Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ishani Dhatri

Can'tFindthePath's page

884 posts. Alias of Lane Coursey.


1 to 50 of 884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I think the skill list has been condensed too much already - bring back Gather Information, Innuendo, Spot, Search, Speak Language, and Use Rope, I say!

Seriously, just because I learn new languages doesn't make me an expert at cryptography.

Haha! I agree, I abhor gaining languages with my cryptography, and vise versa.

Heck, let's jump in the way back machine and reintroduce Alchemy, Animal Empathy, and Intuit Direction!...

But seriously folks, I agree that more skills is ok, but it doesn't work very well with the point per rank, linear improvement. If you are going to be good at something, or you NEED to be good at something, you are committed to pumping ranks into the same skills level after level. And you suck at most other things.

I think we do need to look at "how points are allocated at the beginning of character creation and at each tier of development thereafter; what a beginning character can or can't be skilled in, and how to reflect learning new skills as the game progresses", as JosMartigan said.

It seems to me one way to do that is to introduce a scaling cost for skills, with lower ranks being achieved. Feat and class specialization can be used to build the real masters of a skill set.

I wouldn't say one point for rank 1 and trained status; but perhaps a small buy-in like two or three points for trained status, with a flat training bonus of +3 or +4. Then further ranks would have a scaling cost.

wraithstrike wrote:

I actually think stealth should go back to move silently and hide.

I also think perception should go back to listen and spot(this can also include search).

Part of the problem with the stealth rules is that they dont differentiate between which modiers are sound based and which ones are skilled based.

Example: An invisible person in the same room is harder to detect than a non-invisible person behind a wall in another room even though I can see neither one. For all that it matters both of them are invisible.

I think the problem lies mostly in the description section of the combined skills. Just like Acrobatics is used for completely different things like balancing, jumping, and tumbling; the Perception skill should talk about spotting, listening, and searching. Likewise, the description for Stealth should be talking about hiding, and sneaking, and have mods and tables to back up each use.

I think the shrinking of the list was still a good idea, and could go a little further. It still makes sense to me that someone good at Stealth is good at hiding and moving silently.

Astral Wanderer wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I like this idea, but working out the numbers with points to spend in each category would be cumbersome to say the least. Don't have a solution though.

Well, whose task would it be? I think it wouldn't be much harder than what game designers do when they create a class and decide its base skill points. Once you have the categories defined, you're just left with "how good is this class at these skills, archetypally speaking?"

Also, maybe add one unbound skill point per class (or give the ability to make one unbound from the category with more points), so you can (for example) make your Fighter more social than the average Fighter, and so on.

Yes, quite. But, what I meant was that the number of skill points you would split among the categories is rather small, and therefore, unwieldy. You would naturally need larger numbers of points to be able to meaningfully distribute them. Thus requiring a more extensive redesign of how skill ranks are "purchased".

One way would be to give up the elegant simplicity of the linear "one for one" skill rank buy. Switch to a graduating scale; rank 1 for 1 point, rank 2 for 3 points, or something similar. This would allow a larger pool of points to be divided among the skill categories, per level. Just a thought.

Astral Wanderer wrote:

Personally, I'd keep the skill list pretty much as it is, but divide it into some categories (mere examples, which could be changed to anything): athletic skills (Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, etc.), lore skills (Knowledges, maybe Spellcraft, etc.), professional skills (Craft, Profession), social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc.), utility skills (Heal, Survival, etc.), and so on.

Theny, each class and creature type would gain a number of skill points for each category.
Fighter would gain a good amount of athletics points, a decent amount of utility points, and low lore, social, and anything else.
Wizard would gain high lore points and low anything else.
Things like these.
So you can dedicate to spending your points on each category without worrying too much that your character needs a social skill to back up his background but has low points and you can't forego other skills.
Without giving too many points to spend boundlessly at the same time.

I like this idea, but working out the numbers with points to spend in each category would be cumbersome to say the least. Don't have a solution though.

Neo2151 wrote:
RandomReverie wrote:

Question, for the skills that have the same stat modifier, the combined version uses the same, but what about those that had diff stat modifiers?

Prof was wisdom, but Craft and Knowledge was intelligence, for instance.

Well, going down the list...

Jumping makes more sense as Str and always has, so combined with climb and swim, Acrobatics would be a Str skill.

Craft is one of those weird skills where you can make equally good arguments for various attributes - dex for detail work, str for heavy work, etc. Int is kind of a rough fit but it works as a "good enough for everything" since there is always the argument of "you gotta *know* what you're doing."
Profession as a Knowledge can even more easily follow the same logic, so it would be Int based, as all the Knows are, instead of continuing to be Wis based (which never made much sense really).

Same thing applies to UMD's function switching to the Int-based Spellcraft. Figuring out how to activate magic items seems like it should require at least as much, if not way more, logic and critical thinking than "force of personality" (or, even worse, "appearance").

There is a good argument to be made, however, that Disguise/Bluff could be their own separate Cha-based skill to break it away from all the Dex-based "stealth" skills, and I'd support that. I'd keep them paired though - maybe something like:
Subterfuge = Disguise + Bluff
Subtlety = Stealth + Slight of Hand + Disable Device

tl;dr - They'd simply use the new Attribute with a caveat that the Dex/Cha "Stealth" skills could be broken into two different skills.

