|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ana L'ayley wrote:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Goth Guru wrote:
Don't worry TOZ...I don't think anyone knows what he is talking about.
Goth Guru wrote:
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:
Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?
Yup. (clinks mug)
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. d20pfsrd.com is your friend. It's all there, with a search engine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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:
My Fighter wants more hit points...for when AC fails....can he have D12 Hit Dice?
Yeah totally. I was more referring to the time to change between personas. I think that is a bad design for fantasy adventure gaming. But, you could just stay "in character", however you would lose your special (and strange) bonuses that only apply in "social" persona.
The thing is, I kinda like the rest of the class, particularly the Specializations. I could see the dual persona thing being a talent, or an archetype. I don't mind supporting that approach for those that want or need it. I'd just like to have a straight forward version of what this class can do for my non-superhero fantasy gaming.
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/
It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.
These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.
Silver Surfer wrote:
I wouldn't use the Complete..anything Handbook as an example of how to do things. Every implementation of the Specialty Priest idea, other than the Druid, was a complete let down. Every setting book and supplement TSR printed got it wrong. They started right off with breaking down what percentage of a particular faith were Specialty Priests and how many were....Clerics. Huh? I thought the "specialty priests" of Tempus were THE priests of Tempus...
The description of the idea in the 2nd Ed. PH is where you want to look. In it, they highlight the standard Cleric and the Druid as examples of the rule.
The Druid varies pretty heavily from the Cleric, and communicates a ton of flavor difference as well. That is what I am talking about.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
But, the game rules have to serve thousands of individual campaigns, many of which are not in Golarion, and even in those that are, details vary by GM and game group.
The game rules need to be generic-ish. With fluff and flavor suggesting style and helping GM's and players imagine their own vision.
One of my pet peeves is a totally new game rules set with detailed setting specific material integral to that rules set. For instance, Dragon AGE. GREAT rules, smeared with setting. Had to wait 6 years to get the upcoming Fantasy AGE version.
That's interesting, I hadn't noticed the Tier/CR ratio. I haven't yet, but plan to run a Mythic campaign. I remember when the playtest came out, they were saying the Mythic "levels" were going to be equivalent to a normal level. Not a lot changed power wise from then, so maybe that's why it seems OPed.
Anyone know more about this aspect?
Regarding the direct subject of this thread: the houserules seem simple and straight forward. I think they would achieve a "mythic" or rather "epic" feeling game, as long as all the major bad guys are knock-down, drag-out fights.
Verification: You say +1 to two attributes every 4 levels instead of 1? Can I put both +1s into the same stat, effectively granting +2 to that stat? Or would I have to put them into different stats, say Strength and Intelligence?
This would be the reason it is every 4 and not every 2. In Star Wars Saga Edition, you get 2 every 4 levels and they can't be in the same stat. If you get it every 2 levels, and don't want it to stack up to +10 in one stat, you have to add clunky restrictions like "not the same stat twice" and such. You could say max +5 per stat, but SAD characters would get there by 10th level, and that's a bit aggressive.
If it were me, I would boil the Cleric spell list down to it's essentials. Spells that every "Priest" (of any god) could be expected to have. Then, use Domains as the base, treating them more as Oracle Mysteries; lists of optional abilities to choose, long with accompanying spells. Basically, expanded Domains rather than cutting up the entire Cleric spell list.
I would seize upon 'Channeling' divine energy. Creating a Channeling or Divine pool...(Favor?). You could have a list of Blessings, some of which would be powered by the Favor pool....
I don't understand the point of Name Levels.
So back in 1st Edition D&D, if you went by the book, everyone had to train to raise a level. You had to seek out a trainer who was higher level than you, you had to pay exorbitant amounts of money, and spend many weeks training. Every. Level.
Then when you got to "name" level, you could train yourself. Yay.
Then, in D&D (not AD&D), name level was a time to make a choice amongst several paths, much like prestige classes. A fighter could become a Paladin, Knight, or Champion, depending on ones alignment.
Clerics founded temples and got followers, etc.
