Auxmaulous's page

For those still interested, I'll be posting the results and my thoughts tomorrow. Currently at work so no access to my notes.

Let us also know what changes you implemented for the playtest, I'm curious to see the results.

I disagree that you can go with the "minor changes" approach and keeping the game functional. I know that cutting out or reducing magic items will change the feel of the game but unless some math issues are addressed you will have a disaster on your hands.

I do agree with Mok though, you will really need to take a hard look at all the numbers because that is where (imo) you are going to see the biggest problems.

You are going to have to look a the basic class builds (and three different save categories) and how they stack up on their damage output and saves vs. encounter at: -1 CR, at CR, then up to +3 CR.

You are going to need to make some hard changes since the numbers (as stated out in the monster books) are already pretty high for their CRs. If you start to eliminate stat boosters (which aid in saves) and magic items that aid in saves (cloaks) then yeah, you will need to revise some save DC numbers down - almost all the numbers.

I go by a baseline formula of +3CR (considered an "even" challenge for a group of 4-5) with the best save making it around 50% of the time. Each DM may be looking for a different rate of success/failure.

An example to illustrate my point (and the problem with just dumping items)

A 10th level Fighter gets a base Fort save of +7 and a Reflex and Will of +3. After stat mods it will probably look like +9, +5 and +3 give or take a +1/-1.
That is with no stat boost items, and no saving throw boosters.

So he and his party get in a fight with a Bebilith (CR 10). The Bebilith has a rotting bite attack that requires a DC 23 fortitude save.

So our Fighter - with his "good save" in Fort, has a pretty low chance of making his save vs. that attack (Fort +9 vs DC 23 are very bad odds).
This is considered an "average" encounter (20% of resources, etc) for the day and is the Fighters best save category.

So again, I think if you are going to dump or restrict stat boosters (which I am all for) you need to deal with the reality of 3.5/PFRPGs math. It assumes magic boosters to the numbers and still the save DCs are way too high. If you can find a way to bring the numbers down - maybe find a way to tie them to the creatures CR instead of a stat (+mod) then you have a good chance at pulling this off.

Just my observations on this, I have been working on toning down the game since 3.5 came out.

Spells (Part II)

Orisons - The number of orisons listed for level should be treated as "uses" instead of number of variable selections. So if you have "4" orisons you can only cast 4 orisons a day. The difference is you can cast any spell on your class orisons list without preparation.

What this does for low-magic games.
A) Reduces the amount of magic use
B) Stops world breaking spamable uses (unlimited water)
C) Restores the function of orisons: minor universal magic. As a "cast any minor magic on the list" ability it allows low-level casters greater flexibility and utility - a limited number of times a day. A series of minor and variable abilities as needed with minimal abuse.

Also the ability to create water in rivers one day and then the next - you can't: Stupid. Instead you can create water as need (up to x4 a day) or use orisons for other minor options.

I know, all spells function this way: one day you have it one day you don't, but the difference here is the spamming part of orisons which imo was very bad design. Spamming water or purifying food all day is worse than being able to prep and cast a fireball one day vs. not having it the next, the former is more flagrant and disruptive to a low magic game world’s immersion.

Auxmaulous, could you explain what you mean about HP. I'm not sure I follow you.

Well the first part was discussing the different ways to attack creatures, the classic is HP damage. The second is using SOD/SOS to kill/shut down. The latter can be mitigated by capped DCs (my suggestion), reducing the effect of SODs (as revised by PFRPG).

Hps are a different problem, and need to be addressed in any game where you are subtracting /modifying vs. adding abilities or power.

Unless you dump Con bonus for hp, hit points (and generation) are a bit of a trap to deal with. They have exploded (from say 2nd ed) exponentially with the Con bonus. So you can -

A) Dump or reduce the Con bonus (reduce the HD multiplier, one time modifier bonus or none at all - if HD is representation of toughness)
B) Keep it the way it is and still allow item abilities (flaming, etc) to do their extra damage.

If you go with the former everything’s hps go down, the higher and bigger the greater the difference. If you like those numbers you can run with them. It would put evocation spells back on track with hp; you can dump damage enhancers for weapons, and so on.

If you go with the latter you can make minimal changes. So the latter option is the least intrusive.

Here are some of my ideas:

• All magic items cost 2X. This also applies to paying to have spells cast, as well as crafting.(This just delays the inevitable, at a slower rate of aquistion but they still can buy items)
  
• Crafting requires special materials.(yes, and should be much harder with greater risks - diminishing returns is the only to make something like this work)
  
• All spells of level 7 and up take at least a full round to cast.(all spells should take a full round with the exception of those that have a touch requirement or if they are required to be fast to be functional)
  
• Characters may get some minimal increases to saves, ability scores, hit bonuses, AC, etc. These are not intended to replace magic items, just make it so item are not "required".(Does't address core xmass tree problem)
  
• Full casters get no bonus spells-per-day from high ability scores.(yes) Another option would limit the ability modifier full casters can add from ability score to 1/2 caster levels.(I would go further and fix the save DC paradigm. This is a core dysfunction of the D20 system)
  
• No spell lasts longer then 24 hours.
  

I placed bolded comments to address specific bullet points.

I would say that a low magic (and by that also a low-powered) game is attainable if a few major system functions are changed. When I reference low magic or low magic items I am going back to 1st/early 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons. To clarify to me that means a low leveled fighter or wizard (4th -5th) with a magic weapon (+1) and some minor magic and he could keep that gear till 7th level.
There is still magic required but NOTHING close to xmass tree of 3rd edition/d20 fame.

Some characters will vary, and some numbers can be modified for no magic, but this is the baseline assumption I have going with what I am going to purpose.

DC system for saves is capped
The baseline save for a creature at your +3 CR should be 50% success on your primary (good) save.

EX - a 6th level Fighter (base +5 fort) should be able to make his fort save against a CR 9 50% of the time.
So the highest a fort save a CR 9 creature (Titan centipede) should generate should be around DC 18-20 (fighter has +5, +2 more for con, + 1 more misc = Fort +8). The current stats for the Titan Centipede has its DC Save for its poison at DC 24 (Base 10 + 5 (half of 10HD) +9 for 29 Con= DC24). With my suggestion the DC is now 20 (Base 10 + 5 (half of 10HD and +5 max modifier for Con = DC20)

This can be achieved by retaining the base save value for the creatures ability (say poison sting) and capping the max bonus it can add to said ability (poison sting Save DC is constitution based) at +5.

