8: There have been some sloppy cut/paste, and just plain oopsie write ups of well established rules over the years. None less so, than the Prestige Classes in the D&D splat books from 3rd Edition. You'd think it was all handled by now.
13: That is pretty sloppy language, that leads me to believe it wasn't intentional. OTOH, if it was, then shame on.....somebody. That is silly.
16, 17: Oh, now I understand the specificity of your house rule, I was thinking of upgrading magic weapons/armor in general. Yeah, what Chemlak said. I guess it just seemed so natural all the way back to 3.0 in 2000, that it never occurred to me that they didn't cover that. Wow. So, according to RAW, if you upgrade a flaming weapon to flame bursting, you will forever have an overwritten and overpriced +1 weapon quality that does nothing but drive the price up. Awesome.
33: I stand corrected...at least in Fluff-As-Written. The Oracle preamble does basically say that you are mostly drawing your powers from the deities that share your beliefs. But that runs counter to the whole point of the fluff of the class! You are supposed to be independent of deities! (I never liked that anyway.)
But, what I meant was that you aren't tied to those deities, any more than the Cleric class and its domains are tied to the deities listed in the CRB.
37: Well, obviously the correction of your comment nullifies mine. :)
Re: Offensive Defense: I know the type who needs such clarification. Still, by RAW, you can't have the talent twice, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Also 16, 17, 33, and 37.
And the Rogue talent Offensive Defense can't stack with itself, as you cannot take it more than once.
Goth Guru wrote:
Lets take an example. A town is harassed by a minotaur and his goblin followers. One of the town elders constructs a corn maze, and the Minotaur moved in. The town then advertised the corn maze as a unique dungeon. The Minotaur of course used all the loot from the town to buy a vicious battle ax (it causes bleeding wounds). The ax would be either +1 or not depending on your system.
The NPC wrote:
I went looking for hireling salaries in PF, but it turns out that info was not in the SRD. Therefore, it did not make the jump in any form from D&D 3.5., and AFAIK has not been 'reforged' in PF since.
Back in the 3.5 DMG, the listings for hireling salaries included "mercenary leader". This was said to be a Warrior 2, and was paid 6sp per day, plus 3sp per day for each level above 2nd. The standard non-cavalry mercs (War1) got 2sp per day, and the cavalry troops (War1) commanded 4sp per day.
If one uses the base assumptions of pay from 3.x/PF, then this is a good place to start.
Then again, setting pay based on such RP intangibles as "level" is probably not the best way. I'd go with what you've got already...plehhhh.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Well said Abe. I agree with most of your points.
I particularly dislike all the NAMES. Abilities, and spells, and feats, and talents....all with "flavorful" names. More intuitiveness is needed. And DO NOT rename an existing ability. Nor should you remake an ability with almost the exact same mechanics....but not quite.
(I am referring in general to the whole game here, not just the ACG)
Yeah, that makes sense....except they have never done that before; and if that were the case, then it would have been part of the explanation of playtesting, and plea for actual feedback. It was presented as a rule restricting multiclassing.
I generally agree about the OP, I just don't like how easily some will snub an opinion because they don't find it "constructive". Sometimes asking whether we should do a thing is constructive. Though, admittedly, during the "things" beta playtest is a bit late.
Again, I must say I think this is a cheap way out. We are all part of the Pathfinder community, and we have a vested interest in how the game develops. More specifically, many people take part in PFS play, and they can't just 'not buy the book' as the rules will be allowed eventually in PFS.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
But see, now you're just running down the path to the One Mage to Rule Them All house rule....that I am trying to implement.
I have thought for a long time that we could do without most classes in favor of highly customizable but flavorful alternatives to the "basic" class types. Mage. Priest. Rogue. Warrior.
Just like the excellent Pathfinder Rogue, and to some extent, the Fighter, we have "talents" for all the classes that fill out the style and mechanics you want. For instance, the Mage could choose Study (Int/spellbook), Bloodline (Cha/innate), or Pact (Wis/patron) casting styles. With a matching list of "talents" to choose as you level.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
And that is precisely my point about the Arcanist....one house rule (that I am implementing in my next campaign) away from Wizard. Just say that Wizards prepare their spells, but then use spell slots to cast them without wiping them from their minds. I know, what about the Sorcerer....I'm working on it.
(It is worth pointing out that the Sorcerer came into existence as an alternative to purely "Vancian casting"....so if you fix Vancian casting, you can just let them go.....except there is something about them that we, now, can't let go of!)
