Auxmaulous's page

With relation to Fly (or Teleport + others for that matter) the problem is that the game designed the non-caster classes in a fantasy vacuum.

My biggest beef with 3rd ed is the open ended DC system applying to everything, this gives us exploding DCs, disrupts power balance, etc. That is one problem and with that being said when it comes to all other caster abilities, be it fly, teleport, the ability to summon demons and so on my problem is there is very little in the form of a mechanical/feat/skill counter to any of these abilities from non-casters.

Since all these spells/abilities have had all their drawbacks watered down to non-existence, + exploding DCs the problem is magnified. Non-casters have very few abilities available to deal with the nonsense they would encounter in day-to-day life of living in a fantasy world. Less so vs. enemy spell casters or monsters which use spells frequently.

Disruptive/Spellbreaker/Teleport Tactician feats have the right idea but they are too high in level in requirement, too specialized, too narrow (only fighters) and offer very little for the feat investment they ask for. Disrupting spells of the guy standing next to you isn't going to do squat to the guy doing flyby sorties while being covered heat to toe in buffs.

I think in a world with magic fields of force, summoned demons and flying nasties you would (and should) have class abilities to smack someone hard enough to knock the spells off of them, rage through walls of force or archer/ranger down flying monsters (to ground or hinder flyby attacks) and the game just doesn't really take any of the fantasy elements into consideration for all the non-casters.

So it isn't just that Fly and Teleport have few drawbacks (they have none or vert little) there is also very little in recourse for those who have their feet rooted firmly on the ground. These spells do change the game, when you remove the controls even moreso and when you have little recourse to deal with them - well that's where we start hitting pathetic territory.

Of course this is all just my opnion and I could be wrong (I have been before).

I would like to see a Monster-Killer class stated out with 3/4 BAB and D8 HD.

Something that functions along the lines of a Fighter, Rogue and Ranger.

All good saves, gets bonus to hit vs. more monsters initially (and only monsters: aberrations, dragons, fey, giants (as sub), magical beasts, oozes, outsiders and undead) and at a faster pace than the ranger. Also would get bonuses to save, AC and to confirm hits vs. chosen enemies. This would help in the BAB dept vs. many foes.

No SLAs, just good sets of resistances and maybe a mechanic related to extra saves. Maybe a list on monster-killer talents akin to the rogue talents (and to help with survivability).

Just an idea.

KaeYoss wrote:

Fabes DM wrote:

Players will die?

Not just their characters?

Now that is harsh.

;)

Of course! You're not playing a real hardcore game unless your own life is on the line.

"It was my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone."

--Marcie

"The thief, Black Leaf, did not find the poison trap, and I declare her dead."

I'm all for +1ing on this, but my experiences lean me more towards the Prof. Cirno side of the argument. I don't think he's reaching per se, I think his experiences just mirror my own when it comes to kits. In my wife's 2nd ed game, for example, the non-kits were for NPCs- all the PCs were either kits or multi-class, and it went on like this for YEARS. It's easy to say that they(and my friend, who was DMing for me, although it did not get to that point for many, many years, and I think skills and powers mitigated it on a lot of levels) were just "doing it wrong", but I think that there were a WHOLE lot of people who were, in that sense.

I'm not saying that the kits were all balanced against each other or were even that great - but posting false information about a kit is just bad. Especially when you are tying to make a comparison with a super flawed rules system such as 3rd edition. He's bringing up an example to explain an imbalance and his example is wrong.

Because most of the character options beyond the "basic four" required some kind of punishment high stat in a stat you didn't really need for anything, every 2E group I've ever encountered inevitably gravitated towards very generous stat generation. Sure, they'd start with straight 3d6 in order for a while, but eventually it occurs to somebody in the group that no one's ever had high enough stats to play an abjurer, and they'd sure like to try it for variety instead of make a fifteenth straight wizard. Or paladin, or druid, or whatever. Eventually you're doing something ridiculous like 4d6, reroll ones, drop the lowest, twelve times and pick the six best of that. Just because otherwise you're leaving most of the possible character options on the table -- options which aren't really any stronger than the base ones -- and mechanically the first thief you made isn't a whole lot different from the hundredth.

You should talk to my DM about that one (bolded part)

This goes back to my original argument about softball DMs and abusing the Dual-class system. If the DM is going to play ball with his players (softball) then yeah you will gravitate towards high scores, all PCs being Dual class, etc. We don't do that.
If you roll crap, re-roll and then roll crap guess what? You probably going to be stuck with crap.

I made two PCs last weekend for 2nd, all my players rolled up exceptional player stats, I rolled crap. I rolled several sets of stats -all crap. My other players rolled two sets for each PC and that was it.

I had one guy with a 17 who was lucky enough to be a Paladin (using his one 17 for his CHA). My other guy was even worse. So what? I played the guy and I had a blast. Could his stats been better, yes. Does that call for 3rd edition - no.

And with regards to one thief looking like the hundredth that's applicable to 3rd edition. Every fighter and rogue is basically the same - casters only being different and varied by spell selection and choices and specialization. When you compare one Necromancer with another they are pretty much the same. Same dilemma you laid out for 2nd you just get more trap and bad choice options in 3rd edition.

Traps built in deliberately by the game developers, now that's sad.

I think the Swashbuckler emphasizes something that has been degrading from edition to edition, faith in the DM. In 2e, and presumably 1e(I haven't played it or done more than a cursory reading over the core books) the DM was trusted to correctly roleplay the downside to characters like the Swashbuckler kit for thieves, Myrmidon kit for fighters, Bladesinger from one of the Forgotten Realms books, and even the Paladin. Each of those kits is slightly better than the base class they come from, but came with roleplay downsides that, with good DMing, offset the mechanical advantage.

