Forever Man's page

And there's always Ranger via the Bond with Companions options. You can go all Aragorn and bark orders at them that has a beneficial effect in combat. Battle Scout (APG) & Skirmisher (UC) archetypes both have leadership abilities. Heck! You could take both archetypes! They don't overlap!

3.5 / PFRPG characters are so much more versatile that you can have any weakness in the old-school paradigm (fighter, M-U, cleric, thief) and still be quite successful. My group has proven this time again.

In the Eberron Age of Worm one of us ran (we have 3 rotating GM's, including myself) we had no cleric, although we did have a barbarian / druid / nature's warrior and a bard. Wands of CLW are the cheapest healing in the game. Even if you have a cleric (playing the healer role), you *still* want these. We got through all 20 levels just fine. The final battle was almost a joke. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

In the current campaign (Rise of the Runelords) we doing fine with no arcane spell-caster (we're all knights - and this was before the magus, or pathfinder came out). With UMD we get by using arcane wands & scrolls. We do have a paladin and a fighting cleric, and they do channel to help wounded comrades in a pinch, but we do not rely on this as a strategy. Fully buffed the cleric is the most powerful knight in the party, and that player would rather dig in and fight alongside everyone else - front of the line. We all have the shield wall teamwork feat. There are innumerable tactics to deal with a wounded man or a man down. Combine strategy with *high AC* and lots of HP's and we *usually* don't need anything more than that Wand of CLW's after we win the fight.

I'm running Second Darkness for a different group of mostly pathfinder (even 3.5) nubes, and they have no cleric. And they're dealing with it just fine. I haven't even considered throwing in a heal-bot. I'd rather let the player's use their brains to solve problems because in my experience - that's exactly what they will do. However, a nudge here or there (invisible, of course) are a good idea from time to time. I've converted the ancient TSR module the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan to PFRPG. Because of the poison gas issue, I added a wand of delay poison (8 charges or something) for them to purchase from their Riddleport contacts along with a few other things being sold, if they wanted to. That's a cheap, emergency situation contingency item that they couldn't pass up, so because they had that they're only taking 1 HP damage per minute instead of 1d6 (in the tradition of the module).

As a DM I only give players what *they need* and not what's best for them. Trust me. Those damn players are clever bastards. They will usually find a way to win on their own, and, in doing so, are more satisfied to boot!

I do like the basic concept, but 10 points is *far* too many as a mechanic. If you're going to make the feat system more complicated to add balance, you should do so in the simplest way possible.

1) I would favor a 3-point system, not 10. Every feat costs 1, 2 or 3 points to represent poor, average, great or good, better, best (or whatever).

2) I could care less if a fighter used new fighter feat points points from his new level along old feat points from the previous character level to buy a general feat. If a player wants to use a fighter feat to buy skill focus: stealth, because it's a thieves' guild campaign or it fits his stealthy fighter character concept, I say more power to him.

Also, IMHO, Master Reynolds' ratings of some feats value needs to be reconsidered. Enlarge Spells = Endurance = Empower Spell = 5 pts?!? NO WAY!!

I agree with Penne. I like the recharge feature because it's different. It recharges on a unique condition, which means sometimes it's usable once per day, and other times less.

"Flask of Liquid Sunlight" could stand some improvement, and here I see the validity of the criticisms about being a consumable. "Elixir of Sunlight" has a much better ring to it.

Congratulations Adam!

So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014?

Yes! And the duration between 6th and 7th edition will be a negative number . . . we all just missed 7th edition last year. #U@&!NG blasted multi-dimensional time continuum! Go back in time and step into a different universe, indeed . . .

A rose by any other name . . .

I didn't realize my statement would be considered controversial. I've been playing since 1977-8. I've played & GM'ed every edition, including 4th. IMHO, I see a natural evolution from 1st edition (D&D and AD&D) to 2nd edition to 3rd to 3.5 and finally to Pathfinder. I see 4th edition as different and not very good, it's true. But I must concede that this a moot opinion.

