Species was actually 3.0 and, to my knowledge, never updated. It was a great concept, but has many issues that were unfortunately never cleared up. Transferring it directly to PF may only compound these issues.
That said, it's still a cool book. I've used the basic concept many times to scale monsters up and down, allowing low-level PCs to fight juvenile ogre hooligans and such.
pointing out my mistake on this forum is pretty overkill, and serves no other purpose than glorifying your own grammar skills and pointing out someone else's shortcomings
Or it might be that the remainder of your post was coherent, grammatically correct and spelled properly with this one, glaring error that, actually, entirely changed the meaning of your post.
I certainly don't bother mentioning such things in posts that are rife with typos, poor grammar and bad vocabulary. There's no point.
Perhaps you made an honest mistake and typo. However, perhaps you actually thought the word meant the opposite of what it means, routinely mis-use it in day-today circumstance and everyone who knows you personally has been too embarrassed to mention it to you.
If Paizo had a way to PM, I would have used it. But it doesn't so I did it this way. Not to embarrass you or glorify myself, but rather because your OP was sufficiently well-written that I felt you deserved to be informed.
You should interpret it as a sign of respect, not as an insult.
If I don't like someone's writing, I tell them it's "nice" or "interesting" or demure from any response at all. If I like it, I point out what I feel are the weaknesses that, once corrected, will make it better. Criticism is a sign of respect among artists.
Feat trees are indeed one way in which feats scale with level. They allow the designers to include feats that would otherwise be too good, by adding prerequisites. By taking the initial feat, you improve the options available to your character as they continue to level. Each time you choose another feat that you would have been unable to take otherwise, you are reaping an additional benefit from the initial feat.
Maybe some designers feel that way, but I disagree with this philosophy of Feat Trees.
To me, the benefits of Trees are like the PF re-design philosophy that rewards those who choose to remain single-Classed.
IMHO, no feat should be "bad" just because it opens a pre-requisite to another feat later on. All feats should balance their utility against other feats available at their relative level (i.e. position in Tree/number-of-prereq.s).
By the same philosophy we might as well not scale spell damage, since they simply "open access to higher spells later" (granted, dice caps are a move in this direction).
Look at it this way, would you create a Tree that has five (5) "hollow" feats as pre-requisites to gain Uber-Kill-Vorpal-Death-Touch? I don't think it's fair to justify the lack of utility in a feat with what comes after it.
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
So long as the AC of foes you face and your attack bonuses scale at roughly the same rate
My experience is that AC out-paces Attack, part of the reason we use the scale.
Also, straight-Fighters generally don't keep pace with other classes, so the BAB-based scaling helps them.
Finally, HD increase with CR, but often so does Size and CON that still outpaces Damage-growth, and Iterative Attacks at -5/-10/-15 just don't hit the big ACs any more ... all they do is let Fighters feel good if the BBEG is surrounded by mooks.
Anyway, these were my observations in 3.5 that led us to make the change therein.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Two things to keep in mind if you make this change:
3 things, actually :-)
Also, Weapon Focus is still just an Attack Bonus, not an addition to BAB, so none of these apply. I just scale it based on BAB.
Shieldknight wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you are going to scale Wpn Fcs, will you also be scaling Spell Focus or Skill Focus?
We do scale Spell Focus by Caster Level in the same manner. Skill Focus does not scale, but was reduced to a "half-feat". As I mentioned up-thread, we scale Dodge based on Base Reflex Bonus.
Q2 - if the alarm spell triggers, can the enemy mage (since he knows for certain someone is approaching) and has "time" - open the door and cast a lightning bolt before the players can act ?
No.
As mentioned above, the Wizard gets a Surprise Round in which he can only take a Standard Action (for which a Move-Equivalent Action can always be substituted).
I don't know that "casting through the door" work, because the door most likely blocks line-of-effect. Otherwise, he could cast blindly down the hall, as one assumes he has prepped this enough to know where to aim.
EDIT
Per PF-CR:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
{snip}
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect.
/EDIT
The best thing he can do is have a henchman standing nearby to throw open the door so he can cast. It would take another henchman to close the door again, unless it is a weighted, mechanical, magical or otherwise self-closing door.
Doug Hood wrote:
Exactly when is initiative rolled in this case?
Can't say "exactly" per RAW, but if you wanted to roll before the Surprise Round for the Wizard and allies you could determine the order of their actions, plus a high likelihood that the Wizard will have to Delay until the door is open if he beats his henchman, then have the party roll on the first full Round.
Otherwise, let the Wizard and allies go as a group w/o worrying about Init. and have everyone roll at once.
I thought about suggesting this, but the setting for the campaign (late-medieval per OP) is probably past the time when it is historically relevant.
During the time of Charlemagne (800 A.D.) it would probably be a good idea, but by the Crusades (1100 A.D.) Europe was pretty unified under Christianity, so much so that it was launching military expeditions into foreign lands.
On the scaling by bab - intersting ... but this already would do that by level - lower BAB classes have lower BAB bases to add to.
