Herald's page

I'm lucky. I have a geek wife. How Geek?

I bought here a GenCon VIG pass for her birthday. $500 of Geek worth just there alone.

Consider doing somethings that might help. Get your kids involved in gaming. Try picking up the basic D&D boxed set if you can and play with your kids. Or perhaps get some D&D minis and play with your kids with those.

I also tend to game with other people who have kids. they bring thier kids to the house when I run my games and no one seems to mind when the kids raise a ruckus in the next room. That might get your spouse interested or if she stays being a D&D widow perhaps hanging out with one of your friends wives.

If that doesn't work, consider getting a sitter while you play and maybe the wife would like to get out and see something or a friend while you game. (This might get you out of seeing a movie that you don't want to see.)

For a while now my gaming group has been Myself as the DM, My wife and son, and a couple and thier son who we are very close too and a new friend my wife met thorugh connections. At this time I would have to say that this is the best group that I have had in a long time. The boys are 11 and 12 so we have the next generation of gamers coming up. My wife loves to play D&D and hanging out with friends and I admit, I like it to, but I like the game mastery part more than the actual play. Our friends get to play and know that they aren't avoiding eachother and that thier kids are at a place having fun with supervision.

Here is another thing I recomend. Find some other game your wife can play. Try "Apples to Apples". Great game, though not an RPG. Its simple to learn and in many cases a laugh riot. I'm sure that your friends could play as well. Let her see that games are just another way of getting with people and having a good time with them and learning to relate with them. Once you have her playing that, try Chez Geek, and then Munchkin. If you can get her into that, RPGs are just a step away. If you can't get her into it though , no big deal, chances are you have built up a stronger understanding of games and you should have an easier time of getting the group together.

Oh, and get your friends to pickup after themselves. SHe's got your kids to mother, She more than likely doesn't want to mother your group. :P

Herald wrote:

It might be better to explain that it can be created using the same game mechanics that you can use for magic items. The fluff/flavor is what is differant.

Herald, my point is not that magical items or high-tech items can be created using the same game mechanics. It is that due to the level of magic in most settings, higher technological devices are not required or for the most part even considered. The bulk of a fantasy settings inhabitants are going to spend time developing magical devices as solutions instead of technological items as solutions. This extends into weaponry. There is no drive to create firearms for most part since there are already a multitude of magical weaponry that is far more effective. Without a reason for not resorting to magic, most cultures in a fantasy world will turn to magic for anything that actual modern humans would turn to technology to accoplish.

Firearms if they developed in a fantasy setting would most likely come from a race or nation with little to no talent for arcane magic (which is more accessible to the population in general than divine magic). In 2nd edition with their being banned from the magic-user class, dwarves would have been the most logical race to develop firearms, but with their gaining wizards of their own this greatly drops. The Iron Kingdoms has setting and mechanics reasons for why firearms were developed there (along with some of the other tech such as steamjacks).

My overall point is that magical capability and technological capability are inversely related in a fantasy setting without a very good reason for there being more technology.

-Weylin Stormcrowe

Let me start out as saying that this just my opinion.

I have never bought into that. Mostly because I want Magic to be only used by the small portion of thee population that can use them... Adventurers and Monsters. Guns buy and large were developed because nobility saw the righting on the wall and the military saw that it was easier to train soldiers in its use rather than the box or crossbow.

Dwarves are really the last class I see developing the gun. For the most part they remain isolated in Mountains with thier clanish traditions. If you use real world analogies, they like other mountain dwellers are prone to adaptation slowly. Dwarves are miners, stone cutters and builders. Everything they building the create is epic and masterful.

A more dynamic race would need to be used. If not Humans, Gnomes make a good choice. While the first "gun" was made by a english priest some time in the middle ages it was the clck makers that made the "lock" devices that turned it into the hand held weapon that we know today. When the nobility started to highly tax the clock makers for thier work and try and reign control on the gun trade, the clock makers simply emigrated.

IMHO, since gnomes have an alchemical background, and a fairy tail background of being tinkers and inventors I place them as being the invetors of guns, but not nessasarily the main user of guns. Dwarven adventurers certainly would use guns and perhaps even come up with thier own takes.(Larger bores, ect)

I also imagine gnomes being the type to do trade between the main races of the PHB.

yellowdingo wrote:

So a "Rayoffrost" rifle with an enchanted 50 Shard Powercrystal (making it a Wonderous item As opposed to a wand), lenses of damage enhancement and range doubling, and a QuickenStock allowing six shots per round on a single fixed target enchanted by a 14th level wizard doesnt look like a raygun?

