Jason Rice's page

I don't see "record numbers" as a lottery. Rather, it makes me wish I hadn't waited so long to submit my entry. It has me worried the judges won't get to mine, or at the very least be burnt out by the time they do get to it.

But then, I'm kind of a worrier by nature.

I don't think you can value this stuff like you are trying to do.

However, if you MUST try, forget character levels, and probably spell levels too. It's not the characer level that is important, but the way it alters a SPECIFIC spell. The level itself is far less important for these calculations. Also, remember to take into account:

The AVERAGE damage for the attack (1 pt/HP???)
The POTENTIAL damage for the attack (1 pt/HP???)
The POTENTIAL number of targets for the attack (2 pts/target???)
The maximum RANGE for the attack (1 pt/5 ft???)
The damage TYPE for the attack (normal = x1, fire = x1.5, poison, acid, cold, or electricity = x2, sonic = x2.5, force = x3????)
The secondary EFFECTS of the attack (stunned, sickened, etc.)

I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to these values.

Also, there are non-combat spells to consider. Detect Magic is worth A LOT more than it's implied value, under your system. Imagine trying to find the magic items in a dragon's horde without it.

Finally, there are feats to consider. Are all sword strikes equal, or do improved critical, power attack, cleave, and other feats change the value?

Again, I don't think you can easily quantify these values.

Another Grognard here. I'll try and answer all your questions.

Before I do that, I want to mention something. I could be wrong, but if my memory is correct, you are mixing editions in your list of books. You mentioned the 2nd Edition PHB. Monster Manual was 1st Edition, the 2nd Edition had the Monstrous Compendiums. The Forgotten Realms could be either 1st Edition (Boxed set) or 2nd Edition (hadcover book). Temple of Elemental Evil was 1st Edition. Keep on the Borderlands was Basic. I'm not sure about Against the Giants. However, I suppose some of these could have been printed in multiple editions.

What would you reccomend for a whippersnapper like me trying to get abreast of the old system?

I've played every edition of D&D since the early 80s. I'm not wanting to start an editions war, but my opinion is that the editions got BETTER as time passed, with the exception of 4e. My favorite edition happens to be Pathfinder. If you want to try some older stuff, I recommend 3rd edition. If you want something with more of a difference to Pathfinder than 3rd Edition, try 2nd edition.

How does it compare to Pathfinder?

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Comparing Basic or 4e to Pathfinder is more like comparing apples to pickles. That is to say, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Pathfinder are all more closely related than Basic, 4e, and Pathfinder; but even so, they are different products with different flavors.

What about running a game with it?

Go for it.

What are some of the pitfalls a brand new group should avoid? How compatible are the different editions?

The editions are not compatable. As to the "pitfalls", I guess it depends on what you mean by that.

BASIC:

Yellowdingo mentioned the highlights of Basic. There were a couple of other options for armor, like shields and a "suit" of armor (introduced in the Master's set), but Yellowdingo's description is pretty accurate in describing the general aspect of the game. Character options were VERY limited (for instance, there were only 3 alignments), so the game necessarily depended more on a player's inginuity to solve things and a player's roleplaying to stand apart from other characters of the same race (or class if human).

1st Edition:

1st edition was very deadly to player characters, compared to the other editions of the game. There were lots of save-or-die effects. Lots of near-impossible deathtraps that player's found themselves in. Lots of severe penalties for doing mundane things like opening a door. Lots of fights against monsters, or groups of monsters, that were too powerful for the party level. Did I mention it was deadly?

Also, 1st Edition's initiative system was a little crazy. The basic rule was to roll a D6 for each TEAM (PCs and monsters), lowest TEAM goes first. But there were exceptions for high Dex, exceptions for being a ranger, exceptions for your race, exceptions for spellcasting, exceptions for missle attacks, and exceptions for polearms (if I remember correctly). There may have even been exceptions for the exceptions.

2nd Edition:

This is actually the edition I played the most, even counting Pathfinder, 3rd, 3.5, and 4e. Pming mentioned the kits and improvement to initiative. I just want to add to that, that I actually miss weapon speeds and the old style casting times. Both were optional rules (2nd edition had lots of optional rules), but they added a ballance to the weapons and spells that I think is missing in current editions. Essentially, if your weapon speed was 5, it took you 5 initiative segments, in addition to your initiative roll, to make an attack. The bigger, more damaging weapons (two-handed sword) were a lot slower than the smaller, less-damaging weapons (dagger).