Assume a Wizard and a Fighter both take Weapon Specialization and that it scales. Sure, their BAB progresses at different rates, but the relative difference remains the same if WF scales by Level, despite the Fighter spending much more time using weapons. Furthermore, the Wizard has powerful spells that add dice of damage each level while the Fighter is lucky to add a point here and there. To stay in the damage-dealing game, the Fighter needs to hit often for less damage (this is where iterative attacks come in) whereas Wizards hit less often (Standard Action spells) for more damage.
IMO, scaling by BAB is as much a realistic, logical thing as a mechanical balance.
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
I don't see a need to over-complicate it (ie: I can't follow that formula quickly at all, so it's probably too much for what I'm gunning for). Part of the thought here is that a simple scale is easy to implement.
Level or BAB, the math is the same either way. Everyone knows their Level, but probably everyone knows their BAB as well.
Get a bonus of +1, and an additional +1 every XX in value (for us it's 5 BAB).
Incidentally, I should caveat that we're playing a pretty Core 3.5 game where scaling WF and Dodge are working well. I don't know about adding in PF or Splatbook feats that might blow the curve, just in case any of the math-monkeys Crosswind is summoning come after me :-)
R.
P.S. I don't like feats that are useful because they "open up Trees". I feel every Feat should have individual merit and utility across the life and Levels of a character. In fact, I already allow Weapon Focus (bow) to open the Ranged feat tree for bows rather than Point Blank Shot and am considering doing the same with several other chains (WF should let you take Impr. Disarm, etc. with that weapon, IMO). Also, I don't scale Weapon Specialization because I believe in a To-Hit:Damage balance. As mentioned above, Fighter's are generally designed to hit more often rather than cause more damage per hit, with their damage increases over levels (via magic items, etc.) intended to simply keep them ahead of opponent DR.
On the scaling by bab - intersting ... but this already would do that by level - lower BAB classes have lower BAB bases to add to.
Assume a Wizard and a Fighter both take Weapon Specialization and that it scales. Sure, their BAB progresses at different rates, but the relative difference remains the same if WF scales by Level, despite the Fighter spending much more time using weapons. Furthermore, the Wizard has powerful spells that add dice of damage each level while the Fighter is lucky to add a point here and there. To stay in the damage-dealing game, the Fighter needs to hit often for less damage (this is where iterative attacks come in) whereas Wizards hit less often (Standard Action spells) for more damage.
IMO, scaling by BAB is as much a realistic, logical thing as a mechanical balance.
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
I don't see a need to over-complicate it (ie: I can't follow that formula quickly at all, so it's probably too much for what I'm gunning for). Part of the thought here is that a simple scale is easy to implement.
Level or BAB, the math is the same either way. Everyone knows their Level, but probably everyone knows their BAB as well.
Get a bonus of +1, and an additional +1 every XX in value (for us it's 5 BAB).
Incidentally, I should caveat that we're playing a pretty Core 3.5 game where scaling WF and Dodge are working well. I don't know about adding in PF or Splatbook feats that might blow the curve, just in case any of the math-monkeys Crosswind is summoning come after me :-)
I have one player in particular who creates ... [characters with] a certain profession at the start of the campaign, he precludes (sic) to return to that profession as soon as possible, and any attempt to get him to go on an "adventure" is met with resistance and he seems annoyed by the distraction.
Gaming is a group activity, and if he's the squeaky wheel who'se messing up your groups feng shui, he's the one you trade to another team in the off-season.
Have to agree with Set, here. The problem isn't in the nature of Bio/Background but rather the nature of the Player.
I think we've all seen this, the Player for whom RPGs are mundane escapism. The Player who enjoys having their character sit around in the tavern and talk in-character about the minutiae of daily life rather than adventuring, the thief who wants to pick the lint out of everyone's pockets simply because they can.
Your Player isn't playing out a fantasy game, but rather a "life-substitution". He's simply not on the same page as everyone else. Campaigning and RPG story-telling are group activities, and his divergence from what everyone else is doing is akin to someone trying to play by Warhammer or Vampire or Amber mechanics at a D&D game ... it just doesn't mesh and they need to either get with the program or join a group that wants to play the game they are.
I respect much of the advice given above about getting this guy "on track" and I think it might work with a Novice Player who "didn't quite understand what the game's about" but I think you're dealing with a different beast entirely.
One time I had to deal with something similar. Someone joined my group who was a great and interesting person in real life and loved developing detailed PCs and background and personalities. However, in-game every word of every scene had to be spoken IC and talked through. The Player never shortened anything to move through expository scenes and wanted to RP out the most mundane conversations in taverns or shopping at the market and making change.
One time we were working on a character concept for a Fighter who had come from training in the local Army. I asked about what elements of the character's background made them extraordinary, such as an association with a mentor (a grizzly old sergeant) who had taken an interest in the youngster and taught them years worth of combat tricks (aka a Feat or two) that set them above other soldiers. "No," I was told, "this character is just an ordinary member of the Army." I replied, "But ordinary members of the Army are Warriors, not Fighters. PCs have something that makes them different or exceptional, better trained or superior. Something in your backstory needs to account for having a PC rather than NPC class." The Player didn't hesitate for a second. "No, I just want to play an ordinary person conscripted into the Army." I was aghast. "Warriors are guys who joined the Army and have training. Conscripts and raw recruits are NPC Commoners who are drafted." The reply ... "Well, I suppose I'm playing a Commoner, then."
