Eric Tillemans's page

If you'd read James' breakdown on this, you'd know that this isn't true. Paying artists to create full-color, 1-inch scale battle maps for only one module in an adventure path would cost more than their entire current art budget for three modules (IIRC). At the moment, even publishing them solely in PDF form isn't feasible.

James' breakdown assumes printing all of the battle maps and that makes a huge difference. Also, the detail required to do a regular map isn't increased just because it's bigger. All that has to increase is the resolution so when they're printed bigger they don't look pixelated.

Even if Paizo insisted on more detail on the battle maps, then artists like Tintagel can produce those maps in a form that looks great and that I think AT THE VERY LEAST deserves some cost/sale analysis to see if selling PDF battle maps could provide customers with a nice product that also makes Paizo some money.

You yourself thought the hand axe and light pick were not finessable, but they are. Also, a spiked chain is finessable and I'm not sure how generating speed wouldn't be ultra-important for that weapon. Based on the hand axe, light pick, and spiked chain being finessable then yes I still think a quarterstaff fits the profile.

As an aside, Eric, the idea I get is that finding an artist to do a quality battlemap is not the problem. Finding a cost effective way to produce it, is.

It's cost effective if the battle maps aren't printed, but only sold as PDFs...and that's been my point all along.

As a customer who wants a product I'm in a no-win sitution. Paizo won't produce PDF battle maps for me to purchase and they won't allow fans to distribute battle maps. I was hoping one of those two options would become available and I'm more than willing to pay Paizo a reasonable going rate for the product.

How is the Q-staff different from other dual-weild weapons? Like the two bladed sword?

The two bladed sword is essentially wielded in the same manner as the q staff, why not allow that to be finessable too?

Then where do we stop?
Hand axe? light pick? Club? why can't ehy be finesseable?

Well, the hand axe and light pick are light weapons, so they ARE finesseable. And I always pictured a quarterstaff weilder relying on the speed of the relatively light wooden weapon to do damage rather than the weight or cutting edge (such as with a club or two bladed sword).

That's why I think a quarterstaff should be finessable.

Good job Hogarth, clarifying these issues would help Pathfinder RPG take a big step up from 3.5

I think our responses in this thread make it pretty clear that we don't currently have a feasible way to do the latter right now, but that we're happy to allow the community to create new 1"-scale cartography for our existing map designs, like tintagel's maps linked a few posts above.

Yes, you have made it clear. But only the squeaky wheel gets oiled so I was just making some noise about what I'm interested in. Maybe someday Paizo can hire people like tintagel to make good PDF battle maps to sell to us...can't hurt to ask right?

You may have already guessed that I'm interested in battle maps. I'd like PDF versions of every map in the APs so I can print them when I play in live games OR use them directly in my online games.

Buying already printed verions interests me less, especially since the Paizo folks have made it clear it will be expensive in that format. But a free PDF verion was included with my subscription to the printed version (assuming it ever happened) then I'd consider it despite the likely high price tag.

Finessable quarterstaff sounds right to me. Nothing abusable there and it makes sense.

Virtual Tabletops like d20pro or Maptools are gaining in popularity, and in this economy, they are MUCH cheaper than minis and a physical battlemap. Maybe this could be an experiment in digital-only products? Sure, this would reduce the audience a bit, but it would save tons on production costs, and people could still print what they wanted. Resolution could be kept fairly low (about 100dpi) and still look decent.

At any rate, I sent my submission to the Open Call, but I haven't heard back. I just hope that my work is up to Paizo's standards. :-(

I use Fantasy Grounds for my Virtual Tabletop. Also, I'd want the PDF battle maps so I could print them out for my home games. If the only way I can get battle maps is if I have to print them myself, then that's fine with me.

Either let Paizo fans create the PDF maps and distribute them, or make them yourselves and sell them to me.

Dragnmoon wrote:

Eric Tillemans wrote:

Bleh, I want battle maps in a pdf form I can print myself. I know it can be done, all you need is the art to be created at higher resolutions to begin with.

This is what I am looking for...

Did either of you read James' response just a few posts up from yours?

I think it's both of you who don't understand what we want. Get the same maps you already do at a higher resolution and making a battle map that looks good would be easy (see tintagels post above). Sell the PDF's of the battle maps to your customers and we do the rest. No printing costs for you, that way you only have to sell enough PDF's to cover the relatively small production fees.

Whats the point of posting this random feat?

I dont get what it is suppose to do.

I think it lets you use weapon finesse with ANY weapon you have Weapon Focus with - instead of just weapons that call out they can be finessed.

