Robert Miller 55's page

If you don't mind inofficial, and sometimes spoilertastic, I have something for you:

My wallpapers

Nice!

NVM. Your e-mail about my sub answered my question. Move along, more interesting things are down the road.

My finances are finally going back towards the good again, so I have renewed my PF subscription. Can you tell me what my first issue will be? #18 will be fine with me, if that is doable.

Actually the new version of LA that is going to be published through Mongoose's Flaming Cobra imprint is the last thing Gary was working on that is going to be published.

I'm not interested in it, but for those who want everything Gary did...

Hey Robert:

One more clarification. You only get the free PDFs for the items that ship as part of a subscription. You don't get the free PDFs for issues that you missed in the past but are catching up on now. Just wanted to make sure everything was clear.

Good to have you back!

-Lisa

Yes, I understood that. Which is why I am going to offset that by getting my back print issues via Amazon and then buy the PDF's from you guys, so not nearly as good as if I had been able to maintain my subscription, but it minimizes the extra costs to me for having to cancel for awhile.

It will be good to be back, I have been reading up on what I have been missing, and darn does it look awesome! Just shows I was right in being so reluctant to cancel in the first place.

OK, thanks!

About a year ago I had to cancel my subscription, which started with issue 1 through the second story arch. I am very confident I'll be able to start it back up in March (my take home income will jump over $400/month then). When I start it back up will I still get the free PDF's, etc...? (NVM, I read your subscription info and see that I will.)

Plus is your back inventory deep enough I should be able to slowly buy all the issues I have missed? Will I be able to apply my subscriber discount when I buy the PDF's?

I'll have to look into this, because if I am not allowed to print a PDF for personal use, no matter where, then I should quit buying PDF's.

Add me to the list for wanting those canvas maps at that price range, or even a little higher.

Maybe it would be advisable that casters get the feature to use their casting ability (Sorcerers, Bards: Charisma; Wizards: Intelligence; Druids, Clerics, Paladins and Rangers: Wisdom) for spellcraft checks rolled in order to concentrate. That would put them all on equal level, and I think it even makes sense, since that ability is the part of their mentality they have to focus on.

Not to mention there is plenty of precedence set in 3E, which Pathfinder is part of, for DM's to make a call based on what makes sense to them. So your DM is more than within his rights to look at your situation and character concept and allow you to base your Concentration checks off of whatever attribute makes sense. However it is your DM's call, not yours, and if they say that you should have to deal with this short coming then thats what you have to do.

I remember reading plenty of stuff in Dragon where if CHA for a half orc trying to intimidate didn't make sense a DM could allow STR to be used instead. Dragon was/is considered "canon", correct?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok this is the last time I will bring this up but can we please go with 4 skills ranks per level as a min?

I just want to go on record as opposed to upping the skill points. Ranks in skill represent exceptional ability in the skill already. I think the push to add skill points is coming from people who prefer their heroes to be god-like. I like my heroes to be heroic because they do heroic things, not because they know everything and are experts at everything already. I agree with those who think that upping the skill points for all classes makes all the characters generic and interchangeable, and thus no fun.

Please, please, please leave the skill point progression as it is. It's not broken, it's just a style-of-play complaint, which as has already been pointed out can be taken care of by them for their own campaigns with a home rule. It's easy to add skill points for campaigns where that's the style, but impossible to take points away from players for those campaigns where it's not wanted. Upping the skill points for the game will lock all of us who prefer it the other way into a system we don't like, but leaving it does not lock in those who want it increased.

You know the opposite is true? That if PF changes Skill points to a minimum of 4 you can house rule it back to 2?

Again I am amazed that skills are so powerful as to contribute to being "god like". I don't know, I find an exceptional person, with say an 18 INT and 17 DEX as being perfectly capable of having a lot of knowledge as well as physical skills.

Lets see what do I know?

Kempo Karate
Pottery making
Faceting and cabbing gemstones/jewelry making
Degrees in Biology and Psychology with minor credits in Anthropology, Political Science, English, Probability and Statistics, and History.
I know how to competently fire rifles and handguns as well as basic care and repair, and I can even reload my own ammo.
I know basic wall climbing
I know how to make fires and forage for food in the wilds, and I am pretty darn good at hunting and tracking.
Animal Husbandry
Basic Car repair (brakes, radiators, spark plug changing, oil changing, changing out alternator, water pump, etc...)
I know basic carpentry, flooring, roofing, dry wall hanging, piping/plumbing, etc....
In the Navy I learned electronics, hydraulics, pneumatics, and a bunch of other stuff.
Running a business.

