Uzziel the Angel's page

What about races with level adjustments greater than +1 in 3.5?

So are there no formal level adjustments in Pathfinder? If not, what do DMs do when they allow a race that has a level adjustment in 3.5?

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

If you don't have training time, why did you mention that your players mostly won't retrain because of the week of game time it takes? :-)

Training time = time required for training when you gain a level - I don't use that in my campaign for many reasons.

Retraining time = time required to spend in training because you have decided that you don't like a feat you already have and want to swap it out for a new one. This is not something I want to encourage, so I enforce this one.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Anyway I allow characters to get new feats and spontaneous spell slots (including spontaneously casting a cure spell out of a new clerical slot) right away. Sometimes if the PCs are getting pounded in a fight and we break for the week, and I award experience for various items from the session, I'll let them level up mid-fight.

*nod*

Same here, though it's not very often that we break in the middle of a fight and people level. But I did have this one fight that lasted for three game sessions. Stubborn buggers, those PCs.

Are wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I have the Lords of Madness on my Amazon.com Wish List. What is the CR of the elder eidolon?

Elder Eidolon is a template that adds +3 CR.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Oh, so elder eidolon is just a template? Does it have the undead type or what?

Actually, it's a construct - a kind of ancient guardian created by a long-gone race - similar to Azlant stuff in Pathfinder, I suppose.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

What's DR/vorpal? I mean, I suppose it's DR that a vorpal sword can overcome, but do they specifically explain it anywhere?

There's no specific definition for it because all DR works the same way:

DR N/[STUFF] means that the Damage Reduction of N applies unless you use stuff. So they don't need to explain DR/vorpal - it means that the DR applies unless you use a vorpal weapon - just like DR/fruit salad would mean that you'd have to attack with...

The retraining time option is just for DMs who use training time in the first place. Since so much material has come out since we started the campaign 8+ years ago, I let them retrain easily anyway so they can gain the benefits of some of the new material that's come out since they started.

Let's see...what sort of creature would have DR/fruit salad? A cowboy or bodybuilder maybe? :-D

In Greek mythology the eidolon was a spirit-image of a person, so I could see it being either an undead or a construct. I mean undead seems a bit more like the meaning of the word in ancient Greek, but in Euripedes play about Helen of Troy, Hermes fashioned an eidolon of Helen out of clouds, so that's more like a construct. :-)

I thought I'd ready somewhere that Paizo had a non-compete clause in their original contract to publish Dragon that prevented (or perhaps still prevents) Paizo from creating a magazine that competes with Dragon. I think that's why Wolfgang Baur, rather than Paizo, started a magazine to compete with Dragon, Kobold Quarterly. I subscribed for a while until it went the Pathfinder route instead of 3.5.

Elder Eidolon is a template that adds +3 CR.

The Jabberwock is in Pathfinder's Bestiary 2, as a CR 23 creature.

There's also a Lesser Jabberwock (at CR 20) in Pathfinder 36: Sound of a Thousand Screams.

Thanks, Are. I looked up "jabberwocky" not realizing they dropped the "y." In a way it's too bad because I thought it was something that he was going to create at CR 50 or CR 70 or such.

What's DR/vorpal? I mean, I suppose it's DR that a vorpal sword can overcome, but do they specifically explain it anywhere?

Oh, so elder eidolon is just a template? Does it have the undead type or what?

Is Pathfinder 36 part of the monthly pathfinder series? Is it monthly? I recall Paizo announcing a recurrent series that wouldn't be quite a magazine because they had a non-compete clause so when Wizards slew the Dragon Paizo couldn't do a magazine it its stead. I don't recall though how often it was supposed to come out or what it was supposed to contain, but that was back before 4e and the Pathfinder RPG.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I don't require any retraining time because I don't require any training time.

I don't have training time either; level gain is instant (though I don't allow the new spell levels, etc. until after a rest), but if they want to retrain a feat, I do require the training time from the PHBII.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Does your Improved Epic Toughness require Improved Toughness?

In all fairness, it's not mine, it's from Dicefreaks, though I do require Improved Toughness as a prerequisite. Not that it's really necessary, every single one of my players took Improved Toughness, in my mind it's a no-brainer.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Does Pathfinder have epic creatures? Does it have an epic mu spore?

I see that you found the mu spore. Pathfinder does have a few epic creatures; in reality any creature with a CR over 20 is technically epic. And of course you can use any of the creatures from the d20 SRD with little effort.

Note that you can advance any creature by hit dice, but determining its CR in Pathfinder is not straightforward; I still use the 3.5e rules for determining the CR of an advanced creature because it's way simpler and the variation isn't very much from what I see.

You can see d20srd.org for the table about CR of advanced monsters. I use that table very, very often; I find the Pathfinder version of advancing monsters very cumbersome, even if it may be more accurate - and at super-advanced CR ratings, it's all kind of approximate anyways.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Which eidolon do you mean?

Mojorat answered for me already, but yes, I do mean the Summoner's eidolon (as in the Summoner from the Advanced Player's Guide). But I do like the elder eidolon from Lords of Madness, it has a very Lovecraftian feel to it and I use them in my campaign.

...

If you don't have training time, why did you mention that your players mostly won't retrain because of the week of game time it takes? :-)

I allow instant training too, and require time to memorize spell, although not resting 8 hours just to memorize a few extra spell. Actually as I recall there's a rule (perhaps 3.0 rather than 3.5) that allows dropping a spell and memorizing one in its place. You take the total memorization time, divide it by the total number of spells you have, and then multiply it by the number of spells you're memorizing, or something like that. Anyway I allow characters to get new feats and spontaneous spell slots (including spontaneously casting a cure spell out of a new clerical slot) right away. Sometimes if the PCs are getting pounded in a fight and we break for the week, and I award experience for various items from the session, I'll let them level up mid-fight.

I briefly looked at the eidolon and it looks complicated but interesting.

I have the Lords of Madness on my Amazon.com Wish List. What is the CR of the elder eidolon?

Ashiel wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Do they still have the concept of level adjustment? I looked under the drow and didn't see any.

I searched the online Pathfinder OGC and the only mentions of level adjustment I found came from fan-created creatures.

They do, but it's simplified. Essentially, you add the CR of the creature as the level adjustment. For example, a gnoll is CR 1. You could play a gnoll at level 1 with no class levels, or gnoll with 1 level of a PC class at 2nd level.

An Ogre would be consider about a 3rd level character, and an ogre with one level of Fighter to be 4th level; so his "level adjustment" is effectively +3; including racial HD and everything.

