Asgetrion's page

My next session will feature a lot of Shadows, those horrible undead guardians, but as I looked at their entry in the Bestiary I felt a bit confused. Now, I have always described them (since BD&D) as a lesser version of wraiths, i.e. smoky and black ghost-like beings with glowing eyes, but it seems that these days they are more than that: animate, two-dimensional shadows gliding along surfaces and reaching hungrily towards you. Or maybe they always were like that, and I’ve just managed to ignore their description and focused on the stats? Anyway, I actually like that… except that I don’t understand how they’re supposed to work.

So I took a look at Undead Revisited, but it didn’t help much; cool plot hooks, ideas and variant abilities, but no concrete advice on linking the flavor to mechanics.

Now I have a host of questions about Shadows: for example, should they be impossible to spot without light, even with darkvision? How do you hit them; are you supposed to strike at the floor or wall to hurt them? Or strike at empty air, estimating where their invisible "essence" should be? How do they attack you; do they “rise up” from your own shadow as “concrete” (spectral) and visible creatures, or do you just see their shadowy limbs moving along the floor/wall? And is a flying/levitating character immune to their attacks, if they’re supposed to be two-dimensional? (obviously not per RAW, but my players would ask this if I described them “as written”)

How do you describe and run Shadows in your game?

A couple of days ago I was going through potential hazards and monsters to use in dungeon environment, and I noticed that green slime's description and art still does not (IMO) correctly match its statistics. Back in AD&D, I remember that it was explicitly noted that green slime could only affect "live" flesh and would quickly turn a victim into a patch of green slime as well. Buth here is how it works in 3E and PF RPG:

Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime.

These days it simply deals constitution damage, yet the text from PRD implies it devours/dissolves all flesh, apparently even that of dead creatures? Even though it cannot harm them, since corporeal undead are immune to con damage? (Unless, of course, dead flesh would be equated to wood or metal...)

My point is, based on how it's been described in the game, I've always felt green slime is corrosive, and this is also supported by the art piece of the poor, melting goblin in the core rulebook (p. 416). Shouldn't it simply deal acid damage, then? I don't know, somehow it all feels contradictory to me, but then again, we always shrugged at the whole thing back in AD&D, too (however, it did make more sense that it simply turned you into slime, instead of devouring your con score).

I'm also a bit puzzled by the reference to cold and fire damage; green slime does not have HD or HPs, so is one point enough to kill it? And what about "cutting it away"? Do you have to cut away the victim's arm or leg, or would one point of damage (again) be enough for this purpose?

Thoughts?

I've never really thought about it before, because I've been quite happy with the existing swarms in 3E and Pathfinder. However, when Bestiary 2 came out, I thought I should try creating a swarm of crawling hands.

Here's the thing: the rules on swarm subtype don't mention anything about changes to base creature's stats, AC, HD or saves. When I compared, for example, bats to bat swarm, it seemed there was no method to this madness; +5 to some stat, -1 to another, and so on. Is there a method, or am I just missing it?

In the end I just took a look at Crawling Claw Swarm in Lost Empires of Faerûn and used it as the baseline, modifying some stats according to the crawling hand entry in Bestiary 2. I also changed the size of the hands to Tiny (half damage from weapon attacks), because it made sense that you could use weapons on this swarm (weapons work normally against individual hands, after all).

Here's what I came up with; feel free to comment, criticize and offer advice on how to improve it:

***************************************

CRAWLING HAND SWARM (CR 3)

XP 600
N Tiny undead (swarm)
Init +2; Senses blindsense 30 ft., darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 14 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 32 (4d8+12)
Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +4
Defensive Abilities swarm traits; Immune undead traits, half weapon damage
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., climb 40 ft.
Melee swarm (1d6 plus tripping grab)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks distraction (DC 11), smite fallen
STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 14, Con -, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 14
Base Atk +0; CMB —; CMD —
Feats Toughness
Skills Climb +9, Perception +4, Stealth +12, Survival +4; Racial Modifiers +4 Survival
SQ swarm traits
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Smite fallen (Ex) A crawling hand swarm inflicts double damage against prone combatants.
Tripping Grab (Ex) A crawling hand swarm may trip foes with its swarm attack. If the opponent fails a Reflex save DC 14, it falls prone.

I noticed something today when I leafed through my copy of 'Misfit Monsters Redeemed'... namely that monsters do not seem to get iterative attacks for natural weapons, even though their BAB would higher than +6. I checked my Bestiary to see if it was a "glitch", but no -- apparently monsters only benefit from high BAB if they use weapons.

Has it been always been this way in 3E and for some reason I just haven't noticed it? Or did PF RPG change this to balance higher attack bonuses with multiple natural weapons? If so, how come monsters with only one natural attack (Lurking Rays, for example) do not gain anything to compensate for this?

I know I've talked about this issue a couple of times before, and maybe it's already been beaten to death on this boards, but it still bothers me. My problem? PCs using 'Detect Magic' and 'Arcane Sight' to avoid magic traps.

Now, I have firmly believed that the mechanics allow this; after all, are not magic traps, uh, magical? It was pretty simple in 3E, because you couldn't have 'Detect Magic' constantly on -- unless you had 'Arcane Sight' made permanent on you (and I think only a single wizard in my group ever did). Ergo, magic traps were dangerous, and made 'Detect Magic' a very valuable spell to memorize (well, even more valuable as it already was in terms of finding magical items).

But not so in PF RPG, because every spellcaster in my group now has it constantly "active" (just to spot magic traps, mind) -- they simply choose it as one of their three "at-will" orisons or cantrips. I've tried implementing Concentration checks every now and then, but the players just shrug and say: "Don't bother -- I'll just cast it again immediately if it fizzles. And nobody moves a single square before it's on!" (followed by a general agreement from all non-spellcasters). Then I tried reminding them that it requires three rounds before they can actually locate any hidden magic traps, but again they thwarted me: "Sure, but we'll move only 60 feet, and then I'm spending the next three rounds concentrating... rinse and repeat, okay? Just like with those 10' poles, which has always been a legit tactic, right?" And that is actually how we've always rolled -- no need to point out every square you're poking into, it's enough to say that you're doing it while going forward.

So, magic traps have become less frequent in my adventures; I just don't see the point anymore, because they detect them anyway. And if they can't disable or dispel them (or circle around), action might grind to a halt.

A couple of days ago I realized that the rules for traps say that only the PCs with the Trapfinding class feature can detect (and disable) them. Whoa... WHAT? Does this mean that 'Detect Magic' and similar means cannot? I checked the "classic" spells that work as magic traps, and indeed the entries seemed to imply that Trapfinding is the only way to notice them. Or maybe I'm just confused, and it refers to the Perception check? (it's 3 AM over here, and I'm too tired ATM to double-check this.)

