|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
This is all madness. This is when the game stops being fun, when every word is dissected and micromanaged. Something as simple as "This spell boosts your strength by 4 for a duration of 5 minutes" turns into this 130+ post argument. Too many micromanagement rules when just treating the strength as 4 higher for a short time is simple enough. This is why I have drifted away from RAW and make the game more fluid with house-rules. Rules are bloating more and more with every FAQ (don't even want to think about the SLA FAQ)
Why is this a FAQ? Isn't this really "I don't like how this ability works"? Is the Question of the FAQ "Why does this ability(in the FAQ'ers opinion) suck?"
As written, it is pretty darn clear:
* DR 10/evil
* Smite Evil modification: evil outsiders are subject to a Banishment, after which the smite ends. A +2 CL and a +4 DC are added on for the banishment, in addition to any other modifiers.
* Channel positive and Lay hands at max possible.
For the most part, FAQs address ambiguous statements or things that fall in the grey area. I don't see any grey area here or contradictory statements. Banishment is instantaneous and does not "hold a charge", so the effects resolves whether is was successful or not, thus ending the Smite Evil vs that target. Yes it sucks to have it end if the banish fails, but there is nothing unclear as written. Having the ability blow off a 6th level Cleric Save-Or-Die spell on contact every single hit until the save is failed is a little much.
I run a few play by post games and was looking to change up some rules after a long break from gaming. Here are some of the ideas I have had that I would like some feedback on. These are rough ideas that have not been tested in-game, but they are ways to make some parts of the game more relevant.
- Classes get a defense bonus to AC based on the BAB of the class. This would be the same alternate system from 3.5 and other RPGs that used class defense.
- Armor now provides a percentage damage mitigation calculated by (Armor Bonus x 5%). Enhancement bonuses would increase this by 5% per plus. This way the front line forces can better do their job of fending off the enemy and absorbing blows to protect the weaker members.
- Armor now gives a penalty to the dexterity modifier equal to half the armor check penalty, rounded up. This replaces the max dexterity bonus. Enchantments and materials would be added to the modifier prior to the calculation to get a new result. I see this as making more sense, as a guy with no dexterity modifier to begin with will be easier to hit when wearing full plate than a guy with no armor and the same dexterity. Its just not as easy to move quickly.
- Shields now have a percent chance to deflect a confirmed hit equal to the (Shield Bonus x 10%). As with armor, enhancement bonuses will increase this by 5% per plus. 10% seems like a bit much with a +5 tower shield blocking 90%. May impose a max blocks per round with possible class/BAB/Feats increasing this.
- Armor, Shields and Weapons will have a durability that will decrease as they are hit or hit other things. The way this total is calculated is still in progress. Magical items will have a percent chance to take no durability loss. These items will be able to be repaired, but reduce the maximum durability. Items will decrease in effectiveness as the durability decreases.
I would also like to have the weapon damage type effect the damage mitigation, but that is a much more daunting task, as each armor type would have a different number based on its construction.
I also want to revamp the item creation system to utilize Craft(x) during item creation and increasing the minimum level to make items. Right now magic items, As written, get trivialized around mid-level. I would like them to seem more special and unique and not commonplace. I would also like to implement more unique materials to supplement getting magic items later. The new materials would have different interactions with durability and offensive factors based on hardness and weight. This task segment is very difficult and will take me a lot of time to think up. right now, I am just focusing on the first bullet points since those are a bit more manageable.
Example of Fluff vs Mechanics that came up in another thread.
This small humanoid has pointed ears, green eyes, and a wicked grin. He carries a bottle in one hand and a club in the other.
Leprechaun CR 2
CN Small fey
Init +7; Senses low-light vision; Perception +17
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 11 (+3 Dex, +1 size)
hp 18 (4d6+4)
Fort +2, Ref +7, Will +6
DR 5/cold iron; SR 13
Speed 40 ft.
Melee +1 club +7 (1d8–1)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 4th; concentration +7)
At will—dancing lights, ghost sound (DC 13), invisibility (self only), mage hand, major image (visual and auditory elements only, DC 16), prestidigitation, ventriloquism (DC 14)
3/day—color spray (DC 14), fabricate (1 cubic foot of material only)
Str 7, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 16
Base Atk +2; CMB –1; CMD 12
Feats Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse
Skills Bluff +10, Escape Artist +10, Knowledge (nature) +9, Perception +17, Perform (comedy) +8, Perform (dance) +8, Sense Motive +9, Sleight of Hand +14, Stealth +14; Racial Modifiers +8 Perception, +4 Sleight of Hand
Languages Common, Elven, Halfling, Sylvan
SQ leprechaun magic
Creature Type mechanic
Fluff: "This small humanoid has pointed ears, green eyes, and a wicked grin."
