One of the things I was thinking about was that the 11 primary roles are for the entire kingdom (1 each for the kingdom). There are however no doubt roles needed within various cities:
Such as:
Sheriff
Mayor
Governor
Judge
Magistrate
Chancellor
Someone that plans for city events
Someone that oversees construction or planning thereof
Someone that overseen facilities maintenance (such as sewers etc)
and other such ancillary roles.
These are not ideal for the PCs, but certainly important NPCs that have been good and loyal to the PCs would be ideal candidates for such roles as the players see fit.
I'm not thinking this from a "game mechanics" perspective (such as the way Treasurer, Marshall etc effects the kingdoms statistics) but certainly for a more robust roleplaying feel for aesthetics while the players build their kingdom up.
As a fan of the civilization console games, I was wondering if anyone has thought about or tried to add "Culture" to the Kingdom Building aspect of the campaign.
I have been wondering how it would fit into the phases and what could it produce for the kingdom.
I would be more than interested in such an AP centered on a mega-dungeon. UnderMountain and Rappan Athuk are two of my all time favorite D&D adventures.
I mirror someone's previous comment that Kaer Maga sounds like an ideal fit to be the city above the dungeon.
Other ideas:
Darklands
The lost continent of Azlant. (A dungeon beneath the waves of lost civilizations.)
I'm specifically interested (at the moment) in the archetypes and other such ability substitutions for the core classes, since that is what is being showcased in today's blog.
Robert, that's an interesting idea- I think I will use it. It sort of interferes with the foreshadowing of Nyrissa's involvement, but I sort of like your story better for immediate pay-off and more things for characters to interact with.
Hey all, so I place the Eant in the game as I described above.
However,
Spoiler:
first the PCs encountered the statue of Erastil in the other hex. On a whim I mentioned to a player who indicating they were carefully searching the base, that there was a long thin inverted cone shape indentation in the stone base.
One of the players figured out that it was the shape of a unicorn horn.
Further south they went where they encountered the eant I mentioned above.
I placed the eant
Spoiler:
In the hex where the dead unicorn is listed, and moved the dead unicorn one hex south - into a region outside the chartered area for book one; so as to have them not encounter it yet.
The eant told the PCs that the body of the horn's owner must be put into contact with the eant in order for it to be removed.
On a whim I mentioned to a PC who was concerned that the body would be rotten, that Unicorns never decompose; that provided their horn is still attached at the time of its death, the body dissapears to be reunited in the faerie realm. (the eant told them this).
So what I now need to know - what to reward the PCs with when they inevitably return to the stone base with the horn.
My first thought was for the statue to actually be a celestial messenger of Erastil in "Statue" form (see the spell Statue) who will become mobile upon the insertion and gift to the PCs a powerful bow.
Another thought is a portal opens and something comes through, or a secret chest is accessed etc.
All of which is a one-time affair. Afterwards the statue dissapears.
Another more devious thought was that once the unicorn's body is reunited with the horn, it disappears (as I mentioned above) to the Faerie Realm and the PCs are now faced with needing to find a live unicorn to see what the statue has in store - possibly allowing for a much more powerful use of the statue later in the campaign at a higher level.
Suggestion, ideas, or other potential uses of this statue are welcomed.
Here's the sort of colour I mean, this is a story attached to the ford below the Trading Post (this is for my homebrew setting of course, but you'll get the gist);
The Ford of Bones - Related by the Trapper 'Elven-Shoes' -
This is a great story RockH. I love the color and detail. It's a little tough for DMs who have a full plate of responsibilities to really write this much detail for several hexes, but it's good nonetheless. Thankfully the AP has many such hexes already written with good back-grounds etc. But it's a lot of work for someone like me to have the time to add that much detail - thats why APs are such a wonderful too (and other published modules) because it mitigates the amount of prep I and others like me would need to do.
On a related case - after writing something so creative and great like that - how do you convey this kind of info to the players when they stumble upon that locale? How do they learn all of that?
Huh. Dragons lost their immunity to frightful presence. That's... odd.
Hmm, i was just wondering that.
During the Age of Worms game which were using PF rules, a player asked - "Shouldn't these sorties of dragon attacks be causing them to possible flee each other in fear???"
I stopped to think about the ramification of such a thing with all those dragons in the rift doing their frontal assault and I concluded that such a notion would be the most assinine thing ever.
So I said "This just in......your knowledge of dragons reveals to you that they are immune to fear!"
there was something in 3.5 that mentioned dragons being immune /resistant to the FP of other dragons, and some classes got the ability "treated as a dragon for saves against fp"
no i gotta dig threw stuff
*edit, from the 3.5 srd
Frightful Presence (Ex): A young adult or older dragon can unsettle foes with its mere presence. The ability takes effect automatically whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead. Creatures within a radius of 30 feet x the dragon’s age category are subject to the effect if they have fewer HD than the dragon. A potentially affected creature that succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 dragon’s HD + dragon’s Cha modifier) remains immune to that dragon’s frightful presence for 24 hours. On a failure, creatures with 4 or less HD become panicked for 4d6 rounds and those with 5 or more HD become shaken for 4d6 rounds. Dragons ignore the frightful presence of other dragons.