Anyway, I know I could easily houserule this; we've had all sorts of magical backlashes and potion-addictions for long-term abuse of spells and items. Heck, I could even say that constant concentration gives them a hellish headache that no cure spell or Heal check can remove. But I also know that my veteran players might see it as an underhanded GM method to downplay their crafty (and legit, at least in their eyes) tactic to avoid traps. I *might* go with a compromise; an active DM (or similar spell/ability/item) gives you the Perception check as if you had Trapfinding, but I wish it was more explicitly stated in the rules so that I would not need to houserule it.

Anyone else been having problems with this? How have you ruled it in your games? Or have I misunderstood something?

I love the idea about haunts, but even after reading the rules in GMG about how they work, I'm a bit baffled about the following things:

1) Can you harm a haunt after the surprise round? The book seems to imply that you can use positive energy *only* during the surprise round, and after that it's futile. How about persistent haunts... can you harm them on any round after the haunt manifests?

2) Is the haunt's effect instantenous (on init count 10) and then just *spoof*... the haunt vanishes? If so, can you harm it when it's "gone"? Or do the visual/auditory manifestations remain (i.e. walls keep bleeding and so on) even if the haunt's effect doesn't?

3)Yet about the effect... I can understand how a haunt that "casts" an instantaneous spell works, but what about a haunt using something with a longer duration? Say, 'Bestow Curse' or 'Feast of Ashes'?

4) Does the "primary effects are fear-based" mean that there's always a save against fear involved, even if the haunt's true effect is as a different type of spell (such as 'Fireball')?

5) Do you gain XP from falling victim to a haunt, just as you would if you trigger a trap? Or only if you permanently destroy it by fulfilling the conditions?

How much does Paizo add shipping costs to EU, namely Finland? If I were to order a bunch of D&D minis, would they all be added to the same package and consequently be included in the same shipping cost? Or is the shipping cost always per product, i.e. per mini, even if they are shipped in a single package?

IF ANY OF MY PLAYERS HAPPEN TO SEE THIS THREAD, PLEASE STAY OUT!

Now, I’ve been using quite a number of monsters from the Bestiary in my campaign, and as I’ve already said on a couple of threads, I *love* this book so much that I more or less don’t use 3E MMs anymore. However, there are a few non-OGL critters that have not (yet) been replaced with good PF RPG alternatives; my campaign revolves heavily around my own adaptation of the ‘Age of Worms’, and all sorts of Far Realm critters are what I especially need. At the heart of everything, lurk one of my all-time favorites -- the Kaorti. So, I needed to convert the Kaorti to PF RPG, but they didn’t strike me -- mechanically -- as exciting villains per se; they have a cool backstory and a couple of abilities/weaknesses linked to it, but that’s all. In fact, unless you slap every Kaorti with a few character levels, they’re quite boring antagonists. What I actually wanted was a Kaorti wight.

First of all, I think PF RPG has clarified/unified monster mechanics a lot, and made most of them more exciting and balanced to run. Add in the new templates, and it’s more fun running monsters than it’s ever been. However, a host of variant monster abilities and way more templates are what I think would really up the game to a new level.

Let me elaborate. I’m not a huge fan of 4E monster mechanics, but what 4E monster design got “right” is that certain “thematic” abilities (for example, those related to horror, shadows and undeath) feel far more appropriate than in 3E. In fact, it allows you to play around with pretty much everything; this, while being the biggest strength in 4E monster design is also IMO its biggest flaw, because the rules and guidelines seem to be really shaky at best (“Just goggle it up in MMs or DDI and do some comparisons”). However, a Kaorti wight would really feel more “Far Realms undead thing” in 4E rules that it does in 3E/PF. Unless, naturally, you get around toying with the abilities; then again, neither 3E or PF RPG have solid rules on adding Su/Ex/Sp abilities to monsters, either. A good example of a inspiring monster design for PF RPG is the Graveknight by Darrin -- *that* is what I mean by having thematic abilities for monsters.

So here it is:

ADVANCED KAORTI NECROSAVANT WIGHT CR 5
NE Medium Undead
Init +3;Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +13
Aura withering aura (10 ft.)
----------------------------------
DEFENSE
----------------------------------
AC 19, touch 13, flat-footed 16 (+3 Dex, +6 natural)
hp 34 (4d8+16)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +7
DR 5/Good or Cold Iron; Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4; Immune undead traits
Weaknesses resurrection vulnerability
----------------------------------
OFFENSE
----------------------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee tendril +6 (1d4+4 plus 1d6 negative energy and 1 point strength bleed plus grab)
Special Attacks caustic spittle +6 ranged touch (1d6 acid damage and entangle, range 10 ft.), howl of madness, kinetic blast, soulshattering gaze
----------------------------------
STATISTICS
----------------------------------
Str 16, Dex 16, Con -, Int 15, Wis 17, Cha 19
Base Atk +3; CMB +6; CMD 19
Feats Blind-Fight, Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Intimidate +11, Knowledge (Arcana) +9, Knowledge (planes) +9, Knowledge (religion) +9, Perception +13, Stealth +18; Racial modifiers +8 Stealth
Languages Aklo, Common, Undercommon
SQ Reaching Limbs, Veil of Shadows
----------------------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
----------------------------------
Soulshattering Gaze (Su) Every character within 30 feet radius of a kaorti necorosavant must save vs. Will DC 16 or become shaken (save ends). Shaken characters who fail their save take 1 point of Charisma and Wisdom damage. A living creature with either ability score reduced to 0 becomes completely insane (in addition to becoming unconscious). This is a mind-affecting effect. Blind creatures are immune to this effect.

Caustic Spittle (Ex) A kaorti necrosavant may make a ranged touch attack as a free action. As it spits, a stream of goo bursts out, entangling the target and then becoming tough and resilient upon exposure to air. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity and must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be glued to the floor, unable to move. Even on a successful save, it can move only at half speed. This attack is treated as a splash weapon, and if the Kaorti misses, the square the attack hits becomes difficult terrain for 1 round. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of acid damage.

Howl of Madness (Su) A kaorti necrosavant may unleash an unearthly, psychic howl that causes 2d6 points of sonic damage (60 ft. cone). All living creatures must save vs. Fort DC 16 or become deafened (save ends). A successful save halves this damage. All creatures must also save vs. Will DC 16 or become confused (save ends both). This is a mind-affecting effect. This ability recharges when the kaorti necrosavant first becomes bloodied.

