Kyrinn S. Eis's page

My idea of "more" involves stuff like "rich culture", "interesting alternate origins", and so on. It doesn't involve "stupid pig-people who are a cartoonish variety of evil".

LoL! :)

Brett Blackwell wrote:

My vote would be for option 1. Focus more on keeping characters in a single class :)

Why should you care whether someone else stays in a single class? What if they pick up a PrC because they like the PrC? What if the PrC is what they've been shooting for from level 1? Who are you to tell them that they should lose out for that?

This desire to force people to play certain things borders on tyrannical.

Nice to know we can agree on something. :)

Hogarth,

If you truly want my copy, you have to sit through at least 3 game sessions with my crew, and then you can have it:)
I live in FL btw

Where in Florida?

Hey there everybody, [-snip-]What if we look at this as an opportunity to enhance those playing a single class only. Giving some sort of bonus so long as you stick with one class. This, might then remove it from the realm of a "racial" bonus and make it a generic feature of taking levels.[-snip-]

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm still in favour of allowing it, but granting it to whatever single class the player wants.

If this were to be dovetailed with the above idea of 'until you switch to something else' then I think both aims would be served. Namely, a stereotype character, or a unique non-stereotyped character.

From a GM perspective, I like the tweak it gives me over the NPCs I build for very specific purposes in my game. Even if it is abandoned in Hardback, I'm sticking with the version I've just described, FWIW.

Thanks for jumping in here, Jason. It is reassuring to see you are reading these posts.

Cheers,

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

My solution is to allow any Race to chose any Class as their Favoured. Nice, neat, and equally tweaked. This allows everyone to be a little better at one Class.

But the ability to choose this is one of the perks of playing a human or half-elf. Despite what some people might want, dwarves are not cut out to be monks, halflings probably shouldn't be barbarians, and half-orcs don't make great wizards. Even if a character wanted one of these combinations to be their preferred class, it just doesn't make logical sense. If everyone gets to pick any combination for their character, then why even make it a bonus? Just say that everyone, automatically, no matter what, gets either 1 free hp or skill point. It should be a decision that someone makes, or doesn't make. Not a freebie.

I'm not prone to snub my players' creativity. It still has value as a way of distinguishing that particular Half-Orc from others (I'm not big on racial / ethnic stereotyping in the real world, thankyouverymuch), etc. I'll do the playtest and report back. Deal?

My solution is to allow any Race to chose any Class as their Favoured. Nice, neat, and equally tweaked. This allows everyone to be a little better at one Class.

Here is a recap of rules that were presented in this thread:

Consider these adopted until the problems change officially (for the better). Good work. A T & Others.

Zootcat wrote:

Yay! The final product will be crap-free!

In retrospect, I realize that my comment above could be misconstrued to say that I think that the Beta is full of crap. So let me add a preemptive disclaimer: In no way was I implying that the PFRPG Beta Playtest is full of crap or crappy to any degree. In fact, I love the Beta as much as the rest of you.

>LoL<

Spell Level Mana Cost
0 1

also orizons would cost 0 and make them free as in Pathfinder, maybe taking down the line of costs...

I'm confused by these two seemingly contradictory points. Am I missing/misunderstanding something?

Thanks.

Really neat ideas. :)

Use spell points with a lower point pool (perhaps half that in UA), but allow the points to regenerate faster. So, you couldn't drop tons of high-level stuff in a single fight without running out of spells 3-4 rounds into combat, but after the fight you'd regain something like 1/4 your spell point total per hour of no casting. You might run into situations then where relying on the Pathfinder classes abilities other than spells (domain powers, arcane school powers, etc.) would be preferable in some fights so you don't stop spell point regen. I'm also considering a "casting hurts" option where once you run out of spell points, you can continue casting spells if you like, but each spell forces a Fort save (DC 10+spell level) and deals either nonlethal (successful save) or lethal (failed save) damage. So if you've burned through those points, but then need to make a heroic effort you've got the option.

Excellent ideas. I'm very excited to try this out. Thanks! :)

Pro-active has nothing to do with the voice of a verb.

Are you set on 'learnin' me about this point, teach? I thought the point of the exercise was to find a new name for the RPG in question. :D

Ungoded wrote:

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

Pathfinder is in the passive voice, whereas Trailblazers is in the active voice.