Now, all of this is subject to GM discretion, as some creatures may not work with the GM's game dynamic (maybe playing a succubus with at-will charming is unsettling for your GM), and not all creatures are suitable for PCs ("You want to play a gelatinous cube!?"); but the system is pretty simple in this regard.

As for the drow, Paizo was kind enough to provide a version that's PC friendly, and the Noble Drow, which are pretty much just an NPC race (and would have the +CR adjustment).

Personally I think the quick and dirty rules paizo laid down to play monsters are terrible, the creatures are typically not laid down as efficiently as a player's character.

A gnoll with point buy scores is way better than a 1st lvl character, let alone a minotaur 1st level fighter in a party of lvl 5's, that is not even taking into account that the minotaur can close the gap in class levels in time.

I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder advancement rules beyond what people have said here, but from what you've said I'm glad I'm sticking with 3.5

he is referring to the summoner eidolon. since he mentioned the jabberwocky has summoner levels.

Thanks, Mojo. I looked for a jabberwocky in the Pathfinder OGC, but nobody's done one yet. I definitely like the idea of taking it from Robert Lewis Carrol like Gary Gygax did with the vorpal sword.

Oh, I found the mu spore. It is a core critter. I see that core creatures go up only to CR 25 with the tarrasque.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Let's see. I like your idea for an Improved Epic Toughness. Regular old Toughness has the virtue of granting 3 points even if you take it at 1st level and three points every time you take it. Epic Toughness has a similar virtue. You can take Improved Toughness only once. Do you apply the same rule to your Improved Epic Toughness?

I use the retraining rules from PHB II so a character could take Toughness at 1st level and then retrain to Improved Toughness at 4th level. I pretty much allow Improved Toughness to serve as a prerequisite for anything that needs Toughness as a prerequisite because now there are just so many great feats available.

I allow the retraining, but they rarely feel like burning a week of game time to do so, so it doesn't happen very often.

And neither Improved nor Epic Improved toughness stack, but since it's +2 hp/HD, they do the job nicely; it's like taking Great Constitution 4 times.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I haven't looked at any Pathfinder feats or spells. I've spent the last decade creating tens of pages of feats and spells for my 3rd Ed/3.5 campaign, plus the Wizards books are full of more nice feats and spells. When the alpha version of Pathfinder came out I downloaded it and noticed the +1 hit point per level of favored class rule and the feat per two level rule. I saw though the major changes they made to the barbarian and decided that Pathfinder just changed too much for me to invest all the time revamping everything, so I haven't paid much attention to it since.

That was my first impression, and Pathfinder is definitely a different game than 3.5e, even if it's similar. For the most part, however, things are pretty compatible; I have no problem pulling Pathfinder monsters for my 3.5e campaign.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Someone invited me to join a Pathfinder game locally a couple of months ago and while I didn't attend (and the person got mad at me for not wanting to switch, making me even less inclined to switch) that

...

I don't require any retraining time because I don't require any training time.

Does your Improved Epic Toughness require Improved Toughness?

Does Pathfinder have epic creatures? Does it have an epic mu spore?

Which eidolon do you mean? I see in Wikipedia:

"In the game Dungeons and Dragons a monster called a Rogue Eidolon exists. The accompanying flavour-text tells that these creatures are animated statues of ancient cults to various dark gods, and that they were eventually driven insane by their fraction of sentience. (Monster Manual II) Other books from D&D 3.5 also mention Eidolons; Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations mentions an Elder Eidolon and Frostburn: Mastering the Perils of Ice and Snow mentions a Rimefore Eidolon. The Elder Eidolon is an animated stone carving but the Rimefire Eidolon is a described as a chunk of ice surrounded by blue flame walking on thin tendrils. In the Eberron campaign setting Eidolons are described as similar to illusions that inhabit the fringes of the plane Dal Quor: The Region of Dreams.

In the game Pathfinder there is a class called the Summoner which gains the ability to summon a special companion called an Eidolon, which can take on various forms based on attributes assigned to it. It is an Outsider, which implies that it is composed of spiritual essence, usually that of the Outer Planes."

There's several ways to bump up creatures so that they're a challenge.

I make heavy use of hit die advancement and templates; the Advanced Bestiary from Green Ronin is awesome for this, and the Epic Pseudonatural and Paragon templates from the ELH do wonders.

In addition, there's a scary book out there called Immortals Handbook Vol. 1: Bestiary that has obscenely high CR creatures. Many of them too high for even me, but the size advancement rules are great and there's cool rules for generic advancement of golems. Note that golems made using the Immortals Handbook rules are deadly hard due to amazing AC, SR and DR.

I thought the Advanced Bestiary sounded familiar, so I looked it up online. When I saw the cover art I was sure I already owned it, and went straight to the box where I keep it. :-D

For one upcoming side adventure I took the old 1st Ed solo adventure, Maze of the Riddling Minotaur, and converted everything to 3.5. I advanced all the creatures in various ways. Harpies got class levels; the wyvern got racial hit dice. The lion got the paragon template. :-D I also added an abomination who is THE minotaur, using the rules in ELH for abominations. I created him when they were only about 19th level so I need to update him before they meet him or he will disappoint. I think instead of advancing him by outsider hit dice I might just give him 10 levels of barbarian. The rage should make him pretty scary.

On their journey to the labyrinth they ran into creature from the beginnings of time, guarding a portal to Stygia. I started with a sisuitl (from Stormwrack). I advanced it to its maximum hit dice, then added the multi-headed template from Savage Species and gave it the maximum number of heads for gargantuan size. Then I added the paragon template, and gave it about 50 levels of sorcerer. I mean they weren't supposed to fight it (and they didn't) but I like to stat things out. I had more time in those days too.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I've adopted a couple of Pathfinder rules into my epic-level 3.5 game (extra +1 hit point per level of favored class, extra feat every two levels rather than every three) and am considering adding the extra +2 to ability initial ability scores that I see the core PC races get. I'm wondering though if all the NPCs and monsters get the same extra +2 to their ability scores over what they got in 3.5, or if only PCs (or only the core PC races, whether PCs or not) get them? Thanks!

I took the feat progression but not much else; I've had to hand-convert a lot of the Pathfinder feats because I have no intention of trying to convert all of my 3.5e material to use CMB/CMD or the pared-down skills.

I didn't incorporate the extra hit points, since there's a lot of feats that address this: Toughness (SRD), Epic Toughness (SRD), Improved Toughness (Complete Warrior/Libris Mortis) and a feat from Dicefreaks that I renamed Epic Improved Toughness that changes Improved Toughness's bonus to +2/HD from +1/HD.