Kinetic Blast (Su) A kaorti necrosavant may unleash a forceful blast of pure malice in a 30 ft. radius. All living creatures must save vs. Will DC 16 or become dazed for one round. In addition, the kaorti necrosavant may make a trip attempt as a free action versus every creature inside the area of effect, using its Charisma modifier instead of Strength modifier for this purpose (+7 vs. CMD).This is a mind-affecting and force effect. Recharge 15 or when first becomes bloodied.

Reaching Limbs (Ex) As a swift action, a kaorti necrosavant may increase or decrease the reach of its tendrils by 5 feet.

Veil of shadows (Ex) A kaorti necrosavant is constantly surrounded by shadowy, insubstantial tentacles that shield and blur its body. If it moves more than 5 feet on its turn, it gains 20% concealment for 1 round against ranged attacks. Any spell of 2nd or higher level with the Light description cancels this effect.

Withering Aura (Su) A kaorti necrosavant is surrounded by an aura of pure malice and death, and all living creatures within this aura take 1d6 negative energy damage per round on beginning of their turns. In addition, no living creature may benefit from magical healing within this aura. This aura also grants the kaorti necrosavant a point of Fast Healing for each living creature that is within the aura on the beginning of its turn.

I'm a bit confused about how afflictions work. I get that you first need to roll to see if you contract it -- if you save, you're fine. However, if you fail, say, the initial saving throw vs. poison, does it affect you immediately? Or is the first save "harmless" in the sense that you do not yet take any ability damage from it?

To illustrate this with a concrete example:

A fighter is poisoned with Greenblood Oil. He fails the saving throw, and contracts this affliction. Does he immediately take 1 point of con damage for failing this save, or not? Or does the effect (1 point of con damage per failed save) come into play when he fails the first "real" save after contracting the affliction?

As I was writing an encounter featuring rogues inside a shop -- naturally crammed with shelves and tables -- I realized that as per RAW, they could use the 'sniping' action mentioned under Stealth skill against the PCs. If I'm reading the rules correctly, a 10 ft. table or shelf (that provides cover) would enable them to Sneak Attack "legally" as long as they get cover or concealement. Or am I wrong here? Can the players claim that, for example, a 10 ft. long table turned sideways is only two squares worth of "hidden" area and therefore not in spirit of the rule, as they can pinpoint the potential squares a courching rogue is sniping from? And likewise with a rogue shooting from behind a shelf?

What do you think?

First of all, I really love how templates work in PF RPG, and I've been using them quite extensively ever since the Bestiary came out. Now, since the last session I suddenly realized that I can't recall seeing any guidelines or restrictions on applying them; I can understand Advanced or Giant Ogres or Wyverns, but can I apply these templates on ANY creature regardless of type and subtype? Even outsiders and undead, and even when class levels might be a more "realistic" way to advance the creature? And would such creatures be "officially sanctioned" for published Pathfinder RPG adventures?

For example, can I actually "legally" create Celestial Giant Babau (to offer an extreme example) and Advanced Human Warriors? How about Advanced Giant Fast Zombie, instead of building a Bugbear Zombie from "scratch"?

In 3E every template listed which types it can be applied to, and I'm guessing that at least some templates (Advanced, Giant, Celestial, Fiendish, et al.) can now be slapped onto anything?

I'm not sure if this topic's been already discussed, but do PCs always get an *automatical* Perception check (unless the trap says otherwise) to notice a trap, even a magical one? Secondly, does *everyone* get to roll, or just the "lead guy" (or whoever is about to spring the trap)? Or do you always need to actively *search* for traps to get the chance (Perception check) to notice them?

I mean, the rules in general talk about "if you succeed on a Perception check..." (implying, to me, that you always get to roll first), but the covered pit trap mentions that "They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it" (i.e. searching for traps). Is this just an exception?

On last Saturday I ran a session involving a witch and a cavalier. I don’t think the adventure or campaign background are relevant to the playtest, so I’ll just say that it was my spin on the traditional ‘a-pious-knight-tricked-by-witches’-plot with some additional twists and details. Four out of five PCs participated in the adventure: a human paladin, a dwarven fighter, an elven rogue and a half-orc cleric/paladin (all 3rd or 4th level PCs). All have above-average HPs and AC, although probably less magical items than typical PCs of their levels.

The first encounter was with a 7th level cavalier (Order of the Star) and his “minions” (4 human 3rd level warriors). The cavalier had masterwork equipment, a heavy war horse (advanced template) and a +1 Blinding Mithral Shield. The cavalier did not benefit from the shield’s ability in combat, because the PCs were crafty and surprised him as he was sneaking outside in the middle of the night on foot (to meet and consult an ally of the witches – an ally he considered to be a messenger of his god). Clever players role-played this pre-fight confrontation so well that the cavalier felt intimidated (and, frankly, naked without his horse) and used his shield’s ability twice to retreat to the shrine; this proved to be a crucial tactical mistake on his – and my –part, but since not every cavalier has such a shield anyway, I thought it wasn’t important for the actual playtest (i.e. melee). For the record, the cavalier had elite array for stats, AC 20, power attack, cleave, mounted combat, ride-by attack, spirited charge, trample and average HPs (49).

Finally, the cavalier and his men confronted the PCs in the open; I was expecting for a tough and challenging fight as the cavalier opened with challenging the paladin and charged for almost 30 points of damage (dropping the paladin to something like 20% of his HPs). Two “minions” hung back and peppered PCs with arrows (very unsuccessfully; this was a bad tactic, as they would have probably had a bigger impact in melee) and two engaged them in melee. The cavalier felt really strong against the paladin, and the cleric had his hands full trying to keep him on his feet. On the other hand, the fighter and the rogue had an easy time with him, as he was totally concentrating on the challenged foe (although I *did* let the him make AoOs against other PCs, and didn’t bother to check if he actually could).

The PCs quickly realized that the best tactic is to “tighten the web” around him after he has charged, i.e. try to get AoOs if he uses Ride-By Attack. The cavalier also failed every Overrun attempt he tried, so he didn’t benefit from Trample at all. His ‘hit-and-run’ tactic worked initially, but once the PCs had surrounded the paladin, the cavalier started to fall victim to at least two AoOs per round. His order ability (+2 to a roll if he spends a standard action) felt totally like a waste of a round, so he didn’t do it. In the end he just kept taking 5-ft. steps and full-attacking the paladin, and yet didn’t manage to bring down a single PC. The PCs prevailed far too easily to my taste, and although the paladin would have been killed without healing from the cleric, the cavalier felt to me like a “glass cannon” (against most PCs it would likely be one or two powerful charges and then the spellcasters would pick him off). I wonder if mounted “minions” to support the cavalier would have made a difference in this combat?

