Paizo Top Nav Branding
Welcome, guest! | Sign In | My Account | My Subscriptions | My Downloads | My Wishlists | Shopping Cart   Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ
About Paizo   Messageboards   News   Paizo Blog   Help/FAQ  
Search
Links
Shop
Recent Reviews

Power Word Spells: Lore of the First Language (PFRPG) PDF
***** by Endzeitgeist

Wicked Fantasy—Humans: The Reign of Men (PFRPG) PDF
***( )( ) by Endzeitgeist

A Necromancer's Grimoire: Masters of the Gun (PFRPG) PDF
*( )( )( )( ) by Endzeitgeist

GameMastery Flip-Mat: Dragon's Lair
***** by danmasucci

GameMastery Flip-Mat: Haunted Dungeon
***** by danmasucci

   RSS Posts    RSS Reviews    RSS Wishlists

Charlie Brooks's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 260 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

Threads


It looks like this summer I will have a chance to teach a one-week course at a local elementary school called Pathfinder Fantasy Adventures. As the name suggests, it will basically be me running one-hour mini-sessions of Pathfinder with the goal of teaching problem-solving skills, strengthening basic math abilities, and exercising the imagination. This isn't just me trying to find an excuse to play more Pathfinder - I actually think there is educational merit in role-playing games.

I'm looking for ideas from anybody in terms of running the course. The class will consist of 5th and 6th graders, and the plan is currently to run a streamlined version of Pathfinder not because they wouldn't get the full rules but because I want to be able to save time. I expect to use some flip mats and counters for visual aids, and I'll probably be giving each student their own set of dice to keep after the course.

The big thing I'm hoping to do is focus more on problem-solving than on combat. There will definitely be combat, but I want to de-emphasize that where possible to avoid any potential problems with parents getting upset about their kids pretending to do violent things at school.

Has anyone seen something similar to this done before? If so, any suggestions on how to plan?

For those interested, here is the pitch I used for the course outline:

Long Description:

The Pathfinder role-playing game is a game in which players pretend to take the role of fantasy heroes similar to the protagonists from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels or J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. The players must work together to overcome monsters, traps, and obstacles on their way to a final goal. Typical goals include the recovery of a lost treasure, the rescue of a princess, and similar staples of fantasy literature.

In an educational environment, Pathfinder can teach children the importance of creativity and teamwork while exercising their imaginations and igniting an interest in both history and literature. The game is heavily rooted in many different mythologies, with creatures such as gorgons from Greek mythology, the chupacabra from Central American myth, and even literary creations such as the jabberwocky from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.

Additionally, the game uses several different kinds of polyhedral dice to determine the outcome of various actions. Players will need to learn about probability and statistics in order to figure out which actions have the best chance of success. Combining creativity, literary references, historical context, and mathematical skills, Pathfinder is an excellent educational tool.

Proposed Classroom Model: Four to six students will be placed in a group, where they will be walked through the basics of designing a hero for the coming adventure and introduced to the concept of role-playing. One instructor will serve as the “Game Master,” a referee-like individual who prepares the story, adjudicates actions, and explains the rules of the game when necessary. The students will then be presented with the story, which will involve an opening conflict, several obstacles, and a conclusion where they receive rewards for their successes. Several adventures can be linked together into a “campaign,” during which the students will be able to develop their imaginary heroes in different ways.

Sample Scenario: The heroes wake up in a dungeon after having been kidnapped by an evil wizard. The wizard plans on forcing them to work in his salt mines as slaves. Joining together, the heroes will have to trick their jailer into letting them out of their cell, sneak past the wizard's pet monsters, and ultimately defeat the evil wizard himself in order to earn their freedom. They cannot pass these tests individually – they will need to work together as a group and use their different skills in order to escape.

Educational Value: The Pathfinder role-playing game provides three tiers of educational value:

1) The game enforces the importance of teamwork, cooperation, and group problem solving,

2) The scenarios are rooted in classic literature and ancient mythology, providing many opportunities for further reading,

3) The game's mechanics rely on arithmetic and statistics, allowing those who take the time to learn about the math behind the game to gain an advantage.

Most importantly, the Pathfinder role-playing game allows students to have fun and be creative. They win or lose as a group, and as long as everybody has fun while learning, everybody wins.


The "Dungeon Bastard" series on YouTube is a pretty funny little series with more D&D references than you can shake a 10-foot pole at. And a recent episode is basically a surprise Beginner Box commercial: Voila.