+1

There were no kits in 1e, but there were classes that had more power than the fighter - namely the Ranger (starts with 2d8 hp) and the Paladin (multiple powers).

And yes, if you don't rp the limitations of the latter two you just have more powerful fighters. The DM needs to step in an enforce class limitations on actions and activity. Without that you would have these classes be 100% superior. Their limitations - while based on DM adjudication vs. mechanical - need to exist to keep the classes balanced vs the fighter.

"2e doesn't have player traps" and "2e has kits" do not belong in the same belief system.

There was one kit - the swashbuckler I think? - that literally was just a rogue but better in every way. It was "you're a rogue but you also can use these weapons oh and you get to have full specialization in them.

Oh but wait, there was a downside! The downside was "your life is exciting." You know, your life as an adventurer. Was exciting.

This is just false.

There were two different swashbuckler kits - one was for the Warrior (Fighter) class and the other was for the Rogue.

The fighter version got none of the rogue abilities and the Rogue Swashbuckler had to have a higher score range than a regular thief (as idilippy pointed out) and gained the ability to disarm a foe (with his one weapon). In addition the "life is exciting" is downplaying a class drawback which amounts to the swashbuckler being involved in drama/bad luck at almost every opportunity.

In addition the rogue version gets to fight as a fighter with his one weapon of choice (rapier, etc) but no, he was not allowed specialization with that one weapon. As a matter of course he was required to spend all his weapon proficiencies until he had the stiletto, main-gauche, rapier and sabre as proficiencies. So he doesn't get to pick a weapon beyond this limited selection till 8th level.

He also was required to pick fixed non-weapon proficiencies as part of the kit: Etiquette and Tumbling (two out his three starting rogue NWPs).

Special Hindrances: Trouble seeks out the swashbuckler. This is something that the DM will have to play very carefully if the Swashbuckler is to be balanced with the other thief kits.

When there's another Swashbuckler around - thief or warrior - intent on proving that he is the finest swordsman in the world, it's the PC Swashbuckler he seeks out and challenges (often in the middle of some illicit activities). When there is a lovely lady (or handsome young man, as appropriate) in distress, she or he will naturally cross the Swashbuckler's path, and pull him into the tangle. When the thief is practicing burglary on his uncle's mansion, the old man decides to return early from his journey. Life conspires to make things difficult for the Swashbuckler, and the DM should always throw just a little more good-natured bad luck at this thief type than at any other.

You're going to compare this with balance issues brought on from CoDzilla and exploding DCs in 3rd edition?

Or to the original 3hp deliberate trap "Toughness" feat? Designer confessed trap classes in 3rd edition?

Really?
Keep reaching

I know you and I disagree about the flaws in 2E, but I think you're going to be really unpleasantly surprised unless you have completely different players.

1E really put forth the idea that some rules were only for the DM and for the player to read them was cheating. That a lot of people followed this really retarded the fullness of 1E min/maxing.

2E really kept a lot of that mentality.

I have never had a problem with DM and player rules and guidelines operating on different levels. 1st and 2nd got it right without being too obvious, 4th tried but instead created a whole distinct monster =/= player paradigm.

The One system to rule them all has failed miserably. Stating out a dragon using the same rules as PCs is bad idea. Stating up creatures and trying to figure out what their challenge rating is a horrible way to design encounters. You design around a niche, not design playing hit-or-miss and hoping the creature falls into a magical CR range.

The 4 per/day encounter concept is probably one of the worst design inventions in modern gaming.
Instead of designing a creature based on the likelyhood of it killing you or you killing it instead we got CR=20% resources, CR +3, don't go over X encounters a day, don't do this, 13.3 to level up, etc, etc.
Limiting.

I think you're going to find that if you expose 3.X+ players who have gotten used to the ideas that characters can be optimised, that the rules should be knowable by all, and that there are good and trap options in everyhthing to 2E, they're going to break it open a lot worse than they do with 3.X.

One of my 3.5/PF players is the one running the game so it isn't a case of system ignorance. We know 2nd eds flaws and they pale in comparison to the Wall of Flaws which is 3rd edition. The core d20 mechanic used to adjudicate everything in 3rd is just the beginning.

And no, there are very few trap options in 2nd ed, sorry just disagree. You don't need to sacrifice a metallurgy feat/skill/NWP for a Weapon Focus feat/specialization. That is a 3rd edition bad design trap. Sacrificing character flavor in preference to combat functionality - that's 3rd edition.

That's not to say that 3.X is a better game than 2E. It's not, it's got different strengths. But it so, so, so is not built to stand up to the kind of rules scrutiny that even the most poorly designed mechanics of 3.X can. That, and with players more actively reading the rules you'll probably find out that a good 10% of the 2E rules you were doing wrong all along, and that jacks up balance in ways you're not expecting.

Not a concern. 3rd has more loopholes than any edition of the game - and due to the Hardcoded nature these loopholes carry more weight than earlier editions. We have seen tons of stupid all come out of 3rd edition - no, I'm not worried about 2nd ed.

Still, I wish you luck. I still know people who are running 2E games, and they work exactly because none of the players have any inclination or ability at all towards system mastery.

I don't think its a system mastery thing. I think its more along the lines of system manipulation. In older editions players had less ability to break the saving throw system, infinite wealth loops and other nonsense. 1st/2nd doesn't have that kind of focus and by philosophy says to smash down that type of behavior when it disrupts the GAME. With 3rd edition they have to errata/hard code the changes so the players can follow the script and not revolt against the DM.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is going to change their mind on the subject - I do appreciate your civility in presenting your argument/rebuttals Dire Mongoose.