Mechanics wise they are the same thing. That is my point, dingo. The only difference is purely cosmetic. It doesnt take "highly advanced magic" to be equivalent to technology. Magic is equivalent to technology at any level. Thus as i pointed out, for the time civilzations have been in most campaign settings they are technologically retarded in the extreme. 12000 years of recorded history in Realms for example. And yet smokepowder guns dont come about until Gond manifests during the Time of Troubles and remain obscure weapons at best. Why? Because magical weaponry is superior in that setting. Thunderstone...an alchemical flash-bang grenade in everything but appearance. Same basic effect.

-Weylin Stormcrowe

It might be better to explain that it can be created using the same game mechanics that you can use for magic items. The fluff/flavor is what is differant.

The Previous thread looked at:

1. Steam Guns Usable by Druids.
2. The Prospect of a Miniature that carries a "GUN" which ammounts to little more than A Device which Allow a "Wizard" to fire two Wand simultanuously.
3. Guns oddly wont be included in the Pathfinder Rules but may be in the Setting at a Later Date.

So what Next? A Scifi presence was hinted at in the Pathfinder Setting but will this be BLACKLORE Technology -highly advanced magic items almost identical to advanced technology - Frost Ray Rifles, Flare Grenades/Pistols, and Wormhole Weapons(Gate Grenades); or Something along the Lines of OARD Technology with Deathray Gloves, Microgrenades(Fireball Gems), and Blaster Tubes?

I'd like the advanced things to look clockpunk or steampunk rather than modern or futuristic sci-fi.

But I have mad love for Barrier Peaks too.

Thanks Cos!

I got 1-4 plus the seminar. Looking forward to the games.

Herald wrote:

neat stuff

I'd forgotten about guncotton. Hmm...

FYI Guncotton.

One concept I was toying around is alchemical replacement for Black powder or a alchemical/black powder combination.

For a time there was a gun cotton replacement for black powder. (I don't have my sources at the moment but here is what I was considering.

He is a somewhat in character take on how I would approach guns.

The Gnomes have created a "Gunclay" Its an alchemical mixture that includes some black powder and a fast burning material that expands quickly when exposed to fire, but has a low chance of explosion when not compressed. It burns evenly and cleanly so the chance of hang fire and dirtying the gun barrel decreases compared to just standard black powder. It's cost scales with its convenience, and that prevents is use by rank and file army members, but not out of officers, petty nobles or adventurers.

Its not uncommon for adventurers to make "preloads" of payload. The ball is placed with against a rounded piece of clay as it is sticky enough to adhere to it, but not so strong as to call it a permanent bond. (The clay should be less than the with of the barrel just like the bullet.) A person loading the gun then can prepare a number of shots ahead of time, simply place the preload into the barrel and ram both materials at the same time with the ramrod. When performed correctly a small amount of gun clay will be exposed to the firing hole making the spark have a shorter distance to travel if using flint.

Some magic item makers have gone so far as to accommodate rapid use of guns by making magical modifications. Some add access to extra dimensional spaces to allow the gun user to fire off more than one shot before reloading. Of course this means the user would have to be combatant capable of multiple attacks in the first place. Magical ammo is also common in these cases. Most magical modifications that can be applied to crossbows can be applied to guns. It has been rumored, but yet to be proven that their could be a magic gun that requires no ammunition what so ever. This speculation is dismissed by Gnomish gunsmiths as "poppycock" perhaps due to the cause that they would be putting themselves at risk as alchemist.

While many adventures still find value with the relatively quite crossbows, many, many others are finding guns and pistols have some value. In particular Hobgoblins as it suits their brutal and extreme method of combat.

edited for spelling errors. I shouldn't trust spellcheck so much.

Anyone else going to be playing pathfinder at Gencon?

I am on of the people who haven't recieved there pathfinder products for April, nor the PDFs that come with them. Could you please check my account to make sure that I haven't forgotten some information that I should have provided to Paizo?

Thanks in advance and I hope you are all recovering from the Flu.

Michael Griffin-Wade

I'm surprised no one mentioned F.A.T.A.L.

Truely bad.

We have a huge stack of orders that should ship out the door today. I plan to spend most of the day in the warehouse helping them get caught back up. We got a bit behind because the flu bug hit Paizo pretty hard over the past couple of weeks, but it looks like we weathered the worst of it. Kinda of eerie, since we are shipping "Seven Days To The Grave" right now. :)

-Lisa

Get better!

