Jhofre Vascari

Ragnarok Aeon's page

865 posts. 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 aliases.



1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So in an attempt to put players on group initiative but keep individual initiative rolls important, I've come up with this:

All players roll initiative like normal. Each group goes with the highest roll for their group. Modify the rolls based on the situation (as you would with a skill check) such as a penalty for not being ready, a bonus for planning an ambush ahead of time, etc.

Your total determines how prepared you are for the first round (all subsequent rounds are normal)

DC 20 - If your total is higher than 20, you get an extra move action in the first round.
DC 10 - If your total is higher than 10, you act normally, if your total is 10 or lower however you only have your one standard action (which you could use to move) and you are considered flat-footed until the next round.

It's a quick and dirty rule so it could really use some polishing. It works in most cases, but I have this nagging feeling that this rule might be abused with certain builds or might leave some characters underwhelmed. Suggestions?


This game is seriously awesome. Even if you don't want a whole new RPG, it gives enough ideas that are easily portable to still make it worth the purchases.

Icons, your unique thing, the surprisingly elegant handling of skills through backgrounds, the escalation die...

What I love most about this system is that it encourages flexibility and is actually robust enough to support that flexibility. It really encourages collaboration between the GM and players.

Seriously, why haven't I heard of 13th more often? Is it because of being overshadowed by 5th edition, or was it just not publicized?


I'm just curious if anyone knows of any books or systems that use feats to distribute magic instead of spells. I'm hopefully looking for something that gives a bit more of an effect than a single spell...

I'm looking for something that makes them feel more like powers than just spells.


Despite how much I seem to bash on Pathfinder, I actually do really enjoy it when I play with my friends. It's a well known RPG that's easy to set an adventure to, even if I do find character generation tedious sometimes. But for me, it's the experience.

One thing I notice on these boards though is the need for some people to replace the things that I find most interesting with a simple skill checks. I like the immersion that one can get through the game, by playing, but it seems like for many on these boards that any creativity past character generation is tedious.

Disabling traps, interacting with npcs, and figuring out puzzles. These are things that apparently should be decided decisively with single die rolls. Why? Why not just play a board game.

I see that people constantly compare these things to combat, but even in combat you make decisions. Should we just roll a single attack roll to see if the enemy is dead, not worry about which weapon we're using, where our character is standing, be oblivious to any sort of damage reduction, not worry about concious decisions to drink a potion when your health is low and the cleric is out. I'm sure many players haven't actually been in a real combat, nor are fantastic military leaders, but here we are.

It seems like a good portion just plays just for the combat, which is in itself not a problem and probably a sign that the different classes should be more balanced both in and out of combat considering the divide of people who care about different portions of them.

But maybe there really are people out there who like to design a character and just want to watch that character run, like a simulation, not really putting in real decisions for fear of ruining that simulation through metagame.

I personally feel as a player that the game is much more enriched when players put an equal amount of effort in and out of combat in their character's decisions. That rolls should affect successes, but player decisions should affect the methods. I never want the game to feel like Candyland.

So my question is, what is everyone else looking for out of this game?


The biggest problem with the fighter is he is so bland. Most of the routine is walk up and hit stuff. Sure there are combat maneuvers, but none of that really inspires the fighter.

What I'm asking for is actual abilities. For example:

In place of a full attack (Maybe have +6 prerequisite) You pick up one enemy and throw him at another forcing falling damage plus strength damage and they're both left prone.

Or have it so that (without needing a list of feats to get improved criticals) fighters can deal ability score damage.
I wreck his hands to deal dex damage.
I punch the opponent so hard in the lungs he has con damage.
I cut a tendon on that last attack making his next attack weaker; str damage
I hit the wizard with the flat of my blade confusing him; int damage

Or even just using weapons in unique ways. Being able to throw that sword 30 feet instead of 10 feet, making ranged attacks with a great sword. Improvising weapons as tools for climbing. Using a pole arm to pole vault.

Note how none of these are magical. And sure as a GM you can work these things in, but it can be difficult sometimes to find that inspiration. What I want is to gather abilities that don't shatter the suspension of disbelief but offer a greater versatility to the fighter.


So what does armor training actually entail? How do you train in armor proficiency? Is armor training just a construct of the game? I haven't been able to find anything about it in real life.


I'm only sticking this in off-topic because I have no idea where this would go.

I'm trying to come up with a standardized system for rating general qualities. The weak/average/strong method comes up, but I'm having trouble rating below weak and above strong. I guess I can use mighty for a rank above strong, but what's weaker than weak?


They're all about being spontaneous. So why do they suck at applying metemagic on the fly? Instead of using the normal rules for spontaneous metamagic, make it so that it is a move action to apply metamagic (this allows them a swift action). As they level the action it takes to apply metamagic becomes a swift action, then finally a free action.

The second step is to allow sorcerers to use a different spell slot for metamagic. ex. Silent and Still use 1st level spell slots, Quicken uses a 4th level spell slot. This allows them to use metamagic before wizards by using the spell slots which they have a lot of.