The second encounter was against a 4th level witch and her three ogre buddies. This combat started with the fighter critting the witch with his heavy crossbow, which almost killed her; she had to spend two rounds healing herself and by that time the combat was almost over. On the next round the PCs spotted her familiar and killed it. I was truly impressed that NONE of the PCs suffered a single point of damage from the ogres, and once the witch got off Web and Flaming Sphere (I had envisioned several PCs caught in the web and burning) only ONE of the characters failed his save against Web, and even he got out of it before Flaming Sphere hit. As the PCs knew they were dealing with mind-controlling spellcasters, all had ‘Protection from Evil’ on them, which eliminated all but three spells from the witch’s repertoire (my bad mistake, and I didn’t even give her any decent combat scrolls or wands!). This was a one-sided fight and the Hexes didn’t help the witch either (two out of three of her hexes were for “flavor”, i.e. ‘Disguise’ and ‘Blight’, and ‘Evil Eye’ didn’t help much either).
We wrapped up there with some encounters to go, but here are my thoughts more or less summarized:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CAVALIER

- Too much overlap in benefits from Oaths and order benefits and “base” class features. Also, all order benefits should, in my opinion, be either automatical bonuses or swift actions (it’s rare, at least for NPCs, to get to “waste” a standard action in melee for a small personal bonus).

- Too few oaths – I used a religious LN cavalier who could only pick Justice and Protection, because he served the God of Justice and the rest didn’t either fit the story or his demeanor (and alignment). All in all the Oaths felt totally insignificant, and I’d think hard about replacing them or making sure they each grant a different type of bonus than your base and order abilities.

- The cavalier holds his own when he’s on “home turf”, i.e. in one-on-one or one-on-two melee combats in an open space against non-mounted opponents. If he’s dismounted or can’t reach the target of his challenge, he’s really screwed. I wonder how many PC cavaliers actually get to use all their abilities in a typical campaign – kind of hard when you lose half your class abilities in a dungeon.

- Challenge as it is now written is *brutal*… everyone gets to flank you, so throw in a couple of heavy-hitters and a rogue and you’re in trouble; if I played a paladin, I’d always make sure that I challenge rogues first and foremost.

- I think I could make a far more effective mounted combatant from a fighter or a paladin, and even the players mused if the cavalier, as a class, is needed. I *want* to like it, but as it’s written it feels a bit “sketchy” for me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

WITCH

- All in all the witch felt initially good on paper (but see above and below), and the players said it sounds like a nice, flavorful class.

- Hexes need some boosting, and badly. I didn’t even need to think about choosing between spells and hexes – I understand that the latter are meant to add more flavor, but the more you invest in making a “real”, (Disney-type/folklore) witch that feels like a witch (Blight, Cauldron, Coven, Disguise etc.), the less powerful you end up as an NPC (aforementioned stuff is great for story purposes, but not much use against PCs or monsters).

- Out of the two playtested classes, the witch seems more complete, but doesn’t get to use hexes much in combat unless she’s a PC or there are a bunch of NPC witches against the PCs. Or if the PCs can’t get to the witch during the first rounds (and she’s still better off using spells). As a GM it feels irritating, because I’d really, *REALLY* like to use Evil Eye, Misfortune and Cackle (for example) against PCs, but using them are truly suboptimal choices in practice (at least in most scenarios I can envision). High-level witches with a bunch of “minions” might actually get to show their “witch stuff”. Maybe they should get less spells and more hexes (one/level, even)? Just a thought.

- Also, what makes hexes even further suboptimal are that far too many of them are melee touches that PROVOKE an AoO; I’d make them all ranged touches, or at least let the witch channel them via the familiar (she can do this with her spells, so why not with hexes?).

I'm going to be running a playtest session involving a group of witches and a cavalier this weekend, and as I was statting them up I realized that either I've become blind or dumb as I could not find answers to these questions:

1) Is the familiar already included in the witch's CR (in the same way summoned creatures are)? Or do you gain XP for a familiar as if it were a separate entity? If so, since a familiar's 'effective level' is equal to that of the witch, is it treated as a creature of its "base CR" (1/4 for a rat, for example) or at the same CR as the witch?

2) Do familiars gain "extra" skill points "normally" as their INT score advances? And do they gain any additional skill points from their 'effective level' becoming higher (equal to the witch's class level)?

I've posted this suggestion before, and after having playtested it in my own campaign, I have to say it we all like it so much that I'm once again trying to "lobby" for it into PF RPG. I can't remember who originally posted this idea, but I think it really makes criticals a bit more meaningful and fun to everyone!

It's really quite simple: one multiplier (i.e. the "base" damage dice) is maximized, and the rest of the dice are rolled -- bonuses are added as in 3E/Beta.

Some examples:

* A character wielding a longsword (+5 damage bonus): 1D8 + 10 + 8 (max. damage) = 1D8 + 18 (instead of 2D8 + 10)

* A character wielding a greatsword (+8 damage bonus): 2D6 + 16 + 12 (max. damage) = 2D6 + 28 (instead of 4D6 + 16)

* A character wielding a greataxe (+3 damage bonus): 2D12 + 9 + 12 (max. damage) = 2D12 + 21 (instead of 3D12 + 9)

* A character wielding a scythe (+12 damage bonus): 4D4 + 48 + 8 (max. damage) = 4D4 + 56 (instead of 6D4 + 48)

It's a relatively small "tweak", at least at high levels, but it guarantees that you'll *always* inflict more damage than with a normal hit -- it's frustrating to get a critical with, say, a rogue in melee, and then roll something like 6 points of damage with your rapier or longsword (bonuses included) or something like 20 with your greatsword, even though your fighter has +7 damage bonus.

I don't think it would break the game, and at least my players seem to prefer this system over 3E/PF crits.

Thoughts?

I've seen others posting comments that some weapon types need "more love", and I must say that I agree, to some extent. But I rather think it's more about certain weapon groups (such as Reach Weapons and Shields used weapons) that need more love.

WFRP has a lot of qualities, and that same line of thought could be applied in PF RPG as well (since the mechanics would support it effortlessly).

For example, 'Disarming' (e.g. Ranseur could have it) could be a quality that lets you add +2 to your Disarm CMB check. Or, alternatively, table 7-5 could include a text like "+2 to Disarm CMB checks" (of course, the font size would need to be smaller). 'Tripping' could be another such quality, and more weapons could have it (I think spears should give you bonus on tripping a foe). Shields should give you (at least) +2 (or maybe the whole shield bonus?) to Bullrush attempts. And so on.

Also, in my opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if the weapon type (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing) would have more impact in the rules -- for example, certain feats ('Stunning/Staggering Critical' and such) would benefit from bludgeoning weapons (e.g. +2 to save DC).

Thoughts?