What this does (ultimately) is place more weight on the actual HD of the creature vs a specific stat. The max stat bonus to any DC generated ability: +5.
The way to generate higher numbers is to increase the baseline, HD, etc and not a stat. This means that as you increase the HD you increase the CR, vs the current glitch/broken system of stat spikes taking an ability WAYYYYYY out of CR range.
I would go with a lower cap for spells, but for the sake of argument +5 is a good starting point (could do +3, then require casters to get a feat to increase one school by +1 DC, then a second to increase it to another +1 DC - still max +5)

So spells get capped as such - 1st level DC 16 max, 2nd level DC 17 max, 3rd level DC 18 max

That means the caster needs to use his highest spells vs. the toughest opponent. That also means from a DMing perspective it will be easier to use weaker creatures (at or lower than CR) since the Save DCs are capped on how much they are set at based on spell level.

By capping DCs you have reduced (partially) the need for stat boosters. You have also eliminated DC/caster-only style manipulation.

There is also a few other side benefits you have -
A) Reduced the need for save or stat increased items
B) Saves are closer in-line with class level an focus
C) Fights are less swingy/binary. You can use weaker creatures and they still have a chance of saving(even though they may be -1CR to group).
D) Those classes with weaker saves actually still have a chance at saving.

To explain the last one let's go back to the Titan Centipede example.

So our 6th level fighter has a Fort save around +8 (give or take for some item, feat or trait). When he encounters mister Titan Centipede (CR 9) with a poison save of DC 20 (low magic rules) he has a decent chance to save. It isn’t %50-%50 but it's much better than needing to hit a DC 24. Plus with some spells in play or an extra feat he may be closer to a Fort +10 (if he built his guy out that way). So not too bad.

Now lets throw in his 6th level wizard buddy into the mix. A wizards base fort save is +2, he may get a misc +1 here or there, so let’s say he is at a Fort save of +4. In the same scenario as above the wizard (with minimal magical bonuses) actually has a chance to save against a +3 CR creature, granted it isn’t very high, but it is much better than the current rules provide.

So what does this all do?
It allows characters with secondary abilities (and minor magic) to actually have a chance in a fight not designed around their saving throw. The inverse (fighter making will saves vs. spells) works the same way. The guy with the good save for the situation has the best chance but characters with secondary saves are not written off for the encounter……

And all with little or no magic items.
If all Save DCs are capped at +3 instead of +5 you can eliminate pretty much all save related items.

Hit Points
Another big problem with D20 gaming is the exploding effect high stats have on other abilities (besides generating saves an DCs) an that is hit points. One reason why making low powered gaming difficult is that hit points at their core are all still high.

Two methods for dealing with creatures/threats are in hp (grind damage) or save or die (binary). the latter is addressed with reduced DC values and some spell revisions (as they made in PFRPG).
When dealing with hp track a low-magic game runs into some problems. I would still allow damage abilities and weapon enhancements to still function the way they do (since damage needs to be high to deal with high hp). Some creatures may need to respec'd with regard to CR - Fire Giant is a good example. Listed as CR 10 creature when by all rights (even by Paizo's Cr based standards) its stats, hp and damage output are closer to a CR 11 creature.

So enemy damage and player damage remains the same - I would also consider upping the damage of evocation spells - maybe +1d6 per/2 levels.

Even with restrictions on DCs I would still limit the availability of stat boost items (increased cost, only 1 stat boost item at a time).

Also since all DCs have gone down (saves from spider poison, spells, etc) I would also increase the cost of saving throw items and cap their bonus to save at around +3 (instead of +5). A +1 cloak would be good for the first 3rd of the characters career, maybe getting something better at 11th (+2) and then the last being available at the end of their career (+3 at around 17th level).

Spells
Spells that work in a utility capacity must either be dropped or reduced in functionality. Changing the way some spells work is CRITICAL to a low magic game. By making casting take on a risk vs. reward scheme you being to reduce the reliance on spells a primary solution to every problem.

Spell Acquisition: limit this per level, spell getting fixed eliminates the need to control spell selection but even then having more choices and slots = more power and spell use.
Spells that are use to gain information should have reduced info/greater chance of incorrect info

Spells used for travel should have greater risk - teleport: change of very high damage/death -also more restrictions on ease of getting to target destination
Fly: Requires concentration (unless SLA)

Spells that duplicate other class abilities should either be dropped or reduced in functionality (spider climb, detect traps, etc). Creating extra risk while retaining the current level of power is also an option (ex -add a risk element to spider climb while retaining most of its current write-up).

These are just some ideas I have been kicking around, personally I am of the mind that 3rd-ed/d20 gaming is a POS system beyond repair. Most people just add more garbage (up power fighters, etc) to compensate vs. addressing the core system problems - they suck.

DM Wellard wrote:

The 'Duke' was the manliest of manly men..nuff said

For a different perspective, see Repo Man.

Now that sir ..is a movie!

Pendagast wrote:

actually i cant remember the name of the module (someone will come up with it) but very early in the 80s there was a module you went through where you got lazer guns.

And I remember a time travel one, where we wer after the mace of St cuthbert but it was in some museum in modern day new york, and we time traveled there and there we modern guns and such and they killed everything and were way better than any DnD weapon blah blah blah.

So its not like this hasnt been done before.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks?

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks for the Lasers and the second was from Dragon Mag #100 - "The City Beyond the Gate" - aka London circa 1985

Both had item examination charts to figure out items, something which was a feature of artifact examination in the first three editions of Gamma World.

Auxmaulous wrote:

What the hell do new discoveries have to do with introducing (dropping right in the middle of) whole and meshed psionic rules? Nothing.

The psionics ARE the discovery. Someone finds a new system the group wants to try, I come up with a story reason for it and we try it. I don't just ban it simply because it's new. You might, and that's fine for your table, but that's not how I roll.

I just don't include it if it's new as a reflex reaction from coming back from the game store.

If it is:

A)Something we as a group we have been looking for

B)Is mechanically sound

C)Can be integrated without destroying the consistency and feel

then it can go in (slowly, unless there is a dramatic reason for complete immediate integration ex -missing feature we have been playing with or better rule system than what is already in place)

Auxmaulous wrote:

And I never said my games didn't evolve or change, but they have to a better reason to change than the fact that someone bought the Complete Psionic and decided to drop it dead center on the campaign, sorry that doesn't wash for me, even though it does for you.

What better reason could there be? Your personal vision as Tolkien II? The latter doesn't wash for me. (Also notice I edited your quote to make it more accurate and less gratuitously offensive. Just because you play differently doesn't give you the right to dictate to me what "washes" in my game and what doesn't.)

Store purchases are not a reason to take risk on a campaign imo, unless the change is thoroughly examined (and implications). The DMs you like to attack may not be running Tolkien II, they may just like the work they put in their game and are very cautious of what gets included.

I just don't let new game product take to much power at my game table, and yeah -that is just me.

I guess it comes down to consistency vs including what "might" be fun new ruleset. I say "might" because in the past I did include new rules from products/articles based solely on what I/we thought would be fun. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it ruined the campaign since tha damage to credibility was vary hard to undo.

