He can stop whenever he wants, or he can fight himself into unconsciousness.

Continuing on with the Hospice, the characters proceeded to fight Andaisin reborn, Ramoska the Nosferatu, and finally a Leukodaemon.

In the first two fights, turn undead was used extensively, both by the newly introduced paladin, and the existing straight-classed cleric. In those fights, turn undead ultimately destroyed Andaisin (after many attempts, as well as some well-placed melee attacks). Against Ramoska, it injured him enough to flee. The nice thing about turn undead, is damage reduction is bypassed, which made the effort worth it against the nosferatu.

Against the Leukodaemon, the Paladin used his Divine Bonded Spirit to infuse his +1 greatsword with the holy property, and got a critical! Very dramatic.

OBSERVATIONS:

The smite evil ability we have house ruled to double damage (since +5 damage just isn't enough), and the paladin used his ability once to good effect. However, the more I think about it, and given other people's feedback, it would be more elegant to make smite evil attacks register as extra 1d6 or 1d8 damage, to avoid confusion with criticals.

All the undead made their saves, so they only suffered half damage from turn attempts, and no turn effects, but the power was still a worthwhile option for the players

We'll be playtesting a 5th level Paladin in our weekly game starting this Wednesday (since the player's previous character, a duskblade, was on the wrong end of a Lightning Bolt).

I find smite evil far too weak at almost every level. At 1st level, +1 point of damage once per day is not nearly enough. At 20th level, it's still insignificant compared to Favored Enemy, Weapon Training, or the monk's Stunning Fist.

I believe it should be at the current frequency, but do significant damage (either double damage, or an extra 1d8, plus another 1d8 per 4 levels, or something of that magnitude).

Did the Pathfinder rules revert back to the SRD for creating magic items? That is, they now involve XP costs again, you can't craft while adventuring, etc?

It looks like the rules for crafting in Alpha are gone in Beta.

It looks like they got rid of the 'making magic items on the move' rules, which I think is a shame. I like the idea of a wizard puttering at a gewgaw while he's on watch. Besides, making 200 gp of market value in magic items per adventuring day isn't that big a deal, I thought.

Here's my take on Channel Energy ...

Channel Energy
Drawing upon the power of your deity, you can cause a wave of energy to emanate from you, dealing damage to undead creatures or causing them to be held at bay for a number of rounds. With sufficient power, you can even cause them to be destroyed outright or bend them to your will.
Channeling energy is a supernatural ability you can perform as a standard action. It does not provoke attacks of opportunity, but you must be able to present your holy symbol to use this ability. Good characters, or those who worship good deities, use this ability to channel positive energy, which harms undead creatures and causes them to f lee. Evil characters, or those who worship evil deities, channel negative energy instead, which heals undead and can cause them to obey the will of the character. Neutral characters that worship neutral deities must choose whether to channel positive or negative energy when they gain this ability.
Some feats allow channeled energy to be used on other creatures. Regardless of the character’s alignment, such attempts only deal damage and do not cause such creatures to flee or allow the character to gain control of creatures other than undead.

Channel Positive Energy
When you channel positive energy, you unleash a wave of positive energy in a 30-foot burst. All undead in this radius take 1d6 points of positive energy damage plus 1d6 points of positive energy damage for every two cleric levels you have attained beyond 1st (1d6 at 1st level, 2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on) and suffer the effects of a sanctuary spell against yourself and all allies within 5 feet of you (meaning that undead affected by the burst must make a Will save to attempt to harm or otherwise target the cleric and her allies within 5 feet) for 1d4 rounds + your Charisma modifier. Undead in this radius are allowed a Will save that negates the sanctuary condition and results in half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Undead who take damage greater than their hit points crumble to dust and are destroyed by the power of your deity. If an undead subject to a current sanctuary effect is subject to channeled negative energy, it does receive a new saving throw to dispel the sanctuary effect.
Living creatures within the area are healed a like amount by this wave of positive energy. You can choose whether or not to include yourself in this effect. Hit points gained above a living creature’s total are lost.