But none of that concerns me. What does concern is the Brand, Dungeons & Dragons, aka D&D. What if 5th edition is a failure? Does WotC simply discontinue D&D and Hasbro puts that entire trademark on a shelf, possibly forever? Will Pathfinder, the rightful heir to the brand (based on the quality of the content of their contribution to D&D), be unable to be identified as a natural evolution of said brand?

That would suck. Heck! Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax might rise from the dead, united once again, to slay Hasbro. A zombie apocalypse could result. OK, just kidding about the last part . . . ;^D

D&D as a board game only. <shudder>

You're probably right, but the only difference is that D&D is not a toy or a game like monopoly. It's really a series of books. They bought WotC for a card game. They may not care about being in the publishing business.

Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.

Not all ideas are great ones (Vanilla Coke).

HA! Don't you mean "NEW" Coke? Using that as a parallel, what we should expect from 5th Edition is "Coca-Cola Classic" or D&D 3.75, (i.e. very similar to Pathfinder).

WoC didn't realize what they had with Paizo. They wanted to eliminate competition with Paizo, but instead created competition they couldn't handle. Business people at Hasbro / WoC failed to recognize not only the talent of Paizo's staff, but the talent pool of thousands of 3.5 gamers that were fans of Paizo's superior products. Paizo went a different route and listened to all of to make an even better product that's still D&D.

I don't know if even Monte Cook can save WoC from this blunder. I foresee day when Hasbro will sell Paizo the D&D Trademark for pennies on the dollar. Let WoC make cards. They're really good at that. Then WoC will one day make supporting products for Paizo's Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder Edition!

LONG LIVE D&D!!!

In one of my gaming groups, where are the Knights of Aroden - which is an Order we all belong to, not just the party itself. The ultimate purpose of this order of knighthood, is to restore Aroden to godhood, but our party is not involved with that. It's just a background thing. We are Knights that do not lose faith, and are dedicated to law and good.

It was tough to get all the players in the group to go with this, but I'm so sick of menageries of heroes with wildly different outlooks, moral compulsions, and goals meeting in taverns and going off on wild adventures together. It has worked out *beautifully.* We don't even have an arcane caster of any type, but we still get by (my PC does have UMDevice).

So I say, go for it! Be one of the faithful that never surrenders what they believe in. That's an AWESOME CHOICE, not a lame one.

Excelsior!

Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?

I'm not saying you should only play optimized characters at the cost of role play, but it seems some folks are so determined to not be a power gamer they will use out of character knowledge to make their PC weaker, thus showing they aren't power gaming. Just off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."

I've got a player who's been anti-power gaming for years, but is otherwise a great player; he really gets into the spirit of the game. His choices often puzzle other gamers. Starting at 3rd level, he built an Inquisitor 2 / Monk 1. He intends to go Inq 11 / Monk 4 (2nd Darkness AP). Despite rolling high stats (we use the grid method & don't use point-buy anymore), including 17 STR, doesn't make up for the +1 BAB. Although his character carries a great axe (half orc), he doesn't use it, and this character eschews all ranged weapons. Everyone started with 2,250 gp to buy stuff - including magic, and my good buddy bought an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 for 2k. However, everything he does has an internally consistent logic to it. He approaches PC creation like an actor does a role, ignoring mechanics that might contradict his interpretation of his badass character. But we don't say anything about this to him. He's stubborn as hell, and has literally been playing D&D since the game began. As long as he's having fun, I don't have a problem with it. I'm looking for little opportunities here and there to help him out.

Where things get very difficult is when you have maniacal, uber-munchkins, who treat your game like a video game, and guys like my friend in the same gaming group. Try balancing a party like that! And it was even worse a situation when we were using the Hero System! Other options for inducing similar headaches include hitting yourself in the forehead with a 2x4, or drinking an entire case of Gordon Biersch's Bavarian Hefeweisen - one of the worst beers I've ever tasted.