Thank you N.V.
I wonder if that caveat is also true in the dragon description in the PF Bestiary official rules. I'll have to wait till I get home and can read the entry in the PF book.
Something I've often wondered - but it really came to the forefront of my mind while I was running Chapter 10 in Age of Worms (Wormcrawl Fissure) a couple weeks ago:
Are dragons affected by other dragons' fear aura?
Personally I'm surprised dragons are not immune to fear in general. I think they should be. This was a caveat that I added to dragons of late - just cuz I can.
But officially speaking I was wondering if this was ever taken into account.
The encounter sorties in that chapter with various colored dragons swooping in synchronised attacks made me wonder if they each need to be making saves against their "allies" aura.
Does anyone else think that making a dragon flee in fear and become panicked is utterly ridiculous? (magically compelled that is - obviously dragons are intelligent and bent on self-survival and have no qualms about retreating for self-preservation means - but that's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about magically being compelled to quiver and run like a wussy bi-otch).
One thing you failed to hit upon is that if you miss with the melee touch attack of the Inflict spell, the charge remains and you can try again next round if you wish. You cannot do this with searing light.
But you can with other touch spells like Shocking Grasp which the OP was using for comparison.
One of the reasons I think the spells need to have a save to balance them with other magic is that the damage they deal is generally less resisted than say magic that is of an element type.
It's generally pretty easy to obtain resistances to most damage type. Resistance to "inflict" spells is far less common - though I recognize that it does exist.
There have been some good points on this thread. In the end, I don't think it would work well. Some spells could benefit from it - but to be the norm than the exception I believe has too many what ifs and compatibility issues. To the OP, I would like to ask - in your idea, how would a Fireball IX differ from a FireBall III cast by an 18th level caster? If the the difference is that Fireball IX allows 9d6 and Fireball III allows 3d6 the amount of damage doesnt scale with the caster level, then all that does it makes the spells weaker, and have too many 9th level spells to choose from when you can really only memorize 2 or 3.
To Set - I like the idea of making some enhanced versions of spells like the bigger color spray, the multiple flaming spheres and touching additional targets w/ Shocking Grasp. That's some good suggestions. Still, there's no need for 9 different variations of the spells, however.
The precedence of Lesser and Greater versions already allow for three versions of a spell - which seems a good enough mix for most of them.
To Charender - the template idea is fantastic. I had never seen that before. I may try to find a way to incorporate that. Perhaps w/ a metamagic feat that allows "customizing" such things...... it may complicate things though. Still I do like the possibilities of the diversity.
To the OP - in short the reason why you won't see this in Pathfinder is that they are trying to stay similar and compatible with 3rd edition products of D&D. Changing that much of the magic system and spells would break any semblance of compatibility.
I will grant you your idea has merit in theory; but it's not pragmatic at all IMO.
You can allow the PCs to diplomatically speak to the Stag Lord to get him to surrender or some other agreeable means of truce.
Mechanics can be done as a "skill challenge" (for no better term) using Diplomacy. Grant the players a +1 to +5 on their check for how "good" or convincing their arguement is when they roleplay so as to make it important to have good interaction.
Make seven diplomacy attempts - against a stagnant DC (20 - 25 or so).
five failures means he goes into a drunken rage and orders the attack.
Success can lead to a number of scenarios.
1 option - since Stag Lord believes in Might Makes Right - perhaps after he's "convinced" he offers to surrender only to someone superior to him - so he asks the PCs for their best warrior to defeat his.
On the periphery - you don't want one player doing everything, so have events during that match that can use the other PCs. Perhaps they can control the crowd, see some of the loyalists conspiring to interfere, perhaps some non-combatants are trying to flee and being chased down by loyalists to be killed as desertes, make sure there's something for each PC to contribute to.
IF Stag Lord wins the duel have him order the others to attack the other PCs as he readies the killing blow - but at that moment have Akiros takle the Stag Lord and save the PC showing his hand as a redeemable fallen hero.
IF Stag Lord loses the duel Dovan looses an arrow to kill Stag Lord (finally to have command) and orders Auchs to attack the PCs.
The bottom line - the PCs still get to have a fight and kill some of the most despicable NPCs, and they get to bargain/deal with non-combat way to making the fight more fair (they aren't fighting all of the bandits AND Stag Lord at same time).
A good place to look for visual cues for this kind of character look is comics. You have dozens of highly athletic, combat-trained men and women running around in very sleek outfits. Discarding the Supermen and Wonder Women (whose strengths are definitely superhuman in nature) and going with the martial artist types (Batman, Nightwing, Captain America), we can see that size is not the most defining trait, it is muscular definition. One could easily argue that Batman and Nightwing have 16-18 Strengths, as they are routinely shown throwing grown men around and inflicting significant damage with their bare hands. Yes, I know that many will attribute that to their high levels in 'monk' or 'martial hero' or whatever, but the art gives us a pretty good idea, visually, that they are very strong men.
Usually, size is an attribute given to those characters that are harder to hurt. There are countless examples of dialogue that backs this up, where the hero thinks to himself how hard it will be to take down this particular foe, because of his size.