Well that makes sense, but I was really hoping to see a game run with the rules besides my my group to make sure I was fully understanding the rules. Oh well. I'm still really looking forward to the Rathfinder Games.

A funny thing about the term "adventure path."

Wizards planned out a series of adventures for 3e so that you'd be able to play levels 1-20, and these adventures would probably be a community-common experience much in the same way that "basic" D&D people played Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread, 1e players played GDQ, and so on. Thus, you have The Sunless Citadel, etc.

But they didn't want you to HAVE to have played the previous adventures in order to play the later adventures. Why? Because long ago they found that sales tend to trickle off the later numbers in a series, especially if book 1 is out of print and a new player is looking at the shelf and only seeking books 2+. So these adventures were never branded as an adventure path, they were never given a common letter designation (like G for the Giants series), nor were they given serialized numbers (like AP1, AP2).

In fact, one of the art directors overheard someone talking about the "adventure path" and was worried because they hadn't been trying to synchronize the art look across these various adventures. The brand team told them this was deliberate and not to worry about it.

So the Wizards adventure path was only informally so, and it was never intended to be a trademark or anything like that.

I remember that coming up at WOTC Q&As at GenCon back in the day. Still love hearing about what was going on in the offices though.

I'm looking to get a Pathfinder fix at GenCon so I've plotted out how to get into as many pathfinder games throught the four days.

Dumb Question, I assume that even though it says 3.5 rules on the spread sheet I assume that the games will be Pathfinder Beta rules?

Will the characters be Pregen or would we be creating characters for further Pathfinder Society play?

Any chance anything will be happening for superscribers? I plan on getting my back stock of some of the mods I have missed so far at the con along with my Pathfinder softcover.

Looking forward to this years GenCon. I had a great time playing in the Seven Swords of Sin dungeon and playing Kill Doctor Lucky. Very instersed to see what else you have up your sleeves.

The more I wait for this the more, I can't help thinking that I can't wait to play this at GenCon. What a plesent vacation that will be.

Heres some of my thougts

My group loves the action points from Unearthed Arcana. Very diverse and mixes things up. I know it is more than what you get in Eberron but I have never seen it go out of control.

Something I have always wanted to do is give Wizards some healing without making Clerics less special. I do know that there are some spells that transfer hit point from a Arcane spellcater to wounded player, but that isn't really what I like. I am of the "Aracne magic is kinda like Science" camp, which I know is hated by many DMs/players. But Wizards are always looking to tap new realms of power and positive energy is in my mind is slam dunk.

Other D20 games have come out with arcane spells that make lethal wounds non-lethal wounds. I'd like to have that option. They would never be as good a clerics, but a party could adventure without one. It could also mean the differance in keeping a Cleric alive if they drop.

I too am waiting for mine as well. I think part of the hold up is the fact I need to update my CC# which I did last week. My fault for not keeping it uptodate.

KaeYoss wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

I'd argue that rpg design theory has learned a lot since the hoary days of 1e. 3e should be compared to other systems that exist today, not just systems that existed in the past. Comparing the Ford Pinto to a Model T when discussing reliability and comfort is stacking the deck.

I say it can still hold its own.

Having levels and classes isn't necessarily a bad thing. Different strokes and all that.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Stunty_the_Dwarf wrote:

Wait... so you're saying that your 5 different summoner or enchanters hinge on a single additional spell per day? And the lack of that one spell keeps you from building the guy you want?

Ignoring your snark, I don't believe I said that.

You actually did: You said that in 3e, you can build those 5 different summoners, but in Pathfinder, you can't. The only thing the Alpha specialist doesn't get is that one extra spell. So that one spell slot must contain the essence of versatility you miss in Alpha.

Its not about what it doesn't get, its about what it does - opportunity cost and all that. You do understand that when a class is balanced with other classes and you, then, refuse to use one part of it, you are no longer using the class in a balanced way, right?

And, for the record, I didn't say that having classes and levels is a bad thing. Flexible classes are possible. I've specifically said that I don't want DnD to be turned into a game system like Heroes (fifteen ways to do fire is going overboard).

So i guess your not going then?

Herald wrote:

Here is a link to R. Dancey's Blog for those that are interested.

R. Dancy

Which would be interesting if he still updated it.:)

His pasts posts still make for an interesting read.

According to the SRD of 3.5, "Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces."

This is further explained in the Alpha 1 Release, "Each deity has a number of spheres of influence, ideals and concepts that they represent and champion. Their followers can draw upon these domains for additional powers and abilities. Each cleric chooses two of the
domains granted by their deity upon taking their first level."

