Thanks for this interesting comparison. This is worth reading, even if I don't agree with some of the results or numbers (for example, I've found darkvision is rarely actually helpful, as at least one party member will usually need light, so most parties have "lights on" in the dark practically all the time).
I know a lot has changed with the rules from April til now and between 3.5 and PFRPG, and I know that PFS games are run differently than normal games, but whatever happened to the standard DM-run NPC to fill the gap, if there is one, in a party's setup? I can't even remember the last time I played in a D&D game where the DM did not have an NPC tagging along "just in case".
Keep in mind that your own experiences in gaming can go out the window in an organized play environment. My group had a series of 3rd edition house rules that were sensible and worked well for us, which I had to discard when playing in a "Living" campaign.
I think your experience is probably in the minority, and the "standard" DM-run NPC is not standard, even if it's something your home group uses all the time. Personally, I don't know that I've ever seen the DM run a "just in case" NPC for more than one or two sessions, and then only rarely--maybe one game out of 20. And even then, they're usually secretly villains or incredibly inept.
In order to create magic items yourself you have to expend feat slots. In other words, you are less powerful (in some regards) than a similar spellcaster who took, say, a metamagic feat instead.
What balances this is that you are expected to have more (and better) magical items than a spellcaster who used that feat for something else. The costs are not LOWER, they are DIFFERENT.
I agree. Emphasize that you are using your feat slots for this, instead of for something else.
I would allow it, particularly with the neat backstory you describe.
You can also download two free introductory adventures from our site (www.earthdawn.com).
Hank, I only see the one free adventure, Misguided Ambitions. Is the other hiding somewhere? I could use a pair of free adventures to hook my gaming group on the Earthdawn I remember from my youth!
I just spoke with Carsten (line developer), and he said he took it down so we could--at some point--update it to 3E. So, let me amend what I said: We have 1 free adventure with another on the way (at some point)! ;)
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
I think the cleric is probably pretty mandatory. One problem I've seen with the D&D system--that Pathfinder hasn't corrected prior to next year's expansion to the classes--is that there isn't a good healer substitute other than the cleric. Want to play a mage? You can be a bard, sorcerer or wizard. Want to be a warrior? Barbarian, paladin, ranger or fighter. Want to be a versatile skill monkey? Bard, monk, ranger or rogue. Want to be a healer? Cleric...or druid, sometimes, if you want to be not so good at healing.
So I'd play a cleric, if I were you. On the plus side, there is an incredibly versatility of cleric types (from holy warriors to shrouded necromancers to scrappy rascals) and the cleric often has a disproportionatly large role in party decisions ("Okay, you if you guys want to go that way, fine, but I'm going this way..." "Alright, we'll all stick with the cleric.")
You can also download two free introductory adventures from our site (www.earthdawn.com).
Hank, I only see the one free adventure, Misguided Ambitions. Is the other hiding somewhere? I could use a pair of free adventures to hook my gaming group on the Earthdawn I remember from my youth!
Maybe I'm reading it wrong (and every other person I've discussed the subject with) but your nocking a non-magical arrow. Your ability to apply the ability is independent of the bow applying the ability.
Infact, in a way, it's like you add your enhancements to the bow that imparts it's properties on the arrow.
I'm with kyrt-ryder. I've never seen that having a magical bow precludes the abilities of the class.
So if you live in NW Indiana or the south Chicago 'burbs, there is a local convention on October 11th called Gallowscon in Merrillville, IN. It is mostly tiered towards Wahammer and WoW, but if there were some Pathfinder society events, would anyone show?? Please see www.gallowscon[dot]com
Unless I missed it, the website does not give an address. Where is this convention being held?
I haven't gone through the whole bard/ranger/paladin spell lists to look for additions to your list, but a potion of resist energy, a 1st-level ranger spell, should certainly be added. A potion of lesser restoration (a 1st-level paladin spell) would be fantastic, but does not qualify due to its 3-round casting time.
Also, maybe a section stating that in the future the ability to replay may be removed at your discretion. This way, if you ever do remove it (and I'm not saying you intend to or should), no one can complain that you took something from them that they were promised to have in perpetuity.
I think that the understanding of any player is that any of the rules may be revised or removed by the campaign administration. I don't think calling it out specifically for this is necessary.
Josh, thanks for taking into account our input here, and particularly in "beta testing" potential rules for this.
After some reflection, I think I can have my cake and eat it too:
Goons have 2 hit points, and are bloodied at 1 hit point.
--A goon takes 1 damage from any damaging at-will power.
--A goon takes 2 damage from any damaging encounter or daily power, from a critical hit caused by any damaging power and from any damaging power augmented by a striker's bonus dice.
Thoughts? It looks somewhat awkward in writing but I think they're pretty intuitive, so it shouldn't cause any fuss during play.
I say play with it a bit. You're on a good track, I think. I think you're really bridging the "goons have 2 hp" rule with your initial "half hp" rule. Encounter powers and dailies do much more damage anyway, so the fact that these powers do 2 points to a good makes some intuitive sense to me, too (although it creates yet more of a gamist abstraction).
Personally? So far, I haven't seen any argument that's convinced me that replays are a better option than playing iconics.
Playing iconics doesn't let anyone play a scenario they've played before. Not letting someone replay a scenario means turning people away from some games.
