Jason S's page

Best: Rogue, Bard
Worst: Cleric (the first target to get assassinated) :) or Paladin (code of conduct in Cheliax yikes) :)

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she
respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying,
not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those
in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or
chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents.

Actually, all joking aside, Paladin could very well be the most interesting and most challenging class to play in this AP. You'll probably get killed, but whatever! In the meantime it would be really interesting being a Paladin in Cheliax.

However, being at GEN CON for many years now I would recommend you save time for the exhibit hall, and many nice restaurants within walking distance from the RCA Dome. I particularly like the Ram Brewery. Other places such as the mall, a steak and shake, and even an Old Spaghetti Factory are all within walking distance.

Food is for the weak! Seriously, I have an insane schedule going, let's see if I make it through. I opened up more space for the dealer hall (I might cancel the Killer Breakfast). It seems anything you add you're also taking something away. There is so much to do! Therefore, I don't have much time for food. :)

Are there many costumes at Gencon? When is the best time to see people walking around with costumes? I assume Saturday at the dealer hall?

I feel really bad for Russ. Being on your 3rd character in only 2 months must really suck. No one likes to die. Personally, I would have taken the hint and left your table by now. The way you describe things, you're picking on him because you don't like his gaming style. His gaming style (kick down the door) isn't wrong, it's just different, but you (and your gaming group) are punishing him for it.

And yes, your players are mean for not raising his last character. If you and your players don't want him at your table, stop being p***ies about it and just stop inviting him instead of killing his character all of the time when he doesn't comform to "how you think he should play".

If you're DMing to young people, they want the game to move faster than older players. This is good! Sometimes older players move the game along too dam slow. Checking every door, searching everywhere, and being too cautious in general slows down the game, makes it more boring, predictable and formulaic. As DM, I assume a rogue is checking for these things all of the time anyway, just to speed the game up.

Anyway, back to the situation. To me it sounds like you executed your plan (of mistaken identity) so quickly that he didn't have the chance to talk himself out of it or escape until you forced him to "roll of die". That's not cool.

If that wasn't the case and you allowed more than a "roll or die", how in hell couldn't a bard to talk himself out of a situation of mistaken identity? That's their forté! Also you didn't even give him a trial? Or allow a chance to escape late at night? Or bribe a constable? Were none of your players nice enough to coach this new player?

Also, how did he have a +3 performance check when Bards need 3 skill ranks in Performance to get the Fascinate ability and Charisma is perhaps the most important stat for a bard? He didn't even have a 12 charisma (that would have given him +4 performance)? Your calculation make no sense and it's the DMs job to help players calculate basic stats. Also, Fascinate only last 1 round per level, not 10 minutes. Instead of using Deus Ex Machina to save his life, wouldn't it have been better to let him talk (bluff, diplomacy) his way out of the situation? And if he didn't come up with the idea (to use diplomacy or bluff), maybe guide him a bit?

I also don't understand why your wife is irritated. What did you expect when you allowed younger players (or strangers) to sign up to your game? New players are obviously not going to be like the gaming group you've spent 20+ years getting comfortable with.

When I DM to my little cousins (age 8-14), I don't expect the same type of game as when I game to my friends (32+). If one of my friends were to join my "young person's table" and was expecting the same kind of game, it's my friend's expectations that are the problem, not my cousins.

As DM, your job is to make the table FUN for your players. Maybe Russ wants a heroic game where the main characters are heroic, insult ogre bouncers, drink from magical fountains, and get away with it most of the time?

Sorry, I'm sure you were looking for more support than this but the problem isn't Russ, the problem is you (DM) and your gaming group. You've met someone with a different gaming style (kick down the door) and new and different ideas than your own, and instead of welcoming him into your gaming group and somewhat adapting, you've been beating him up, killing off his characters, kicking him when he's down (selling his body instead of raising him), and probably not being very nice to him at the gaming table (since most unliked players are treated poorly).

There is nothing wrong with his gaming style and there is nothing wrong with your gaming style, however usually it's the DM that adapts to his players, not the other way around. After all, who is the game for, you or the players? It has to be a little bit of both I think.

I've also played with impulsive players before, I don't find them disruptive, I find them hilarious. Some of our funniest gaming moments have come from impulsive gamers.... (not the old crotchety, overly safe ones. yawn).

Anyway, good luck at your gaming table and hopefully everyone is a little more flexible, forgiving, understanding and kind in the future.

I don't think ANY edition of a game truly dies. After all, people are still playing Chainmail, D&D V1, D&D V2, even D&D 3E (didn't want to bother paying for new books). I don't see why people wouldn't still play D&D 3.5.

Having said that, I think most people will either be converting to the new Pathfinder RPG (which supports 3.5) or 4E (no comment).

Today (prior to the release of the PRPG and it's marketing), if you look at Gencon Indiapolis you'll see an indication of how relatively popular the different systems are. Sorry I don't have the spreadsheet here to count up attendance etc.