I think you are undervaluing the Slayer; favored target is pretty sweet, and sneak attack is cool if you can exploit it....with bonuses...and full BAB.
Which brings up another point. There are multiple breaks of the HD/BAB rule. I.e. d6/poor, d8/ average, d10 good. True there is precedent in the Barbarian for "breaking" the "rule", but I'm not so sure that's the case here. Specifically, the Slayer: traditionally when granting sneak attack, you restrict BAB to average. Not so with the Slayer, although they curiously have d8 HD. Conversely, the Warpriest has d8 HD and gets his spellcasting SLASHED, and he STILL has average BAB....???
Also, did I say the Hunter was good? I was confusing parts of the Slayer with the Hunter...yeah, the Hunter is crap.
While I don't approve of rampant negativity for its own sake, I do think it is valid feedback to say, "I don't like anything you've done here". Voting with your dollars is a little late to influence the product. They asked for feedback and opinions, they get them. I understand that saying "I don't like this" without any suggestions of alternatives is not much feedback. But let's be honest, how much are they going to alter the rules in a beta test? Not much. And yet, once it gets published in final form, it becomes legal material for PFS.
So, voting with your dollars doesn't save you from dealing with a product that you don't approve of.
I for one, agree with Arkath on some of the classes in ACG. I think they are mostly uninspiring milk-toast, and rely far too much on the spellcasting side for "power". The Slayer, the Hunter, and perhaps the Brawler are good. The Warpriest trades in too much in spellcasting for bonus feats; and the Arcanist looks like one houserule away from a Wizard...blah.
Yo, Aelryinth. I was going to suggest almost that exact thing. Two thumbs up.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Here, here! From the first line about Howie23's post, on down. Well said, both of you.
Well, yes the info on leveling up is there, but it is not presented forthright and clear like it was in D&D. As well, some things about character creation are strangely buried; notably first level hit points...go ahead, find it. (Hint, it only appears in the Common Terms section under Hit Points) Now, while that entry is totally appropriate, and helpfully explanatory, it is odd not to mention it under the actual character creation section....
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sounds like software.
The Morphling wrote:
You're kidding right? There are not "some similarities", 80% of the CRB is direct copy/paste of the d20 3.5 SRD. Many little clarifying statements in the D&D 3.5 Core Rulebooks are absent from the SRD. And WotC's well deserved reputation for aggressively defending it's written word is likely the only reason they didn't make the leap. Paizo was "betting the farm" when it took on D&D head to head, and they couldn't afford any chinks in the armor.
I have been around D&D/PF forums from 1999, and I can tell you the same questions and clarifications have been on the web in all three versions of d20 fantasy: 3.0, 3.5, and now PF. When PF came out, people were asking the Paizo devs about rules that were written two editions back by WotC devs, and expecting to have the ruling handed down from "on-high".
Pathfinder may have had the largest beta test on record, but that is nothing compared to the live testing that the d20 SRD has received. And some of the insights that arose during its run are available to those who are willing to look.
After all, these rules have always been 'guidelines' from all the way back in 70's with Gygax. It is up to us as players and GMs to interpret and adjust them as we feel it necessary. To that end, the 3.5 books, and most particularly the 3.5 Rules Compendium, can be a great research tool.
D&D v.3.5 Rules Compendium pg 73, the Dead sub-section of the Injury, Healing, and Death section:
"A creature becomes dead when its current hit points are reduced to -10, its Constitution drops to 0, or it's killed outright by massive damage or some other death-dealing effect. The creature's soul leaves its body. Dead creatures can't benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life by magic. When spellcasters die, all prepared spells stored in their mind are wiped away. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead creature to life also restores the body to some degree. See Reviving the Dead, page 75. In case it matters, a dead creature, no matter how it died, has -10 hit points."
So, they cleaned up the language under the Dead heading (huh-huh), and finally added in the clarified language about -10 that was under Death Attacks in the DMG.
Remember that most of the CRB is cut/paste directly from the SRD, and we've seen a history of Paizo not including the little clarifying bits of language that are not part of the SRD. Fear of lawsuit, or some such.
And to anyone that goes off about how this is not a Paizo source, let me just say....I pity your table.
But it's also not the only place where it appears. It's also in the dead condition, which I quoted.
Yeah, the reason I didn't quote the Dead condition, is that it doesn't quite say that.
It says, "The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect."
That sentence structure puts the -Con on a par with "or he is killed outright".
However, this does nothing to diminish the quote under Death Attacks, not the least because it makes sense.