Likewise, as a general rule (there were exceptions), a spell's casting time was going to be in the neighborhood if its spell level, so it took more time to conjure a fireball than it did to sling a magic missle. People complained that 2nd edition wizards were all-powerful, but if your wizard took damage before he finished casting, he lost the spell. No concentration checks. No chance to keep the spell for a future round. It was gone. I should also mention that wizards couldn't move when casting, meaning they lost their DEX bonus to AC.

Finally. I mentioned that weapon speeds and castng times were optional rules. other optional rules included non-weapon proficiencies, kits, encumberance, individual initiative, jogging and running, and spell components, just to name a few.

What's the simplest iteration of the rules I could run with?

No question. Basic. However, let me add that if you progress past level 36 (Basic's levels went up that high), the game REALLY changes. After level 36, you can become an immortal. You can design your body, even down to how many limbs you have. You also get new (as in completely different) powers and abilities. In short, its an entirely different game after level 36.

are their any online resources I could use?

That I'm not sure about. wikipedia???

But HP and AC do both increase as characters level, at least effectively. I'd just like to see less of the AC increases come from equipment.

I agree with you from a design standpoint, but the system is what it is, and it does work as a mechanic, even if it isn't "realistic" (As realistic as a game with goblins, trolls, and dragons CAN be). At some point, you just need to accept the system for what it is and let it rest. There are hundreds of games, within roleplaying, miniatures wargames, and boardgames, which claim to simulate "realistic" combat, and each one has a different idea of what that means.

You should look into the D20 Game of Thrones RPG that I mentioned. I think one of the Star Wars RPGs used a similar method. Also, Whitewolf's system HAD health levels that remain static (I'm unfamiliar with their new rules), but you could upgrade your dodge skill to avoid attacks. You might like that system as well.

I've done it before, when I was younger.

It was partly a product of "everyone wants to play, no one wants to DM", and having VERY small partes (when I first started playing, I only knew 1 other person that played as well).

Now, I only use NPCs. But I also enjoy GMing more now, and have larger groups in my games.

I don't think there is anything wrong with it, as long as the DM-player doesn't make too many decisions, and certainly no important ones. Giving the DM-character a low INT and/or WIS is good for that.

I would like to see some epic level support, even if my own campaigns usually stop well before epic level play. Its nice to have the option to play epic level.

STUFF

+1

I'd like to add I don't even care if its a newbie or long-time veteran. They deserve respect. If people can't say something helpful about the topic, no matter how much they think it may have been covered, then don't be a troll and move along. Posting a link is OK, as long as it's not accompanied by ridicule.

For the uninitiated:

Troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Your animal COMPANION is your character's FRIEND.

As mentioned by others, it depends on the situation. Are you Donner Party hungry, or just bored and wonder what wolf tastes like?

As mentioned already, HP increases (or more accurately Hit Die increases) take the place of AC increases. Giving both serves no useful purpose, and actually just drags out combat.

One of the versions of the Game of Thrones RPG (there are several) was a D20 variant, which increased your character's AC in a set progression, but HP advances were only +1 or +2 per level, depending on your class.

Of course, magic worked completely different than 3rd, 3.5, or Pathfinder, otherwise a 10d6 fireball would be un-survivable to most people.

My guess for why pigs are considered small in PFS is that the only listed, statted form for a pig that would be considered legal in a strict PFS "sense" is the pig familiar from Ultimate Magic (page 119).

Perhaps when Ultimate Equipment comes out, there might be a small chance for having an expanded list of purchasable mounts other than the current listed ones.

Ahh. That makes more sense why he chose "small". I don't own UM.

Regardless, I still think re-skinning is OK.

In addition to GURPS and Call of Cthulu, you should look into D20 Modern.

For that matter, you can still run Pathfinder, and just tell the players "no spells or spell-like abilities". I've considered doing a similar thing.

Bard = rock musician, evangelist
rogue = street thug, detective
barbarian = football player, boxer
monk = MMA fighter
fighter = soldier, SWAT officer
ranger = survivalist, hunter
paladin = beat cop, firefighter
alchemist = science teacher, scientist

You could even allow NPC classes like Expert and Aristocrat (politician, heiress, etc.), because most of the PC classes will be losing abilities and therefore be roughly the same power level. Taking away spells will hit some classes harder than others, but taking away most of the armor in the book will also impact the melee classes harder than the former spellcasters.

Some of the skills will obviously need to be changed. For instance, instead of Spellcraft, you can make it "Security Systems". "Knowledge: Planes" could become "Knowledge: Pharmaceuticals". "Fly" would keep the name, but reference helecopters and airplanes.