I don't see why firing a crossbow for 1d6 damage at range is such a humiliating option. (In particular, I don't see how an unquenchable stream of minor magic is obviously a better game mechanic.)

Like Dan said, mostly it's a flavor thing. Also I'd assume that although damage is low for at-will spells, they'd land more often compared to physical combat.

Perhaps at-will spells should be reserved for levels 6+. It's really also a flavor issue. I've had no problems with my level 1 Wizards and Sorcs having at-will spells. At some point however, it would be nice as a high level spellcaster to do something somewhat useful (other than throw rocks), even when out of spells, even if it's only 1D8 damage.

There is no right or wrong answer for this, it's user preference. My preference is to have at-will offensive spells for my Wizards and Sorcs, at levels 6+ at the very latest.

Sorry for thread jacking.

Wow, Monks are really powerful now, I hope monk fans are happy, they have to be with that buff.

Perhaps monks are even too good, but we'll have to see. Seems like all classes got nice buffs except for cleric and perhaps wizard.

I was also impressed that they consulted so many of the best designers, like Monte, before deciding on a final rule set. That and listening to the players in beta of course.

I hope the final product is as good as the beta. I hope wizards don't have to go back to firing crossbows and slings when out of spells!

The artwork in the bestiary looks GREAT so far. Can't wait to see what they've done all around.

There are two versions of this event, 1 and 2, on Friday and Saturday nights.

Are these events the same each night or different?

Also, how many of the Paizo designers/writers are either DMing or gaming at Gencon? Just curious...

Found a very funny FAQ over on IMDb that goes into great detail about how bad this movie is. Obviously spoilers, so..

** spoiler omitted **...

That was a fairly accurate summary. And funny too. :)

There will be a period of time where some folks won't have the new PRPG rules yet and may want to play old scenarios--let's call that period of time a month right now. So during that month, anyone who doesn't have access to the new RRPG rules will be able to continue to play old scenarios, but they won't be able to play new scenarios until they've updated their PC to PRPG.

Can we play the old scenarios once we start playing with the new Pathfinder RPG rulebook? I think so but I just want to make absolutely sure.

My views on TPKs and killing characters in general are to avoid them if at all possible, especially with players new to either roleplaying or Pathfinder.

No one likes being killed, no one likes starting a character over. Killing someone in their first session is a good way to kill Pathfinder in your area imo. Sorry, but it's true. I used to think realism (or playing by the rules or "being fair") was more important than fun, but it's not. Your game can be both fair and unfun.

Doug and others had some good ways to bend the rules.

Saying that, I'd bend the rules less for veterans, but I'd still avoid killing someone where possible.

If you have an imbalanced party in the future with less than the required amount of players, and you don't want to add an NPC to help or bend the rules a bit, perhaps it might even be better to not play, rather than dive into an inevitable TPK.

Anyway, hopefully everything is still ok and everyone will try PF again. Btw I don't blame you for playing the scenario "as is", but I'd personally like DMs to be more forgiving to PF noobs than harsh.

I'd be interested in a short scenario on Wednesday night if we can get enough people. I have only 1st level characters though.

Just some quick opinions.

I've never liked negative levels for resurrection and I'm glad they're changing this in the organized society and perhaps the RPG. It's always been a houserule of mine. Perhaps being reduced by 1 XP would be ok however.

I'd also like for raise dead to cost less. Maybe it could even cost a prestige point or two.

I like starting organized play at level 1. I don't think people should start at level 8 unless it's a pregen.

I wouldn't like to be level bumped every 6 months.

I have no opinion on whether 3 XP per level or if DarkWhite's new levelling method makes more sense. Being a casual player, either would be ok imo. I like the *concept* of slightly slower advancement at levels 6+.

I think we should pay attention and strongly consider implementing the suggestions of anyone who has experienced organized play in other formats (like LG/LA) for a number of reasons. They've seen what works and what doesn't work. Also, I think Pathfinder wants to steal players from the former LG/LA society (if I was the brand manager, I would at least). Also, since this is season 1 in a few weeks, you have more or less carte blanche to reset almost anything you like. This option won't be available (or won't be as accepted or elegant) in seasons 2 and beyond.

I'm a casual PF GM/player, I trust that whatever solution is picked will probably be fine.

Since evil clerics can not use spontaneous healing are they weaker than the good clerics? I would think so. Good clerics can heal the whole party by channeling where an evil cleric can only heal the undead. The spontaneous inflict spells have a saving throw to negate half the damage where good clerics can heal anyone with out a saving throw.

If you put two clerics of equal level and equipment against each other I would bet on the good cleric every time.

Why can't evil clerics cast spontaneous heal spells? I would assume Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon would want to heal their followers so the can continue to serve them. I would assume that for all the evil deities with the exception of Rovagug and maybe Lamashtu.

Anyone else bothered by this or is it just me?