For me consistency holds more weight.
I don't think either of us needs to keep up the attack (and yes, you are attacking) play styles and meta-game DM choices on what we include or not include in our games.

TOZ, it was a joke. I even complemented you guys on your work you put into those Rules.

The decanter vs orisons is a no contest. Older editions had them as almost impossible items to create, thus no magic land irrigation. That sort of nonsense is a 3rd edition construct. In older editions it was not a viable option, in 3rd+ it is a standard of living. That is how more power changes themes and the feel of games.

When you make create water and easy access orison you have created more internal game problems than the minor power affords. You have eliminated need and want and destroyed some great story lines while inversely creating a wholly unrealistic game world (no wells, no need for water storage, less wars, less want, etc).

You have also eliminated many cool and identifiable qualities that helped with game world immersion. The more distant and super-world like (logical extension of the current levels of magic use), the harder it is to get into it - my opinion and I am obviously in the minority on this point of view.

Sorry if I offended either of you.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Again, I know that I'm in a minority here. That's fine. Most people like to play in a setting in which Kharzoug used the same spells 100,000 years ago as the PCs do today. To me, that just grates.

The Status Quo Is God.

For whatever reason, people want their dirt poor farmers struggling to survive, and castles and sieges and armies being the main tools of war.

Despite the fact that magic can bring about irrigation and efficient shipping, and spells and flying monsters can destroy/bypass walls while single heros can slaughter armies.

No, that just illustrates a poorly designed system or DMs with no imagination to accommodate the spells which are focused on adventuring

Flying monsters/spells exists - but there would be no counters for that built into a castle right? Again, shortsighted rules/DMing.

The irrigation systems just reinforces the stupidity of my earlier "unlimited water" post. No forethought or consideration. Just backs up my superhero point up thread.

Magic for shipping - you have too much magic in your system guy, this isn't Wiz-Ex.

I guess all this means is that the game in many respects was designed in a vacuum/combat focus and it would be DMs who have no imagination who leave it there.

If you have castles with no magical defenses then yes, that walks down the path of stupid an inconsistent. Hell, why even have walls or locks, correct?

But that's why we have houserules! You guys are familiar with those, right?

Sorry -- but I see these as a false equivalence. To me, it's a much more "real" game world in which discoveries keep getting made -- some minor, and some that seem to stand the previous understanding of the "rules" on their head. Is the real world not "internally consistent" because of the discovery of nuclear energy and development of the atomic bomb? Sure, a static world with rules that are never changed nor added to is easier to keep internally consistent, story-wise, but I don't feel that it's impossible for a changing world to be equally consistent -- it just takes a tad more imagination, and a lot more work.

The Godwizard in the one campaign world is a gimmick to explain, in terms of internal consistency, why the rules HAVEN'T changed more than they have. In any world I run without one, groundbreaking discoveries (often in the form of introducing new or different rules) can change the whole setting, given time -- and the PCs are usually at the forefront of the changes.

A static world without any explanation of the stasis, to me, actually kind of lacks internal logic.

No, you are making the false equivalencies here. What the hell do new discoveries have to do with introducing (dropping right in the middle of) whole and meshed psionic rules? Nothing

Also new discoveries – the big ones, usually happen once in a generation and under optimal conditions (not necessarily good circumstances, war, etc). Seems like a weak reason to plop down a new set of rules/mechanics to test drive during the middle of a campaign.

And I never said my games didn't evolve or change, but they have to a better reason to change than the fact that someone bought the Complete Psionic and decided to drop it dead center on the campaign, sorry that doesn't wash. Doesn’t matter if you made up the rules or bought them –such changes just for the sake of change/boredom just seems like the DM doesn’t care.

If there is a story reason (players discover a way to unlock the mind, series of modules introducing lost Divine magic, etc) then yes, that works. You would drop in a whole rules system (and all the creatures, the whole works) just because what, change, boredom, playtest?
To me, that just seems inconsistent and silly, sorry.

If the players make the effort or the world is set for change and discovery then yes, things will change over the course of the game. Sometimes in the world (PA gaming, someone pops a city state with a small nuke) the change is for the worst.

If you introduce flying ships & machine guns because some players or the DM are bored then good luck. Those things aren't going to help much if your game is already going south and if anything it just mucks up any existing problems with dissatisfaction and boredom. It doesn’t address the problem.

Sure -- but then the campaign world itself has to change based on character discoveries. I love campaigns like that as well! In one, we introduced the Abjurant Champion (aka "Abjurant Cheesewhore") PrC by player request, saw that more and more people wanted to be "gish" characters after that, and wove it into the setting as a new method of training that is growing in popularity, and the PCs kept hoping the bad guys wouldn't learn it too soon as well. I'll add a whole new system like psionics mid-campaign without blinking an eye, in a game like that.

I go for more internal consistency and try to stick with what I started out, I don't run games from levels 1-20, so my players do not suffer boredom issues and (mercifully) have the option run other systems when we do want a change of pace/theme. Systems better than d20.

Usually a one-off if the players are jonesing to play a different genre (guns, horror, sci-fi).

I personally think that changing rules, as in whole rule sections just for the "ain't it cool/something different" effect is the opposite of having a world you actually care about - as in its internal consistency.
If your players like to experiment with new stuff as it's released then cool. I do think it is hypocritical to call other peoples games "fragile" because they do not want their campaigns themes broken by new mechanics/junk when you have a Fiat Godwizard in your own game set as control for the world - even if you leave an opt out feature once the PCs get higher level.

I don't have anything like that in any of my games - no overgod or any such DM "rocks from the sky".
If I say there are going to be no guns in this particular D&D campaign, then there are no guns in that game - even if they are introduced in a later splat book and supported by rule or a class. And unless something extremely rare occurs (discovery/need of gun powder) to justify an in-game change then that is going to be the run for the life of that campaign.

That doesn't make me a cowardly, afraid-of-player-control, power mad "dick DM" for not including new player requested material, sorry I reject that label.

In any case my players actually rarely ask for new stuff to come into our current D&D game, there are a ton of options and they have enough action to keep them busy that they don't get bored or desire to do living play tests. Most of the request are about a spell/feat, and I have to decide how badly written it is and the underlying mechanical implications it will have on the game if it's let in. If it doesn't screw things up and it still gives the player a new option, then great. If there are issues I let the player know, we come to an understanding and we move on.

I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that while most people will agree that the DM has the right to tinker with the rules or disallow content, maybe 1 DM in 10 actually has the level of systems/rules expertise to "fix" one thing without breaking greater than one things. Maybe. 10% is probably too generous.

To use your example, magic item creation. How often does someone post here about wanting to run a campaign that does away with magic item creation and/or magic item purchase, and how often has that person thought even one step ahead about what the consequences of that change are and how to correct for that fallout as well? I'd say about 0% of the time.