Do I have an 18 INT or 17 DEX? Nope, far from it. My IQ is 118. So maybe a 12 or 13? My DEX is a 12 at best. So how many skill points do I have? At what ranks? Certainly more than 2 points as my base. What class would I be? Probably Fighter?

I am certainly not god like with all my skills, just exceptionally educated/trained. No reason why an adventuring PC couldn't be as well. Unless they only have 2 points as their base.

White Rock is pretty self contained, you can pretty much stick it anywhere in Golarion, even near the starting point for the Runelords. In fact I would love to run a game combining the Runelord adventures with what is in Castle Whiterock. I think that would be AWESOME!!

I would be happy with just Cha mod+1 smites per day with the ability specifically saying "this ability is not used up on a miss." and the ability to dump Cha mod worth of smites on a standard action. If those two things were added to the pathfinder rules I would consider the paladin a success. Now Ideally I would also like spontaneous casting, but I'm willing to accept those two changes.

The skill point discussion I'm holding off on because I want all classes to have a min of 4 now that they don't get the first level boost.

I think that would work fine as well. The main thing is giving the Paladin more chances to Smite. Your way with the caveat of "not expended when strike is missed" is comparable to my example if you assume a 11 or better is needed to hit on average. So a 50/50 chance of use, which would make my example of 8 times per day 4 EFFECTIVE uses per day, since only half would likely hit. Yours would be better if their CHA is 18. 5 Smites per day. Add in a Splendor spell and they could get in a couple of more.

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.

In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.

So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.

That's an interesting approach - and I can see it working for some people. I'm sure my group would be very responsible with that.

But I don't think it is in spirit with what a number of gamers want - and it is for them that we need to work out how to have a decent set of guidelines that that DM can then say 'we're removing this element for my game' etc.

Conan

I have yet to have a problem with a player having total control over their PC's attributes. Its the DM's who claim they "break their game", etc... Which I can see happening if they don't know how to adjust the creatures/NPC's to account for it.

Curiously, out of the dozens of players I have had over the years, they were actually uncomfortable with making their attributes too high. I only had one make all of his attributes "18", and he did it because he would likely never have a chance with another DM to find out what it was like. To add to the irony his character was the first to die in the campaign. Partly because he thought his higher attributes made it more likely he would survive. He was right, but the die rolls went against him and even his exceptional AC, HP, and to hit were not enough to save him, but it did make things much more survivable for the rest of the party.

As far as making this work foe "everyone", it can. Just learn how you, as the DM, need to adjust your encounters to account for the extra liklihood of hitting, missing, and greater HP. Then let the players create the characters they want, with the attributes they want.

I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.

In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.

So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.

Smite Evil once per day per level + CHA modifier (So a 5th lvl Paladin with 18 CHA will have 8 smites/day) and unlimited Lay on Hands works fine. IF the DM wants the Paladin to have fewer Smites per day, don't throw evil creatures at them.

Giving unlimited Lay on Hands is no big deal either. It still requires one round, so is still very limited in combat. Outside of combat it helps the party bounce back even faster, which I think is a good thing.

I've never thought of Detect Evil as something to be used in combat. Its for prior to combat. Plus we allow evil to be sensed accurately in the first round.

I commend the 4 skill points per day, skills have never been powerful enough to break a game, but they have been few enough to ruin a characters play.

I am amazed that 3E is so finely tuned that an extra +2 to one or two races would break it and allow such PC's to destroy monsters so easily.

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

I think part of the problem is people seem to think skills are powerful. They are not. They are nothing in comparison to the power of a +3 Sword, a fireball, a Cure Critical Wounds spell, or many feats, etc...

Sorry chap, but that is your opinion and your experience.

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

Skills are simply "what you know", its helpful, hopefully often very helpful, but its not powerful in game terms.

Again, that is your opinion and your experience.

Robert Miller 55 wrote:

I could allow a character to have 20 skills and he would not break the game. He'll just know and be able to do a lot of stuff. Allow him 20 feats and he will break the game.

Again, that is your opinion and your experience.

I do agree that the skill point minimum should be 4 per level.
(Saying the Barbarian deserves more skill points because he lives outdoors and it is harder than living in a city is a fallacy.)

I hadn't noticed how the skill consolidation gave the rogue such a boost in skills and how the fighter only got the 1 skill point. Good point there.