I have a radical question: Why is it mechanically necessary to explain divine magic in terms of a polytheistic world view?

I ask this because of the roots of our modern concept of Fantasy. Both Beowulf and La Mort de Arthur were written from a Christian perspective. C.S. Lewis allowed his own Christianity to heavily influence the Narnia chronicals. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and, to a less obvious degree, allowed his beliefs to shape his story telling (if you don't believe me, a friend of mine got his Masters of Theology by showing how much of the Old Testament shows up in Tolkien).

Given these roots, shouldn't there be a mechanical option for those who wish to honor these roots, or to reflect them in their games?

I realize that conceptually it is difficult to explain how God, given that He is good, would ever grant the Evil Domain to an evil cleric and allow this guy to go around using divine energies, power, etc. disobeying His commandments. Thus, there is the apparant need for divine powers that support such activities.

However, one of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity holds that the created world was called "very good" by God. Thus, when it comes to whether something in creation is good or evil, it doesn't matter WHAT something is, but rather how it is USED. Thus, no matter how difficult it may seem, it is possible to use the Evil Domain for good.

Keeping this concept in mind, isn't it possible to understand the ability to use divine magic as a gift from God to be used and developed...

That's a kettle of fish that I would not want in my products.

Better you tailor your games yourself than make other peole have to remove this work.

Here is a link to R. Dancey's Blog for those that are interested.

R. Dancy

Personally I would like to keep the NPC classes. With the current way of handling skills, making them will be quick. It also makes them easy to handle as hirelings and the like.

I also like my PrCs. You can have my Mystic Theurge when you can get it from my cold dead hands....

If Recharge Magic (mentioned near the beginning of this discussion) doesn't suit your taste, there's also Spell Points using the Vitalizing Variant. The second optional rule can even be used without using the spell point system: To cast a prepared spell already cast or a known spell without a sufficient spell slot, make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or take one point of lethal and non-lethal damage for each spell level of the spell.

I run my games with recharge magic, my players and I love it.

They've stated something to the effect of that when the beta rules come out, they'd like to begin working on it.

Sounds logical. Looking forward towards it as i just bought the program to use with my pathfinder games.

Just thought I would ask.

Reposting since original disappeared.

The rate of fire for bows and crossbows aren't very realistic, so i can't see why firearms.

I was always more partial to the OA monk than the PH version.

Personally the load times for bows and crossbows aren't that realistic, I don't see why they can't be done.

We also have telescopes too.

Michael F wrote:

If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR. They will show up, smack your b!tch UP, and steal your lunch money (no save). So don't f#ck around at the deep end of the pool.

In addition to the critiques lodged by others in this thread, I have my own.

PCs who follow the wealth tables have already achieved wealth beyond their CR. There is a separate wealth table for NPCs and PCs and PCs have about four times as much wealth as a PC of the same ECL. So from the perspective of the NPCs, the PCs are already over-treasured.

So why aren't PCs being constantly mugged? Because the equipment enables them to handle the NPCs who would want that equipment. And the same holds true for PCs who are over-treasured.

You do have a point, but the DM chooses when they strike. And smart NPC strike when the PCs have tapped themselves mostly out.

But honestly who wants to play with a DM who works like that.

That's why I like my system of the PC can have as much gear as a typical PC would have, the rest goes into holding for other uses. Rainy day, sold for money to purchace a keep or headquarters.

Frank, Herald, your points seem sound. All I can say is that we've been using this rule for some time, and haven't really run into any of the problems you anticipate. Maybe a different set of players would have them -- maybe even your players. I make no claims for universal applicablity or game omniscience; I'm only reporting what worked for our group. Maybe the issues are easily avoided, but whetever the case, the operative point is

Kirth Gersen wrote:

this system is unapologetically a houserule, and is not intended for general use. All I’m claiming is that it works extremely well for our group, and that some other groups might enjoy it as well.

wrecan,

Frank pointed out an issue that he sees in the game; I replied with a system that removed that problem for us. I can't speak for all gamers or all game designers everywhere, nor would I claim to. Of the problems you point out, I can say that:

1. The amount of bookkeeping is reduced, not increased, because there's no need to track gold. The RAW use two forms of advancement: abilities by xp, and equipment by wealth. We've merged them, is all.