Cheers! <8D

Gamers are like cats, they like what they like, for as long as they like it. Then once bored with it they use it as a scratching post and find something else to like and repeat the process, sometimes going back to the firs thing they like.

And like cats they seem of soft and cuddling and easy to pet and then they suddenly turn around and bite you, for not petting them correctly. And never get to gamers from different game systems in the same forum thread, thats like inviting in two stray tom cats to your living room.

WRONG!! I disagree with *everything* you said! ;^D

Will it list the conditions? (I.e. sickened, nauseated, exhausted, etc.)

Nuts! I *hate it* when I make that mistake! ARGH!! ;^D

How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?

You have nothing to worry about there from me, however, I think you should realize, that I will not be using Psionics along with the core classes & magic. I am currently working on a psionic-based setting using the following mish-mash of classes:

Akashic (from Arcana Evolved)
Patrician (roughly based on the Noble from the Conan RPG)
Berserker (based off barbarian, a focuser of rage & psi energy)
Myrmidon (a fighter given d12's)
either Monk or Oathsworn (also from AE)
Psychic Warrior with 3 derivations [representing the Palantinate, a Secular Brotherhood(s), and the Temple(s)]
Bloodhound or Hunter (a ranger w/ psionic ability to track & battle his mentally attuned pray, etc.)
Wilder
Soulknife (hrm . . . maybe w/ bigger hit die, or something . . .)
Swashbuckler (using Unfettered from AE, again)
Mystic [Psion with 2 derviations, the standard version and the Priest (same except with complete different disciplines, or "domains" as I intend to call them . . . ;^)]

OK. You might be thinking, "So what?" Well the point of my example is that making Psionics even *more* adaptable by offering different variants of the Psi-classes. I think they're are more guys out there with other, similarly independent ideas of their own. IMHO, a Psionic System that was compatible with a variety of campaign concepts would serve you best.

So I'm asking you:

What does Psionics mean to you?

OK, this is probably waaaaaay late & no one will read this, but what the heck. Here goes. I've criticized psionics heavily on these boards for a variety of reasons:

1) Conceptually I think psionics should be inferior (in power) with Arcane and Divine magic. Laws of physics that enable a wizard to toss around fireballs and disintegrate spells render mere mentalism impotent by comparison. Additionally, the power of a god *should exceed* the power of a mortal mind, and therefore a clerics power should be greater as well.

2) To me, the psionics greatest strength should be his/her versatility, and the 3.5 versions does this quite well, both with the versatility of a mana system and the range of powers the psionic can use. The problem is is that the 3.5 system makes playing wizards & clerics useless if psionics are an option. The psion is simply superior. He has terrific offensive & defensive abilities, neat utility powers, can stack bonuses like a wizard & cleric combined, *and* has healing powers! Despite nerfing the Psychic Warrior's Hit Die and Attack Progression, she's still superior to paladins & rangers, and I'd rather PW got d10's & Fighter BAB, maybe fewer power points, than nerf other basic class abilities. I'd much rather improve the paladin to make him the equal.

3) I think the 3.5 psionic system is extremely well designed. Frankly, it's pretty awesome, but it simply overshadows core magic & classes, and *that* I don't like.

How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?

You have nothing to worry about there from me, however, I think you should realize, that I will not be using Psionics along with the core classes & magic. I am currently working on a psionic-based setting using the following mish-mash of classes:

Akashic (from Arcana Evolved)
Patrician (roughly based on the Noble from the Conan RPG)
Berserker (based off barbarian, a focuser of rage & psi energy)
Myrmidon (a fighter given d12's)
either Monk or Oathsworn (also from AE)
Psychic Warrior with 3 derivations [representing the Palantinate, a Secular Brotherhood(s), and the Temple(s)]
Bloodhound or Hunter (a ranger w/ psionic ability to track & battle his mentally attuned pray, etc.)
Wilder
Soulknife (hrm . . . maybe w/ bigger hit die, or something . . .)
Swashbuckler (using Unfettered from AE, again)
Mystic [Psion with 2 derviations, the standard version and the Priest (same except with complete different disciplines, or "domains" as I intend to call them . . . ;^)]

OK. You might be thinking, "So what?" Well the point of my example is that making Psionics even *more* adaptable by offering different variants of the Psi-classes. I think they're are more guys out there with other, similarly independent ideas of their own. IMHO, a Psionic System that was compatible with a variety of campaign concepts would serve you best.