Thats good that you realize that. I hope it also means the same for your opinion/view. Which I am happy to hear, since you apparently would think/say that the skill heavy rogue is a powerful class because of their skills.

So I look forward to how and why your opinion and experience tells you different.

For my last 3.5 campaign, all classes got 2 extra skill points per level (8 more at first level). They got to round out their characters, and could dabble in a variety of skills. I've not heard a complaint from any of my players, and I think it worked just fine.

In my last 3.5E game I was even more generous than this, and the players liked being able to do so much more, and they certainly didn't have easier times in fighting, etc...

So even if PF does not officially change the skill points rest assured I, and likely all of you, will have it house ruled.

Like priests, to me, are seriously scholarly. I guess its because of all the reading I have done on the churches down through the ages. They have not only been the destroyers fo knowledge, but the repositories fo knowledge. They have been the book makers, keepers of lineage, heraldry, etc... They even discovered genetic inheritance in plants. So to me Priests should have a lot of knowledge skills.

So maybe rather than give 2+ skill points I should just say Clerics can choose 3 additional knowledge skills, and get Spellcraft, for free. Do something similar for other classes. That way they are forced to take only free knowledge skills, rather than anything they wish, and use those 2+ to select anything else they wish.

Hmmm.

I think part of the problem is people seem to think skills are powerful. They are not. They are nothing in comparison to the power of a +3 Sword, a fireball, a Cure Critical Wounds spell, or many feats, etc...

Skills are simply "what you know", its helpful, hopefully often very helpful, but its not powerful in game terms. They primarily help define a character, is he intimidating? Does he have a lot of knowledge? Is he athletic? Does he play well with others? etc...

I could allow a character to have 20 skills and he would not break the game. He'll just know and be able to do a lot of stuff. Allow him 20 feats and he will break the game.

HeroLab, as LazarX posted up above. A pretty good program, IMO.

I concur with the OP. Fighters and Priests with only 2 SP's per level has always been lame, IMO. Especially since they rarely have an INT bonus.

Multi Classing is far from being the core problem of high level play. Its comparatively a minor issue, plus Nicero does link some good ideas up above.

The biggest problem with high level play is the complexity bogs play down, and requires DM's to take a LOT of time to build encounters. So that complexity needs to go away. Which means you need a simpler core system. Your not going to get that without major rewriting/revision of the core 3E rules, monster building, and spells.

Considering the design goals of PF are to maintain compatibility with 3E such fixes are not going to happen. The best your going to get are "band aids". Lets just hope they are good ones.

Welcome to the boards!

I'm proof you don't even need to love 4E or 3E to be here. Just love the Pathfinder modules/products, and your all set.

I don't go to the WOTC boards either. They are fine if you think 4E is perfect, but otherwise.....:(

For the record I cancelled mine due to economic hardship. Due to the government failing to take care of its disabled veterans in a timely fashion. They ruined my wifes health over 3 years ago (Army) and still have yet to rate her (Veterans Administration). Stupid us for expecting to be taken care of in a timely fashion.

Anyways, once the VA Administrators decide to listen to the doctors, and pay my wife what she is due, I will be able to subscribe again. Could be a couple of more years, though.

I'm sorry, I admit I have not been following all the play test and such about this. However has "Class Building" been considered?

IE show how to build classes, consistently, then when people want to multi class use the class building rules to allow them to rewrite their class from that level on? This will allow a Multi CLassing fix AND keep compatibility with 3E, not to mention help in an even more detailed way with converting stuff back and forth between PF and 3E.

It can be done, I was even using a house rule derived from the materials in the 3E DMG to do so in the waning months of my 3E days. Only did it for 4 levels on two different PC's, but it sure looked very promising.

I'm really glad when somebody wins an award that actually deserves it. In my mind, it doesn't happen that often. If Paizo won the fan's choice for best publisher, there's no other company that deserved it more for just taking care of the customers, much less pumping out superior product.

This makes my day.

I've always been happy with Green Ronin winning the award, but Paizo has definitely come into their own this year. To the point where I voted them #1 as well, and because of how exemplary their customer service has been with the several issues I had this year. I don't expect someone to be perfect all the time, but when a mistake is made I expect it to be taken care of with the least amount of inconvenience to me. Paizo made it clear to me that is their philosophy as well.

So combined with the best RPG material ever being made for D&D, they were a shoe in to win this year, IMO, and I am glad so many other fans agreed Paizo deserved it.

