I understand your problems, and in an environment like this, there is no decision you can make that will not annoy the gubbins out of somebody, somewhere. Of course people who complain do so more readily and more loudly, too.
In the interest of proposing solutions, not problems...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Does the brass knuckles ruling hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a weapon choice that would become the default weapon for monks if you don't want your monk PC to suck.
You have the nail on the head there. At the moment the amulet of mighty fists is the default for most monks, and is only half an item at twice the cost. On the flip side monk unarmed damage scales already and whichever way you look at it can be used as multiple weapons.
My proposals:
1) Change the ki strike class feature to an enhancement bonus to hit only for the unarmed strike, equal to the monk's AC bonus. This will stack with the AoMF's properties and bonus to damage (but not bonus to hit). This enhancement bonus will penetrate DR as a magic weapon, getting around the monk's other major problem when fighting unarmed.
2) Do the above with a feat (not popular as it's a feat-tax on the monk just for using his class features, but it would work)
3) Add an item (I used a ring) that grants an enhancement bonus to hit only for all melee weapons held (including unarmed strike). Cost is enhancement squared x 3Kgp, capped at +5. Combined with the AoMF it gives the monk close to full enhancement with the unarmed strike, sans the bonus damage, at roughly the same cost as an equivelant weapon.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Does the vow of poverty hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a two-paragraph option for gearless monks that doesn't address the greater campaign issues of wealth by level, wealth in a party, and so on.
Ki is a tricky one because unlike rage or bardic song, ki is clearly not intended to be spent round on round to enhance the monk, but to be used in desperate circumstances or boss-fights. There just is not enough of it otherwise.
If the vows were just there to grant extra ki then this is acceptable, if never truly viable save in a very low magic game. The problem here is not just the monk but the entire 'Christmas Tree Effect' for the game in general, and addressing that is a supplement's worth of work.
It's a good idea for a supplement, now that I mention it though...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Does the flurry-as-TWF rule hurt the monk? Well, it certainly doesn't help that it breaks or forces weird interpretations of certain archetypes, and is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.
The easiest answer is to just reword it slightly to mean what everyone took it to mean. This doesn't effect any builds based up on the original intention, nor any made from the unintended interpretation.
At the end of the day, you guys are in a catch-22 situation I do not envy: You have to apply a change to the class, and yet you are limited with what you already have published and can amend. The best solution for addressing the monk's problems is to rework it from scratch (plenty of suggestions around for that), but that's not a viable option for sticking with the majority of what is already written. If you stick with what is written, how can you adjust the class sufficiently to be effective without a Bachelors degree in system mastery?
Ideally you would want to:
Fix flurry of blows to everyone's satisfaction.
Fix the enhancement/DR problem with unarmed strike
Reduce the MADness (the monk just needs too many good stats)
...as well as maybe address many of the other little issues highlighted in the dozens of 'fix the monk' threads. Like why the monk has to pay a feat tax to use abundent step the way it was intended? Why is wholeness of body so bad? (hint: fix this one and the monk becomes less MAD because like the Paladin he need not consider Con so essential).
I'm sorry, but you cannot blame freelancers for writing material that your company went on to publish in your official splatbooks. That's what playtesting and editing is for! If it were one or two whoopsies that would be fine, but nearly all monk material outside the Core book is suddenly being changed and disfigured.
Like I said...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Flurry... is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.
Most people who read it interpreted it wrong, and based their development and editorial decisions based on that wrong interpretation.
In the interest of helping clarify things, one of the issues is that the way Flurry is written, the intended interpretation is not communicated, and the understood interpretation is communicated by the words/sentence/grammer used. People tend to get a bit standoffish, when they are told after years of taking the book at apparent face value that they are wrong and failed at reading the book.
A more tactful way to express the same thing, would be to say the widely accepted flurry interpretation was not the intended meaning of the section and that the new flurry interpretation is the one that was intended all along. You could then go on to say that in light of the differing intreptations, the issue is currently being discussed (as the publishing scheduel permits), and that the language around Flurry will be cleaned up regardless.
A week ago I showed off a proof of concept of a Google Map of the Inner Sea.
I've since "started over and done it right", and it is now available for public perusal.
Maps of Golarion offers an unofficial interactive Google Map of the Inner Sea, with clickable markers, info windows with a blurb about the location, and additional links to the Pathfinder Wiki or matching products on paizo.com. It currently has about 60 locations defined based on the hardcoded values in the Community Use Inner Sea map. The first data milestone will be to fully mark out all those hardcoded values. After that, I'll be adding any and all other locations that have been mentioned (which will take a loOoOong time), as well as Adventure Path and Module "journeys". There are pie-in-the-sky plans for future functionality like on/off filters and custom user-uploaded locations for your own campaign setting.
It also works and was tested on an iPad, for game table use.
The monk is a good class, let me make that clear at the outset, but it is a class that suffers from some fundamental problems. While monks can be effective, they have real problems performing in some arenas. Fundamentally, the monk is a combat class that has major problems dealing damage to foes at the mid-to-high range of the CR spectrum. They are also MAD classes, requiring several good ability scores to work effectively.
There have been a lot of suggestions for ‘fixing’ monks, such as arminas’ monk here. However, they all seem to require re-writing the class in some way. I can’t see this happening for a long time yet, so when DeathQuaker pointed out the issues the monk faces I came up with easily implementable ideas based on some suggestions from Skull.
Leaving aside the currently undecided matter of exactly how flurry-of-blows works, they can be summed up as follows:
At mid-level and onwards, monks have difficulty hitting and damaging many CR-equivalent foes. The issue is due to a combination of factors:
Monk weapons deal very little damage, typically having poor threat/critical qualities and dealing on average 1d6 per hit. If the monk uses weapons, he has to add ki focus to be able to use any of his special abilities through the weapon. The monks ¾ BAB means that he qualifies late for feats that can enhance damage. As MAD classes, monks tend to have less outstanding ability scores, so upping damage that way is not easy. The agile weapon property helps, but costs a +1 equivalence the monk can ill-afford (see below).
Unarmed strike delivers more damage, but lacks any enhancement bonus. This means that by level 20, the TWF fighter has +5 to hit over the monk, with Weapon Focus feats and weapon training on top of that again. In addition, he has weapon qualities that add to his damage still further. The Amulet of Mighty Fists is not a solution for the monk, having three major problems of its own: it is very expensive, is limited to +5 equivalence, and it takes up the amulet slot that the monk needs to keep pace with the combat classes’ AC. If the monk uses an AoMF to close the gap some way on hitting, he then loses on damage and AC.
Damage resistance. Overcoming DR is done in several ways, either deal more damage or use weapon properties that bypass it. A fighter with a +5 mithral holy sword will chop through most things. A monk’s unarmed strike does get past magic, lawful and by 16th level adamantine, but DR/magic isn’t challenging, DR/lawful is incredibly rare, and by 16th level adamantine arrives a little late to be of much use. Using an AoMF runs into the problem outlined above. As far as dealing more damage is concerned, also see above.
Just plain hitting the target: A monk’s ¾ BAB is limiting in other ways. While flurry-of-blows has the monk almost on parity to hit, the enhancement bonus on weapons (which are not very good) will suffer if the monk wants to do anything but hit the target.
Maneuvers: Some effort has been made to equalize the monk in terms of maneuvers. Unfortunately, the monk is still going to be behind the curve with ¾ BAB, when a fighter with a reach/trip weapon can also apply the weapon bonus, and his other abilities to CMB that the monk does not have. In short, whatever the monk does, the fighter will always be a lot better.