If you really want to run a "Walking Dead" or "28 Days Later" setting, where a zombie bite is a BAD thing, use ghouls instead of zombies. If you are going "Resident Evil", throw in some Abberations.

Image is everything. The Bag of Holding is stylish and elegant.

Only the rif-raf buy Handy Haversacks. I mean really, what wardrobe goes with a Handy Haversack???? Who wears a backpack all the time? Vagabonds, that's who.

I'll admit that I've never played PFS organized play. I've only played Pathfinder in home games and non-PFS convention events.

I mostly GM nowadays, so I fully support your right to decide what can or can't happen at your table. That said, if things are so strict that this style of GMing is not only the norm, but expected, then I'll say that I have no interest in trying PFS.

I'm of the opinion that there would not have been any harm in letting the player ride a pig. Quite the opposite, in fact. As either a player or GM, I would have welcomed that kind of creative thinking. That kind of stuff is what makes roleplaying fun for me, and what turns a so-so adventure into a memorable one.

I'm not saying your approach was wrong. Indeed, it sounds like you actually did the "correct" thing. Its just that this style/rule doesn't appeal to me, and actually discourages me from wanting to play PFS. From that standpoint, being "correct" doesn't make it "right".

On a related note...

However, mounts (of all sorts, from a class ability or simply purchased) need to be at least one size caegory larger than their riders, so that would make it a wild boar (Medium) instead of a domesticated pig (Small). Which is, unfortunately, not available until 4th level.

I'm afraid this isn't true about all pigs, or even most pigs. Swine come in LOTS of different sizes. In all of these links, I think you'll agree that the DOMESTIC pig shown not only isn't small, they are actually LARGE size, in terms of Pathfinder statistics.

As a general rule, domestic livestock will actually be LARGER than their wild cousins. I originally went into a bit about natural selection vs. domestication, but deleted it for brevity. The short-version is that domestic swine sometimes top 1200 pounds (most cows sold at auction are around 1000 lbs.) Conversely, javelina are only around 3 1/2 feet in length and weigh around 60 pounds. Warthogs are only about 4 feet in length and weigh between 110 and 170 pounds. Wild boars are only about 5 feet in length and weigh around 300 pounds.

I'd like to take the time to thank the OP for starting another annoying alignment thread and wasting all of our time. Especially with such a flawed "moral" scenario that's missing all context.

Here's to you alignment thread guy.
~sets empty glass down.

1) I did a search for related threads before posting this, and didn't see one.

2) No one forced you to participate.

On to more constructive posts...

Which of course raises the question of what do you do with the "defenceless, helpless, little orc babies" when you've finally slain the last orc (and lady orc) who attacked you without mercy and you're ready to push deeper into the caves they were guarding to stop the Dread Lord Whoever from destroying the world.

It's probably best that most modules and most GMs just gloss over such things.

Rise of the Rune Lords:

Also, FORGET INITIATIVE ALREADY!

IMO nearly anytime you aren't in combat you can take 10.

+1

If the PCs say they want to walk through an entire dungeon quietly (and why wouldn't they), the LAST thing I want to do is have every single player rolling a D20 very 30 ft. I also don't want to tell them to suddenly make a stealth check, because that would tip them off that for some reason, it matters in THIS area.

I let everyone take 10, and then find out which of the PCs have the worst stealth (aka, the noisy character). I then use that as the Perception target DC for any monsters or NPCs in the dungeon, to see if they are suprised.

Once we go to initiative, then characters need to roll a stealth check to see if they are stealthy.

Conversely, if someone is "on guard duty", I don't want to make a roll every 6 seconds. I have them take 10 on perception checks until initiative is rolled. Guard duty is monotonous (99.99% of the time, nothing happens), and guards are rarely on heightened alert. Taking the average roll is probably slightly generous to the guards in most situations.

I know a lot of people don't like monks, but I'd suggest a monk. Nothing will ruin your "childlike" appearance more than walking around in platemail and carrying a battleaxe.

Monks don't need spellboks, armor, shields, weapons, animal companions, or anything at all. That means you can ALWAYS appear to be "just some kid", and have your opponents' drop their guard, yet you still remain 100% combat effective.

If that doesn't appeal to you, take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and go 100% rogue for the sneak attack. No one will suspect a kid is about to put a smackdown on them, and they might just be able to take out an opponent before the opponent even knows he was in danger.

Try a ranger. Adding an animal companion will help mix things up a little. Plus, you get a little spellcasting too.