How is the word "Pathfinder" passive voice?

I think what Kyrinn means is that "finding a path" seems more passive than "blazing a trail." However they ultimately mean the same thing, so it's of relative little concern.

Of greater concern is that Wulf Ratbane has already published OGL 3.5 material under the name "Trailblazer RPG," which means that Paizo would basically be stepping on a legal landmine if they adopted the name.

I am 100% behind the name Pathfinder. I think it is properly evocative, distinctive, and easy to put on a t-shirt. I'd find it bland if the game was named "Fantasy Something" and I'd find it dumb if it was "Alliteration & Alligators".

Well, there you go. A bit of RPG trivia that escaped me. Kudos. So are we back to Pathfinder, or do the gurus here have a better suggestion? :D

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

I knew I was going to get trampled for saying 'passive voice' by the Strunk & Wagnalls-crowd. Mea culpa.

If one finds a path, it suggests that it was already there and it was merely stumbled across.

Blazing a trail is pro-active.

Let the new round of rip-it-to-shreds begin.

To find is active voice.

To be found is passive voice.
To blaze is active voice.
To be blazed is passive voice.

Pro-active has nothing to do with the voice of a verb.

Have it out for me? :) > kisses the Slaad on the forehead < I'm glad you feel better now.

hogarth wrote:

darth_borehd wrote:

Something more related generic fantasy. Keep the campaign setting and the adventure paths named Pathfinder but change the RPG rules to something not connecting to them. (Sort of like the relationship between "Eberron" and Dungeons & Dragons".

I agree; using the name Pathfinder for everything is overkill, IMO.

My suggestion: Paths & Perils

I like Paths & Perils. Damned good. Sounds great!

Except it reminds me and a lot of other old gamers of the Powers & Perils RPG that came out in the '80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_and_Perils

:(

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

While I agree that all it does is strengthen stereotyped roles, I'm curious (in a positive, 'let's see what we can come with' way) what you would suggest as additional/alternate tag-traits?

Specifically, how would you handle Humans, who are supposed to be the norm and the most flexible?

I was always partial to worlds that all humans had died out... if I wanted to fight humans I'd play Risk... but that's just me

I understand. I ran a game where pureblood humans were thought mythical, and the closest thing were true-breeding Half-elves.

But, that isn't the norm, or what's in view with Pathfinder. :D

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

While I agree that all it does is strengthen stereotyped roles, I'm curious (in a positive, 'let's see what we can come with' way) what you would suggest as additional/alternate tag-traits?

Specifically, how would you handle Humans, who are supposed to be the norm and the most flexible?

As I've said in other posts...

Human Bastard Sword FTW

Yes. :) I've instituted that, with the choice of the Two-bladed sword, which I think someone else suggested on one of those other threads. ;)

However, this still doesn't really address the Flexibility of the Human race, nor the fact that most humans are not any particular Class, and thus unlikely at best to have been trained in any weapon.

I knew I was going to get trampled for saying 'passive voice' by the Strunk & Wagnalls-crowd. Mea culpa.

If one finds a path, it suggests that it was already there and it was merely stumbled across.

Blazing a trail is pro-active.

Let the new round of rip-it-to-shreds begin.

While I agree that all it does is strengthen stereotyped roles, I'm curious (in a positive, 'let's see what we can come with' way) what you would suggest as additional/alternate tag-traits?

Specifically, how would you handle Humans, who are supposed to be the norm and the most flexible?

I'm happy with it as well, but if I had to suggest another name it would be: Trailblazers.

Pathfinder is in the passive voice, whereas Trailblazers is in the active voice.

That said, I'm fine with Pathfinder.

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

What would be adequate replies for you Blaine.

By showing how each of those six points I mentioned are either wrong or irrelevant. So, you know, in the usual way one contests a point logically.

Man, you have some unresolved personal issues.

The method I've used for this playtest game is:

Two columns of:
* One Favoured Ability: 1d6+12 (averages 15 / 16)
* The rest: 2d6+6 (13)

Then picking the column the player liked more, and assigning the non-favoured Ability Score as they saw fit.

In this case, especially, given that Bats; sonar is also their 'vision' and 'sense of touch'. The Flying Fox is perhaps the exception and not worth the added detail.