Needless to say, the character in question never came to be. We parted ways since we were clearly trying to achieve different goals in our gaming. I wanted to tell stories of characters rising from the lowest levels of society, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps to become heroes in their world, while my Player wanted to be at the tavern in a Ren-Faire gossiping in-character.
I don't know if you have a friendship outside the game with this person that precludes severing your gaming-relationship, but otherwise, it's time to cut him loose.
FWIW,
Rez
P.S. In case you didn't notice in my quote, you used the term "preclude" entirely incorrectly. You probably mean "is predisposed" or "determines". What you basically said is "once the adventure starts he makes it difficult or impossible to return to that profession ..." which is the opposite of what you meant. In proof-reading my own post, I find that I coincidentally used the same term in the last line correctly. Don't mean to offend, just wanted to point out the mis-used word.
I think the player might feel more connected to an animal after multiple successful checks
Agreed. When our latest campaign started I allowed a Ranger to trade her 2nd Level Combat Style for an Animal Companion, since her (the Player's [i]and/i] character's) interests lay more in this area.
She definitely became very attached to her animals (Companion and otherwise) and training them was a key part of this. The party in the early days was taking a lot of long-overland journeys back and forth between a remote village and the larges city in the region, thus each trek potentially meant a new trick for someone. It was fun and personalized the animals a lot.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
My campaign is a race against time that may conclude within a month or less.
Edit: If you still want the skill check, say the spell does not freely teach the trick but lets you make the handle animal check as if one week of training had passed.
I wouldn't call that a "campaign" so much as a "story arc" :-)
Still, the check is a good balance. Alternately, give it a 1-week duration (mentioned above) with the opportunity at the end (via check) to "remember" permanently.
One other option to consider is the idea that the "ritual" can only be used 1/week, so he can cast for 1 trick and mundane train another in a given week. At the end of the month that is potentially 8 tricks (or up to 2 failures for a typical 6-trick package). Such a system gives the Companion a bit of "character growth" and progression while making the order of the tricks a bit of a strategic choice for the PC.
Ideas ...
Either way, I think the concept is fair enough, especially under the circumstances.
Alternatively, that '+1 to hit' could scale with levels
We are scaling Weapon Focus with BAB, not Level. It is the most fair way to do it, since otherwise Weapon Focus (Ray) or whatever becomes a gimme for every Wizard.
Our math is +1 plus 1/5 BAB (round down), thus +2 @ 5, +3 @ 10, +4 @ 15 and +5 @ 20 BAB for straight Fighters, Rangers, etc.
It's worked well in our lower-magic milieu, as it takes the focus (forgive the unintended pun) off gear and puts it on characters. Keying it to BAB means that the more a class (or multi-class) focuses on combat training the better they are with weapons. As high-CR monster ACs rise to insane levels, this helps straight-Fighters remain in the fight and dealing damage.
GWF increases the bonus to 1/2 BAB, thus maxing at +10.
Currently, we're also considering making WF apply to classes of weapons (swords or axes or polearms) but GWF only to individual types (longsword or shortsword or greatsword).
Incidentally, we made a similar change with Dodge, scaling it from +1 to +5 based upon Reflex Save class bonuses. Again, the concept is that the guys who are best at nimbly avoiding things get better faster than those who aren't, again, it otherwise becomes a gimme for Wizards.
I'd be really careful about spells that replace skill checks.
What ... like see invisibility instead of Perception or find traps instead of Search? How about fabricate instead of Craft? Legend lore instead of Knowledge?
I still see no problem. Only issue might be level ... since a Ranger with a Wisdom bonus gets the spell at the same time as a Companion (or a Druid gets them both together regardless) there is no reason to ever train naturally.
2nd Level across the board might be in order, since it is permanent training. Otherwise, a 1 week duration that coincidentally matches the time required to train the animal by mundane methods (but does not obviate the need for the Skill Check from the handler to help the creature "remember" the training).
Sorry if any of my info is off, but I'm going from memory and 3.5 here, not PF.
Masters of the Wild had a 0-level spell named Animal Trick that instantly taught the animal one new trick. I don't have it handy, but I think it was of limited duration but allows tricks in excess of the normal maximum.
I think your spell is fair. It's basically magical "speed training".
However, I thought it only took 1 week to train an animal. Surely he can afford that time. We had a Ranger train her animals on-the-road between adventures to heel, fetch and so forth.
Using Combat Maneuvers will definitely shake up a hack & slash battlefield.
Also, Players tend to plan tactics assuming open space in a room. Put in some furniture that makes squares "difficult" or "squeezed" and things get crazy really quick ... especially when the opponents have Acrobatics and can tumble about past the obstructions.