I will completely agree with you that most of the 1ED modules were written for convention play as I stated above.

However, I completely disagree with you regarding the depth of the story arc in Against the Giants. I just pulled the G-1-2-3 booklet (TSR# 9058) out of my bookcase and it encompasses 30 typed pages (not including the cardstock maps that fit inside of the cover.) The "background" text is roughly 4 column inches encompassing less than 1/4 of the first page.

Following is some "Notes For The Dungeon Master" and then we jump straight into 33 encounters for the first section of the module. The following two modules are essentially identical and encompassed in the same 30 pages.

I didn't say it was Shakespeare, but for a tournament module it took you through the saga of the Giants, introduced the Drow, then took you through to the Underdark/Drow city and all the way to the Demonweb Pits - it was damn good.

Was it fully fleshed out and detailed, no. Was it epic - yes, and more so than all the material put out by Wotc for the 3/3.5 D&D run.

Much of the additional detail and depth had to be provided by the DM, and that frankly was good. As far as G1-G3, D1-D3 and Q1 all laid out some ground work for game companies to strive for - and it wasn't for the room/monster layout set up encounter after encounter that hooked people. The concept, theme and yes the story background inspired concepts emulated by game companies 20 years later.

I would argue that the entire series, and many of the 1ED and 2ED, adventures were written as a series of combat encounters and subsequently encouraged simplistic character development and emphasized tactical combat.

And I would whole-heartily disagree with that argument.

The Desert of Desolation Series, Ravenloft, Tomb of the Lizard King, Assassins Knot, Against the Cult of The Reptile God, The Saltmarsh Series were all solid stories, quests, investigations and adventures. For the most part these were non-tourney mods and better than much of the material which came after them in 3rd edition.

This fact is not a bad thing, but it is still a fact. Different persons seek different things from a RPG, but to wax poetic about previous editions of the game has the risk of ignoring several decades of gaming development.

Wotc D&D was not gaming "development", it was Wotc's version of D&D. The more I run PFRPG which is based off the wotc mindset the more apparent this becomes. I've been running 3.5/PF for years and recently have gotten into a 2nd edition game - currently am considering jump dumping 3.5/PF altogether. The bad/broken rules to the poorly thought out philosophy behind d20 gaming have left me a little more than burnt out.

Having taken a completely un-scientific and statistically irrelevant survey of my own bookcase, I have no fewer than 10 splat books for 2ED/AD&D (and I'm certain that I do not own them all). In my opinion, the system made an entire cottage industry out of the Complete... series of books as well as campaign-specific offerings. There has to be an entire softcover devoted to every class, every race, and so forth.

And each had little mechanical impact on the game besides changing selections and builds to reflect fantasy archetypes. The complete series of books didn't give your PC Matrix wall-walking abilities, or change the way core classes functioned - in fact most of it was thematic fluff (swashbuckler,, etc) backed with mechanics. The 3rd edition interpretation is a Hell filled with purely mechanical abilities with half-a$$ed fluff to explain it. In other words reversed.

In all fairness many if not most of the 1st ed modules were original tournament run fare. Some even have tourney scoring charts printed with the adventure.

That being said even Against the Giants had a plot and story arc, if not a simplistic site based "mission" type adventure. Most of these early modules focused on site base exploration vs plot vehicle, considering their time I still find them superior to most material out there. Hell, even Paizo has made some efforts in replicating aspects of the classics.

I can't find the E6 rules from the OPs link but if my understanding/memory is correct characters still sort of progress after reaching 6th level - via feats.

So if there is a progress or tracking after 6th you could make some tiered abilities (limited in power of course) tied to feat purchases -so everything still stays capped at 6th, but you can actually be able to buy some higher level (again max 8th) class abilities by using feats or multiple feat slots (for greater power). Using feats as currency for buying a range of 7th - 8th level powers.

Not sure if that made any sense.

While the game has gained more features and in some respects become more difficult - avoid trap choice, creating superior builds from available options, etc, the game has - by philosophy, gotten much easier/softer.

This extends to:

Consequence of actions and bad decisions were reduced or eliminated

Risk associated with actions - in many cases all risk has been eliminated from D&D/PF. This goes to 3rd-4th and PFRPG.

Powerful (yet restricting) spells became more powerful, any thought process related to making decision on risk for using a spell, item, power were reduced to zero.

Vulnerability and character power increased several times over (more spells, increased everything, saving throw manipulation)

Character creation diluted and made very PC - net gain on attribute bonuses, no restrictions on class selection, progression or qualification.

DM/Game philosophy: Fixed CR range of encounters, limited encounters per day, WBL, ultra-fast level progression, player controlled pacing, player controlled campaign options (I want the Ninja PrC in your Pseudo-Medieval euro game), default magic-marts, etc

Shift from story and adventure to PC progress from 1-20, build, Prc choices vs. what you have done as a hero.
When we first played Ravenloft (the module) it was a fun & exciting adventure, our characters were part of the story but not the whole story. It wasn't just a speedbump to the next level but an actual adventure we experienced as a group.

Most of things on an individual level are not that big of a deal, but if you add it all up the game has gotten easier and less challenging.

And no, please drop the argument about making it moar "fun", fun is a subjective term and one size does not fit all. Most of the decisions and changes were not about increasing "fun" as much as they were about making things more accessible and marketable. User friendly =/= better, at least not when depth and detail is sacrificed.