Now I don’t think we can fix all of these issues, and as the monk has a lot of other abilities I am not entirely sure that we should want to fix them all either. That said, there is a lot we can do to bring the monk up some so that they can be effective in combat while still leaving the dedicated combat classes ahead of the curve. Here are some ideas for ‘fixes’ in the form of feats and items that can make the monk better without unbalancing the game in their favor.
Monk Feats:
Ki Focused Strike
You can deliver damage that bypasses your foe's normal defenses.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ki-pool.
Benefit: When you expend a point of ki, your unarmed blows (or blows with a ki focus weapon) can for that round ignore any damage resistance a single target may have.
To be sure, the ki strike (adamantine) sort of goes here, but doesn’t at the same time. By requiring ki and focusing on DR rather than hardness, this is not the same ability. Instead the monk is attuning the ki to the creature’s vulnerabilities. Ki is a shallow resource, and this ability addresses one of the monk’s major disadvantages, particularly with unarmed strike, as the AoMF does not bypass any DR.
Improved Ki Focused Strike
You can deliver an attack that bypasses most of your target's defenses.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ki-pool, ki Focused Strike.
Benefit: When you expend a point of ki, your next unarmed blow (or blow with a ki focus weapon) is resolved as a touch attack, also ignoring any hardness or damage resistance. For the rest of your turn your blows (or blows with a ki focus weapon) may ignore any damage resistance a single target may have.
Some martial arts masters are reputed to be able to burst internal organs by focusing ki to flow past the defenses of the target and into their bodies. This simulates that, allowing the monk to ‘get in a good one’ on a target. However, as noted ki is a limited resource. A wise monk will save this for very high AC foes they would otherwise have problems striking.
Ringing the Gong
You deliver your unarmed strike at a distance.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ki-pool, ki Focused Strike, Improved ki Focused Strike.
Benefit: By expending a point of ki you may deliver one unarmed strike as a ranged touch attack on any target you can see within thirty feet.
An extension on the theme above, this isn’t really here to address a flaw so much as to complete the set.
Enhanced Ki Strike
You can amplify the benefits of your ki strike.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ki strike class feature.
Benefit: Your unarmed strikes (or strikes with a ki focus weapon) gain an Enhancement bonus to hit. For every four monk levels that you have, your unarmed strikes gain a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, to a maximum of +5.
Alternate Wording: Benefit: Your unarmed strikes (or strikes with a ki focus weapon) gain an Enhancement bonus to hit. For every ki feat that you possess, your unarmed strikes gain a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, to a maximum of +5. ki feats are any feats that mention ki in their title (Extra ki, ki Throw, etc) or require ki to be expended to work.
This addresses the monks major issue of hitting the target at all. It does not replace or stack with magical enhancements, as it is only an ehancement bonus to hit, but it does help close the gap with the combat classes using magic weapons. It could be combined with the AoMF using the latter to supply weapon properties rather than enhancements to hit if so desired.
Items:
Gloves & Tabi of Striking Aura feint evocation CL 5th
Slot Hands & Feet Price Enhancement bonus squared x 2,500gp.
DESCRIPTION
These gloves and tabi can only work if the set is worn in both hand and foot slots. The provide an enhancement bonus as a weapon to unarmed strikes, and may possess weapon qualities. The maximum enhancement equivalent is +10.
CONSTRUCTION
Craft Magic Arms & Armor, greater magic weapon, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities; Cost bonus squared x 1,250gp.
This item is not going to replace the AoMF – for one thing, while half the price it takes up two body slots, not inappropriate for an item enhancing the whole body. For another, it does not enhance natural weapons, only unarmed strikes.
Item Property:
Greater Ki Focus: As ki focus, a monk with these weapons can apply their ki abilities that they would normally focus through an unarmed strike through a weapon with this quality. Furthermore, the monk may substitute their unarmed strike damage for the damage dice of the weapon if they wish. This weapon quality is equivalent to a +2 bonus.
This is a biggee, it allows the monk to use a weapon AND get the advantage of their unarmed strike damage. On the flip side, they lose out on +2 worth of enhancements. That can be worth +2d6 damage, which makes the replacement of 1d6 with 2d10 at level 20 a lot more palatable. The biggest advantage of this feature is that a weapon can have a higher threat range than an unarmed strike, although using such a weapon usually requires another feat from the monk for the proficiency…
Something like spend 1 ki to bypass all DR for 1 round. This might sound too strong, but ki pools are very small and the monk can still only attack what is next to him. Or maybe half damage goes through DR.
The other thing I can think of, also to change ki strike is, the monk's AoMF is limited to a +5 enhancement. Why not rather make ki strike give an enhancement bonus as well. to a maximum of +5, starting at level 4 and working its way up. Then drop the bypass DR thing, but let is have the same one that magic items have. (+3 cold iron/silver, +4 adamantine, +5 alignment based). Wait, why was the monk getting adamantine @ lvl16 and lawful @ lvl0. From this it looks like those 2 needed to be swapped around..
Ah well. Just playing around with a few ideas. Let me know what people think.
Edit: Just noticed that the slow fall progression could have worked well for my monk enhancement bonus idea. Starts @ +2 @ level 4, then goes up with 1 every 3 levels. to +9 @ lvl18. This does bring the monk back to needing less items, but lets face it. the monk is a class that will need 2 stat boost items, one of which will boost at least two stats (3 if you can afford it).
OK, taking this further to something practical that can be inserted in the existing Monk framework, I would suggest the following options:
Feats:
Ki Focussed Strike
You can deliver damage that bypasses your foe's normal defences.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Ki-pool.
Benefit: When you expend a point of ki, you unarmed blows (or blows with a ki focus weapon) may for that round ignore any damage resistance or hardness your target may have.
Improved Ki Focussed Strike
You can deliver an attack that bypasses most of your target's defences.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Ki-pool, Ki Focussed Strike.
Benefit: When you expend a point of ki, your next unarmed blow (or blow with a ki focus weapon) is resolved as a touch attack, also ignoring any hardness or damage resistance. For the rest of your turn your blows (or blows with a ki focus weapon) may ignore any damage resistance or hardness your target may have.
Ki Enhanced Strike
You can amplify the benefits of your ki strike.
Pre-requisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, ki strike.
Benefit: Your unarmed strikes (or strikes with a ki focus weapon)gain an Enhancement bonus to hit. For every four monk levels that you have, your unarmed strikes gain a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, to a maximum of +5.
Alternate Wording: Benefit: Your unarmed strikes (or strikes with a ki focus weapon)gain an Enhancement bonus to hit. For every ki feat that you possess, your unarmed strikes gain a +1 enhancement bonus to hit, to a maximum of +5. Ki feats are any feats that mention ki in their title (Extra ki, Ki Throw, etc).
Items:
Gloves & Tabi of Striking Aura feint evocation CL 5th
Slot Hands & Feet Price Enhancement bonus squared x 2,500gp.
DESCRIPTION
These gloves and tabi can only work if the set is worn in both hand and foot slots. The provide an enhancement bonus as a weapon to unarmed strikes, and may possess weapon qualities. The maximum enhancement equivelant is +10.
CONSTRUCTION
Craft Magic Arms & Armour, greater magic weapon, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities; Cost bonus squared x 1,250gp.
Item Property:
Greater Ki Focus: As ki focus, a monk with these weapons can apply their ki abilities that they would normally focus through an unarmed strike through a weapon with this quality. Furthermore, the monk may substitute their unarmed strike damage for the damage dice of the weapon if they wish.
This isn't a campaign, and it's not about "fighting the man" or anything. It's about cleanly and concisely making the people in charge aware that the clarification overturns the method of adjudicating Flurry of Blows that a significant contingient of the playerbase was using, breaks segments of existing material, introduces a few rules questions, and does detriment to the efficacy of an class that's already not particularly high on the totem pole.