Note that most of the situations you're talking about involve mis-matches. When my Players find themselves mis-matched, they adjust as well. We've literally had Tanks yank light-fighters or mages out of the way and pitch them across the room rather then leave them at-risk. IMO, "I step into her space and attack while shoving her back to safety," does not provoke an AoO against the sorceress being shoved (and the Tank can usually take it).
FWIW,
Rez
P.S. Not that "chaotic combat" will slow things down. Expect to get threw fewer fights per session if you start going this route.
I'm pretty sure Tolkien's elves were taller than humans. This is part of what gave the kings of Númenor their "kingly stature". They were, however, of a more slender build.
I am a big fan of the "Well Explained Bad Decision" ... I try to think ahead of time how I can justify cutting the players a break if things get dire.
I dislike single-opponent Big Bad encounters since if things do get bad, it's obvious when you fudge. Also, they tend to skew really fast one way or another and are difficult to balance.
I run a lot of multi-opponent and large-scale encounters. In such case, I have so many things on my plate at once during combat that I don't need to plan mistakes or poor tactical judgements for the opposition ... plenty happen on their own.
I had a group of dinosaurs attack the party recently....
Consider this kind of thinking about encounter tactics "borrowed" for my personal use. Great thinking, Rez.
SNIP
... probably won't get a chance to use it much ... never any random encounters or such
Glad you like ... enjoy stealing it.
Same basic tactics could work for any pack-hunters ... wolves, worgs, winter wolves all readily come to mind, but certainly there are others. Any non-loner types. I've had tag-team sphinxes and last session a pair of chimera (one in the brush ahead, one flying on a strafe run from behind) hit the party. Actually, that's a common tactic I use for a hunting pair. Off the cuff, I can think of at least one other occasion from the previous campaign. A distraction on the ground and a dive-bomber from another direction.
It's pretty basic stuff, and even intelligent monsters use it. Recently a band of horse-riding marauders attacked the PCs' caravan, trying to chase it towards a "nearby defensible rocky outcropping". Of course the PCs anticipated the ambush therein and turned the tables upside down, turning against the riders in the open. Both groups at once would have been tough, but individually they were toast. It was intended more as an RP set-up anyway ... meet the locals, defeat them in combat and earn the respect of the tribal nomadic warriors.
The dinosaurs were actually a designed encounter, not a random one (or, perhaps, a "random encounter" that I design as opposed to a "plot-based/story-driven encounter" or a purely random encounter that I rolled up in the moment) but was meant to press home the strangeness of the setting and dangers of the local fauna. The party had split into two groups in the remote, dangerous wilds. The ranger/sneaky-types were off on a 20-day scouting trip searching for a suspected hidden pirate base while the priest and wizard were holding down a camouflaged base-camp with a few cohorts and a dwarven fighter.
The coelophysis pack was a balanced and dangerous encounter. Fortunately, one of the cohorts was a naturalist and by observing their tactics could anticipate the ambush design, allowing the base-camp party to react accordingly, avoid splitting up, form a circle defense and avoid getting ambushed and flanked. A pack of Spring-Attacking coelophysis are nothing to sneeze at, however. Helped that the dwarf is a halberd-expert.
Meanwhile, the scout-party was getting jumped by a pair of hunting juvenile allosaurs.
Do you play every monster tactically, or have less intelligent ones simply go bananas?
It's a balance, actually, between Intelligence and Wisdom. I routinely "dumb-down" magical beasts to put them in the 2-4 Int. range. Talking beasties just doesn't fit the flavor of my world as much (well, not when everything talks), but otherwise as "monsters" they are great.
However, they retain their Wisdom and with it their cunning and their natural instincts and abilities, including the tendency to maximize the efficacy of those abilities.
I had a group of dinosaurs attack the party recently. They were small, bipedal pack-hunters raiding the PCs camp. They used a "beater" tactic of having a wall of them coming at the "herd" of PCs, trying to distract them and separate one off while a pair of "stalkers" circled around to ambush the "target" from another direction. The dinos played it out as if there were hunting a herd of anything else, targeting a lone individual, swarming it and then when the party counter-attacked they massed to "defend their kill".
The party, being more intelligent, was able to decipher, anticipate and up-end the dinos tactics, while the monsters were unable to adapt. In the end they were killed or run off.
Cunning monsters will retreat, Intelligent ones will learn, human-level intelligent ones will learn very quickly, and highly Intelligent ones will predict and prepare.
W E Ray wrote:
PC death is extremely rare in my campaigns. A PC may fall pretty often, as in, go to neg HP, but is pretty much always back in the fight in the next round or so.
I mix up easy ones, throw mooks in with champions and so forth to give more "realism" to encounters and so forth, but overall I'd say I fall into Ray's philosophical neighborhood on designing and running encounters.
I've always felt that there is no reason to be a "Killer DM", because Players are pretty good all by themselves at getting their own characters killed without any extra help from me. My job is just to keep presenting them with opportunities to screw up. Running monsters in a challenging but fair way is a big part of that. Keeps things fun and allows the story to progress with out an adversarial DM-vs.-Players feeling.