Initially when my group transitioned from 2nd to 3.5 and then PFRPG I thought the game improved, but after running 3.5/PFRPG the last 7 years I realized that d20 D&D at its core is not a challenging game – at least not as gaming was in older editions/other games. D20 gaming is challenging only in a purely mechanical choice paradigm, beyond that – nothings there.

Sorry for the rant

Edit: throw your bombs

What would be great would be to add "side treks" or expand the AP a bit more...

Even if we didn't get back to the side trek format (which I though was great and very Dungeon-esqe) I would like to see an AP expansion/suggestion idea area.

Something similar to what is found at the end of both I1 (Dwellers of the Forbidden City) and B4 (The Lost City) - doesn't need to be full adventure ideas unless it is a huge site, but maybe some encounter ideas +CR which expand and build upon the presented scenario.

It would be nice.

Edit: Also some nice filler for DMs who want to run the APs on a slow xp track and don't want to deviate with too many outside modules to keep the PCs on track with the APs. A way to pad xp which is relevant to the overall AP theme and isn't just 100% random encounters.

On the other hand, solo monsters simply don't work in D&D. There are too many ways of negating the monster's primary defenses and the action economy just doesn't work right if the PCs grossly outnumber the monster. Either the monster has to be right on the edge of incapacitating PCs every round (which can lead to TPKs) or they simply get beat down too fast.

Solo Monster Template (experimental)

Single Boss Monster Template(experimental)

With both templates to-hits and damage for the monster remain the same. In effect you have a longer and tougher fight.
DR, higher saves and SR all help mitigate action economy.

And no, it's not too much.

Herbert West: Jeffrey Combs - a guy who has done more than a few HPL story-to-screen adaptions.

I have a question about an open content creature that has a relation to close content material - namely the Eye of the Deep.
Pazio has already used the stats for this beastie in one of their 3.5 APs, it's distinctly related to the Beholder in both appearance and game lore/history and yet it is open content.

Is this something that will just stay in the AP it showed up in as a ToH monster/fluke or does it have a future in another Bestiary/book for the PF game?

For my game I'm leaning to casting being a full round action unless they are just using touch spells or V only as a component. My players come form a 1st and 2nd ed background so the concentration thing always made the game seem way too easy for casters.

That being said I created a feat called Mobile Caster: 1 per day + Dex modifier a spell caster with this feat can cast a full round spell as a standard action. For every 4 casting levels the spell caster can use this feat another time per day.

This was for spells that were cast under the current rules as standard actions. Those that are listed as full round actions in PFRPG core remain so and are not reduced to standard actions via this feat.

As a suggestion I would convert the feat to give a bonus to concentration checks triggered by moving and casting. Maybe a +5 + caster level to make DC caster checks for movement.

The numbers could be changed since I am not 100% sure what the sweet spot is on the math for the purposed system in this thread.

The reason why I created this feat was to accommodate mix class casters who need to cast and move around in a fight - more so than a straight wizard, or it could even be picked up by a combat cleric. So the Fighter/Wizard or Rogue/Wizard would benefit the most due to the fact that they will have at least an above average Dex.

Just an idea

LOL

Some good ideas

I like those numbers

Any suggestions on how to scale/improve Ice Storm?

I was thinking +1d6 cold and 1d6 rocks per 2 levels over 7th (cap at 15th level caster).

9th +1d6/+1d6 (4d6 bludgeoning/3d6 cold = 7d6)
11th +2d6/+2d6 (5d6 bludgeoning/4d6 cold = 9d6)
13th +3d6/+3d6 (6d6 bludgeoning/5d6 cold = 11d6)
15th +4d6/+4d6 (7d6 bludgeoning/5d6 cold = 12d6)

Barring any other number additions or modifications

This or something else, I don't know what to do with this lame spell.

I like the cave fisher (CR2 vs Carrion Crawler CR 4) - low level, has a little shtick and is bug like.

I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.

And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

I think the pitch is akin to the SS ponzi-like scheme where everyone is required to pay via a tax. The only problem is that this regulating the purchase of an actual product via commerce clause.

This whole thing was unconstitutional from the get go.

yellowdingo wrote:

Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.

I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.

Uh...I don't think he's being sarcastic.

My issue with the disparity is in narrative power. Namely, casters have all of it.

-1

The very false thought that characters need to be divided between magical and non-magical is one that's not found in mythology. Like, at all. You read Greek myths, or Japanese myths, or Indian myths, or Middle Ages European myths.

-1, not every style of play is mythic super-heroic; actually I would guess that most are not. In other words most people do not want to play Hercules in a party of adventures. Not saying that this isn't a viable request, just saying that this was never the intention of 99% of all the printed D&D product out there (exception Basic-Immortals D&D) nor did it ever fit in their game design and supporting products.

When you look at many, many forms of fiction and mythology, you see great and powerful wars lead by mighty and charismatic leaders and death defying warriors who can sunder mountains or cleave apart armies single handedly.

-1, again - that has never ever been the design goal of D&D.

I go back and forth on upping evo damage, lowering overall hp and so on.

I would say that evo in general should have addition effects to hinder enemies. Since evo casting is the closest you are going to get in support of hp damage track it should stand that as evo damage is dealt out additional effects should be added to help the overall combat for the team.

ex- concussive spell attacks have a minor stun ability which helps the hp track non-casters out in the fight as their opponents get negs, lose initiative, etc.

Again, not as good as a straight de-buff, but damage + some 1 -2 round effects can make the evo caster help out on a strong support side with the rest of the melee types in his group.