Try a rogue. You can add finding/disarming traps, tallents, and maneuvering for sneak attacks to your options.

Try a cavalier. The teamwork abilities and challenges and mounted combat will offer different options as well.

Also, take a look at all the Combat Maneuvers and the Improved Critical feats. They can add some variety too.

I can't believe no one mentioned this, but...

ARE YOU SURE YOUR WIFE ISN'T TRYING TO GIVE YOU A HINT ABOUT SOMETHING?????

Maybe not, but its worth considering.

If not, I can't see anyone wanting to risk a baby's health to go fighting monsters, trudging through swamps, climbing cliffs, and everything else that goes with adventuring. Well, maybe a priestess of Lamashtu, but certainly not most people.

Hmmm....

Seems slightly too powerful, but as Maezer points out, the power is really backloaded, with the really valuable stuff coming much later in the campaign.

Considering that the DM has some control over the Wizard's access to spells, and could make finding new spells that the wizard doesn't already have difficult, I think this would be OK as a trait.

I like them. Low skill-point classes like fighter can make themselves more useful outside of combat, while high skill-point classes like the rogue can add a hit point per level to make themselves better in combat.

I REALLY like the alternate bonuses from the APG. It adds importance to a character's race, which tends to decline in importance as a character gains levels.

I don't like to see someone dip into a dozen different classes, so offering incentive to stay focused on one path is a good thing (in my opinion).

I haven't played a wizard in a while, but I'd just suggest a Bag of Holding. Place the bag on a rope hanging inside your shirt/robe/whatever, so it can't be pickpocketed.

You will NEVER be able to plan for every possible action the PCs will take. Stop trying. Its futile.

A better option might be to plan for plot points to happen at certain times/intervals, but even then, determined players can simply find something better they want to chase OOOH, a butterfly! You could have an intricate "whodunnit" style game planned, and the players may get fed up, or bored, or have the urge to hit something with a sword till it stops moving, or something else entirely Lets go to the pub and have a belching contest with the locals!

Even if they do follow your plot, they could get hopelessly sidetracked on some random bit of nonsense you offhandedly mentioned He said the sewers didn't stink. Let's track them back to their source!

The best you can do is have a plan, but realize that your plan is really only the backup plan, in case the players run out of ideas.

David Wickham wrote:

Is there any Pathfinder Battles game in the works?

Yes! It's called the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!

We do not currently have any concrete plans regarding a separate miniatures game. Is that something you'd like to see?

I would like to see a Pathfinder Minis game. Not only that, but I actually think it is in Paizo's best interest to create a mini's game.

I understand the reasoning behind the randomization of your Pathfinder Battles line. However, from my point of view, I would not be willing to buy random minis unless I knew I could actually use any mini I ended up with. For example: my players are past the point of fighting goblins and kobolds. Consequentially, any of those minis I purchase would be a waste of money on my part.

However, if there was a Pathfinder mini's game that supported the Pathfinder Battles line, then I could still find a use for the minis my roleplaying group will no longer be using, and I would therefore be more willing to buy random minis. I think Wizard's of the Coast understood this when they developed their D&D mini's game, and I doubt that sales would have been as high without the mini's game to support the sale of minis.

For another example of a game driving miniatures sales, take a look at Games Workshop. I've been convinced for years that GW is a miniatures company first, and a game company second (yes, I've played several GW games). Minis are GW's bread-and-butter, but in my opinion, the minis couldn't exist without the game to drive sales. Due to 3rd party minis, I do not think the reverse is true. If GW minis didn't exist, any orc, goblin, or elf from another company could serve the same purpose. Despite GW's primary income from minis and not rulebooks (For example: the Bloodbowl rules are FREE), the minis NEED the rules, the rules do not need the minis. This is also true for the Pathfinder RPG.

I sincerely hope that you look into the possibility of a minis game, because without it, I don't think the sales of these minis will be as high as the alternatives available from Reaper and other companies. I can't think of any other example of game pieces being sold randomly WITHOUT being supported by some type of collectable card/minis/dice/whatever rules.

Jason Rice wrote:

I'm running RotRL now, using the Pathfinder rules.

If you are using the Pathfinder rules, you will find that the XP available in the adventures does not match the XP progression of the characters. To put it another way, if you run the adventures as is, your players will be behind in experience level for the adventures you are trying to run.

I'm adding stuff of my own, as well as other published adventures, so I can feed my PCs enough XP to achieve the suggested level for the next book.