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.
A RL example in the NFL - often times the Strong Safeties are some of the strongest and/or hardest hitting players on the team; and they are of the Nightwing physique.
But they are not ape-like in appearance despite their strength. Their ability "to hit" easier comes from well defined muscles and learning techniques to bend properly, use the hips and attack/hit through the target enabling them to deliver bone-crunching hits. There's little fat on them - unlike say an Offensive Lineman - who are no doubt strong - but also beefy.
But take that same safety - he'd probably black out faster than say Shaquil O'Neal's size from the same hit. This backs up Necroluth's comment that the size allows for taking hits just as much or moreso meaning it's thier CON that gives them that size; like the big beefy guy in the movie Gladiator that took several arrows before going down. Yes he was strong, too, but his beefy size is what allowed him to endure all those arrows before succumbing to his injuries.
Finally - I would tend to agree to be cautious in micromanaging another's character to the point that you take away his/her control of their own PC resulting in loss of fun-factor.
Age of Worms had a great example of that at least twice that I can think of:
1)
Spoiler:
was the massive advanced CR20 carrion crawler - but was in a cave that was choked with spore releasing fungus (which the crawler was immune to) that caused per round Will saves or love wisdom due to the hallucinogenic property of the fungus.
That was the last encounter that happened in our campaign; getting ready to finish chapter 10. My players beat the creature by:
Spoiler:
after a few rounds of being quite feeble and ineffective against it, the wizard decided to end the fight. He cast Time Stop, Gate (solar angel), then dropped 3 delayed blast fireballs - [/times stop]
That was the difference maker. Sure the PCs did prevail - but it took almost all of the high level spells in the wizard's repertoire to defeat it.
and the other notable one was...
Spoiler:
The spell weaver lich. It could cast up to 6 spells a round - so long as each were 1st level. The hook on that is that it has 6 arms and could cast spells using a number of arms equal to the level of the spell - so any combo of spells that equaled 6 or one spell of 6 or more. Add Quicken Spell to its feat repertoire (which it didn't have) can make for a very nasty and well-prepared wizard BBEG encounter. Every round it could cast a bunch of defensive stuff - and still get in a jab or two.
I will overall mirror the sentiment of the other posts - location location location. Setting the scene to be on the BAD guys terms is usually the difference.
Use the creatures immunities and strengths to their advantages. Poison immunities fight in areas with poison, fire immunities in firey pits, flying creatures attacking while characters are climbing the side of a mountain etc.
Just as nature in our world takes advantage of its surroundings, creatures in the fantasy RPG world would do the same.
Spoiler:
like the pyroclastic dragon in Shackled City that you encounter when in a lava filled cavern!
White dragons for instance - are smart enough to know that their vulnerbility to fire is a well known fact to would-be dragonslayer heroes - such a creature would naturally take steps to mitigate that disadvantage.
The benefits of not using the minis are defined above - and it definitely speeds up play.
The downside to it is that the tactics of the game do include alot of emphasis on things such as AoO and feats/tactics that build on that - the 5'steps the casting defensive, the Step Up, Stand Still feats, Combat Reflexes etc.
In short - a lot of the combat rules and tactics therein are hinged on the use of them to make AoO, threatened squares and movement an intregal part of the game.
By not using minis and abstracting using narrative descriptions, it does tend to diminish the role of these aspects and feats within the game.
There CAN be some unbalancing factors when you do that. No always; not even most of the time, but it could be the case; and I just wanted to point that out. Some creatures, and some character (builds) and tactics rely heavily on these.
Now, if everyone can live with the idea that the emphasis on such things is okay to be mitigated, then no harm no foul; but at least be aware of the plausible side effect of not using them and how it will affect that part of 3.x rules.
Just for a little follow up help to the OP; I think the important thing is that once you're comfortable enough with the mechanics, you can start to do a lot of the narrative visualization in your head without minis.
It's just a learning curve from 2nd/1st edition to the tactics in 3rd that is the trick.
I think it's easier to get a mental picture in the beginning by using the grid and minis until you're comfortable enough with guesstimating how far one can move and how hard it would be to avoid AoOs or get into flanks for different benefits, as well as issues such as reach and area of effect spells.
My issue with reflex save is that people assume you are dodging completely out of the area, etc... I know the rules imply this but the reflex save could also reflect some of the following.
1) Crouching behind your shield to cover your body from some of the blast.
2) Ducking and covering to minimize body area exposed to the effect.
3) Twisting and turning to avoid the larger archs of energy and only being struck by smaller burst or grazed.
4) Putting less vital body parts infront of more vital body parts. Folding your arms over your face. Sure your forarms may be burned but far better than taking a fireblast directly to the face.
5) Holding your breath quickly enough to avoid inhaling flames and burning the tender tissue inside the lungs.
6) Momentarily dropping prone to and allowing the blast/effect to go over the body. This is just a variant of minimizing the amount of body surface exposed to the effect.
7) Squating down behind a chair or leaning behind a tree trunk momentarily to gain some cover from the blast.
I dont think a reflex save is supposed to always reflect leaping completely out of the area of effect.
