I am torn. I have to say that this is a cool encounter, but I agree with Wolfgang in that the Egelsee Cocktails are outshined by THREE other threats with a higher CR. I'd even go so far to say that none of them are the focus, and that the true focus is the army marching toward the keep.
Despite liking the encounter, I can't vote for this because I don't think it met the design criteria. However, I have a feeling that you will advance anyway, because the artistic quality of the map will give you an edge in the voting.
Michael Pruess wrote:
Aboleth's Lung, a 2nd level spell granted by this archetype at 4th level, also causes creatures to immediately begin suffocating. I think drowning aura is a totally viable ability as the floodwalker gains levels. Cool stuff IMHO.
Heh. I caught that people were missing Suffocation, but I never thought about using Aboleth's Lung offensively. I just read it and mentally categorized it as a water-breathing spell. That's awesome, and I like this archetype even more now.
I agree with Mr. Reynolds on the Stewardship ability. It is either awesome-good, or useless.
Now, I don't think tying the archetype to a region is a bad idea. Making this ability useless outside the region really isn't all that different than manking the Favored Terrain ability useless outside the favored terrain. So, in my eyes, that's not the problem.
However, the problem lies when the ability IS active. When you are in your region, it covers too many creature types. Half the creature types, in fact (Not covered: abberation, construct, dragon, giant, ooze, undead, outsider). Unfortunately, that equates to more than half of your encounters since "humanoid" covers quite a lot, and as you stated, those selected are the natural enemies (ie. most likely to be encountered).
I get the opposite reaction when I read Stewards Vow. I'm not sure what you get is worth giving up 5 feats and 2 abilities. Also, the 14th level benefit from Stewards Vow seems to do basically the same thing as "Hide in Plain Sight" (acquired at 17th level), which is one of the things you are giving up.
I agree with the judges here. Fun idea, but it will probably not be all that fun to play. This will be hard to actually use in an adventure or campaign. Ignore for a moment the fact that most combat, heck most of the social interaction too, will be on land, not the water. Even if your party finds itself on the water, everyone else will likely be on boat "A", and you will be alone on boat "B" (aka: your mount).
I like this a lot. It's got style, and encourages the witch to get his/her hands dirty.
With respect to the professionals (and I DO respect their opinions), my humble opinion is that the Drowning Aura is not a hex. Its an ability the archetype gets instead of a hex, and therefore shouldn't be held to the same mechanics (single target, etc.) as the hex it is replacing. If these abilities were closer in style and mechanics to the hexes, then this would cease to be an archetype, and just become a tree/chain of acquired hexes. Making them different IS what makes this an archetype.
As Mr. Reynolds pointed out, this ability affects all creatures, but it is weaker than the Slumber Hex. Having GM'ed someone who selected the slumber hex, I can personally attest to how abused/overpowered that hex can be (but that's an issue for another thread). My point being, Mr. Helt recognized that this ability was "always on", and therefore reduced the power level accordingly.
Also, I think that perhaps some reviewers might have missed that suffocation is both a witch spell, AND on this archetype's list of patron spells. And it just so happens that the witch can cast it at exactly the same level they acquire the Dire Baptism ability. The text reads drowns or asphyxiates. They get the bonus either way, but it is only doubled if they drown.
You have my vote, sir.
Good job Steve. Very cool item. Definitely far better than what I was considering for my submission (had I noticed the earlier deadline this year). A+ for style, and I LOVE the fact that you found a seldom-used rule in the core book and incorporated it into your design. Quicksand. Awesome. Guess I've got to bring my "A" game next year.
Iron DM winner, Gencon mega-event GM, RPG Superstar contestant... You, my friend, have nerd-cred. :)
Part of your delemma is that you have the image of characters you've seen in video games or fantasy art, nearly all of whom are wearing unrealistic clothing and armor. You know what I'm talking about: pictures of Conan the Barbarian, wearing only boots and fur "shorts" in a snow-filled landscape, female fighters wearing chainmail bikinis or breastplates without much chest protection, warriors with impossiblly-sized weapons... Most of these characters also lack basic supplies, like a backpack.
It seems like you are trying to re-create those pictures in your game, which is perfectly fine. Hand-wave any inconsistencies you don't like. Most gaming groups do this to some extent, whether its a character's food consumption, feeding and grooming for mounts/familiars/animal companions, encumberence for EVERY item, or even the lack of latrines/outhouses/bathrooms in a community.
However, if you want "realism" (or as real as a game with goblins and magic can be), understand that those fantasy images and situations we are all familiar with will likely not look the same in your game.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. Whatever your group decides is fine, as long as everyone is having fun.
First, let me say I prefer systems with health levels, BUT...
In the D&D/Pathfinder system, I like to think of HP as "exertion points" or "stamina points", and your CON score as your ACTUAL health. This is seemingly supported by allowing characters to go negative HP = to their CON score before they die.
Everything up to that point is muscle strain, bruises, expended energy, minor scrapes, sprains, dehydration, etc. Much like a professional boxer, each of those things add up, taking thier toll on the combatant until the point that they can no longer roll with incoming blows they acquire, resulting in real injury (negative HP).
As characters level, they can heal more HP with rest because they have trained their bodies to deal with the punishment. Kind of like how a marathon runner has trained their body to deal with the physical strain that 99% of the people can't handle, and they can recover from running a marathon MUCH quicker than most people can. I speak from experience there. I was sore for a week after running a half-marathon, but professional runners would recover much quicker.
