Psion's page

Hmm... it is an interesting idea I have seen floating around for a while now. Although I can see the utility of making Initiative a skill, it does make it a must have for a number of classes, some of which are a bit strapped for skill points (and increasing that number is not much of an option at this point).

Thoughts?

The thing about using skill for initiative in SWSE is that untrained skills still progress at half your level. It's not a drain on your skill resources. Though I hate that rule, in that context, it works.

As Pathfinder has (thankfully, IMO) not chosen to go with that convention, I think you are better off without initiative as a skill.

Another vote for MegaTraveller.

Though Mongoose Traveller and T20 aren't half bad. I even daresay that Gateway to Destiny/995 is one of my favorite Traveller regions/milieus.

I also appreciated GT not for its rules, but some of its supplements, especially First Survey.

TNE and T4 I hate with the burning fury of 1000 spectral class O stars.

MegaTraveller, written by the DGP people, instituted a new system, based on what was then the current Traveller rules, but with new task-management mechanics that were half-written and sort of unplayable. I don't know about you, but everybody I know who tried to play MegaTraveller just went back to using Traveller rules and played with the new univese.

But we had people who took the MT rules and kept chugging away with their no-rebellion universe, plugged it in to CT adventures, etc.

Vote early, vote often!

And don't forget to come back next week for the judge voting. And if you would like to see a fellow Paizo fan on the panel (ahem), I'm in the running for a judge position.

It's gonna be real hard for them to put a cap on 'Drow'. 'Oh not the D&D Drow, the Everquest drow is our influence' or any of the other myriad of usages recently. Not to mention that Drow is quite an ancient term in legend and myth. I misremember what type of creature it was in reference to exactly but.....

But YOU can enter a license agreement that obligates YOU to avoid using it.

Which is why I, were I a publisher, wouldn't touch the GSL.

SirUrza wrote:

3) There won't be any more Books of Erotic Fantasy.

Yeah, and 3) is very annoying if you think about it.

Outstanding news, guys. I guess Monte's retreat from the RPG industry is going slower than he hoped. :)

Good for us, though.

I've been reading the thread over on ENWorld about the GSL and it seems a little... scary.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=224085

In short, you publish GSL 4e or continue to publish OGL 3e, not both.

It's cool that psionics will have a place in the Golarion continuity. The idea of other planets as a source adds a sort of cool "Planetary Romance" angle that, having been reading a little ERB lately, seems very cool.

I'm cool if there is no Pathfinder PC psionics book so long as the compatability goal of the books is met. I have plenty of other third party psionics books I'd like to continue using.

I wasn't a fan of synergies... To me, they were just another way to boost Diplomacy up to an insane level and talk enemies into defeat.

I think skill synergies are nice in theory... that theory being that it takes into account related concepts and is simpler than gurps when it comes to correlating skills.

In practice: it's still too complicated, and where it is used, it's used to minmax, or causes lookups.

I think something more GM-driven would work well. If the DM decides a second skill would help for a given task, you get a synergy bonus. But a static table of bonuses that you have to look up and only makes sense in certain circumstances doesn't do much for me.

This already came up in other threads, but I'll restate it here:

1) I think it's a horrible idea to ditch cross class skills entirely. D&D is a class based game, and the notion of "coherent skill sets" is the only reason that classes make sense at all.

HOWEVER

2) It does limit concepts, but NOBODY thinks paying x2 is worth it for getting a cross class skill.

The simple solution I recommend: everyone gets 1 (or 2? or all your int bonus skills?) free class skills that's not on their normal skill list. This is a solution that games like Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu have been using for a long time. The bulk of skills are concept related, but a few points for electives gives you room to craft a character to your background.

I like the way Spycraft opens up skill options with origins, but there's not much room for this under the compatibility goal. :)

Design Focus: Skills

For information on design focus threads, please read this thread.

