Chank Fankum's page

...Rather than give out XP, I am allowing my players to all go up levels at certain points in the storyline where it makes sense....

-Lisa

Another vote for this. I'm just levelling the group when the time is right. Far less fiddly. I just say 'OK. You're all 4th' and we're done. Wish I'd done this year's ago!

...I am going to be running the AP of "Rise of the Runelords" and my players are going to be creating characters using either the "Beta" rules or (if I get it in time to start) the actual Core rules. I will need to convert the critters in that AP from OGL to PFRPG so said critters will be a challenge. That's a fine idea otherwise!

Another vote for quick and dirty. I'm currently running RotR (halfway through Skinsaw Murders). Max out the HP, do CMB on the fly, that's it.

My lot are finding it tough - regularly losing PCs. Nualia got one, Malfeshnekor another.

PCGen is cool and free, but sloooooooooow.

I have switched to Hero Lab - can't remember how much it costs, but it's similar to PCGen without some of the slowness and glitches. Perhaps a little easier to use as well. I think they're supporting PFRPG (can't remember where I read that).

And then there's always PCPen...

Hellos!

Okay, so I have a pretty good understanding of the Pathfinder beta rules...what do i do now?

Everythng seems fairly easy to play but I don't know enough about the Adventure Path's. I have the Runelords and Second Darkness series but I'm not sure if I should start there with the beta rules, or run one of the using 3.5? Another option is to run my players thru a Paizo module and adapt it to the beta rules.

Anyone have any ideas for a Pathfinder noob?

Welcome aboard!

I'm running Runelords using the Beta - the other guys are right about conversion - bottom line you don't need to do any, though I'm maxing HP for most creatures to cope with PF class changes and Channel Energy. Some of my players still use 3.5 PHB though and we tend to use whichever rule we're most familiar with. When it comes down to it, does it really matter which version of power attack you use? Slowly but surely PF is taking over, and players are getting hold of Beta prints one by one.

Remember that you can always mix and match things.

Too bothered to look up new spells? Just use the old ones.

Think one feat every two levels is too much? Stick with three.

Want to keep the races as they were? Just do that.

No new magic items? No one forces you.

If you go that approach, I strongly recommend looking at, and using, the new races and classes, as well as the new skill system, and probably new feats on a case-by-case basis, and decide on the rest.

Absolutely our experience. I picked up a hard copy of the Beta and just started using it as my prime reference. My players were still using 3.5 books. Now the split is about 50/50. We're using new race/class rules, but for spells/feats etc. we tend to use whichever version gets looked up first. It's really no big deal. They're only rules.

Simplify iterative attacks. Reduce in number (with adequate compensation - worth looking here), flatten the modifiers or both. One of the many things that make high-level play sloooooowwwww dddooooowwwwnnnn is full attack rounds from buffed fighters and monks with flurry of misses:

"First attack hits 28, sorry 30, no 31, with the bless? 32. Second attack hits 29 - wait a second - 30 - oh do we still have the haste? -OK 31, actually that first attack hits 33. Third attack...22... wait, wait, 23, no 25. Fourth attack...." (rest of table collectively lose will to live).

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Y a can throw stuff at me after but it has to be said

4E has good parts?

4E does have some good parts problem is I can't get past the bad parts. Basically I can't stand the at will, daily, and encounter power system. Drives me nuts. Because of it a fighter can't use bow. Silly.

But I do like that they changed saves to defenses and liked much but not all of the healing surge concept. Better than reserve hit points but they took it too far. I did like the push, pull and slide concept. So yeah it has some good stuff but the rest of the game is kind of dull.

We're using 'passive perception'. Makes life much easier.