Channel Negative Energy
When you channel negative energy, you unleash a wave of negative energy in a 30-foot burst. All living creatures in this radius take 1d6 points of negative energy damage plus 1d6 points of negative energy damage for every two cleric levels you have attained beyond 1st (1d6 at 1st level, 2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Living creatures in this radius are allowed a Will save that results in half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. You can choose whether or not to include yourself in this effect.
Undead creatures within the area are healed a like amount by this wave of negative energy. Hit points above the undead’s total are lost. Undead who are within the area of this effect must make a Will save or fall under your command. A cleric can command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level. Clerics can relinquish control of undead to gain control of new undead. Commanding undead is a standard action that requires line of effect. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to break free of from your command. If a commanded undead is subject to channeled positive energy, it might suffer the sanctuary effect, but it also receives a new saving throw to dispel the command effect.

Hey all,

So last session all we really got a chance to do was have the PCs duke it out under the Hospice of the Blessed Maiden with *everyone* in the vat chamber. Here are my observations as far as playtesting go ...

I compared Acrobatics/Tumble checks on the Beta DC 15 + BAB and my pre-PFRPG Houserule of DC 10 + Reflex save, and while I find using the Reflex save is more ‘realist’ for nimble foes catching tumblers, BAB seems to work well.

Appraise continued to work reasonably well for non-treasure items – the identify/not identify a treasure item mechanic is a blessing after the 'you are off the value by 15%' rule - the DCs seem a bit simplistic, so when a 5th level character found a 350 gp item, the DC of 10 seems far too easy. In fact, Joe Peasant with Appraise of +0 can easily identify items of up to 500 gp. Perhaps the DCs should be bumped up by 5 …

Identifying magic items came up in play, and while I must sound like a broken record, I have to repeat that DC 15 + caster level is too low. Since the PCs have Zellara’s Harrow Deck, they can use the spell identify 3/day, and each attempt allows them 10 items at once (since the deck is CL10). That part is great – they are identifying magic items on the fly, and using them in play. However, my players have a beguiler, who has a +11 on his own to identify, so with the identify spell he has +21, so he automatically identifies CL6 and lower items – which is pretty much everything. I’d recommend upping the DC to at least 20 + caster level.

Fighting PFRPG-ized Rolth and Andaisin didn’t feel much different, but I gave them the extra hit points for their favored class, and that made them more durable. As a DM, it felt a little more gratifying to have important persons in the campaign last a little longer.

One of the PCs was incinerated by Rolth’s lightning bolt spell, dropping his hit points to the negative teens, and he died. I have a standing house rule allowing Heal checks to revivify a dead character within one round, and while the party wasn’t successful in doing so, I’d recommend allowing it in the PFRPG.

In the knock-down drag out fight, there weren’t any CMB checks, so it felt like 3.5 combat. The only differences I noticed in play were in skill use this session.

If this is the tentative direction for channeling positive energy and its effect on undead what effect is negative energy going to have on the living when an evil cleric lets off with his Channel Energy ability?

If its to hold off or daze/stun the living wouldn't that make NPC evil clerics to powerful vs PCs?

If I were designing this, I'd have the undead held at bay as per sanctuary (with or without a save, whatever is the smoothest mechanic), and I'd have evil clerics rebuke undead to make them shaken.

I also like the concept of "holding them at bay" or something like that. Having the priest standing, with his allies close beside him, holding out his holy symbol and having the ravenous undead clawing and pacing a short distance away, but not able to get any closer due to the holy power being displayed just makes a great picture in my mind.

But how to turn that into a game mechanic? Beat's me. Hopefully a real game designer can help with that, because I surely am not.

Maybe the priest simply has to keep spending standard actions every round to keep the turning effect up?

Well, if it is run as sanctuary, the undead would get a save each round to directly attack or target the cleric. I like the idea of sheltering allies behind your holy symbol, so you could say that all allies within 5 feet also share the sanctuary effect.