As it has been pointed out many times on these boards, some of the weapons -- often those that inflict 2D4 or 2D6 points of damage -- seem to be clearly superior to the other weapons. Falchion, Greatsword, Scythe and Spiked Chain have been the most popular weapons in my group (and several others, I'd dare to guess) -- not to mention that Falchion's lower crit range and the Spiked Chain's tripping ability are also "bonus" features to consider.

I'm suggesting that PF RPG could get rid of all 2DX damage ratings, and replace them with the closest equivalent die (also factoring in any special qualities and the crit range and multiplier).

My "new" stats for these four weapons would be thus:

* FALCHION 1D8 (18-20, X2)
* GREATSWORD 1D12 (19-20, X2)
* SCYTHE 1D8 (X4)
* SPIKED CHAIN 1D8 (X3)

This way they would make more sense (to me, at least) when compared to Halberd or Greataxe.

A couple of examples of other weapons that need a bit tweaking (or be included in the game) would be:

* MAUL 1D10 (X3)
* LONGSPEAR 1D10 (X3)

Thoughts?

Once again I'm starting a thread for Racial Feats, but this time I'd like to know if there's still any interest for "brainstorming" them? I've personally written down probably around 175+ Racial Feats all in all for elves, dwarves, halflings, humans and half-orcs (still working on gnomes, and half-elves get to pick both from the human and elven list). In my own playtest campaign we're using them, and my players love them, because they feel they add thematic "feel" of each race to the game mechanics. At the moment I've allowed one free pick at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and it doesn't feel like they'd make the PCs "overpowered".

So, is there any interest for discussing and posting Racial Feats?

I've lately thought about the 'Craft X' -feats and Craft skills a lot, and I feel it's kind of weird that there are two different ways of creating items with in-game benefits. I can understand why Craft (Calligraphy) or Craft (Weaponsmithing) function better as skills, but Craft (Alchemy), Craft (Trapmaking) and Craft (Poisonmaking) have always felt a bit "odd" for me.

Personally, I think they would work a lot better as Feats, since (in my experience, at least) not too many PCs actually put ranks in them, and I don't see that changing in PF. Also, I think it would be more internally consistent (from the game mechanics POV) if they were actually Feats.

For example (I've omitted the 'Benefits'-section from each):

CRAFT ALCHEMICAL ITEM (Item Creation)

You can create alchemical items such as sunrods and poisons.
Prerequisites: INT 13, 1 rank in Profession (Herbalist) or Heal

CRAFT MECHANICAL TRAP (Item Creation)
You can create complex traps.

Prerequisites: INT 13, 1 rank in Knowledge (Dungeoneering)and 1 rank in Knowledge (Engineering) and 1 rank in Disable Device

CRAFT MECHANICAL CONSTRUCT (Item Creation)
You can create mechanical constructs such as golems.

Prerequisites: Caster level 12th, 1 rank in Craft (Armorsmithing) or 1 rank in Craft (Blacksmithing) or 1 rank in Craft (Weaponsmithing)

Any thoughts?

As I already posted on the 'New feats'-thread, there are already literally dozens of threads about new feats and "tweaks" to existing ones -- and what's even worse, they're often about a single idea that the poster wants to get comments on. It's become hard to keep up with all that's going on, and good ideas tend to get lost in this jumble of threads.

Therefore I thought of starting this thread so that *ALL* "tweaks" and "alternate" versions (i.e. modifications) to EXISTING Beta feats could be found in one place. Not to mention that it would also be far easier for Jason & the other Paizonians to sort through ideas when as much of the information as only possible is to be found on one thread.

So, whether you want to post your own version of a Beta feat, or suggest a slight modification/"tweak" to it, feel free to post it here! :)

PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY OF YOUR OWN NEW FEATS HERE -- there's already another thread for them!

There are already literally dozens of threads about new feats -- and what's even worse, they're often about a single idea that the poster wants to get comments on. It's become hard to keep up with all that's going on, and good ideas tend to get lost in this jumble of threads (and there are feats posted on General Discussion threads, too). Therefore I thought of starting this thread so that *ALL* new ideas for feats could be found in one place. Not to mention that it would also be far easier for Jason & the other Paizonians to sort through ideas when as much of the information as only possible is to be found on one thread.

Feel free to post all sorts of feats here (i.e. Combat feats as well). PLEASE DO NOT POST "TWEAKS" OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PF BETA FEATS HERE -- I will start a new thread for them!

I'm going to start with a couple of my own ideas (inspired by non-OGL sources, I have to admit):

POLEARM SPIN (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting with both ends of spears and pole arms, often catching your opponents off-guard with a sudden blow with the haft of the weapon.
Prerequisites: DEX 13, proficient with martial weapons, base attack bonus +3
Benefits: You may use any weapon belonging to the Spears or Pole Arms weapon groups as a double weapon. Your off-hand weapon is treated as a quarterstaff, and the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons apply. The benefits from this feat do not have any effect if you're using a quarterstaff.

BRUTAL THROW (Combat)

Instead of accuracy, you have learned hurl weapons with such brute force that they are hard to dodge and shear easily through shield and armor alike.
Prerequisites: STR 15, base attack bonus +1
Benefits: You add your Strength bonus to your base attack bonus when you use thrown weapons instead of your Dexterity bonus.

This has also been discussed before on the Alpha threads, but I'm still advocating for slight "tweaks" in the Knowledge skill:

1) 'Knowledge (Tactics)' or 'Knowledge (Strategy)' to be added as a new "subskill" covering (military) tactics and strategies, plus games of skill.

2) Astrology should, in my opinion, either be a new category ('Knowledge (Astrology)'), *or* be included in either 'Knowledge (Arcana)' or 'Knowledge (The Planes)'.

I'm reposting this idea from the Alpha threads, on which someone (I cannot remember who, though) suggested a really great idea for implementing synergy bonuses into PF without any tables or additional skill synergy lists. If I'm not completely wrong, this is also how the skill synergy system works in 'A Game of Thrones D20', by the way.

The system is really simple: whenever you're rolling a skill check, if you have 5 ranks in another skill you may describe how that skill could be helpful in the situation to get an "automatic" (i.e. you don't roll against DC 10) +2 bonus to your check total -- if the DM approves. You can use two "supplementary" skills max. in each skill check.

Example 1: Your character is involved in a negoation with the local Duke, and he wishes to use his Diplomacy to convince the duke to help the party. You might describe how your PC uses his Knowledge (History) to bring out embarrasing or "inspiring" facts about the duke's family history.

Example 2: Your character is trying to shake pursuing monsters from his trail in the wilderness. You could, for example, describe your PC using his Knowledge (Nature) and/or Survival to "boost" his Stealth.

Example 3: Your character is trying to climb a wall in a dungeon. You might describe how your Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Acrobatics help your character in this situation.