Are you using medium or fast xp track?

Medium. I suppose I could use fast, but I actually like breaking up the adventure with my own stuff. It allows me to mix in elements from the PC's backstories.

Jason Rice wrote:

Nice ideas

Hadn't thought of this approach. Will pass it by the team.

Thanks,
S.

No problem.

Actually, I just thought of another idea for you. One that you may like better.

In the front of the Advanced Player's Guide, There is a list of "Favored Class Options" for each of the core races. If its your goal to really limit the available classes, then these lists can pull double duty. Use these lists (with or without the alternate options) as your list of available classes. For example: Gnomes can become Alchemists, Bards, Druids, Oracles, Rangers, Rogues, Summoners, and Wizards.

Paizo did the work for you, possibly without even knowing it.

I love the ability for any race to pick up any class.

However, if that's not your thing, try this:

Instead of having "favored classes", like in 3.0 and 3.5, try having "unfavored classes". Pick 1 class that each race just can't play. For example...

ELVES: Elves have abandoned their brutal past, and no longer have the ability to progress as BARBARIANS.

DWARVES: The cultural disdain of magic that dwarves have insures that there are no WIZARD schools on dwarven lands, and spellbooks are destroyed.

GNOMES: The strict codes of conduct that PALADINS are required to adhere to are contrary to a gnome's free spirit.

HALFLINGS: Halfling culture disaproves of violence and weapons, and as such, halflings lack the opportunity to train as FIGHTERS.

HALF-ORCS: the half-orc's second class status in both Orcish and Human cultures means that they lack the education necessary to become BARDS.

HALF-ELVES: Half-Elves are intelligent and capable, but their highly social personalities rebel against the seclusion necessary to train as a MONK.

HUMANS: Human culture and technology advances at a startling pace, compared to other races. However, in their relentless pursuit of "progress", they have lost touch with nature and are unable to become DRUIDS.

Note: in this example, everyone can become a Ranger, Rogue, or Sorcerer.

What they said. Its -2 to YOUR AC. That means against everyone.

If it helps, you can think of it as an "agressive" or "offensive" attack option, the opposite of "Fighting Defensively" and "Total Defense". All of the above require standard actions, but in this case, the character is more concerned about offense than defense.

bvg bv dcxfvmnbhj mnbhj mnbhj nb

That was me banging my head against the keyboard.

No, that's not a lie. I really did it.

I'm sorry I even mentioned initiative. As I mentioned in my last post, what initiative does or doesn't mean isn't the point of the thread. The point was, you are presented with a scenario in which no hostile actions are taken against you, and you have to make a decision based only on the race of the creature. IS ATTACKING FIRST AN EVIL ACT?

I don't care if your group considers rolling initiative to be a hostile action. I don't care what your purpose for being in that particular location happens to be. I don't care if the orc has his sword drawn (the PCs normally do, and that doesn't make THEM evil). For that matter, I actually don't care if the orc really is evil, because the PCs won't know that just by glancing at the orc. I don't care if Han shot first. Actually, I do care about that (he shot first), but it's not relevant to the question. The point was, the PCs have no information other than the orc's race and their preconceived notions about what that may mean.

Forget it folks. Thanks for the input, but I'll wait a few weeks and re-post the question without distractions like game mechanics. I've got a few weeks before my next GM session, and even more time before the game starts that I was thinking about playing a (good) goblin character (If a certain well-known drow character can be good, why not goblins?)

cgbfv nb ,mnj cgbfv mn cvb nmb ,mn ,. 6gtyhf

I intentionally left the context as neutral as I could, not wanting to color anyone's perceptions. You are not in the orc's home. The orc doesn't have blood-splattered clothes. You are not in a princess's tower. You are not at the town's treasury. It's a neutral place. He may be holding his weapon, but heck, so are you. Don't most characters explore a dungeon with a weapon drawn? However, to those that want "more context":

Context) You are investigating a dungeon/caverns/ruins/canyon/whatever, and you have no information on what may be there, other than a rumor of lost wealth.

Perhaps saying "roll initiative" was a bad choice. Perhaps I should have said "you suprised the orc, and have the chance to make an action". The point was, I think most people (myself included) that were playing supposedly good characters have been/will be guilty of attacking a creature unprovoked, and is that really what a good character should do? I think not. This is particularly important for Paladins, but could be important to anyone (like my example of almost killing the new PC).

I'm running RotRL now, using the Pathfinder rules.