There's already several threads regarding the issue piled high with FAQ flags. They've already committed to examining the issue. Additional discussion of areas where the clarification causes confusion, inconsistancy, absurdity or general breakage is potentially still useful, as bringing those things to light can help ensure that whatever decisions they come to regarding FoB bear those in mind. General Us. vs. Them rhetoric, however, is off-putting and hampers good communication. I haven't been above being sarcastic and things in the pursuit of making points regarding just how awful the clarification is, but it's not about defeating the other side; it's about persuading them, and being obnoxious is pretty bad for the latter.
DeathQuaker wrote:
As for deleting your [master arminas'] posts, I know I've flagged some of your posts and I wouldn't be surprised if others have too, for being abusive and inappropriate. That's the kind of attention you're earning. Sure, you're hitting nerves. But I don't think it's gaining you the "success" you think it is.
Also, what joyd and Mikaze and Gary Teter said.
I trust the devs are working on the issue and will report when they're damn good and ready---in between checking ARG blues and writing UE and working on various Chronicles and Companions and Adventure Paths, of course--and not before. I for one would much prefer a playtested, well-thought out response that comes six months from now than a hasty answer that comes tomorrow that doesn't sufficiently deal with the problem.
The flagged posts were removed before I read them, so I retain my good opinion of master arminas.
Though I have played a Pathfinder monk and intend to play one again someday, my main interest in the Flurry of Blows clarification is as a fascinating design problem and an illustrative editing problem. Sean K Reynolds made a simple clarification that Flurry of Blows is not a stand-alone ability that resembles Two-Weapon Fighting; instead, it is Two-Weapon Fighting with some modifications. And the effects of this minor clarification snowballed to invalidate many aspects of the ability and perhaps even invalidate a monk archetype, the Zen Archer.
The Paizo developers have impressed me in the past and I look forward to seeing how they solve the confusion. And as a student of collaborative design, I hope that the forum posts contribute to the solution.
The snowballing occurred because two-weapon fighting and unarmed strike are governed by rules wierder than the usual combat rules, so interpretation is difficult. Throw in some phrasing that had one meaning in D&D 3.5 and another meaning in Pathfinder. Once a key interpretation was removed, the set of Pathfinder Flurry of Blows rules tumbled over like a Jenga tower.
Let me show my view of the tumble, as a discussion of where the clarification caused confusion, inconsistency, and change. The "naive answer" below will be my view of Flurry of Blows as a stand-alone ability independent of two-weapon fighting. The "TWF answer" below will be my view under Sean K. Renolds' clarification that Flurry of Blows is two-weapon fighting. The answers are my best guess, not official answers.
Giant Wall of Text:
Question 1. How are the weapons in each hand used in Flurry of Blows?
Naive answer. The phrase, "he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon" means that on each individual attack, the monk hits with your choice out of the monk weapons he wields and unarmed strike. A monk holding a kama and a siangham could use the kama, the siangham, or unarmed strike for any his regular attacks or his extra attacks.
TWF answer. The monk fights via two-weapon fighting rules. If the monk has a kama in his primary hand and a siangham in his off-hand, then his regular attacks are made with the kama and his off-hand attacks are made with the siangham. However, the monk's Unarmed Strike says that he may make unarmed strikes with his hands full, so he may substitute an unarmed strike for any of these weapon attacks. If a monk's primary hand or off hand is empty, he may make unarmed strikes with it.
Question 2.Some people say that unarmed strike is a single weapon and others say that it is many weapons. How does each version work with Flurry of Blows?
Naive answer. Whether unarmed strike is one weapon or many weapons does not matter, because the monk can make all his flurry attacks with a single weapon.
TWF answer. The unarmed strike is definitely many weapons, and one can be wielded with the right hand and one can be wielded with the left hand. If it were one weapon, then the monk could not do a one-two punch with a flurry of blows and that would be no fun. Ignore any phrasing in the rules that implies it is one weapon.
Question 3. What are the penalties on attack rolls for getting extra attacks during a flurry of blows?
Naive answer. Oops, we forgot to explicitly write the penalty down in the ability. Fortunately, you probably guessed that it is -2 like two-weapon fighting with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and light weapons, because we mentioned the feat. The column labeled "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" in the Monk Table confirms that guess.
TWF answer. The flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting, so it follows two-weapon fighting rules. Flurry of blows temporarily grants the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, so the penalty is -2 if the off hand wields a light weapon or an unarmed strike, and is -4 if the off hand wields a non-light weapon. Because most monk weapons are light and the quarterstaff is double, the -4 will almost never come up.
Question 4. Can I use flurry of blows without the extra attacks and get the base attack bonus equal to my monk level without also suffering the -2 penalty?
Naive answer. The -2 penalty is inherent to flurry of blows. You cannot avoid it by skipping the extra attacks.
TWF answer. The extra attacks are inherent to flurry of blows. Even if you don't make the extra attacks, you are still penalized for them. Although the November 2011 FAQ on Multiple Weapons by Sean K. Renolds says, "Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round," that guidance is not meant to apply to flurry of blows. It was a special case we overlooked.
Question 5. The ability says, "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands." How does a monk use a weapon wielded in both hands in a flurry of blows? I mean as a two-handed weapon not as a double weapon. I want to Power Attack with a temple sword, shoot a bow as a Zen Archer, and flurry with a polearm or spear as a 6th-level Sohei.
Naive answer. The monk holds the two-handed weapon in both hands. He can make any of his attacks with the two-handed weapon or with unarmed strike.
TWF answer. The flurry of blows differs here from the usual two-weapon fighting rules, which require a second weapon in the off hand. Treat the two-handed weapon as the primary-hand weapon, and make the off-hand attacks with unarmed strike. The Zen Archer is a further modification to the rules, and can use his bow for both the primary and the off-hand attacks.
Question 6. What are the penalties wielding a weapon in two hands for a flurry of blows.
Naive answer It's a -2 penalty, as usual.
TWF answer When using a two-handed weapon, the off-hand attack is by unarmed strike, so the penalty is -2. Except for the Zen Archer. He wields the bow in both his primary and off hands, and the bow is not light, so the penalty is -4.
I am not satisfied with my TWF answers to the two-handed weapon questions #5 and #6. Does anyone have better answers?
I am also curious: how are people currently playing the penalties on the Zen Archer's flurry with a bow? Is it -2 or -4?
Question 7. My monk cannot afford two enchanted weapons. Is there some way that he can afford to flurry with as much of an echantment bonus as his friend the two-handed-weapon fighter gets?
Naive answer. This is an advice question not a rules question. Fortunately, we have some good advice. Since the monk can make all his attacks in a flurry with a single weapon, your monk needs only one enchanted weapon.
TWF answer. This is a design question not a rules question. Suppose that a fifth-level fighter uses a +2 greatsword. He gets to apply that +2 only once per round. Suppose that a fifth-level monk flurries with two +2 kamas. He applies those +2's once for each kama during each round. The +2 to attack rolls is not additive across the round, so really it does not count twice, but the +2 to damage is additive, so it does count twice. Double the damage bonus is worth the extra cost, isn't it?
Question 8. The monk's Unarmed Strike ability says, "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." What does that mean for a flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting?
Naive answer. Flurry of Blows does not have real off-hand attacks, and the monk can use unarmed strike on both the regular attacks and the extra attacks. No monk will want to use plain two-weapon fighting instead of flurry of blows, so its meaning for two-weapon fighting does not matter.
TWF answer. The wording is a holdover from D&D 3.5 when a character always had a primary hand and an off hand, even in regular combat. For Pathfinder, it means that the monk gets a full Strength bonus on off-hand attacks with unarmed strike.