Drake Brimstone wrote:
Exactly. This rule comes from a clarification made during the 3.0 run, when it was established (in Sage Advice, IIRC) that a dead character is at -10 hit points. Then they put the above quote in the 3.5 DMG, except it says they have -10 hp, instead of - CON.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
There is an old quote from Monte Cook (author of the 3rd Ed. DMG, where the Leadership feat first appeared). He basically said that gaining followers and henchmen was in the purview of the DM, but that many just arbitrarily disallowed it because it was too complicated and unregulated. They put the feat in the game (in the DMG as a DM option mind!) to give DMs a baseline to work from, AND to give players something to point to and say "see, it's in the DMG, we could use this".
Fake Healer wrote:
Also CDG does not bring the paladin to -con. He is still 124hp -71 or whatever it was. He is just also dead which is not an auto reset to -con HP.
From CRB/562 under Death Attacks:
"In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how he died, has hit points equal to or less than his negative Constitution score."
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
OR....this is one of those times when RAW doesn't cover everything perfectly, and the GM has to make a judgment call. Like, "no, you can't deliver a Coup de Grace with a whip....no...and no, you can't punch him dead with one really well placed...punch.
This is an intriguing approach to balancing the classes, for those who feel that primary casters dominate. Also, in a P6 game it would relieve A LOT of pressure to have "stuff you can do".
I would like to see it in a full level game...
I'm pretty sure the Average save was included in D20 Modern and some other variants too.
Yes it was. It didn't follow a simple equation as the others do, but I found that if you made it 1 + 0.4 per level, it works out in all the right places. Can't imagine why they didn't do that.
Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
I have been debating using this on pathfinder, but my players are lazy at the math. They made it a pain back in 3.5. "well why don't you just tell me what it adds up to then."
Everyone in my group has me double check it, or just do it for them. For those of us not paralyzed by a couple of fractions, it only takes a minute.
I highly recommend this, for the saves as well. It is the only fair way for multiclassers. Only thing to watch out for is Prestige class saves. Paizo "fixed" the good save power up by rewriting the progression, however its easy to tell which saves are good, and just assign them the 1/2 per level they get (+2 if its your first good level in that save, as above).
tony gent wrote:
Yes, and more to the point, they simply could not spend it on magic items unless the DM allowed them via a house rule. If he did, he could charge whatever he wanted for the privilege.
I remember that fight 1st Edition style. We were from 8th (multiclass) to 10th (Cavalier and M-U) level....that was a crazy fight. Good times indeed.
tony gent wrote:
Yeah, I've heard good things about that series over the years (never played it). And, as Mark Hoover said, the DMG II from 3.5 has a detailed and well illustrated description of Saltmarsh itself.
For my part, I plan to utilize the updated modules and newer sourcebooks on Greyhawk. Particularly the Vault of the Drow, featuring Ereilhe-Cinlu.
The PCs that will likely be featured have already dipped their toes into Greyhawk, in the form of The Keep on the Borderlands, which I ran in the D&D Next playtest. The playtest just had the Caves of Chaos, and favored a stripped down, combat heavy delve. So, naturally I dug up my unused copy of B1, and got hold of Return to B1, and we had a proper Greyhawk infused RP. That part was pretty good, but we got frustrated with the playtest. We'll see how D&D turns out, and may use it for that campaign. If not, I am trying to twist Pathfinder into my own version of stripped down, low magic. Been wanting to for awhile now.....
I agree. I think it is tempting to go Cha, and spontaneous for that matter. But reading this thread, I realized that making the Witch Wisdom based will complete a lovely triad of arcane casting styles. As pointed out by Mythic Toaster, I term them Studious casters (Int), Natural casters (Cha), and Devoted casters (Wis).
As it happens, I am after much the same prize. My group has played several of these classics, but a long time ago, and all set (sometimes awkwardly) in the Forgotten Realms. We have never used Greyhawk as a setting, and I have always wanted to do so.
And so, I am just starting to organize my thoughts on how to arrange and modify the story lines to create a proper career spanning AP from the "Big Three" (Temple of Elemental Evil, Scourge of the Slave Lords, Queen of Spiders), or parts of them.
I look forward to using this thread for ideas. I will share what I can, but no promises as I am a "thinker" not a writer. (part of my problem)
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Damn straight!! Count me in!
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sorry, but semantics differs with you.
The terminology "You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item." is referring to the creation of the magical part of the item, not the mundane item itself. That would read 'to craft the item.'
You must of course have a masterwork item to imbue with the magic, but you then use your chosen profession OR craft skill.
Think about it, since by definition in the CRB, only craft skills can produce items, then why would the feat allow you to chose a profession skill?