I believe that is where the nostalgia comes from. It said, in the game rules, that you were an accomplished badass. Personally, I loved it when my 1st Edition Ranger became a Ranger Knight, and then a Ranger Lord. When I first read that class many years before at age 11, I was transfixed by those titles. Later, after I found my game group, levelled up and became a Ranger Lord, I thought "hell yeah".
I don't think it is something that is good to codify in the class rules. But...it was fun.
So, basically your "arguments" for keeping all those things the same is...'there are already rules for that'? We know what the rules are, we're discussing how the change them.
(1) Charisma for Strength does make sense. This is kind of the opposite direction for how Shadowrun calculates your Astral attributes: Intellect = Dex, Will = Bod, and Charisma = Str.
(2) "Mindless creatures" and "Intelligence"...these are all game mechanical terms that only mean what they mean in the game. The term Intelligent itself is often reserved for so called sentient species. The very fact that there is debate about whether insects "think", kinda leaves the game mechanics open for...debate.
The problem with "mindless" creatures is that it is a fallacy. We are all "programmed", and most of our actions are not very "mindful". The degree to which we can operate within our programming is pretty much what the game ability Intelligence is measuring. It's recall accuracy, and mental control; it is not creativity. That Google engine you mentioned has a pretty good Knowledge bonus, and instant recall. One could certainly argue that the skill ranks do the work there, but what about the machines and their operating software? Where does one draw the line of "Intelligence".
Ironically, multiple d20 science fiction games give starships and other powerful computers Int scores to reflect their processing power. Why not Iron Golems?
(3) Well, once you stop classifying Intelligence by sentience, and equate it to learning, recall, and problem solving, you have to scale the smarter animals a little higher. Admittedly, the "dumbest" humans would perhaps have a higher score than 3 on this scale, and there may not really be room in the d20 design for this to be done.
(4) That pretty well fits the game definition. I believe that, like several things in d20 rules, the non-ability scores are products (victims) of the application of logic that has unintended results. Within the definition of Constitution and it's function for most creatures, equating a machine or animated corpse to a Con of -- makes perfect sense. Especially the "unaffected by things that require a Fort save...unless it also affects objects"...(and then it has it's drawers down.) But, Con's basic and most widely derived function is how "tough" a creature is, both for Fortitude and Hit Points. It worked pretty well for most things in 2000, but we fast forward to PF and now you can crit most undead and all constructs, now some undead get Charisma bonus to Hit Points. It makes more sense to give them immunities and resistances consistent with their physiology, and leave the "Constitution" alone.
Finally, I concede that this is all subjective, and that compromise may be needed. So, in place of simply doing away with the logic of non-abilities, we could give certain creatures "stand-in" abilities to reflect their natures. For instance, creatures of animal intelligence could have a "cunning" or "instinct" ability higher than Int that they use for functions of Int like skill points. (No, they aren't learning languages and basket weaving. If you've ever statted a bad ass big cat and found their "cat skills" lacking, you know they need more points.) Also, things with no Con score could be assigned "toughness" to base Hit Points and Fort saves off of.
Sorry for wall o text.
I would establish the level parameters of the WoW universe first. Say 20th level with Mythic. Then scale each thing, boss, NPC appropriately within the Lore, largely disregarding their levels in the MMO.
Ragnaros should indeed be a fairly powerful end-gamey threat, but you could skew him to the lower end of end-game, as he was one of the first to appear. That's a bit meta, but forgivable and nostalgic.
Incidentally, if you plan on using Mythic, I think it appropriate to start giving the PCs Mythic levels fairly early, as a reflection of the epicness they have within the Lore. And of course, the Mythic rules are a great way to show the bossness of signature bosses in WoW.
I agree. Also, I believe the DC should mimic Feint; 10 + HD + Wis mod or, if trained in Sense Motive, 10 + Sense Motive mod. Feint actually uses BAB, but HD is appropriate in the case of Sales Pitch. If it seems too easy then add half the Sense Motive; it's too much with both.
On second thought, this ability looks more like the Bard's Fascinate than Feint. Affecting multiple creatures and all, it might be better as a Will save. Believe me, I like what you're going for, but it's been proven time and again that skills and spell(like)s are not on the same page and are not very interchangeable. In this case, the save DC would be 10 + half Scion level + Cha mod.