It's a work in progress. I haven't figured out the action economy of multiple metamagic, nor have I assessed all the ramifications of these houserules. Anyway, opinions will be much appreciated.


So recently, my friends have gotten me into DDO. It has an interesting leveling subsystem. Every level is split into 5 ranks, 4 of which you gain an action point; the 5th earns you the next level.

The action points are then used to gain enhancements to your character which usually have the value of half a feat or a trait in Pathfinder. Enhancements are usually specific to a class or race. Some enhancements cost more points and can grant abilities of a prestige class.

So I was wondering if there was anyone willing to do some conversion on getting this to work with a Pathfinder game. I can see some value in this as it provides more character building to game with slower experience and allows characters to have a prestige without having to halt the advancement of their other class.


I'm just wondering if anyone's ever tried out some houserules where all casters use intelligence to learn spells, used wisdom for concentration, and charisma for the amount of spells per day. And if so, how that worked out for them.


Two average guys (assume all 10s) get into a fist brawl, they wear no armor with no bonuses or penalties (AC 10). There's a 45% chance to miss that person standing ready. First guy swings, although he doesn't have the unarmed feat, he'll be fine because neither does the other guy so no worries of provoked attacks of opportunities. Somehow he'll entirely miss the guy standing 5 feet in front of him 50% of the time, this goes both ways. Even if he does hit, if the damage roll turns out to be a 1, in narrative terms it was just a scuff (only when the damage knocks out his opponent does it matter). I can deal with the hitpoint damage, but why does he miss 45% of the time? I mean, he could of been using any weapon (a sword, a whip, a sling). What are these odds based on? What are we supposed to be describing it as? Dodging? although there's a feat for that which at most increases it by 5%. Parrying? although you could parry a sword with your fists, even without being a monk or having improved unarmed strike. Luck?

Just taking a deeper look at the reasoning and background of this mechanic deep cooked into the base of the game.

Edit: Thanks for the catch Bugleyman


While some people think that the alignment system is needs to be more defined, I think it's it's trying to be too much. It's true that it's vague enough to cause arguments and disagreement. Some people just ignore it (the right people can play entire campaigns without alignment coming up), some people remove it going as far as to change the mechanics (DR/Alignment, Paladins, Outsiders, Clerics, and Circle against Alignment), some people have sliding scale systems. Ignoring it is fine until certain monsters, spells, and classes come up. Removing it the simple way is just banning class abilities, spells, and outsiders, but can affect game balance. Sliding scale alignment is more work for players and the GM, but doesn't really solve the question of what is good/evil/chaotic/law/neutral.

However if you really look at the arguments, it's less about Good vs Evil, and more about Good vs Law and Chaotic vs Evil. What is Neutral really?

Alignments aren't well defined, but it's less a lack of substance and more a lack of theme. Everyday, the Paladin fights between Law and Good when taking down a lawful establishment of evil. The Sorcerer is uncertain whether they are Evil or Chaotic for being impulsive. The neutral druid takes to a stance of passiveness, not being involved; they feel they must commit acts of evil to balance out the acts of good they have done.

There is a compromise however that doesn't involve just removing the alignments. These are really just some broadly defined motives.

Virtue: Those of this alignment are compelled to help the weak and innocent. They feel they must protect those in need, sometimes risking their own lives. Angels and other celestial outsiders tend to be of this alignment. This replaces Good. Paladins have this alignment, but they lean towards Order.

Order: Those of this alignment yearn for civil order. They put maintaining an organized establishment above their own desires. That does not make them above using loopholes to obtain the most out of the law, as long as anarchy does not spread. This replaces Law.

Destruction: Those of this alignment have a need for destruction. They yearn for violence and rubble. They may allow others to build, so that they may have something to destroy. They usually kill for the sake of killing. This replaces Evil. Undead are usually of this alignment.

Pleasure: Those of this alignment just want to be pleasured. This is often at the cost of others. They usually can't stand another having authority over them. They do what they want, and so they are susceptible to greed and lust. This replaces the Chaotic alignment. Fey are usually associated with this alignment.

---

Neutrality: Not really an alignment, but more of a lack of one. Neutral characters are often just trying to survive. Most animals and humanoids are neutral. They may exhibit actions that embody the alignments but that doesn't mean it defines them.

Some characters are rarely defined by just one motive, they often leans towards something else. Even those that are neutral often leans towards something (often pleasure when it comes to humans). For example Paladins lean toward Order, Devils lean toward Order as well. Demons on the other hand would lean toward Pleasure. However there should be the defining alignment which takes over in time of question. I believe a Paladin should put being good over being orderly if it ever comes into question (after all they get detect evil not detect chaos). So if being orderly puts lives in danger they should go the path of the Virtuous. But they still should want to avoid anarchy and chaos if possible.