I'm starting to get confused by the Beta version of magic item slots. There seem to be changes from the 3.5 rules (since bracers now use the "hands" slot), so I can't be sure that the rules from the SRD apply. That leaves me with a few questions:

What slots are being used in Pathfinder? Is there no longer an "arms" slot for bracers? Are the "crown," "headband," and "helmet" slots just different names for the "head" slot? Is "chest" slot the same as the "body" slot? Why do some slotless items list a slot of "none" while others list a dash? And what is the "phylactery" slot referred to by the phylacteries of negative channeling and positive channeling?

I suspect the rules for magic item slots (and the names of those slots) could use some clarification. Either that or I'm just missing something.

There was a thread on slots already and Jason mentioned he was going to clarify some issues.

Perhaps my questions will soon be answered when Paizo releases its fan site policies in about a month or so, but perhaps someone out there can help elaborate on my poor understanding of the OGL.

Does the OGL prevent a person from changing and SRD material and making it their own. (i.e. Pathfinder RPG races have all been altered. Can Pathfinder claim any type of a copyright over their race statistics?

While researching content for my proposed fan site Pathfinder Portal, I found this site PFOGL that has all the Pathfinder resource information I was planning to add. This site contains all the full text descriptions of the material as presented in the Pathfiner RPG Beta book. Can all this information be reproduced like this, or could there be some copyright / trademark infringements in doing so?

Although the answer to the above question might answer this one: there are new feats that Pathfinder RPG has added to the game -- are these considered product identity which would thereby prevent anyone from reproducing the material (such as in a fan site) without permission?

You probably should get an answer from a Paizo employee, but as far as I know all of the rule information for the Pathfinder RPG is OGL, which means it can be reprinted on a fan site without permission.

Bleh, I want battle maps in a pdf form I can print myself. I know it can be done, all you need is the art to be created at higher resolutions to begin with.

i had no idea you could pay double the cost and have an un sloted item... how many can you have?

There's no limit really except what is practical for actual space on your body and carrying capacity. Also, Ion stones are unlimited unslotted items.

How is it that I went to UC Davis from 1987 to 1993 and managed to miss out on James' D&D games? Bummer.

I'm not very interested in starting another buying crusade on the way to rules bloat, but things that may interest me would be (in order):

Bestiaries (maybe 2 more down the road after the Core one?)
Class Substitutions (racial or just optional)
High level appropriate Feats
An Unearthed Arcana style book with optional rules to help improve high level play
Epic Rules (if well done)
Psionics (again, if well done)

I'm sick and tired of tons of Prestige Classes WotC put out, mainly because of the balance descrepancies. I would rather Paizo put out PrCs slowly, if at all. And the ones that are put out need to be carefully balanced and really fit a niche that makes sense.

I get the why of what was done combining the physical enhancement items into belts, and the mental into head slots. Personally I prefer it the other way just because I like to occasionally mix and match.

There is however, a much bigger problem. These ability enhancement items, seriously decrease the value of EVERY OTHER waist and head slot item. Ability enhancement is pretty necessary by the higher end of the game and forcing someone to choose between a neat item and ANY physical enhancement is a cruel decision. It's one thing for the fighter to find a nifty gladiatorial championship belt or something and give up his belt of giant's strength. After all it's not taking away his ability to get an amulet of health. Now though it takes away 3 essential items to him instead of one.

Bring it back to the old way!

As far as I can tell, there's no cost penalty for putting enchantments in the wrong slot anymore. At least you can craft items for specific spots.

You do have a point though, so I'd like to see the physical ability items be available in gloves, vest, and belt slots and the mental ability items in head, neck, and robe slots.

Well, the problem is that speed bonuses are already clearly modeled by the 1st level spells Expeditious Retreat and Longstrider. The first grants a +30' enhancement bonus with a duration of 1 minute/caster level, which by the formula for continuous effects means an 2000 gp cost (1st level spell * Caster Level 1 * 2 for 1 min/level duration). Longstrider would only cost 1000 gp, as it's a 1 hour/caster level effect, but also only a +10' enhancement bonus.

I suppose a spell might be developed to provide a +20' enhancement to speed, lasting for 10 minutes per level, which would cost 1500 gp as a continuous benefit.

The pricing doesn't have to meet the spell effect exactly. Bull's strength is 2nd level and adds +4 to strength for 1 min/level which is (2*3*2000)*2 = 24,000gp. And the actual cost of a +4 ability enhancement is 16,000gp. Also, no one thinks an item providing a permanent shield spell at +4 armor class is worth a measely 1*1*2000*2 = 4000gp. The formula don't always work.