I agree 100% - and I think the fact that it is so difficult to modify the system isn't a strong selling point.

I think many people who do complain about xmass tree, magic mart, etc do not have a full grasp of the consequences of even changing out a few features. That actually just reflects that the system is badly designed and cannot support changes without falling apart. That concept just gets reinforced after every session.

If the DM's world is so fragile that it can't accommodate the type of campaign the players all want, then I'd suggest that world is too fragile for use. Put it on a shelf somewhere and bring out something that can be used to play in!

Could not disagree with you more Kirth.

GMing is not a democracy or work by committee imo. If I make the game world, I run the game world then the contributions and changes the players make are in game, not out of it. I am not talking about rules or mechanics per se, these are always open for discussion and I will always listen to reasonable suggestions.

If I say I am going to run a Post Apocalyptic rpg, something normally high tech-PA by rules and setting but I decide at its inception of taking out the high-tech components and making a different setting, something more Road Warrior-ish. I will tell all the players going in so they know there won't be high tech stuff. No high tech medical, instead you need to do X to heal, etc, I think that is a 100% legitimate way to design and run a campaign.

The campaign and content is not really open for discussion unless the campaign was designed as an open one with expected sharing of GMing duties being passed around. If I am going to run it, then I am going to design it (with my players in mind). That isn't being a "dick dm" (a concept bandied around here by the entitlement crowd), that is actaully being a traditional and skilled DM.
If different groups want to design by a campaign by committee, great - but having a single DM do it is not doing it "wrong".

A campaign can be fragile based upon certain precepts laid out at its inception - it shouldn't be subject to destruction via new (or old) bad rule content (feats, spells, prcs, etc) just to stay current, "core" or in-line with the 2011 product line up.

I am not going to destroy my Desert Nomads survival based campaign because new edition has now allowed unlimited use of Create Water, sorry. If that is running a fragile campaign then yeah, I'm guilty - but I am not going to let some poorly thought out rules change break the theme a feel of my game so I can get the satisfaction of running a "pure" game, that's nonsense.

I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:

It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.

Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what?

I don't think you're getting the point Kirth.

Example:
Say you run a game where most of the players are land bound or have very limited ability for overland travel/movement. That is actually an aspect of the campaign you are running - more realistic, gritty, whatever. New "core" book comes out with a weaker 3rd level version of teleport and when combined with a new feat that improves all teleport like spells or abilities it gives lower level groups tremendous range and flexibility.

If you let this in your land bound narrative - the struggle to move across the country, regional politics, etc are chucked out the window.

A) So you can be a "dick" dm an block what you see as a mechanical power up/game option

or

B) Take what the devs feed you, give more powers to the players and rewrite your campaign and feel of your game; roll with the changes and the rules override the theme, feel and challenges, i.e. the rules and player freedom are more important.

And I guess this goes back to a 2nd vs. 3rd ed changes of "how" much power you want players to have over all aspects of the game. In older editions it was very difficult to make magic items, in 3rd + super easy. Same thing with buying items, picking abilities/feats, spells, PRcs, etc.
This makes for two different games and play experiences.

So what does a DM do? Does he accept the new power paradigm and roll with it - everyone can create items, items needed to fill gaps and just cost cash to make, etc, or does he say, "no, I don't want players to have that much control of their environment - I want some the challenges to come from resource limitation (in addition to threats)".

So the rules can give or take away power from players, sometimes it isn't the classic 2-year style tantrum where a player wants an obviously broken and untested ability from a new splat. It could be something far more commonly accepted as a normal option for players in the game - like magic item creation that affords a great deal of power.

I think the game (3rd, PFRPG, offered alts/homebrews) do little to accommodate different styles of desired play. It's a default superhero game and anything you do to change that doesn't really work. I was hoping for more options from Paizo in this regard with Pathfinder - alt styles of play and optional rules to match but that never happened and it never will.

Which means that what's coming AFTER Jade Regent won't be that experimental at all. It WILL be bad-ass though.

War against the Slavers?

A gritty knock-down & drag-out fight with the most ruthless bastards in Golarion.
A slow advancement track AP which takes the PCs from levels 1-12, starting in a sleepy Taldoran township which serves as a front for vicious slave trade, to a Slaver guild operating out of the chaos and turmoil of Galt and beyond to the horror of the lower planes.

From the hidden slave pits of Oppara's ancient undercity to fighting in shadows and terror of the final blades of Galt. A conspiracy of wicked men of a far reaching Order bent on world domination - one kidnapped noble at a time. Their will is War and Anarchy and their marching orders come straight from the wastes of Abaddon, but in the end it's all guided by a very human hands.

A different style AP where actions in one module have repercussions and variable outcomes/plot paths in each subsequent installment, and guess what - they will have a game plan for dealing with would-be heroes. Stay one step ahead of the Slavers or end up a speed bump in their plans for total control.

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

Sorry for repeatedly pushing the slavelords thing on you Mr. Jacobs.
After the Stone Giants treatment in RoRL (tribute to the G series) I know you guys can pull off a re-envisioned bad-ass war vs. some very bad people in a new slaver series.

Hey....I tried.

EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?

I don't mind the inclusion of tactics, I think it's a great guide if the encounter set up is weird (odd environment) or you are dealing with a high powered foe with many, many options. The tactics are helpful for newer DMs and can be tweaked/optimized for more experienced DMs or DMs dealing with up powered players (build, optimized, etc)

What I would like -

Of course now I'm imagining what would have happened if Jim Carrey played the evil wizard instead of Jeremy Irons....

While channeling Chip Douglas from the Cable guy.

I run some heavy HPL cosmology in my game. I have all the classic Demon Lords -Demogorgon, Juiblex, Orcus, et al, but I also have the Great Old Ones also incorporated into the demonology and myths in my game.

I run the GOO as proto-demons, sort of like the Qlippoths in B2. In some cases they live side by side with the demon lords as separate beings, in others they are the same as the demon lords.

Some of the demon lords serve as heralds of the Other Gods or as avatars of the GOO. So in my game Demogorgon - who is associated sea monsters, devil rays, abominations and birth defects - is tied to Cthulhu. In effect they are one and the same, just different faces in different locales. One is more refined face while the other is more primordial.

So
Demogorgon/Dagon - aspects/avatars of Cthulhu
Juiblex - hearld and avatar of Ubbo-Sathla (CAS not HPL)
Orcus - Nyarlathotep/The Black Man: Orcus being a more medieval quasi
goat headed devil associated with witch cults
Graz'zt - again Nyarlathotep
Pazuzu - hearald and aspect of Yog-Sothoth
Yeenoghu- aspect of Y'golonac (savagery, cannibalism, sadism)

Even with demons being aspects of the same powers they still fight each other, at least their servants do – many times not knowing the reason why.

I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.

The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.