What is an absolute deal-breaker?

Thanks again for the give-and-take.

If you had made a similarly powerful system part of the Core Rules, but clerics & wizards were more or less the same. You didn't do that, so no worries.

My 2 coppers . . .

I would change the Ranger Spell lists. They're horrible. What's with all the plant magic? Are Rangers little Druids in spell-casting training bras?

No! They are mighty hunters, and their spell lists should reflect that.

besides that? halflings

Ha ha! Yes! +5! ;^)

Since 1/2lings were originally hobbits, and as such, stolen from J.R.R, they should be rolled into a single munchkin race (with at least some mythological foundations, like elves & dwarves, etc): Gnomes! Furthermore, since being small and slow is a disadvantage, unique capabilities of both races should be included. But, that's just me . . .

;^)

And on the same train, no more 2 skill points per level (minimum 4 points).

Ditto.

Excellent! I think is really cool as it's exactly opposite of a spell in a can. A neat item for a rogue, glyph exchange! However, I do think the bonus to disable device should be raised to +4, but no big deal.

Congrats for making the top 32!

Neat, useful, and not over-powering . . . the ignore stacking effect is fine as it's in no way unbalanced.

A fairly straight-forward shield buff in the form of a wondrous item, which is my only criticism for it, and my greatest admiration for it. Very clever, sir!

Oh, and congrats for making the top 32!

Very unique in its Cthuloid grossness. It'd be a great item for an evil cleric. Congrats for making the top 32!

Nice! I want this one for some of my characters! Congrats for being chosen, as well!

Thank you, gentlemen.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

1) How easy was it for your group to get through the Starry Mirror? Would you have done anything differently to make the puzzle easier/harder?

2) Not mentioned in the book, but if a PC wanders around inside the SM for a while first, does he/she have to "walk the pattern" (heh heh ... Zelazny) starting from whatever color she/he happens to be standing in at that time, or from the color originally entered?

3) What's your favorite color? Red? NO, BLUE! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh

;^D

Thanks,

FM

If you are using the hardcover, it is mentioned on page 197 in the Behind the Scenes for the TotSE. The magazines mention that the mayor is missing at the start of SotSP only under the Cauldron Authority figures section.

Thanks.

I've just ran the tax revolt (Ch 5 - Demonskar Legacy), and as the player came out to give his speech to break up the riot & passify people anger about all the new taxes, a pesky PC cast detect magic and noticed that was some sort of enchantment on the mayor's person (I assume this was a result of Vhalantru or Lady Rhiavadi's influence).

I fear that my players won't want to search for Alek Tercival, deeming the mayor to be more important. Do you have any idea what kind of excuse / explanation I could give about what the mayor's enchantment is?

Additionally, the mayor disappears at some point in the next chapter or so, but I can't find in the text exactly where. Do any of you happen to know?

Thanks,

- FM

Thanks, section8.

Ya know . . . I thought of that very idea an hour or so after I wrote this, and I also thought of having Thifirane Rhiavaldi creating scrolls of nondetection for Zarn, too.

I've got a few 'Blue Duke' problems myself.

I have the SCAP hardcover & my players have gone through Drakthar's Way, which introduced Zarn as a mysterious figure & potential boss monster (or what have you), but he's also makes an appearance in CH 5, Demonskar Legacy, where he's supposed to help the PC's battle the fire elementals at Minuta's Board. The paladin will instantly know Zarn is evil and the jig is up *LONG* before he's supposed to be battled in later chapters.

To make matters worse the text states that Zarn will make 'multiple uses of Cone of Cold to extinguish the fire,' but Ogre Mages can only use Co'Cold 1/day.