The point of setting up specific bonus costs is to fairly value what benefit the magical enchancement provides.

For a long time, I've thought that the fomulas for costing a magic item were missing one for speed bonus, similar to how there are specific formulas for weapon enhancement bonuses, skill bonuses, ability score bonuses, etc.

I've come up with the following:

(speed enhancement bonus/10)2 x 2,000 gp therefore,

+10 speed = 2,000 gp
+20 speed = 8,000 gp
+30 speed = 18,000 gp

Yes, I'm in favor of treating the movement bonus as a separately costed enchantment. The value may be a bit higher - maybe as high as a 3000gp base price instead of 2000gp, but that's subjective.

Why aren't these published yet? Still waiting...

I agree with you Shadowlance and would choose option 1: lower scribing costs.

Davelozzi wrote:

I disagree, Salama. I think that a battlemap should be function over form and even at a larger scale, I would prefer not to have a lot of details added, they'd just get in the way.

So then you're talking about two *different* maps. That would cost more money, too.

No, he's talking about having artists submit their maps at higher resolution so they can easily be blown up to battlemap size and still look good just like Tintagel is proposing to do for you.

You only got the x4 skills at Character Level 1, not at class level 1. So if you Were a Level 1 Ftr then took Lvl 1 rogue you would NOT get the x4 skill points.

Again, i don't think it works well. One thing about having different classes is to have each party member having his "space" in the party.

Anyway, my opinion. Thanks

Yes, I know. In 3.5 people were tempted to start with 1 level in rogue just for the skill points, then multiclass. With Pathfinder people start in other classes and may be tempted to multiclass into rogue. No real improvement there except in Pathfinder it doesn't matter what order the classes were taken in.

As for "space", I think rogues still have plenty of space. They still get 6 more skill points per level and now have some real nice abilities called 'talents'. And sneak attack is more effective due to less creatures having immunity to sneak attack. Overall, rogues are better with Pathfinder.

Well, I do agree the Skill system is improved over OGL 3.5. However, it breaks down at multiclassing. Jason Buhlman writes in the introduction, “too many of the basic classes lose their luster after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes. … I wanted to give every class a reason to be followed up through 20th level.”

Here is where the design goal breaks: If you multiclass you get to add all the class skills of the new class to your list of “class skills” that gain +3. This would encourage me to multiclass.

I may want to be a fighter, but as a human character I can easily add a couple of levels of Rogue, get way improved perception, add on stealth, seach, disable device, and even if I end up as a Ftr 19/Rogue 1 I can have these skills equal to a Rogue 20. Not that a fighter has all that many points, but a high Perception Fighter, or a high Acrobatics fighter, is a real possibility.

Yes, but a fighter can have high perception or high acrobatics anyway with the system (and is that really so bad? I can imagine plenty of fighter heros who are acrobatic and perceptive). The only thing the rogue1 gave you was an extra +3 to those skills. With the old system people also were tempted to multiclass with rogue, especially at 1st level where players got x4 skill points. One other nice advantage of the Pathfinder system is that it doesn't matter what order a character takes the classes, the total number of skill points is the same. With 3.5 you had to know which order a fighter1/rogue1 took his two character levels in order to figure out the skill points.

It may not be perfect, but it's a good compromise between simplifying the skill system(which is also a goal of Pathfinder RPG), maintaining backwards compatibility, and still allowing good customization of skill selection.

Also, take a look at the Beta write ups for the classes and you'll see some real nice improvements to the rogue. Maybe other classes can step on the rogues toes with a few skills here and there, but rogues have also gotten some nice improvements to keep them unique and desirable to play.

Not a bad system at all Neil. Unfortunately, skills were extensively discussed and revised through 3 revisions of the Alpha, then again for the Beta and THEN the Beta version was discussed during the skill design phase of the Beta. The bad news is that this means your commentary will probably fall on deaf ears as far as Paizo is concerned (although you never know, they may make a last minute change).

The good news is that the Pathfinder skill system does take into account some of the things you wanted to accomplish, just in a different way. In the current version as say a fighter, you gain 2+int skill points per level at every level including 1st and the max ranks in any skill is equal to your level. No more x4 skill points at first level and all cross class skills have the same 1 point cost as class skill. However, any skill which is a class skill that you put at least one point into you gain a +3 bonus. This makes for a very simple system that allows characters to customize by taking any skill (though if it's a non-class skill you won't have the +3 bonus).