Dismissive FTL

Obviously you missed the point the poster was trying to make with relation to DM power/control over creativity and adjudication in older editions vs. Over-codified 3.0/3.5

There is a difference in how the games are run

There is a difference in the philosophy towards player empowerment as directed by Wotc via selling new rules to players (splats)

There is a difference in how much decision making power the DM has over older editions vs. newer versions (Encounters per day, CR, WBL, etc)

Stop with this "there were no good old days" garbage already.
The game/group dynamic has changed, the philosophy and sales model to deliver product to players vs. DM has changed.

DM adjudication has been replaced in every opportunity possible with a fixed rule in an attempt to hard-code (FAIL) the game & minimize:
Bad DMs
Different games at each table
Solve problems and answer questions

Yet these hard-coded rules just create a rigid and inflexible system which does not address/solve the last three issues. Instead of fixing this issue via design philosophy and training new DMs they went the road of "replace it with a rule to make it dummy proof". That created a series of bad and inflexible rules to lock in DMs and players alike.

The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of the money was - they targeted the 4 out of the 5 players in the group vs. the older model of focusing mostly on the DM for revenue.

Stop saying things haven't changed, they have.

The majority of your audience wants guns and more asian themed stuff.

Did I miss another survey?????????

I hate that, it happened when they did the secret player surveys before 4e came out and I missed those also.

So sad

She is referring to of the specific strains of mutated chicken found in the Fargo, ND region - the dreaded Gallus Gallus 5/13.

Leave it to wotc to screw up something as beautiful as cyclopean chickens.

Edit: Ninja'd by Mr. Taylor - and that goes to show that there is no accounting for taste when it comes to mutated abominations.

Holloway's one-eyed chick scavenging through the wrecked secbot on the cover is priceless.

True, but when you get the full game, there's shouldn't be buyer's remorse of "Why did I blow $20 on this dumb box set? It's useless now."

There needs to be a unique little bestiary about the same size and format as the Bonus Bestiary, a similar sort of class guide of classes that are fun to play (and last more than four levels) and stuff that will still make the box set useful and interesting even after the universe is expanded.

Dancey had some stuff to say elsewhere about how the purpose of the box sets is to make gift sets to give to 12-14 year olds as an intro to the system, but speaking as one of those former 12-14 year olds, you never want to make them feel ripped off with what's meant to be a thoughtful gift from a well-meaning adult. If they stay with hobby, the original box set has to have more than nostalgia value.

Which is another way of saying that the into game should also be an additive element to the full game, having some unique little frills and quirks you won't be able to get elsewhere but that people would still enjoy. A unique gremlin in the bestiary. A set of intriguing traits listed in the starter adventure. Stuff of that nature.

I don't think anything should be "different" from the core game besides the simplified/less/reduced presentation and maybe a few creatures. In my opinion any differences, even minor unique traits could cause some animosity as people transition and find things "missing" in the new game. All that would do is create problems in transition from intro game to core. if new things were introduced in the set - say traits - and then later one were incorporated into core then yeah, new feats/traits would be a cool hook.

The reduced version could also be an attractive selling point since in effect you have a stripped down and basic version of Pathfinder. This could be more attractive to longtime players looking for something easier and faster to run. Many of the clunky or overcomplicated rules are stripped out and you have a tighter game.

All that being said a unique module and large map would be enough for me to purchase the set, and anyone going on to core would probably look fondly on that unique "Keep on the Borderlands" basic Pathfinder experience of their first adventure.

Feats can still be left as choices (vs. assigned) just narrow the choices down to a few - Weapon Focus, Dodge, Toughness and Shield Focus (Fighter example).

The 1st level fighter gets to choose between some attack plus defense, defense + defense, defense + tough, etc - all according to how the player may visualize the character in mind’s eye at creation.

This also:

A) Preserves the feat selection process of building a character (which is part of core)

B) Gives the player as sense of choice and may help if he sees his fighter as a "Smasher/Badass" or the "Big Guy" in heavy armor vs. built-in mechanics.

If the feats are imbedded then people without system mastery won't see them, in effect it won't be a choice and unless they understand the dynamics of various BABs all they'll think is that their to hit is better with this one weapon and not really know why since the feat will already be built in.

I see this project as a system learning tool, there has to be modular components to building a character - just not as many as in the current core game that will overwhelm a new to RPG player.

So with all these recent announcements, does this mean that my pathological addiction to purchasing miniatures just turned out to be an investment, rather than a burden?

IDK, I'm still holding on to one unopened Harbinger and two Dragoneye boosters.

Sometimes with collectables like these the price actually goes down after the game side is unsupported.
Usually in the case of a defunct collectable games - since the minis also have the dual role of serving as....er, minis who knows? Maybe the price will go up?

I lost interest in the minis line as more and more creatures started adhering to the newer 4e monster releases. It got increasingly difficult with each expansion trying to make 4e monsters work for my game (Frost titan mini vs. any kind of Frost Giant) and to justify the purchase of a random lot of bizzaro creatures. I started to go back to metal "classically" based minis and found that I was saving money in the long run.

Would have been nice if Gamma World was supported by minis line, even for just a few expansions. Could have had some nice Gallus Gallus 5/13 or Hoop minis to use for a pre-WotC Gamma game.

Ah well.

Now once the rights to make computer games reverts back to WotC/Hasbro from the current rights holder (Activision?) I could see more being invested in making an online D&D tabletop but that's probably years away.

I think Atari is currently holding the rights.

Not sure if everyone here is informed on some product changes and directions so I thought I would post them here.

Looks like bad news and some bad direction for Wotc all around....

Fortune Cards are a new D&D gameplay enhancement that showcase the chaotic and unpredictable nature of adventuring in a fantastic world of danger and magic. Every time players begin an encounter, they draw cards from their decks of Fortune Cards, activating the game benefit at the appropriate time. Each card provides a game effect that enhances attacks, defenses, or provides some other sort of benefit to a player character. For example, a card might provide some temporary damage resistance, a bonus on your next attack roll if you charge, or give you a reroll when a certain condition is triggered.

Fortune Cards are available in 8-card booster packs with differing levels of rarity (common, uncommon, and rare), and serve as another avenue for excitement at the game table. Players can crack open boosters of cards just prior to participating in a game session, or come to their game with pre-built decks. With each booster, a player’s tactical options for their character during the game alter and expand in interesting new ways. Integrated into all Wizards Play Network programs and other D&D organized play games in 2011, Fortune Cards create an instant, inexpensive purchase for players on the day of a D&D event at your store. For players playing at home, Fortune Card decks can be customized to suit a player’s character in an ongoing campaign as well. Players can also collect and trade cards with their friends as they build their Fortune Card decks.