(On a related note, I re-wrote the running and swimming rules, because I feel that they really are unrealistic, but thats another thread.)
If you want realistic rules for lava, the Paizo website has a free download from Expeditious Retreat Press for alternate lava rules.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Ah, but you ARE moving 10 ft. for that last square. Or rather, nearly 10 ft. It's just not accurately represented on the battlemap. The game simplifies the Pythagorean Theorem, rounding it into an easier to use system. It places the character on the closest square to their actual location. Two diagonal moves on the map is a little more than 14 ft. The game just rounds it to 15.
Diplomacy: I'd go with a letter of introduction from a baron or viscount. Not every noble is rich. Some are in debt due to unwise investments, gambling problems, military losses, or natural disasters, and may be willing to write such a letter for help paying off their debts.
Spellcraft: any number of things could work. A thesis paper from a notable wizard on magic theory, a "field guide" on identifying spells and thier properties, a prism for viewing magic auras, etc.
Use Magic Device: As above, many things could work. A book called "Magic Items for Dummies", a training manual for apprentice wizards, etc.
Social skills in Pathfinder: How many members of the party need to be good at it and any other social topics?
Depends on the size of the party. In a 4 player game, usually everyone usually picks a couple of specialties and sticks to their niche. Its hard to cover all posibilities unless there is a division of "labor".
In a 6 player game, the group has more freedom in character development, and you see a lot more "jack-of-all-trades" characters. Its not unusual in a larger group to have a "primary" and "secondary", and possibly even a "tertiary" character for nearly everything. Plus, in larger groups, it is more likely that the party may split up at some point (most GMs hate splitting the party, BTW).
So, to answer your question, it all depends on how many characters are in the party.
Yes. I ran a transformation based sorcerer for an entire campaign. It is entirely viable. By the way, I got A LOT of milage out of Alter Self, both in and out of combat. Scouting, spying, impersonating someone, purchasing supplies (our party was wanted by the authorities), you name it.
I also ended up having the best AC in the group, although the bonuses were temporary, unlike the armored party members. Then I added touch attacks, because even with a sorcerer's progression, it was fairly easy to connect with those, especially when I buffed. Check out the Bestiary. Monster touch ACs don't advance as fast as the sorcerer's BAB, comparing CL to CR.
I guess it all depends on what you mean. I could say "Can a sorcerer be more than just a sorcerer?" Or, "Can a alchemist be more than just an alchemist?" Or any class for that matter.
Strictly speaking, absolutely they can. Take a profession, and then you will be a fighter (or whatever) AND your selected profession. But I doubt that's what you meant.
Ignoring that, then no. A fighter is designed to... fight. It's right there in the name. They don't get many skill points, so it's best to select a couple of skills and focus on those. But that doesn't mean that you can't make a different kind of fighter. Mounted knight, hoplite, archer, there are many variations. Quite some time ago, I got bored and did the math to see if a fighter can out-monk a monk. Turns out that they can, at least in some aspects. Feats can duplicate several of the monk abilities, and the AVERAGE damage per round with unarmed combat will be higher with an unarmed fighter than an unarmed monk (monk still wins the max-damage comparison). Plus, fighters can wear platemail while doing it, if they want.
My point is, fighter doesn't have to just mean sword-and-board combat. But if you want to something less combat-focused, there are better options than a fighter.
Liz Courts wrote:
Liz, don't do that!!! I think my heart stopped for a moment. :)
*several deep breaths*
I thought you meant that they were not on the registry. As a novice freelance writer (insert shameless plug), that would crush me. Fortunately, that is not the case. I just confirmed that they are still listed on the registry. Red Pub Games is legit.
If you meant, "why are they not selling on Paizo's website?", I can't answer that. I am not part of the company, and that would be an internal decision on their part. I really just playtested and offered them advice on the rules conversion from 4E. I do know they are on a few other websites (RPGnow, DrivethruRPG, etc.), but I don't know why R.P.G. is not selling here.
I hate super-creatures just as much as I hate super-characters, And the Tarrasque is the poster-child of super-creatures. Be creative, and your DM just might let you beat the thing.
Try killing it with a Decanter of Endless Water. Yep, you heard me.
Step 1: Cast Gaseous Form, while holding the decanter.
Buy some Sovereign Glue for good measue, to coat the outside of the Decanter, just in case your DM wants to let the Tarrasque cough the bottle out. You just might have time to let the glue set.
Red Pub Games (www.redpubgames.com) has a large adventure for 4th level characters, for only 7 bucks. It comes with battlemaps for all the rooms, which include 3D fold-up map features. It's called "The Vaults of Obryn Sapravda". Look for the Pathfinder version, not the 4E version.
I should also advise you that I'm slightly biased toward this product. I'm listed in the playtest credits, and I was also the advisor for the Pathfinder version (converted from the original 4E), although I was not the final editor for that version, nor was I the author of the adventure. So, take my advise for what it is, coming from someone that had some small creative input for the overall product.
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???)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
That I'm not sure about. wikipedia???
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
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.
Captain Marsh wrote:
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
Chris Mortika wrote:
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.
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...
Rise of the Rune Lords:
Replace the word "orc" with "goblin", and this scenario actually occurs in Burnt Offerings.
Also, FORGET INITIATIVE ALREADY!
IMO nearly anytime you aren't in combat you can take 10.
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.
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).
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.
Vic Wertz wrote:
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.
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.
Stefan Hill wrote:
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.