At this point, however, there's no "fix" that doesn't involve a quite thorough rewrite of the system.

Simple version:

Change the spells + add more effect to the combat feats.

That isn't a re-write of the system any more than the minor changes to the way spells/feats worked from 3.5 to PF.

Slightly more detailed version:
Change the spells - chance of failure on some, added risk when casting to straight nerf on others (ex - restore that you only get 1-6 targets on original Color Spray). Fix DCs caps tied to spell level (I have no idea why this isn't already in place).

Feats - should have abilities that extend beyond damage - expand condions and have feats that get those conditions out. Some basic feats should also scale (Weapon focus =/= any metamagic feat).

Impede, Interrupt, Cut off....

Yup. I'm thinking about changing the name, though, so as not to confuse the "check" maneuver with a "skill check" or "ability check." Soliciting suggestions... "Halt," maybe?

Halt was EXACTLY the name I was going to use in my write-up.

Just checking the back of the APG the other day and seeing the list of new maneuvers I was thinking - how come there is no Halt type option?

Good work on the write-up.

Edit: on a sidetrack idea of feats which should be abilities/choices I like to think of Halt along the lines of Weapon Finesse -just something that should be a choice (with restrictions of course) vs. a feat tax.
Why are you going to tax a high dex guy with a feat to use his weapon the way he would be trained to use it. He doesn't get to stack two ability mods so there is no chance of things getting broken, it just seems petty to me.

Nice!

Auxmaulous wrote:

Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.

Sorry for the sidetrack

But it's a good side-track. Thanks for the idea. Consider it stolen.

I'm going to add it in as standard for my game and let Combat Reflexes work the same as it does. Then going to change Stand Still to Improved Stand still (increase to CMD check) as a feat.

Sometimes martial characters would like to defend a target vs. a horde - that is also a very iconic fantasy image, say a Pally protecting a weaker innocent or wounded comrade. If you are on the run or falling back to a defensive position you have to be able to play a defensive role instead of being out there chopping the enemy to pieces.

sidetrack-
This is an observation somewhat related to AoO and a different game put out by Wotc.

In the Axis & Allies mini game they have a function similar to AoOs, it's called Defensive fire. So lets say you have a an enemy tank try to rush by your tank (an actual tank - a Panzer IV not a guy in armor) during the movement phase. The tank that is being rushed past gets an attack - any successful attack means the moving tank is disrupted an ends its move immediately.

I find it ironic that they got a function of AoOs in a tank game right but forgot to give something similar to defenders as a default ability in D&D.

Stand Still as a trick shouldn't be a two feat tax on melee combatants, it should be a free combat maneuver similar to Bull Rush or Overrun and be built in as part of the AoO mechanics.

Sorry for the sidetrack

Aux, do you think the base DC should be lowered, or should the base save be raised? Maybe 5 instead of 10, or make the Good progression the new Poor and introduce a Good that starts at 3 and scales up higher than 12?

This is of course supposing we reduce HD bloat or tie saving throw progression to CR, as well as disallowing multiclassing to build saves up to ridiculous numbers.

Just throwing out some ideas here based on your suggestions:

Easiest
Reducing save DCs from 5 to 10 would hit casters directly, but would be the easiest to implement. Just subtract 5 from every spell/SLA save DC. Maybe keep a few intact for the one-trick pony encounters (basilisk).
It would bring things closer in line with a 50/50 rate of success vs. same level target (level 1 wizard vs. level 1 fighter examples). While it doesn't directly change the power of any given spell a reduced rate of success does reduce the over-reliance on SoDs/SoS as being an easy "win" tactic.

Harder
Increasing saves across the board (while reducing some stacking insanities/exploits) would make non-casters more viable in all situations, not just against casters. So special attacks from monsters or situation saves would be easier, and maybe for non-casters they should be. Would require some re-stating of saves but can go to lengths to eliminating x-mass tree effect and facilitating different game play styles (low magic, etc).

Hardest
Reducing HD bloat (and some creature stat bloat) would do a number of good things for the game: non-casters and evokers actually get to make a difference with hp damage; you end up with lower save DCs on the other end due to lower creature stats (instead of increasing saves for PCs).

Since BAB is tied to HD and creature type you would still need to find a way for a creature to generate relevant (to CR) attack numbers. Connecting CR to BAB, saves and skill points makes more sense than anything else. As it stands putting together creatures and trying to hit a mark is not an exact science. If it’s tied to a range within CR you don't need stacked classes and HD for a monster to generate a range.
Since PC level equals CR they are going to get their own range based on their class and stay consistent with the system.

Blueluck wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

. . .a broken (I said it) DC system.

Could you please state what you believe is broken about the DC system?

I imagine it has to do with the fact that the base DC is 10 and the base saving throw can be anywhere from 0 to 40.

What TOZ said.

Plus - Magic Missile gets a fixed damage cap but the only thing hindering other low level spells (like Charm Person) are a slightly lower DC, i.e. Charm Person useful at mid to higher level play while MM is not. They do this with many spells.

James Jacobs wrote:

More than that are courtesy of the Tome of Horrors, but at least one of them had a name change, and at least one of them (the cacodaemon) is an entirely new creature.

So does that mean that the thanadaemon is the artist formerly known as the charonadaemon (and marrenoloth in Planescape)?

Thana = Thanatos - so I would guess its a sub for Charonadaemon.