Pathfinder's version of Toughness is essentially Improved Toughness, and they don't have the lame "you get +3 hp" version from the SRD; I've included the Pathfinder version as "Toughness (alternate)," though nobody has noticed this yet and taken it :)

Personally, I think the SRD Toughness and Epic Toughness are equivalently weak - you're trading a short term gain for something that's of little value in the long run.

In any case, it's not like the party's hurting for hit points; I think the fighter has something like 1500hp, and the glass heel of the group, the wizard, still has over 400hp.

So what are you doing as far as spells? Are you allowing new spells from the Pathfinder rule set? I do, and I (with warning to my players) included the caveat in mind blank that it blocks true seeing from seeing invisible creatures.

Edit:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Thanks Are. I hadn't noticed the changed CR. I prefer more higher-CR creatures since the characters

...

Let's see. I like your idea for an Improved Epic Toughness. Regular old Toughness has the virtue of granting 3 points even if you take it at 1st level and three points every time you take it. Epic Toughness has a similar virtue. You can take Improved Toughness only once. Do you apply the same rule to your Improved Epic Toughness?

I use the retraining rules from PHB II so a character could take Toughness at 1st level and then retrain to Improved Toughness at 4th level. I pretty much allow Improved Toughness to serve as a prerequisite for anything that needs Toughness as a prerequisite because now there are just so many great feats available.

I haven't looked at any Pathfinder feats or spells. I've spent the last decade creating tens of pages of feats and spells for my 3rd Ed/3.5 campaign, plus the Wizards books are full of more nice feats and spells. When the alpha version of Pathfinder came out I downloaded it and noticed the +1 hit point per level of favored class rule and the feat per two level rule. I saw though the major changes they made to the barbarian and decided that Pathfinder just changed too much for me to invest all the time revamping everything, so I haven't paid much attention to it since.

Someone invited me to join a Pathfinder game locally a couple of months ago and while I didn't attend (and the person got mad at me for not wanting to switch, making me even less inclined to switch) that got me to thinking about it again. With me creating new feats all the time I thought about changing the feat progression but didn't want to revamp everything. Just in the past couple of weeks though I decided to allow the Pathfinder progression and just revamp slowly, letting the PCs go first. I actually added the +1/level to hit points a few weeks before that. I didn't notice the extra +1 skill point/level until this morning, or I probably would have added it when I added the +1 hit point/level.

What level have your characters reached that they have 400-1500? My player's characters fall more in the 150-400 range.

Is the Immortals Handbook a Dicefreaks book that uses their alternative rules?

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Do they still have the concept of level adjustment? I looked under the drow and didn't see any.

I searched the online Pathfinder OGC and the only mentions of level adjustment I found came from fan-created creatures.

They do, but it's simplified. Essentially, you add the CR of the creature as the level adjustment. For example, a gnoll is CR 1. You could play a gnoll at level 1 with no class levels, or gnoll with 1 level of a PC class at 2nd level.

An Ogre would be consider about a 3rd level character, and an ogre with one level of Fighter to be 4th level; so his "level adjustment" is effectively +3; including racial HD and everything.

Now, all of this is subject to GM discretion, as some creatures may not work with the GM's game dynamic (maybe playing a succubus with at-will charming is unsettling for your GM), and not all creatures are suitable for PCs ("You want to play a gelatinous cube!?"); but the system is pretty simple in this regard.

As for the drow, Paizo was kind enough to provide a version that's PC friendly, and the Noble Drow, which are pretty much just an NPC race (and would have the +CR adjustment).

Are you sure about that with the drow? I'm looking at their sample noble drow and it's a 3rd-level cleric with a CR of 3. It doesn't appear to have any level adjustment build into its CR.

I meant to mention too that they eliminated the drow's SR, which goes all the way back (as magic resistance) to 1st Ed.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

All of its other ability scores, however, suffer too: by great wyrm the Pathfinder silver dragon suffers -4 penalty on all its ability scores compared to a 3.5 silver great wyrm.

It's also CR 22 instead of CR 26, which mitigates that "suffering" quite a bit :)

All the dragons also got a number of new special abilities compared to the 3.5 versions.

Thanks Are. I hadn't noticed the changed CR. I prefer more higher-CR creatures since the characters in the campaign I run have reached 27th and 28th levels.

Do they still have the concept of level adjustment? I looked under the drow and didn't see any.

I searched the online Pathfinder OGC and the only mentions of level adjustment I found came from fan-created creatures.

Actually, they tweaked monsters and PC races alike as needed to "re-balance" the game.

A goblin, for instance, got –2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, –2 Charisma in 3.5 and now gets –2 Strength, +4 Dexterity, –2 Charisma. The minotaur, on the other hand, is the same between editions.

You'd have to look at this case-by-case to determine where Pathfinder deviates from 3.5.

Thanks, Erian. I was headed to goblins when I got sidetracked by storm giants. I think you've given a better summary of the overall changes than my initial thought that perhaps they'd just added +2 to everyone or just added +2 to core PC races. Thanks. :)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

All members of race x gets the modifiers of race x, whether PC or NPC.

Thanks, Bruno. That answers my question in part. Did Pathfinder though give every race an extra +2 on initial ability scores like it did to the core PC races?

No. What Pathfinder did was give specific racial modifiers to each core PC race which basically comes out to a +2 to two specific stats and a minus 2 to one specific stat. as opposed to the +2/-2 of D20. Certain races like Humans and Half Humans instead received a floating +2 which could be applied to any stat. Anything else was either modified individually or left as it was.

I see that they did add the extra +2 to duergar, but they changed the drow, dropping the +2 to Intelligence. The noble drow though gets the +2 to Intelligence and picks up another +2 on Dex, for a total of +4 on Dex, so it looks like the noble drow is the equivalent of the 3.5 drow and does get the extra +2. I see though, on the other hand, that the noble drow has extra spell-like abilities, so it's actually a bit better than the 3.5 drow. I don't see anything thought about additional CR or LA so it's hard to compare.

I see that a silver wyrlming starts with an extra +4 (on Dexterity). By adult, however, the silver dragon has lost the +4, and by great wyrm it suffers a -4 penalty on Dex. These Dex changes might just come from changing size as the 3.0 and 3.5 dragons didn't change Dexterity as they got bigger unlike most creatures. All of its other ability scores, however, suffer too: by great wyrm the Pathfinder silver dragon suffers -4 penalty on all its ability scores compared to a 3.5 silver great wyrm.