Mechanic: CN Small fey
Charm person will not work on this because it is the Fey type and not Humanoid. The fluff says humanoid, but that has no bearing in the mechanical regard
Roberta Yang wrote:
Magic worked differently in Middle-Earth. Gandalf and his fellow Istari were very powerful, but the magic was more subtle. He was able to fight off the Nazgul at Weathertop with his magic, though he did have to escape. You cannot compare what the magic looked like and say he didn't do much or wasn't very powerful, especially from just he movies. Magic in Middle-Earth had the potential to corrupt the wielder and needed to be used conservatively.
In this system and game world, if would absolutely be fair to make him a full caster. He was nearly immortal, living over a thousand years and a direct agent of the gods along with his fellow "Wizards". His primary area of power was fire, so I would actaully put him as an evoker. Yeah he didn't use a spellbook in the movies or books, but again, magic is different in Middle-Earth. I could definitely see him as an epic level wizard using the words of power system.
What I do for the players that use those shaman archetypes, is to size up the natural attacks of the largest normal version they have. For that example, using the huge boar example, I would move the 1d8 Gore damage from a medium boar up two steps to 3d6 with a huge version, then they would gain the use of Scent, Low-light vision and Ferocity.
I only allow the beast shaman to do it this way, giving them something unique that others do not have access to. Other druids need to use existing bestiary entry sizes.
Fighter with Archer archetype
YAPCG - Yet Another Pathfinder Character Generator is good too. I use both that one and sCoreForge, though I like the workings of the YAPCG one a bit better. As said above, bug fixes are responded to quickly on both.
Playing the game that realistically using a "what would the monster do" approach can make it a miserable experience for the players. I think very few players enjoy their characters dying. A playing dying from make poor choices is one thing, but arbitrarily killing them is another.
As the teller of the story, you have several option to make the adventure harrowing and suspenseful without killing the fun. Some GMs seem to almost gloat about being "killer GMs". I find myself having more empathy for the players and their experience, and I don't have fun if they don't have fun. I have had a player hit by a heavy pick critical( x4) at level 2, clearing having enough damage to kill them. I chose to put them down at -9 hp and the creature moving on to the next opponent. Killing them off does nothing to help the gaming experience. Sometimes it sounds like some GMs treat it like GM vs Players deathmatch.
Purely in response to the OP(not going through all 300+ posts), Point Buy ends up leveling the field. You don't have the lucky players ending up with super-charged stats and someone having a bad day on the dice ending up with a cruddy character. While I like the idea of rolling old school, point buy end up creating an equal potential for all players involved.
I believe it was worded like that to show that once the choice is made (HP, SP, Racial), you cannot change it for that level.
Human Fighter is level 4 and he put all favored class into hit points. At level 5, he thinks he needs more skill points, so he tries to change all those previous ones to skill points. The wording prevents that. Once it is selected, it stays that way. The choice between skill, hitpoint or racial is always there for the favored class
@pluto: Pathfinder has made several advantages to sticking with one class. This is a big change from 3.5, where the optimal character had 3-4 classes and dips everywhere. I personally prefer the Pathfinder way.
Still no on that. No templates on companion. period.
This is the way I see it. The players in the op are being just as selfish as they claim the crafted is. They are getting magic items at a discounted rate and still aren't happy. If i was playing in that game as the crafter, I would just stop making items for the group and quietly craft items for myself in the downtime between sessions. Crafters give up a lot taking those feats, why should there not be a return on it?
This may have been said already, but I really dont feel like reading 500+ posts to get caught up
When I see these, I always think back to when I first played PFS. I saw it as a consistent game setting, with adventures that were the same for everyone, regardless of the GM. That is the nature of it being organized rather then a home game. I think it would be difficult to put in ways for a GM to change it without disrupting the entire concept, having two players get a totally different experience because one GM thought it wasn't good enough and tried to make it more "fun".
As a player, I have been on the receiving end of adjusting gone aery, where a large number of expendables were exhausted and party members nearly died. A player would never know if their character died because of a modification or the normal adventure. Being a bad roll from death is not more fun than rolling over all the encounters. The level of finesse that would be required cannot be assumed to be in the capabilities of all GMS
I have a copy of the old EttBP module and was going to take a stab at converting it over. That didn't last too long though. lol. That is one big, multi-level dungeon with many many 1st edition creatures and items to convert! I do want to play it sometime though, so I may try again to convert it to Golarion and Pathfinder once I have time.