How do you recommend I solve these problems?

how about anyone can wear anything, having proficiency lets you keep your typical movement rate and reduces the Armor check penalty by -4 (to a minimum of -1, before masterwork)

That, sir, is an excellent idea.

Even so, the calculation and adjustment as STR scores change is too much of a headache.

But, according to the rules, you are *supposed* to make those tabulations anyway!

I have been thinking about this one for a while. Why not just have the max dex, speed, armor check penalty based on, for the most part, based on maximum weight the character can carry. Now I am not talking about eliminating armor specific minuses all-together. Each armor will have additional minuses and maybe pluses. This would leave the stronger characters with the better ability to carry the weight finding things easier to move.

At the very least I think max speed should be restricted like this as armor is gimped enough as it is.

We are in agreement, as I've posted here

Nuts, the link didn't post right . . .

Here it is again

BTW, I am really pleased to see some serious consensus about the armor / encumberance / movement issue.

What's the point of the walking (read: base) movement penalty for medium and heavy armor?

How does it make the game more fun?

How would removing the movement penalty (based solely on armor, not on weight, mind you) unbalance the game?

In the D&D / PRPG system, how do you create a team of heavily armored, honorbound knights as characters, yet still have the required range of other abilities?

Thank you,

- FM

I've been on record previously (during the fighter playtest) as supporting this idea - encumbrance straight up, not worrying about armor categories for movement.

Jason, so have I, which I've also reposted again today (I have no desire to search for when I originally posted this, as it was something like 2 years ago or more . . .

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/equipment/armorMediumArmorNeedsRevamping#15

Yep, that is the bar bones fact. Armor isn't worth the feat you got to get it. The weight is a problem, there is a max Dex, there is an armor check penalty, and the biggest problem, the reduced speed.

Although I disagree with you about relative amount of protection that armor provides, I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with you about the weight and movement problems. I wrote about this here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/equipment/armorMediumArmorNeedsRevamping#15

I also agree with you that the Armor Proficiency feats suck, and that the penalties for not having these feats is too high. Shouldn't a reasonably skilled Rogue be able to infiltrate a group of knights by wearing armor just like theirs? Why must the Rogue be so easily identifiable because he's always wearing *Leather Armor?*

RE: Krome criticism about 3.5 buffs spells being too short, I agree, however I think that 1 hour per level is too long. In 3.0 there was no reason to play a Fighter or a Paladin, when a Cleric was superior to either by simply buffing himself hours beforehand. If 1 minute per level is too short, and 1 hour per level is too long, then the obvious compromise is 10 minutes per level.

I also think this would be worth playtesting. Iron Heroes has in interesting method for DR, in that Armors *only* add DR, they don't increase your Defense (or AC), but the amount of protection a given suit of mail provides is random (i.e. Plate Armor provides a d8 of DR). This makes sense because some parts of any suit of armor is easier to penetrate than other parts.

The CONAN RPG also has an interesting Armor as DR system. DR is not random, but weapons provide AP (armor penetration), which lowers the DR of the armor. There are also offensive tricks to bypass armor.

Brother Willi argued that DR didn't make sense because it wouldn't help action magic missiles & fireballs, etc. My counter argument is, "So what? Armor doesn't help against those things either, with the exception of touch spells, but in either place, DR could simply apply.

I am a radical, sure.

What I really want is a simplified Weights & Measures system, or whatever.

There should not be two encumberance systems, one based on wearing armor, and another based on carrying everything else.

If total weight & only the encumberance chart on page 125 is used to calculate whether a PC's speed is reduced or not, it's just much simpler.

More importantly, for me, the Gygaxian concept that plate armor is so cumbersome as to physically reduce your walking speed by 2/3 or more has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. Doing summersaults & cartwheels isn't much harder than normal, but I've seen guys in the SCA do backflips in their plate armor.

Lastly, what's really the point of reducing base movement speed for wearing plate armor? How is it fun? What is achieved by these rules?