A moderater just removed one of my posts on the thread Simple Fix to Flurry of Blows and directed us to either FAQ the thread or discuss the topic, but don't campaign for votes!
And I was just answering another posters lamentation that he hasn't had a chance to contribute by linking to this thread and encouraging him to raise his voice and be heard.
I think we hit a nerve, gentlemen. Well done.
Master Arminas
Whoa, not helping, and (I think and I hope) not representative of the feelings of most who are trying to raise awareness of the issues with the clarifaction. This isn't a campaign, and it's not about "fighting the man" or anything. It's about cleanly and concisely making the people in charge aware that the clarification overturns the method of adjudicating Flurry of Blows that a significant contingient of the playerbase was using, breaks segments of existing material, introduces a few rules questions, and does detriment to the efficacy of an class that's already not particularly high on the totem pole.
There's already several threads regarding the issue piled high with FAQ flags. They've already committed to examining the issue. Additional discussion of areas where the clarification causes confusion, inconsistancy, absurdity or general breakage is potentially still useful, as bringing those things to light can help ensure that whatever decisions they come to regarding FoB bear those in mind. General Us. vs. Them rhetoric, however, is off-putting and hampers good communication. I haven't been above being sarcastic and things in the pursuit of making points regarding just how awful the clarification is, but it's not about defeating the other side; it's about persuading them, and being obnoxious is pretty bad for the latter.
I do wish personal attacks and call-outs towards specific devs would stop, even(or rather especially) when they're voicing stances I'd otherwise agree with. Things aren't nearly as nasty now as they were a few years ago, but it still pops up every now and then.
On the flipside, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't frustrated by the tone sometimes. The "armchair developer" crack back during the Vow of Poverty mess was probably the low point.
I'd like to think customers and developers alike can have discussions about how to better the game or what they want out of it without either "side" going into attack mode.
Boy, it sure does look like we've stirred up the hornets nest this time. Let me clear up a few things.
1. Everybody just take a breath. There is no need for the tone I am seeing in some of these posts.
2. Every single one of these FAQ posts and clarifications are discussed by the rules team. No matter who makes the actual post or clarification.
3. Concerning this particular issue...
The intent of this particular rule was to marry the flurry of blows ability to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree, so that we could easily control and correct any problems that came up, and to have those corrections universally apply to everything that interacted with it. That said, there was an exception built into the flurry rules to allow them to properly portray the monk ability to beat you to death with various body parts (hence unarmed strike). I will admit that the wording could certainly be better in this regard. Let me give it to you clearly as to what we intended...
Flurry allows you to make multiple attacks as if using Two Weapon Fighting. You can substitute any of these attacks with an unarmed strike if you choose, up to all of them. If a weapon or attack is different than the others, it was the intent to limit that to the maximum number of attacks you could normally take with said weapon while utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting (ie 2 at +6BAB, 3 at +11BAB and so on), with all of those attacks falling into the standard chain of reducing attack bonus (-5 cumulative for each additional attack). It was not the intent to allow you to make more than this using one specific weapon (not unarmed strikes), or to take all of the highest attack bonus attacks with that weapon. This makes the monks attacks, from a baseline perspective significantly better than that of a fighter, who must invest in twice the number of weapon to gain a similar benefit.
That said.. this causes some problems that came to light today as this bounced around the office, namely that it was not common knowledge that it was supposed to work this way and has gone to print without this change. This is obviously a concern and one that I intend to investigate. There is also the problem of the Zen Archer, which clearly does not work with these rules (or rather, it clearly, as its intent, violates these rules). There is also the concern that this system is a bit of a pain to figure out, which is something that does concern me greatly.
We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.
I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.
In games I run, one suit of worn clothing won't count for encumbrance. I'm relatively sure that the omission of that line from the rules was an oversight, but it's not something that I think warrants a full-blown errata.
I hope this request is already in there somewhere, but:
Please rework treasure generation and placement. The current CRB+GMG system is kludgey to the point of unusable. Percentage tables take up an incredible amount of space in the Core Rulebook and GMG, and yet I have never successfully generated treasure in a way that was easy or satisfying.
If the designers would have us pick treasure and place it in a semi-random way, let the rules call that out.
Include slots for "Reroll or roll from a book of the GM's choice" or some other way we can expand this table to subsequent books.
Include treasure hoard "templates" instead of 100% random — just a list of all the item types you ought to include, and a quick roll to randomize that (double potions, no scrolls, etc). Then some guidelines on places to stash treasure in the adventure (how much NPC gear? How much hidden cache? How much in monster bellies?)
Do everything you can to eliminate the frustrating process of generating invalid results and going back to the beginning.
Make sure these results work correctly with things like the settlement statblocks — I ran into problems with that the last time I tried the CRB+GMG method. I can't remember the specifics, I banished them with self-inflicted head trauma.
I do understand that these are legacy issues that stretch back even beyond 3.0... but it would be a shame to have this book released and miss the opportunity to fix it. Think of the effort you'll save on behalf of all those GMs! They'll run more games, which means more people will play, which means more sales! It's totally worth it!
(I apologize for my inappropriately strong feelings on this issue)
You walk down the meandering street searching for the Beer and Pretzel Inn. Eventually you spy the well described by the beggar. Looking left you spot a faded sign board with mug and pretzel carving. As you approach the building, a half orc sails out of the doorway and lands on the cobblestone street.
That particular text, while evocative, does something that we avoid doing in read-aloud text in our adventures: telling the players what they themselves are *doing*. That removes the players' ownership of their characters, even if only subconsciously. By all means, get descriptive about what they see, smell, hear, taste, and touch, but they'll respond better if you let them tell you what they *do*.
Contrast:
"Looking left you spot a faded sign board with mug and pretzel carving."
"On the left side of the street is a faded sign board with mug and pretzel carving."
The latter provides immersion; the former harms immersion by subtly taking away their control.
Ah sorry.... 3x3x3 is a method in which a player can add some background NPC's into the game. Ones they create, and gives me as a DM more opportunities for RP with said character via these NPC's.
3 Allies
3 Contacts
3 Rivals
With a format like this:
3x3x3
Friends/Allies/Contact/Rival/Enemies:
Name:
Quirk/Personality:
Ties / Background:
Notes:
Here's one from a Dresden game-
Contacts:
Name: Heather Baxley
Quirk/Personality: Huge eyes behind Coke bottle glasses. Reminiscent of an owl.
Ties/Background: Runs Baxley Books. Collectables and curios up front, magick shop and herbalist supply in back. Helps Marty out with all sorts of miscellaneous stuff.
Notes: In the know.
Noting super detailed but enough to get the player involved and allow me to use them as a foil, a source of info, what-not.
I have one player with heavy ties to Magnimar. He was/is a student at the magic academy there and has his family as allies(mom, dad and brother), 2 teachers and a shop keeper as contacts, and for rivals 3 students. 2 are LE and one is a CG gnome.
So in when in Magnimar if he needed help deciphering an ancient script or id'ing an item he was unfamiliar with he could turn to any of his contacts and they may or may help him. They're contacts - neutral, but can help if needed.
So if goes to the contact Larz Cavrindros, a Varisian scholar who he admires to get help with the ancient script he's found. One of his rivals over hears that he has returned to Magnimar and was seeking out the scholar. Now the npc might harass our hero, or stall the contact or even bribe the contact to keep the script so he(the rival) could see it or even steal it.
Just rattling now, sorry.
Basically in a group of 5 players it gives me 45 prebuilt NPC's to use as needed and inject into the story. Plus the players tend to have bigger buy-in's with the game if they're NPC in involved.