The real question is "Why can any cleric be able to spontaneously casting either a cure or inflict wounds spell?" Why would a cleric of travel be able to spontaneously heal and not spontaneously be able to cast a travel spell? Same for a cleric of Trade, they should be able to do something trade related, not healing/harm related. You can do this for almost any domain. Imo this is because clerics are still being viewed as combat/battle clerics with generic powers for good or evil.

The answer is: They shouldn't. Clerics should be able to spontaneously cast any spells from Domains they know.

I see that Paizo is going away from making clerics generic (turning undead is now a feat), so hopefully they did something with spontaneous castings as well.

As for evil being weaker than good, in the Pathfinder society there was a thread where people claimed evil was more powerful than good! (Especially when against undead). This tells me they are about right.

Do you guys and gals think these classes (if done in 3.5 pathfinder style) would be a good edition to the Pathfinder RPG coming in August?

Avenger - A divine assassin with limited divine spellcasting ability

Invoker - A Warlock with holy based powers instead of demonic powers

Shaman - A divine-based Favored Soul/Druid with spiritual companions

Ninja - A Rogue/Assassin with limited arcane spellcasting

Warlord - A martial-based mixture of Knight/Marshal abilities

First of all, they shouldn't be "classes", they should perhaps be prestige classes.

Second, imo, if your core classes are good enough, you can create all of these classes by multi-classing and picking feats well. I truly believe if you want to create anything, it can be done with the core classes, with very little tweaking.

Shaman are druids imo, you change some flavoring, pick spells properly, and spell components or whatever and it's passable.

Also, some of the classes you mention (like ninja) have a flavor that are specific for certain campaigns, it's too specific to belong in a core product imo.

Bards, lol.

Sounds more like a problem for your gaming group (obnoxious player etc) than a problem with the AP.

Maybe you just need a break or maybe you need different players if the current batch aren't doing it for you. It sounds like the reason you don't want to finish is because you're not having fun... the trick will be finding out why, which no one on these boards can tell you but yourself.

Good luck.

These are the problems I have with the current Concentration rules.

1) The chance to fail has increased at least 20%. You can color it anyway you want, a 20% reduction in power is huge. Any class would not like to be nerfed by 20%.

Apparently the community felt it was needed but I never felt it ruined my game to allow spellcasters a super low chance of failure when casting defensively after level 10. At level 10, maybe they are heroic enough they shouldn't worry about it? How would it look in the novels if everytime Raistlin or Gandalf cast a spell beside an enemy that he failed 50% of the time? Because all heroes get up close and personal with the enemy at some point. I'll tell you, it would be retarded.

To me, whether a caster should fail at casting 50% of the time is really a matter of opinion. You never see this kind of mechanic in movies and books however, so if you have a group that likes to play heroic or epic games, this mechanic just doesn't fit. I'm not sure it fits with my games. And certainly not failing at 50-60%, it's too high. Not all of us play Monte Hall games where we hand out +6 stat bonus items to overcome this.

2) There're already plenty of things melee types can do to prevent spellcasting. There are tonnes of things that can interupt spellcasting in general. Opponents already had at least 2 very viable ways to prevent spellcasting (besides just killing the spellcaster, which is usually the most effective). Readied actions and grappling. The easiest thing that a melee character can do to prevent spellcasting is grappling of course. Now, not only do spellcasters have to break a grapple (which is nearly impossible at high levels), they then have to make a cast defensive roll (50/50 chance), and after that the opponent then gets a saving throw (which is often made). The chance of doing anything against a melee opponent at high levels was highly unlikely even before this change. Did they really need something else? I don't think so but I guess I'm in the minority and I guess people play a lot of pvp games in their campaigns, that they'd care enough to want a major nerf like this to spellcasting in general.

3) The penalty for failing is huge (losing your spell), but it was fairly rare that you failed in 3.5. If the chance to fail is going to be significantly increased, the penalty for failing needs to be decreased, or you're going to affect the balance of power too significantly. Imo, with the Pathfinder RPG, the spell shouldn't be lost, only the action for that round should be lost. It *might* be like that in the final PFRPG, but my hopes aren't high.

I don't know what the purpose of this thread is except to bait the people that don't like the rule, it's not like you're going to change our minds and it's not like we're going to change yours. I don't think many of you understand, but maybe you will after some of your more spellcasting inclined players actually try it out. Maybe when players drop or want to play something else you'll understand.

I'm sure everyone has an opinion on it and that's fine, but opinions mean nothing, everyone has one and we're not all going to agree.

I'm guessing that in the end I'll keep the system they are promoting but I'll reduce the DC and won't make the caster lose a spell. Or maybe we'll just go back to the old system, who knows? I play in games where Gandalf doesn't f*** up just because a dark rider or an orc is in front of him.

Anyway, this is the last time I'm discussing it until I playtest it for a few weeks.