WHY HAVE TO GODS OF GOLARION FORSAKEN ME?

;^D

I've posted a similar idea to Mr. Valente's before, and I shall do so again, as we share some similar ideas. Mine are a little more radical, as I wish to simply moving in armor and encumberance in one fell swoop. Note, I am in favor of an Encumberance Points System, that Krome, and others, have suggested.

Encumbrance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumbrance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumbrance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed/ PRPG rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30&#8242; as a standard move action, and can run x4 that.

That's stunningly counter-intuitive.

So I’ve come up with the following house rules

1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 108 of the PRPG.

2) Use Table 8-4 (pg. 125): Carrying Capacity for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done.

3) If your character’s total weight carried indicates a LIGHT LOAD, then your character suffers no movement penalty whatsoever.

4) A MEDIUM LOAD doesn’t lower your BASE MOVEMENT RATE!

5) INSTEAD, a MEDIUM LOAD lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack.

6) The rules for HEAVY LOADS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties, i.e. your BASE MOVEMENT RATE is reduced to 20, and your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT is only 60.)

Why 3-6? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chain mail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect, is how fast you can run!

So nobody else cares about this, huh? I have seen it come up before...

Indeed you have. The armor movement & encumberance rules have been a peeve of mine for decades. I've posted the following criticism & solution before:

Encumbrance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumbrance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumbrance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic 3.5 Ed Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30 feet as a standard move action, and can run x4 that.

That's stunningly counter-intuitive.

So I’ve come up with the following house rules

1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 123 of the PHB (3.5, naturally).

2) Use Table 9-1 (pg. 162): Carrying Capacity for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done.

3) If your character’s total weight carried indicates a LIGHT LOAD, then your character suffers no movement penalty whatsoever.

4) A MEDIUM LOAD doesn’t lower your BASE MOVEMENT RATE!

5) INSTEAD, a MEDIUM LOAD lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack.

6) The rules for HEAVY LOADS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties, i.e. your BASE MOVEMENT RATE is reduced to 20, and your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT is only 60.)

Why 3-6? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chain mail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect, is how fast you can run!

I don't think it's really workable. The obvious mechanic would be your DEX Mod in squares, or +/- 5' per DEX Mod, but that could quickly become too powerful. A more realistic method might be +/- 1' per DEX Mod, with the stipulation that it only comes into play if you have at least 3' give or take (ie you can round off). Hustling, Running & Sprinting (ie x2, x3, x4 movement) counts for this purpose. If you had a 12 DEX, your base move & x2 wouldn't change, but at x3 & x4 you'd get an extra 5' of movement. Regardless, I don't think anything involving increased movement because of high DEX scores are worth the math, and DEX is already a really good stat, anyway. It doesn't need to be improved as much as, oh say CON does.

;^)

The Once and Future Seneschal agrees.

And a Senescal, to boot! Knights! Squires! Prepare for battle! No longer shall you be limping around like turtles in your armor!

The spiked chain as its illustrated in the PHB is about as retarded of a weapon as trying to tie together a couple of hedge trimmers to use as a pair of nunchaku.

We are in agreement there.

The spiked chain as it is illustrated in almost every other illustration is perfectly serviceable and did exist as a weapon, especially if you simply removed the "spiked" part and reduce it to bludgeoning only, although peircing variations did exist, but those were a spike at the end rather than along the edge.