I really hope this becomes the "turning piont" for Paizo becoming one of the "big guys".

We already know Paizo is the best, we just need to get more people to realize it.

CrackedOzy wrote:

If you are going to have all of the chapters open anyways, why not just have the full version open in Adobe? I'm unclear what the advantage is there.

I can look up or cross-reference stuff in different chapters without losing my place in each chapter, which is nice if you're prone to doing a lot of flipping around in different sections.

Not to mention it cuts down on the time spent scrolling/paging up/down. You just click the tab of the chapter and then start scrolling.

Perhaps if Concentration must be flushed, do the Religion/Arcana/Psionics/Martial Lore bit and add Endurance [including autohypnosis] as well. Hm, I may try that variant in our games. We've already folded swim/jump/climb into Athletics. [Rule of thumb; If a class has any two of them in its list, it gets Athletics instead.]

I'm good with that. Like I said, I have never found skills to come even close to being "game breakers". I am not familiar with Autohypnosis, but if it has plenty of "overlap" in its write up, then add it. Why Endurance, though?

Athletics is a great idea. I've been entertaining that idea because that is how L5R handles such skill bundles. Of course they also have a focus, where you spend additional points to get to add your rank to any rolls involving the focus. I may do that and get rid of Take 10 and Take 20.

Congrats to Paizo! I told J.J. over on ENWorld I thought this would be the year you guys beat GR and WOTC. I'm very glad I was right, and may Paizo stay in the running for many years to come!

Hard work and dedication still pays off! Why? Because it creates the best RPG material on the market! Paizo rules!

Plus I jut want to mention it was your customer service that made me vote for Paizo with my number one slot.

Nice! I would only ask that you enhance your interviewers voice. Even on max volume it took some effort to hear his questions.

Spellcraft Skill=PsiCraft skill. Pretty easy fix, IMO.

So Spellcasters have Spellcraft, Psionic types have PsiCraft. Pure genius.

Edit: Plus I would be all good with rolling Knowledge Arcana into it as well. Its not like skills are "game breakers", so consolidating skills as much as possible isn't going to make any character overwhelmingly powerful because their skills cover too much. Besides, there would be so much overlap between these three skills (Spellcraft, Concentration, Knowledge Arcana) that saying they are separated enough to be different skills is too much of a stretch for my sense of logic. Besides, Wizards and Priests are 2+INT bonus. Not that strong in skills.

The Psi types have the same, right? So rolling Concentration, PsiCraft, Knowledge Psionics all into one skill would be good for them as well.

Paizo may want to make it better known that a lot was cut from the Beta print version and that you guys made the cut material available in the PDF download.

Only spells and magic items were cut, and will be in the final PF version, but people buying the print version probably won't look at the PDF download to know the cut material is there.

I hope your GenCon sellers were telling buyers of the Beta print about the download as the transaction was being made.

Congrats on the sell out. I do hope it fore tells a great future for Pathfinder, and the 3E market in general.

Simple House rule for the Bard. They get "Perform" for free. Always equal to their level+3+Attribute Modifier.

The Perform skill is for other classes.

Worked just fine for the last year I ran 3E.

Sweet.

But, damn, still no Concentration skill, and Jump is still using DEX rather than STR like it should.

Oh, well. I'll see about giving it a whirl.

Spellcraft now covers "concentration checks". Makes sense to me. I always thought it was stupid to have to devote skill ranks to such a singular check. So I applaud rolling it into Spellcraft.

You guys missed definitions for "TAke 10" and "Take 20", at least I couldn't find them.

So make sure to get it into the final PF version.

Or just get rid of them. I never liked them. If it was a take 10 or take 20 situation I just said they succeeded without any rolls. Plus I have always thought it was total baloney to be able to take 20 on finding traps.

Since I don't see a Beta forum yet, I'll ask here.

Why 10/Evil DR for a Paladin? How is that an advantage when 90%+ of what they will fight will automatically by pass it?

How about 10/Chaotic? 10/Otherplanar? Something that might actually make their DR useful to have?

Other than that I really like the Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, etc... I think these write ups might keep players from using PrC's.

Nice job.

Plus I don't see how anyone can truthfully claim the races are "powered up". There probably will be some, but I won't agree with them.

Now I'll get back to reading the rest.

A lot. I even had to cancel my Pathfinder subscription. I miss PF. :(

Thank you. I think the problem with the html code is they have it as [url=

I think its supposed to be [url]

Your welcome! I just wish I had the money to buy everything I don't have yet. Plus another copy of Whiterock.