It has become apparent that there are a great number of opinions on the new skill system. I would like to spend a moment to talk about some alternatives that we might explore to help address some of the problems. Here are the options:

1. Pathfinder: (snip)
2. 3.5 OGL: (snip)
3. Combination: (snip)
4. Hybrid System: (snip)

Having played spycraft 2.0 for some time now, I find simplifying NPCs but keeping things robust and detailed for players is a very workable compromise. Even in D&D, most PCs and many NPCs I will handpick ranks for, but for most NPCs I just max out the ranks of a few skills.

I do think etrigan has a point about bloating out skills; using the pathfinder system as presented in the alpha is a comparability obstacle; in the combination system, the "NPC" subsystem would need to be toned down somewhat.

4 doesn't seem to save that much work to me.

Not sure where the "dichotomy" is, but:

Everyone defending skill points makes the point that if they can't put a rank or two into that fourth skill, suddenly their character isn't defined. And under 3.5 skill points, that might be true. But remember that in Pathfinder you actually get more skills. If you don't have enough skill choices to get that one skill, you'll get a new skill choice in 2 levels.

If you just want to be crappy at a skill and never improve it, don't choose that skill and use it untrained. You can't get any crappier than that!

I'll tackle the first and last paragraphs first. Because to answer the first paragraph, you need look no further than the last. Putting less than full ranks in a skill is not the same as putting no ranks in it. That's a textbook case of "excluding the middle", the middle in this case being putting somewhere between 0 and max ranks.

Now, to the second paragraph. There are two problems I see here. First, I am held off in defining some level of skill in that last skill until 2nd level. It's a short wait, I guess I can live with it. But then, at 2nd level, another player who might have a character of the same class that I am gets a new skill whether he wants it or not. He takes the same skill just because he needs to add one, not because he was interested in crafting his character the same way I am, and he picks the same skill.

Further, considering that many of the skills are collected into other skills, the menu of skills is shorter. You add skills every X levels, pretty soon all characters look the same as they become so bloated with skill they all begin to overlap as they all have bloated skill lists that are a bigger chunk of the full skill list, compounding the problem.

In essence, this change takes away one of the main tools I used to distinguish different characters of the same class. I consider the result insufficiently nuanced for my gaming purposes.

You want a compromise that would work for me if you MUST ditch skill points (and I'm seeing I'm not alone in this sentiment), you can create different skill advancements just like you have different save advancements. Call "full advancement" 3+level ranks, call "half advancement" half of full. Now, let any character trade 1 "full skill" for 2 "half skills". Give characters a HALF skill every few levels instead of a full skill, and you start to address your problem of "skill bloat" as well.

Just like having a "maxed out" skill system doesn't mean those who have the skill point philosophy still can't have skill points. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who want the ease and simplicity of maxing them out.

I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.

Does one rank here or there in a skill really "define" your character all that much?
When you make a skill roll with that 1-rank skill and fail, don't you wish you had just a few more ranks to make that roll?
Why wouldn't you max out a skill if you had the opportunity?

Nope, for me it rarely comes down to 1 rank in a skill.

What it DOES come down to is having some ability in 3 skills or 4 if having some skill in that 4th skill defines my character. So if I have 12 points to split between those skills, its not so important to me that I max them all out at 4; I'm happy to put points in all the skills I think define my character (like 3 each).

It's not like having skill ranks those who have the "all maxed out" philosophy still can't max them out. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who don't always max them out.

If the idea is to create an entirely new RPG based on D&D, then I could support the approach.

That is not the idea. I don't think we can eliminate attribute scores and have a backward compatible game.

I agree it would be an improvement, but not enough of an improvement that it makes up for loss of compatibility if that's your goal.

If you could find a portable way to do it (SWSE's approach might work, but I wonder if you'd hit some portability snags), I think it's a very compelling change. This, along with buffs, are the bane of high level play to me.

Well, from an ideal standpoint, I think you are right. Other games (including nameless d20 derivatives...) roll saves and resistance into the same roll.

That said I HATE immunities and disagree with the notion of using them as a replacement. (I have a homebrew template I use to power down golems because I hate it so much.)

Finally, whilst I may agree this is something that could clean up play a bit, I think it runs afoul the goal of backwards compatibility too much.

Craft- Knots.

I think Rope Use is too specific too. Making it part of climbing and/or survival seems best to me.