We have a ninja in our campaign and he is interested in making an Unchained Ninja. Are there any balance issues we should worry about in allowing such a transformation?
As discussed in this thread, the Ninja is already an improved Rogue. The ki powered Ninja tricks are pretty juicy, and compare favorably with the Unchained Rogue's new stuff. So, I wouldn't give the Unchained Ninja all the new gadgets. However, the Ninja as written is now behind the Unchained Rogue, so it needs some Unchaining.
For my money, the most obvious and important upgrade is the Finesse and Dex to damage. IMO that is enough; I've played a Ninja through 11th level, and she is pretty bad ass. She has Weapon Finesse, and I am desperate to get Slashing Grace. Giving the Unchained Finesse Rogue ability would just give her more room to maximize it.
The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
It's funny, but until now that Shaman really didn't do anything for me. But I looked it over, picturing a ferocious Orc Shaman, and a proud Tauren Shaman, and thought "huh, this is perfect". Go figure. Guess I just didn't need a Shaman before.
The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
I've considered doing that myself. And I mean exact. But, it wouldn't be Pathfinder at all. Might be d20, but likely I'd just start designing a whole new beastie to really accommodate the translation.
But, I've been "meaning" to build my own system for like 20 odd years, so decided PF was the best existing style to capture WoW. Got to get something in front of my game buddies; I haven't run a game in like 5 years. They are all DMing, and growing weary.
Maybe later I'll finally build the ULTIMATE game system, and a homebrewed world to go with it.....maybe.
Speaking of which, this may sound crazy to some, but I like the Shaman in ACG for this. I mean, there have been lots of Shaman over the years, starting all the way back in 2nd D&D in Faiths and Avatars. They usually fall short; the difficulty in incorporating spirit magic and differentiating them from Cleric.
I think the ACG Shaman hits it pretty well. I can see choosing an elemental Spirit fulfilling the totemic style. The hexes are a perfect foundation for totem powers. You could add a totem ability at mid levels that lets you drop a totem (either physical or not) that anchors a "hex aura". One could add some of the classic totem powers as new Hexes.
The more (what I like to think of as) Orcish style Shaman, could be any Spirit, especially Battle.
Keep an open mind and check it out.
*Lots of good (but slightly angry) points*
The mechanics of the MMO are just that, mechanics; designed within the parameters of the medium to best function and convey the flavor of the setting. I feel that the medium of Pen and Paper is more open, and much more adaptable, and that PF is the best version to convey the flavor I want.
Azeroth is a setting, and like getting any IP setting license, the task is to make the least tweaks possible to keep the feel and flavor.
I look at the MMO like I would a fantasy novel, and adapt what is described to PF.
Quick question. I was getting to the blood elves, and found its only a point difference between lesser and greater spell resistance. That would bump them up to a 15 from a 14. 11+lv too good for 1 point difference?
Sounds a little strong. I thought it was the Night Elves who had SR. In any case, I shy away from SR on PC's. I would redeploy the points to ensure bonus to save vs. magic, and magicky traits.
I would drop the Powerful Charge and Natural Armor in favor of Advanced Str. Add a feat called....Powerful Charge for those that dig the image.
I'll look at tweaking a large Tauren, see if there's something I can do.
Well, your version gets the job done, and with balance among races. Making a Large version is spendy. You can drop the Advanced Str because of the size bonus, but you'll pick up a Dex penalty as well, throwing the ability mods out of whack. I was looking at +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Then the Large stuff on top. I'd like to get a Con bonus in there, but Wis seems like a priority.
The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
@LazarX - At the risk of looking like a fool, how would it be easier? The 1st addition rules were more closely tied to the base 3.0 rules, whereas the 2nd addition builds of 3.5 while making a lot of changes themselves.
IMO it wouldn't be easier. Well, it may be easier because the heavy lifting has been done, all you'd have to do is take the WoW (3.5) version material and drop a Pathfinder filter over it (substituting feats, HD, Barbarian features, etc.). The reason not to do it is that they made a lot of custom stuff up, and not very well in my opinion. Better to start fresh, altering as little as possible. You don't need WoW versions of classes and magic; treat it as a setting to play PF in.