Chance for success on 1st level spells:

15: 35%
17: 40%
20: 45%

Chance for success on 9th level spells:
26: 80% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-7
29: 85% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-8
31: 90% –––> autosuccess for spell levels 1-8

I think that's exactly what DM_Blake was saying, in design it's meant to hurt high level casters. In practice, it hurts low level casters even more and is not a big deal for high level casters.

First the on topic comment. I like the cleric and info as posted. I am glad that they separated out the heal/hurt effect into two choices. I also like the domains and spells. Finally I think the change to concentration is for the best as at higher levels casters were VERY powerful. (And the wizard was my favorite class to play so I am not a magic hater.) The one thing I would like is if a failed concentration check did not burn up your uncast spell slot... but that is not really commented on above.

I could buy into that, instead of a lost spell, the spell is not cast. It still hurts a LOT but it's playable. I'm fairly sure that PF will make it a lost spell though.

This is a huge change, and while it gives you a great deal of what you've wanted for a long time now, parity for high-level fighters, it also gives you some huge drawbacks that I haven't seen you asking for at all, an overwhelming nerf to both PC and Bad Guy low-level casters.

This will also be a huge nerf to BBG casters. They... are also weak as hell now and even their minions can't save them (too many ways to get through). People say that they don't need to grapple anymore... but they will. They will grapple AND (on the odd chance it will fail) they will force the BBG to make Concentration checks. The chances of both failing are slim. The game is going to turn into a big whack-a-caster fest.

heh a fighter/rogue cant gate in things, move mountains or kill with a word. Your doing highly complex actions and fishing items you need to cast the spell from a pouch.

Neither can PF/3.5 spellcasters. If you've noticed, all spells that were previously "instant death" do only D6 per level, which is fairly laughable... hardly instant death like it was in 3.0/2E/1E.

So what you want is ready, which requires you to call the action. If some fighter walks up to your wizard and doesn't attack, he's readying to attack you when you step back an cast. Walk away. Withdraw. No attack of opportunity and he's wasted his round not attacking you.

That's metagaming. Because you know the mechanics of the game, you know how to avoid the situation. I try to discourage metagaming in tables I run.

Even when metagaming, a full withdraw will still draw AoO if there is more than one attacker AND you lose your round of action as well. Doing a 5 foot move will result in you getting whacked and because of the readied action you're almost guaranteed to lose your spell, especially at higher levels. If the opponent has the same speed as you, you also won't be able to move and cast without getting both an AoO and also eating his readied action. You're only real option is if you are facing a single opponent and they are slower than you and even then each round you will eat AoO.

Sometimes, the way a rule reads and the way a rule actually plays out can be quite different.

I'm a pretty smart guy and people said that about 4E as well, but in the end my table had enough after 5 sessions of 4E. Yes, I'll try everything out at Gencon, god help me.

There are others in the PFRPG, and frankly, if this creates a new desire and need for a new type of feat chain or spell or magic effect or whatever, I think that's pretty cool too.

Except that clerics are currently the class with the least amount of feats. It's fun to talk about feat chains, when you actually have enough feats to make it viable.

It looks like occasionally, the full-caster might just need a melee specialist for protection once again. On both sides of the screen. It'll be more of a two-way street again.

Time for the " useless" fighters to block attacks again.

There is no such mechanic. Fighters are pylons, they don't protect anything. There is absolutely no reason at all for a monster to attack a fighter, except that the DM feels like it. Every combat can't be in a 5 foot wide hall, but it looks like it's going to have to be now. It's called tactics, I just wonder if that's enjoyable for everyone. I can't say it's enjoyable for me (as a DM), it's not epic, but players are going to do what they need to do to survive.

Also keep in mind that you do not have to cast defensively. That melee cleric can focus on good armor, shield, and protective magic and just cast the spell normally. Yes it will provoke an AoO... but of you build your character for that type of fighting then you should be able to avoid being hit fairly frequently.

Well, it looks like clerics don't have heavy armor or shields anymore, so that build is going to take a lot more work to do than before. Also, the chances of you making a build that can't be hit is fairly slim, since Fighters have very high AC now, monsters will need high attack bonus to have a chance. You're better off casting defensively if you're a target. Melee clerics are a thing of the past and they won't have enough feats to make it work.

Good then PF is even more balanced, clerics and spellcaster now cry nerf, fighters cry I can't do enough...Druids cry I am now useless, so see more balance :)

The most balanced version of the game is currently 4E. It happens to also be the most boring. Balance for the sake of balance isn't always a good thing.

It's not like every player wants to play a cleric, even though some feel they are too powerful. In some groups, no one wants to play a cleric or druid! What does that tell you? It tells me maybe the power level was about right.

And in Pathfinder, they can put full ranks in Acrobatics and thereby avoid AoO for moving

You've got to be joking. I'm quitting D&D before my cleric is doing backflips and cartwheels around the room each round just to avoid casting defensively. Besides, you can't even do that in armor and clerics have no way to reduce the armor check penalty like other classes do.