I haven't got a problem with knockback/pushback/trip and flip etc. as long as you don't start 'sliding' people around in too abstract a way using just the force of your personality :)

Let's take a high-level "challenge" as an example here:

Let's say we're using an 18th level wizard as a high-level BBEG against the PCs. He can easily get +6 Inherent Bonus on DEX, and has Improved Initiative, and if I'm using FR, I'd also give him 'Blooded'-feat (+2 to Init) and 'Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves' (1st level spell that gives you +5 to Init). Assuming DEX 18 with point buy (CHA and WIS 7, for all we care), he gets +11 to +18 Initiative Modifier (the former in Beta). Now, he always has 'Foresight' on, and before combat he's cast 'Forbiddance' or 'Anipathy' to prevent any melee guys reaching him (just in case) and there's a Meteor Swarm Trap (CR 19) that will hit the PCs the minute they step in. On the first round he casts 'Time Stop', and then it's over... take your pick: 'Mage's Disjunction', 'Weird', 'Wail of the Banshee', 'Horrid Wilting', 'Mass Hold Monster', more 'Meteor Swarms'...

On the other hand, if the PCs win the Initiative, it might be the other way around, *if* the party spellcasters survive the trap (remember, the BBEG has scried the PCs and has 'Foresight' on). *And*, assuming they manage to Dispel the 'Forbiddance'/'Antipathy'-spell, *or* the melee types actually manage to push through it.

Where's the "challenge"? No teleporting into the lair, and no "surprise rounds" -- 'Antimagic Field' might help a bit (assuming it survives 'Mage's Disjunction' from the BBEG) but throw in a couple of, say, Stone Golems, as "cannon fodder" into the mix, and the party stands only a little chance to win by my estimation. So, again: Where's the challenge? Either it is a pretty quick and brutal slaughter, or a challenge that only few parties manage to overcome, and only with luck and optimal spell use.

So what would you revise in order to 'fix' this encounter? What sort of level PC's are you talking about?

Beyond that the player agrees to "test their luck" everytime they sit at the table.

Precisely. And ultimately the DM decides what threats the players face. Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean you have to use it.

The fact that a single bad roll may get your 19th level heroic PC killed in an eyeblink may be "realistic", but that is hardly a design goal or intention.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that the threat of having one's life snuffed out in an instant is precisely the intention. It's part of the dark background against which the game is played out. To each their own, and maybe I won't agree with myself next time I cough up a fat 1 for my save, but adventure games are more fun when the wire is high off the ground and there's no safety net.

I'm with Spalding, Dogbert and Fizzlebolt on this one - D&D is no fun without fear. You gotta have situations (sliding open the sarcophagus, stepping through the portal, drinking from the cup on the altar) when you face instant annihillation. If you want to die in stages, play 4E.

As for playing without a Cleric - unless you compensate in other ways, you deserve everything you get! Sure the system should be flexible but again, if you want a system where every class is equally valid and none is vital, 4E awaits.

I get the point about great preparation not being a baseline requirement - for your everyday, humdrum stuff that's valid. But every great adventure has encounters that whip your *ss the first time and you learn your lessons and go back for another shot. Or prizes only attainable by the quick-thinking, well-prepared or lucky. The game should both reward smart play and scare the pants off people.

But then they shouldn't complain when the DM optimizes the encounter, as the enemy will have had time to find out some information on who, what, how the PCs blew thru the last bunch....

I can see more traps and dispels happening, and possibly casters being targetted (especially if anyone survived or witnessed any of the other fights).

You are of course absolutely right. If the dungeon environment is 'dynamic' I always give the bad guys the benefit of preparation and any reasonable knowledge. It can turn into a bit of an arms race though. And I should say again, I'm more concerned about the disruptive effect on play of too many re-boots than I am about party power levels. My players are adults (at least legally) and I'm not about to introduce out-of-game restrictions on what they can do. My view is that a few simple changes might reduce the incentive to power up anew before every fight - all-day buffs might be one thing to try. Channel Positive Energy is another and seems to make a difference in our playtesting so far. I certainly don't want to stray into 4Ebay territory with an 'encounter' based mechanic.