Guess of course

Of these eleven, four of them (caco-, hydro-, dergho-, and pisco-) are courtesy of the Tome of Horrors. The piscodaemon and derghodaemon got roles in the Kingmaker AP. The cacodaemon, though, looks like it's gone in a completely different direction from the one in the Tome of Horrors (that one was humanoid and burly, the Bestiary II one looks more like a floating head straight out of Doom). Four of them (leuko-, mela-, purro-, thana-) are the deacons of the Horsemen, first mentioned in the Campaign Setting. Two of these have had stats already, the leuko- and the mela-. I very much hope the meladaemon got a serious work-over, as its powers had nothing to do with its famine flavor. The astradaemon was first seen in The Great Beyond, although it's an import from Todd Stewart's home game--his Planescape story-hour on ENWorld featured them in a prominent role, back when they were yugoloths.

I have the ToH so yeah, I know they are reprints - it's just good to see them in their own collection, and to get a specific "Daemon" catagory introduced to PFRPG. The Cacodaemon sphere is probably based off the Doom series cacodemon. A version of the Worm also appears in the Kingmaker series.

Getting updated stats in one collection is never a bad thing - I just wish they would have gone up to LoF since that was their last 3.5 AP series.

I would agree with the spotlight/adjust game philosophy for older editions. I think its the GMs job to help provide opportunities for different PC classes to shine.

I don't think philosophy helps when you are dealing with an imbalanced point buy system and a broken (I said it) DC system. When people – not everyone – but some gamers and groups take issue with concrete mechanical problems the philosophy argument doesn't really help solve the problem.

Thinking back on the whole issue of class balance/xp tracks from earlier editions has gotten me thinking.

As much as I would like to use some older edition xp tricks/tracks I don't think it solves the problem. I have a slow track xp system in my home game, but I only use it for multiclass characters (gestalt classes) due to the sheer flexibility those combos provide, caster or non-caster.

In older editions it was ok to have a thief a few levels higher than everyone else -since the thief as a class was not very good.

With a shift in making each class viable at equal levels I have to go back to the main issue of what is the problem? What is the disparity which exists or was enhanced in the 3rd edition d20 system? I have to always return to: Spells and the DC system.

The casting classes on their own hold no special power or ability which puts them ahead of other classes. While the rogue and fighter saves suck compared to other classes I wouldn't say that makes them unplayable. The issue is the power of spells and how they have changed:

Unrestricted saves/use (exception of Sleep, et al)
No drawbacks

So I would go back and recant what I said about different xp tracks for different classes. I would use them for special cases (gestalt multi-class or something weird), but they are not needed and will not fix anything - neither will padded/slowed spell access.
In the end they have access to the same resource: the spells. It may be a delaying tactic but it does not change the end result.

So DC manipulation - don't know if you need capped stats, or capped DCs (by spell level), and the actual spell power/results/risks are the issue - IMO. The classes are fine on their own (saves, hp, skills, etc).

Sorry for the threadjack.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Good stuff - would still like to see an update of the Shoggoth but maybe it'll end up popping its head/arms/eyes/tendrils/mouths out in a future AP.

Umm... the shoggoth is in the first Bestiary already. Page 249. CR 19. Handle with care.

And the daemons run from CR 2 to CR 20.

LOL - Sorry, I looked it up in the wiki and it only referenced J3. I knew I seen it somewhere besides the Crucible of Chaos!

Nice range on the Daemon critters.

Wow, just noticed - looks like Daemons are finally going to make a full and complete comeback to the #1 rpg.

Eleven, count'em - 11 daemons!

Daemons

I hope they run through a good CR range.

Added bonus:

Mythos/Mythos related creatures

Good stuff - would still like to see an update of the Shoggoth but maybe it'll end up popping its head/arms/eyes/tendrils/mouths out in a future AP.

Paul Ryan wrote:

If it's an update of the 1st Ed MM2 monster, I think the correct spelling is Aurumvorax.

You are correct spelling-wise.

And the Aurumvorax originally appeared in the 1st Ed classic module S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

So did the vegepygmy, froghemoth and wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, among other lethal flora and fauna.

I wonder if we'll every see the Thorny, the vegypygmy’s hunting dog? Its open content, yet was omitted in the Bestiary write up for the pygmy.

Who knows, maybe they'll update the stats if Pazio ever decides to put out a module with a downed spaceship.......

Cast Rope Trick in the corner of the room, put out the torch before you climb up. Your rope is now all but invisible.

Generally you would need at least enough space away from the wall to leave enough room to climb - since it hangs straight down and is difficult to move. Also if you put it flush to the corner it would be a very hard to climb if there were other obstructions around.

It's one thing to expect a rogue to climb a difficultly placed rope (flush near wall) but expecting the wizard and armored clerics to do the same - plus possibly get down in a hurry? Too risky.
Also the rope is centered on the 5x3 window to look down...the closer to the corner of the room the more you crop the viewing area you look out of (to see guards or patrols).

Anyway, it isn't a good 15/min workday or Nova tactic spell. Too many problems with infiltrating a base, killing creatures an having the expectation of not getting caught or noticed after 8 hours.
Too much evidence of PC activity to cover up - dead bodies, destruction, looted gear, tracks. Also too many gaping holes to cover when the enemy is eventually going to notice dead clanmates after 8 house (required rest time).
If they have animals that can track, or darkvision (or both) a hanging rope near the corner of the room wouldn't be too hard to find = dead party.

Your level 1 game is another persons "pulling punches"

And that's another reason why I just start at level 3. You have to pull punches to avoid slaughtering the party, no matter how well they play or what choices they make, and I hate pulling punches.

LOL

I really really wish that Evocation wasn't such a lackluster choice. When I GM I often incorporate encounters that help evokers out but honestly even then you have to really spam mooks in order to get the average HPs down low enough for them to weenie roast effectively.