Absolutely! I was going to mention the same thing.
Pulling cloak protectively over face is another.
Furthermore, saving throws also contain a smidgeon of luck (hence the dice rolling). Luck could be anything - for instance, you happen to be standing in a cave and a low hanging stalagtite happens to deflect much of the energy, or a gust of wind blew some of it away from you, or a tree branch happens to be hanging nearby and took the brunt of it. etc.
In short, the luck factor is all the intangibles that play a role in so many things that happen, that could potentially be any number of "thank god this or this happened...."
It's far from perfect, but I just don't have a 3-D battlemat the size (and height) of my living room...
But wouldn't it be awesome if you did?
I wonder how that would look like.
for aerial creatures we stand the mini on a dice container (cube) It's hollow, too, so if the person is flying/hovering/levitating above another person you can turn cube upside down over the grounded mini (provided it's not a really big one).
Personally, I usually rule once per attack, since he is reaching through the barrier 3 times. If he'd moved into the barrier and attacked up close, then I'd only do one attack, but he'd get one attack at the beginning of each round after that, for staying in the barrier.
Neither.
It does provide a cover bonus +4 to AC and +2 to Reflex saves, but does not damage attacks made through it.
Like someone said above - while it may makes sense realistically, as rules are written for the purpose of the game, attacking through something doesn't cause damage - only moving through it.
I have a crafty player in my AoW campaign (18th level currently) who has tried some things w/ this spell.
I need some help on how it's suppose to actually work.
This is what he's done on various scenarios:
1)
Made the spell in ring shape over a gargantuan creature. He indicated it should be taking double damage since the blades are whirling around and slicing into to him twice with each revolution (near the head and again near the back).
2)
Made the ring so that huge creature has one end of the ring going through him towards the back of the creature, but creature is backed against the wall; in the spell's description it says that when the spell is cast a reflex save allows the creature to move to one side or the other of the ring, but the only way it could move would be forward to be in front of the ring, and if it move to the "other side" of the portion of the ring that was hitting it (which would result with most of the creature inside the ring) the creature would then be in the AoE of the front part of the ring. (The creature was so big that it couldn't fit inside.) The player insisted that the creature would move out of the back part of the ring and land into the front part of the ring. Thus even with a save, the creature would still not be able to avoid damage. I argued that the creature would be allowed to move (with the successful save) all the way to in front (or to the side if it were possible) of the front part of the ring avoiding it and the damage completely.
3)
Place a ring in a way so that a creature was force to intersect both ends of the ring (for instance readying to cast in front of a flying creature that had little manueverability to avoid moving out of the way) and taking double damage because it had to intersect the blades twice (again at opposite ends).
FWIW, I still have a lot of nostalgia for earlier editions (w/o minis), but do enjoy the tactics involved with 3rd/PF.
What I do is, simplest combats, I'll do narratively w/o minis and I can still do so quite well in regards to keeping in mind where things are in relativity. And then more complicated ones, I'll draw out and use minis for.
Usually this equates to about 20% of combats w/o minis - the others with. It's also a nice change of pace.
As Blake said - it is harder for the tactics-heavy combat rules to be used effectively w/o minis. But often times, combats are quicker w/o since you don't have players ruminating over which path/squares to click off like they were playing chess/monopoly or something.
One of the things I have dont to "speed up" minis play in combats, and also add back some of that narrative nostalgia that you indicated is missing, is have the players describe the characters actions and movement before touching his mini to move it.
This mitigates the amount of someome moving the mini a square then thinking about it, and moving back and saying "wait" then trying a different approach and saying "wait" and then another etc etc.
Instead just have them describe what they're doing and where they're going - then have them move the mini to that location. Then as GM, you can determine if they had enough movement to manuever w/o need of AoO.
For instance "I move across the cave towards *ogre 1* tumbling past *ogre2* to duck under his club"
Vs
[hand on mini] "I move here.....5, 10, (diagonal) 15, (diagonal) 25, 30. Okay I attack"
"hmmm you moved past his (ogre 2) reach, he attemtps to hit you with his AoO."
"Wait - I could tumble past.....I'll move 5, 10, 15, (tumble) 25, 30....."
I don't know if Alchemist is allowed in Society play. I assume not, since it's still a Beta class. However, I think it will become allowed once the APG is published. If they don't change or clarify the Alchemist class ability, it may therefore become an option to have Potions of Shield in Society play.
Blake -- yes Alchemist is currently a viable option for PFS (as are the other classes being tested) - which are subject to be modified in year 2 of PFS in August when the Advanced Players Guide is released and updates to the classes within are finalized.
The last four PFS mods I've played in there have been either a Summoner, Alchemist, or Cavalier, or more than one of these in combination.
As others have indicated - this is a bad idea IMO as well. Once again, this benefits the archers and casters who can 5' step back and unload, but puts additional burdens on melee guys who cannot make use of his iterative attacks unless he only moves 5' (or less); punishing him for doing so and finding a tactical advantage with that restriction to allow his attacks further hamstrings him - unfairly and unnecessarily.