I was thinking about skills last night when I stayed up too late. I'd prefer to have something more like Spycraft, meaning:

• Skill points instead of Saga style
  
• Complex skill checks
  
• No cross-class skills, all skills available for all characters
  
• More Skill Points for each class
  
• Combine similar skills as presented in Alpha
  

What spycraft does do is provide a variety of options (principally in Origins) to expand class skill lists. A simple way to get at the same thing without adding a whole lot of complication would be to simply allow players to choose a bonus class skill.

I've already said this, but let me reiterate it here since there is a thread specifically on the topic. Or rather, let me just say I agree with Rezdave, who captures my thoughts on the subject well.

I prefer Skill Points to the Pathfinder "Force Max" system. This is somewhat like reverting to 1st Ed. when Thieves had specifics skill-table percentages.

If people want to max then the extant Skill Point system lets them. However, for those who want to max a couple key Skills and then have a broader base of abilities to get them by in most day-to-day circumstances in other areas the new Force-Max does not give them any flexibility.

Since Pathfinder is about role-playing and "telling the kinds of stories we want to tell" rather than WotC's evolving delve hack-n-slash MMO-on-paper-and-tabletop system, I think retaining the flexibility of Skill Points is critical.

...is still a problem.

Something like reserve feats to make nuissance encounters less draining and let wizards feel they are contributing when they don't want to pull out "the big guns" would not be unwelcome, though. Trying to change to 4e "per encounter" wholesale, on the other hand, would be. I consider the "immediate power versus long term power" aspect that existed from 1e-3e to be a fundamentally viable balancing strategy.

One frequent nit I hear and agree with (and see the alpha document retains) is the idea in the core rules that the rogue should have some special dispensation to find traps with DC > 20.

Might I recommend that you let perception do general Trapfinding duty, but make the Trapfinding ability an ability akin to the elves' secret door finding ability. i.e., give the rogue a free perception check when about to enter the area of effect of a trap or adjacent to its triggering mechanism.

Nope, gotta disagree. As much as I think the system could be more flexible, D&D is a class based game, and a certain relationship between your class and what you know how to do well makes sense and supports the class role.

Or each class could choose a class skill(s): a customization/free class skill.

1. You are virtually required to Max out a skill which means at high level you either have the skill or dont.

2. those classes without many skill points are doubly penalised by not having many class skills thus they dare not spend too much on outside skills

3. The system is very unfriendly for GMs (& especially) Publishers statting out monsters.

2. This, I'll agree with. I think that there has to be a better method to allow access to cross-class skills. Grim Tales lets you build your own class skill list; spycraft has many options that let you expand your skill list.

3. I use the "max out" shortcut; that's almost identical to the proposed rule in alpha, the exception being I don't HAVE TO use it.

I like the idea of a briefer skill list and an overall simplification of the skill system (I never liked synergies, for instance). But I'm not fond of the on/off skill system that seems so popular in d20-based rpgs in recent times.

It's the lack of ability to finely hone PC skill levels that is a dealbreaker for me.

Yeah, Spycraft pumps up the skill enhancer feats. The same exact approach wouldn't work here, but +2/+2 seems a little weak in retrospect.

One of the thing I think was the best about 3.x was the skill points...so why are you dumping them?

There are some folks who like the saga way of doing things. I, for one, do not.

The saga-fied skill system works for shortcuts for quick statting of NPCs. But I find the lack of flexibility for PCs unacceptable.

Thanks, Lisa, Erik, Jason, and everyone else involved.

And lest I forget: thank you Ryan Dancey.

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

1) I may buy some books to play with friends, but "convert" is an open term. I will probably run all my own D&D games in 3.5.

2) I probably won't buy any DM oriented products that aren't edition neutral. Player oriented, only if I felt it played into the game.

3) As competition will have winnowed away, it will become a strong competitor for my gaming dollars. I don't know if I could buy adventure paths forever, though.

That was actually because of his deal with a 4th edition pit fiend instead of a 3rd edition pit fiend. The 4th edition guy preferred combat and didn't have enough experience with infernal pacts so he accidentally let a sense of humor slip through to a lawyer.