I really need to set down and run some scenarios to see about what level of buffing would be required to restore evokers to their previously high level of threat.

Add effects?

Tie them to the elements plus the oddballs - so fixed extra effects for Fire, Sonic, Acid, Cold, Earth, Force and Concussion.

Effects (second save) scale with spell level. Pf already introduced some extra spell effects with different focuses or material consumption out of the Armory, just build them in to the spells (or something similar).

(area effect or single target above 0 level spell)
So -
Fire - Ignite (as alchemist fire)
Cold - Entangled (not spell but condition) 1/rnd level as they are slowed
Sonic - Deafened 1/rnd level (as condition, save each round to shake off effect)
Concussed/Concussion - treat as staggered (condition) during and 1 round after being hit

etc..

Yeah, evocation is only viable in a mixed group and only as an opener or closer (if you got range). We run a classic party so the casters with evo know they need to hit first before melee makes things harder.

Oh yeah, Ice Storm sucks - with my added conditions (cold and concussed) + ground condition change in PFRPG it could make for a good lock down spell.

Denizen of Leng

Leng Spider

Gug

Cthulhu be praised! Seriously keep those Mythos monster coming please!!!!!

Also the Worm that Walks would qualify, if it's the same guy.

a. An organic story is still building a story together. The only real difference is how much the DM uses hooks to lead the players. Cutting the story short because of a random encounter sucks more in organic stories, IMO, because the players tend to have goals of their own designs instead of ones based off of the GM's plot.

Actually it's more organic. Best laid plans can always be derailed by random and stupid things irl, should be the same in the game. Random encounters do not always need to result in a tpk, it really does come down to how the party wants to handle things based on the threat. Not every encounter should be at "appropriate level". Sometimes PC should learn to run away from an encounter instead of having the expectation that they can kill everything they meet (I know, very tough in 3rd edition).

Also random encounters can make the story less linear and can provide twists which could increase character immersion. It all comes down to the DM skill and how he runs those encounters.

If 4 dragons swoop down on your party in a random encounter on an open plane and TPK you, that is random luck and the GM being a dick or not knowing what he is doing.

That's the whole thing though. If you are running a pre-made mod with random encounters then the party should be within reasonable range of fighting any threat on the table. If using true random wilderness encounters the DM should use some discretion on throwing high level encounters at the party. Every time the PCs have an encounter it doesn't have to result in a fight - that is incredibly 1-dimensional DMing.

This was an issue with old 1st-2nd ed AD&D and early editions of Gamma World. You could often (as a DM) roll some wild encounters but they didn't always need to end in fights (dragon flying overhead, warbot encounter is one which was destroyed and rusted out years prior, etc). If it's an issue of DM power or "he's out to get me" mentality then random encounters are not even the issue. If the DM is playing adversary he doesn't need random encounters to kill off PCs.

Also random encounters are good for the game - the notion of 4 encounters at 20% resource use is such incredibly bad game design it has lead us to a ton of other problems -Novas and the 15 minute workday. As long as PCs have the expectation that bad things can happen, then they will be more cautious on how the use their resources. That helps keeps casters in check, less metagamey and it destroys PC encounter expectations/entitlements.

DMs should not intentionally put their PCs into a position where the expected outcome is a TPK. They should design the encounters to be difficult. They should design the encounters to need intelligent thinking. They should not design encounters to kill the players outright. Its too easy to do that, and if it is the GM's goal he cannot lose.

Disagree.

The DM should design encounters -sometimes that means follow the story and not the PC levels.
If the encounter is a CR + 8 avg party level and the DM is expecting the PC to fight it (no choice) then yeah, that is unfair. If the same encounter has a way for it to be avoided - even if figuring a way out is the challenge or it’s one that uses up much of the party resources to do it then I would say that was a successful encounter on both sides of the screen.

Right. I can only speak from experience with the 50+ people I have played with, in multiple different communities, and having never met someone who likes players to randomly die and TPK to things entirely outside their control.

Depends on the type of play, the game and the players.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Cult of Vorg wrote:

How about just making hitpoint damage mean something, setting up penalties for getting to half-hp, or perhaps every quarter hp down? -1 to all attacks, ac (dodge), saves, caster level per quarter of max hp lost?

+1, including the Death Spiral critique.

Fix from Kirth's game: at less than half hp, character is fatigued. At less than quarter, character is exhausted. Penalties of -1 and -3 respectively to all rolls and stats, including spell DCs.

+1 on KGs idea.

Been bouncing around a similar variant from Ars with another DM.

Some other ideas on caster-martial disparity.

Additional ideas/alternate perspective
Not a nerf (like my original post).

This goes to casters doing tasks better than non-casters (negating some roles). I've been kicking around some changes to reduce the "selfish" buff aspect of 3rd edition and build in more on options on promoting group diversity and role specialization.

Here are a few suggestions/minor spell changes for people to shoot down - I'll also list some boons and ideas behind the suggestions.

Disguise Self –

Alter Self -

Heroism -

Heroism, greater -

Invisibility -

Find Traps -

Spider Climb –

Jump –

Knock –

Some other spells could be incorporated into craft (trapbuilding): Snare and Fire Trap plus some glyphs/runes could be combined with a skilled PC attempt at making a trap.

The spells I mentioned are just a suggestion are change in direction and design philosophy.
In an effort to simplify the results of spells in 3rd they also eliminated the desire to cast the spell on better suited targets. Think strength from 1st/2nd edition - fighters got the biggest bonus (+1 to +8 Str) while wizards got the least (+1 to +4).