If you are using the Pathfinder rules, you will find that the XP available in the adventures does not match the XP progression of the characters. To put it another way, if you run the adventures as is, your players will be behind in experience level for the adventures you are trying to run.

I'm adding stuff of my own, as well as other published adventures, so I can feed my PCs enough XP to achieve the suggested level for the next book.

Also,

I agree, there is a lot of stuff in RotRL that may not be age appropriate for your players. Lots of brutality and sexual references. Keep an eye out.

Your party rounds a corner and comes face-to-face with an orc (or goblin, or whatever).

Your GM says "Roll initiative."

You win, and go first.

My guess is that 99% of the roleplaying groups out there would act on a preconceived generalization about the orc (or goblin) race and attack. However, is attacking the orc unprovoked an evil act? Is it racist? After all, they haven't done anything (yet) to provoke the attack, and you have no proof that they will do anything.

If you think attacking a character because of their (fantasy) race is evil, how many Paladins (and GMs) just sweep that grey area under the rug and don't talk about it?

I mention this because having an orc or goblin PC is a possible choice in Pathfinder. I also like to introduce new players in an organic way, rather than "poof", player X appears out of thin air. Also, as a player, I've almost killed a new half-orc character joining the group in this same way (we had recently been fighting orcs), not realizing that the half-orc I saw was supposed to be the new PC.

I'll admit that I think it is evil to attack anyone unprovoked, but my characters have done it (see the above example) and as a GM, I do nothing about it when my players make those choices.

Just my opinion, but I would only go 25 point buy if the party had less than 4 players.

Maybe something like this:

25 points = 3 or less players
20 points = 4 or 5 players
15 points = 6 players
10 points = 7 or more players

But, realistically, the differences between 0E, 1E, 2E, and the variations of Basic D&D are pretty minimal compared to the huge changes they made when 3.0 came.

You're kidding, right? You have GOT to be kidding.

My first roleplaying game was Basic D&D. There is a HUGE difference between Basic D&D and AD&D.

In Basic, for nonhumans, your race = your class; There are only 3 alignments (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic); the Saving Throws are different; Only 4 types of Armor* (Leather, Chain, Plate, and Shield); a maximum of 36th level (for the human classes)**; no weapon speeds; two types of timekeeping (Rounds and Turns), as opposed to AD&D's 3 types (Rounds, Turns, and Segments)... I could go on.

Why am I getting sucked into this edition-wars debate?

* this would eventually be expanded to include Scale and Banded in the 3rd set (Levels 15-25) and a "Suit" of armor in the Master's set (Levels 26-36)

** The Immortals set would let you play beyond 36th level, but the mechanics of the game changed enough that you were essentially playing a different game (for example, you had to record how many limbs you had).

As to why i would care about an edition i don't play: it splits the player base. In a certain geographic area i can feasibly get to to game there are only a certain number of geeks. If said geeks are running 4e that means fewer groups i can theoretically hook up with. Its not a HUGE concern, but it might justify some gripes if you live in banjo territory.

Oh, I think there is room enough for everybody. Sure, some remote communities might make it hard to find a game, but I think that is more a product of the community than a splitting of the player base. I used to live in New Mexico, and had to drive 120 miles, 240 round trip, just to find another game geek. The game I found was the Star Wars CCG, NOT D&D, but I embraced what was available. If I had found Rifts, Rolemaster, Gurps, Vampire, or any other non-mainstream game (Scrabble, Monopoly, etc.), I would have played that instead.

In less-remote areas, having a variety of games actually becomes a benfit. Game stores find it easier to operate when they can sell a variety of products instead of one or two things, and like it or not, ALL tabletop RPGs are dependant on brick-and-mortar stores. Heck, ALL fantasy/scifi games of any type are dependant upon brick-and-mortar game stores. Without them, finding the right rule system for your group, or even finding a group at all, becomes MUCH more difficult. I speak from experience. I drove 120 miles one-way because it was the closest game store to where I lived. I only found the Star Wars game because of the game store.

Also,

LilithsThrall: Thanks for removing the post.

FallofCamelot wrote:

It all comes down to this. 4th ed is a good thing, even if you hate it. Just like World of Darkness, Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy and Warhammer are all good things. Put simply the more games that are out there the more the gaming sector grows and that can only be a good thing.

Is F.A.T.A.L. a good thing?

Wow. Thanks for that. Having never heard of FATAL, I had to go and do some research on what that was. I thought you were talking about HoL, but I was wrong. Now, I've got to scrub my brain with some steel wool.

EDIT: I removed a question about the game. On second thought, I'd rather not know.