I don't know, maybe Paizo did the right thing by reducing the effectiveness of ALL spellcasters (I feel sorry for Wizards!) based on the feedback we have here. I think we'll see a lot less clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcs being played (after they try out the changes) and I can't see how this will be good for the game. I'll also go on the record for this being the single most commonly house ruled part of PF. All of the non-casters, you can cheer now. Yayyyyy!!!

Anyway, I look forward to Gencon and the cries of my fellow spellcasters and see how this playtests. I'm disappointed but I'll give it a try but I'm not getting my hopes too high (or getting rid of 3.5 yet either).

Before discussing what I liked about the changes in the preview, I'd like to discuss the 3.5 cleric class in general, since I have it's one of the classes I typically play.

MY VIEW

First of all, I feel that clerics are probably one of the most powerful classes in 3.5, but that's OK in a way because most people don't want to play clerics anyway. On the other hand, clerics should not get any gains in power without losing something first to balance it out. The PF beta gave them too many new abilities without really removing anything.

Second, I've always wanted 3.5 clerics to be less generic and more unique and customized to the god and domains they represent. Sure, Turn Undead should be available to the prototypical cliché D&D cleric, but it clearly doesn’t belong in the cleric portfolio of the goddess of love or the god of weather. And why would a cleric of the destruction domain be able to spontaneously cast healing spells? A lot of it didn't make any sense to me and in my home game I made simple substitutions to make clerics that actually represent their domain/god.

GOOD

So anyway, what did I like about the Pathfinder preview version?

It looks like Jason removed the heavy armor and perhaps shield proficiences from clerics. I think this is good, as long as there is a balance of power returned to the cleric at some point. In my house rules, I also removed the heavy armor and shield proficiences but allow clerics to select a bonus feat from a list based on the domain they select.

I like how he changed Turn Undead into "Channel Energy". I think this opens up the cleric to new ways to customization and this also offers more healing power to the party (which is always good).

I like how Turn Undead is now a feat and clerics with the domains of Animals, Plants, Love, and Weather might not necessarily choose to have this ability. Hopefully another feat replaces Turn Undead and the cleric class just doesn't have an overall loss of power, since clerics are low in the number of feats they have compared to other classes already. In my house rules, clerics also lost the ability to turn undead, but gained a bonus feat in return (according to the domain they select).

The actual mechanics to Turn Undead are a huge improvement over the 3E mechanics and ironically it's what I've been using for years now. I hate charts and I've always found the D&D mechanics for Turn Undead to be clunky.

I liked that Channel Energy didn't Turn Undead, heal, and damage at the same time. That was a bit too overpowered.

I like that some of the cleric spells that make them better than fighters were nerfed (Divine Power, etc), however I hope they weren't nerfed too badly since those spells also had a very limited duration.

I also liked how Jason took a chance by giving clerics the ability to cast something as powerful as Fireball by selecting certain domains. In my houserules, I did this as well, but I sometimes had to balance it out with disadvantages for that domain as well. Spells like Fireball are "class defining" spells so if you're going to give these spells to clerics, there better be something to balance it.

I liked how curses, diseases, and poisons are not automatically removed. Well, it seems like a good change without playtesting it anyway.

Hopefully, instead of every cleric being able to spontaneously cast 'cure' spells, clerics can spontaneously cast spells from their domain list(s). This was by far the best change I made to the cleric class at my table.

BAD

And now for the bad.

My biggest concern has to do with casting defensively with Concentration rolls. The concentration mechanics that were proposed are VERY extreme. If I'm 4th level (+7 bonus to concentrate with WIS 16) and I try to cast a 2nd level spell, I need 12 or more on a D20. That's a 55% chance to lose my spell! To me, that is FAR too severe. And it continues as well, at 8th level to cast a 4th level spell, there is a 50% chance to lose the spell. If this is how the numbers work, spellcasters will be gimped as hell. Spellcasters will now be running around the room, to even get a spell off, eating tonnes of AoO and getting rammed. I don' t think this was properly playtested imo, but we'll see.

Even if spellcasters can take a 5 foot step, first of all no one likes the 5 foot mechanic (except maybe Sean). Second of all, most melee characters will have the Step Up feat, especially with these changes! It's a "must have" feat, just like Combat Casting is a "must have" for all casters now. "Must have" feats are not a good thing. Third, at higher levels a lot of monsters have reach, which means the 5 foot step and cast doesn't work. Fourth, sometimes a spellcaster is surrounded and can't take this step.

I think in general spellcasters were already punished enough in melee combat. Their low AC added up to tonnes of damage, they have no CMB and were usually grappled (which also meant no spellcasting in PF), and had lower hp. Now it's just ridiculous.

I also agree with Montalve, turning undead should do damage as well as give them a chance to run.

Very minor concern, but if you're going to majorly nerf a spell like Death Ward (from immunity to a +4 bonus) hopefully you changed the spell's duration from 1 min/lvl to 10 minutes/lvl. Even so, the spell is bordering on worthless now.