The only part the Pathfinder system doesn't use of yours is the idea of racial skills, which I REALLY like. In addition to that, I wouldn't mind some regional skills for Golarion which could make certain skills class skills.

Anway, good job on your skill system - I think it's a good one. I also think Pathfinders system is pretty good and a step up from 3.5.

Jason, why the limitation of ten charges on a staff? It just seems like you are knee-capping staffs...and I don't understand why...

I'm not Jason of course, but I'd guess it's because they're so easy to recharge. Having a staff with 10 charges which you can recharge anytime the spellcaster has some downtime is pretty darn powerful.

Also, has it been clarified if staffs can be recharged by their owner?

Thanks!

Yes, see page 360 of the Beta.

And if a X level Class Y / 1 level Sorcerer spends it's spell slots to rub a silly reaction in the face of a silly GM that is being silly over how an imaginary item "looks" in an imaginary game world then those are spell slots well spent.

Ah yes, this convinces me...

1) While there is a point to be made that is gives certain advantages to melee combatants, don't forget that the enhancement is of use (and potentially not broken) to archers.

2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.

I still think this is much ado about nothing...

1) An archers advantage is in being able to fire from range behind allies, not in having a floating shield defend him from attacks.

2) Making the animated shield slightly less effective by increasing it's cost or making it work like a dancing weapon doesn't create the problem of unseen servants carrying around shields for you and certainly isn't an effective argument to keep animated shields from getting an adjustment in power level.

The difference is that the Longsword guy gets a bit more versatility: The greatsword guy's feats are all invested in a weapon he can't use if he can't free up his off-hand by animating the shield. The longsword guy can fight one-handed if he can't get his shield off.

The greatsword guy could just drop his shield (since he doesn't use it in the normal fashion anyway by strapping it on) as a free action if he doesn't want to spend the action to activate it.

The fix I like best is making the Animated Shield fall in line with Dancing weapons by having a duration. The two-handed guy now needs to spend an action, and if combat goes too long will lose his shield.

However, I am worried that this will still cause the situation in which a longsword wielded with two hands becomes the 'best build', since once you are using it two-handed, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword does become just 2.5 damage on average.

I don't follow you Ross. If you weild a longsword with two hands, then it's exactly the same as weilding a greatsword except you're doing less damage. You still have to spend an action to activate the Animated Shield with your fix suggestion whether you're welding a longsword or a greatsword.

One of the most powerful melee types I have experienced as a DM was a 2WF using short swords.

Yes, and compared to someone using one shortsword and a shield I'm sure there would be a significant difference.

So the real question here is if the extra utility of a two-handed weapon is always worth exactly -2 AC.

A two-handed weapon is worth more at higher levels. The extra damage a two-hander does goes up with higher strength. At 30 strength the difference is 5 points plus the base weapon damage difference. Also, two-handed weapons benefit more from the power attack feat and any effect which increases size greatly benefits two-handed weapons with their higher base damage (going from medium to large increases a greatsword to 3d6 damage while it only increases a longsword to 2d6). High base damage is also much more effective against monsters with DR and all of these ways to deal extra damage with two-handed weapons compounds itself against opponents with DR.

So no, the extra utility of a two-handed weapon is not worth -2 to AC...it's worth a lot more.

Has there been any thought towards making the judges votes worth 20 votes a piece? Example:

Standard Paizoan's vote = 1 vote
Judge's vote = 20 votes

This would maintain the power of the public, but also help filter out the "popularity contest" effect.

Just a thought.

I really believe the interest in RPG Superstar comes from allowing regular RPG gamers to have their vote count. I could see interest wane if people didn't feel they had a say.

I read this section again and I still think it's confusing. I think I would word it differently to something like this:

Non-Slotted Items: For items which do not take up space
on a character’s body and which have multiple similar abilities,
use the following formula: Calculate the price of the
single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the
next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other
abilities. For non-slotted items with multiple different abilities
their values are simply added together to determine the cost.
Additionally, after this cost is determined, any non-slotted item
has it’s cost multiplied by 2 as listed in Table 15-27.

Slotted Items: For items which take up space on a character’s
body, each additional power has a 50% increase in price
regardless of whether the abilities are similar or not.

Any thoughts?

Just to clarify, in the 3.5 PHB for each class there is a set amount of skill points, such as the Cleric has a starting skill points at 1st Level at 2 + Int Modifier X 4. But there is no multiplier for any of the skill points available at 1st Level as I can see. Is this correct, or is there errata for this?

No, there is no multiplier. Instead, any class skill you put 1 or more ranks into gives you a +3 bonus to that skill.