2. The "glass cannon" problem (a) hasn't actually ever popped up in actual play for the reasons I've already described, and (b) is self-correcting is it does. We have not actually ever had to resort to the equipment LA; I threw out the example as a nod to Frank, who is well aware of the existence of people who will try every means possible to take advantage of any given system. My group plays for fun, and we've never had an issue with it.

Even still, it interesting to hear what others have done to get around this issue.

Kirth Gersen: while charging people XP to acquire magic items will serve to dissuade some players from acquiring large amounts of magic items, remember that in the long run our goal is to make the amount of magic items that a character of a specific level has roughly the same amount of equipment as another character of the same level.

Starkly put: if you give people the choice between gaining equipment and gaining levels, you've put a vast discrepancy between the amount of equipment that different characters have at any particular level. Indeed, within a single party you would expect the general case to be that higher level characters had less equipment and lower level characters had more equipment.

A negative correlation between the amount of equipment people have and the amount of levels they have gained undermines the CR system.

-Frank

I'm going to agree here. XP really shouldn't be a currency/comodity. I can see how you make it work, but I really I think it it makes the system as wonky as Frank points out. Honestly I want as little as posible tapping into the XP jar as posible.

Herald,

I'm not going to quote you because I don't want to tur this into a quote-mine-fest and because I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I'll just address your points topic-by-topic:

Changing Spells
<snip> but reasonable people can disagree on that point.

Yea I think it could be left at that. I see both sides of the coin so there we are.

Sidebars
I think Sidebars would be a wonderful idea, no matter what solution is taken. I also think that FT's suggestion could be expressed in a series of sidebars or even a single sidebar.

Sidebars do really clearup a lot of things.

Silver standard
I don't disagree that a silver standard would be better. I do think, though, that has major backwards-compatibility issues.

Your right, that sort of conversion really belongs in a game world accessory.

Gamist v. Simulationist
I completely agree with what you're saying. My only issue is that simulationists are never going to have a problem with these issues because simulationists can always jerry-rig the campaign around the problem.

But game designers cannot write exclusively to simulationists. They have to be able to accommodate the gamists too. And the gamists need rules to prevent breakage. And that's why when people defend the current system by showing how it isn't broken in their game (usually because the players and DMs mutually agree to abide by wealth levels regardless of the opportunity to break it), it's not helpful from a game-design perspective.

I think that you are absolutly correct on that issue. There seems to be a fine line someware between Simulationist and Gamist that needs to be walked with game developers and that can be have both sides very fustrated.

The problem that I often see is that many people don't understand that there are multiple points of view and multiple ways of getting to the same place. Many peoople just think to themselves were all just a bunch of gamers and there for what I want is what everyone wants.

So I guess what I am trying to say we can agree to disagree, understand the differances, because when we meet new gamers they might be from the other side of the fence so to speak and see how we can accomidate each other to an extent.

As I said I lean towards Gamist more than Simulationist. And while I can see the flaws that some rules have, there not the flaws that come up at my game table and I consider myself lucky because of that.

Robin Laws has created some really great material on how to run RPGs and he helped create part of the DMG2. The Unearthed Arcana is another book that also shows people alot of the behind the scenes looks into design and game running. So I would think that sidebars and the like would be a good way of handling the Gamist/Simulationist gap.

Lets face it. If the spell takes up a page to explain how it works, it's really to long for the most part. But a side bar that explains the intent can really help the player and the DM alike and can shorten up the details of a spell. It might be argued that your justs splitting up the data into two differant areas, but you onlyu need the sidebar commentary for so ling and after a while you just use the details that pertain to your situation.

P.S. I too would jhave clipped more from this, but with some people being confused on some points through all the posts I find this easier to keep up with.

Personally I like the idea of throwbacks. For all most of the half races. Something that turns up in human children every so often. Be it Half Orc, Tiefling or Aasimar.

Do the traits show up right away? Do the parent try and hide what the child is. Do they embrace it? That is the flavor I want.

I am opposed to Frank's actual position as I understand it. I don't think there needs to be a "tiered" economy where gold pieces are no longer useable at high levels.

When I go to a Convention, each D&D Game lists the amount of GP that a player-created pre-gen character can have, using rules from the DMG. At sufficiently high levels, you can purchase items above 15,000 gp. But it all happens offline before you show up at the game. So there is no problem with tons of gold coins. There were never any gold coins moved, just numbers in the books and on the character sheet.