I agree (at least in this case) to simply make it a +3 to Perception.

Gosh, I hope that will be resolved by Hardback time.
Needing any of the Core D&D 3.5 books (beside MM) would be a very bad idea. :-/

0-Level Sor/Wiz Spell is missing from both the Beta and the Web Enhancement.

My point isn't that Charisma is the only combination stat, just that Physical Attractiveness doesn't make sense as being one of the things in it, for the six reasons I cited in my first post (which I haven't seen addressed adequately).

What would be adequate replies for you Blaine?

Please, let someone know the objectives that need to be met.

Seriously.

I'm completely in agreement that ambiguous terms should be eliminated wherever possible. (I actually wish we had some more good alternatives for 'level' too; it's seriously overused.) It's needless and makes the game harder to learn and harder to run. I know it's a bit more effort to write to that specification, but it really does make a huge difference.

How about Advance and Plateau? :)

Racial traits are can be divided ...[-snip-]...

Roman, I'm sold on your idea. Whether or not (Not, I imagine) PFRPG adopts this slight tweak, I'll be using it.

Kudos.

Okay. I wasn't at all taxed by keeping track of half-points, but > shrug < whatever.

I'll explain a bit about my current playtest, but the fact that things are not 'Fantasy in a box' as far as emulating D&D, but more of a D20 Modern sort of game, I can see how the playtest may not seem especially valid to this phase of PFRPG Beta. I feel differently, because I think that the rule-set should support every sort of setting, not just dnd-type fantasy, but I'm aware of/sensitive to that criticism.

The game began before I was using PFRPG Beta, and in it my House-rule that the characters got a number of 'Class-skills' equal to their Int score, and I wasn't a stickler for Max. Ranks because it didn't seem appropriate for a modern era, and the fact that Ability modifiers were available for all but (11 at the time) Trained-only skills.

So, with that in view, this new rule may require some explaining, and me just doing the math as evenly across their existing skills.

Okay, thanks for explaining the confusing language. I think it may behoove PFRPG to clean up the wording.

Thanks again.

"Designer Notes: Prestige Skills
With the changes to the skill system, the requirements
to enter various prestige classes must change as well.
Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks,
you can qualify for the prestige class if you meet that number
of ranks –3 if you also have the skill as a class skill. If you do
not have the skill as a class skill, you must possess double
that number of ranks. For example, a 3.5 prestige class might
require eight ranks in Move Silently. In the Pathfinder RPG, it
instead requires five ranks of the Stealth skill if Stealth is one
of your class skills and ten ranks if it is not."

Huh? How does that math compute.

Also, was skill points x 4 at 1st broken, that it needed to be changed?
My players would be seriously non-plussed if I told them they'd lose 16-32 skill points.

Why was this done?

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

This may eventually lead us to the same state as Green Ronin's True20 and Mongoose Publishing's FantasyCraft, with each company attempting to garner a following of 3.5ers -- except of course, that neither T20 nor FC suggested that Backward Compatibility was a big draw, whereas PFRPG did and seems less and less inclined to keep that promise.

Am I wrong in my analysis? I certainly hope I am...

First, FantasyCraft is Crafty Games, not Mongoose. Mongoose is only printing and distributing the game.

As for this mechanic in Gestalt, I don't see any wierd issues or anything. If your gestalt contains your favored class, you get the bonus. If not, you don't.

Check.

I've received a clear explanation I can offer my ornery players as regards Gestalt, over in another thread.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. :)

I think what you have is a severe misunderstanding of what was intended by the term "Backward Compatibility"

It did mean in descending order.

1. Compatibility with the previously published Pathfinder modules with a minimum of adjustment.

2. Minimum conversion of existing 3.5 characteters that were based on the Core D20/SRD rules.

3. compatibility with other 3.5 modules.

It did not mean.

1. Direct support of every splat book that WOTC put out as closed content.

2. Direct support of every unbalanced PrC put out either by WOTC or a third party company.

If that's what you wanted, you should have settled for a SRD reprint book like the Pocket books put out by Moongoose.

For my money I'll be quite happy if Pathfinder isn't the only 3.5 successor RPG out there. I wish Green Ronin and Mongoose all the luck with thier work and I hope they succeed.