An ogre's ability scores, on the other hand, didn't change at all. An orc has the same ability scores, although Paizo switched Int and Wis. A storm giant's didn't change at all. So it looks like Paizo might have applied the +2 to subraces of core PC races, but not generally to other races, at least based on my quick, non-random sample. :-P

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

All members of race x gets the modifiers of race x, whether PC or NPC.

Thanks, Bruno. That answers my question in part. Did Pathfinder though give every race an extra +2 on initial ability scores like it did to the core PC races?

No. What Pathfinder did was give specific racial modifiers to each core PC race which basically comes out to a +2 to two specific stats and a minus 2 to one specific stat. as opposed to the +2/-2 of D20. Certain races like Humans and Half Humans instead received a floating +2 which could be applied to any stat. Anything else was either modified individually or left as it was.

Ah, so it is just the core PC races that get the extra +2. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks, Lazar.

Did Paizo ever discuss why they granted the extra +2? Did it come from the notion that there's a reason that the core races tend to dominant the world?

All members of race x gets the modifiers of race x, whether PC or NPC.

Thanks, Bruno. That answers my question in part. Did Pathfinder though give every race an extra +2 on initial ability scores like it did to the core PC races?

I've adopted a couple of Pathfinder rules into my epic-level 3.5 game (extra +1 hit point per level of favored class, extra feat every two levels rather than every three) and am considering adding the extra +2 to ability initial ability scores that I see the core PC races get. I'm wondering though if all the NPCs and monsters get the same extra +2 to their ability scores over what they got in 3.5, or if only PCs (or only the core PC races, whether PCs or not) get them? Thanks!

You can get Dex mod to attack rolls and CMB, but I can't seem to find a way to get dex mod to damage for melee attacks. Is it possible? I'm asking in particular for a monk, but I'm also interested just in general too.

On page 84 Dragon issue #304 contains the Dead Eye feat, which allows you to add your Dex bonus to damage done on ranged attacks with ranged weapons for which you have the Weapon Focus feat, but only within 30 feet. The damage doesn't affect creatures immune to critical hits. It requires Dex 13, BAB +1, Point Blank Shot, and Weapon Focus (any ranged weapon).

I have a similar feat in my campaign world:

"*Exact Shot [General]
You’ve learned how to place your shots more accurately.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +2, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (any ranged weapon)

Benefit: When you shoot from within your precise damage range (normally 30’) you gain your Dexterity modifier, if positive, as a bonus to the damage you inflict. The bonus from Exact Shot stacks with the bonus from Point Blank Shot.

Special: Exact Shot does not increase the damage you deal to creatures that are immune to critical hits.

Special: You may take Exact Shot as a bonus feat from the elite archer, fighter, Nindurai or Nintonese samurai classes. "

I have feats in my campaign that allow you to extend your precision range, so that my feat allows the Dex damage to extend when you extend your precision range.

(Edit: I figured I'd better add a sentence clarifying that my feat doesn't allow the damage to apply to creatures immunity to critical hits either. I think it's implicit in the "precision range" text, but just in case, I made it explicit. :-))

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

You could still use the redeemed fiend template for the statistical aspect of what you're trying to do. Maybe you could tell us more about him. Why is he feeling the influence of evil?

I posted that above, but long story short, he made a deal with a devil and some people got hurt 'cause of it.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

The corrupted template appears in Dragon 350 p46. You can find a summary in DnD3.5Index-Templates.pdf available at http://crystalkeep.com/d20/.

Thanks!

Thanks for the link, Tom. I originally read only your initial post and then replied quickly to try to help while I had a minute's breathing time. Having read the background and seeing that you were considering a half-fiend in the first place I'd still say go ahead and use the redeemed half-fiend concept: the physical attributes of the half-fiend with the spell-like abilities and good alignment of the half-celestial. :-)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Redeemed Stuff

I like these ideas, but they aren't quite right. It's not a fallen guy trying to redeem himself, but a good guy feeling the influence of evil.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Corrupted Template (usually evil so you can be neutral easily)?

Yeah, corrupted. That's the word I was missing in my description. Where's this template?

I thought I posted a reply last night but I found that it was unposted and when I hit post I'd been gone too long and it wouldn't let me so I've lost it.

You could still use the redeemed fiend template for the statistical aspect of what you're trying to do. Maybe you could tell us more about him. Why is he feeling the influence of evil?

The corrupted template appears in Dragon 350 p46. You can find a summary in DnD3.5Index-Templates.pdf available at http://crystalkeep.com/d20/.

its an error, I believe. Looks like someone copied and pasted from cryonax's stat block and forgot to delete thatt.

Oh! Good call, Whiteknife! I'd recently read that cold healed Cryonax but the name the authors gave the ability didn't sink in. Thanks! :-)

I noticed on page 35 of Dragon 347 that Ogrémoch has an ability listed after hit points called absorb cold. I don't see any explanation for absorb cold. Does anyone have any idea whether this is just an error and if not, how it works? Thanks. :-)

Hi Tom! I think I might have just the template from you. Here are my risen half-fiend and risen fiend templates from my house rules. I hope you find them useful. :-)

"Half-fiend, Redeemed

"Occasionally a creature born of an evil outsider and a mortal will utterly reject her fiendish heritage, becoming unscrupulously good. Sages refer to such creatures as redeemed half-fiends. A redeemed half-fiend gains the same physical traits as any half-fiend, including ability score bonuses, wings, flying speed and maneuverability, and energy resistances. Unlike her evil brethren, however, a redeemed half-fiend gains the supernatural and spell-like abilities of a half-celestial.

"Fiend, Redeemed

"Even more occasionally a fiend will, after centuries of evil, suddenly experience an epiphany and repent of his evil past, adhering thereafter to a life of strict goodness. Sages refer to such fiends as redeemed fiends. Redeemed fiends rarely, if ever, get away with their redemption without paying a price. The closer the fiend has been to some great fiendish power, the more likely that the redeemed fiend will pay a price in loss of hit dice and power, and the greater the loss if he suffers it. The loss of power sometimes includes the loss of immortality, transforming the redeemed fiend into the form of a redeemed half-fiend, who must then start anew, perhaps even at 1st level, to build power for goodness.

"The redeemed fiend robbed of immortality typically retains a great deal of the knowledge he had as a fiend and thus possesses much more than a one who inherited the redeemed half-fiend template. Any knowledge skills in which he had ranks as a fiend remain class skill for the redeemed fiend turned half-fiend. The redeemed fiend also gains a number of ranks in each knowledge skill equal to the lesser of the number he had in the skill as a fiend and the maximum number of ranks possible for a character of his new level. Divide the remaining ranks in each knowledge skill, if any, by 4, and apply the result as a racial bonus to that knowledge skill.