Do you roll your characters?

I had my players roll their ability scores.

Is your answer the deefault of your gaming group?

Yes

How long have you been gaming?

1984

What system did you first game in?

Dungeons and Dragons (Basic, not AD&D)

Jason Rice wrote:

Ankhegs, Bebiliths, Phase Spiders... stuff like that.

Forgot the Phase Spiders. Ridiculous.

I think the Ankheg just got a really crappy illustration though in the MM. The one bursting from the ground at the iconic monk in one of the AP or other books looks much better.

That was actually a joke. Obviously a bad one, because a joke is never funny if you explain it.

All of the above look like BUGS.

our DM believes that all material components including those in a spell component pouch are hard to come by, therfore his rule is that spell component pouch is 10uses and then you have to buy another one. It basically makes playing a magic user so hard to come by that we have for longest time had no casters in party except an alchemist who again has to rebuy his alchemst lab after every use because it "uses" up the glas vials when you use it.

In that situation I'd play a sorcerer, choose spells with no material components, or take the eschew materials feat (which sorcerers get for free).

For a limited time I was playing in a 3.5 game, playing in a 4e game, and running a Pathfinder game. Some of the players overlapped, so I had to call it Pathfinder to avoid confusion.

Now, I only run Pathfinder, but the habit stuck, and I still call it Pathfinder, not D&D.

Ankhegs, Bebiliths, Phase Spiders... stuff like that.

After you've done this a while, come back and post how it went. I'm interested in the outcome.

I just let my mood dictate the weather. That, and monsters. Thunderstoms just happened to pop up when they were fighting undead.

Sounds like a bookkeeping headache to me.

Player1: "Well, I've got 4 masterwork swords, that MIGHT be magical. I draw one and attack."

GM: "Which one are you using?"

Player1: "I don't remember where we got them. Don't we have one from the orc chief, the hobgoblin warlord, the elven mercenary, and the dragon's treasure trove?"

Player2: "Um, didn't we already sell the one from the hobgoblin? I think the other sword is the one we picked up from the dwarf king."

Player1: "I dunno. I didn't have enough room on my character sheet to record all this stuff on its own line. I've got 2 suits of armor, 3 shields, 5 vials of liquid that may be potions (or poisons), 6 daggers, a bunch of other stuff... and 4 bags of holding just to carry all the possibly magical stuff we find. I just wrote down 4 masterwork longswords."

The way I'd probably handle it is NOT the right way. To be completely honest, I'd be passive-agressive and as a group, collectively decide to take EVERYTHING that isn't nailed down. Buy a bunch of pack mules and wagons to carry it all, and hire a bunch of NPC commoners to watch over the stuff and care for the animals. Have more than one player take the leadership feat as well. Eventually, a combat will occur that he'll have to keep track of HP totals for 6 monsters, a dozen pack mules, and a dozen NPC goodguys. That's when I'd also cast every summoning spell I know and litter the battlefield with creatures. When pack mules start to die, DON'T abandon the gear. Make a point to drag it to the nearest town, no matter how long that takes, and start again by buying more pack mules. When he comments on your attachment to all this stuff, tell him that since Detect Magic doesn't work, until you can figure out a way to decide what is and isn't magical, you don't want to accidentlally throw away something valuable.

As I said, that's NOT the right way to handle it, I just know myself and know that if the other players in my group were as annoyed as I was, I could probably convince them to go along with this, at least for a while. Heck, I once convinced my group to buy (nonmagical) wine from a monistary and transport it to a far away town for a profit, and then make a return trip to do it all again.

The RIGHT way is to tell your GM that its a problem for you, and ask him how he wants you to find magic items. It will save time in the end, and everyone can get back to playing the game.

Not wanting to start an edition war here, but 4e takes Detect Magic (and Identify) a step further. ANYONE can identify an item's properties by just handling it for 5 minutes. It's not a perfect solution, but it does cut down on needless bookkeeping, which is my least-favorite part of the game.

Here is another idea I've toyed with, but never implemented.

Tie specific spellcasting classes to the worship of specific dieties.

For example:

Paladin = deity of justice
Ranger = deity of hunting
Cleric = deity of life (or death)

I had a 6 deity pantheon in mind and thought about taking it a step further, and crossed off spells from spell lists that I thought were opposed to the deity’s theme. This is easier to do if you can add extra spells from non-core books, like the APG. The more books with spells you have available, the better clerics become (since they instantly have access to all of the new cleric spells), so I thought this was a decent way to keep the power creep in check.