PCGen v5.17.11 is an alpha release with a difference.
For the first time, we introduce our new user interface!
The new user interface does most of what you are used to, but we still have to get kits, familiars, companions and temporary mods working. It is important to remember that this is an alpha in the industry standard sense and will have rough edges. We are putting it out for feedback but recommend you don't pick it up for your regular game use just yet.
PCGen is an RPG character generator and maintenance program (d20 systems). All datafiles are ASCII text files so they can be modified by users for their own campaigns.
For more information about PCGen, join us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen or visit our website at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen and our wiki at http://wiki.pcgen.org/.
@Aberzombie - Any software that allows you to collate pngs into a single document will allow you to create a map - and powerpoint actually does that surprisingly well. I know I used to crate posters (not for mapping) using powerpoint. However powerpoint suffers when you have lots of objects, and (I think) lacks the means to group sets of items easily to show/hide. That might not be the case as I've not used it for a while.
@DeathQuaker - You're absolutely right. I know I said 'start with the streets' but that was a little disengenuous. You need to know where the streets are going to and from so you do need to know the locations of major landmarks first. So I think it's better to say - start with the important tactical terrain. Rivers and hills. You don't need to pin them down precisely and render them up beautifully, but you do need to know where they are.
Power centers are almost always on top of a hill as they started off small, and needed to be in the best place to stave off attack. Or they'll be in a bend in a river, so that they're defended on 2 or 3 sides by water. If a city can be beside the water it will be, and again as the city started small, the power center and the old town will be at the waterside. So you need to know where the rivers/coastline and hills are.
Once you've got that, you know where the old town is. All main roads to other cities will lead to the power center, because that's where they started. They'll follow the contours of the land and will be constrained by where they cross rivers. Draw these in, and feel free to put in wiggles and kinks - roads don't necessarily go straight.
Now you start creating the rest of the city. The old town normally has a wall around it - again from the history of being attacked. You need to decide on whether the newer wider city has walls around it too. Walls restrict the passage of major roads - so they're important.
So now you should have:
1. Rivers and hills
2. Power center
3. Walls on the old town (and newer town)
4. Major roads from the center to the outside world
At this point, pick some major locations that people are going to need to get to/from. Some ideas:
• Docks
• Market
• Granaries
• Arcane University
• Temple district/center of worship
• Barracks
• Secondary power center (parliament/royal residence).
It's also worth pencilling in the different demographics of the quarters of he city now as well such as:
• Rich merchant/nobles
• Artisans
• Slums
• Warehouses
The major locations will work as focal points for your roads - people need to get there, so large roads will come off them like spokes off a wheel. Again, don't make them rod straight, allow them to have kinks and doglegs in them - but make sure they go in one clear direction. If there needs to be a road from the barracks to the palace and from the Barracks to the city gates, make sure it's clear that it does - but still remember that roads also go round places, and are designed to leave roughly rectangular spaces for building houses.
Now you should have a spider's web of main roads and you need to fill in the big irregular spaces with little roads to define the different districts. This is where the demographic of an area comes in. Slums are unplanned and ungoverned, so roads go where they need to , not where they should. let your pen wander and lay in a messy labyrinth of twisting alleyways.
On the other hand, merchants and nobles live in large houses with land around them on straight tree lined avenues. Place straight(ish) or gently curving roads in these areas, with lots of space for mansions. Grids look good for this too, and quickly give off a sense of ordered planning. Middle class areas are similar, but with smaller areas between roads, or with tenements, and more alleyways. Keep the roads to straight lines and sharp angles here too to retain a contrast with the slums.
Now you should have a reasonably clear city plan - and you've defined it by drawing the roads. I hope that does the trick?
1. Roll a d100 five times, either with real dice or on Invisible Castle or some other dicerolling website if you wish to confirm your numbers here.
2. The corresponding numbers will show you the five races on the list that will be the player races for your setting. These five races are the only "default assumption" choices for your setting's player race options.
3. Write up a setting with those five races! It can be as simple or as highly developed as you want. From a few short paragraphs to an essay. The only requirement is that all five of your races must have a place in the setting. None of them can just be a footnote compared to the rest. You might want to consider the environment, how the races relate to each other, their origins, cultures, etc.
4. Assume that all of your races are "powered down" (or in rare cases, "powered up", so that they are balanced within reason. You can assume this works any number of ways, from the Savage Species route where races start weak "level up" as their race or that they're just watered down variants of those races.
5. If you get the same number more than once, you have two(or more) very different variants of that race, like the divide between elves and drow.
6. Individuals of all five races must be able to be in a party together.
7. Have FUN. Make it a world you would enjoy playing in or running. If you get a race you really don't like, put a new spin on them. You're not bound to flavor, alignment, aesthetics, or setting expectations save for what you want in your new setting. Make these races your own.
Who knows, you might have some new ideas you want to use in your games, or some that someone else may want to use!
11. Drow
12. Tiefling (humanoids with fiend ancestry)
13. Aasimar (humanoids with celestial ancestry)
14. Fetchling (humanoids with shae ancestry)
15. Ifrit (humanoids with efreet ancestry)
16. Undine (humanoids with marid ancestry)
17. Sylph (humanoids with djinn ancestry)
18. Oread (humanoids with shaitan ancestry)
19. Suli (humanoids with jann ancestry)
20. Dhampir (half-humanoid/half-vampire)
21. Changeling (hag-kin) (the children of humanoid males and hags)
22. Catfolk
23. Lizardfolk
24. Ratfolk
25. Vanara (monkey-folk)
26. Vishkanya (humanoids with slight snake-like features and poisonous blood)
27. Strix (black, avian humanoids with harpy-like builds)
28. Tengu
29. Merfolk
30. Gillmen
31. Duergar
32. Derro
33. Svirfneblin
34. Kitsune (shapechanging fox-folk)
35. Nagaji (reptilian humanoids originally created by the naga as a servant race)
36. Samsaran (reincarnated blue-skinned humanoids)
37. Wayang (gnome-like beings with roots in the Shadow Plane)
38. Grippli
39. Kobold
40. Ogre
41. Dryad
42. Satyr
43. Pixie
44. Nymph
45. Sprite
46. Forlarren (bipolar fey born from the unions of nymphs and fiends)
47. Nereid (aquatic nymph-like fey)
48. Nixie
49. Treant
50. Faun
61. Sahuagin
62. Cecaelia (merfolk-like humanoids, with octopus tentacles instead of a fish tail)
63. Grindylow (the goblin equivalent of Cecaelia)
64. Locathah
65. Derhii (winged, intelligent gorillas)
66. Girtablilu (centauroids with a scorpion-like lower half + claws)
67. Sasquatch
68. Tanuki (short raccoon-like humanoids)
69. Thriae (all female-race of bee people)
70. Spriggan
71. Dark Folk
72. Drider
73. Mongrelman
74. Serpentfolk
75. Ettercap
76. Shae (humanoids made of solid shadow)
77. Flumph
78. Vodyanoi (salamander-like humanoids)
79. Ghoul
80. Vampire
81. Gearman/Warforged (mechanical humanoids)
82. Changeling(doppleganger-kin) (descendants of humanoids and dopplegangers)
83. Shifter (descendants of humanoids and lycanthropes)
84. Uldra (small blue-skinned fey adapted for cold environments)
85. Darfellan (powerful humanoids with orca-like skin)
86. Asherati (desert-dwelling hairless elf-like beings capable of swimming through sand)
87. Illumian (human-like beings infused with sorcery with glowing sigils floating around their heads)
88. Raptoran (winged and taloned elf-like race)
89. Goliath (tall, strong humanoids with stony appearances and tough hides)
90. Dragonborn (draconic humanoids)
91. Aberration-based Humanoid (wildcard, make your own!)
92. Construct-based Humanoid (wildcard, make your own!)
93. Dragon-based Humanoid (wildcard, make your own!)
94. Ooze-based Humanoid (wildcard, make your own!)
95. Plant-based Humanoid (wildcard, make your own!)
96. Thri-Kreen (four armed insectoid race)
97. Bariaur (centauroid with a mountain goat-like lower half)
98. Rogue Modron (free-willed box-like construct)
99. Mul (half-human/half-dwarf hybrid)
00. Pseudodragon
If you need more information on any of these races, just ask!