1. Inattentive players.

2. Looking up spell descriptions (which really goes back to #1, they should be paying enough attention to know what spell they're going to cast and looked it up already).

3. Summoning.

Of course, judging from the presence of similar abilities in auras and paladin smites, I'm not seeing that improve under 4e.

Right now,

Tier 1: D&D 3.5, Spycraft 2.0

Tier 2: Spirit of the Century

Tier 3: D20 Modern and variants (Mars D20, etc.), though it seems I have an endless list of games I'd "like to try".

Well, to be fair, the only 3rd edition books that had any good fluff were the Eberron books.

But, looking back, and at third party publishers, I would have to agree that it does appear 3e could afford some more compelling background material. But then, I see the same guiding principles of a "shift towards gamism" that make that true to be guiding principles that seem to be showing a strong hand in 4e.

Um, who got these? Only "charter subscribers"? I heard about these but didn't get one.

I also use magic-psionics transparency for the stated reason and I agree that previous rules for psi were a little...ummm...whack.

Well, I like that they present a non-sucky elf (cause let's face it, the 3e core elf is gimpy).

I'm not in love with the "aura" fashion that the designers keep horkin'.

I'm sort of annoyed by this re-use of the eladrin name too. It's really just a high or grey elf, an elf good at magic.

Is the whole family of eladrin being nixed so it's name could be re-used? That remains to be seen, but I'm guessing yes, considering how little consideration is given to other canonical concepts of 3e and before.

But in the big scheme of thing, it's a rather small annoyance compared to some other instances of "same name, different thing". Topping this list for me are:
1) Non-Lawful Good paladin. The paladin's code defines the paladin, and it was all about being lawful and good.
2) Gruumsh and Correlon no longer being racial deities. If they aren't racial deities, the concept is not the same.

It's completely and entirely true that (aside from the possibility that many prospective players might be less willing to play 3.5 in the presence of a new edition) I can continue to run and play 3.5. In fact, I probably will.

The great disappointment in me with 4e is the squandered potential. 3.5 is far from a perfect game; I think the game mechanics could use tuning up.

The problem is that it's not just the mechanics that are getting tuned up. The game is undergoing severe conceptual alterations. Concepts that have existed and been added to since 1e and before were supported in 3e (succubus, the great wheel, gnome PCs). With some minor exceptions, the philosophy has been more about extending the game and adding flexibility and capability to the ruleset.

The 4e philosophy seems to be "stip out the names and use them to represent something different". Elves now worship Gruumsh, paladins can be any alignment, succubi now hang their garter with devils. And so on. What central concepts in the game *represent* are shifting.

This is a disappointment to me, because I am invested in the conceptual framework of the game as it existed in 1e-3e. I could use the mechanical improvements in the game, but the concepts that 4e represent are too much of a shift for me to relate to.

Some of the changes I see in 4e are actually pretty cool (I like elves that don't suck, reflex replacing/merging with touch AC, etc.) It's a disappointment that it won't conceptually be the D&D that I want to play.

I will say, though I do see some mechanical improvements, there are some annoying ones in the offing. For example, I see Smites and the elven auras to be another easily forgotten conditional modifier, akin to the buffs and feats like Dodge that plagued 3e.

I may play 4e with my friends if it comes up and someone else wants to run.

If I run, most likely, it'll be 3.5. The drastic changes in the core concepts of the game means that my accumulated campaign will not be compatible with 4e, and that's a non-starter for me.

Well, it's been more of "We listened and did what they asked, but those decisions proved to be incorrect ones once we had the perspective of hindsight." I suspect most designers feel that way about something they've done; I'd be surprised if that was not the case.

Given the things they mentioned (such as not letting monks and paladins freely multiclass like others), they shouldn't have listened to the playtesters on that one; getting rid of that rule is a very common house rule in games I've encountered and when you see many games all houseruling the same thing, that tells you something: the rule is a bad rule and needs getting rid of.

Further, remember what a mess the epic level handbook was? I know some of the playtesters. Most of the aspects of that book that are roundly criticized were known during playtest, given feedback, and ignored.