Nightwish wrote:
2. Lightning spells
As i mentioned in a previous post - this definitely has cool real world physics application to it - it's an unnecessary complication of the rule, but it won't unbalance anything and adds flavor.
Nightwish wrote:
3. Reflex saves on area-effect spells
While this makes sense, I dont' know if it's the right thing to do. One it complicates the round, Two, it complicates movement (attacks of opportunity) Three, how will it be abused? "I'm in this area surrounded by bad guys, I need to get out of this quick - I have a high REF save, wizard buddy drop a fireball on me so I can navigate out of here quickly" Four, in dungeon and other tighter places, there's never room to avoid the AoE; especially when the AoE is big - cone of cold or Widen Spell Feat.
The other side of the coin is that it does provide some measure of help for Evoc spells which are as everyone indicates significantly weaker than many othe spell choices.
The reason for this dates back to earlier editions; fireball for instance use to fill and area - not just a ball - so in tight spaces it would fill a volume - down cooridors, around corners etc until it filled a volume; so if the ceiling was low, it could really spread out. There was no evasion. Energy resistance was a lot more rare. People stopped rolling hit points at 9th level and no more CON modifiers were applied after 9th level, not to mention, +2 was the max con non fighters could have to their hit points. Compile that to Pathfinders increase of hit die type for arcane casters and rogues, equates to significantly more hit points for targets, evasion for rogues, and lots of availability for resistance to energy makes the spells subpar. A 10d Fireball in 2nd edition was VERY nasty and everyone at the table swallowed loudly when a wizard pulled out that sulphur. Now a 10d Fireball vs 12th level encounter is paltry.
An easier fix IMO would be making evoc spell damage 1d6+1 per level. And/Or give a penalty to Reflex saving throws based on if there is room to navigate; not forcing movement though.
Another house rule to make evoc spells valuable again (one that I've experimented with in a number of different ways) was making evoc energy damage cause a Condition with a failed save. Spells that leave lasting conditions are far more attractive. The condition lasts for a number of rounds equal to the level of the spell. Shaken, Sickened, Fatigued are all good examples of what can be left in effect after getting frozen, burnt, electicuted, or fried by acid etc. Have one condition for each energy type. HINT: Make acid the weakest of all the conditions; since it's the first choice people use Energy Substitution for (in games that have that feat as an option).
If I remember correctly, in 2nd ed, when lightning bolt hit water, it turned into a sphere effect. IE it becomes a lightning ball similar in size and shape to a fireball.
You are correct - it acted like a fireball in size.
I do like his idea of lightning in water. It's an unnecessary complication, but it has a cool factor.
You could modify the 5 foot step rule to consider difficult terrain like water, ice, stairs, etc. and consider it a double move that provokes a AOO in those environments. You can also consider moving backwards as difficult terrain, as you don't know where you are going.
That way you make it consistent for everyone based on terrain, and add another dimension to your game.
That's already the case. You cannot 5' step into DT.
The simplest method is still the fact that rules specifically state that making money by crafting magic items is not allowed.
You can chock up the reason for this by:
fees for licenses, taxes, advertisement, supplies replenishing, rent or purchase / mortgage on acceptable workshops, security to prevent theft, extortion from the rogues guild that "protects" the wizards shop from their own larceny etc.
I did like the Profession idea.
I would incorporate that by indicating that the wizard would be able to use Profession: Merchant to make money above breaking even.
So he makes a 10,000 gp item, he spends 5000 to make it, and he can sell it for 5000 (assuming the other 5000 goes for the aforementioned overhead costs), and then roll a Profession check that for that day/week/month (whatever period of time the skill uses) and whatever the result he pockets that amount (which isn't much).
Under no circumstances should the player be allowed the chance to make magic items and sell them more than 1/2 listed price to make a profit and outgain his companions in the wealth by level arena.
Other characters can use craft or profession skills to make money during those weeks/months, too. But again these amounts equate to pennies.
And fighters definitely have their share of expenses in upgrades to armor/shields/weapons.
Did anybody consider inherent "big 6"-like bonuses on magic items? I mean that a magical item, for example, in addition to its normal effect grants a slot-typical bonus equal to half its gold value in addition to its stated effect.
By this system:
Ring of Evasion (25000gp)
- additionally grants deflection bonus to AC equal to half its gp-cost, i.e. 12500gp rounded down to nearest deflection bonus of 2. In other words a ring of evasion also grants +2 deflection AC.
This is a good thought, LoreKeeper. Indeed I have thought about how to do that very thing. You provide an excellent example of how this could be balanced.
However - I agree with the person who cautioned against it - it does create a derivation from the WealthByLevel concept.
Even if you're not increasing the cost/value of the ring, if you're not getting a ring worth that much until 10-12th level or so, then you're well past the time a +1 and even +2 ring would be readily found/available and needed in a standard game/campaign.
At higher levels, it wouldn't make too much of a difference; it's those 2nd through 10th levels where it's common to spend 4-10 k on items such as rings of prot, cloaks of resist, and amulets of nat armor. And most tables spend the bulk of their games at 2nd - 10th level.