"Rat might taste like punkin pie, but I'll never know, because I won't eat the dirty..."
I count myself lucky that I began playing in first edition. And further, in 1987 I hooked up with my game group that continues to this day, made up of my (now and for a long time) closest friends. We started a campaign at level 1 in the Forgotten Realms, and got to around 6th in a year, then about 9 in another, maybe 11th after another.
Then began the slow crawl through the upper levels of the Old Game (by now 2nd Ed.). But we quickly saw that the leveling charts were brutal at those levels; and so, we used our own ad hoc xp rewards...and it was still a looonng climb. But that is not to say we didn't enjoy it.
We didn't play the same characters constantly, we had several off shoot and alternate parties to busy ourselves with. Nonetheless, we reached around 20th level (more for some) by the summer of 2000. By the way, in game, about 20 years had gone by. And then...3rd Edition.
We played hard, in an off the cuff epic game with little support (until the ELH in 2002), and got to around 35th level for the mains by the summer of 2003!!! Talk about leveling fast! It was crazy. Since then (yeah, ten years ago!) it has been an elusive goal to even play those PCs.
Now, we start up a new group of PCs at level 1, and if we aren't careful, we could hit 20th level in 2 years.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!
My group's house rules give the followers for free once you attain 7th level; though I think I will propose a version of Evil Lincoln's 'followers at Leadership score 1' (psst, Evil...cohorts start at a score of 2 on the PF chart). I think we'll allow followers when score reaches 10.
Anyway, attracting a cohort requires the Leadership feat. One cohort per feat, and all cohorts are always PC character level -2. Meaning they raise automatically when the PC does.
I am sure many would find this ridiculous, so let me point out that any cohorts along on adventure take a half share of the xp (they don't use them, they just eat into the party's xp). So, a lot of cohort's means fewer xp for all; a self correcting issue.
I'd also like to say that I think most problems that stem from followers come from not paying attention, and not being realistic with their behavior, reactions, and expectations.
As far as the feat itself being broken; Monte Cook said that they put the feat in the DMG to give players something to get a hold of that enabled the accrual of followers, while still leaving it up to the DM to decide if they wanted to do that. GMs could just as easily ignore the feat, allowing no followers, or even build and attract 'henchmen' like the old days.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
I have seen many a "badwrongfun" comment, and the jerks who made them. I'm telling you this isn't one of them. The knee-jerk reaction to any comment that mentions any way of playing that isn't listed in the OP as "you're doing it wrong" is pretty silly...oh sorry...pretty silly IMO.
Alice Margatroid wrote:
Exactly...it is a DISCUSSION about E6/E8....
People are way too uptight about others offering alternatives.
Indeed. As SKR wrote in the article I linked above, the life of the average peasant farmer was challenging. He likened surviving a game month as an Encounter, and figured xp accordingly. I don't subscribe, wholesale, to all of his assumptions or conclusions, but it is a well thought system that works within the larger RPG rules, and yields satisfactory results.
I have always had room in my imagination for more 'advanced' commoners and other typical NPCs. As soon as I saw the NPC class charts in the 3rd Edition DMG, my mind soared with thoughts of high level (especially elven and dwarven) commoners and craftsmen. Ever since, I have been continually amazed at other gamers tendency to devalue and underestimate the possibilities for these 'typical' NPCs.
Having said that, as time has passed, I have come to accept that 20th level Commoners and other NPC classed characters are rather out of place. There is one train of thought on the matter that has 10th level being the upper limit for NPC classed critters (most notably and well done in the rare and difficult to find web postings of Szatany's Ultimate Classes, luckily they have been preserved here). The idea being that anything beyond 10th is, by default, heroic and deserving of PC class abilities. I think this is true.
Do you keep track of the pretend money you pick up? Do you have a belt pouch to put it in? Do you buy rations for your PC and tick them off when they eat them?
Why?...there are elves and dragons...
Duck! Don't look now, but I think that was sarcasm!
Petty Alchemy wrote:
My group recently addressed this old issue. We decided that both the feat Improved Critical, and the magic weapon special quality keen, would be balanced as flat 1 point increases to the threat range. So we let them stack.
The weapons themselves retain their respective value, and the threat range increases are now fair. Ever have a fighter want to use a spear or an axe as his main weapon? Then he MUST take Imp Crit, but gets less benefit than a falchion wielder. Not cool.
Boom, problem solved.
The point is that there is, in fact, a strong connection between Dervish Dance and Weapon Finesse. Which is, I suspect, what Aelryinth was getting at.