I run a "grunge fantasy" campaign for my home-brew. It isn't historical, but I describe it as mid-magic and low-economy. We are definitely on the Silver-Standard. Low level PCs have occasionally gone hunting for food (even poaching) and camped in the woods outside town when they decided to save their precious coins rather than "waste" them at an in or tavern.
Needless to say, Rangers are invaluable for these types of settings.
Our game is character-focused and Player-driven, so the people involved definitely like that kind of thing anyway. No one is in it for the loot.
Magic items are more often made than purchased, and as a result become very personal, and personalized. Try to focus on this sort of thing.
I've had to make adjustments to D&D economics and use something more reality-based. It will be tempting for the PCs to earn income from easy Craft and Profession checks, so you'll need to adjust that or they will throw the party wealth out-of-balance.
Try to offer them non-cash rewards such as titles, deeds and favors. Start them out low-class and poor, but as they rescue the daughters of merchants and protect the family honor of nobles they gain access (though not admittance) to increasingly higher social strata. Eventually they can gain knighthoods, lands and so forth. Of course, being brave heroes, the lands they are granted will be ones that the local baron needs cleared of bandits and monsters and thus aren't producing any income, anyway ... at least not yet. An underhanded trick is to make them Sheriff or Warder/Steward of the lands, so that once they pacify them, build up the population and infrastructure and make them productive the noble can take them back.
Of course, the PCs will develop friends, allies and a reputation. After a while they will be able to trade on this and monthly upkeep will be a thing of the past. Perhaps if they save some merchant from ruin they become partners in his business. They make no real profit, but their share covers the expenses of a small cottage, clothes, food and so forth. If they stay in the same region and develop a positive reputation, after a while they won't need to pay for a meal again, since everyone will owe them something. Alternately, if they become famous enough across a large enough area, they can trade on their reputations. It's said Elvis Presley used to always pay for everything, no matter how minor, with a check due to the fact that his signature on the check was more valuable than the items he'd purchased, and so the check would never be cashed.
As far as XP goes, I cut all Combat XP in half and then make up the difference with RP-XP. I also give out Attendance-XP in the amount of 1/20th of what is needed to level based upon APL. That means 1st level PCs get 50 XP just because the Player showed up, but everything else needs to be earned.
Note that if the party is facing a big monster, they may spend a while planning the tactics to defeat it. Tactical Planning could easily be as much if not more XP than the actual combat. I've had major fights last less than a single round because the party planned them out so perfectly. Combat and RP XP goes all around. OTOH, I've had the party's plan fall apart the moment they engaged the enemy. Remember that they gain RP-XP for making the Plan, not necessarily for the Plan going off correctly. Also, if you don't give flat XP awards, then remember that XP should be allotted not only for who comes up with the final idea, but for who participates by contributing. That contribution might be in the form of dozens of ideas that all get rejected, or it might be someone who keeps notes of the plan as it evolves, or it might be the person who realizes that two people are arguing different sides of what is essentially the same plan, or it might be the person who repeats what everyone says but keeps the discussion focused and on-topic. All of those people are "contributing" and deserve RP-XP, even if only a few of them are actually suggesting the final version of the plan.
One other thing to consider, particularly in "Low Economy" settings is that the PCs probably can't earn enough money to survive by adventuring. They aren't adventurers because there is easy money in dungeon-delving, they became adventurers because they couldn't stand the thought of another day spent on the farm. That said, most "adventurers" are part-timers who have "day-jobs". The PCs will probably have to have some sort of non-adventuring career they pursue during extended periods of in-game downtime in order to provide themselves with a livable income. I award "EXDT XP" into a separate pool for this sort of activity, and the PCs then use this XP to buy levels of Expert to represent their EXDT non-adventuring careers. The current game has a Ship Captain, a Parish Priest, a Jeweler/Item Crafter/Accountant, a Leather-crafter, a Drill Sergeant and a Merchant-Trader. Past campaigns have seen diplomats, sheriffs, prospectors and other professions.
Just remember there is nothing forcing someone to use their only AoO on the very first option.
Of course an intelligent foe may refrain from attacking. Do I actually have to qualify that?
Calm down.
Your sentence did actually imply that someone has to attack on the first provoked AoO. Not everyone who reads these boards knows the rules inside and out, so it was worth clearing up.
Furthermore, it was done so politely by someone who's been around these boards much longer than you. You're over-reacting.
Not everyone knows that in the game of Checkers, you must jump if presented with an opportunity to do so. In fact, forcing your opponent to make strategically detrimental jumps is a major tactic. AoOs are not the same, and you needn't take them when provoked. It's probable not everyone knows that, either.
Your sentence was unclear. Next time, your should qualify or proof-read, but either way the snippy response isn't needed.
With peripheral vision you can see that there is movement, but not what is actually going on.
Point is, you can see this movement enough to not be denied Dex. Alternately, with small, darting movements of the head and eyes you can see them and react, but having them diametrically opposed means that you must turn your body.