In a sense, this is actually a bit like how 'Skill Challenges' work in 4E -- you give the players a chance for creative input, which should, in my opinion, encourage and emphasize storytelling and role-playing through a mechanical "lure" (i.e. the bonus(es) to the skill check). Occasionally this might even lead to player input inspiring future adventure/plot hooks.

I've playtested this system in my group, and everyone is really excited about it, because it is "loose" enough that you can be creative with your suggestions, and it also sort of "enforces" character immersion in a positive way.

I'm re-posting this suggestion from the Alpha threads (and the 'Cleric, Druid and Paladin' thread):

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of all the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames. A Magic Missile spell cast by a bard might manifest as bolts which are whistling as they soar at his enemies. And so on.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

Jason, any chance for something like this?

I'm re-posting this suggestion from the Alpha threads (and the 'Cleric, Druid and Paladin' thread) to give all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer) a *free* ability to "flavor" their spells with a "theme":

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames. A Magic Missile spell cast by a bard might manifest as bolts which are whistling as they soar at his enemies. And so on.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

Jason, any chance for this?

I'm re-posting my original suggestion from the Alpha threads to give all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer) a *free* ability to "flavor" their spells with a "theme":

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

After pondering about it for a good while, I'm strongly in favour of the following system for increasing ability scores:

4th level: +1 to any stat
8th level: +1 to ALL stats
12th level: 1 to any stat
16th level: +1 to ALL stats
20th level: +1 to any stat

First of all, I think it would be more "realistic" in the sense that even the thickest fighter or barbarian may "evolve" and learn new tricks during his career -- it would be sort of natural to expect that his INT, CHA and WIS might rise. And even the clumsiest or skinniest wizard might get "tougher" and overcome his clumsiness somewhat, as he gets +2 to his DEX and CON by the 16th level.

Secondly, it would make "odd" stats feel better in the point-buy system, and, it would also make meeting PrC or Feat prerequisites (such as INT 13 for certain Combat Feats) easier.

Thoughts?

There's a lot of discussion going on about racial abilities and how each races should "feel" thematically and mechanically in PF RPG -- which races should get +2 to X instead of Y, and why is class Z not a Favored Class for them. I personally think that the most elegant solution would be to "cut" certain Racial Abilities, and introduce them as Racial Feats.

Then there are the Traits, which are practically "half-feats", and PF Companion series will eventually introduce more and more of them for each race. I think Traits are a good idea, but some of the ones introduced so far are a bit too "flavourful" (i.e. tied to Golarion) to work in, say, Forgotten Realms or my own "homebrewed" setting. In addition to this, a lot of them are a bit "odd" (e.g. 'Artful Dodger' or whatever it was which gave you +1 to your Ref Save) -- not to mention that most of the traits give you "static" bonuses, instead of useful tactical "options".

These are the questions I've been pondering:

If there are Racial Feats in the game, should they be mechanically more like the 'Traits', i.e. 'half-feats'? Should you get them for free at certain levels, or should they be just "optional" Feats you pick instead of "generic" Feats? If you get them for free, do they affect the game balance too much, and make PCs way too powerful? Should only PCs get them, or should monsters (e.g. goblinoids) and NPCs get them, too? Do we even *need* Racial Traits, or maybe some flavoured 'Traits' for each race could cover that aspect of the rules just fine?

As it stands, we already posted a host of Racial Feats on the Alpha threads, and I've been using a lot of them in my own Alpha playtest campaign. I've been giving them as "freebies" at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and my players have liked them a lot, and said that they enhance the "feel" of each race in play (or maybe they just said that to get some extra stuff? ;).

In any case, I think I'm going to post my own Racial Feats here, and hope that others do so, too. Even though there wouldn't be any Racial Feats in PF RPG, I think we might give some ideas to Jason, Sean and others to work into Racial Traits.

One more thing: if you're going to post Racial Feats on this thread, please stick to the same format to make it easier for others to read them!

For example:

*ADEPT IMPROVISER [Racial : Elf or Human, 1st Level]

You have picked up a little of many skills during your life, and know how to improvise in every situation with the materials at hand.

Prerequisites: INT 13, and you must be an elf or a human, and you must be 1st level

Benefit: You receive +1 Competence Bonus to all your skill checks with skills you have no ranks in and which are not class-exclusive skills to you. You lose this bonus to all skills you have ranks in.

Special:You can only take this feat as a 1st level character.

So, I finally kicked off my Pathfinder Alpha playtest campaign tonight. I had long ago decided to locate it in FR, because my players are more comfortable with it than playing in a completely new setting at least for the moment! They might get to know Golarion very well with time... ;)

The campaign premise was that the PCs are "adventurous local boys" who are all also connected to each other in different ways. I also decided not to mess with any "major" plots or campaign themes, because all the players are really busy and some (or even half) of the players might miss several sessions in row (which is why I scrapped my almost-finished campaign idea of a prophecy -- it would have required that all of them attend most of the sessions). Therefore, I'm going to run a series of adventures that are only loosely connected to each other and the overall campaign arc, and do not require everyone to attend. I also wanted to always give the characters time to catch their breath and do spell research or craft items and magic items (i.e. no "time triggers" or "deadlines" in any adventures).

I wanted to use a relatively remote and "dangerous" (i.e. "monster country") area, so that orc/goblin attacks are common and adventuring is a natural profession. Yet I wanted this location to be civilized enough so that the PCs have a safe "base of operations" which has resources that every adventurer might need and they can spend their earned wealth on (i.e. mid-to-high level NPC craftsmen and spellcasters).

Eventually I chose the small Cormyrean "border town" of Thunderstone, which is located between the orc-infested mountains of the Thunder Peaks, the highly-dangeous Vast Swamp, and the mysterious depths of the Hullack Forest (which also has a lot of dangerous monsters).
There are also ancient dwarven and elven ruins nearby, which is always good from a DM's perspective.

I actually used the map of Fallcrest from the WoTC site, because it mirrored a lot of my (and the published) ideas for this particular town. Of course, I used Photoshop and pencils to modify the map a bit, but in the end I didn't have to do a lot of changes. After I was satisfied with the locations/shops and the NPCs I created, it felt like it really fit like a glove. I am actually quite happy with the end result, at least so far. :)

The party consists of six PCs:

- LG Human Paladin of Torm (LG Deity of Duty and Paladins)
- LN Dwarven Fighter
- Half-Elf Sorcerer (Arcane Bloodline)
- Elven Rogue
- Half-Orc Cleric of Tempus (CN Deity of War and Battles)
- Dwarven/Human/Half-Orc Barbarian

NOTE: We played the first session with only two of the players in attendance, so the last four PCs have not been created yet -- I just know what my players intend to create (unless they are going to suprise me and change their minds). Basically, I wanted to playtest all the "melee" classes (barbarian, fighter, paladin and a more "martially-oriented" cleric) so that I would see how they play in relation to each other in overall "effectiveness", combat abilities and balance.