Go to [url=http://www.goodman-games.com/store.html[/url].

Could someone who knows how to make html code work on this site turn that into a workable link please?

Go to [url=http://www.goodman-games.com/store.html[/url].

Maybe the playtest notes the author posted over on ENWorld would help you out.

Maptools is indeed awesome, and being updated pretty much weekly the last month or so.

Its pretty safe to bet Greyhawk was the first setting used to play Chain mail/D&D in. Its obvious which was published first.

Yes, there is a 3E version of Blackmoor, and I own most of it. Most of it is very good. Only the Castle disappoints me. Greatly disappoints me.

The Revised is expected after GenCon, with it being available at GenCon. I hope to see it on Amazon sometime in September.

Since this is being published, in part, due to it being OOP, there should be no problems with confusion. IE if Paizo is being supplied by AEG, they can only get the revised version.

AEG has not said specifically, but I would guess they will be getting a new number for it, since it is a "Revised" version, and they would want to minimize confusion, especially after the confusion they had with the first and second printings.

BTW, this version in no way outdates the earlier printings. There will be new material on the SPider Clan, and it rewrites rules for clarity purposes, but this book does not change the rules. So those of us, like me, who own 4 or 5 copies of the book already, our books are not being outdated, and you do not need to buy the revised version, unless you want better written rules and/or the Spider Clan info, like I do.

Another L5R fan here. Looks like I need to get 4 Winds.

I just have them make a save to cast a spell meta magiced. Say they want to maximize a fireball, I use the spell level as a DC modifier (3, in this case) then I use the feat description for the rest of the DC modifier (this feat takes up a slot "x" levels higher. SO in a case where it is 2 lots higher I add it to the base spell, 3 in this case, for a total of 5. So the save DC is 10 + 3 + 5 = DC 18 to successfully cast a spell with a meta magic feat added in. Sorcerors get a -2 to the DC because they are used to spontaneously casting spells.

Plus this is a check, not really a save, so I allow them to add their level only, since this is pure skill only, and the level of the PC is the most direct interpretation of their skill. Plus it keeps the failure rate high enough that players aren't doing this all the time. Let them add in ability modifiers and it becomes too safe and gets used way too often. Besides, attribute modifiers to not reflect your skill, just your knowledge in appplying that skill to situations and research questions.

Failure means the spell is lost. Crit or back lash tables are also a good add in, but I don't do it.

I also like how this scales as the PC levels. The lower level stuff becomes easier to do, while the higher level stuff remains risky.

Anyways, just a house rule I have been using for about two years now.

How much does the Superscriber typically cost per month? Any average? Highs? Lows? My problem is my monthly budget is pretty tight, so I can't afford any surprizes. So if its a pretty fixed cost per month that I can accurately budget for I would join your club. Once gas prices get back down below $3.50 per gallon. If that ever happens.

I think he is confused by the full retail price of the PDF. I don't like it either. Which is why I don't buy the PDF's, except when they have them on sale, like the PH third printing was on sale a couple of weeks ago for $10.00. I bought it then. The M&T has never been offered for less than full retail as far as I know, hence why I only own print copies.

If you like a product that details the details most CK's don't like to be bothered with and leaves the rest up to you then you want this product. I've been buying the whole series so far, and it gives me what I like out of such products.

If you use the C&C system. Otherwise you'll have to greatly inflate the NPC stats to fit 3E or 4E. Stats in this are done up more like they were in 1E.

Take a deep breath. In. Out.

Play games using the Pathfinder alpha. Have fun. Take a bit of time to write your suggestions and observations. Play more. Have more fun.

There is plenty of room for you. Just do it.

I know how to playtest, I've done it before. I just want to know how far Paizo is willing to go. I don't play 3E. I haven't played for over two years. So doing this would mean stopping or cutting down on what I do play. Something I am not willing to do if Paizo isn't willing to go as far as it would have to go to actually fix high level play.

Back when I played 3.5E I played in a game that went to 68th level, from first. I played/co-DMed another that went to 48th, from first. I DMed 6 campaigns to 15+ levels, and the rest I played or DMed stayed below 12th level.

So I think I am well aware of what is wrong with high level play and feel I have solid ideas on how to address the problems. One of which would be a complete restructuring of DR, SR, resistances and immunities.

So if Paizo knows they aren't willing to do that much for backwards compatibility issues I will know it would be a waste of my groups time doing the play testing. So we will just stick with our normal games.