With this system most creatures should be neutral, but certain classes (Paladins and Clerics) and creatures (Outsiders) should keep the alignment. A couple of actions shouldn't affect your alignment. A couple of thieves should not ping as Evil; a devil or demon, or even an cleric who worships a god that is defined as bringing destruction. This should be regardless of levels.

Yes this still affects game balance, but not as much as completely removing alignment entirely. (I think a Paladin with Smite all is pretty silly, but that's my opinion)

In hindsight, this hardly makes much of a change other making the alignments defined more objectively.


I think my biggest problem with smashing rules, is that you can sit there all day and smash stones with your axe, sword, or even fists and not damage your weapon at all.

I made this rather simplistic (in my opinion) rule. When you hit an object, any damage reduced by hardness is sent back to the weapon hitting it. The returned damage is only affected by half the weapon's hardness and is not returned a second time. For this purpose, a monk can treat his fists as iron at 7th level, and adamantine at 16th level.

It makes sundering a bit more complicated, but brings a lot of verisimilitude. Since sundering shouldn't be happening all the time, this shouldn't be a huge issue.


I've noticed a lot of players love to play loners, especially antiheroes

To be honest, I love antiheroes. They are badass loners who can take on the world's evil while dealing with their own darkness. They are great protagonists for movies and video games.

Unfortunately, they don't go well with the party. They tend to be the most disruptive players whether they mean to or not. They never talk with anyone about their plans. They always try to do things on their own, sometimes hindering the party's progression and taking up play time to solo. They disregard the party's opinions, thoughts, and morals. Sometimes they'll even get the party killed if the party gets in their way. All this because they are selfish and absorbed in their own goals.

From my experience, 95% of players will ruin campaigns with them. I've seen it work, but only with the antihero player character going through character development and opening up to the party and learning to work with the rest of the party.

But some players will stay on that loner course.

They don't even always have to be something shady. I know this one guy who always wants to be a merchant, or some other rich character. The problem is that he always wants to settle down and make money. You can't have him in the party, otherwise he's holding everyone back (revealing secrets, being another target to protect but provides nothing during combat, making all the excuses to stop and sit around).

Do most people really just not consider other players or the fact they're in a party?


I'm having trouble coming up with many reasons to use dimensional assault over a normal charge. It seems like a waste to take a 3rd level spell that can send you 400+ ft and limit it to normal charging distance.


Okay I can see how any kind of armor would get in the way of spell casting and how the weight might exhaust one easily, but penalties seem stupid ridiculous high. Full plate has a -6, to give an example of how ludicrous that is, take into account that having a 1 in an attribute is only a penalty of -5. If you have no bonus to dexterity, full plate can make you worse off than the clutz who runs into walls and trips on his feet... And from all the modern anecdotal evidence that I've researched it is actually a lot more mobile than it's given credit for in certain circles, but at the same time people have given plenty of examples where leather and padded armor/clothing can be quite cumbersome. This all leads me to believe the simple way to abstract this is for armor in general to have the same penalty.

So anyway, would just making the acp a -2 for all armors, upset any balance?


Just curious how many adventurers start off homeless. It seems to be a very common theme. Even I often start off games pretty homeless because lack of funds, and no actual need for a home (though I like to have it in my background where I came from if the GM allows).


Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but I like having consistency in my games. Somehow I'm bothered that in one turn someone with an 18 dex and combat reflexes can hit 4 goblins running by him, but that same character can only hit 1 of them when the same four goblins are in front of / surrounding him. At the same time, the guy who can hit all four goblins in one turn cannot hit more than 1 running by him because he does not have the combat reflexes feat regardless of what his dexterity or bab is. What's more is that while AoOs are done at Full BAB (at least I presume, maybe I'm wrong), attacking with the full attack reduces it by 5 each time.


I'm trying to gather a list of all the spells that can replace or even be better than skills in certain areas.

I've got

Stabalize - well just incase you really can't make that heal check or cast any more magical healing...
Cure Wounds - any magical healing is better than first aid, and it works better and faster than treating deadly wounds with the heal skill
Heal - heals ailments and afflictions
Neutralize Poison - actually cures the person of poison
Remove Disease - can actually remove diseases

Any healer in a world with Pathfinder rules should be a divine caster.

Knock - always opens any locked doors not protected by magic, better than lock-picking with disable device.
Invisibility - gives a +20 to stealth and you can hide anywhere and be given total concealment. This gets even better with Greater Invisibility where you can attack and still remain invisible.
Silence - It doesn't give any bonuses directly, but it does make everything silent and gamers and GMs who try to have some consistency in their games will understand how total magical silence is better than trying to move silently with stealth.

Rogues should make use of the UMD skill.

Spider Climb - you don't even need to make climb checks when under this spell
Jump - a +20 to jump checks


I'm running a game for an unorthodox group, and I have put them in situations that they were sufficiently challenged mostly because of poor preparation and poor tactics. Some of these situations have taught them to think ahead and use things.