It's important to point out that Fortune Cards are not a requirement for D&D play; they are an enhancement that simulates blind luck, the winds of fate, or divine influence. They have a thematic place in your D&D games. And they are an enhancement to the gameplay experience – they can be added or removed from a game when desired. Some players may show up to a game without any Fortune Cards, and that’s OK – they can still play D&D alongside those players that have them in action. For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate, but our broadly-appealing programs like D&D Encounters will feature their use without such a requirement. Once you start using them, you’ll see that they actually help to focus player actions and provide interesting tactical opportunities that you may not have considered previously.

Link

Make sure to collect all your rares before your next D&D game!

More bad ideas.

We have made the decision to depart from prepainted plastic miniatures sets. Lords of Madness stands as the final release under that model. We will continue to release special collector’s sets (such as the Beholder Collector’s Set we released last fall), as well as make use of plastic figures in other product offerings. Check out the Wrath of Ashardalon board game next month for the latest example of this. Moving forward, we will continue to explore more options for players to represent characters and monsters on the tabletop, including Monster Vault and other D&D products that feature monster and character tokens.

Listed midway down under "D&D Product Release Updates"

Now I can completely ignore Wotc and any of their product offerings.

Power hasn't been about HP damage since 2nd edition. Damage isn't how you solve fights.

That is a failure of the system and you can thank the creators of 3rd edition for that one.

If anything was Caster Edition it was 3/3.5 - garbage splats with game destroying spells and abilities, SoDs supported by broken DC system - yeah, great game design.

Place the blame on the proper parties - WotC. PFRPG at least attempts to convert some SoD content into the hp track, casters are still too powerful but it's much better than the train wreck which was 3.5
Still needs to hit casters really hard.

link

One former high school friend Tweeted about knowing the accused gunman: "He was a pot head and into rock, like Hendrix, The Doors, Anti-Flag," she wrote. "I haven't seen him in person since 2007 in a sign language class. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. He had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in 2006 and dropped out of school. Mainly a loner, very philosophical."

Not sure how legit this is, but beyond political influence (which may have been left leaning, again not sure) he sounds like a classic paranoid/delusions of grandeur nutbag.

I don't think it would make that big of a difference in practice, honestly. It's just not that big of a cone. Catching 2-3 enemies in it is pretty good aim/maneuvering. Granted, maybe you have that odd case where you find 4 people clumped up just right in range and then roll a 1 on d6, but I think that'd be much in the minority.

Still too powerful, considering the primary effect - and all the secondary and lingering effects vs. level of potential foes. You can hit multiple 4HD foes that can be blinded and stunned (stunned for 2 rounds minimum = death) it's far more effective than Sleep.

Remember, there are no more fractional HDs like there was in 1st/2nd so Sleep, everything now has a full HD yet the kept the 4HD cap. So now you can affect less, and there is a save.

Color Spray - too powerful for its level, the d6 check from 2nd ed is exactly that, a check against the spells power + it introduces a variable which makes it less reliable. When it comes to caster that is always a good thing.

If you are rolling it back, gimme the 2nd ed Chromatic Orb !!! xD

Chromatic Orb (2nd ed)- have to roll to hit (not ranged touch, just bonus to hit based off range), have to fail save for effect.

That being said the 2nd ed Chromatic Orb was not the best design consideration. I broke it up into Lesser, Standard (Chromatic Orb) and greater.

Doesn't seem like much brainpower was put into the 3rd edition Orb
It didn't miss (huge factor), still did damage if saved, and petrified (= Killed) a target one level earlier than its 2nd ed counterpart. So no lesson learned between editions.

Bit of a sidetrack but talking about low-level wizard power I think Color Spray should be nerfed back to its pre-3rd ed version. In that before rolling anything you had to roll a d6 to check the number of "potential" targets you could affect (vs. current version of affecting everything in the cone). The spell being what it is and compared to other spells at its level is too powerful and open ended.

Roll it BACK!

carry on...

Very good.

There was an issue with Black Dragons and the Mushfens not mixing (staying with canon). Black Dragons were slaves of the Runelords and as such fled the Mushfens once the Runelords empire began to fall apart (and have a hatred for the land as such ever since then).

I did think of a few fixes for this - namely that Aulicus was spawned from an egg hatchery used by the Runelords to breed these creatures as thralls and slaves. When Sakatha first arose in power in the fens he found a place of Runelord magic which contained an egg (maybe in stasis) containing Aulicus. As he gained power the dragon grew and studied under him - being bred and compelled by magic to be loyal to the first creature they see, Aulicus was and is Sakatha's secret weapon and best friend.

So Aulicus may not have been a major part of the Lizard Kings first campaign, but maybe is instrumental in his new "ascension". Also I wouldn't necessarily kill off the dragon in the first encounter. Maybe create conditions for the fight to end (with dragon getting away) thus reducing the CR of the encounter and creating some foreshadowing and prep for final fight later on.

or something like that........

Also regarding the crazy man, I would go with the Dracula version (1931). Why would Sakatha discontinue using Stephen? Why not go the full Renfield route? Just an idea.
He could be a lead to the "Master" while being a somewhat ineffectual and deranged servant trying to get back into the Masters good graces, acting more insane as night approaches, etc. Again, minor idea.

I would recommend (for a beginning CoC GM and running the game at your local game store) that you stick with the various small modules which are published with the core hardback book. They are long enough to go over a few sessions and they are easy enough to master and even expand if you feel comfortable enough with the rules and mythos.

Depending on the edition you will have a different set of adventures available to the GM in the core book. Some of the best (and basic) CoC scenarios are printed in the core rules over the various editions and IMO would be the best place to start.

If you can, photo copy the module out of the book (so the book is available for reference for the rest of game play) and you are good to go. Some good rulebook included scenarios in 5th& 6th ed core are: The Haunting "aka" Corbitt House, Edge of Darkness, The Madman.

It would depend of which edition you were going to run. Not so much for the rules, but the modules rotated in an out of the rulebooks over the years. I've been playing and collecting CoC rpg material since '86, it's a shame that so much of this games creative material has been lost or is unavailable to most modern gamers.

Back to the game: Having the 1920's investigators companion (1 & 2, 1 being more important) as a sourcebook for you and the players would be great (though not required). Many people have limited knowledge of 20-30's lifestyle but the core books do a pretty good job of laying out the basics. Getting some of the core non-crunch background info to the players would be great.
Unfortunately the various core book layouts are set up as both GM and player source material combined in one. Not really good since it has all the monster info, gods, tomes, spells and modules included with some good day-to-day info on living in the era of the Great Gatsby.

CoC is a good game if you have a GM and players who are prepared to play a different game. In many cases the nemesis in a CoC game is unkillable by conventional means, or the nasty is just a symptom of a greater problem. While killing off some hideous creatures may help the effort and risk (if unnecessary) can actually detract from the main goal - something which is rarely resolved with gunplay or explosives.