In the campaign I'm a player in, we're now around 13th level. We just killed a bunch bad guys and took their stuff: magic swords and armor, and some art/jewelry. I am the party treasurer, so I added it all up in Excel and told the other 5 players what was available to pick from and what our average share would be (about 33,000 gp). It was about 200,000 gp of loot, but 40% of it is stuff our PCs don't want. That stuff just goes away and we get 80,000 gp to split, plus the items various players wanted (3 of which cracked the 15K limit).

But that 80,000 gp doesn't really exist in the game world, or on anyone's character sheet. It's only on my spreadsheet. The guy who picked the fewest magic items got 26,000 gp as his "gold" treasure share. But he isn't required to figure out the logistics of carrying 500 pounds of coins, because he doesn't really have that many coins. I don't know or care what he actually wrote on his character sheet, and neither does the DM. On my character sheet, if I happen to be saving up for a big ticket item, I hold gems if the amounts get too crazy, but at the end of the day, it's not really necessary. Because the gold usually appears and goes away between actual games.

So once my friend saves up enough for whatever fancy magic item he wants, he will just cross off the giant number of gp from his character sheet and write down the magic item. As long as the number on his sheet is high enough, he can...

There is a lot of things in this post that I agree with. You run a game that I would say is close to the way I run a game.

It seems to me that the economic discussion keeps rolling back to a methodology of game styles arguement.

Gamist: I focus on the "on stage" aspects of the game. Things that happen of stage like aquiring new gear and the like are handled quickly by just by letting players choose what they can use and making it down on thier sheet. (Within reason)

Simulationist: I want to create a world that is consistant (But no less fantastical). My world, my cities, my NPC, ect are things that are dynamic that grow and change with the story of what is happening with the players.

Co-Operational: I set the stage for the players be we all interperate what that means, what has happened and what will happen.

Frank it seems leans to Simulationist, You seem lean to Gamist. I'm someware in the middle leaning closer to Gamist.

I still think that there is a middle ground to this and we can get to it together.

Herald wrote:

Do you want something simple and transparent? I'm the DM, I give the players x number of value so that they can get get the gear that they want to help build ther characters that they what, a gamest approach? Or do you want a simulationist approach where they can liquidate there rewards according what the local current economy can handle and if not travel to another place that can handle the transactions that they want?

D&D is clearly in the gamist mode, which is "simple and transparent". I think Pathfinder is more or less required to stick with that approach for backwards compatibility purposes.

The problem remains that characters of a certain level can without difficulty, break the wealth-by-level guidelines that form the basis of encounter balance. I still think that there are five approaches to this problem.

1) Let Players Break the Game. This appear to be disenchanter's preference.
2) Rule Zero. Tell DMs to use fiat to prevent players from accumulating wealth. As far as I can tell, nobody has advocated this, although disenchanter seems to think we have.
3) Change the Spells. This way the game cannot be broken.
4) Change How PCs Aquire Items. This is FT's solution.
5) Lessen Dependence on Magic Items. Essentially, eliminate a lot of items, and change encounters to reflect the absence of these items.

I think 3 and 5 are simply too complicated to retain backwards compatibility for Pathfinder (4th edition seems to be using a combination of 3 and 5), and I think 1 and 2 are poor game design. That leaves FT's suggestion, until someone suggests something else.

OK this is the third time posting this. I'm not sure why the message boards hate me but what are you going to do.

I still think that Option 3 has a chance of working. I also believe that even if you stripped out the spells you would still have some decent backwards compatability. But I will go one more step down this line and suggest something that has woked for WOTC and Paizo in the past. Sidebars.
Sidebars work very well in explaining the intentions of designers and can spell out how the spell is intended to work and the possible pitfalls DMs can have if they let the spells run out of control.

As far as coins and what have you, I have often felt that th weight of the coins were way to high and they should be smaller. I have also felt that a silver standard would make much more sense and in the eyes of the players make gold seem that much more special.

wrecan wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

Like GeraintElberion earlier, you have played the "DM Controls All" trump card... If your DM ignores the rules, for better or worse, and/or is illogical, your game is illogical and the rules don't mean anything.

And what you have done is eschew the wealth guidelines which is essential to game balance. And yet when I ask if you accept that, you ignored my question and jumped on the DM fiat issue.

Players can use fifth level spells to break the wealth guidelines. Do you agree with this statement or not?

The encounter rules are written with the assumption that players are equipped commensurate with the wealth guidelines. Do you agree or not?

If players are able to obtain wealth not commensurate with the wealth guidelines, then the game is poorly designed. Do you agree or not?

It seems to me that you advocate that we continue to play with a broken game. And if that's true then there's really no need for your participation in this or any other game design thread.