The other problem that comes with this idea is this: players will resort to picking up / crafting / or gravitating towards the highest costing items that they can have. The more one min/maxes, the more he'd be apt to do this. Cloak of Arachnida (14k) will be discarded for a cloak of the bat (26k) - since the resistance bonus is 1 higher for the latter. Suddenly the primary functions of the cloak/amulet/ring is not as vital. And one of the reasons for looking for ways to eliminate the Big 6 (which is to provide a way for players to have more flavorful magic items that take up those slots) becomes moot.
I'll admit this is a cynical way of looking at it - but I am not the craftiest smartest min/maxer by far - and yet it was the first thing I thought of; so I know if I came up with it, there are others who would have complete spreadsheets showing the best cost analysis for what items provide the best ancillary abilities at the lowest cost to obtain the plus you're needing/wanting.
Aside from that; I do think that your idea has merit and makes good sense.
For me - I'd rather just make the "implied" mechanics part of the character advancement. Like BAB or base saves.
I dont like my games ultra deadly, and I dont like consistent failure when playing to my characters strengths. If either is the case I wont enjoy the game. And both are very much the case with a lack of the big six.
Not really, and I think Trailblazer's analysis of the math demonstrates this rather nicely. Of course, we're talking about big tables with lots of decimals that can't be translated into a forum with ease, so, you know, whatever. I'm easy. :)
I will have to take your word for it as i've not read their analysis, so untill I do, i'll go with the numbers i've seen for myself.
And it's worth noting that - by Mark's own admission - the system "CAN WORK" without the big 6 IF you tweak the system in a few places and add action/hero/fate points to the mix.
Thus - the system as written does not work with the removal of the Big 6 without providing other interventions/changes to compensate.
Which is the very essence of the point of this thread I think.
I don't feel the system I use is overly-complicated at all. It does remeove the big 6 and it compensates well for it; and the tweaks are minor indeed. The game as written with using CR appropriate creatures is no impossible - but only players who enjoy truly struggling and never being "heroic" in flavor would enjoy the game.
The Midnight Setting by Fantasy Flight Games was a very good and solid representation of a magic-light 3rd edition game. But the removal of the magical items was compensated by character races, classes, and heroic paths adding a lot of extra umph to the characters. And the Midnight specific creatures were not as powerful as the Beastiary creatures of the same CR. However, this is an example of wholesale changes to the rules to adjust for the lack of magic in the game. Darksun did this as well - but replaced magic with a heavy dose psionics.
Personally, I'd say if you want to house-rule a huge homerun with the nerfbat more or less solely aimed at casters, go for it. Just don't expect to have any casters amongst your players, and expect your PC's to die a LOT more as a result. I'd play in such a game, but there is a 0.0% chance that I'd play a caster.
Well I still contest that this sort of wholesale change can work successfully - and has for my own games for the past few years - given the changes I suggested.
The keys points are a high-magic stat build starting point (20 point buy not 15) and an increase of stats every even level.
Remember the Fox's Cunning and a stat boosting item doesn't stack, so a person wearing a +4 INT headband would never benefit from the spell.
A 12th level wizard wearing one under normal Pathfinder rules (starting with 18, adding 1 at 4th and 8th, and 12th and a +4 item giving him 25) would be comparable to a 12th level character in my campaign (starting w/ 18, adding 1 at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th for a total of 24) but by wearing no magic item, freeing up money and slots for other benefits. By starting with more point buy, it allows the player to fill in some of the weak points of stats at the beginning rather than trying to fill them in with a couple of +2 ability items later.
My system does not hit spellcasters or anyone with a big nerfbat as you may be concerned with.
By the logic being suggested the wizard should be able to fireball at will since the fighter can swing each round -- and the fighter could do with a 75% failure rate since that's what is acceptable for the wizard -- except his rate of failure won't increase as much as the wizard's does without the stat boosting items.
For the record - I never agreed or argued that a 75% failure rate for a wizard (or any other creature for that matter) is my idea of a fun game.
Finding that balance and sweet spot of what is acceptable is quite elusive. Make it too much and wizards can realy overshadow gameplay. At high level play - this is already a usual occurence. Make it too low and the wizard's player is going to be frustrated.
As for wands in combat - yes - bad choice - but spells that aren't level dependant, and/or spells that don't have a save or aren't being cast on the critters allow for more of the fireball et al spells to be in one's memorized repertoire.
Sorcerors have far more uses daily of those types of spells as a side note - where as wizards will tend to have more utilitarian spells to compliment his offensive power.
But concerns of the 15 minute adventuring day and wizards/sorcerers using their alloted daily power with failures (moreso than a fighter) is truly understood and I won't deny that.
For me personally - a balance would be 25% failure for the most potent spells and about 75% for the weakest (given a typical 10th level wiz). That sounds about right - finding the balance to get that to work is the tricky part.
The biggest difference is the more the wizard casts the less useful he is. The fighter doesn't lose usefulness just from using his ability (attacking). As the wizard loses effectiveness and spends more spells to get the same effect his endurance slacks off more too -- and the worse part is the more of his high level stuff he uses the less the rest of what he has is going to do in addition to being less likely to do anything.