Really? I haven't seen one that I can think of, and *most* of the more esoteric, eastern, martial chain-weapons are NOT reach weapons! The only one that is, as far as I know, the KYOKETSU SHOGE, aka the Steel Blade Hook and Chain, is well . . . silly, and by no means can anyone weild one in such a manner as to increase or reduce such a weapons reach as a free action; because these weapons, as they are swung in great circles, are wrapped around the weilders torso or neck or limbs - as part of swinging the business end around. An impractical weapon which cannot be used in close quarters at all and has a better place in a martial art demonstration than it does a battlefield. Furthermore, no way do any of these flimsy chain weapon come within 50% of the impact power of a heavy mace. I challenge you, good sir knight, to prove otherwise! ;^) Set your helm on pole & whack at it all you like with a whip-chain or a mankirigusari. I doubt you'd even put a dent in it. When you get bored with that, smite your helm once with a mace. We both now it won't take more than one blow to dent your helmet! ;^D

Forgive me, but I am rather intolerant of the "bringing anime/video game into D&D makes it suck" argument,

Actually, I don't agree with that argument either. I'm only a simulationist insofar as when fantasy defies common sense. My problem with the spiked chain is that its the only weapon of its kind. Fine, forget practicality - let's say the weapon responds psychokinetically to its weilder, which, IMHO, better explains its perfomance compared to every other weapon in the game. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with, again, is that it's the only "super" weapon with more capabilities than just about any other in the game. That's not good even from a video game perspective. Good video games have *lots* of cool, unusual weapons. D&D (etc) should be any different.

For the most part, the problem with the spiked chain is that it is actually one of the few "good" weapons, in that it allows a "specialist" character to do their job effectively. Similar to a power attack crit build using a falchion, greataxe, or scythe. Or a finesse crit build using a rapier or scimitar. The rest of the swords seem lackluster because they fall in the middle range, but they can serve quite well in the hands of a "general specialist". The spiked chain is better than these because of the requirement to take a feat to use it proficiently.

I do, however, agree with you about the nature of exotic. Since the monk class is entirely inspired from eastern mysticism, I think eastern, or asian, weapons (etc) should no longer be considered "exotic," and that Pathfinder arbitrate from both east & west a single fantasy culture that is independent of either of them. Exotic weapons therefore, should be exoteric in there use, or be of a superior category than simple or martial weapons, and represent a higher level of martial ability.

What do you think?

- FM

Chalk up another vote in favor of your system from a SCAdian. (I was going to post a more detailed reply, but it would have been pretty much the same as the Black Bard's.)

Woo hoo! SCA is joining the movement!

I guess I don't need to explicate that the spiked chain is far too good compared to other reach weapons and, combined with an optimized build, not far from game breaking.

Brother, don't even get me started about the stupid, freaking spiked chain. D'oh! Too late!

1) From a simulationist view, it's just crazy dumb! No such weapon ever existed.

2) It's a video game weapon! God of War anyone? Buehler? OK. I *like* video games, but why stop with just a single OTT video game weapons? Why not make a whole bunch of them, like triple-bladed sword in The Sword & The Sorceror (a movie from the mid-80's - heh heh, "Talon, son of Richard" indeed ;^)?

My point? That realistic weapons & cartoony weapons shouldn't meet unless the cartoony ones are distinctly special, and there's more than just *one* of them.

My 2 coppers.

- FM

Not bad. Not bad at all. I happen to be one of those people that think the ultimate goal in "3.75 edition" game design is ultimately eliminate multiclassing altogether. I think this can be accomplished if each class has it own unique schtick, or approach to combat, etc., and everything else is accomplished by feat trees. Ultimately, IMHO, that means as few classes as possible (a dozen or so, tops - and no prestige class, NO NEED!), but as many feats & combinations as possible!

I like your idea, though! I think that's a great mechanic to discourage excessive min-maxing / abusive combinations while still granting the freedom multiclass as one desires.

The correct url is http://shtar.pbwiki.com/Armor

Egad, I think imposing a -7 Dex on someone for wearing plate armor is an excellent mechanic - **only** to discourage players from wearing armor of *any kind.*

I don't really have a problem with the armor check penalties, as is, in general. If I were to gripe, I'd point out that chainmail is more cumbersome & less manueverable than plate armor - on top of providing inferior protection, but that has never bothered me.