Things they've learned:
- Carry around ranged weapons, for those times when things are flying
- Carry around light, places get dark and concealment sucks
- Wands are useful, they picked one up with scorching ray (it's used up already, though)
- Getting magical weapons, it's good to keep up your defense and offense when you can

Things they haven't learned:
- Actually using the ranged weapons; they only use them when they can't possibly use melee weapons. This has led to some humorous but poorly executed attacks (such as climbing / leaping to attack)
- Using the potions that they keep on their belt; they'd rather rely on channeling despite the fact that they don't actually have a cleric (the pally is a hospitaler archetype)
- Using the battlefield to their advantage; I usually put in terrain and objects which could be used for cover or concealment, they are usually in offensive mode though...
- Fighting defensively; they never use this, even when it would be more advantageous.
- Saving smite for the one that's actually hard to kill; the paladin tends to use up her smite on the first evil thing she sees.

The roleplay is good, but when it comes to combat their tactics are kind of barbaric (Full on attack, rely on heals to stay up).


What is a good example of dim light? One of the examples is outside with the moon in the sky, and that seems like a good amount of light to me. Not good enough to read fine print, but definitely good enough to make out someone moving around. It just seems weird to me that you get a 20% miss chance to hit someone in those conditions; that's only half as bad as being entirely blind. Maybe I'm just mis-visualizing a night of bright starlight. Links to pictures of what, I'm supposed to be envisioning here would be much appreciated.


If you're already encumbered by medium armor, are there any extra penalties from a medium load? Or am I correct in assuming that at that point, medium load doesn't matter?


This is kind of vague and I probably would never ask it normally, but seeing how there is not really limitations so I'm looking more for opinions and reasoning. In the rules, there's a good little paragraph about deciphering scrolls and then it proceeds to say that it can be deciphered ahead of time. So the question is, how many scrolls can a character decipher ahead of time? And how long can they have those deciphered. For a hundred gold, a wizard with 11 int can cast a spell for 4 more rounds, just think about what one could do with thousands of gold in a more capable caster. You could have hundreds of scrolls deciphered for just that moment when you need it. It could be something you deciphered years ago.

Why would anyone ever not decipher a scroll ahead of time barring an emergency where the caster just received the scroll and need to use it immediately (from someone else or stealing it) half of those situations mean death if you spend a whole six seconds trying to decipher while not even being able to move but maybe five feet on a chance you could fail.

So yeah, what would be reasonable limits?
EDIT: After re-reading stuff about deciphering magic (in the Arcane Spells section) I notice it says that after deciphering a particular piece of magical writing, the character does not need to decipher it again. So does this mean for eternity? Does it mean that all scrolls of that spell from that caster are deciphered? Is this just a big waste of time and probably be best hand waived?


This is actually a legitimate question. It's come to my attention that most GMs gloss over the fact that magic is written in its own magical notation and that one is supposed to use read magic or make a sufficiently high spellcraft check in order to read magic.

For example, the fact that spellbooks are written in this language or that language makes very little sense, when magic is its own thing. That some commoner can just look at your spellbook or scroll and know what kind of spell it is should never be able to happen.

I actually had a conversation with another about how you should decipher scrolls ahead of time. And then there was the question of why. Well first off you have to use read magic, concentrate on the spells you want to read and spend a full round action deciphering it. Then it turned into, why you would even need read magic. And I explained that it was a DC 20 + spell level to decipher. He thought that was stupid high check especially if the spell is in your spellbook (in that case it needs a UMD check as well). It went on a couple of tangents but it came down to that most GMs play magical writing as being perfectly legible language which would make Read Magic pretty stupid and pointless.

Except:
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!!!

So yeah, in home games, how many players actually use read magic and how many GMs enforce that rule?


I had an awesome idea for a Monk with a level of Wizard. Basically Monk 4/Wizard 1. I'm thinking it should be focused in Transmutation specialized in Enhancement and getting Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Grease, and Expeditious Retreat. Using a 15 pt build and a Half-Orc, I'm thinking Str 15, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 7. With this in mind, I'm still not sure what to do with the arcane bond however, nor have I come up with which feats to get. Any tips or suggestions?


I'm glad this has never come up, but it popped up in my mind while playing through some possible scenarios.

Can you incur an attack of opportunity while making an attack of opportunity?

There aren't very many situations where this would happen, but the one I've been thinking about is in the case where someone without improved bull rush is coming at you and you use the attack of opportunity to try and trip them even though you don't have improved trip.

How would this go down?


Sometimes, I cringe at the "dresses like the wizards" comment. Must all wizards wear a pointy hat saying "I'm a wizard"? I'd like to discuss how interrelated a class is with a certain appearance.

For example, I personally don't believe that a character in-game should be able to tell the difference between a fighter, a paladin, or a cavalier. All three could be well-armored warriors riding on a horse.

Now aesthetically, what separates wizards from commoners? Unless they are the eccentric type that's being different to showcase that they are different, it should be pretty impossible to tell, right? Maybe spell components if they show their spell components, or their actions and voice when they are casting a spell would give it away. I just don't see a young wizard in Golarion looking all that different. Even their iconic wizard just looks like an old man. Hell, he could easily be mistaken for some shepard.


