Chris Braga's page

I've noticed that in Council of Thieves named NPCs receive max hit points at first level whereas in Kingmaker they do not. Why this switch?

Hi,

I'd like to cancel my AP subscription. Also, I haven't received #26 yet - maybe this has something to do with the additional info I had to provide some time ago (think it was a tel number)?

Thanks,

Chris

So here it is and it's one gorgeous book. I've skimmed through it, read some choice chapters and so far I have to say this is a definite improvement over 3.5. However, like others have also stated, it feels more like 3.6 than 3.75 and that's mainly because 90% of the work seems to focus on the stuff that was already good to begin with.

The classes and races have been rebalanced, skills and feats tidied up and compressed, troublesome spells nerfed or made less complex. There is a lot of good stuff here, it feels clean, and I'm especially impressed with the combat maneuvre overhaul.

Still my main gripe with 3rd edition remains: high level complexity. Apart from the Vital Strike feat chain, which gives an alternative to the endless rolling of iterative attacks, I just don't see how PFRPG improves what imo has always been this edition's weak spot.

Am I missing something? Was it maybe decided at some point that simplifying high-level combat could not be accomplished alongside the goal of backward compatibility? Or is it just deemed a lost cause (the fact that the APs still end around level 14 seems to point that way)?

I'm curious how other DM's answered the following questions:

#20 arrived two days ago, so now I'm missing an issue. Could you please look into this.

Thanks,

Chris

I'm a huge fan of Hero Points and would love to see them find their way into PFRPG in one form or another.

The best system I've come across so far is from Warhammer FRP. Basically, the PCs start out with a couple of Fate Points which can be expended to avoid death. As long as the PC still has points, he also can make one reroll per day per Fate Point. PCs gain Fate Points very sparingly, and only when they achieve some major success.

The result is a system that diminishes the amount of PC deaths but at a very real cost - every Fate Point expended means one less reroll per day.

Since WFRP is deadlier than D&D, beginning characters should probably start with only one Hero/Fate Point and never be allowed to have more than one at a time. They could then be given a chance to regain any expended points every three levels or so (once per PF AP module).

I'm going to playtest this in our next campaign, but in the meantime I'm curious what others think of such a system for PF.

I'm thinking of using the beta rules for our upcoming RotRL campaign, but am worried that the AP will be too easy for the beefed up PCs. PFRP suggests handling the PCs as one level higher than they are, but that seems a bit harsh.

What are your thoughts? Are the encounters challenging enough, even for PF characters? Has anyone tried to keep the PCs one level below what the modules expect?

Okay...

1. A lot of stuff (sneak attack, immediate actions) is "once per round". I'm a bit confused as to what they mean by a round. Is it the time between your current turn and your next turn (as in 3.5) or is it the combat round (in which every combatant takes one turn)?

2. The Healing/Inspiring Word powers grant more healing than just using a normal Healing Surge. What's to stop anyone from using this after combat?

3. If I understand correctly, you can take a move action and then charge as a standard action? Allowing you to completely bypass anything in the way?

Since he's on the team now, I wanted to bring up a suggestion Monte once made to get rid of those bloated spell lists spell casters have to drag around with them their whole life.

His idea was to use multiple spell slots of the same level instead of one slot of a higher level to balance metamagic.

For instance, a maximized magic missile would not cost a 4th level spell slot, but four 1st level ones. I'm not sure whether he intended there to be any other limiting factor (like that you have to be able to cast 4th level spells before you can maximize a 1st level one), but I really like this rule.

Any chance this might be considered for the PFRPG?

As many of you will agree, keeping track of spell durations can become a chore, especially at higher levels. Also if fully buffed party A gets the jump on unprepared party B, it's mostly game over, giving birth to tactics like Scry & Fry.

What do y'all think of this solution:

1. Spell durations are measured in encounters (I know, I know, that's 4E, but bear with me).

Spells that in 3.5 have a duration of

1 hr/lvl are on for the whole day;

10 min/lvl can be cast at any time and will last until the end of the first encounter you face that day. So a Druid who knows a tough fight lies behind the next door, can cast Barkskin before entering the room, but not Animal Growth. You can also cast a 10 min/lvl buff quickened during an encounter, in which case it lasts until the end of the next encounter (so two encounters total).

1 min/lvl cannot be cast before an encounter. Instead, you can cast it quickened during combat. It lasts until the end of the current encounter.

1 r/lvl cannot be cast before an encounter, nor can it be cast quickened. It lasts until the end of the current encounter.

Exceptions might be needed, like for the invisibility spells. It doesn't make much sense to not be able to cast them outside of battle. ;P

To my mind these modifications provide more player options during combat ("shall I cast Bull's Strength, Aid, Bless or True Seeing as a quickened buff this round?"). At the same time it lessens bookkeeping (no more "when did I cast Haste again? Oh damn, then it ended two rounds ago.") and makes "getting the jump" less important.

Thoughts?

I find it hard to contribute without using the solutions offered by other sources, like Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might, 4E etc.

What can we use from those sources? If I think the whole idea of Passive Perception and doing away with Trapfinding is great, will this be considered unthinkable to incorporate in the Pathfinder RPG?

Just asking because it seems a bit silly to reinvent the wheel on everything when a lot of good solutions already exist.