I think playtesting is valuable and you are foolish to dismiss its value.

How're the scaling notes on this one? This sounds like it would slot in nicely with my current campaign, but the players will be like 8th-9th level by the time the adventure docket is open.

When offering suggestions to Paizo as to what they should do, may I ask one thing of the posters: Pretend it was your money. That might not change your opinions, but it certainly should inform them.

Erik asked where I we stood with respect to 4e. And that's the opinion I have offered.

Are there enough players willing to make a break from Wizards of the Coast and the Dungeons & Dragons brand to sustain a healthy 3.5-based Pathfinder business? I don't know. A part of me is very skeptical about it, but until we get a chance to evaluate the new rules set, this is exactly the sort of scenario we are forced to consider, and I do not find the prospect wholly without its merits.

What do you think? Assuming the third Pathfinder Adventure Path, Second Darkness, remains 3.5, will you stick around? I know most of you are as in the dark about fourth edition as we are and I understand that it's too early to make a serious call. But how is the 4.0 hype treating you these days? Do you plan to start up a new 4.0 campaign on day 1?

What do YOU want Paizo to do?

There are some things about 4e that look promising, but lacking some incredible and as yet unforseen improvement in the game, I intend to stick with 3.5 for so long as I still derive enjoyment from it and I can find people to play it with me.

If a well respected and talented bunch like Paizo was with me for that journey, that would be fantastic. I perfectly understand if the economics of the situation don't make that work, but if it happens, it's honestly better than I expected. I was expecting continuing 3.x support to be limited to PDFs by a few die-hards.

So no, I foresee no 4e campaigns for me on day 1... or 101, or 1001, really.

Testing to see if I did this right...

Well, it didn't take the first time, but I re-submitted the transition.

No urban planning before 1950? That's a bit of an exaggeration. It is true that many medieval cities sprang up somewhat haphazardly, but certainly the authorities in large European cities took an interest in how their cities were laid out, at least beginning by the 1600s. Lillith mentions ancient examples of urban planning, but if you look at East Asian cities, especially capitals, many of them were quite carefully laid out, throughout history--with grid patterns on a north-south axis, careful placement of markets and other public facilities, sanitary fresh-water aqueducts and sewers or drainage canals, etc.

Just visit Washington DC sometime and enjoy swearing as you zip through the roads and under bridges that were obviously meant to accommodate horses and wagons.

Edit: I see someone has beat me to the Washington DC example. Ah, well.

I like Final Fantasy. But a straight computer gaming article seems off topic to me.

I would have MUCH rather seen a Silicon Sorcery style treatment. Silicon Sorcery is one of my favorite columns (and frequent SS contributor Clifford Horowitz one of my favorite Dragon authors.) Even those for game I have no interest in. I am amazed that it received a poor response in the survey. I find it one of the freshest articles in the magazine. The fact that it draws from outside the traditional D&D sources gives the mechanics a fresh spin.

Guys,
I have a guest in form out of town, and he will be sitting in for a month or so, during Spire. That will make my gorup 5 12th lvl characters and a 9th level cohort. Here is the list
(...)
My question is, they had a tough time with the first 2 encounters of Spire. I added an Evicserator beetle in the Nezzarin encounter, and added a Sword of Kyuss in the Library room. What adjustments do you guys think I should make to account for a 5 person party.

I seriously wonder if this encounter needs toned down.

Just began my campaign. I used the "free ECL" variant from Green Ronin's Advanced GM's Manual and I run all published adventures in the Second World setting, which allows for modern characters. As my group was small and I have heard tales of tough going in the early adventures, I figured the bonus ECL would balance nicely.

Daldin Kaer - m Chaos Gnome Sorcerer 1
Akilah Sanchez - f Ved Qayat Strong Hero 1 (Wyrm Blooded)
Tash - m Uthuk Shaman 1 (Scarred Soul)

Hey all,

FYI, I just posted a review:

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2556073

(er, sorry, don't know how to hyperlink on these forums)

It's a really nice book and thanks to Erik for giving me the opportunity to review it!