The fighter swinging 2~7 times in one round (depending on build and level) has a greater chance of having some effect -- of dealing some damage, even if he doesn't hit with every swing. The wizard that casts a spell and doesn't affect his target gets nothing else -- he's done. No effect no usefulness and now he's weaker for the rest of the day due to lack of chance to try it again.
Great points Abraham; and I agree completely. But it's balanced by the fact that some or all of a fireball to a large number of critters, but fewer times per day is on par with 4 attacks in a full attack (no movement allowed) that will most likely do something to at least one creature.
And while a fighter spends his coin on armor and weapon upgrades to continue to act at the maximum potential, the wizard is hopefully spending the same amount of coin on wands and staffs to "fill in the gaps" so to speak for those rounds that he doesn't want to use his own resources or go nova in a combat.
My point is and was - there's not a whole lot of difference in the end when each character type still has a "wasted round" if you don't succeed in your action. The fact that fighter doesn't "waste resources with failed attempts" is offset by his successes are usually not as combat changing as the wizards' successes with his favorite tactics.
First, I agree wholeheartedly that the Big 6 are not only crucial, but fundamentally assumed into the core mechanics of the game - the more one is involved w/ min/maxer players/DMs, the more true it is part of the needed equation. An encounter/module of a certain level assumes that these bonuses are somehow incorporated into the character. Even if perhaps the creature doesn't have ALL of the 6; they couldn't survive without any of them.
This creates 1_) a blah sense of magical gear 2_) this creates a breakdown in mechanics when a player-character among a party of 5 opts to craft/purchase/wear items that are flavor based and substandard on the mechanics being portrayed here.
A DM who wants a magic lite game will need to compensate by lowering the CRs of creatures being used. One of the easiest fixes (for a DM) is to use a more quantity of creatures, but of less CR each. Three ogres instead of 1 troll for instance.
Another fix is if we assume that these bonuses are fundamentally implied at a given level and are dependant on equipment to be effective at a particular level, then provide the benefits sans equipment as part of the character's normal progression. Which is precisely what I and my group has been doing for the past couple years. I detailed it further in THIS THREAD.
I have been thinking about running a campaign that did not include the various ability enhancing spells and perhaps items. I think I would leave the various Tomes in the game.
Here's what I have been doing for the past couple years - I started this when Pathfinder Alpha playtesting first began.
I removed the stat boosting items and buffing spells (owls, bulls, etc) from the game.
To compensate, I allow the "high magic" version of the stat generation system suggested by Pathfinder, and allow a stat boost at every even level. (So it's feats at every odd, and stats at every even).
Tomes are still available.
@ Freesword
Furthermore, in regards to the "big 6", I incorporated +1 Deflection bonus (to AC) and Resistance bonus (to saves) to everyone at every 4 levels, and a +1 natural armor bonus at every 5 levels.
This removes the rings of prot, cloaks of resist, amulet of nat armor, and the stat boosting items, and have had to make no changes to CR, ELs or other mechanics of monsters/encounters etc.
It has worked quite well - and it's provided much more variety and flavor in the character's magic items and builds.
The one thing you do have to change is NPC/monsters. Such as a powerful Barbarian Fire Giant or something - who wears a Belt of Giant
Strength +4, etc.
All I do instead: take the creature's current HD, and compare to the stock creature (listed in Beastiary/MM) and use the difference in HD to add the aforementioned per HD/level adjustments. So a FireGiant w/ 8 levels of barbarian would have a +4 to add to his stats, a +2 Def and Resistance to saves, and +1 Nat armor.
If such a creature was a highlighted NPC in the module, chances are he's going to have magical equipment worn that provide these bonuses anyways (if not, more). Then you can re-equip with other equipment that may benefit him instead - such as cold resistance cloak or something.
The creatures that do suffer a little are dragons - since their HD that goes up really isn't above the "stock" creature - it just puts them into the next age/size category. How to compensate for the Dragotha and Ilythanes of the campains that have rings of protection and cloaks of resistance and amulets of wisdom etc. I have found that if you add a +1 to a stat for each age category it's pretty balanced (not a +1 to each stat for each age category - just 1 point to add to any stat per age), and +1 to deflection and natural armor per 2 age categories, and you come out about right for the bosses BBEG dragon encounters.
First, my opinions align nicely with Abe's on casters really getting the short end of this. Without boosted stats, save DC's on Wizard/Sorcerer spells are generally very easy to make. People talk a lot about how strong wizards are (and rightly so, in many ways), but there's not enough focus on the fact that wizards can and very often do spend a standard action in order to do nothing at all, or so close to nothing so as to make no difference. Just taking Fireball for instance: It's a very overrated spell, granted, but if enemies fail to save it can do some decent (just decent, no better) AoE damage. With every enemy that saves, the effectiveness of the spell (and thus, the action, and thus, the turn) drops drastically. The same concept can be applied even more so to any "save negates" spells. Spells "sticking" to enemies and having the desired effect is the caster's bread and butter - it's their core mechanic.
How is this any different/worse than a non-caster making a move/charge to go attack and misses with the attack roll?
An attack roll is essentially a save for no effect. And most of the time a failed save is worse than a successful move/attack.