I also feel that Fire Bolt should have remained an at-will power for the Fire domain. The purpose of these low power at-will abilities is to give spellcasters something to do when they are out of spells, instead of just twiddling their thumbs. A single bolt of D6+4 damage is not gamebreaking and damage dealing classes can still deal 2-5 times as much damage. Also, at-will powers made even more sense since the cleric class had its melee defenses weakened significantly. At-will was the way to go here, especially since it means less bookkeeping.

In general I have some concerns about the PF cleric but in general it's good, however I'm very concerned how Concentration has changed, which might be gamebreaking.

Alright, I read Jason's response to the Concentration check and he confirmed that he intended there to be a 50% failure rate on spellcasting, and this is gamebreaking imo. Extremely gamebreaking and... I'll just stop my rant here. I'll end up playing it and playtesting it and I hope I'm wrong, but I have a funny feeling that in a few months I'll be saying "I told you so". It should have remained as a Spellcraft check like it was in beta.

On the skill rant. PF beta combined some skills, which was good, and combined some rogue skills, which I thought was bad.

I feel that some rogue skills, skills that really define the rogue class, should NOT have been combined. It allows other classes to get these skills at a low cost, even if it's a cross class skill. For example, Open Lock should not have been combined with Disable Device. And perhaps Move Silent and Hide should not have been combined into Stealth. Gather Information should not have been rolled into Diplomacy (there are diplomats without "street sense" or connections).

Some skill combinations were good. Combining a skill like Perception (spot, search) was good. Combining Tumble and Balance into Acrobatics was good. Concentration into Spellcraft was also good. Use Rope into Survival was good. Decipher and Forge combined into Linguistics was also good.

Some skills should have been combined but weren't, for example Climb and Jump should have been combined into Athletics, especially to make it easier on fighters. Disguise should have been eliminated and made part of Bluff. Knowledge (nobility) should have been combined with either Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (history), and maybe Knowledge (geography) should have been combined as well.

Edit: I almost forgot about the Fly skill. I don't think that it was needed.

Ah well, I guess we'll see what comes out of the PF RPG.

PF skill points should be left alone imo.

PF already combined a lot of skills together, so in general characters should have more freedom in PF compared to 3.5. PF has gives out more skill points per level (if you take your favored class). The only "problem" is you get hardly any skill points at level 1 and it feels very different compared to V3.5.

Wizards don't need every single knowledge skill and they certainly don't need to be maxed out in all of them. They also have high Int which still gives them plenty of skills. There is an argument for Wizards having 4 skill points per level (they are book worms), but class balance is also important.

I don't see the argument for either fighters, clerics, wizards or sorcerors having more skills. They had the same # of skills in 3.5, nothing has changed. Wizards and sorcs no longer have to get Concentration AND Spellcraft, so they just gained a skill point. Fighters should have had Jump and Climb combined into Athletics, but that's another story.

Other classes have more skill points because that's where their training time is spent. They're good at things like acrobatics, athletics, stealth, bluffing, picking pockets, things not all classes are trained at.

Another note, there should be SOME incentive for making characters with a high INT. Right now, far too many people are getting used to making "combat monkeys". If you want to make a combat monkey, you won't have as many skills, so deal with it. INT is the forgotten stat imo, yet it should be perhaps the most important.

Oh, by each stage of fear I thought you meant each round they stay instead of running. So when they got hit by a spell that causes fright, they get -2 to all rolls and AC, then on their turn they get a total of -4 to all rolls/AC. If they stay another round, -6, etc. If they ran it would make them run for 2 rounds. If they stay the penalties would keep stacking.

I don't know, I'm going to have to give this some more thought. -4 on all rolls isn't much compared to the frightened condition. If it includes damage rolls and it affects spell DC, maybe that would be bad.

I've noticed over time that my group has almost entirely done away with the "cure" spells. Generally speaking we only use them if they're on a potion or a wand. There's some good selections for clerics that give the equivalent of fast healing for x amount of time.

With the duration on some of those spells, having fast healing 2 or something is actually a very economical way to heal. 2 minutes would be 240 hp.

It won't get rid of effects that require magical healing, but you can toss a cure light potion at those.

We like the channel energy option too, but we haven't done much with it yet. Our only cleric so far has been doing his best to resurrect CoDzilla... =/

Which spells grant fast healing? I don't use splatbooks. Seeing how this spell works in practice is probably why.

Also, fast healing 2 for 2 minutes gives only 40 hit points. 2 minutes = 20 rounds.

The 33 is a Dwarf in full stone plate and shield of bashing, high dex bonus, amulet you get the picture.

If we’re going to help you, we need to see how you calculated these numbers since that seems to be the problem.

The dwarf’s AC should be 25 from my calculations.

10 + 9 (stone plate) + 2 (shield) + 2 (dex, max, armor training) + 2 (amulet of natural armor) = 25

Notes:
1) As noted already, Stone armor should give +9 armor and a +0 dex bonus. Armor training allows a +2 max dex bonus.