We used the "Epic Fantasy" point-buy option (25 points) so that luck would play no part in the ability scores. I also gave everyone a free Racial Feat (all of them posted on the Alpha 3 thread '[THINK TANK] Racial Feats') to see if and how it would affect the way the players "plan ahead" their feat choices and also to see how much it affects the "effectiveness" and balance between the PCs. And also whether it affects the way they role-play their characters.

EDIT: I also decided to use the optional 'Racial Hit Points' to give the PCs more durability -- they really loved having 20-25 HPs at 1st level! :)

Jason, Erik, Mike, Lisa, et al.,

would it possible to have an entire "Races of Pathfinder" supplement which would include more 'fluff' about the races *and* dozens of new Racial Feats for each of them? Not to mention new magic items and spells. I know several DMs (myself included, naturally) who would more than willingly dish out the cash to get their hands on such a book.

Any chance for such a book as a supplement to PF RPG? :)

If you have got any ideas for Racial Feats, please post them here!

However, I'd like everyone to pay attention to the whole thread, so that there will be as much constructive feedback/criticism as possible, *and* less overlap in suggestions. Please do not post (under a different name) Feats that are mechanically or thematically identical to another Feat already posted. If you feel your own idea or version would work better, feel free to offer comments about how you would "tweak" or redesign the Feat to make it work better.

By sticking to these "rules" we make it easier for Jason (and other Paizo Staffers) to read this thread. And, if we work together, offering honest and constructive feedback to each other, we may be able to "polish" some of these Feats so that they might indeed end up in the Pathfinder RPG when it comes out next year. :)

Many people posted their suggestion on the Alpha 2 thread, and I'd like them to repost them here, if only possible (I may do that myself, but it would be easier if everyone who's still interested would do it themselves). I'll post mines as soon as possible, and I also have some new suggestions, too. :)

NOTE: Please stick to the entry "format" used in this thread to make it easier for everyone to read individual Feats!

This would only be a minor change, but I was thinking about the 'Hatred' ability and how it would be more interesting to actually get to pick the enemy that bonus applies to -- just like rangers get to pick their 'Favored Enemies'. You see, I think it's logical to assume that different clans defend their halls and holds against different types of monsters, so if you want your dwarf to have 'Hatred' towards aberrations, in my opinion it should be possible. Not to mention that it would make dwarven rangers even more fun to play! ;)

Any thoughts?

After taking a look at the new classes, I must say that I like them. Actually, I love them... the monk makes a *lot* more sense now (the monk level to CMB is a *great* idea!) and the ranger had me drooling... I want to play one, but since I'm the DM... *sigh* ;)

There are some minor tweaks that I'd like to see done with the bard's abilities (e.g. 'Deadly Performance' is just *too* good when compared to, say, the Ranger's 20th level ability) but I'll get to them later when we've playtested the stuff.

So, I just wished to say that with each release and changes the Pathfinder RPG is gradually shaping up to be way better than I ever dreamed of. Congratulations and thanks for all the hard work you've done! :)

...since I see watchmen/city guards and adventuring paladins and fighters being the embodiment of the concept of "alert warriors". So I'm wondering why Perception is not a class skill for the fighter and paladin?

In fact, I wouldn't mind if *every* class had it as a class skill, since it *is* probably the most often used (and therefore, important) skill in the game.

Another thing: I like the fighter's 'Bravery' ability, but would it be possible to give them 'Fearless' at higher levels?

...or will we have to wait until the PF RPG comes out next year? And do you still want us to post these Feats here on the Alpha 3 threads (or Alpha 2)?

(This was originally posted in the Racial Feats Category -thread)

I was taking a look at those 4E Racial Feats, and that got me thinking: Feats you pick at 1st level should matter at higher levels, too. Too many times that Iron Will or Dodge has felt pretty insignificant by the time my PCs have hit Level 10 or 15.

Here's the thing: what if Feats in PF could be organized into "Feat Trees" so all of them could "upgraded" via the following simple and elegant mechanics:

BASIC level: +1 to two rolls/+2 to one roll.

IMPROVED level: Once per day you may reroll any roll related to the abilities given in the basic level of the feat.

GREATER level: Your bonus from the basic level scales with your level, so that you get a bonus of +LVL/4 to any rolls related to the abilities given in the basic level of the feat. This bonus stacks with any bonuses from the basic level of the feat (to the maximum of +6 at 20th level).

For example:

* * *

*DODGE (Combat)

You have mastered a defensive stance that allows you to easily react to your opponents.

Prerequisites: DEX 13
Benefit: You receive +1 Dodge Bonus to your Armor Class until your next turn.

**IMPROVED DODGE (Combat)

Your mastery of defense allows you occasionally to evade blows in ways that border on miracles.

Prerequisites: DEX 15, Dodge
Benefit: Once per day you may call for a re-roll on any attack roll that would have hit you. You must accept the result of this second roll, even if it is higher than the first one.

***GREATER DODGE (Combat)

You have perfected your defensive stance to the degree that you easily evade almost any blows from your opponents.

Prerequisites: DEX 17, Improved Dodge
Benefit: You receive an additional bonus of +1 bonus/4 levels to your Armor Class until your next turn. This additional bonus stacks with the bonus from Dodge.

* * *

This way your Feats would truly matter at higher levels, too. If three feats per "Feat Tree" feels like too much, another possibility would be to just make *all* Feats that give bonuses to function like the "Greater Level" in the suggestion above -- i.e. the bonuses would scale up with your character level. That way when you pick Dodge, it grants you +5 to your AC at 20th level.

Any thoughts? Which way would be better -- "automatically" scaling Feats (the paragraph above) or these "Feat Trees"?

There's been a lot of discussion about critical hits and tweaking them.

Here's my suggestion (originally posted in another thread):

Natural 20: Regardless of whether you confirm the critical or not, you get your LVL*1/2 bonus to damage. If your confirmation roll succeeds, you do not multiply this bonus damage -- it is simply added to the final result. This would make natural 20 feel more significant at higher levels -- whether your actually "crit" or not.

NOTE: This could also apply to Skill Checks, too -- you would add 1/2*LVL to the end result (which would affect such skills as Craft, Perform or Profession, at least)?

Another suggestion:

Natural 20: Instead of applying any "level-based" bonus damage, each weapon could have 'Qualities' that would grant "special" effects on natural 20, such as Stunning with bludgeoning weapons? (NOTE: In Warhammer FRP every weapon has Traits/Qualities that, for example, occasionally let you stun your opponent or roll twice for damage and pick the better result). Maybe you could even improve these Qualities with Feats, such as taking 'Stunning Strike' (+4 to FORT DCs against Stunning when you're using a weapon that has this quality)? Piercing Weapons might have 'Bleeding' (which would stack with the rogue's ability), and 2-H weapons might do 1 point of CON damage. And so on.