My wife forwarded me this cool little article:

Preschool Pathfinder


I know an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects covers the sleep and deep slumber spells, as well as monster abilities like a pixie's sleep arrows or a satyr's pipes. Does anyone have an interpretation on whether that immunity covers things like hypnotism and suggestion as well? For example, the hypnotism spell allows the caster to make a reasonable request of the target. If the caster requests that the target go to sleep, would that fall under a magic-based sleep effect, or would it be a normal enchantment instead (granting the elf just his +2 to resist enchantments)? Anyone have arguments one way or the other?


I'm putting together an adventure that involves a succubus disguised as an elf. In looking at the possibilities, it occurs to me that the Unnatural Beauty ability of an elf could use some clarification. Is it based purely on physical looks, or is there some mystic nature about elves? If it's the former, then the succubus should be able to gain the ability just by using her change shape ability. Moreover, anyone with a Disguise Self spell or even a high Disguise skill should be able to get the benefits, since they can easily copy an elf's beauty.

My interpretation is that it's something innate about elves that goes beyond physical beauty -- a sort of aura. However, that also raises questions, such as whether another race disguised as an elf would have a harder time blending in among elves due to the fact that they lack the unnatural beauty. In game terms, an elf might look at the succubus and get the feeling that something doesn't seem quite right, although he can't put his finger on it.

I think the ability is a good one, and fits with elves of fantasy stories. However, it should probably clarified so as to eliminate some of this gray area.


Unless I'm misreading things, this Universal school power seems pretty potent at low levels. My elven wizard has a 13 Strength and an 18 Intelligence. At 1st level, he can either attack someone in melee with a +1 to hit and damage, or he can back off and concentrate to have a spectral hand wield said weapon, fighting with a +4 to hit and damage to anyone within 30 feet. Essentially, I can have fighting skill about equal with the group's warrior at 1st level. At higher levels, it's more beneficial to me to fight with the Hand of the Apprentice than it is to draw a dagger and throw it myself. While wizards are supposed to be better with magical than blades, it still strikes me as odd.


In the interest of providing as much feedback as possible, I’ve listed my thoughts as to the first Alpha release of the Pathfinder RPG below. These thoughts are based on a read-through of the rules only – I have not had a chance to playtest the game as of yet.

Overall: This first packet of information is very exciting. Assuming that the rest of the rules are the same level of quality, I would buy this game if it were on the shelves right now. It is a definite improvement over 3.5, but maintains a great deal of compatibility with the old system. One thing that does bother me, though, is that it seems there is little simplification for high-level play. In fact, the plethora of new abilities attached to the classes makes it seem likely that there will be more bookkeeping at high levels now. That is a huge turn off to running 3.5 as it stands, and it’s something that should be streamlined in Pathfinder. The longer I can run a campaign without it turning into a rules-induced headache, the happier I will be.

Races (page 4-7): Although none of the races turn me off, I don’t think a lot of the changes are completely necessary. Races aren’t something I hear a lot of people complaining about in the 3.5 rules. Although I don’t mind the alterations that have been made, I think most of the races are not broken and therefore don’t need to be fixed. The only races that I think need an overhaul are half-elves and half-orcs.

Keen Senses (mentioned in race writeups): I don’t like the bonus to specific sense-based Perception checks. In fact, the division between sight-based, sound-based, smell-based, etc. checks make an excellent argument not to roll Listen, Search, and Spot into one check. I say toss out the division and give races with keen senses a flat bonus to Perception – the simpler it is the adjudicate, the better.

Unnatural Beauty (page 5): I like that elves finally get a feature that reflects their unearthly grace. However, this seems to be a very “Mother may I?” kind of feature, where it will only be used if the GM wants it to be. I think it would be easier just to add a mention to the flavor text that many races react more favorably to elves because of their beauty and grace.

Half-Orcs (page 6): While half-orcs are improved, I think they are still the worst of the racial options. However, if the racial boost to hit points ends up being used, they become a better option due to the sheer number of hit points they’ll have at 1st level.

Favored Class (page 7): I like the fact that favored classes provide a bonus, rather than a penalty now. However, I don’t know if the rule entirely makes sense. Why is an elven wizard better at taking hits than a dwarven wizard, when hardiness really has nothing to do with wizardry? I would recommend giving favored classes the ax entirely, and mentioning the preferred classes in the racial flavor text rather than assigning them rules.

Character Advancement (page 9): I like the three experience tables, depending on the pace of the game. However, I think it would be better to have GMs who wish to run slower-advancing games to instead divide the XP awards by two or three. That would make it easier to bring a character from one game to another without having to recalculate experience based on a group’s preference.

Cleric Weapon Proficiencies (page 9): Giving clerics proficiency in their deity’s favored weapon makes perfect sense, and is a house rule I have employed in my own 3.5 games. Extra turning also becomes much more useful, since the ability now doesn’t require the GM to throw undead into an adventure just to give the cleric a chance to shine.