Yes. That "Subterfuge" was like the 4E "thieving" skill or whatever it was called...*shudder*

I like about half of your changes, but I feel you didn't go far enough, and was preparing to say so...then I got to Subterfuge. Wow. About face.

So, I would combine Bluff and Disguise into 'Deception'. Sleight of Hand could go into Stealth, no need for a name change.

{Ideally though, I would love to see such specialized abilities as Sleight of Hand sitting "on top" of skills. Like a special qualification that allows you to use your Stealth skill to hide objects and pick pockets. Feats are too big, valuable, and clumsy for this, but it would be cool. Things like Surgery for the Heal skill, Swimming for Athletics, Sense Motive for Perception, or deeper specialties of Smithing, for instance.}

Regarding the UMD skill. Remember that Charisma is a measure of your sense of self, and ability to assert your will over reality at the extreme. Also, the UMD skill includes "faking" class, race, and alignment. You aren't "figuring out how to activate it" so much as MAKING it activate.

avr wrote:

It looks like most of the dark reflections are there already. You might add something like

The Lady of Discipline. Judges, contracts and domination. LE (reflected from the Hearth Mistress)

if that doesn't overlap with your idea of the Night King too much. Or maybe

The Shadow Weaver. Corruption, ambition and dark magic. CE. (reflected from the Moon Lady)

I would say this, at most, and you're done. It seems to me you already have a balanced pantheon between good, neutral, and evil. Nice.

I built a pantheon by combining the "spheres of influence" archetypes with the nine Alignments. Then put 2 lesser/demigods under each. Worked pretty well, and gives a certain "logic" to the Alignment system. Although, I envision using the pantheons "concerns" to define morality, and leaving actual alignment out of the game for mortals...

Cyrad wrote:

I'm not a fan of game systems that take a "loosey goosey" approach to figuring out DCs or TNs. Without a table of DCs, it's really difficult for a new GM to set a DC because they have no context about the setting and how difficult any given task is supposed to be. It results in a game with really inconsistent DCs that will likely inexplicably scale with the PC levels. And most of the time, I feel like it's just game designer laziness justified as a "rules lite" approach.

More relevant to the topic, I think 5E actually does have tables establishing skill check DCs. The catch is that it's only in the DMG.

All true. I believe the DCs are in the DMG so that the DM can learn and be guided as to how to set appropriate numbers. The removal of the info from the players side, I think, puts the frame of mind more into "I'll try this", rather than, "I can or can't do this, regardless of what the DM says or thinks". It does remove player entitlement, but in many cases that is a good thing.

In the end, it all comes down to whether or not you have a good group dynamic, and a good GM. If you don't, the lite rules don't help, but the standard rules are detrimental.

oh...sorry. IMHO...

wraithstrike wrote:

I will have to read that document later to see how it makes the narrative better.

edit: As long as the dice matter the character will still likely fail because they represent the character's ability to convey the message, not the player's.

Not sure if this is MendedWall's aim, but the biggest difference I see (other than the sheer absurdity of 1 to 20 skill ranks) is the lack of detailed charts and long-winded explanations of the skills function in the 5E doc. From that perspective, the 5E skill rules do have superior narrative power, in that they leave more up to the GM and the player to describe and adjudicate.

RedDogMT wrote:

Pretty obvious stuff in that link...and none to life hacky...or soul tippy...

Tip #1: Tab Your Books
Tip #2: Use White Vinegar For All Your Clean Up Needs
Tip #3: Add Terrain (For Cheap) get dirt and sticks from outdoors
Tip #4: Use Your Markers To Keep Your Mat Rolled Tight
Tip #5: Dice Boxes Are Your Friend

Actually no, not really "obvious stuff", pretty clever actually.

thejeff wrote:
Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

It is one of simple demographics. How many people have a 200 IQ? Or a PHD? Vs a professional certification or an Associates degree?

Lower stats = more people will participate. A Wisdom 13 Cleric vs a Wisdom 13 Ranger. One will virtually master their trade, the other will barely scratch the surface.

Why does a Wisdom 13 Cleric do better than a Wisdom 13 Ranger (Especially assuming that the far more MAD Ranger is putting his high stat into Wisdom.)

I've already pointed out that the Cleric with a starting 13 Wisdom can easily cast 9th level spells by the time she gets them. The ranger may even more easily cover all his spell levels, but he's not going to be very good at all the other rangery things - like fighting for example.
Why is he a master and the Cleric only scratching the surface?

Mind you, both will likely be well behind the ones who rolled well and started out with awesome stats, but that doesn't differentiate.

Well, you are quite right about the cleric and his advancing wisdom, hadn't thought of that. As far as the ranger, no one said it was his high stat. Just that it would compare favorably to an acolyte with a lowish wisdom.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

I believe the answer to that is simple mechanics. With a 13 Wisdom, a Cleric (or Ranger) can only cast up to 3rd level spells. True, they can still get spell slots of higher level, but in a world with tangible miracles and arcane power I would argue that one would need the higher spell levels to advance in a typical hierarchy.

I like 2b. I think it generates reasonable creation times. One could scale it even more, if you want magic item creation to always take several days or more.

For example: Creator's level squared x 25gp per day.

This may seem problematic at low level, but it does keep a little of the mystique and power of items in players heads. They must make some effort. As levels rise, it quickly eclipses the standard rules, and allows much more timely creation.

One could also adjust gp per day rates for consumables, so they don't take an excruciating amount of time.