Credit where credit's due:
Spoiler:
This is based on one of my alltime favorite threads on /tg/ that I really didn't expect to be as cool as it was. Basically, there was a picture posted by the OP with a large number of varied races, each with a name and a number. The rules were pretty much the same as presented here. There were a lot of neat ideas shared, and a couple of campaigns actually kicked off because of it. Good times. And surprising given the nature of the picture.
So you think the best time to alienate customers by requiring them to purchase a whole new set of expensive books is when your biggest competitor is alienating theirs as well? Bad, bad idea.
It's important to remember that CR adjustments are NOT the same as 3.5's old Level Adjustments. A creature's CR is a measure of its power in a battle against player characters, and takes in to account the fact that the monster won't be "on stage" for more than several rounds; it's not going to be influencing every single role in a game (which is what the PC race modifiers do).
And the "monsters as characters" entries in the Bestiary aren't there to give permission to players to use them as PCs. They're there because those creatures don't have racial hit dice, and thus are custom built each time by adding character levels to them. We probably should have titled these sections "Monsters as Non-Player Characters" since that's mostly the intent.
Of course, if a GM is cool with letting players play monsters, the "monsters as characters" entries help a lot in getting those particular monstrous PCs off the ground. Chapter 12 in the Core rulebook and the appendix of the Bestiary have guidelines for how to handle playing monstrous player characters.
Here is the Comprehensive Guide for Game Masters and players on the form of a google document, which means that you can comment it as you wish directly by clicking on the part of the text that you particularly approve/disapprove with, and propose changes that can be made quickly !
So 25 is still max and you throw dinosaurs over continents with it?
Care to reference a page on that one, because I am seeing 25 strength listed with the following traits:
+7 Hit Probability: roughly equivalent to a 24 strength.
+14 Damage adjustment: considering there was no "two-handed is better damage" back then, let's round off and call that equivalent to a 30 strength.
1,535 Weight Allowance: That's an impressive one, roughly equivalent to the light load of a 38 strength (assuming medium biped).
1,750 Max Press That's around the equivalent of a 31 strength's overhead lift.
19 (18) Open Doors: Opens stuck doors 95% of the time, and magically held, locked, or barred doors 90% of the time... we can call that equivalent to having a +27 modifier (rolling and having a 10% chance to fail the DC 30 break down a door with an iron bar), or we could acknowledge rules differences (taking 10 or 20) and cut that down to where a 30 strength can take 20 and get the job down.
99% Bend Bars/Lift Gates: That is an easy one, given the DC 25 a 20 strength gets 100% if allowed time to take 20, otherwise you could have a 40 strength take 10.
It also says that 25 is the strength of a Titan... and a quick check into Pathfinder says that an Elysian Titan has a 45 strength, and a Thanatotic Titan has a 49.
What's that mean? Titan's actually got stronger because of the rules changes. So yeah, why compare it?
As for the helpful comparison, bear with me a sec...
1st level fighter attacking a guy wearing Chainmail.
2nd edition, that's a THAC0 of 20 against an AC of 5 - meaning, for those not familiar, that the total attack roll needs to be 15 or higher in order to hit.
Pathfinder, that's a BAB of +1 against an AC of 16 to 18 - meaning the total attack roll needs to be 16 to 18.
Assuming both a 10 strength on the attacker and a 10 dexterity on the defender - 2nd edition requires a natural roll of 15+ (30% success chance), and Pathfinder requires a natural roll of 15+ (30% success chance). So far, the two systems require the same roll in same situations.
Now let's assume a 14 strength on the attacker and a 10, and then 14 dexterity on the defender - 2nd edition, nothing changes... for this purpose the 10 to 14 range has identical results. Pathfinder, however, gives a +2 to the attack roll meaning our attacker's chance to hit just went up to 40% (a natural 13 or better) unless the defender's Dexterity also went up to 14.
Finally, let's assume an 18 strength and dexterity - 2nd edition, our attacker now has a bonus to hit of +1 to +3 depending on how well he rolled for exceptional strength, and our defender has a -4 modifier to his AC... so our natural to-hit roll needs to be at least a 16 but could need to be as high as an 18 (15-25% chance of success). Pathfinder, our attacker has a +4 bonus to hit and the defender (thanks to max dex) has brought his AC to 18... for a 14 or better being a hit (35% success).
Final conclusion: Ability scores do a whole lot more at lower ratings in Pathfinder, and can go above and beyond what even the highest scores in 2nd edition used to do. Pathfinder is entirely a higher power scale game... and in neither game is "throwing dinosaurs over continents," actually reasonably possible.
A 14 in AD&D is considered "pretty great" and it does next to nothing for you, a 14 in Pathfinder seems to be considered "kinda low" and actually does something no matter which score it is in... consider me not convinced.
Yeah, I think I may just make a point to be watchful of telling my players to avoid chargen choices that I'd allow them to do without a feat/ability.
Strike Back, Rhino Charge, Unseat and Antagonize (sort of) are some of the worst offenders in my personal opinion. There are many more.
In the other thread, someone suggested keeping the feats, but just making them grant +4 to the attempt that is available to everyone. I really appreciate the simplicity of that.
To use your specific example: anyone could try a Body Bludgeon maneuver, and the barbarian with the rage power would simply get a +4 to such maneuvers. Very neat.
I think this group needs to disband. There seem to be a lot of issues. I think I've read something similar in Knights of the Dinner Table, though that is supposed to be satire.
If I was the DM of this group, said weapon would implode. Arguing over items is silly. Period. It's supposed to be a game. A time to relax, hang out with friends, and tell stories and roll some dice.
Sometimes it's about being the bigger person. There seems to be a lot of negative pent up energy over something that could have been resolved a while ago. Instead... both parties dig their heels in and fight and won't give in.
In my group we argue over who gets the last Dew...
Otherwise one of you, and I'm not specifying which, needs to grow up and end the argument. Either by giving her the silly imaginary sword, or she conceding and letting you keep it.
The above has probably been said and if she is SO incredibly unwilling to let you keep it be the man and give her the sword. Is it worth all the trouble?
You say this is your first time with the rules, but you're already changing them without playing them?
I've been playing since 1981, so I understand the temptation to think that we understand and can familiarize ourselves with any system we come across just by looking at it. But I also understand how many times that has turned out not to be so.
I would recommend you actually play the game before you start altering it with house rules a mile long. You might find that not everything you think is broken, is, which will save you a lot of time and grief. I mean, to what are you comparing?
As to the creation guidelines, I have to ask where the 1st level PCs are getting 1,000 gp a day to do all this crafting? Is your concern that money is just lying around town in the gutters for any average PC to come by and pick up?
And why and how would every character in the game world go into the business of making magical items? Is every character in the game world a wizard? Are there no farmers or bakers or blacksmiths? Do you anticipate GMing for a party of four wizards?
Once again, we are both Paizo's greatest asset and its greatest detriment.