Recently one of my player's character died trying to solo a winter wolf, since the next session is pretty much the last available day he can play with the rest of the group I've decided to let him build and play a villain. Have any you guys done this? Ever get positive results?

I'm only doing this because I trust this player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So one of the players was playing a 5th level Dwarven Foehammer in the game I was running. He overran a heavy war horse and proceeded along to overrun a second one. I guess having a +16 to overrun really helps with that, but it was an amazing tactical maneuver. Causing two people to lose their horses, one ending up prone with the horse.

What's are some ridiculous but amazingly useful tactics you've seen?


Okay maybe I've stayed up too late recently but I had this crazy idea. I'm sure many will find this blasphemous, but here it is anyway.

It starts with removing the Monk class.

Then giving Unarmed Damage, Flurry of Blows (which is really just two-weapon fighting), and Stunning Fist to the Fighter.

Then giving the Ki Pool, Slow Fall, High Jump, and Abundant Step to Rogues.

It's not really unbalancing as a fighter needs to choose between using a weapon or their fists (which is generally less effective). Stunning Fist (I know it's already a feat) should have less restrictive prerequisites (which are only there so the fighter isn't stepping on the monk's toes) and be allowed to be modified (so the fighter can sicken, fatigue, and even deafen/blind) maybe with feats haven't really thought it through that much. Fighters should be able to just punch stuff more effectively than other classes (without jumping through hoops giving up proficiency with armor and weapons) in my mind.

Rogues can choose ki pool as a talent already (Though their ki pool sucks barrels compared to the rogue) but I'd like to see it set up in a more fashionable manner with their ki pool being based off of half rogue level + int modifier (I personally like the concept of an int based rogue, in the same vein I'd also like to add that searching for traps should add the int bonus). The Slow Fall, High Jump, and even Abundant Step (which should be an advanced talent) all even work with the flavor of the Rogue who is supposed to have mobility. Better rogue talents goes a long way to fixing the rogue's apparent weakness.

I have seen more gestalt monks than I have seen straight monks. The only straight monks I've seen had the 3.5 vow of poverty (and sometimes other vows). The gestalt monks I've seen only used half of the monk features (They're either a puncher or they're an dodger) and have backgrounds more fitting of a warrior or a rogue. Leading me to this strange, strange road...

Thoughts, likes, issues, or am I just insane?


Can you use 1 round spells with spell strike (if you spent the prior round casting it)?


After taking a good review of the combat maneuver rules, I think that the bonus from charging and the penalty from two-weapon fighting are both applied to combat maneuvers, however that's not very clear even if it would make sense that it would. There's also the question about whether or not iterative combat maneuvers suffer the same effects as normal attacks (which would again make sense, considering that it's still using the bab) or does it use the highest bab?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I'm running a short game for a while, and well my players are so used to sooo much cheese that things were awkward when starting up.

The Stats:
Hearing statements like, "An 8 is pretty bad, but a 7, that's just terrible!" and "A 13 isn't terrible, but it's not good" and seeing a player get all frowny face because she wasn't sure what to do with her stats (None were below 10).

Piecemeal Armor:
One of the players wanted to use piecemeal armor, it turns out when you build a suit of medium armor with piecemeal rules it's much better and incurs no movement penalty. So those rules straight out banned.

Combat:
One player was wielding two weapons to use two combat maneuvers as a full round action, (checked the rules, it doesn't work like that).

The Rolls:
Trying to run Jade Regent with the caravan rules, two of the players both kept rolling and taking the better roll. I had to ask them to please not do that.

They aren't terrible players, but they are so used to cheese and a harsh DM (not me) where if they didn't cheese they would be screwed. They are used to gestalt, and feats that bumped up their stats, and everything stacking, and taking flaws and traits, and getting feats for writing a background, and looking for rule exploitations just to be on par with their campaign (and still being outshined by the DM's OPNPCs), I know because I've played in those campaigns.

But I'm trying to run a game not drenched in such cheese, and so I have to convince them that a 14 is indeed a good number, that a 20 in an ability score at 1st level is amazing, that there are DCs below 25, that I'm not going to set them in a fight with a black pudding at 1st level, that they aren't going to be outshined by every npc that they meet.

Overall, it's going good.

So has anyone else dealt with this situation?


So this has been bugging me for a while. How do the gods grant their followers their divine power? Is the power originating from the god, or is it some well of power that the deity channels down to their follower? Is it an active thing, or is it a passive thing to grant a follower divine power? Does it drain them? Do they need to do anything special to get their power back? Or is it an infinite / replenishing well?