Wrecan:

I would like to submit that a system where wealth guidelines must be rigorously maintained to ensure game balance is going to be broken by players on occasions. How long in 3.5 (unless the DM finds some way to 'ban' or otherwise 'discourage' such a practice) would it take a group of 1st level PCs, who set themselves up in a local town casting first level spells for hire, to exceed the wealth guidelines without (in theory) gaining so much as a single point of XP for doing so?
As far as I can understand, taking magical items (which can usually be purchased for money) out of the power equation beyond a certain point might make wealth guidelines less essential to game balance (at least from a personal equipment point of view- role-players will still find ways by hosting large parties to boost their reputations, bribing local officials, hiring personal armies, etc, to still try to convert wealth into power).

Edit:
Just noticed Herald's most recent...

There is a third point I should have considered which is the co-op type of game in which all the player and the DM work in a shared space and all members work towards forwarding the games scope. I don't find this type of game style faverable for D&D, but have used it for Vampire games.

I myself like the Gamest form of play with a stronge narative bent. I let the players know that I have a plot arch that I intend to follow and while players can do things that take them into different directions, that if they take themselves to far off stage by lets say opening up a magical fabrication plant, that they have taken that character out of play and that it is no longer in their control. Please create another with the guidelines for normal amount of wealth for a NPC of an equal level.

I try and make sure that the loot that characters get is more or less easy to liquidate, but I warn them that they really shouldn't try and over do it with their gear. When they look disapppointed I often use this mantra "Are you trying to play the game or are you trying to get through the game. If playing the game is not fun unless you move through the game without risk, and all you want to do is arrive at the otherside unscratched and with more loot. I have created/presented a game that isn't fun and I need to fix it or present you with something else to play. Monopoly perhaps."

What I would recommend is that everyone take a step back and look at what you would consider is your typical method of handling your game world. Maybe, just maybe you might expose something that Paizo can actually turn in to an opportunity rather that just butting heads.

I bet you guys can uncover quite a bit insight if you just see that you are looking at a different things and not the same thing differantly.

edited because I got something out of order.

All in all some of the things recommended by Frank do sound pretty logical, but the presentation of economic rules needs to be devorce from what has come from before to what Pathfinder will become in the future.

While I do understand that backwards compatability means that some people will be using pre-existing game worlds with defacto standards of off world trade centers that have objects that cost as much as a small countries GDP. The fact of the matter is that perhaps game ecomomics can be rethought and restructured without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What we should be thinking of is that the economy of an adventurer is differant than a standard person. The amount of wealth is just massive for any adventurer even before they reach 8th level. To this point I have often though that most the most dangerous time an adventurer should have is not when they are in a dungeon, but when they leave a dungeon. For that matter why aren't the rolled for thier loot when they come back to town for healing or to bring one of thier party back from the dead. But I digress.

I myself thought of making a cap on gear per level that cannot exceed the levels prescribed in the DMG. The remander of wealth can be kept for a rainy day or sold for things other than adventuring gear. Perhaps a keep or a title. Maybe a wardrobe that gives a +2 social bonus when at court, ect.

On the other side, some rewards for high level adventures should not be actual coinage. Yea, I know the whole trope about dragons sleeping on a bed of coins. Other than that, perhaps it's time to change that. Maybe the monster has no tresure, but a rewards of a equal value is given by someone else. Perhaps that object has a value to someone else that can be traded for what the adventures want.

Now I know what you are saying. Your saying that this has been brought up before. Well I bring this up because I'm trying to spell out the fact that this goes beyound core rule book, this goes into adventure design. You can have the best of design economicly in the core and blow it out of the water with suppliments.

Something to consider is that economics always has two parts. Supply and demand. While the player makes part of the equation as either the supplier (I can make hundreds of widgets per fabricate) or the buyer ( I have enough money to buy a +3 sword) There is nothing to say that the market will bare what he wants, for as long as he wants. It's much like a DM's control of the environment (yes I know there are spell to over come that). For the most part and many players don't even question that.

So here is really the crux of the issue. Do you want something simple and transparent? I'm the DM, I give the players x number of value so that they can get get the gear that they want to help build ther characters that they what, a gamest approach? Or do you want a simulationist approach where they can liquidate there rewards according what the local current economy can handle and if not travel to another place that can handle the transactions that they want?

I'd change gnome to be an artificer type class if I could. But my second choice would be move Elf to Druid and move Gnome to Wizard and Bard to Half-elf.

Can't wait to buy the hard back! Looking forward to seeing you at GenCon!