2) A shield with just “bashing” does not get an enhancement bonus.

3) +2 items should be on players of this level, not +3 items, so I assumed the amulet is +2.

4) Weapon (Shield) focus doesn’t add to your AC if you pick a shield

The 27 is dragon blooded Sorcerer in mithral plate, high dex, natural armor, mage armor and shield.

The sorceror's AC should be 26. 22 if he cannot use shield.

10 + 8 (Mithril full plate) + 3 (max dex) + 1 (natural armor at 8th) + 0 (mage armor) + 4 (shield) = 26

Notes:
1) 25% chance of arcane spell failure, including his draconic spells

2) a 25% arcane spell failure seems low, with or without mithril armor. Bad design on heavy armor imo, which I’ve never noted before. With the Arcane Armor Mastery feat, at 7th level it can reduce the arcane spell failure by another 20% (!) so that it’s only 5%. Very uber munchkin imo. This seems so good, I'd say it's a "must have" for all wizards and sorcerors, it's just too good imo.

IF this were my campaign, I’d be raising the arcane spell failure rates on all heavy armor. I also don't feel sorcs and wizards wearing full plate is in the "spirit of the game", maybe a chain shirt if they are hybrid, but not full plate. But that's just my opinion.

3) Unless the sorc takes a level in fighter, must use 3 feats to wear heavy armor. Or 2 feats to wear mithril heavy armor in this case, I suppose (although it's still technically heavy armor, it would be DMs discretion).

4) Shield spell should not affect anyone behind you, in other words flanking the sorc.

5) Note that the Arcane Armor and Dodge feats need a swift action every round to activate. You can't have both.

Notes to other players giving advice here. The game isn’t about DM vs players. Just because my players have good AC doesn’t mean I drown them in some water trap, geez. Some of you talk very DM vs player, and that kind of worries me!

Also, in doing these calculations I assumed a really high dex for both characters. It means they are weak in other areas of course.

Anyway, I think it’s important to note here that heavy armor and arcane spell failure are completely broken in the Pathfinder beta imo. Between mithril armor and the arcane armor feats, 5% for full plate is ridiculous imo.

I like that houserule Toyrobot, I think I'll try it out.

Hey there,

I've been reading a number of threads lately about people playing Pathfinder games at conventions where the group ends up with a really strange mix of classes.

One game had 4 rogues!, 1 fighter and 1 monk. Another game had 4 clerics and 2 wizards, lol.

Does that happen a lot at conventions? I'm just curious.

For me I don't think it will matter since I'll be heading to Gencon 2009 with characters covering almost everything: cleric, 2 fighters, wizard. I expect conventions to be somewhat like MMOs in the sense that there is a lack of healers.

Anyway, just wanted to see what the majority of people play at conventions and what I can expect regarding class mix. Maybe see if anyone has any stories they can share.

Thanks. I'm really looking forward to this convention, can't wait.

Fairly soon, there is a good chance that I'm going to at least occasionally DM Pathfinder organized play scenarios.

As a DM, with my home games, I've always brought along a PC (NPC?) of my own that gained as much XP and loot as everyone else. When/if the campaign switches to another DM, I'm not at a disadvantage. Also, I enjoy it.

So to answer your question, for Pathfinder organized play, I'd like to see the option of doing this as well. At a minimum, I'd like to see DMs get full XP and GP rewards for the scenario which they could add to one of their characters (of a suitable level) of their choosing.

That's what I'd like to see anyway.

I have a related question.

I'm attending Gencon Indy 2009 and I don't have any Pathfinder characters, which means I'll be starting new characters at level 1.

If the scenarios at Gencon are for tier 1-5 and 1-7 (which seem like huge gaps in levels of power), will it make sense to play a level 1 character? How will PF accomodate this, will they batch a bunch of level 1s together and reduce the scenario difficulty or will they put level 1 characters with level 5/7 characters to somehow balance it out?

I'm just curious. And yes I've read the organized play handbook, but it wasn't explained there. Sorry if this is explained in the scenarios themselves, for now I'm just a player and don't have access to this information.

Edit: I guess you group level 1-2 characters together and accommodations are made for that tier level.

From what I've seen, Andoran is the faction that is closest to the "good" D&D campaigns that people have played in the past. Most other factions are self serving, neutral kind of organizations, so I'm guessing that most people (at least old timers) would gravitate to Andoran.

And it looks like I'm right based on some stats I've seen so far.

Some of the factions allow or promote borderline evil characters, the s*#*ty part about this is that Pathfinder has a "play nice" ruleset in place so that in the end, everyone has to play like a neutral good Andoran anyway.
"At no point should you betray, harass, or murder another Pathfinder in order to accomplish your missions."