Here's what I suggest ...

Do the turning damage, as normal.

If the cleric's level is less than the HD of the undead (counting turn resistance), the undead cannot approach within 10 feet of the cleric, unless the cleric attacks the undead. That is a simplified sanctuary effect that protects people who want to cower near the cleric.

If the cleric's level is higher than the HD of the undead, have the undead act shaken (-2 to a lot of stuff).

If the cleric's level is double the HD of the undead, have the undead cower.

Simple.

I think a floating +2 to any stat diverges too much from the half-orc role. You'd have +2 Int half-orc wizards, +2 Cha half-orc bards, and so on.

The +2 to Wisdom seems fine to me. It aids in Perception checks, and Survival -- very barbarian-ish. As a side effect it does make half-orcs very good druids, but that's a good feature.

Keeping the -2 Int rather than chanigng it to -2 Cha differentiates them from Dwarves as a player option, and allows a player (should they choose) to play a big dumb fighter.

I would leave in the halfling bonus for thrown weapons, because it's backwards compatable, ties the halfling race to its fictional origins, and is a bonus that makes the class beneficial -- when you look at the racial advantages of elves or dwarves, halflings often come up short. There's no need to pare them back further.

I've had a number of players play halflings and remember and enjoy this bonus -- it would be a shame to remove it.

I like the change to Identify, removing the pearl and the 1 hour casting time. Our players are using magic items they find in an adventure, and that's a noble goal.

However, I believe the DC is too low.

To identify a wand of magic missile, the DC is 16. Without identify, a 1st level wizard with +7 in Appraise (class skill +3, ranks +1, int +3) can take 10 and effortlessly identify the wand. Why bother having a DC check at that point? The rules just take up space for something that is going to be successful 95% of the time.

A 5th level wizard with +11 in Appraise (+3 class, +5 ranks, +3 int) can take 10 to identify a +1 weapon (DC 18).

This renders identify moot as well.

I think identifying magic items should be successful roughly 70% of the time without identify, if a wizard has bothered with Appraise, and 90% of the time with identify.

I would suggest the DC be either 20 or 25 minimum, and then the identify spell has use, and the skill Appraise requires some effort. With a base DC 20 + caster level of the item, a 5th level wizard can identify any CL 1 item, without identify, and a 1st level wizard can identify any CL 7 or lower item with identify, all of them taking 10. Seems reasonable to me.

Since we are discussing Abilities and Races, here is my feedback on those chapters…

I have no issues with the Abilities chapter. Nicely done, keep it as is!

DWARVES

Dwarven Stonecunning has been toned down too much. Craft skill should be added back in. Actually, something to consider for both elves and dwarves, put in to their abilities to notice secret doors that their abilities assume they are taking 10. That would make DMing the abilities far more simpler. (Tordek notices all secret doors with DC 16)

As a minor quibble, I think ‘Hatred’ is far too generic a term for the bonus the various races get. How about ‘Dwarven Foebane’, or ‘Gnome Foebane’?

GNOMES

Obsessive – I’d like to once again state this is an excellent change.

Gnome Magic – changing speak with animals so it is not just burrowing creatures is also a nice tweak.

Favored Class – as a nod to previous additions, would you consider the favored class of the gnome is bard or illusionist? I’m not against the bard or sorcerer as favored class, but the nostalgic side of me has considered this option.

HALFLINGS

The halfling weapon familiarity ability is sad – sling proficiency? Doesn’t everyone have sling proficiency?

HUMANS

Weapon Training – I really don’t think this should be here. Humans are plenty powerful enough, and by adding this, it impinges on the established tropes established from D&D – you can have a human druid wielding a greatsword, a human wizard wielding a battle axe. I believe this is something that should be removed. Or, alternatively, I would suggest change it …

Weapon Training: Humans are skilled in learning how to use new weapons. If a human takes Martial Weapon Proficiency as a feat, it grants them proficiency in all martial weapons, not just one.