I don't have a problem with 1 minute per level spells.

Why do a lot of people think that they need to always have buffs up for every fight? My group usually saves their buffs for what they expect will be major fights. Yes, this does mean that sometimes that they do fight the main villain without a large number of buffs.

I guess it's all down to your style of play - our players tend to mix gameist strategy with roleplay. They know (and the PC's know) that they're best set for an encounter with their tanks topped off. To each their own though. I appreciate that there's a broad spectrum of playing styles and approaches.

You still have to deal with dispel magic and other such effects. And I think that those will get used much more often if all the buff spells work all day.

You do give them more to play with if you have all-day buffs, this is true. I'm not so bothered by player power levels though as the disruptive effect of another ten minute 'who gets what?' re-boot routine.

As a player, you can't expect to be able to go buffed up for every encounter. It is an exercises in meta-game design at the expense of story, suspense, excitement...

Not so sure on that one. The PC's know that their spells etc. refresh every day - no need for meta knowledge from the player. If my shambolic bunch of PC's are faced with a time-sensitive situation the players will play in that spirit. On the other hand, if they know a challenge is round the corner and no clock is ticking you can hardly blame them for wanting to look their best...

[Actually, if you change the buff spells to be hour/level you CAN make major strides to avoiding the 15 minute adventure day.

The primary reason for the 15 minute day is simply running out of useful spells. If a cleric only has to prepare one Bull's Strength per day, knowing that one casting is likely to last through any encounters for the day, he gets 1-2 spells slots to use for other spells. The Wizard doesn't have to prepare 2-3 Cat's Grace spells for the Rogue any more and can prepare a couple extra spells. It all adds up to getting an extra 1-2 encounters easily.

:) So we go from 15 minute days to 30 minute days :)

I'm kind of with you Krome. In my experience, the 15MWD is mostly a product of parties wanting to re-boot before every encounter. They get themselves buffed and ready, break open that door and... empty. Ten minutes of sneaking around later they find another door. Do they push on through? Of course not - time to re-boot again for that fresh, fully-buffed-and-spelled feeling you only get with a night's rest.

Having buffs pretty much work all day would be fine by me, frees up spell slots, less admin, fewer re-boots.

As a DM you can set encounters up all you like to prevent re-boots (re-stocking and re-booting the monsters, patrols, all that stuff) but if you do you end up running adventures that are exercises in meta-game design at the expense of story, suspense, excitement...

lol you guys will probably hate the way I am doing conversions after seeing all the work everyone else is putting in.

Skills: Would it be dramatic for the monster to succeed his test right now? If yes, then I add enough points to my die roll for him to make it. If not, then I look at the roll and whatever is listed on the sheet and it it is close it succeeds, if not close it fails.

CMB: Again, if dramatic moment for it to pass, I add enough for it to succeed that die roll. If not dramatic, I add BAB and STR Mod and since I normally use Medium critters, I don't bother with size.

Feats: I assume the critter added feats that made up for differences in die roll fudges I used. :)

I am not a strict by the die GM. Rather I feel the results should add to the drama of the story.

I will not kill a PC with fudged rolls, but have no problem bashing the PCs up a bit.

Spot on Krome. That's how it's done!

Yup - looking forward to the finished product but happy enough playing Beta. I mislaid my 3.5 PHB and picked up a print copy as a substitute -have been running RotR with it for my weird bunch of players using a mixture of print Betas and 3.5 PHB's which works just fine.

I guess a Lifeboater. Played though all the editions since '78. Was v excited by the prospect of 4e and started a regular game but it's like when they 'fixed' Coke: Improved in theory, but it just doesn't taste the same. Hopefully PFRPG will keep the feel going - so far so good. Running RotR for some relieved and happy players. Not as bothered as many are on these boards about this feat, or that DC, and don't own libraries of d20 stuff. D&D feel is what it's all about.