Another idea is to use the item creation feats to speed up creation tine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quite. However, if you are seeking a quick and simple reference for combat by the rules, then I would point you to SORD for Pathfinder.

Combat encompasses three of four pages, and takes some getting used to. But, if you print off a couple sturdy copies to have at hand, it would become second nature.

I would also like to express gratitude for these write-ups. It gives a good "on the ground" point of view of how the AP can run, and how it can be tweaked.

My group is slowly making it's way through Rise of the Rune Lords. I have been on the fence about running this as our next AP experience, and this journal has helped me envision it. I have the last four books in this AP, and waffle about tracking down and paying for the last two...and then, the BIG BOOK is announced.

Now I feel it is somewhat inevitable that I will run this campaign after the hardback comes out.

Deadalready wrote:

Sorry haven't read all replies (about to sleep)

In my experience losing characters is pretty devastating.
Further compounding this is if players give up their character and start new ones, you as a GM lose all the connections/stories/relationships you've worked to craft in your game world, the players also lose their investment in the world. You should never make your less invested in your world or their characters.

Personally my way of handling death is resurrection costs = character level x 500gp
Depending on your game you might want to scale this up or down. My reasoning is that it doesn't make sense a level 2 character and a level 20 character should cost the same amount to resurrect. Furthermore there's really no chance a level 2 party will have the means to save their friend. It's reasonably expensive without totally crippling the player/party.

Additionally every time a person is brought back to life they roll on a table of permanent afflictions. They basically roll a D6 which translates to part of the body and a D10 for severity of affliction. Some of these afflictions have no real impact, for example "impotence" or losing the pinky finger but they go to up losing 1 ability point at the most extreme.

The important thing was I found was this made death matter and my players actually enjoyed talking about their scars and afflictions like badges of honour.

Ooh. I like this as well. I would probably reserve the afflictions for Raise Dead, although there may be more supernatural afflictions for Resurrection. True Resurrection could be above all this...or not.

Lincoln Hills wrote:

If you want to encourage team play, raising the dead might involve 'loaner levels'. The caster, and as many other willing sentients as can be found, accept 1 negative level. The deceased is returned to life with a number of negative levels = [prior level - # of people contributing to the resurrection], with a minimum of 1 negative level. The negative levels remain in place for every contributor until the newly resurrected person reaches enough XP for the next level (or reaches a target number of XP, if already level 20), or until the resuscitated character dies (again).

I'd probably put this in place of the cash cost (for raise dead/reincarnate) or reducing the cost sharply (for higher level effects).

This way, the entire party is equally disadvantaged by a character death. Not necessarily a 'good' thing but it does mean that everybody's eager to get their raised buddy back in fighting condition. And the number of NPC spellcasters willing to take a negative level of indefinite duration is likely to be way lower than the number willing to accept a large cash payment, making resurrection functionally rarer even though it's no more difficult than before in terms of spell level.

I think this really has something. I wouldn't have the negative levels last so long; even one lost every day would be a significant thing. It reminds me of how some spells used to cost the caster years off their life. I think this is a great way to bring the feel of that back.

Imagine if the local abbot has to take on several negative levels to raise a hero. And better still, it encourages the image of a room full of holy monks chanting and praying their support in the ritual, each one taking a negative level to aid their leader.

They wouldn't be too quick to do this for any shmoe that shows some coin...unless that's what their god is about.

But what if casting the spell even gave one negative level to the caster, or the 2 normally laid on the subject were instead on the caster. That would not only support the RP of stingy clergy, but it would mean a lot more for the party cleric to cast it. I think most groups would simply stay in town until all are recovered, but at least they would have the pause of down time brought about by a bad fight. It doesn't sound like much, but it means a lot compared to the status quo, where after about 10th or 11th level, it's just a matter of getting 10 minutes to rub together, and Bob is back at it.

Maverick898 wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

It's been a long time since I played Warcraft 3, so I can't recall. But like I said, I'm not coming at this from the angle of someone who played the RTS games, or even from my time playing the MMO. I'm coming at this from the angle of someone who played the d20, where a doomguard represented no real threat to her at all.

Warcraft, by it's nature, is an extremely high powered setting. All of the faction leaders and most of the major figures were statted up as epic level characters in the epic warcraft rpg supplement, Shadows & Light, though a few only scratched the surface of epic at level 21.

I don't know. Maybe the Warcraft/WoW rpg just robbed me of my aversion to big numbers, but I wouldn't stat a single one of the faction leaders below level twenty, I'd probably pull their weapon stats directly from the rpg where available - Gorehowl is written up as a far more beastly weapon than presented here - and even then I'm resisting the urge to...

We do look at the 3.5 warcraft rpg books when making our conversions. However we disagree with what high level setting is. To me its anything 15+ which is why most are in that range. As for gorehowl, here is a quick breakdown of the one from the warcraft rpg, and the one we presented.

Warcraft RPG Gorehowl
+6 thorium greataxe of severity and speed
requires exotic weapon prof. Thorium weapons.
+6 bonus to attack and damage
extra attack when making full attack (Speed)
crit multipler increased to x4 (Severity)
1d12 base damage
add double strength bonus to damage (Thorium Weapon)
fear ability

WoW Conversion Gorehowl
+5 Keen Impacting Greataxe.
3D6 base damage (Impacting)
+5 attack and damage
Crit Range 19-20 x3 (Keen)
Fear Ability

So while yes the Warcraft RPG Gorehowl looks more impressive, stat wises it doesn't do a whole lot more then ours. Valkyn ran the numbers and it's like 3 points of damage in the difference. We wanted to keep Severity in the past because it's a broken ability,...