LoL. Not to be an (even bigger) ass, but where are you getting this from? Is that on some Paizo site-page, or merely your interpretation of what Paizo means by that?

In any case, yeah, I get your drift and have prayed to my Deity for Atonement. ;)

Peace, :D

I don't agree with your disagreement, but I don't care enough to argue.

So, you want those two words, [Physical] [Attractiveness], stricken from the final print version, correct?

If they remain is it a deal-breaker for you? Not being smarmy, I'm just wondering.

Best & Peace,
-K

Thanks folks.
I see the logic in that and now have others' opinion to show my players.
I really appreciate the time you took to answer.

Cheers!

[QUOTE="The Red Death"The Gestalt rules are not part of these rules. They are an exception, an aberration which, even though they indeed are really fun, are really stretching the rules in directions they were not really intended to go.

That's not saying that you should give up on your campaign. But rather than just give up and cry for foul, you could point out the problems you see in playtest and propose some ways in which Gestalt could work -if they don't already that is, which I'm sure they are at 99%- within the context of the PRPG rules.

We're all in the same boat, here.

In the end, the most extreme cases of treatment of the rules might, just might require some work of conversion to be on par with PRPG's rules. But if that means the vast majority of the fans get the improvements they wanted to see to 3.5 for a long time, so be it. Are you with me?

I see that the tone of my post p!ssed you off, and for that, I apologise. No need to be smarmy back though, yeah? ;)

I will give you the playtest report.
Thanks.

Best,

I think you might be taking it to a bit of an extreme, but I don't think you're wrong. All I was trying to say is that running a gestalt game already requires a lot of its own alteration to the rules. If you want to play gestalt, just adapt those rules to the PRPG and if this particular rule doesn't fit well for gestalt characters, then drop it from your game. I'd be sad to see it go from my (almost exclusively non-gestalt) game and the rules as a whole because it didn't gel well with one particular variant play style.

It is entirely possible I was being an extremist at the time I wrote that. If so, please accept my apology.

I'll give a playtest report after today's game (to which I am now leaving for).

Best,

Note that Gestalt characters aren't part of the first two core books and thus aren't a huge consideration for design. Sure, it helps with backwards compatability to make sure this works, but gestalt rules really stretch the limits of that to begin with, even when you're working exclusively in unaltered 3.5. In many ways, gestalt campaigns are 3.6 while Pathfinder is 3.75 (not, of course, to imply that one is better than the other, but both are variants on the 3.5 core).

I see. So, as time progresses, the Backward Compatibility shingle that was hung out to attract 3.5ers will be less and less in view?

This may eventually lead us to the same state as Green Ronin's True20 and Mongoose Publishing's FantasyCraft, with each company attempting to garner a following of 3.5ers -- except of course, that neither T20 nor FC suggested that Backward Compatibility was a big draw, whereas PFRPG did and seems less and less inclined to keep that promise.

Am I wrong in my analysis? I certainly hope I am...

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

It seems like a very minor issue considering the fleeting mention.

We are, however, here to discuss all the potential issues, however minor they may be, in order to help make Pathfinder the best it can be.

I'll sum up as I go along...

Um, what?! My understanding is that "physical" refers to the bodily aspects of a person one finds attractive, aka what we generally think of as beauty and appearance, aka things like hair, figure, facial features, "endowments", and so forth.

That may be your understanding, but as I wrote and you did not quote, there are three accepted spheres of influence, Physical/Mental/Spiritual, and as I described through analogy, none of them are based on tangibles. Please show me what tangible Mental Attractiveness is, likewise what tangible Spiritual Attractiveness is. If you can only associate physical organs and aesthetics as being part of the Physical Attractiveness, then I'm not sure we're using the same lens through which we view reality.

I don't think Blaine's jumping all over Pathfinder. This is just something that s/he's really wanted changed officially for awhile and now, finally, there is the chance something might actually happen about it. It's one of those many small, annoying things that people houserule to fix what they feel is broken or just plain wrong with 3e -- exactly the sort of thing that Pathfinder is trying to fix.

It would be pretty hypocritical of him (or her, but I think BlaineTog is a guy, although I don't remember) not to. I run Charisma the same way in my games. However, BlaineTog did not post this here because s/he was looking for advice on whether this was a good houserule.