How close of a watch do the deities keep on the ones who draw from them? Are they constantly keeping a close on every single one of their people, or do they get distracted when doing other things, such as putting down another god? Do they maybe get an alarm or tingle when a follower breaks one of their tenets?


prelude:
Let me start off by first saying that I absolutely love skills. I love skills so much that every time I level in my favored class I always take the extra skill point over the extra hit point. Still there are many times when I find myself annoyed when there are specific skills that I should be taking can anyone say Perception or Survival? Also, who can forget about those random times when you might need climb or swim for a particular area, otherwise you might as well forget about trying. Then there's the complexity of allocating skill points, most of the time you're either only putting in one skill point or maxing them out for your level.

Even as a GM, I have a love-hate relationship with skill points. I want to utilize all the skills, especially if someone's invested into it, but I don't to penalize the players for not putting skill points into a particular skill, after all there are only so many skill points especially if you only get two from your class. I also have to hold myself back from fudging the DC for a skill when someone who has invested heavily into a skill misses a DC by one. Then there are the spikes of effectiveness a skill can take from none to one (if there's a class skill, skill focus, or feat that improves the skill) and from nine to ten (feats affecting skills).

tl;dr - As much as I love skills, the skill point system bugs me as both a player and a GM.

Then it hit me. Why don't I just get rid of the skill point system and convert all the skills into feats? Classes would get free skill-feats. Theoretically, all feats would have a progression: novice, regular, expert, master. Each level should allow more abilities, and boost one's capability by a significant amount and may even allow the character to get auto success on certain actions. Characters should be able to make ability checks on any skill barring trained skills.

For example, if there is a feat called novice swimmer, while a normal character might have to make a strength check to cross a slowly moving river, someone with novice swimmer could swim across the river without issue and if they make some other check that involves swimming (such as dragging out a drowning party member) they could make a strength check at a significantly reduced DC.

Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.


I've been considering using resources in game for a few reasons.

1) Money just being converted into materials just doesn't jive well with me, especially if it's in the middle of an adventure with no way to actually get materials. This really bothers me when materials would be extremely rare in the current environment (such as wood in a tundra or metal while deep in the forest).

2) Not being able to use resources in the vicinity. The current craft system relies entirely off of wealth. It's that moment when a bowyer or fletcher cannot make bows or arrows even with plenty of wood around them because they have no money. I also dislike not being able to adjust prices of materials up or down based on availability because there are no materials to speak of. Sure you can ad hoc this, but it bothers me that I should have to ad hoc something like this, I feel like I'll never be able really keep things consistent, and I dislike having to guesstimate things that should be natural.

3) Let's be honest, I really dislike the craft system. Some people are cool with it and that's fine, but I personally feel that it's too arbitrary, unrealistic, and just plain gamey without real immersion. I don't want to indulge in every last aspect of the craft, but I want something that makes more sense than gold magically becoming items. Even something as simple and gamey as (wood x 1, time: 20 minutes) would be awesome and actually more immersive than the current craft system. You should never ever have to spend gold to craft things from materials sitting around you. Also the fact that something takes more money because it's sold at an expensive price is ridiculous. I'm bothered because size and complexity are never taken into consideration.

This is something I believe is workable, it isn't that complex (especially compared to the combat system), and it is more believable than money transmogrifying into equipment. It seems intuitive enough, and some video games include a similar system, so maybe there's a system already out there so I don't have to do much work. If anyone is wiling to help, please do. I'm thinking maybe putting out a list of crafts and the materials needed.

Things I want to note:

  • I want to have craft difficulty and craft times, both should be independent of each other. While craft difficulty should be the base DC, I can see a better crafter completing things faster.
  • While I want to have separate materials, I still want to keep it simple. Even if I'm keeping track of steel, I don't want to go into overzealous detail with ores and ignots and the process of refining it; all assume most metal is kept in ignot form regardless. I also don't want to keep track of 30 types of wood, etc.
  • With this new system, gold is no longer a requirement except for items made out of gold, though it wouldn't hurt to have estimated costs for the required materials. This would help with determining the price of materials in an urban area and raising / lowering price based on availability can be made on the fly.
  • I'd like to make it so that some magical items require rare materials (such as from a monster) instead of requiring a caster.


  • Please note that while this is a criticism on the d20 system in its ability to emulate actual situations, this post is not a criticism on the balance of the game, I think it's runs alright as is, and I'm not really a fan of rules bloat.

    Let us take charging. You move your full movement and make a single attack at your BAB +2. Let's say that this target is an apple on someone's head, the d20 rules have it so that it is easier to hit it while running at it than to just stand there and hit it... Hopefully most people will realize that it's actually harder to hit something while running than to hit it while standing still. Giving the charge action more thought, some may realize that the bonus comes from catching the target off guard. In most situations, catching someone off guard makes up for having less accuracy when running.

    Obviously inanimate objects are always off guard because they don't have the ability to be on guard, making running at it seem unintuitive; however in the d20 system it's easier to hit if you run because it doesn't make that discretion. In fact even those who can't be caught flat footed can still be charged. Perhaps charging is using more power from running, but in that case why doesn't it also do more damage and why does it work with finesse type attacks? Either way, charging to better hit an apple on someone's head still doesn't make sense while being rules legal.