Very nice.

Valkyn Highwind wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
default wrote:
Are the naga really only medium? Warcraft 3 made the Myrmidons seem so big...
In WoW they are not much larger than the Medium races.
Naga Mutants can be larger.
Last I knew the upper end of size medium was eight feet which is still a fair bit larger than a human male's maximum of six foot six inches. However, if you for some reason need a naga to be larger than medium, might I suggest the Giant Creature simple template.

Just noticed that the first of my two posts above, is a reply to the wrong post. Sorry, page jump screwed something up. I was replying to this post by Default:

"I think its best to compress the range of numbers you're dealing with-especially since Pathfinder assumes there is no Epic Level Handbook to work with.

Assuming a Doomguard is roughly equivalent to a Balor or Pit Fiend, CR 16 lets them be a significant threat to sylvanas (which they were, based on Warcraft 3, yes?) even if accompanied by a retinue of powerful undead.

Meanwhile a CR 25 puts Arthas at the lower edge of the demon princes, which sounds about right."

Voin_AFOL wrote:
Aurelio 90 wrote:
What did you think about the Automatic Bonus Progression? Seems good for a no-magic campaign

I personally like ABP, even for "regular" games, since it eliminates the "oh, you just found your first +2 glowie - I guess you can chuck your father's sword in the "to sell" bin", and instead lets favored pieces of equipment (a long-time trope in myth/legend/fantasy) grow with the character.

It also takes PC focus off of just hoarding up the big "top priority" items (+Atk/dmg, +saves, +abilities, +AC, etc), and lets me as a GM hand out more interesting items that actually do stuff beyond just boring passive bonuses.

I agree! One thing I hate is the disposable nature of lower level gear. And, the effort expended on acquiring or crafting "basic" bonus gear is a waste of story and brain power. It also, IMO, encourages the creep of those numbers, and the pursuit of even bigger! numbers.

Edit: probably best combined with not only a curtailment of funds by level, but increased difficulty in crafting lower level magic gear. Otherwise, there would be an explosion of utilitarian gear that, while cool, would at times seem like they are getting their cake and eating it too...

Valkyn Highwind wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
default wrote:
Are the naga really only medium? Warcraft 3 made the Myrmidons seem so big...
In WoW they are not much larger than the Medium races.
Naga Mutants can be larger.
Last I knew the upper end of size medium was eight feet which is still a fair bit larger than a human male's maximum of six foot six inches. However, if you for some reason need a naga to be larger than medium, might I suggest the Giant Creature simple template.

Yes. Another thing that's hard to shake, and in fact a major factor in my not launching a WoW campaign as of yet, is the collective mental imagery from the games. 9 foot tall, 800 pound Tauren, not to mention 6 foot 5, 285 pound human males...

I try to use the humans as a baseline, imagining a more conventional average height and build, and then imagining a proportional down-sizing of many other critters and peoples. The video games are "larger than life", but even if you love totally unfightable, Smaug size great wyrms, I doubt most people want all their bartenders looking like Arnie in the 80's...

This too, is the disappointment for me with the Warcraft movie. The world is transformed into a living breathing place that where one can actually visualize being in a real Stormwind (if you have not watched the flyover of Stormwind's inspiring for this sort of gaming). However...the orcs are 9 foot, 600 pound ogres. Really?!?...sigh

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
default wrote:
Are the naga really only medium? Warcraft 3 made the Myrmidons seem so big...
In WoW they are not much larger than the Medium races.
Naga Mutants can be larger.

It is sometimes hard to fight what we know things are like in WoW, but my goal is to take the world as a template and inspiration to make something to play in.

I think most of us can agree that planning all the neat bits to take place from 16th to 20th level and beyond means you aren't going to experience most of it.

I come to PF by way of long campaigns in AD&D and then Epic 3.0. When I first thought of Warcraft/WoW in PF, my mind raced to WoW level divided by three for a super epic game. However, more recent experiences, combined with the fact that my group has not touched epic levels for about 6 years, have led me to embrace the 20 level spread as sort of "epic-lite". The upper levels are trouble enough, and although the Mythic rules have their flaws and detractors, one could build them into a 20 level WoW game that gets pretty darn "epic".

Reading this thread, I was just thinking that one could sort of identify some key "break-point" levels in WoW NPCs and quests, and at those levels, advancement would involve Mythic ranks. Infusing the 20 level spread with a Mythic spark, by the time someone might face the Lich King, it would be pretty mythic. And you could go beyond that, to experience the full gamut of WoW stories.

But keep in mind, World of Warcraft is built to maintain interest of it's subscribers over a very different feeling of advancement than Pathfinder. I think of some of the lowest level people and stuff encountered in WoW, and how it sometimes feels like it should be closer to mid-level. And as the world keeps expanding the level cap to keep people playing, how some of the highest level things really feel like they should be no more than 12th to 15th.

In this day and age of bounded accuracy and E/P6 gaming styles, I feel the World of Warcraft is a good excuse to utilize the full 20 levels in Pathfinder.

/end book...