Domain Powers (page 10): Domain powers are a definite improvement over the existing rules. However, domain powers, and school powers for arcane classes, seem to add a lot of extra spells and abilities in the long run. One problem with playing clerics and wizards (and especially with making high-level cleric and wizard NPCs) is the vast number of spells that need to be chosen, many of which will never be used in game. I think if you’re going to use domain powers as is, then the number of spells a caster has to choose from should be scaled back somewhat. Focus on what is going to be used in game, rather than cluttering a character sheet with dozens of powers and spells that will almost never be used.

Orisions (page 10): At-will orisions and cantrips is a very good idea. None of the effects are terribly powerful, but they all allow spellcasters to be somewhat magical, even when their big effects are spent.

Starting Hit Points (page 11): My own campaigns use a character’s Constitution score + the maximum result of their first hit die as starting hit points for characters with adventuring classes (monsters and NPCs are left as is). That said, the racial hit points idea is very intriguing to me.

Turn Undead (page 11): An excellent expansion of the cleric’s abilities.

The Fighter (page 11-12): I like the boost the fighter gets, especially since it doesn’t add a lot of complexity to the character unless the player wants to invest in long feat chains. Part of the fighter’s appeal to me is that he doesn’t have all the bookkeeping associated with other classes. The addition of many combat feats also gives a chance to really customize the fighter.

The Rogue (page 13-15): I like the expansion of rogue abilities. It makes the class more of a jack of all trades, with the ability to allow for specialization if desired.

Arcane Bond (page 16): I absolutely love the arcane bond. It provides an excellent alternative to the familiar, and gives a lot of flavor to the wizard class. It also allows for the classic trope of breaking a wizard’s staff to break his power. I’m hoping the sorcerer class has something different than the arcane bond, to differentiate the classes some more. The way I’ve always seen it, the wizard requires external forces, while the sorcerer’s magic is internal.

Class Hit Dice (page 18): I like tying hit dice to base attack bonus. At the same time, I think it would be worth being flexible, since certain classes, like the ranger, should not automatically follow those rules, in my opinion.

Acquiring Skills (page 20): I like this system, although I think it could use some work. It will definitely cut down on bookkeeping for creating NPCs. I think skill acquisition could probably be made a bit slower – maybe make it every 3 levels or even every 4 levels. I also think adding a way for PCs to dabble in skills without being masters would be useful. Perhaps, keeping the skill progression as written so far, one could spend one skill slot to gain the skill at a cross-class level and a second slot to gain full proficiency in the skill. In such a case, though, there would probably have to be a bit of an increase in starting skill points, as the two-skill classes would be severely hurt by this system.

In terms of specific skills, I think Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidate could be easily rolled into one “Persuasion” skill. Also, while I understand the reasoning behind the Fly skill, I think it should be dropped entirely.

CMB (page 41): A nice simplification, even if it means another number to put onto a character sheet. The difficulty makes it so that most characters who are not fighters with a special feat or two won’t try for a special maneuver – not sure if this is a good thing or not.

Grapple (page 42): This rule looks like a good simplification, although it will need a trial by fire in play. I think the most broken thing about grapple is the number of large-sized or larger creatures that have a form of improved grab. Facing a purple worm, for instance, can mean a quick death for a lot of the party. Remove the frequency of improved grab, and I think the grapple problem becomes significantly lessened.

Abjuration and Divination schools (page 46): Kudos on making these oft-ignored schools a useful option to character who want to play an abjurer or a diviner.

Identify (page 58): Yay! No more spending 100gp to identify each potion and magical dagger!

That’s that for now. Unless noted above, I either like the new rules or I’m interested enough in them to give them an in-game test. As I said before, I would buy this RPG if it were out now. I’m looking forward to future Alpha releases, and I think the 2009 release will be absolutely terrific with the benefit of an extensive playtest.


As Pathfinder enters its playtesting phase, I think it would be useful to know what your vision of the 3.5 rules is. Specifically, what do you see as integral to the rules and something that should not be touched? While the guidelines at the beginning of the alpha release are a good start, they don't help me figure out where the line is in terms of how much change is too much.

As a specific example, the level progression charts suggest that characters will still be expected to boost their AC, ability scores, and saving throws through a plethora of magical items. I, and I'm sure many others, have several ideas as to how the need for flavorless stat-boosting items can be reduced, eliminating the infamous Christmas tree effect. However, before cluttering up the already busy forums with these suggestions, it would be nice to know if this is something that you're even interested in revising. Do you feel that the plethora of magical items is important to the feel that you're trying to achieve?



©2002–2012 Paizo Publishing, LLC®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Publishing, LLC, Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, 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 Publishing, LLC. 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 Publishing 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.