Either way, you don't have your eyes on someone.
Although we accept that actions in a round "happen simultaneously", in reality they do not. Even in a multi-on-one fight, the multi- group tends to take turns attacking. If you can keep them in peripheral vision, you can react defensively to every attack. If you have to take your eyes off someone, then they have an advantage ... hence flanking.
Krome wrote:
To see what is going on, you have to change your focus of attention. You can only focus your attention in one direction at a time.
But in a fight you don't really need to "focus your attention" on an attacker. Rather, you just have to "be aware of what they're doing". There's a big difference.
Incidentally, I'm speaking as someone who has trained 2-on-1 and 3-on-1. So long as they don't get on opposite sides of you, then you're OK.
Krome wrote:
And if the reason for flanking is that you cannot see the person directly behind you, then the defender should pick one opponent to treat as normal and the second one is treated as invisible to the defender.
As I'm sure you know, the "Ignoring Flankers" thread is nor that comes up routinely. A quick search of the archives (now that Vic has that working well again) will turn up at least a dozen old thread where this has been discussed to death.
My contribution to that debate is this link ... read the last bit.
Krome wrote:
I would make it a flat -2 AC, rather than a +2 to hit, since the defender has the condition and not the attackers
I'm pretty sure I already said something similar up-thread, but ... agreed.
I am well acquainted with how well soldiers can perform under sleep-deprivation Rez. :) I was talking about hours with NO sleep/rest whatsoever. You can put it off, some people for amazingly long times, but it WILL eventually get to you.
I think I hear the tone of personal experience :-)
I sometimes throw out things like that for the benefit of everyone else, however, even if I'm playing it off someone specific's post.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I was talking about hours with NO sleep/rest whatsoever. You can put it off, some people for amazingly long times, but it WILL eventually get to you.
I once did 8 days working a very detail-oriented project on 20 total hours of sleep ... 9 hours of that in the first 2 days. The final 2 1/2 days were without any sleep but with lots of caffeine. When I finally did hit a bed I slept for 30 straight hours.
Can be done, but not necessarily fun. Sleep-deprivation hallucinations beat any drug-induced ones, IMO, though.
One of the players has only played 2nd Ed D&D and the other is a completely new player.
Have the "experienced" guy take the lead. Perhaps the Rangers are part of some Order, where one is local and the other has just been re-assigned to the area. There need not be any disparity in their levels, just that one has more knowledge of the local area. It gives the experienced Player an IC reason to "take the lead" as a mentor or guide "... until you get to know your way around the area."
Regardless, try to convince one to be melee-based and the other ranged-based so they can balance one another. Again, for a pair of Rangers they will each have their strength, but can back one another up. Another option is to trade some Ranger Class Ability at 1st or 2nd level for Animal Companion a couple levels early so they can have a trained war-wolf or something similar helping them out.
blackcat wrote:
I intend to set up encounters which have [lots of stuff] ... and then have skirmishes which require [lots of other stuff].
I would advise against this, particularly with a newbie and on the intro session for a guy switching editions.
Your pent-up desire to run PF is getting the best of you, and I'd advise you to keep things simple starting off. Stick to simple encounters ... a pair of Rangers patrolling the local wilderness hunting a tribe of orcs that are causing trouble, hunting and foraging to feed themselves, stumbling across a drunken party of regional noblemen and having to use a little diplomacy to get them to be less obtrusive and destructive without actually being able to fight - much less injure or kill - them.
Those three basic scenarios could fill an entire evening, particularly if there is also character-generation and "getting used to the rules". The last thing you want to do is overwhelm these new guys by forcing too much on them at once simply because you're excited about it.
blackcat wrote:
I am particularly interested to get any feedback from anyone going straight from 2nd ed to pathfinder (or 3.5 for that matter) and what they found the hardest to adjust to rules wise.
Grapple rules never made sense before 3.x, so not any issue there. The guy will have to get used to the fact that he needs to set aside his "low-rolling d20s" and he'll still figure AC backwards a few times and calculate THAC0s.
Otherwise, he'll hopefully enjoy the Skill and Feat systems better than old-edition "Proficiencies".
As to OP ...
When I saw that you're starting now and there was lots of good advice in the thread already (I agree that STAP would work well if you want to go back that far and have the Mags) then I do have one thing to add ...
IMHO, it is not really necessary to throw NPCs at a pair of Rangers, and you running a pair of them might overwhelm the Players and their PCs.
I've done the 2 Ranger and/or Rogue thing before, and with minor adaptation it works well. Make sure they have a wand of cure XXX wounds and some potions (curative, but also buffs) and you're set. Focus on the "scouting" aspect of scenarios and not on the fighting. Have them acting as recon for an army or larger adventuring company, so their job isn't to kill all the monsters, but to ID them, make maps, sneak past them and not get caught. A straight-Ranger and a Ranger/Rogue multi-class or one Ranger and one Rogue in tandem could work very well for this sort of thing.