Players need to go into the darkness, do the research, and risk their health and sanity to find tools to repel the Great Old Ones back. The game is very much a balancing act on what to do and how far to go (into that darkness). Good players won't get greedy and will only be looking for the tools needed to fight monsters, those with less control will end up dead, insane, crossed over to the enemy or any combination thereof.

Auxmaulous wrote:

News

"Next up are Jungle Ruins, Northland Saga Book 1, Hex Crawl Classics Book 1 and the Ultimate Book of Adventure Design. The UBAD (as we call it) is a 225 page+ resource book for gaming on the fly or pre-planning adventures. If you are old enough to remember the 1e DMG, you will remember with fondness the tables in the back that detailed how to write and populate a dungeon. This book takes it further, in that it provides literally thousands of items, locations and features for the DM to use during play. Want a fountain in a room? No problem...roll 1d100, and the fountain is described (is it magical, non-magical, secret passage underneath, what does it look like etc.). This brings to adventure design what the Mother of All Treasure Tables and Mother of All Encounter tables did for players in years past."

Ah, so it's something similar to Toolbox and Ultimate Toolbox that appeared through AEG, right?

I have the AEG Toolbox, and yeah sounds like it - maybe with more depth on the table combos (sub-tables, etc).

I'm looking forward to it.

I know people may not get much mileage out of a book of tables and I can understand that. For me it just helps if I don't have something with a great deal of detail worked out ahead of time and sometimes just rolling one or two facets of an otherwise nondescript item/area/feature spurs my imagination and gets some additional ideas going.

Mother of all Treasure Tables is an invaluable tool for detailing otherwise mundane treasures - and getting the imagination flowing. Works for any edition of D&D since all the items listed are mundane (yet handled with tremendous thought).

News

"Next up are Jungle Ruins, Northland Saga Book 1, Hex Crawl Classics Book 1 and the Ultimate Book of Adventure Design. The UBAD (as we call it) is a 225 page+ resource book for gaming on the fly or pre-planning adventures. If you are old enough to remember the 1e DMG, you will remember with fondness the tables in the back that detailed how to write and populate a dungeon. This book takes it further, in that it provides literally thousands of items, locations and features for the DM to use during play. Want a fountain in a room? No problem...roll 1d100, and the fountain is described (is it magical, non-magical, secret passage underneath, what does it look like etc.). This brings to adventure design what the Mother of All Treasure Tables and Mother of All Encounter tables did for players in years past."

This thread prompted me to finally order the Slumbering Tsar premium subscription. Reading the pdfs and this thing looks insane and brutal. Mr. Vaughan is a madman!

I would love to get a complete ToH set for PFRPG. I already own all the three of the physical books and pdf of the revised ToH and would still consider an updated series of books a good buy.

[sidetrack]Just saw the posting for the Ultimate Book of Adventure Design (UBAD) and I have to say if it's anything like the "Mother" series of books I will be very pleased as these books of tables have done nothing but help improve my game and fuel my imagination.[/sidetrack]

I actually like the Mushfens as it can easily tie into the history of Thassilon, maybe the Lizard King could have arose from a time after the empire declined - trying to carve out what would be a successor state from the dead Runelord empire.

The Mushfens came about after Earthfall, of course the original migration of lizard men to the fens could have been for the purpose of empire building and looting of Thassilon magic and ruins in the area at the behest of their Tyrant - that could also be a good tie in for their lair, access to high magic, etc.

Excellent module btw, hard as hell.

I'll respond (against my better judgment).

I do see some issues and I have a question.

Question
How low magic?

Issues - The last part first:
If you are going to be changing the pricing scheme for items but retain the general amount of wealth per encounter/module/etc you really are not going to be getting much of low magic campaign - you are just raising the price tag on the same. They will get the same when they are higher level, have more gold, etc. In other words, eventually they will have the same gear as a normal game, it's just a matter of time.

Changing/limiting material components, rare material components, high restrictions on item creation (become incapacitated, temp loss of abilities, loss of some casting ability, perm loss of score) go much further in creating a plausible and sustainable low magic game since magic is that much harder to produce.

I would also look at every spell and change the material requirements, place restrictions/drawbacks on use or just eliminate them as options.

I think changing/restricting spells is probably the most important aspect of having a functional low magic game.

Without the use of teleport or overland flight physical transportation becomes critical to the party and the story. Without the ability (or limited ability) to scry gathering intel, spies and infiltration also become important aspects of planning and playing a low magic game. Every spell and it's power it grants removes a component of realty based tasks associated with it. An oasis is critical to life when clerics cannot create water (or have very limited ability to do so).

Also I am a strong believer in diminishing returns - if an action, creation of an item, casting a spell or whatever has a higher price than it is worth than it will be rarely used or only used when there is little other recourse (and at high cost).

TL;DR version: upping the gp or subtracting some spells is not going to cut it. IMO of course, I could be wrong (and have been before).

1: Five players still divide the XP by 4.

No - only if you use abstract xp, not every DM goes that route. I go by the first one listed in the core book: exact xp.

I have seen no indications on how xp is supposed to be divided in the AP, just the recommended xp track of medium progression to keep the pace of the AP series

And for the record the numbers - even divided 4 ways for a five man team (softball) still comes up short 4k to get to 4th for the next AP. That is all listed encounter xp + exploration xp.

2: A huge part of Kingmaker parts 1-4 is exploring. You're not even supposed to have an encounter every day. Forcing multiple encounters per day would easily over-power the characters. A quick estimate would land the players almost two levels ahead of the curve if you did so.

So is it going to kill/overpower/challenge them or land them two levels ahead of the curve? Which one is it?

And I didn’t advocate forcing multiple encounters per day – what I was suggesting was not to follow a script, namely the 1 to 2 encounters a day.
You can go no encounters a day, a series of encounters back to back, inflated or combined encounters, challenge encounter (unconventional foes – terrain, flying, etc), puzzle encounters, red herrings (to blow off spells), hit & run encounters, swarms, etc.

The point isn't to punish the player, but at the same time the OP did mention that the group was resource rich. Tax that.
The more the party as whole is leaned on the less the barb can go out as the hammer for the party. At this point it sounds like everyone is just playing support (and feeding the power) of one player.

I have GM'ed 4 parts, starting 5 next week or so. I know what I am talking about.

LOLOL...ok?

Entering a hex calls for a low % check, sleeping calls a slightly higher % check (still under 20%). So you CAN have 2 encounters in a day, but it is highly unlikely. Give them more encounters than that, and they will be one or more levels ahead of the expected curve, and everyone, not just the barbarian, will be having an easy time.

All the fixed encounters divided by 5 (the ops number of players) = 6,380 xp each - barely at 3rd level on the medium advancement track. This is counting xp for exploring each hex. You actually need extra story rewards (not listed) plus wandering/and or extra encounters to get the PCs up to 4th level.