    However you can't just say that charging makes a character flat footed, because that would be too powerful and would unbalance the game; even if you added in a to-hit penalty. While being charging might catch someone a little off guard, the target can still react to it.

    In the game there's no such thing as half flat-footed nor just an off guard condition/bonus/penalty, and the only penalty for moving is that you can only make one attack (which doesn't really matter until 6th level and beyond) instead of just a penalty to hit. Also, since the weapon you wield doesn't change how well you can handle it (I've never witnessed any game system that makes heavier/larger weapons harder to wield when moving, rather at most they just hinder movement itself but hit just as accurately), in game it makes more sense to pick up the largest weapon you're proficient with when you go to charge or spring attack. It's just more efficient to spring attack with an great axe than a dagger in a game. If there is a game system that does decide to implement to-hit penalties from movement, I would hope they lessen or not apply those penalties to light weapons.

    Just some food for thought.


    While the general rules for player characters going against humanoids or beasts their own size is okay, I've always felt the fights against towers of creatures to clash with how I want to run the game. When a fighter stands there and full attacks a dragon's claws or knees, it bothers me. I want my players to climb the massive beast and hit vital spots, I guess similar to Shadow of Colossus. Sure you could just describe it that way, but it leaves causes too much of a difference between what's happening mechanically and what's happening narratively; for example, a player should have to use the climb skill to actually climb, they should also be able to avoid attacks depending on where they've climbed to. How should you represent a colossal creature leaving open a vital spot in response to an attack? Are there any alternate rules to running giant beasts out there? Should I just give up trying to run this in Pathfinder, if so what system should I use?


    Torture - Often claimed as always evil. But why? What makes it evil? Is it the pain? Let's define torture. Depending on where you hear it from, it's the excessive suffering on another being. That's generally the connotation that people who label it as always evil think of. For others torture is simply the use of suffering (something displeasing or unwanted forced upon them, usually pain). I assume most poeple would agree that causing another suffering for kicks is probably evil, but what about using it to modify behavior or interrogate? Torture is a bad word for it, I prefer to call it punishment. That's what it really is. So what's the difference between punishment and torture if the motivations are the same and they both use suffering to modify their behavior? Well it's torture if it's excessive of course.

    The problem is... "excessive" is a subjective term. At what point does the suffering become excessive? Is it really okay for a parent to spank a child for stealing some candy from his neighbors, and for an adventurer to punch a guy for robbing a lady? What about the lady who smacks a pervert? These reactions are accepted in many areas. Yet at the same time, punching a guy until he tells you where he hid a kidnapped girl is taboo; it's torture. If you allow it where does it stop? What if you start cutting off someone's fingers? Is it only when you maim someone to a point where they can't bounce back that it's gone past being acceptable? Well that might make sense in our own world, but in a world where magic can make heal your broken bones and even ressurect you from the dead, the point where someone can't bounce back can suddenly stretch past our own moral boundaries.

    I know at this point, many people will be thinking, "Well in magicland people have access to interrogation techniques that require the other parties cooperation." Yet many people forget that in magicland, that they also have ways to blank out their mind, set up blocks, and guard their private thoughts with magic. These cases require a mastery of magic that neither side may have.

    There's also the possibility of using non-physical suffering. These punishments can range from the water board technique to something as silly as forcing someone to endure hours of listening to a tone deaf singer with a cracking voice. In an extreme and magical form you could pump their mind full of false but horrifying experiences. You can make someone's life a living hell without laying a finger on them. Locking someone up and preventing them contact from the things they are attached to can fall under this description if the desired effect is for them to change their behavior or release information.

    So where do we draw the line of what is too severe and what isn't? I know what makes me uncomfortable. Personally, I think things can get done without crossing into gore territory; there's no reason you have to remove someone's body parts. I have ideas of what is too far, but can I really set the bar to something everyone agrees on? In Babylon, it was law to cut off the hand of a caught thief. The sad truth is that the moral bar of what is too severe of a punishment is no more absolute between different people than the terms of what is too spicy; people of a similar upbringing and lifestyle will often agree on those terms but not everyone will agree.

    What bothers me however is the lack of consistancy of one's morality. Why is it okay to beat the crap out of and/or kill those who threaten you with swords for nothing (and sometimes you'll even get rewards), but it's not okay to beat out information that could save many lives?

    Maybe it's the word torture. Torture is a very uncomfortable word. A word with the connotation of excessive, unneeded violence. Torture carries the connotation of evil. Good guys don't torture. No, the good guys punish. Sometimes justice and the well being of others require that you punish the bad guys for withholding the information required to save billions of innocent lives.


    This about feats making players spend an extra resource to do things that should already be inherent or should just be part of something else.

    Weapon Finesse: This really should just be a weapon property that lets a player use their dexterity instead. No reason this should ever be a feat.

    Dazzling Display: This should either just be a part of the perform skill itself or if you want to limit to martial characters than make it an addendum to having weapon focus or weapon specialization which makes sense in that training it you would give a "dazzling display".