New for your minatures game it's "Fog of War". Shroud your map with mysterious darkness so your players don't see that ancient black dragon just beyoned your henge, be it stone, wood or straw*, **. "Fog of War" ask for it by name!

* actual henge not included.

** when actually creating your henge, please remember that " stands for inches and ' stands for feet.

I don't think anyone here is saying anyone else is a bad DM if they allow guns. I think we were just stating our personal preferences and reasons for them.

If D&D is supposed to be medieval fantasy, guns are certainly possible in a medieval setting. Gunpowder was invented in China sometime around the year 1000, maybe earlier, and gunpowder weapons came into widespread use there during the early 12th century. The gun as we know it (a tube that uses gunpowder to expel a lead ball or bullet at high velocity) was invented in the late 13th century and had found its way to Europe within 50 years or so. So guns arrived on the European battlefield at about the same time that full plate armor did--and I haven't heard too many calls to eliminate that staple of medieval fantasy.

However, since the game is more based on the literary genre of medieval fantasy than on the historical medieval world, and since the mainstream of that genre does not feature gunpowder weapons, most purists eschew gunpowder. But it's fantasy, so anything's possible, and there are certainly F/SF authors who mix gunpowder weapons and sorcery.

In my homebrew world, which has a somewhat late medieval/renaissance feel to it in some ways, I still don't have gunpowder or the printing press, which are the two technologies (along with, arguably, the compass) that ultimately (over the course of five centuries or so) brought on the modern world. And steam engines are definitely out. But that's a personal preference only, and I can certainly understand allowing gunpowder weapons in a swashbuckling campaign. Keep in mind, though, that gunpowder makes castles less useful, makes naval battles really deadly (read John Kegan's account of Trafalgar in "The Price of Admiralty"), and tends to favor larger, centralized states with commoner armies over feudal systems.

The problem of using "Reniassance" and "Medieval" is that there is no strong line between them. The lag from when one country moved from one time period to the next is signifigant. Italy's move into the reniassance was much faster than England's and Eastern Europe's countrys much slower than that. It's just not a neat history and at best you can say that gunpowder shows up in some people's Medieval period while it appears in other's Reniassance.

And the gaps from from our reality to D&D reality is huge. When it come right down to it, any D&D magic makes castles just as less useful if not more. After all, what what would you fear more; A cannon unit or a earthquake spell? Flight also changed warfare just as much if not more than gunpowder and yet we have that concept locked in to most D&D games. Just ask General Billy Mitchell.

So much of what goes into D&D magic is basicly a replacement for technology and I honestly think that the comparisons to earth history that just don't really apply anymore using the standard default D&D magic level.

And when I think of fantasy books, I tend to think of the "first medieval fantasy" as being "A Connecticut Yankee in King Aurthor's Court". Gunpowder didn't really take the magic out of that story.

Honestly, I'm tired of the whole guns don't fit in D&D arguement.

For every gunes don't work that way arguement, so also goes the bows and crossbow arguement.

For all the stuff you can create with alchemy, you should be able to create something like gunpowder, and since most of the known D&D worlds used by WOTC have some people that can create clockworks, so between that and alchemy pehaps there are wheelocks that have much more much more dependable than normal "earth" wheelocks.

I have seen flintlocks that date back to the early reniassance that have multple chambers to a gun maybe fired quickly so that reloads between shots are not as required as much. There are magical weapon enhancements for crossbow that could be added to guns as well.

In my game my player's characters will be trained to have thier loads premessured into a sort of speedload. It might be the sort of speedload that I use now when performing in pirate shows were the gunpowder is set in rolling paper so it can be easily loaded. I have even considered an alchemical replacement that is more like clay or guncotton and is already attached to the "ball" and the "flint" is created alchemicly so it doesn't require powder in the pan.

But all this just academic. The transparency form guns to crossbows should be just about the same. This is a game we are talking about after all. The biggest threat I feel that most DMs have is what happens if players get ahold of a big barrel of black powder, and to that I say "don't let them." Just like anything else in the game, anything that would unbalance the game should be avoided.

I love my Greyhawk, I'm just tired of this part and I'm sure that anyone else would say "Run your world the way you want", so I am.

I keep reading the rule about scrolls in the DMG on p. 238. and I don't see that successfuling casting a spell from a scroll allows the scroll to stay intact on the scroll. Im refering to the passage on p. 175 of The Shackled City book. Can anyone clear this up for me? Am I reading this right?

I keep coming back to this "The writing for an activated spell disappears from the scroll."