He could've called it "throatwarbler mangrove" for all I care -- if anyone who's a geek or gamer sees this positive review, and gives PF a try, then it's an awesome coup, not to the detriment of the game. They can learn the niggling tidbits later, like "what box came first," or "how Topher Kohan can't spell worth a damn."
This is LIGHT YEARS better than a player expecting his character to be entirely self-sufficient. As a DM I am jealous that I do not have such coordination between my players.
BTW, one point I don't think I've seen raised is that characters aren't always walking around fully clad for a dungeon crawl or open warfare. At chiefly diplomatic events, it might make a great deal more sense to wear ceremonial armor or otherwise less Battle Practical™ attire so as to gain other advantages. In such situations it might even be against decorum to wear your full kit — particularly if it's all dinged and such from seeing actual usage in the field.
Not every depiction of a character (even one wearing armor) needs to assume they are currently in or expecting a fight. I don't know about you guys, but my characters and NPCs don't exactly walk around in the same gear 24×7. IMO it's a bit unfortunate that the iconic characters never seem to get a change of clothes. I'd personally love to see more variety in even a single character's attire.
Glad you liked them doctor_wu. Here's a few more that I found in a Deviant Art group entitled "Battle-Ready-Womyn". Some are animé style, some concept art, some character studies. There's more BreastPlate™ in these designs, but I don't think any of the poses or dispositions could be considered demeaning or even funny-looking.
.
.
.
Bellona - Goddes of War Greco-Roman musculata armor (yes, the historical male versions of this are replete with 6-pack abs, rock-hard pecs, and nipples) artist states this one is still a work in progress
One of the main goals of the system was to help GMs, or players with GMs oversight, create races that were relatively balanced with the core races.
And I mean relatively.
In many ways it is impossible to make it entirely balanced, partially because that kind balance is a mythical creature of RPG design from the land of hopes and dreams
We know that perfect balance is a myth. That doesn't mean that the system should try its level best to to try everything to make the system as balanced as reasonably possible.
After all, we are talking about a crunch-heavy system here. I mean, the system puts point price tags on language choices! It doesn't get more crunchy than that! (in fact, I consider the languages section to be not even near a reasonable approach)
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
but mainly because the core races were built on many assumptions about the races in the default setting and general fantasy tropes. They were not built using a point system.
Because of that we decided to zero out the system at 10 points as a baseline and use the core races as our benchmarks.
There is a really significant disconnect between these two statements.
First, you admit that the basic races weren't built to be mathematically equal, and then you say you have a system that is built on the assumption/definition that the races ARE equal.
That simply cannot work. Either go with "races won't be perfectly balanced, we'll only give you some general guidelines", or introduce a complex system that really crunches the numbers, but if you do the letter make sure the numbers check out.
Having flawed numbers to make square races fit the round system makes for a useless system.
The playtest system is basically the worst of both worlds: It's overly complex with too many price tags, but it tries to support a system that merely ballparks stuff.
So throw away the shoehorn! Freely admit that not all races are created equally, and let the numbers show it.
Set the RP costs so they are consistent with each other, so 2 RP will get you 2 RP worth of stuff. If the seven core races end up going all over the place with the points, that's okay. After all, we all know the races aren't created equal. So one of the core races will end up with 5 points and the other with 15? Doesn't matter.
And then, when GMs (or even players) create their own races, tell them that total point costs don't always have to be the same for all races - but if they want to create a roster of races that is created equal (or close enough to it), they can do it with your system.
Of course, there will always be some "synergy" that isn't reflected in the costs (like dwarves who get a lot more out of their 0 RP standard modifiers than any other race), but that isn't a reason to go completely random with the numbers.
The way things work now isn't really helpful. Some abilities were given away, while you have to pay for others through the nose - just to have a nice, uniform 10 under the races we all know and agree on aren't equal. That means it's easy to pick the abilities that are underpriced to make a joke out of all the numbers.
If we want a system where the numbers are a joke, why have numbers? Just allow each race X lesser, Y normal and Z greater abilities and not even have any numbers. Because having numbers will raise the expectation that the numbers make sense.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I'm sure that some min/maxers will always want to pick the Xenophobic language choice, but they'll pay some price later on to speak with other creatures.
Why? The only important thing they miss is Common as an automatic. If you have int 12, you can get it. If you need more languages, Linguistics is the way to go, anyway, and that is not limited at all by your racial preferences.
Plus, the fixed number of bonus languages the system has now is quite limiting, and not in line with existing creatures out there.
As I already said, this is one of the things where point costs make no real sense.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Could we make the dwarf more points? Sure. Could we make the gnome or the halfling less points? Sure. RP are constructs toward a design goal. But how does that accomplish the main goal of the system, which is to provide GM with a useful tool to create races relatively balanced with the core races?
I think you are missing the point. The fact that with proper prices, the races will have different point costs and thus the numbers will reflect the fact that the races aren't equal is not what we really want here. It's just a nice side effect. Icing.
The main accomplishment will be that the abilities will have proper prices. And this is exactly what will GMs allow to create races that are relatively balanced with each other and core races, because they don't have to read any subtext about whether something was over- or under-priced to satisfy the need to get 10 for the races.
They will go "Oh, I'm at 13 here. That's okay. Gnomes are only 7, dwarves are 16 (yes, I'm randomly spitting numbers here), so it's about in line with the core races."
They could also go and say "I'd like my core races to be on equal footing, so I'll set them all to 10 (or 15, or whatever)"
Sure, there is still situational stuff, and your class choice will still matter to whether the race is powerful or not, but, as I keep saying, just because you can't have perfect balance without some unreasonable trade-offs doesn't mean you don't need to try at all.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Creating game elements is often more art than science.
We understand. Note, however, that systems involving lots of numbers feel more like science than like art, and should strive to be reasonably scientific. Or ditch numbers.
In the end, I think that a system that all but drowns the user with numbers but is still based on the flawed assumption that every core race has 10 points is destined to fail.
This is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous agreement on one thing by the members of this board.
Please, Paizo, we want this to be good. We know you want this to be good. For the love of the game and its players, don't let your ego get in the way of something good.
Yeah the races clearly do not all line up. This is the cause of many of the wonky costs of abilities , they are trying to make even what clearly are not.
... And I'll thank you not to imply that it does, even if you self-identify as abnormal. What you call a geek sense of humor I call "blue" humor. It is not a prerequisite or even the standard of gaming just because you do it. I love the off-color jokes sometimes too, but there is no direct link with the hobby.
Is it possible the unhappy ladies in particular are encountering normal, dumb guys who would think the same thing about them fixing a car as playing a game, and just attributing it to gamer guys because that's who they most come into contact with?
I wrote:
...so the vast majority of people I meet gaming are cool or at least no more annoying than any other portion of the population...
I believe that's already been said. :)
For me the real difference is because the hobby is still quite male dominated, you have to be willing to put up with more, or strong enough to stand up for yourself more. And I personally have found that guys will say in one on one conversations that "so and so is a real jerk,", but won't back you up in pulic when you call so and so on said bad behavior and ask for it to stop. I've been cut off at the knees a couple of times...and since there are often no other women around, you're really alone.
On "guys' night out" games: Those are cool. If you want a guys only game, great. We all want time to just relax and not worry about hurting people's feelings so much. BUT THEN: don't invite women to this game. Seriously! I've been invited to that type of game by a guy friend without being told that's what it was - and without him okaying it with the rest of the group, including the DM. Boy, was I unwelcome. What the hell was he thinking?!?
Well, what I do when I meet such a Player is asking him:
"So, you had free choice of what character you wanted to play and you choose a prick that goes on everyones nerves instead of someone nice and helpful, is that what you mean when you say 'I am only RPing'?"