2 PCs focusing on sneaking their way though an adventure or story arc rather than fighting their way through can be very interesting, and most scenarios can be readily adapted. Sometimes they will need to draw-off the guardian that a full party would normally fight, then circle back and sneak past, but they are both able to do so. Again, I think STAP would work well for this sort of thing ("We're sending you boys on ahead of the Fleet ... make contact with the locals and recon. the area before our arrival" sort of concept).
fatigued automatically setting in at 24, and exhausted at 48
I wouldn't make anything automatic, there should always be Saves, even ever-increasing ones.
You'd be surprised how functional someone can be on even just 4hr sleep / day. That's about normal for soldiers on the lines in a war. Adventurers ought to be able to sustain themselves on the same amount of sleep. Not necessarily renew spells, but definitely fight and cast them and continue basic adventuring functions.
In our group we generally wing this sort of stuff, depending upon the circumstances.
I finally found the post I was looking for: 9-25-09
James Jacobs wrote:
Weapon Finesse ... would only apply when you're attempting a combat maneuver with that weapon.
SNIP
You wouldn't get this bonus to things like overrun, bull rush, or grapple that don't use a weapon attack.
Since one generally grapples with one's hands or other "light natural weapon", I'd argue that Finesse does apply then, particularly if you have already invested in Improved Grapple or Improved Unarmed.
You can't tell me that wrestlers, grapplers, aikido-ka and judo-ka lack finesse. Those arts are much more about finesse and dexterity than raw strength. That the point of all the training (represented as Feat slot expenditure IG).
Mosaic wrote:
What maneuvers would you use a finesse weapon for - disarm and sunder? Are there any finessable trip weapons?
Any weapon for Disarm. In my experience, a disarm technique is more about dexterity and finesse than strength, anyway, whether you're using a sword or your bare hands. Speed, technique and timing count, and you generally play off your opponent's tendency to over-commit. Strength is a non-issue to a properly executed disarm.
For Trip, definitely a spear, quarterstaff or any pole-arm. Same open-handed. Again, it's all about technique and leverage, not strength.
I personally combine Weapon Finesse/Agile Maneuvers anyway
I'll have to throw my hat in the "If Weapon Finesse doesn't apply then it should" camp. I fail to see how deftness and finesse with a light weapon suddenly goes away when you want to Disarm rather than Attack. If you're adept at using finesse, then you simply use it. By the same logic, Weapon Focus doesn't apply. "I know you're highly trained with this weapon, but only for attacking and you're back to basics when using it for anything else." Doesn't make sense.
Agile Maneuvers is weak and redundant, IMHO, and should be eliminated.
it's not quite clear what makes something a ring or a rod or a wondrous item.
You can add Arms and Armor to that list. What makes a Cloak or Robe inherently different than a Breastplate?
It's so much easier to just make them all the same and be done with it. This does mess with the economics and pricing more than a little, but since I'm in a House Rules low-economy and allow more realistic mercantile models, economies of scale and so forth, it's not an issue for me.
Since Weapons now scale like Wondrous Items the pricing gets potentially cheap for some powerful stuff ... until you consider the similar/dissimilar pricing rules. Enhancement bonuses don't count, but everything else does. Sure, you can pile a lot of "similar" effects on a sword pretty cheap, but after a while they become redundant, or you have a very expensive single-enemy-type weapon that leaves you defenseless (or "damge-less") against everyone else.
Wait, what? Aid Another on yourself? Aid Another is a standard action. How exactly do you get 2 standards in 1 rnd?
This is mostly a Skill thing, when a Synergy doesn't seem to quite apply or when multiple actions might be required or when the relationship is tangential but somehow seems appropriate.
It's an example of "winging-it" rules and is rarely ever done for anything initiative-based, anyway, so Actions-per-Round isn't an issue. That said, we don't have specific occasions when we applied it, except when it "feels right".
The tone and ambience of MST is pretty well suited to this with minimal conversion of the flavor text.
A Few More to Consider ... :
These came from a description search for "pool" and "water" as well as the Maure Castle stuff, which is coincidentally just the right level for your needs.
072 - Deep Trouble in Telthin - 70 - The city of Telthin is inexplicably flooding, and watery monsters are ravaging the lakeside while the local water-elementalist/Archmage has gone missing. Journey to the archmage’s retreat on the Elemental Plane of Water and free him from captivity and the grasp of a Marid Caliph who invaded his home.
094 - Map of Mystery: Priest-king’s Temple of the Water Serpent - Any - A large dungeon or temple complex features a throne room, several chapels, main pool and two minor ones, and summoning well.
101 - Map of Mystery: The Water Bird - Any - Dungeon temple complex to water deity, or layout of surface buildings surrounding a huge sacred pool or even garden.
112 - Maure Castle - 48+ - Super-sized Adventure: An entire issue dedicated to 4 levels of Maure Castle. 25 years ago Bigby & Mordenkainen entered this dungeon and slew Eli Tormorast. Now he’s resurrected and continuing his search of ancient lore and power with new allies and cults in his service. Retrace their steps through new guards and threats and stop his plans once more.