Marik Whiterose wrote:

Part Three:

Castle Scarwall
The Causeway
Sergeant Lashton is a 10th level Dread Skeleton Fighter charged with defending the causeway from intruders. In this conversion I put Lashton's human stat bonus into Strength along with his 4th and 8th level increases. The original Dread Skeleton template imposed a -4 Intelligence modifier along with a +2 Dexterity bonus. In the Pathfinder version this -4 penalty is gone, replaced with a +2 Charisma bonus thereby raising Lashton's Intelligence to 8 and his Charisma to 16. At 5th level I gave him Weapon Training (spear) for his lance, which seemed to be his primary weapon. I then increased this to +2 at 9th level when I added Weapon Training (heavy blades) for his longsword. For his additional feats I added Critical Focus to help with confirming with his lance as well as Martial Focus (spears) to add to his base lance damage.

** spoiler omitted **...

Regarding the "Elite array" for Ability Scores. In the chapter on creating NPCs in the Core Rulebook, it describes the arrays as "Basic" and "Heroic". The "Heroic" array is the same as the old "Elite" in 3.5; 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

In the Bestiary introduction under Ability Scores, it reverts to the old nomenclature of "Standard" and "Elite", but inexplicably gums up the elite scores (8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15). Despite my book being a sixth printing, I believe this to be a misprint.

In either case, the max is 15.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ana L'ayley wrote:

@Valkyn Highwind

>Night Elves
> -2 cha

Try -2 str. Their starting strength is 4/5 that of humans. The Wis bonus is debatable.

-2 dex for dwarves is more appropriate than cha.

Trolls shouldn't really get a con boost.

Goblins should get a str penalty.

It's like you statted most of these based solely on pictures, not their actual stats.

I rather think he statted them from descriptions in lore. Plus common sense, which no one ever attributed to the MMO with a straight face.

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I want to replace the class based saves for a variety of reasons:

1) To have the various saving throw bonuses of characters less far apart and prevent automatic success and failures for level appropriate threats.

2) I want to discourage multi-classing for dip benefits, not multi-classing in general

3) I see no reason to maintain it, ability scores and potential feats do a well enough job to explain why someone is more likely to succeed or not

4) I wish to equalize the classes a bit more, it seems that the weaker classes often have the weakest saves as well (rogue, fighter), or would typically lack the ability scores to boost saves (wizard, sorcerer), while other classes with already strong saves have them enhanced even further with high ability modifiers (cleric, druid, paladin)

5) I like the correlation with a creature's / character's deductible traits having a relation with his strong saves rather than meta gaming

6) it's meant for a relatively low magic campaign and the characters might miss out on the assumed bonuses inherent in magical items, so slightly increasing the saves overall might be a good thing.

The basics:

The base save will be a bonus of 1/2 your level in every category modified for ability modifiers.

At level 5, 10 and 15 you can pick to get a +1 bonus on one of the various saves, at level 10 and 15 you can pick a save you did not choose to increase before, your other previously chosen increases go up +1 as well.
At level 20 they all go up by an additional +1.

So at level 5 you can choose to increase fortitude, at level 10 you pick reflex and increase your fortitude up by +1 as well. Your saves are now +2 fortitude, +1 reflex. At level 15 your will save gets +1 and the other saves go up +1 as well. Your saves are +3 fortitude, +2 reflex and +1 will.

When your fortitude goes up by +1 you also get a bonus of 5 hit points per increase.

When your reflex save goes up by +1 you also get a +1 bonus on initiative checks per increase.

When your...

Nice. Pretty well thought out. I have been considering adopting the Star Wars Saga Edition saves, but with the 1/2 level base as you've done. Classes get a Class bonus to various save categories. So, for instance, I'd give Fighters +2 Fort, and +1 Ref. Rogues probably +1 Fort, and +2 Ref. Clerics would have only +1 to Fort and +2 to Will, etc. These Class bonuses overlap, but do not stack.

The thing that is missing is Prestige Class boosts to saves, in PF we pretty much don't use them anymore with the myriad archetypes and class powers all the way to 20. In Saga, it is expected that you'll Prestige. In that system, the PrC gave larger Class bonuses to saves, again not stacking but overlapping. This buffed out your saves a bit at high level.

I do like your bonus choice progression. If you took Ciaran's concern to heart, you could institute a Saga type base set, and allow choices at later levels. Or boost all saves every so many levels. Just thoughts.

EDIT: Just occurred to me, the smoothest way to address that concern, would be to simply start your bonus choice progression at 1st level instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Why are you granting a +6 bonus to touch attack rolls? A touch AC is already easier than normal AC, particularly as everyone goes up in level.

Because there is no Touch AC, Armor doesn't grant a bonus to AC, and you don't lose your level bonus to AC for touch.

Dotting for later.

I appreciate some of these rules, and may adapt them for my game.

Da'ath wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:

I think it's supposed to harken to things like spy training. I've seen shows with ex-KGB interviews, or that scene in Jason Bourne's training, where they are basically given a test of how well they follow orders.

They bring a person, hooded, into the room, are handed a gun and told to shoot that person.
If they ask why, or who that person is, or hesitate at all, then they aren't "conditioned" enough yet. But if they just take the gun and shoot, they are ready.

"Sorta man they're like to send believes hard. Kills and never asks why." - Shepard Book

That's what I kind of likened the Assassin requirement to. Not just a "Kill, uh.. that guy" - "Ok!" kind of thing, but rather all the conditioning and utter lack of compunction that comes with that kind of scenario.