"Wilgamet, a pit fiend serving an evil deity, suddenly renounces his evil and prays to the deities of good for redemption. Before he can escape, however, the evil deity learns of Wilgamet’s redemption and manages to strip Wilgamet of all racial hit dice and steal his immortality. As a pit fiend Wilgamet had 21 ranks each in Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (the planes), and Knowledge (religion), and 2 ranks in Knowledge (nature). As a 1st-level character, Wilgamet the redeemed fiend gets the half-fiend template and starts with 4 ranks, the 1st-level class skill maximum, in Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (the planes), and Knowledge (religion), and 2 ranks, the number of ranks he had as a pit fiend, in Knowledge (nature). Dividing the remaining 17 ranks each in Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (the planes), and Knowledge (religion) gives Wilgamet a racial bonus in each of the three skills of +4. Wilgamet gets no racial bonus in Knowledge (nature).

"Painful Healing: While the redeemed fiend gains the benefit of racial bonuses to Knowledge skills, he suffers a particular penalty: whenever he uses a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability cure someone beside himself, he might take equal to the amount of curing he gives. First he rolls to overcome his spell resistance and if he fails he does not take any damage. If he succeeds at overcoming his own spell resistance, he gets to takes damage. On a successful Fortitude saving throw he takes half as much damage as he cures; on a failed saving throw he takes damage equal to the damage he cures. Whether or not he makes his saving throw he suffers pain that a careful observer might see flash across his face.

"Someone using a detect good spell on a redeemed fiend will detect a good aura radiating from him as normal for the spell, but someone using detect evil will also detect a dim aura of evil, as the taint of centuries of evil lingers.

"A redeemed half-fiend of either type retains the half-fiend’s physical features, except for the eyes which glow bright like those of a half-celestial, albeit tinged with sorrow and often deep regret or shame."

©2006–2010 David B. Levenstam

I noticed on page 35 of Dragon 347 that Ogrémoch has an ability listed after hit points called absorb cold. I don't see any explanation for absorb cold. Does anyone have any idea whether this is just an error and if not, how it works? Thanks. :-)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Maglub wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Room C17 of the Fiery Sanctum contains a secret door in its north wall that leads to an unlabeled, rectangular room. The rectangular shape appears to indicate a constructed room. The map of the room shows what appears to be a bench or table in the southwest corner and what appears to be a manufactured border to a lava pool in the northeast corner. The description for room C17 on page 279 appears to contain no reference to the secret door or the unlabeled room beyond, yet an artist went to some length to give the secret room some features that we can see on the map.

Does anyone know what's the purpose or the contents of the secret room? Did it appear in Dungeon but get left out of the Shackled City hardcover?

If you've run this part of the adventure and couldn't find anything about the secret door or the room beyond, did you just ignore the room, or perhaps not even have the secret door and room at all? Thanks.

This question has already been answered. Look in the archives.

I made it the secret study room of F. Doorgan, where the papers concerning the construction of the dispersal collar can be found.

Peter

Thanks Peter. I looked through the archives but couldn't find a reference to it. If you could give me the location or just the answer I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. :)

Here is the link I was referring to. Sorry, there is not much in it. You have to make it up yourself.

Peter

Thanks again, Peter. I see that nobody knew back in October or November either. "Chambers" is actually one of those odd terms in English that appears plural but is regularly used as a singular. When a judge says that he'll see the lawyers "in chambers" he doesn't mean that he has multiple rooms--just that he'll see the lawyers in his office. :)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Room C17 of the Fiery Sanctum contains a secret door in its north wall that leads to an unlabeled, rectangular room. The rectangular shape appears to indicate a constructed room. The map of the room shows what appears to be a bench or table in the southwest corner and what appears to be a manufactured border to a lava pool in the northeast corner. The description for room C17 on page 279 appears to contain no reference to the secret door or the unlabeled room beyond, yet an artist went to some length to give the secret room some features that we can see on the map.

Does anyone know what's the purpose or the contents of the secret room? Did it appear in Dungeon but get left out of the Shackled City hardcover?

If you've run this part of the adventure and couldn't find anything about the secret door or the room beyond, did you just ignore the room, or perhaps not even have the secret door and room at all? Thanks.

This question has already been answered. Look in the archives.

I made it the secret study room of F. Doorgan, where the papers concerning the construction of the dispersal collar can be found.

Peter

Thanks Peter. I looked through the archives but couldn't find a reference to it. If you could give me the location or just the answer I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. :)

Room C17 of the Fiery Sanctum contains a secret door in its north wall that leads to an unlabeled, rectangular room. The rectangular shape appears to indicate a constructed room. The map of the room shows what appears to be a bench or table in the southwest corner and what appears to be a manufactured border to a lava pool in the northeast corner. The description for room C17 on page 279 appears to contain no reference to the secret door or the unlabeled room beyond, yet an artist went to some length to give the secret room some features that we can see on the map.

Does anyone know what's the purpose or the contents of the secret room? Did it appear in Dungeon but get left out of the Shackled City hardcover?

If you've run this part of the adventure and couldn't find anything about the secret door or the room beyond, did you just ignore the room, or perhaps not even have the secret door and room at all? Thanks.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

What are their dates of publication?

I'm looking a the Monster Manual and on page 103 it says

[i wrote:

Monster Manual[/i]]Also known as dark elves, drow are a depraved and evil subterranean offshoot.

So it sounds like only on Faerun do the terms "drow" and "dark elves" have different meanings.

Races and Lost Empires are post 3.5 MM (and are 3.5 as well)...

So yeah, unfortunately, the differences (LOL) between Dark Elves and Drow, is an FR thing...

And as far as I know, the two terms were interchangeable in the Realms BEFORE all those blasted dark elf novels came out...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Do you mean Races of Faerun? I'm looking at page 34 at the entry for drow, and it starts with the title, "Elf, Drow (Dark Elf)." I see also on the next page under heading, "DROW CHARACTERS," text that reads, "The dark elves are renowned for their skill as clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards." So I see no difference between drow and dark elves in Races of Faerun in March of 2003. Note that the 3.5 Monster Manual didn't come out until July of 2003. Do I have the "races" book?