I agree with giving him Aristocrat. IMO, MOST rulers should only have NPC classes, because they rarely pick up a sword and do battle. However, since you described the king as a former adventurer, base his levels on how long he was an adventurer. If he was an adventurer for 5 years, and then a king for 15 years, he should have three times as many Aristocrat levels as Paladin levels.

Your forgeting wands and scrolls both of which under this would give you more spells per round. So 4 9th levels is not that hard to imagine\.

Indeed, I did forget about them. Good catch.

EDIT: I had a longer post written, but decided to delete it, because I was afraid it would derail the topic.

I would see them best as a 8th or 10th character. Other stuff

Wow, that's harsh.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the monk is all that great. I've put my nerd-glasses on and have done the math to show that a fighter can out-monk a monk in unarmed combat. I used monks of several different levels compared to fighters of equal levels and ability scores, and then generated a spreadsheet simulating 200 attacks (a 10-AC spread against every possible outcome on a D20). The fighter's AVERAGE damage was always higher. The secret to the fighter's unarmed combat success is the fighter-only feats, Weapon Training, and eventually Weapon Mastery. So I'm under no illusion that the monk makes a good primary melee combatant.

HOWEVER, I still don't believe that the monk is that bad that it should only be played in the unlikely event that you have a 10-player group. The last time I was a player (admitedly it was pre-Pathfinder), our monk's increased movement saved the party's collective hiney on many occasions. Our DM had the annoying habit of having 1 or 2 badguys run for help, usually around a corner, so the monk was the only one that was quick enough to chase them down. Also, a monk can be defensive in ways the fighter can't (immunity to disease and poison, etc.), so they make a decent wall for the spellcasters to hide behind.

Once the primary roles are filled (tank, healer, trapfinder, artillery), the party's survival is not in question (at least not more than normal), there is no reason not to have fun with a support class like a monk or bard (yes, I know bards can heal, I still think of them as support). Not everyone needs to be a specialist. Also, if I'm playing a non-standard race, I actually prefer monks, becuase I don't care if the town marshall wants to disarm me before letting me into the city.

Metallica- Turn the Page (originally done by Bob Seger). I like them both equally.

Red Hot Chili Peppers- Higher Ground (originally done by Stevie Wonder) I actually like the Chili Peppers version better.

Aerosmith- Come Together (originally done by the Beatles) I like the Beatles version better.

Johny Cash- Hurt (originally done by Nine Inch Nails) I like the NIN version better.

Nine Inch Nails- Dead Souls (originally done by Joy Division) I actually like the NIN version better.

Jimmy Page and Robert Plant- Light My Fire AND Break on Through (originally done by the Doors) I like the Doors version better.

Well, right I mean that's kinda why I was asking... it would, if I did it like a halfling that was a dwarf (by real world definition) or midget, I'm not talking about changing the actual entire race.

No, I got that. I didn't think you meant the entire race. If you do decide to allow tiny (or large) PCs, I'd saddle them with some other negative. I'm just brainstorming here, but for a smaller than normal PC, add in a -10 to movement? Even with that, I still think that the end result would be a slightly more powerful character, but it is at least something and it makes a certain ammount of sense.

I'd also add in some situational roleplaying penalties as well, to help ballance the advantages. We are talking about a brutal world here, without our modern sense of right/wrong. NPCs could react in various ways, from pity and disgust (I'm thinking of the naration about malformed and runt newborns, at the beginning of the movie "300") to sientific curiosity, to insulting comedy. It's not morally right, but it did happen, even in the real world.

I'd be VERY careful about altering racial attributes, especially the size of certain races.

On the surface, it would seem that the size reduction benefits would cancel the size reduction penalties. However, you'll find that no one will build tiny melee or ranged weapon characters, with the possible exception of a rogue, because the damage dice from the weapon will be too low.

A MUCH smarter build would be a tiny wizard, sorcerer, summoner, or some other spellcaster, since the reduction in damage dice from weapons will have little impact. In the end, you'll be giving the character an additional boost to both their AC and the effectiveness of ranged touch attack spells, and increase the bonus to several of their skills, without really giving them any additional penalty to worry about.

By the way, the minimum height of a female dwarf is 3'9", and most sources say that 4ft is the threshold for small/medium size. However, female dwarves are still considered medium for play ballance.

In my opinion, monks function best as a 5th party member, after the basics have been covered by other characters. They can usually assist the rogue in sneaky stuff, and usually fight side-by-side with the fighter on the front lines.