Thoughts?

Does anyone agree with me that some of those are just odd, and frankly, I've rarely seen anyone picking them for their characters. I mean -- 'Atletic' gives you +2 on your Swim and *FLY* (?) skills (shouldn't that be Climb?) and Stealthy +2 on Escape Artist and Stealth. In my opinion they don't even add any flavour, since a character who takes Skill Focus o n Stealth or puts enough ranks in it is far more "stealthier" than a fighter or a low-level rogue who would pick this feat.

So, I'm suggesting that either the bonuses are more significant (i.e. worth burning a Feat on skill bonuses) and the Feats are tweaked a bit so the benefits match the flavour (i.e. 'Athletic' doesn't really bring flying to mind...) *OR* these Feats are cut from the game altogether.

Some of them might be redesigned as Racial/Background Feats, though.

I've thought about skills a lot lately, and I feel that *some* of them should have other skills as *prerequisites*. For example, Craft (Poisonmaking) should definitely have either Heal, Profession (Herbalist) or Craft (Alchemy) as prerequisite to picking the skill. The same with Craft (Calligraphy) -- can't pick it without Linguistics. How about Craft (Cartography) -- or is it Profession (Cartographer)? You should definitely have Linguistics and Craft (Calligraphy) as prerequisites for it. How about Craft (Trapmaking)? If you want to create mechanical traps, in my opinion you should have Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) as prerequisites -- maybe even Disable Device?

Then I came upon another idea:

Perhaps *some* skills should be made into *Feats*? You cannot create potions without Brew Potion, so why should you be able to manufacture poisons or drugs? Therefore, maybe PF should have a feat called 'Craft Alchemical Items', which would let you create poisons, alchemical items, and drugs (Prerequisite: Int 13+, Craft(Alcehmy) 5 Ranks or Profession (Herbalist) 5 Ranks or Heal 5 Ranks). And perhaps that would work for Craft (Trapmaking), too -- not snares and "simple" traps, but for more "elaborate" and mechanical traps such that are found in dungeons? 'Craft Mechanical Traps' (prerequisite: Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) 8 Ranks or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 8 Ranks and Craft (Trapmaking) 8 Ranks). Therefore, the skill Craft (Trapmaking) would let you only make simple traps.

Now, I'm not saying that all Craft skills should work this way, but at least these two would make sense to me as Feats.

Any thoughts? Feel free to criticize! :)

I like that races get bonuses on certain skills to match each race's flavour, but what if every character would also get those skills as class skills? For example, if you want to invest your ranks in Perception, your elven fighter would get the class skill bonus on it, even though Perception is not a class skill for fighters. Any thoughts?

It may just be me, but I don't like Minor/Major Magic and Dispelling Strike at all, since they are clearly 'proto-magical' class features. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut from the game. One of the biggest turn-offs in 4E for me was the "magical" martial powers, and I wouldn't want to see them in PF.

Thoughts?

I personally feel that DR worked a lot better in 3.0 than 3.5, because it was much easier to handle as a DM, and characters didn't need the infamous "Golfbag of Weapons" to handle all sorts of material/alignment/magic resistances (most often combination a combination of two or all of them) .

Still, I liked that some creatures had DR against certain weapon types, such as skeletons having Bludgeoning/5.

Jason, would it be possible to pick the "best" of the both worlds? I mean, I don't mind that you'd need (at least) a silver weapon against lycanthropes or a bludgeoning weapon against skeletons, but I wouldn't want to see monsters having 'DR Magic Good and Adamantine'.

Any thoughts?

...should, in my opinion, both be Combat Feats. Why? Because they both require training and are only usable in combat (well, you could use Power Attack when breaking a lock, for instance, but *usually* you only use it in combat). Besides, you can only use one Combat Feat in a round and I never liked how some players like to use them both at the same time -- it just doesn't make sense to me.

Just as barbarians have Rage Points, wouldn't it be mechanically consistent and make fighters more "versatile" if they had 'Adrenalin Points' that they can use to activate class abilities? For example:

• Bonus to your Initiative (+4?)
• Temporary Hit Points (2 HP/LVL?) for 1 round
• +2 to attacks for one round
• An extra attack or move-equivalent action
• If you charge you can double (or, with 2-H weapons, triple) your STR bonus to damage
• A bonus to your Fort Save (+4) for one round
• +2 to your STR, DEX or CON for one round

These are just quick ideas, but I think it would make fighter a more interesting character to play without making him too "defenderish" ;)

I was thinking that maybe rangers should get to choose their 'Favoured Terrain', or perhaps even choose between 'Favored Enemy' and 'Favored Terrain'? The benefits from this new class ability would be bonuses to skill checks (at least Stealth and Knowledge (Nature)) and *attacks* (instead of damage) whenever you're in your Favored Terrain (e.g. in a forest). The bonuses would increase just like the bonuses against your Favored Enemy/Enemies in 3E. Any thoughts?

(I posted this in Alpha 1 'Combat and Magic' thread before realizing that it belongs here -- my apologies for double-posting, but I wanted to post this suggestion where it belongs!)

I have been thinking about giving all "true" spellcasters (i.e. Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard) a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Druidic Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as tranlucent green shield whirling about your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). The fact is that you didn't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increased by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells, since not all DMs are comfortable with giving PCs “freebies” – which is exactly why I’d like to see this either as an optional or “official” rule in PF.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).
I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Therefore, as it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF?

(I posted this on a couple of threads before realizing that it probably belongs here rather than elsewhere -- my apologies!)

To make paladins more "versatile", I think their class abilities should work just like the barbarian's do (with Rage Points): why wouldn't the paladins get "Smite Points", or whatever you wish to call them. You could activate any of your Paladin Auras, Weapon Bond, Smite Evil, etc. -- why not even Turn Undead/Channel Positive Energy? That would be mechanically consistent, too, because barbarian's abilities work like this, as noted.

By the way, as I already posted on another thread, is it possible to give paladins "Shield Bond", too, so you could channel divine energy into your shield instead of your weapon? (compare to the 3E Feat 'Divine Shield'). Or perhaps there will be Divine Feats which lets you do that, and also give your more Auras to pick from?

I was wondering if it would be a positive change if move-equivalent actions and standard/partial actions would simply become 'Half Actions', and you could take two Half Actions per round? This is how it works in WFRP 2nd Edition, and I think it works dramatically better (and is far simpler to learn and remember) than the action system in 3E. Any thoughts?