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Jal Dorak wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Oh, do you mean the perfect success under "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" on p. 32? For the perfect success it says that you have to win the opposed check by 20 or more, not roll a natural 20. You could roll a natural 20 and still lose the opposed check, much less not win by 20. :) Thanks for pointing it out, as the "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" offer a good variation.

I was indeed referring to that variant. I realized how different it was from our houserule, which is why I mentioned we may have just been inspired by it to modify the existing rules to our style of play - everyone can succeed sometimes, and even the most highly trained rogue can fail a lockpick, so we figure auto-success/fail on checks works just as well as attacks.

I know, there is a certain appeal in a heroic game to being able to succeed once in a while regardless. In the case of the half-celestial and the shark, however, the half-celestial needed to beat the shark by 10 on his first iterative attack in order to break free, 15 on the second, 20 on the third, and 25 on the fourth. That means that on the third he could win only if he rolled a natural 20 and then rolled on his second d20 whatever the shark rolled on its d20. On the fourth iterative attack the half-celestial had to the same except roll 5 higher on his second d20 than the shark rolled on its d20. So even without automatically succeeding on natural 20, he still had a decent shot to get out, especially on his first iterative attack. He just never managed to roll well on that first iterative attack. :(

I had a similar experience with a player's orc barbarian (raging) getting grappled multiple times by a Kraken.

Fortunately, the party cleric was a ghost at the time and was able to cripple the Kraken using ability drain.

Nice! :-)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Oh, do you mean the perfect success under "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" on p. 32? For the perfect success it says that you have to win the opposed check by 20 or more, not roll a natural 20. You could roll a natural 20 and still lose the opposed check, much less not win by 20. :) Thanks for pointing it out, as the "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" offer a good variation.

I was indeed referring to that variant. I realized how different it was from our houserule, which is why I mentioned we may have just been inspired by it to modify the existing rules to our style of play - everyone can succeed sometimes, and even the most highly trained rogue can fail a lockpick, so we figure auto-success/fail on checks works just as well as attacks.

I know, there is a certain appeal in a heroic game to being able to succeed once in a while regardless. In the case of the half-celestial and the shark, however, the half-celestial needed to beat the shark by 10 on his first iterative attack in order to break free, 15 on the second, 20 on the third, and 25 on the fourth. That means that on the third he could win only if he rolled a natural 20 and then rolled on his second d20 whatever the shark rolled on its d20. On the fourth iterative attack the half-celestial had to the same except roll 5 higher on his second d20 than the shark rolled on its d20. So even without automatically succeeding on natural 20, he still had a decent shot to get out, especially on his first iterative attack. He just never managed to roll well on that first iterative attack. :(

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

What is the publication date of the Forgotten Realms books that distinguish between dark elves and drow? Traditionally in D&D--I've been playing since 1978--people used the two names synonymously. This is the first I've heard of any distinction between drow and dark elves in D&D.

There might be some precedent for the distinction in medieval Norse paganism, from which elves or álfar come. Snorri Sturluson, who wrote...

Races of Faerun and Lost Empires of Faerun mention these facts. But the info may have come from an older source I'm not currently remembering: for some reason I keep thinking of Cormanthyr but I'd have to dig through the books to confirm that.

What are their dates of publication?

I'm looking a the Monster Manual and on page 103 it says

Monster Manual[/i]]Also known as dark elves, drow are a depraved and evil subterranean offshoot.

So it sounds like only on Faerun do the terms "drow" and "dark elves" have different meanings.

Mothman wrote:

Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.

I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative". Or I might be misremembering. Anyway, it was in Dragon back around the time that Def Leppard was recording their first album -- too far back for me to remember clearly, but the rule stuck with us.

I'm looking at the AD&D Players Handbook, p. 105, and it limits falling damage to 20d6.

As far as the original poster's question, I think that both sides have merit. It's legitimate to say that in real life it would be difficult to sheathe a polearm. It would also be legitimate in a fantasy game to say, "We don't want to bother with such mundane considerations."

Remember that it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun for everyone. :-)

Digitalelf wrote:

Lathiira wrote:

Eilistraee was killed at the end of the Lady Penitent series. Her greatest temple was devastated by the Avatar of Ghaunadar that was unleashed. All of her followers were converted to dark elves (vs. their previous existence as drow). The last book of the series left a bad taste in my mouth that an ocean of Listerine couldn't get out.

I read about that, and that's just silly (IMO)! What's this nonsense about drow TURNING INTO dark elves! WTF?? I thought they were one-in-the-same...

Silly me...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

*Puts on sage hat*

In the days of the Crown Wars (and before), there were still multiple elven races. One of them was the Ilythiiri . These were the dark elves. They were native to the south and concentrated in two kingdoms. When we got through the 4th Crown War (IIRC), the mandate of Corellon and the High Magic of several elven races forced the Ilythiiri underground as retaliation for war crimes even more heinous than those of the sun elves of Aryvandaar (butchered that one too). In addition, the dark elves went from dusky skin to black. Old elven history. Now, there's one detail I neglected: not all drow became dark elves at the end of the Lady Penitent series. Only those drow that worshipped Eilistraee or were descended from the dark elven population of Miyeritar were transformed. The rest remain the black-skinned scheming evil that we all know and love. So all this time, the term "dark elf" has been used but is only correct based on a technicality.

*puts away sage hat*

What is the publication date of the Forgotten Realms books that distinguish between dark elves and drow? Traditionally in D&D--I've been playing since 1978--people used the two names synonymously. This is the first I've heard of any distinction between drow and dark elves in D&D.

There might be some precedent for the distinction in medieval Norse paganism, from which elves or álfar come. Snorri Sturluson, who wrote the Prose Edda in early 13th century Iceland (after it had become Christian) distinguished between ljósálfar (light elves) and døkkálfar (dark elves). Earlier sources make reference to svartálfar, or black elves, with no apparent connection to Snorri's døkkálfar, but with connection to the dvergar, or dwarves, which also come from Norse paganism. (Some of you will notice that not only does "dwarf" come from Old Norse "dvergar" but so does "duergar.") There is some suggestion that the dvergar were female fertility spirits, associated with Fejya, and that álfar were their male counterparts, associated with Frey. This isn't entirely clear, however, because some sources refer to dísir as female fertility spirits associated with Frejya instead. (Note that it's no coincidence that Tolkien named his one female dwarf "Dis.") In some sources the álfar appear to the the spirits of the dead, living in burial mounds (much like Tolkien's barrow wights, albeit not always viewed as evil).