Maybe a better Pathfinder directive would be "Accomplish the mission but don't kill any other Pathfinder operatives!". This way you could lie to a fellow Pathfinder, leave a fellow pathfinder sleeping, tied up, or lost somewhere, have some conflict, without player death. That would be bad for an ongoing game but it would be pretty sweet for a one shot game.

I've yet to play a Pathfinder scenario so maybe they are just trying to add some (mild) flavor to the campaign setting without tipping over the apple cart. I'll be at Gencon Indy this year, so I'll see how it goes. Should be fun.

In the past, I've houseruled that if you take your 5' step and do anything that provokes an attack of opportunity in your starting square, you still provoke an AoO.

In the future, I might take a page from 4E and say that to shift (5' safe move) needs a movement action to perform. I'm not sure yet, I'll have to playtest it.

There are some other goods ideas here, like the escalation of fear.

I found one of the good things that 4E did was allow for "game changing" abilities (like a medusa's gaze) to occur over several rounds with increasing penalties. For example, if you fail your first save you're immobilized and if you fail your second save (on another round), you're turned to stone.

You could work the aura the same way here. If you fail your first save you're shaken, if you fail your second save you're frightened.

In 3.5, I liked that Hold Person also allows roundly saves, so I applied it to all fear affects as well. I find this works best since fear is too powerful otherwise. Fleeing for 3 rounds effectively removes you from the entire combat.

Regarding tactics, I have the target flee on THEIR turn (not when the spell is cast), so often there is still plenty of time for a cleric to cast "remove fear" if they have it prepared.

In your scenario, if you're going to send a massive foe against the PCs, it's often best to foreshadow it a bit so they can prepare. If they know what's coming and they don't prepare, that's their problem.

Wow, I can't take the time to read all 7 pages of this, but I think the Pathfinder RPG (at least in beta) made huge strides to make the fighter class viable and fun to play at higher levels.

Not sure if there is much more to discuss, it's not like anyone runs groups of 4 wizards, even at high levels.

You have to remember that spells like Cure Light Wounds were created back in the early days of D&D, when people had many fewer hit points and did much less damage. A Cure Light was enough to fully heal most any second level character back in 1e. Now, it'll only half heal many level 1 characters. Many monsters do 100 points of damage in a round to our main tank, who (at level 14) has near 200 hit points. It's only via CMW wands that we ever get anyone fully healed up. Healing has dramatically lagged the rest of the D&D power escalation.

QFT

I've never found that "too much healing" was ever a problem in any game that I've played. If that were the case, why is the first thing most parties do is invest in a wand of cure light wounds? Exactly.

In too many games, our cleric has been 100% tapped out of spells in the first minutes of each new day. And sometimes even then the party is not healed up (definitely not if there is ability damage, which greatly affects the challenge level of future encounters). This is this not very fun for the cleric (not having spells and having to spend them ALL on healing spells), especially if the cleric would rather be focusing his spells on other things (trickery, knowledge, etc).

Also, walking into an epic encounter (even with full health but you're tapped out healing spells) was never a good idea, so you'd often wait around 2 days. My group has always found this aspect of D&D both non-epic and non-heroic. What I'm trying to say is, a little more healing is not going to hurt.

Healing surges was one of the best things that 4E did for the game. Too bad the rest wasn't very good.

I kind of thought the changes to Channel Energy were Paizo's soluton to this problem. If it's not going to be, hopefully it's addressed in some other way.

Anyway, just wanted to put my vote into the mix, even if it's too late (for Pathfinder RPG).

Toronto to Gen Con 2009 – Looking for a trip buddy(ies)

Hey there,

I’ve always wanted to go to Gen Con ever since I was a kid and I’ve decided that this is the year for my first Gen Con!

If possible, I’d like one or more people to share the trip experience. This means sharing the cost for the gas and/or hotel and possibly sharing some driving. Hopefully we get along and can hang out at Gen Con together as well.

The drive to Gen Con Indianapolis is around 10 hours from Toronto. I’d be doing most/all of the driving and we’d take my car (which is new) and very gas efficient (total gas cost should be around $160 which means $80 each with one other person).

I’d also like to get to know some people from the GTA since I’m thinking of starting (or joining) a Pathfinder (D&D 3.75) or 3E game sometime in the late summer or perhaps early fall. I'm a really busy guy so I was thinking once a month, but if I join someone else game I might be able to a little more.

A bit about me, I’m 37, professional, fun to be around and fairly young looking (you be the judge). Besides roleplaying (which I’m getting back into after ditching MMOs), I’m into health and nutrition, running, and some video games.

Anyway, just to be upfront, I’m going to be slightly selective and I’m going to pick people I think I’d get along with (20 hours is a long drive).

Anyway, please let me know if you're interested in Gen Con or an ongoing Pathfinder campaign.

Thanks!

Jason S

I'm really looking forward to this and I think they did a great job. Especially great job on Wizards. Pathfinder and 3.5+ is so much better than D&DV4. Great work Pathfinder, I'll be one of the first to purchase.