112 - Maure Castle, Pt 1: The Great Hall - 48 - Past the Unopenable Doors lies the first level, a grand entry hall and audience chamber. Roving guards, a few traps and a nasty construct fend off casual dungeon-crawlers.
112 - Maure Castle, Pt 2: Tormorast’s Hold - 48+ - Once the chapels of four separate Maure cults, eventually ruled by the psychic Purple Stone. After the cultists died and the stone lay dormant, Tormorast established his headquarters on this level and keeps his quarters here. Seeker guards patrol and the Purple Stone has reawakened.
112 - Maure Castle, Pt 3: Karzit’s Fane - 48+ - The lowest layer controlled by Tormorast, it is the headquarters of his Cult of Kerzit and his Claws of Yeenoghu allies, though the relations of these factions are strained at best. Also the home/prison of the demon Kerzit. Features a grand chapel, almost random corridors and rooms.
112 - Maure Castle, Pt 4: The Statuary - 48+ - An actual sub-level of Maure Castle itself, residing between the Chambers of Antiquities (above) and Family Crypts (below). Currently being investigated by Tormorast, but contested between a lich-general and a marid wizard, both former minions of the Maure. The real power, however, is the collected will of the Maure, manifested as the psychic Id Core.
139 - Maure Castle: The Greater Halls - 68 - A level of shrines, magical workshops, private treasuries and places for the Maure to rest or engage in personal activities.
He actually mentioned once, that if he were to let anyone DM ...
"... if he were to let ..." ????
He fails to understand that he is only one part of the Group at the table. It's a typical power-trip for lower-caliber DMs. Per his claim, he may indeed be the "best DM in the area", but then again he may be the only one as well ... "best" is not synonymous with "good".
I still say walk. If others follow (and from your backstory in post #21 it sounds like several might), then you have a new Group.
I can either suck it up, or walk away. For the moment, I'm going to suck it up.
SNIP
I'm inclined to go the 'game-breaking character' route. What do you say? What should I do?
Walk.
You're not going to enjoy the game. "Breaking" it is petty and spiteful and childish. You still won't have fun, but you will make certain that no one else will.
There are other groups out there. Go find one with rules that you like and people you enjoy.
The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb ... would make an ideal trek through the Lost Citadel to the Pools of Truth and Beauty.
Ooooohhhhhh !!!!! Never though of that.
So ... you don't know MST ?!?!?! What rock have you been hiding under?
MST is one of the all-time great dungeon-crawls. IMHO, it is better than ToH because it has the same level of cunning without the random Guess-or-Die traps.
Actually, it would make a great trek to the pools, then afterwards you might want an "in the void" adventure.
Perhaps I'll look for some other water/pool-themed stuff ... I was mostly focused on void/citadel in the last search.
As I understand it, the 'Aid-er' must be within reach of both the person to be Aided, and the target against which he is Aiding.
I disagree, and haven't seen that printed anywhere.
Imagine a Cleric and a Rogue flanking an enemy. The Cleric can't deal damage because of DR or some other factor, so instead he decides to Aid the Rogue by shouting at and distracting the enemy, making threats or "getting in the face of" his opponent, casting "fake-spells" as a free action (really, just invoking the name of his deity and "praying") that seemingly buff himself.
These and other tactics could distract the opponent, allowing the Rogue an additional +2 and the opportunity to more likely hit and bypass DR with his Sneak Attack.
They are entirely logical and valid despite the characters not being "within reach". After all, you're not necessarily grabbing ahold of the same weapon and swinging together.
Actually, I'd go farther and change the name of the condition to "overwhelmed" or something of the sort
This is a good idea. Make "overwhelmed" a condition using my suggestions above, but keep flanking specifically separate per RAW.
In the example, 2/8 Flank while 1 gets slightly lesser benefits from D being "overwhelmed".
Note that "conditions" affect the "affected", so you'll need to probably change the benefits of flanking so that when they add to "overwhelmed" they stack back to normal.
Not only do we play with it As Is, but we actually increase it.
However, consider this situation ... how to massive numbers of conscripts in an army take down Big Bads? Per RAW at a certain point it is almost impossible for them to score a hit, much less cause damage (even with Crits when you consider DR).
The answer ... massive stacking of Aid Another. By using a mob of "assistants" to Aid a "designated Attacker" the Conscript Army now stands a chance. Of course they will suffer massive casualties before they win, but eventually enough War1s should be able to mob a Giant or dog-pile a Dragon that they can eventually drag it down and defeat it. It may take thousands, but they should have a chance.
That said, I do not favor limiting Aid Another. In fact, we increased its benefits.
At our table we use an "extreme Aid" rule that, for every 5 points by which the Check exceeds the DC, an additional +1 is gained above the regular +2. This makes sense particularly in Skill checks, but can work in Combat as well. High Skill bonuses or high Attack bonuses should give more benefit when used this way.
Per Storm Raven above, it does not usually benefit PCs to Aid in combat (unless they can't do much else, perhaps due to DR, SR or other factors) but it's a great tactic if you have a few cohort or minions around.
Posts