The English word "drow" actually comes from Scottish, a softened version of the Scottish word "trow" (the word having experienced what linguists call consonantal shift--a shift form a hard consonant to a related softer consonant) which comes from the Old Norse word "troll." Although Gary Gygax (whose first posthumous birthday comes in 5 days) created a sharp distinction among dwarves, elves and trolls, the lines were much blurrier in Norse paganism.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Jal Dorak wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I think even on the roll of a natural 20 that the roller doesn't automatically win an opposed grapple check; the other person might still have a higher total score.

You are correct. My group uses the "auto-success on checks" variant, but in core rules you can only automatically succeed on attack rolls, and since grapple checks aren't attack rolls, you cannot auto-succeed at all.

Thanks Jal. I wrote a reply but it seems to have vanished into the ether. :(

Let's see. First I asked if that variant appears in a published book some where, or if your DM created it. Then I mentioned that I used two variant rules from the Epic Level Handbook. I allow a natural 20 on an attack or save to miss. If someone rolls a natural 20, he gets to roll again and add the second result to the first. I also use an expanded death's door, where a creature doesn't die until its hit points fall to a negative equal to its hit dice. So my party's 24th-level wizard wouldn't die until he reaches -24. That's about all I can recall of what I wrote.

Hmm. I am drawing a blank. I could have sworn it appeared somewhere in the published rules, but it may be possible we took the "Critical Success Variant" from the DMG p.32 and altered it, allowing a natural 20 on a check to simply be an automatic success unless the DC was higher than 20. For opposed checks it gives you a 10% chance to break out of impossible situations (like grappling) since you can succeed on a 20 from you or a 1 from the monster.

Oh, do you mean the perfect success under "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" on p. 32? For the perfect success it says that you have to win the opposed check by 20 or more, not roll a natural 20. You could roll a natural 20 and still lose the opposed check, much less not win by 20. :) Thanks for pointing it out, as the "DEGREES OF SUCCESS" offer a good variation.

Jal Dorak wrote:

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I think even on the roll of a natural 20 that the roller doesn't automatically win an opposed grapple check; the other person might still have a higher total score.

You are correct. My group uses the "auto-success on checks" variant, but in core rules you can only automatically succeed on attack rolls, and since grapple checks aren't attack rolls, you cannot auto-succeed at all.

That always gets my players mad: They roll a 20 while grappling some uber-massive monster; he rolls somewhere between a 5-10, and still wins. I just smile. >:D

Yes, that happened with the party's half-celestial barbarian/cleric/fighter/ranger/lightning warrior. He has a massive strength, more so when raging, and still couldn't for the life of him break from of its jaws. The party pounded it pretty well when it came near the surface (after it grabbed one party member right off the deck, swallowed him, then bit in half, with Devastating Critical, one of the party members who jumped in to attack it) so it dived for the depths, taking the half-celestial with it. The party's barbarian/cleric/thunder priest sent an elemental water monolith after it, and the wizard sent an elder water elemental against it, and they managed to pound it into unconsciousness before it lost them in the dark. Only then could he free himself, and he was hopping (or perhaps flapping) mad! :D

Jal Dorak wrote:

But as odd as it may seem, I do believe Jal Dorak has the right of it. I suppose one way to match the fluff to the crunch is to first imagine that a critical represents hitting a vital area such as an artery, major organ, etc. If the shark missed those when he first bit (and established a grapple), he wouldn't likely have another chance to puncture them as long as he maintained said bit. He would "just" rip and tear the flesh in the less-vital areas of the body his teeth sank into. It may be a tenuous rationalization, but hopefully it makes the rules seem less abstract and "wonky."

It doesn't completely justify it, but your Herculean effort to justify it does make me feel better about it. :)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I think even on the roll of a natural 20 that the roller doesn't automatically win an opposed grapple check; the other person might still have a higher total score.

You are correct. My group uses the "auto-success on checks" variant, but in core rules you can only automatically succeed on attack rolls, and since grapple checks aren't attack rolls, you cannot auto-succeed at all.

Thanks Jal. I wrote a reply but it seems to have vanished into the ether. :(

Let's see. First I asked if that variant appears in a published book some where, or if your DM created it. Then I mentioned that I used two variant rules from the Epic Level Handbook. I allow a natural 20 on an attack or save to miss. If someone rolls a natural 20, he gets to roll again and add the second result to the first. I also use an expanded death's door, where a creature doesn't die until its hit points fall to a negative equal to its hit dice. So my party's 24th-level wizard wouldn't die until he reaches -24. That's about all I can recall of what I wrote.

I would say no. Grapple checks are like melee attack rolls, in that you roll d20 and add Str and BAB to the number to get a result. But they are not IDENTICAL to melee attack rolls, that is why they have different names and grapple checks are special combat actions.

Critical hits require an attack roll (PHB p.140) and since a grapple check is a check and not an attack roll, it does not count.

So, you can roll a natural 20 on a grapple check (even to deal damage) which indicates an automatic success (unless the opposed roll is also 20). But you cannot deal critical hit damage.

You can critical with unarmed strike.

Thanks Vulcan and Jal.

I think even on the roll of a natural 20 that the roller doesn't automatically win an opposed grapple check; the other person might still have a higher total score.

It's not clear to me whether the type pyramid from pages 142 and 143 applies to the type of the base creature or just the type of an added template. An outsider, for instance, appears at the very top of they pyramid. If you've added an outsider template to a base creature and then add a dragon template, the pyramid causes the creature to remain an outsider. That much is clear from the language on page 143 under "Construct, Outsider, Undead:" "If some other template is applied to them, they generally retain whichever of these three types they have."

What causes confusion is the language "if some other template," which implies that the base creature became an outsider by the application of a template. To me it would make sense that it doesn't matter whether a creature started as a outsider or became an outsider from a template, that either way you can't change the outsider type with the application of a template, whether it's another template or the only template.

So if you took the half-dragon template and applied it to the scyllan, an outsider from Stormwrack, would it become a dragon (replacing its d8 hit dice with d12 hit dice and its 8 skill points per die with 6 skill points per die) because dragon is the first template applied and the pyramid applies only to creature type from templates? Or would it remain an outsider because the pyramid applies to creature type regardless of its origin?

How do you interpret it, and why? Thanks. :)

When making a grapple check to "damage your opponent," do you threaten a critical when you roll a natural 20 (or 19-20 if you have Improved Critical with your unarmed attack) as you would on a regular attack roll? The text on page 156 under Grapple Checks says that a grapple check is like a melee attack roll, which could indicate either yes or no to my question.