Numeria is my favorite concept region of Golarion. Favorite planet concept would be Castrovel. Sometime in the future, we are going to run a campaign on that planet using the 3PP book Noble Wild, having all the PCs be sentient animals with classes.
Rasmus Wagner wrote:
Personal attacks are very classy.
This goes by the presumption that those "casters" are in 100% control. They can get picked off my arrows, targeted by enemy casters (yes, orcs, ogres and giants have them too!) or run out or prepared spells.
One the Fighter, they are a solid class that does their job well. They don't do everything, and shouldn't. They are an enjoyable class to play.
The Haunted curse says that "any item you drop lands 10 feet away from you in a random direction." So let's say I have a metamagic rod, and I put a strap on it, which I then attach to my belt. Wouldn't it simply fall to my side when I drop it, rather than land 10 feet away?
There is no way to sidestep the curse. The mechanics must be dealt with no matter how things are arranged.
there are slight differences to Golarion races from the "traditional" versions. Golarion dwarves do produce wizards rarely, specializing with runes and such
Dwarven wizards and sorcerers
are relatively rare compared
to spellcasters of other types.
Despite millennia of practicing
the arts of craftsmanship and
engineering, few dwarves studiously
pursue the arcane arts. Those few who
master the art of wizardry or embrace their
sorcerous talents, however, often employ a unique
means of inscribing runes on objects, enhancing their
durability or making them impassable.
In Golarion, Gnomes are fey originally from the First World. They have a unique link to the land and must forever explore new things and keep life exciting or suffer from the "Bleaching", Halflings are a small race of human like people. Nothing really interesting about their history other than they are treated poorly by most races.
Some are debatable, with nothing explicit in the description, but certain class skills imply that they are excluded form take 10. I specifically refer to knowledge checks. Many have said you can take 10 in it, but if this were so, much of the bard's Lore Master ability would be useless, other than the 1/day take 20.
Lore Master wrote:
Lore Master (Ex): At 5th level, the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. A bard can choose not to take 10 and can instead roll normally. In addition, once per day, the bard can take 20 on any Knowledge skill check as a standard action. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.
Below is the chart I made for the PBP games I am running.
my take 10/take 20 chart I created:
Formatting will be terrible... lol
Skill Take 10 / Take 20
Acrobatics (Jump): Yes/No
Acrobatics (Tumble) : No/No
Appraise: Yes (1 minute)/Yes(10 minutes)
Disable Device*: Yes (1 minute)/Yes(10 minutes) (Locks only,” No/No” for traps)
*Rolls to disable traps and Sabotage are rolled in secret by GM, roll declared by player
Disguise: Special (This roll is made secretly by GM only, roll declared by player)
Escape Artist: Situational
Handle Animal: Yes (except for rearing a wild animal)/No
Knowledge (any): No/No
Linguistics: Special (This roll is made secretly by GM only, roll declared by player)
Perception (spot, free action): No*/No
*Passive Perception: PCs are assumed taking 10’s when travelling as their general attentiveness
Perception (Search): Yes (1 minute)/Yes (2 minute per 5 ft square)
Sense Motive: Yes/No
Sleight of Hand No/No
Use Magic Device No/No
correct! It's not optimal, but also not horrible as was previously stated by another. For a guide, all must be viewed from the optimal standpoint and rated as such. I do like the guide you generated quite a bit. I have a playtest magus in a campaign that I am in that was rebuilt using your guide. It's a great resource!
Anyone know the official take on this weapon and it being on the monk list for Golarion monks?
In my games set in Golarion, I have been adding it on since it stated to be a monk weapon and very similar sounding to the chinese broadswords of Kung-Fu and very much a martial arts sword. They are unique to Golarion so it makes sense that they are not in the core rule book since it does not have campaign related items in it.
Elf Fighter 1/ Wizard 9/ Eldritch Knight 10
STR: 14 (5)
Stat Increases: Con(4,8,16,20), Int(12)
BAB:15 Base Saves - Fort:10 Ref:6 Will:9
Effective Wizard Level: 18
1F:Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse(Bonus)
In my Curse of the Crimson Throne game I am running, I made this table for their crazy drinking on the day before they got their card.( It is a PBP game. This was their "bonding" session before the game officially started)
DC 5 = Passed out
I just had them make a fort save, using this table to see how the were effected. Drinking harder drinks added a penalty to the roll.