As far as the Houseruling aspects of my response: I agree with you. My doing that was unhelpful to the thrust of this thread. I admit to that fault.

And frankly, as a person who tends to play high Charisma characters, I've gotten quite sick of the "your character must be hott!!!~~!1" mentality that comes with a Cha 14+. (Don't even get me started on playing a high-Charisma halfling or gnome.) While one can always decline to game with people who make such, ah, comments, it would be a lot easier if the game didn't encourage such an...

As for the issue of those two words being included, I still think that it is an overreaction to get upset about. You think otherwise, so I'm not certain how you want Jason to proceed with a fix, except for those two words being excised from the text. Am I correct in that analysis?

So, what do people propose?

Ignoring the non-issue.

If one simply must have an Appearance mechanic, roll 2d6 and add the other six Ability-score modifiers, accepting that this score's range will sometimes (rarely) be below 8, and as characters become more powerful, fairly high.

Then use the Appearance 'special stat''s modifier in purely Appearance-based DC checks (attracting a mate for the night, bribing a sex-fiend guard, etc.) -- you know, all of those rare and unimportant situations in which roleplaying and a Cha - roll would normally be used.

So, in the long run, if your game needs the use of Appearance, I've provided a mechanic for you. Otherwise, stick to using roleplaying skills, a good description of your character, and the established rules.

Blaine,

It seems like a very minor issue considering the fleeting mention.
Beside all that, YOU have the power to state absolutely in your games that Charisma emphatically is NOT even in the slightest a reflection of physical attractiveness (as you understand it).

That said, nothing in the words Physical, or, Attractiveness, are related to appearance or beauty. Am I correct?
Attractiveness (as in magnetism) is an unseen force which impels/compels a reaction in the receptive object. In the case of Physical Attractiveness, that means that it is a material life form's wiles/vibes/aura -- AS OPPOSED TO the creature's Mental or Spiritual Attractiveness.

I've met people who were not only unattractive, but crass and rude, unable to bond with others (in short, a low Cha person), but their Intellect was so profound and on my wavelength of reception that I found myself *liking* them -- despite all their personality flaws.

Angels are so terrifying that people bow down to them upon sight, but that doesn't mean they are handsome. Rather, their Spiritual Attractiveness is so profound that it creates that effect in mortals.

See where all of us are coming from when we are telling you not to sweat TWO WORDS among many?

If you like, add Comeliness or a Feat or whatever, but please don't jump all over Pathfinder RPG because those two words are in the text and you've got a problem with them.

Peace,

How would the PFRPG Favoured Class work with the Gestalt character option from UA (starting from 1st level)?

Let's take a look at it with both a Human/Half-Elf, and then one of the other Races. I'm interested to see others' opinions/projections.

Thanks for your help, I'm starting a game on this Friday with Pathfinder and Gestalts.

How would this work with Gestalt characters (starting from 1st level)?

Let's try it with both a Human/Half-Elf, and then one of the other Races taking one of their Preferred classes as part of the Gestalt.
I'm interested to see the effects.

Thanks for your help.

"Overall it was a good experience, enough so to encourage another player to download the Alpha rules to learn them."

I imagine you meant the Beta, rather than the Alpha, yes?

There is a 'new trend' in seeing Charisma as Force of Personality, whereas Wisdom is seen as Intuition. That would be the reasoning, I believe.

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

I was under the impression that the Saves were based on this:

* FORT: the better of STR or CON mods
* REF : the better of DEX or WIS "
* WILL: the better of INT or CHA "

Was I hallucinating this?

I think you were confusing this w/ 4e, in which FORT is as you indicate, REF is DEX of INT and WIL is WIS or CHA. None of that is happening in PFRPG.

Sorry.

Does any of that seem appealing to PFRPGers?

I'm using it in my PF A3 Playtest.

I was under the impression that the Saves were based on this:

* FORT: the better of STR or CON mods
* REF : the better of DEX or WIS "
* WILL: the better of INT or CHA "

Was I hallucinating this?

Well both 'The Darklands' and 'The Dark' are used in my novels, so I'm a bit non-plussed by that, but hey, what are they going to do change it just for a published author?

> gritting my teeth <