I definitely get what you're saying. The "Kill, uh.. that guy" - "Ok!" is what I see every time I look at the requirement. I'm anal about it, I have no illusions.=)

It's a little non-specific for some. I always read it as simply shorthand for what you changed it to. To be considered a full member of a gang, or a warrior in some cultures, you have to kill someone.

Seth Dresari wrote:
I don't see the "Young" template in Hero Lab. Which data package is it in?

Odd, it's in the Bestiary. You would think it was in the base files. Do you have Bestiary for HL?

Bandw2 wrote:

I actually thought of a more refined and less derp system.

basically yes split spellcraft up, or just make 7 other "skills". they're only skills in that they let you put skill points in them(it is unaffected by stats), they are rarely used in rolls but instead act as your maximum caster level in that school of magic. This way the class still needs to spend skill points on improving their magic and can't really do them all at once without forgoing all other types of skills.

you can't cast a spell unless you have the requires minimum caster level to cast a spell of that level. so if you have 4 points in evocation, you can't cast fireball.

this way no random rolls are used and your character is consistent and fun to play but still is not as versatile.

What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.

Atarlost wrote:

2) So you're admitting that even channel focused clerics still need to cast healing spells. Most tables don't have channel focused clerics. Battle clerics can't afford the charisma for selective channel at sane point buys and lots of people won't play other builds, either because they don't like summoning or wish they were playing a fighter but someone needs to heal. Then there are oracles of any mystery other than life who don't channel at all. Some misguided (and soon to be permanently blind or deaf) parties try to get away with druids who also do not channel at all.

Unfortunately, I think you are right about this last bit.

The game presents 29!! classes for you to choose from, but if you don't have one of these two in the group, you are kinda screwed.

IMO, that is a problem with the system.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Using the OP's math, +70 to Craft while taking 10 is DC 80 craft.

Using Unchained craft rules has several advantages:

Now 1/4 cost instead of 1/3 cost

Heavy armor is usually a Complex item (DC 20), but you have to increase complexity two steps for Masterwork items made with special material, so Mithral Full Plate is a Very Intricate item (DC 30) with a base progress per day of 16gp.

Now, Unchained craft doubles the progress per day for every 5 you exceed the DC, so:

DC 35: x2
DC 40: x3
DC 45: x4
DC 50: x5
DC 55: x6
DC 60: x7
DC 65: x8
DC 70: x9
DC 75: x10
DC 80: x11

So if taking 10 is DC 80, your daily progess is 176gp worth.

For a 10500gp mithral full plate, that's 60 days (two months), which is faster than the 5 months shown by the OP using the Core rules.

Furthermore, Unchained lets you use up to 10 laborers per day using Aid Another (if your DM considers this suit of armor "large or complex item"), which lets you add another +20 to the check result, for a total of DC 100 (16gp x 15 per day = 240gp per day; 10500/240= 44 days)

Furthermore, Unchained gives you a bonus for Masterwork work spaces, but you'll need trained laborers with +5 to craft (4sp per day each, so 4gp total per day for 10 of them; +5gp per day for masterwork space; so 9gp per day total); using this setup lets you bump the Aid Another bonus from +2 to +3, so now the total craft DC per day is 110, so: (16*17=272; 10500/272= 39 days; so 5 days faster, but at a cost of 39*9gp=351gp extra)

When looking at the above, I think "not bad... craft rules are pretty much balanced now"

In my upcoming campaign, I have further modified the Unchained rules with the following:
1. you compare your TOTAL CRAFT CHECK against Unchained Table 2-4; use the the highest listed progress per day (i.e. if your Craft DC is 35 or more, you basically always use 32gp as a base progress per day)
2. every 5 you exceed the DC, double that, as per the normal rule... (this basically prevent the silliness of MW slings having only a...

So, the craft rules in Unchained work pretty well.....for a 20th level PC wealth, dedicated smith, with a 16th level Alchemist assistant, and an army of 19th level Bards singing his praises as he works...???

No, the rules are still useless.

Eltacolibre wrote:
Hmm just thought about it that will of the forsaken and risen from the graves wouldn't stack due to being the same kind of bonuses, But well maybe a +4 bonus would be too high to be quite honest. Overall, looking good.

Racial bonuses do stack, according to Pathfinder_OGC:

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Cyrad wrote:
Be careful with your words because "D20" is a game system, but d20 is also the name for any RPG that uses a twenty-sided die. They're not necessarily the same. Neither Pathfinder nor D&D 3.5e belongs to the D20 System.

D20 is not a stand alone game system, it is the unified underlying framework of several game systems. Chief among these is most definitely 3.0 and 3.5 D&D, as this was where "the designers" codified d20. Plus there's the D20 System logo on the cover. The reason Pathfinder is not a "d20 System" product is because it requires WotC's permission to fly that flag.

Devant wrote:
All in all, I think that while the position of the article is certainly not the same as the designers of d20, it is practical enough to account for most, if not all, needs. The only example I think that fails that position is the scholarly priest archetype, that needs to cast high level spells without being a combat powerhouse, which is covered (considerably less elegantly) in the follow-up article.

Don't get me wrong, if you agree with that article, and it brings value to your GMing, then more power to you. I'm just tired of the claims of the absolute fact that "normal" stops at 5th level.