What's bothered me the most, for decades now, is that it was thought that armor was so cumbersome is to slow your basic walking speed - independently of any other gear you might be carrying, *and* that you had to consult two seperate tables to total check penalties. Counterintuitive, pointlessly anti-simulationist and needlessly complex are adjectives that come to mind. I seek a *simpler* and more realistic solution, and I think I've come up with a pretty good one. The check penalities can be overcome with high-stats, more ranks, a skill enhancer, MW armor, and lighter materials such Mithril. That being said I'd like to see some feats that improve a character's ability to use his armor . . . er, "more better" (;^) than those who are less skilled.

Here are some examples:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/ruIuiKxNerFBCOi5fK8.html

The only problem I have with the arcane penalties, is that there is practically no way of creating a competent mage-knight or "gish" character. I'd like to see a small feat-tree dedicated to armored casting, for the traditionalist elven fighter/mage types, etc.

- FM

This is an *awesome* idea! Other gamers ought to post how much they agree with it! ;^)

Glad to have your agreement & input.

Black Bard,

Yeah, I've known several of you SCA nuts, and have watched you guys "train." Nothing appears to limit your ability throw rap blows with blinding speed - except the desire not to take another kidney shot yourself . . . ;^b

Let's keep this thread in the fore! I've been wanting this rule to change for 25 years!

Being a fan of Arcana Evolved, I favor using Intermediate Saving Throws . . . probably not gonna happen though! ;^)

On a related, personal note, I used do a lot of day hikes every other Sunday with some buddies of mine, the Hillside Stragglers. Anyway, it was sort of my thing to find a cool-looking stone on every hike & take it home with me & add it my "collection."

This one time, I found a large, yellow stone with a quartz or feldspar steak through it. I wanted it, and my fellow Hillside Stragglers laughed me for wanting it. "It was too heavy," they said. Insulted, I set out to prove them wrong. I'm a big, strapping man, it was less weight than I curl with, and we were nearly done with the hike - only three miles left to go! "No problem," I said.

Well . . . it got to be *a problem* - in double-quick, too! I hefted that damned rock in every conceiveable way: either hand, both hands, held high, held low, like a football, behind my back, under my buttocks, on top of my fool head, until I couldn't take it anymore! Damnit! I'm an old man! In the end, I was only able to lug that thing about 2 miles!

The moral: awkward weights are, er . . . well awkward. ;^D

My good friend, Dave, the Hillside Stragglers resident outdoorsman (for a geek, mind you), took pity on me, and carried it the remaining mile. What a dude! "You're welcome," he said; "and I'll never do that again, by the way" he added.

That stone, which is still in my front yard, weighs a mere 22 lbs.

I'd like to point out one minor detail regarding the original example of wearing full plate versus carrying it. Encumbrance from weight and armor represent two different causes with similar effects. Movement penalties from armor are less about the weight of the armor and more about how it sits and restricts the character's ability to move within the armor, while penalties from weight are more about the load slowing you down directly. So while it might seem odd to you that carrying full plate is less restrictive than wearing it, it makes some level of sense from a realism point of view. Just my two cents, though. Carry on.

But that's just it! Armor, *especially* plate armor, just *does NOT* restrict your movement that much. What good would it be if it did? King Edward (the Longshanks) used to do summersaults on the back of his horse! William Marshall used to give pull-up demonstrations (while wearing his armor, mind you ;^)!

Aside from that, I respectively disagree with your interpretation, in that it is not easier to carry is single, heavy weight than it is to have an equal weight equally distributed about your entire body. In your suit of plate armor, good sir knight, you do not need to alter your posture to carry your harness, and you walk with your head held high. But stow your harness, good sir, and you will not be able to carry it without altering your posture. If you carry it upon your back, you must lean forward, placing more pressure on your lower back. If you carry it in your arms, across your breast, and you must lean backward, placing more pressure on your mid-back, shoulders and neck. If you carry the load over one shoulder, you must lean away from the weight to balance it over your spine, placing pressure on the same-side oblique, and opposite side lower back. Being a stout and hardy knight, you can grasp the weight and hold it with but a single arm! But even you cannot hold aloft nearly five stone in weight single-handed for very long.