In the normal course of humanoids grappling each other, it probably doesn't make a big difference whether you can do 1d3 or 2d3 points of nonlethal damage, but it matters more for a monk who can do lethal damage and substantially more of it, especially as she reaches higher levels. It might matter even more for a gargantuan advanced dire shark using Improved Grab to hold onto a character and rolls a grapple check round after round to inflict damage on the grabbed creature--especially if the 54-hit-die advanced dire shark has Devastating Critical.

It seems like the dire shark should pose just as much a threat to you by holding you in its jaws and biting you and it did from biting you in the first place--perhaps even more, as your struggles to free yourself would tend to rip and tear your flesh even more than the shark does completely on its own. Allowing it to threaten a critical on its grapple check to inflict damage seems like the way to replicate that danger. What do you think? Thanks. :)

P.S. Is there any way to set my account so that I get an email when someone posts to my thread? Thanks! :)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Oh I meant to ask something about your Epic Metamagic feat. Does it work with Maximize Spell? Technically you can maximize something only once--either it's at maximum or it's not--but did you mean it that way, or do you allow a second application of Maximize Spell that doubles the maximum damage, essentially what Intensify Spell does?

That would be a resounding 'no'; Epic Maximize would fall under the umbrella of useless feats just like Epic Quicken. It seems I should specify that. Also is it not clear that Epic Metamagic is not a feat; that you have to take Epic Empower, Epic Widen, etc, separately?

Bummer. I like Intensify Spell.

It's been two nights or something since I read it, but as I recall I did understand that Epic Metamagic was really Epic Empower Spell, Epic Widen Spell, Epic Tooth Brush, or whatever. ;-)

How about Epic Empower Spell? Does that add 50% of the base damage rolled each time you apply it? Do you have to take it twice to apply it twice?

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Welcome new guy! I'm an old guy (47) and I've been playing D&D since 1978 when I first went away to college, so it's going on 30 years now. I'm now so old that not only an I older than most of the players, but I'm probably older than most of the designers and executives at the company too! There's a fellow who's 42 who wants to join the campaign I run, but I'm not sure if it can survive having two old codgers in it! :-D

LOL ... ya, I think you might just break the space-time continuum which would definitely result in the rupturing of the universe as we know it.

Heh. :-D

Oh I meant to ask something about your Epic Metamagic feat. Does it work with Maximize Spell? Technically you can maximize something only once--either it's at maximum or it's not--but did you mean it that way, or do you allow a second application of Maximize Spell that doubles the maximum damage, essentially what Intensify Spell does?

Magnus Magnusson wrote:

I was very excited, ecstatic even, when Paizo announced sticking with 3.5, but some of the changes in the PRPG seem to run contrary to that stated goal.

Some of the changes in the Alpha, perhaps... but as Jason's stated elsewhere, that's part of the Alpha's job; to test limits. We've got well over a year to nail things down and to make sure that folk are happy with the game... and that includes me, who wants it to be as backwards compatible as we can make it!

I'm very encouraged to hear it. The alpha rules change far too much for them to prove helpful to me. I'd like something that tweaks what doesn't work well in 3.5, not that scraps large portions of 3.5. I like, for example, the idea of granting characters an extra +1 hit point for each level of their favored class, but I do not like even the change requiring humans to choose a favored class at first level.

I'm running a group of four PCs in an Eberron campaign. I basically chose a warforged who plans to become a warforged juggernaut, and then designed the rest of the party around him. I chose a goblin for the rogue as creatures of the sort are somewhat less likely to stay with their Monster Manual alignment than in other campaign settings. I designed him as a support character, but he's really taken on a life of his own. He's chaotic good with neutral leanings, which has translated into what I call snarky good--he's always got quips and snarky retorts to everything. I often end up role-playing him more often than I do the warforged, and always more than the cleric or wizard. He's turned out to be a blast!

So mechanically there's no real problem with having a goblin character. I guess where you could run into trouble would be if Paizo sticks with any of the ideas of having higher-level racial powers and abilities. I hope they don't, as I'm quite happy with the races the way they are now.

Welcome new guy! I'm an old guy (47) and I've been playing D&D since 1978 when I first went away to college, so it's going on 30 years now. I'm now so old that not only an I older than most of the players, but I'm probably older than most of the designers and executives at the company too! There's a fellow who's 42 who wants to join the campaign I run, but I'm not sure if it can survive having two old codgers in it! :-D

I know the teifling, aasimar and even drow are in the SRD, I just Checked the SRD for 3.5. I would like to see what, if anything they would do with these.

I do know the link but being unsure about being able to post I won't. It is still on WoTCs site though.

Many "non-standard" races appear in the Monster Manual, most of which (albeit not all of which) appears in the SRD. So they should be able to do, for instance, centaurs, dragons, goblins, half-celestials and unicorns. I think, however, that beholders and mind-flayers do not appear in the SRD, in which case Paizo couldn't do them.

Does every class get bonus feats now under Pathfinder RPG alpha?

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

Is there any chance that Pathfinder psionics might return to the portion of 3.0 system that allowed each different ability score to anchor one of the psion subclasses? I really liked that part of the system as it allowed non-spellcasters to seriously multiclass as psions. In the campaign I run we had a centaur character who was a barbarian/fighter/pison (egoist). It sounded like a crazy combination, but because of the high centaur strength he get very synergistic benefit from the 1/3 of his levels that were psion. I believe that under the 3.5 psionic rules there would be no way to replicate that excellent synergy. :)

Oh gods no. That was a hodrribly brokem mechanic that made manifests MAD and useless.

It worked quite well in my campaign. I think the only thing horribly broken here is your spelling of "horribly broken." :-D

I don't agree that the purpose of AC at higher levels is simply to reduce Power Attack rather than to prevent attacks from actually hitting. The party in my campaign is going after an abomination that they will find virtually impossible to hit. No, AC, still plays a critical roll in determining whether an attack still hits at epic levels.

Actual epic spellcasting has many examples and a system for making more. In my campaign the wizard's player and I have discussed probably about two dozen possible epic spells, all easily based on the seeds. Making a plethora of unique 10th-level and higher spells would be an enormous and I think not particularly useful endeavor when you can just run off the epic spell examples and seeds. Also with epic spells you're only going to need a few, not a whole list at every spell level. So I think your proposal isn't very workable, unless you sit down and make up lists of spells at 10th, 11th, and 12th at the very least right off the bat.

I suspect that you're right about 4e just having 30 non-epic levels, although from what one of the decent regulars at the Wizards epic boards says, there are more powerful options for characters of levels 21-30. I'd hate to see any system be closed at a certain level.