Example: A first level rogue with a dex of 16 puts 1 rank into hide, so the skill modifier is: 1(rank) + 3(class skill) + 3(dex) = +7

....aaaaand at this point, I'd like to clarify my clarification. Of course, it's ok to scale up our existing maps and slap a 1" grid on them *for personal use*. Just, like veector says, not for public distribution.

I understand wanting to protect your work, but there is a demand for 1" grid battle maps of adventure locations. If you won't allow people to distribute it, then pay one of these enterprising mapper types to do it for you and sell it to your customers. Please.

Not a item per the but spell resistance enhancements are kind of unspectacular.

For SR items, I'd like to see SR be a base value plus the wearers level determine the SR. Something like 5 + level being the lowest SR item valued at 50,000gp then going up by 20,000gp per point over 5 to a maximum of 10. Costs would be:

SR 5 + level: 50,000gp
SR 6 + level: 70,000gp
SR 7 + level: 90,000gp
SR 8 + level: 110,000gp
SR 9 + level: 130,000gp
SR 10 + level: 150,000gp

Table 15-27 states that the price of an item with Multiple Different Abilities should 'Multiply higher item cost by 2', but in the text under 'Multiple Different Abilities' you should simply add the values of the abilities together to determine cost. One of them is wrong... or am I reading the table vs. the text wrong and just not understanding?

Rings and Cloaks of Protection which add to deflection AC and resistance to saves is a great idea. It brings us back to old school days and frees up one of the slots required for the big six.

I'd price them at a base price of 3,000gp.

No one else is confused by these issues?

Hat of Disguise.

Is the Hat of Disguise really underpriced? Each time you use it, the duration is 10 minutes. This means using it to get by a guard may work, but trying to stay in disguise over time in a town would be nearly impossible.

Maybe even the 10 minute duration makes it underpriced, but I'm not convinced.

From the Magic Items Web Enhancement, page 18:
"The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory."

I'm not liking the ability to scribe scrolls of spells you don't know OR craft flaming swords if you can't perform magic.

I think the prerequisites that aren't met by the crafter should be supplied by someone else assisting in the crafting process.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)

I agree with you it needs some sort of adjustment and I like option 1.

Good questions Zaister - I'd like to know the answers too.

One comment: I'd like to see phylactery be it's own slot. Some phylacteries are traditionally worn on the arm so restricting it to the head may work, but I wouldn't mind this being it's own slot.

I like it Majuba. 10 + 1/2 caster level + ability mod gives all spells the power of the casters highest level spell and it's just too much.

Your feat let's a spellcaster give up a little bit at the high end to make all of his spells effective. It's balanced and yet still gives spellcasters a choice of using the base line of 3.5.

Consider it swiped for my home game.

First, I'd like some clarification on the magic item creation costs. I think the original 3.5 wording was also confusing (though it may just be me being dense), but hopefully we can fix it. Here's the blurb on page 20 of the magic item web enhancement:

Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple
similar abilities that don’t take up space on a character’s
body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of
the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of
the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any
other abilities.
Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an
attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like
function are not similar, and their values are simply
added together to determine the cost. For items that do
take up a space on a character’s body each additional
power not only has no discount but instead has a 50%
increase in price.

Ok, what if I'm making an item with multiple similar abilities on an item that does take up space on the body (such as a belt)? Under the heading of Multiple Similiar Abilities there is no mention of price for a slotted item with multiple similiar abilities. I suppose I would assume the 50% increase in price for each additional ability as listed under the 'Multiple Different Abilities' section, but this really should be spelled out more clearly.

Second, the Table 15-27 states that the price of an item with Multiple Different Abilities should 'Multiply higher item cost by 2', but in the text under 'Multiple Different Abilities' you should simply add the values of the abilities together to determine cost. Which is correct? Or am I reading the table vs. the text wrong and just not understanding?

Whether there is are errors here or not I think it could be written more clearly (maybe with examples provided).

(Note: I posted this earlier, but felt the title was poorly worded and it was too late to edit - so I reposted it with a new title. My apologies for the repost)

- Do the changes to the cursed item rules make you more or less likely to use a cursed item in your game?

I like the changes to cursed items, good job!

- Are intelligent items simpler to design? Are they evocative of what you think an intelligent item should be?

The intelligent item design is much better than 3.5 and I do like that they can use their abilities on their turn instead of the owners. However, I am a bit concerned about the pricing on the 'senses' - especially combined with Darkvision and Blindsense. Also, I'm a bit worried about 'at will' casting of 4th to 7th level spells even at the hefty price tag.

Keep these items, but reprice them. They need it.