Cyrad wrote:
Devant wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
It sounds like you don't understand how the math of the game works.
How so?

The game designer behind 3rd Edition deliberately built the math with the assumption that the greatest humans of real life would be roughly 5th level characters. Anything above that is superhuman by our standards. Justin Alexander explains it in this article (see Crafting and Knowledge). A great blacksmith that spent all his life as a smithy would not be a 20th level character. As shown by Alexander's math, Albert Einstein would be a 5th level expert, making his BAB only one higher than a fighter.

Your proposal also largely ignores many other important factors that contribute to a character's power, such as ability scores, feats, and wealth. A non-combat character will spend their feats on things like Skill Focus. You ignore the numerous ways a non-combat character can increase their preferred skill, such as having masterwork tools and assistants. You don't need to give them arbitrary bonuses.

Finally, this is a combat game. If someone makes a purely non-combat character, they will likely not be as effective as other characters. Even so, the game doesn't stop them from being really good at non-combat stuff.

The article you cite is a good exercise, and an interesting perspective. It is also an opinion whose supporting evidence is based almost entirely on hit points, and how many average 1st level Orcsiz Aragorn can kill. (EDIT: This is a deliberate exaggeration. I find much of the number crunching "evidence" in his article skewed in supporting a predetermined outcome.)

"The game designer" behind 3rd Edition did NO such thing.

3rd Edition DMG, page 36 under NPC classes, "The fact that each NPC class has differing levels provides the DM with a means to measure NPCs against each other. A typical blacksmith might only be a 3rd-level commoner, but the world's greatest blacksmith is probably a 20th -level expert. The 20-level blacksmith is a capable person with great skill, but she can't fight as well as a fighter equal to her level (or even one much lower in level), nor can she cast spells or do the other things that characters with PC classes can do."

Now it goes on to say that most NPCs don't rise to more than 3rd level, and I am not suggesting that 20th-level experts are common...or rare...or even make sense. But the classes were provided as tools for GM's to make the NPCs they want and need.

Also, the 3.x DMGs have demographics tables, missing in PF, that generate "naturally occurring" commoners of up to 20th-level. In fact, the average "highest level commoner" in a thorp, is 7th! In a metropolis, the average "highest level commoner" is 20th (higher than 20 is reduced to 20).

Sounds pretty good. I kinda like the 7th level in one or both classes angle, though spontaneous casters is a concern. On the other hand, they get more spell slots and a 'bloodline' spell known...

The thing is, lots of classes have frustrating thresholds that don't fall right along 7th/8th level. I generally find 8th or even 10th level to make great top end level points. 8th keeps it easy.

Goth Guru wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.

The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.

Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus, not a deflection bonus, which is usually granted by rings of protection. Being of different bonus types, rings and bracers DO stack.

If you think that Pathfinder is complicated... don't even THINK of trying Hero or Rifts.

So force that functions as if it was armor, that doesn't have any encumbrance, and doesn't cause any spell failure chance, cannot be called deflection? I'm starting to see the value of making it an enhancement bonus to the person.

Does Hasbro have a monopoly on Deflection?

It's a matter of nomenclature. These words have specific meanings. Armor, Shield, Natural armor, Deflection, Luck, and a few others. These are 'bonus types' with particular definitions, some stack, some don't. In all cases, except dodge bonuses, only the largest of the same 'bonus type' would count. See Combining Magic Effects, page 208 of CRB. Also, Common Terms, page 11 CRB.

Yes, looks fantastic. I have acquired the last 3 chapters of CoCT, and I've been considering running it in a few months (and completing the set). This will help immensely. I don't know if I would have thought to make these changes, but I am sure I would have found the original wanting.


Goth Guru wrote:

Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.

The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.

Don't worry TOZ...I don't think anyone knows what he is talking about.

Goth Guru wrote:

American English is my only language.

Try to respond without the insults.

He don't believe he meant it as an insult. Your posts have been hard to follow, beginning with blurting out something about modifying the "limit" of deflection bonus of 10 instead of 8...which does not correlate to any rule I know. Thus my question.

We are just trying to have a conversation.

Goth Guru wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.

With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.

Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?

Kthulhu wrote:

The whole "magical story time", along with it's companion "Mother-May-I?" are phrases used to impulse that a system isn't a REAL game, since you don't have to make half-a-dozen skill checks while having a casual conversation with a random barkeeper. You can also be sure that they'll soon imply that you ACTUALLY prefer their game of choice, but you don't realize it because you are blinded by the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

In other words, the person saying it is almost certainly a complete jackass.

Yup. (clinks mug)

Qstor wrote:

Yeah most the domains are converted. Except the 3.5e Moon domain

If you use 3.5 stuff add the simple advanced template to the bad guys as it mentions in the Gamemastery guide. There's nothing that prevents you from using the Forgotten Realms setting with the rules. I did for a short campaign.

Check out the Tome of Horrors. It should have a lot of creatures from previous editions so you won't have to convert. But quite a few things like dread guards haven't been done though in Pathfinder rules though.

True, but as I mentioned, if you utilize sub-domains you can cover just about everything. Darkness Domain - Moon Sub-Domain.

I forgot about the advice in the GMG. The +2 to everything I suggested is just the real simple template, and you can apply it on the fly. It works.

But, yeah. The Game Mastery Guide is good.

Keep forgetting to say: Don't worry that a lot of these details are spread throughout all the books. is your friend. It's all there, with a search engine.