A fireball (and others like it) will have some marginal effect against something most of the time. A warrior may be at least marginally effective against something with a series of attacks during a full-attack.
I don't see a glaring difference - the mechanics are different, but in theory it's still random chance to do something, or nothing.
Making Save DC's = 10 + 1/2 caster level + primary stat mod would take away a lot of the sting from no stat boosters, and make low level spells from a 20th level caster stronger than from a 5th level caster in one fell swoop.
Caution:
The 20th level caster's low level spells will have a higher DC simply via a higher ability score than a 5th level caster would have (99% of the time). So by adding half-caster level, you're increasing the DC from two directions making a greater power curve.
If you are badly hurt, is it your job to get back to the cleric, or is it the cleric's job to get to you?
...and if there was ranged healing, is this quandary then moot?
Shield Other as someone pointed out is a fabulous means. It's especially effective when cast by a paladin - who can then fix his half of the damage via swift action lay on hands. Or as the recipient he can do so and allow the cleric to heal his own half wherever he is during the battle. In either case Shield Other involving a paladin is a great combo.
They are a group of independant warriors who attended/graduated etc from the Aldori Swordfighting school - set up initially by the first Swordlord Aldori. The first settlers of Rostland were colonists from Taldan - under the leadership of Baron Sirian First.
The hand-picked members swear to a Swordpact where it is forbidden for them to teach the fighting techniques to those who have not sworn to the swordpact.
The group were feared throughout the continent and ruled Rostland until the Surtovas arrived.
Afterwards, most of the swordlords wandered elswhere as sell-swords etc, but some remain and the school remains.
To the people in the south, they are viewed as heroes or champions and they hold political power only via their heralded celebrity status or put another way - they are a hero of the people, but are not officially in charge; they just have a lot of influence over the people of Rostland. They oppose the Surtovas (and Choral for that matter), but do not have the capability or armies to overthrow them (yet).
Which is precisely why they're wanting the PCs to help expend their influence and kingdom via the Kingmaker path. With that in place, it is assumed they'll have their ally and strength and power to make a vie for the thron of all Brevoy or at least re-liberate Rostland as independant from Issia.
This info I got from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book. There's feat in there called Aldori Dueling Mastery that has these feats as the prereqs:
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Greater Weapon Focus (Aldori
dueling sword), Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (Aldori
dueling sword), Weapon Specialization (Aldori dueling
sword), base attack bonus +12, proficient with Aldori
dueling sword, member of Aldori school.
So needless to say that Aldori Swordlords were badass hombres with a sword.
The bank didn't hold any funds etc - it wasn't a bank-card - it was a Mastercard credit card - which has been cancelled - no charges allowed. They're just transferring the balance etc to a new card and number.
As soon as I get that - I'll update Paizo's records.
Anything labeled with a "P" in Nethys's Archive should be PFS-legal.
HOWEVER, if you're playing at a convention, remember that you're supposed to have the actual book or a printout from an official Paizo PDF file for anything non-Core. "I found dis on da Internet" won't cut it. :-)
Thanks Hogarth!!!! That's a fantastic resource. JUST what I needed.
Is there a wiki or other "one-stop resource" that includes all of the society legal traits and/or race-based equipment etc that is allowed? Something equivalent to like an SRD?
I noticed that in the allowed resources mentioned as legal for society play, that they are scattered in a lot of different sources.
Last week on Friday I was contacted by my credit card company (of which is currently on file for use for my Paizo subscriptions) due to suspicious activity.
As it turns out, there were some fraudulent charges made by someone for online purchases. That is now corrected, but it leaves me with no active credit card - that account is now cancelled, and I am awaiting a new card.
In the interim, I have no card number to provide you.
I am concerned about May's order. Have you already received payment for May's order (which should also include a few flip-mats I added to the monthly shipment)? I do not yet have access to PDF of Kingmaker 3, so that usually indicates I have not yet been charged, but my card company did tell me there was a recent charge made by Paizo Publishing - so I'm just making sure there will not be a problem this month.
EDIT: ...or that the company didn't include Paizo in the group of "fraudulent" charges and try to take money back from you....
At any rate I should have a new card this week, and will update your records accordingly.
One thing that might make it a little more realistic is if higher level casters were required to maintain more expensive spell pouches. They are casting a lot more and have many more spells which require components so it makes sense.
This makes perfect sense. Not sure if it's implementation is practical or how to do it though.
0gre wrote:
Regardless, by the time you can cast the spell your wizard is 11th level, whether it costs 1gp or 10gp is really pretty irrelevant by that point unless, that's generally a rounding error in your total wealth.
But this misses the point of my original post / query. I'm not taking umbrage with whether such a character would be able to afford them at that point - my umbrage was with the ability to circumvent the material component need w/ the feat Eschew Materials. If they cost 10gp, sure it's affordable, but they're still needed even by a wizard with that feat. And Eschew Materials isn't always about 'not having one'. Sometimes you're already in a form that cannot have access to your equipment, or in a situation or condition (like pinned) that you cannot access the component pouch.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that the restriction that you need the "right" color scale is also moot via that feat.
Posts
Robert Brambley
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