    Antagonize: Not only does should it not be a feat it's also just full of problems the way it's written. Antagonizing should be inherent to Intimidate. The way it should work: Once the character taunts as a swift action, if the target has failed it's will save (based on the intimidate check) on the target's next turn, with the exception of moving towards and/or attacking the aggressor they can only make a standard action and receive a -2 to all rolls.


    While trying to figure what the heck winged humanoids wear, and how I really just want my Celestials to look like normal humans most of the time, I don't want them always to have wings anyway, I decided they should just have an innate spell or spell like ability that conjures forth wings.

    So ta da

    Ethereal Wings - A level 3 Conjuration spell - this spell conjures forth a pair of ethereal wings for a number of hours equal to one's caster level allowing them to fly. Angels can use this spell at will with an unlimited duration.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm hoping to actually get into the minds of those who advocate their vision of alignment, so I'd really like this to not devolve into a flame war. I don't need to give background, we all know background, but what's missing is the reasoning. Asking to verify is fair game, but do please do not insult another poster (calling them dense, ignorant, etc). Do not call another poster "wrong" as that is subjective, this a thread to expand and try to understand eachother's reasoning. This is not the thread to discuss whether or not alignment belongs in the game. This is to understand how players and GMs view these alignments.

    I'm going to issue a simple challenge:

  • Define Evil

    Of the following, what is evil, why is it evil or not evil, and if it is evil how does it fit into the previous statement of evil?

  • Killing in General
  • Killing an innocent being (Define innocent being please)
  • Torture
  • Selfishness
  • Stealing / Looting
  • Poison
  • Dishonesty
  • Controlling Someone Else (ie. authority or geas)
  • Slavery
  • Threats / Intimidation
  • Worshiping an evil deity
  • Undead
  • Demons / Devils
  • Summoning / Creating "evil" entities to work for you

    If at the very least, I hope this can bring us to see how others can have such varying definitions of "evil".


  • I'm wondering if anyone has made any rules involving non-magical weapon qualities. Any links, suggestions, experiences with doing such. I was thinking about qualities ranging from a bonus to hit to extra damage and keen weapons that can be applied to master crafted weapons.


    I've been considering an all human campaign, and I could just have attributes associated with different nationalities, but aside from a few skill bonuses, it just doesn't bide well with me. That and I'd like everyone to be from the same place. Then it came to me, most fantasy "races" are just body types and possibly associated with a profession or living style. Orcs are your strong men, halflings are short ones, gnomes are the eccentric ones, elves are the slim ones, dwarves are your hardy types, and humans are the average ones. So my question is whether this sort of thing would be considered interesting and add depth or if most people would just find it arbitrary and limiting.


    Sometimes when I read that a poster is a girl, I can't help but wonder if she's hot. Am I the only one that does this? Is this bad? Do women ever wonder if guys behind the text are good looking?

    I'd like to think it's not just the fact that they're girls, because most times when I think about people it just defaults to the most optimistic vision possible regardless of their gender, that maybe everyone is secretly a ham or a hottie hiding behind a screen, unless they actually say they're not.

    Maybe it's because I like to consider myself a geek but and I'm just projecting my own experiences onto the internet. I'd like to think that any random person on the internet is not what the media portrays (you know the over weight, smelly guy living in his mom's basement) and in fact just seems like an overused stereotype and I think I would actually be surprised to find a poster who fit that description.


    I've had a character concept for a while that I've never tried to create via Pathfinder's rules because I don't see how it could work, but Paizo's got a innovative community and maybe there's just stuff that I missed.

    Basically this guy is blacksmith / miner who mines out his own minerals to forge. He's supposed to be a half decent fighter. While not graceful he's sociable and intelligent (not a genius though). The other big thing is that I've wanted was that he's supposed to be able to manipulate stone and earth, nothing else, no blasty spells, no illusions, just straight geomancy or transmutation.

    Is this character possible within Pathfinder?


    After marinating my mind in the stealth rules, I began to question why cover provides stealth. I mean if it's because it obscures the vision, wouldn't that count as concealment? And nothing in the rules that I read ever said that cover can't provide concealment. So I'm planning on just having it so that cover that actually obscures vision also provides concealment. And if cover doesn't provide concealment such as leaving too much visible or being transparent, then it doesn't allow for stealth.

    This also makes for a good houserule that an attack that misses because of concealment from soft cover hits the soft cover, and that precise shot negates the concealment from soft cover.

    This makes cover a lot more powerful, and position that much more important.


    Why does cover grant stealth?

    More specifically, outside of your cover being transparent, why wouldn't it grant concealment?

    And if your cover is transparent, why would it grant stealth?


    Concealment works in mysterious ways. Even if you can spot the stealthiest characters in dimlight, you still have trouble hitting even the clumsiest characters in the same luminosity. What's up with the set 20% / 50% miss chances anyway? Is this just some old rule from the 1st edition that never meshed with skills?

    1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>