You need a total of 13,100 extra xp by the end of Stolen Land to get everyone (5 player team) to level 4 by the time Rivers Run Red starts.

Quote:

i.e. when going into negative hit points this guy just takes as another day of work.

Being the entire point of spending two feats to get Die Hard.

Being the entire point of reading a post -

This is a DM problem not a player problem.

To be fair, the early part of Kingmaker (which the original poster is running) is written that way.

Really -which part? Where the PCs control the number of random encounters per day? I must have missed that.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

This further illustrates the problem I had with your original post. You are equating "Can't kill PCs ever" with "The DM's job is not to kill PCs." Those are NOT the same thing.

OK, I read the problem as, "this barbarian hits pretty hard, but he dies if I let him take too much damage." In other words, he's a glass cannon.

I don't think you understand what the term "glass cannon" means. ANY character will die if they take X amount of damage. That being how the system works. A Raging 5th level Barbarian is going to have in the neighborhood of 60 HP easily and he stated his has over 70HP plus damage reduction from being an Invulnerable Ranger. I don't think that is anyone's definition of glass cannon.

Also, this thread is about how to deal with him. The "can't stop him without killing him because he has Die Hard" was a side detail. Actively working to kill a character every encounter because he is exceedingly effective is a dick move.

The op wasn't looking for ways to kill him. This isn't a "fighters cannot have nice things" thread - please try to comprehend that.

This is about one character's power level being out of whack with others in his group and a DM looking for a way to mechanically challenge him and not wipe out the rest of the party in the process.

That's it, nothing more.

And I wouldn't say the barb is a glass canon. He is an "all or nothing" character.

He can't be placed in position of threat or fear - what most PCs would perceive as a warning of being in over their head, i.e. when going into negative hit points this guy just takes as another day of work. There is no gray zone, he either kills everything or dies at going below neg hp - there is no middle ground with this character. So again an "all or nothing" character and he stands to not learn any lessons since once he is in over his head he is then in Raise Dead territory.

As I stated in my first response I think the DM is making a mistake by letting the PCs control the number of encounters while they are in the wilderness. 1 to 2 a day as fixed is way too gamey and in this case proves to be gimmicky for the barb player. He gets to redline, the whole party gets to redline their powers in 1 to 2 encounters and then he wonders why they have so many resources per encounter?
The DM complained about too many resources being available yet does little to challenge their ability to regulate their resources (hp, spells, healing).

This is a DM problem not a player problem.

People always want to mess with a martial class doing his job well :(

This character is so tough and puts out so much damage that it’s difficult to stage meaningful combat encounters.

No one is punishing the player, if anything the DM wants to setup more challenging fights that are meaningful to one PC while they don't steamroll and kill everyone else in the party.

Legit concern

Why are they only getting one or two encounters a day? And why do the players know this?

I'm not saying spam encounters; I'm just saying that you should never ever give them a routine to follow.
They do not control the wilderness and have less control of potential encounters in the sticks then if they were to be hitting a standard type dungeon and leaving after a few fights. The further they go out the more dangerous it becomes. Safe rest becomes risky, and getting hit while healing up or at a moment or weakness is increased greatly.

More potential fights means tighter control (and care by the party) to control their resources (i.e. healing spells and potions for the barbarian). Once you establish that there is an open-ended potential for an encounter at any time - even one a few minutes after another (sound of battle attracting another creature/group) then you will see them not waste resource and blow through encounters as easily to self-restraint.

2) Connected Ruins: One of my players is a wizard and wants to have ancient, arcane secrets to discover in the sandbox. I know there are a few ruins to explore, and maybe I've been reading too much Serpent's Skull, but I'd love to add a plot thread and/or mystery element involving several ruins.

I am working on a mini-scenario for KM 1 tentatively called "Thawn of the Dead".

It involves a small set of ruins which tie into KM 3 rather easily and could also be a good launching point for expanded ruin exploration for KM 1.

Going to be set at around 3rd level from the looks of it, I am going to be finishing it up and posting it here in the next week or so.

I don't have a problem posting the whole scenario in a thread, I just need to figure out a hosting/link site to put up the maps.

Serpent Skull spoiler:

** spoiler omitted **

Serpent Skull

Kind of and insane encounter considering the pregens listed saves.

I'd be much happier if, instead of superseding skills and ability checks, spells only gave you a low bonus, capped by your number of skill ranks or ability bonus. Maybe instead of knock automatically opening a door, it would give +2 to checks to force the door, or to Disable Device checks to pick the lock. So you'd still be better off casting on the barbarian or rogue, instead of stepping on their toes.

I'm moving my spells in this direction.

Ex - Find Traps gives +1/2 your caster level to Perception to just spot traps unless target has disable device in his skill list. If the target has disable device it instead it gives a + equal to caster level. In the latter case this also applies to disable checks for any traps detected.

This automatically makes spells work towards party support vs. "I can do everything every other class can by myself" and is a shift back to balanced party builds.

Doing this with knock, spider climb, jump, disguise and alter self (can now target friendlies), etc.

Going to probably do something about the stat buffers also -

ex - maybe give a little extra bonus on Cat's Grace if the target has "Good" Reflex saves.

Some of the ideas are harder to implement due to multi-classing, so I am still looking for a workaround.

On the subject of SoL spells in PF, Kirth ran Carnival of Tears for us Monday night.

The CR 7 nymph in PF has a DC 21 Fort save for her blinding beauty. A 7th level characters base Fort is +5. And this was a 5th level module. So, yeah.

Another good argument for caps on spells and SLA DCs.

At a 50% baseline for success/failure at an even level character with a good save in that catagory the DC should be around 17 to 18 at best. (figure misc +2 to +4 mod).

I will never understand how the hell exploding DCs and manipulation got under the design radar with d20 gaming.

We don't do point buy, just 4d6 drop the lowest. Point buy, in my experience, makes things too "same-y" within classes. Especially if you consider most/all of our regular group is fairly to very proficient at optimizing characters.

The fun randomness means I don't have to feel cheesy about putting a 6 in STR and an 8 in CHA for my wizard character, since, you know, I rolled those, I didn't buy them down for more points.

Thanks Derek, I just saw the stat-rolling part.

Looking through this I can see some really good stuff, some very good ideas.
I do like the DC adjustments for casting in combat and the Battle Fatigue/wound levels is a great addition. A standard mechanic in every other rpg I run but D&D.

I haven't downloaded all the docs yet, just looking at the house rules, armor, focusing on the core stuff vs. the classes.

Did anything change with spell DCs and calculations? Stat point buys?
I saw the MAD from SAD change on the DC modifer to spells with regard to wizard (need CHA for DC and INT for the class), an interesting way to address the issue.

So far it looks good, I don't agree with all the choices - but it does look like it was put together with some thought and care.