So not just these spells, but a greater emphasis on changing spells to accommodate considerations in the game - such as other classes. Be it boosting them and their abilities vs. negating their need entirely.

vuron
+1 (as usual)

To me the problem isn't necessarily scaling up non-casters to the power level and flexibility of casters - the problem is that in the transition from 2nd to 3rd edition many balance points and important factors were dropped or changed. This is a MAJOR ROLLBACK, so I'll expect plenty of hate.

The solution would be two-fold.
Scale casters back (and how some of the DC/d20 system works)
Design non-casters as if they live in a world with magical foes.
I'll post the problem an solution I have implement or considered implementing.

Scaling back on casters:

Non-caster and caster changes (general rules):

Anyway there are just a few ideas. The critical ones would be fixing the DC manipulation problems.

Wow! Thanks for responding to our question in 2 minutes. You guys really are the best. My boss Julian says hi by the way. (He met you at Paizo Con where you signed a T-rex mini for me). So we are planning on doing mini playtest events for all your future pathfinder books. Our Pathfinder groups love whenever we do an extra store\-sponsored Pathfinder event in addition to our weekly Society games. If you ever get a chance we should do an event and have some of you Paizo guys come down to Burbank, CA to join in on the event.

if not then we'll see you at Paizo Con again this year.

And you guys have a very nice store in Burbank. One of the few places in LA that run society games. Would recommend anyone in the LA area drop in for a visit, the place is huge.

Yeah, the part about the following people to the Destination could be a problem. When it first happens the PC will be all over it. In the early stages they can follow them, even reach their destination. After hanging around a bunch of people milling around plus some bad vibes the PC will feel that it is a dead end (at that time at least). In a way it could come off as a weird and powerful experience but the PC will grow tired of milling around with the blissful ones and get back to action. Let them get a couple of leads and move on.

Of course later on in the story if they come back things would be very different. I would suppose the sky, the landscape and what has happened to the people would be very different by the time they consider going back to the "center".

Depending on the PC levels and how long you want this to play out (long or short campaign) you could build it up slowly and yes as you suggested, have some weird spikes and bizarre things occur.

Some who are blocked from the destination could get violent; some who resist the call could get violent (think signals from above/mass mayhem encounters). Maybe trying to warn people incoherently.
Mid-way or nearing the end there will be major disasters. As most of the people leave those left behind will have: less food (production), less defense (encroaching and progressively deformed creatures) and all the problems that come with those things. Those who don't go will be almost as screwed as those who do. Civilization will start to come apart.

On a smaller scale you could have some very cool and disturbing scenarios as you hit the build up.
Some poor bastard who gets accelerated Elder Evil tumors developing prior to exodus/joining the main body - way ahead of schedule.
Imagine tracking down a lone serial killer type, who by all descriptions is changing with each eyewitness encounter. He is trying to resist the call and the changes and he knows that this thing resides in all life and is manifest in his body. The only way to stop it is to kill. Kill as much as he can before he kills himself.
They could fight this guy or even just chase him only to have him turn to sludge right before their very eyes as they capture/disable him.

Run some weird unrelated type encounters/mini-mods early on.

My best experience running horror scenarios is when the players start to place all the strange, inconsistent or unrelated stuff together. When the players slowly start to put the picture together -just by playing, not at the DMs urging - there is usually a strong sense fear and dread which hits them.

The simple stuff could be murders, thefts or even suicides as some sensitive accept or reject the changes which are happening. Some desperate types could even hire the party to help them out - Priest is only one left in his church, a father left and has not returned -was last seen by some loggers staring up at the night sky, etc.

With Horror gaming it is good to give them something, small victories and clues but they should not get the big picture till at least the halfway point or near the end. A series of seemingly unrelated encounters and investigations could tie it all up in a few days to a few years (depending on how long you want this to go) but let them make the connections.

Well, good luck on fleshing this thing out and always remember to be patient.

What level are you going to run this at? Is it going to be a whole campaign from level 1 to 20?

It doesn't seem like your signs all point in the right direction.

If this creature is trying to reform and absorb I wouldn't think that you would have harmony at the first step and then chaos in the latter two. I see this as a large sort of cancer, something planted as a seed in all life and moving everything back to the collective. Maybe it starts off in the host slowly, even providing some benfits. It wants its seeds to live and not suffer the ravages of famine or war.

Maybe -

1st - Sense of harmony, age old conflict begin to end. Old red-hot rivalries end (to a point of concern to a few perceptive people). Food production is up, blights and plagues are down so it seems like prosperous times are ahead.

2nd - More prosperity, there are talks that some nations may even work together or even merge. Decentralization of power in individual nations, kings step down. People are not turning towards nation or faith for guidance, but a sense of something that is guiding people. Great migrations to specialized or important areas - maybe even one area. Slowly at first but as the compulsions get stronger whole towns and cities are abandoned as people begin their pilgrimage.

3rd - The first major tribulations, areas where people are migrating to have little or no information coming out. PCs would have to start making strong efforts to resist the call and be controlled. Placed emptied by man and life are now slowly opening way to other things, things from the elder evils universe. These creatures don't just desire to kill sentient life, they need sentient life to leave and evacuate the world so they can exist. During this phase I could see some good explorations of towns or cities as they try to pick up clues on this new faith/cult/phenomenon.

4th - As you described, maybe have them join the host mass and body.

The irony here is that a creature like this does not want chaos or death. I wants life, all of it – every little bit of its essence drawn forth.

Anyway, just some ideas. I should know better to post in these kinds of threads but...ah well.