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

I don't think of any Pathfinder class that wouldn't fit in the Realms . . . Gunslingers would be limited to Gondsmen, I believe, but would still work.

The Dreamscarred Press Psionics would also fit, as the Realms does have psionics.

The Realms has Psionics because D&D had Psionics. It's always been a funny fit. And now, Paizo to the rescue! With Occult Adventures, Pathfinder gets magic of the mind. It nicely fits where Psionics used to, and it fits even better with magic.

Psionics is magic of the mind, and it fits narrative fantasy better with a pool of energy to draw from and the ability to push oneself to increase the power of the magic (augments, overchannel, etc.) than Vancian magic does. Also, Dreamscarred has done a wonderful job on the system for Pathfinder.

We can agree to disagree on this.

The exact same can be said of Magic in general. I don't prefer Vancian, but it works, and it's built into the system. Adding Psionics with points has never been equitable as an add-on. Now, if you do the same kind of pool for other magic, then that's cool.

Point is there is a Paizo Pathfinder 'magic of the mind' book coming out, and it'd be easy to use that.

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

I don't think of any Pathfinder class that wouldn't fit in the Realms . . . Gunslingers would be limited to Gondsmen, I believe, but would still work.

The Dreamscarred Press Psionics would also fit, as the Realms does have psionics.

The Realms has Psionics because D&D had Psionics. It's always been a funny fit. And now, Paizo to the rescue! With Occult Adventures, Pathfinder gets magic of the mind. It nicely fits where Psionics used to, and it fits even better with magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:

Something to keep in mind, Pathfinder went the archetype (basically alternate class features) route more than prestige classes. I remember that FR had many prestige classes, you might want to consider looking at the prestige classes and see if they even deserve to be converted as prestige classes or simply made into archetype.

From the top of my head:

-stormlord of Talos can safely be ignored as a prestige class, as between the storm druids, storm domain for clerics or stormborn have a wide range of choices.

-Nightmask deathbringers: Just use Stygian Slayer (A slayer archetype).

Don't forget Oracles of Wave and Oracles of Wind....

But, yeah. Sorry, I'm so used to Pathfinderization, I take things for granted. Not very good for advising.

One of the key differences between D&D 3.5 and PF is that in PF you stay with your class more. It is not only beneficial to stick with a class as long as possible, but it actually decreases power (usually) to go Prestige. There are still some Prestige classes, and some are even worthwhile, but by and large there is a reason to finish a class progression.

When I think about converting something like FR, I don't mean take the Purple Dragon Knight and convert it to PF. (Btw, PF did away with all 5 level Prestige classes, as they are sort of like system condoned dipping, and they wanted to discourage that.) Instead, I look at what the class (or critter, or NPC, or whatever) does, and try to imagine it and reskin or build it in Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Some adaptation is necessary with Domains; many FR domains were added in Pathfinder, but are a little different, and there are still a few FR domains missing. Though between all the PF books and the subdomain rules in Advanced Player's Guide, you have almost all of them.

The smoothest way to do it is to convert over to PF, it has lots of support, and is not that far from 3.5. Regarding running modules; converting main NPC's is probably worth your time, but you can run everything as is by just treating 3.5 CRs as one or two lower in PF. Or, just give all the critters +2 to everything, and adjust as needed.

I recently sat down to make notes on what I would need to adapt and write house rules for, to adapt FR to PF. All I came up with was the aforementioned Domain issue.

FR is great, and Pathfinder is good too. Good luck and good gaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.

Kirth Gersen explains it best: e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57 e-is-just-fine#446 9 s#2090 -2e#674 ters-are-better#89

If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"

You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the...

All true, although "magical storytime" is a very condescending term. That reasoned argument was not present in your previous statements. That is what I take issue with.

I do like the rules to be as clear as possible, however I also feel the advent of very detailed rules in D&D 3rd thru PF tends to trap GM's and takes away some of their ability to run a successful and fun game.

Oh, and I almost forgot...I wouldn't want you to take any of this post as an apology or retraction. Your rudeness does not make your argument stronger. It just makes you rude.

Atarlost wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

FATAL has urination checks. And I could make the same reply as to you, since you insist on implying that any game where the core rulebook's spine doesn't self-destruct are no-rules magic storytime non-games.

Don't accuse me of erecting a strawman if you're stuffing hay into a plaid flannel shirt.

Ah, got it. You actually aren't capable of comprehending written English. Hint: "rules that have their edge cases considered" does not mean "rules for everything." It means rules that have their edge cases considered.

Chess fits that condition. People actually put in rules cases to handle oddities like double moving pawns or wanting to castle to either side. Pathfinder doesn't fit that condition. Which needs a larger rulebook?

Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

Attacking someone's reading comprehension because they call you out for ridiculous and inflammatory statements is pretty childish.

Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:

8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.
It's just... it makes zero thematic sense. Monks need, deserve even, better class features, but increasing the hitpoints of a class that isn't meant to be hit is just silly. I'd rather have various ki based abilities that can, as an immediate action, give temporary DR, boosts to stats, etc, maybe even a variation on parry or a higher monk ac bonus.
For when AC fails? Monk vs Monk? A Monk who care more about beating the **** out of an opponant than avoiding blows? etc...

My Fighter wants more hit points...for when AC fails....can he have D12 Hit Dice?

1 to 50 of 884 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.