Well since we are talking about older D@D, lets talk about the first "Prestige" class, The Bard. In Ad@d 1st ed the bard was a mix of fighter,thief, and druid and was very unique(and very hard to obtain). I think the Ninja would have worked better as a prestige class, and so would the Gunslinger.
Some game designers at Paizo have openly stated that they not want the game to be all about balance: that they want the player to be able to make "mechanically wrong" choices. One case, such as the Vow of Poverty, was openly stated to have been made deliberately "mechanically weak" for roleplaying reasons -for since it is a sacrifice, you shouldn't have something to gain from it.
I'd like to expand this concept a little. I'll try my best not to sound like a troll now (which I'm not or, at least, am not trying to be).
Pathfinder, or any other RPG, actually works on two different levels: the mechanic, and the flavor. The "mechanic" issue is inherent in the concept of a "game": players should be granted the ability to make choices; these choices should affect the outcome of the game; there should be good choices and bad choices, but the difference is not inherent and rather depending on the current and future game context, the player's previous and future strategy and his personal tastes.
The flavor level is a completely different matter, one more concerned with internal coherence, "dressing up" and narrating what happens on the mechanic level. For instance, a ray spell that hits but fails to overcome SR can be described as being dispelled by the enemy with a casual hand wave, a quick snarl or stare; it could be done in a dozen of different ways, which do not enter or even make contact with the game mechanic (and a good GM makes sure that his players do not misunderstand what he's narrating and go think the bad guy is counterspelling, which is an entirely different scenario).
The two levels -are- separate. The RPG experience treats them that way by it's own nature (roleplaying / game); in most games I know of, characters don't get to "do [something important]" by simply describing "I do [something important]": sometimes there's randomness involved, sometimes it's as simple as comparing two values and seeing which one is higher and sometimes it requires the GM to value the action a number of "story points" that the character can or can not spend. "I seduce the maid" might suffice if the game does not possess a detailed romance mechanic; "I kill the dragon" might work in a game more concerned with intrigue and politics, with incredibly detailed social combat rules. The concept is the same: RP choice > mechanical decision > mechanical outcome > RP consequence. There is no jump from RP choice to RP consequence for things that represent the core of the game.
When a game designer creates a generic mechanical element (feat or archetype) that is, by its own design, a bad mechanical choice but a great RP choice, he's making the mistake of mixing the two levels. On this matter, I preset you with this. The idea is interesting. It certainly is flavorful. It -will- open up many interesting roleplay scenarios. It's
The Worse Feat Ever:
Fallen God [General]
Once you were a god, but no longer.
Prerequisites: None.
Benefit: You gain Wish as a spell-like ability, at will, without an experience cost, with a DC based on your Strength modifier. You also gain a cohort, which must be a divine caster, with a number of class levels equal to your Charisma score.
Special: To use this spell like ability, you have to ask permission to your GM every time. The cohort dies at the end of the first gaming session. Only one character in an adventuring party may take this feat. Your ability scores are reduced by 10 each every time you use this feat.
It was designed and written in, say, 30 seconds, by a non-native English speaker who was actively trying to create the "mechanically worse" feat ever, both in spirit & wording. To its own creator, it's garbage on many different levels, and it was a deliberate waste of your time by my part, gentle reader.
Requiring the expenditure of a mechanical-level resource (feat slot, class levels, gold pieces) to make a good RP-level choice leaves a balanced player with only one side to pick: do I play the game, and make an inherently good game choice, or do I play the role, and make an inherently wrong game choice? Most RPGs are a collaborative effort, and other players may become frustrated at the roleplayer's Halfling Wizard with 20 points in Dexterity and an Intelligence of 3: an exaggeration, of course, but why not?
You see, that's a choice. You are entitled to make choices in a game. You are even entitled to make terrible choices in a game. Playing a Wizard that cannot cast spells, and that probably never will, is your right. It's part of the game.
But if you make a choice -that- bad, you are also deliberately choosing to fail at the "game": that does not make you a better roleplayer. That does not say anything about your skills at roleplaying at all; it just says that you either do not understand the game-level, or do not care.
If that's your choice.
What if it was a condition forced on you by a game design philosophy, "You must make a choice between the game and the roleplay, excelling in one will spell doom on the other"?
I am not preoccupied about using or not using certain troublesome classes, feats or archetypes; I am more concerned about their creation process: since game designing material does not spring forth from raw chaos, but it's rather a product of human intellect and attention, this makes me believe that Paizo really wants to keep the mechanical-level and the RP-level mutually exclusive.
I see this as a contradictory position, that can only lead to more RP feat-taxes and sub-par archetypes, much to balanced player's frustration. There are houserules, sure, but I really wonder where this company is going...
Some people aren't comfortable with certain levels of gore and violence, even descriptively. Part of the game is finding a comfort level you're all happy with. While my groups tend to describe graphic "Finishing Strikes", most of the rest of combat is "You stab him in the side, he loses X HP" or "You cause a shallow wound in your opponents [limb]". I'm not a fan of graphic gore descriptions in my games (it doesn't really add anything to the experience), so I don't participate in it.
Now that being said, if your player doesn't enjoy the gore level, and it really does impact on the fun level of yourself and the other players it may be that he needs to find another group more accommodating to his tastes. Creating a fun gaming environment is closer to alchemy than real science and any one variable can cause an unfortunate reaction if you aren't careful :)
I've said many times that the key to balancing the RAW is to make certain that everything happens some of the time.
Sometimes, there are marathon encounters and the wizard actually runs out of spells.
Sometimes, the wizard should have the edge, scry and die should work, and they get out scot-free.
Sometimes, the wizard should lose his spellbook.
Sometimes, the door/chest is trapped.
If any one of these things happens every time, that's not fun. But the nature of spotlight-management in the party means that sometimes, somebody has to take a hit so the others can shine.
As long as you change things up frequently, this is the best way to go.
Just thought id pass along my website for helping out Dm's - it has a library of pre-made random generators and tools so you can make your own. The site is www.dxContent.com
Here is a list of generators to date (some are game specific and some are not)
- Dice Bag v1.2 - Simple clickable dice rolling.
- (POPULAR) City Block Generator v1.0 - Generates detailed fantasy city blocks and rural roads one street at a tiem. Includes various street types including circular and city squares. If you have a map this tool is great for fleshing it out. If you don't have a map this will tell you what needs to go on it. This generator will help you flesh out large cities and outlying suburbs.
- Old English City Name Generator - Creates authentic english sounding town names.
- Plot / encounter ideas - Generates plot and encounter ideas by giving the bad guys motivations and noting important features nearby. Most results have individual regenerate links so you can tweak results.
- Quick NPC v1.2 - Provides visual cues of the NPC's traits so as a GM you can quickly grasp how to role-play an on the spot NPC.
- Dwarf Names v1.0 - dwarven name generator.
- High Elf Names v1.0 - Generates high-elf sounding names complete with family house
- Wood Elf Names v1.0 - Earthy/tribal type names suitable for wood elves.
Generators compatible with Pathfinder:
(POPULAR) Intelligent Magic Item Add-on v1.1 - Creates an add-on package that can be added to any permanent magic item. Complete with stats, ego score, senses, powers, dedicated powers, cost, languages, etc.
- PF Starting Ability Scores (Best of 4d6) - Choose a race and class and the generator will generate starting ability scores using best of 4d6 dice results. Racial bonus are automatically applied as well as intelligent assignment of floating attibute bonuses (like the human or half orc).
- Random Magic Potions v1.2 - This will generate a magic potion from the Pathfinder core rule books.
- (POPULAR) Random Magic Weapon v1 - This will generate a magic item from the Pathfinder core rule books.
Posts