Short example (with a scenario pool intentionally limited for the example): Allen and Bert have played mods 1, 2, and 3. Carmen and Dennis have played 2, 3, and 4. Emily and Frieda have played mods 3, 4 and 5. Even with iconics, there isn't currently a way for all 6 people to play. Someone has to sit out, and that doesn't seem like a good answer to me. Or they just wait for scenario 6 to come out, and hope that precisely one of them plays it (or decides to eat it).
This isn't a completely artificial example; it comes up quite often in our local pool. Frequently, 2 or 3 of us play a scenario elsewhere, and that effectively "shuts it out" of play with the 5 or 6 other folks (unless all but one of the 2 or 3 stay home). Our group has managed to run out of playable scenarios quickly, and very few of us have played more than half of the scenarios out there. Replays will fix this for us.
Playing iconics doesn't provide any help in this case.
Wait, so you can decide at each level wheher to take the +1 HP or +1 Skill Point?
Yes. Not quite as bad as cross-class skills, but still a bookkeeping headache if you ever need to verify that a high-level character has been built correctly. :(
Still, it's pretty neat. (After being house-ruled from "pick it at 1st level" to "whatever class you have the most levels in," because the former encourages pre-building which I loathe.)
I agree, it's too much complication for too little benefit. The increase in HD for many of the classes (particularly sorcerer and wizard) already accomplish added durability. The extra +2 attribute enhances a character's skills or durability further. So I've just houseruled the picayune favored class bonuses out of my game.
Maybe I put this in the wrong board to get the interest of people on the subject... I was hoping to get some feedback/thoughts.
I think this would be difficult. The adventure paths tend to be so tightly connected with location and NPCs, that the "sandbox" element is within the adventures themselves, not in the "connective tissue" between them.
Example from Rise of the Runelords:
Spoiler:
Goblins attack the town. Deal with them in whatever highspirited way works best for you (sandbox). But then you're sent to Thistletop (connected), which you can approach as you see fit (sandbox). Then you find out about gruesome murders and head to the Foxglove mansion (directed), which you explore however you'd like (sandbox). Clues there lead to Magnimar (directed),...
Because you can't really head on to another sandbox area without the direction (because it won't make as much sense to "stumble" there, or because your players will lack the clues to succeed at it, etc.), I think converting an AP to a "sandbox" style of gaming would be difficult.
An inversion of this idea is the "Plot Point Settings" put out by Savage Worlds. Those are great big sandbox worlds, in which specific actions by the PCs trigger a short but fairly directed adventure. The adventures ultimately connect in the campaign plot, but it is expected (and, for the purposes of "leveling up" your characters, required) that the characters run around the sandbox in between the adventures.
I had high hopes for this, which were unwarranted based on other hack-and-slash delve adventures that WotC has produced. I spent a good bit of time going through it at a bookstore, and was overwhelmed by the multiple fights against different types of giants, and very little else. The story seemed thin and the plot railroading. I thought the "everyone participates" skill challenges were a nice change, but I would've rather seen some more open-ended roleplaying and problem-solving instead.
I wanted to buy this adventure when I walked in the store, but 20 minutes with it revealed that neither I nor my gaming group would enjoy it. So I walked out without it.
I encourage anyone on the fence about this product to first look it over closely as well. If...
Spoiler:
a mini-dungeon with hill giants, followed by a mini-dungeon with frost giants, followed by a mini-dungeon with fire giants
...isn't your thing, you're probably better off with another adventure product.
Yes but the majority of people who are against it are the ones who organize game days and GM tables.
I organize game days and GM tables a lot, and I'm in favor of replays. Of the 20+ adventures I've played, only 4 were played at an event I didn't organize. I've judged at least 8 or 10 times.
I intentionally sought a good cross-section for my personal "have replays been good for LFR?" poll. When I polled by LFR friends for their thoughts, I intentionally asked (i) a heavy LFR player, (ii) a heavy LFR GM, who also plays, and (iii) the organizer of the largest LFR cons in our area, who also plays and GMs. I avoided asking people who would answer "What's best for me is...".
This post is all about how to keep players once they've played an adventure. I think the very most useful thing to get people to stay with Pathfinder Society is to target what new people see, as follows:
1) Website. As mentioned here, have a Pathfinder Society-specific website (not just the store), and be sure to keep it up-to-date.
2) Pregenerated Characters. These are helpful now, but have a long way to go. Four thoughts to make these more helpful:
a) Give the pre-gens factions and traits. These are two neat aspects of this game that other games don't really have, so include them!
b) Include a paragraph of background for each pre-gen. A player of mine who chose Ezren said, "this guy looks like he's got quite a story. What's his history?" You can answer that by cut-and-paste from the iconic histories in each adventure you produce. Easy and helpful.
c) Provide more pre-gen options. You should have one for each of the iconics, I think. I hope this is in the pipeline.
d) Explain What's Next. The second page/back page of the pre-gens should be the post-adventure "What's Next?" page. You can provide a short paragraph about why Pathfinder Society is cool (your character advances!) and give the player two options to keep on playing Pathfinder Society:
(i) make up a different character with the PFS Guide rules (perhaps allowing a 1 XP "starting bonus" for having played the pre-gen), or
(ii) provide simple rules for customizing the pre-gen in order to let the newbie keep on playing that same pre-gen in the future (such as "You can change your character's name. You can change your faction. You can swap out your feat(s) for appropriate feats in the PFRPG. You can swap out your traits for others listed in the Traits document.") These shouldn't be options that will intimidate new players, however; extensive options (like adjusting skill ranks, revising a favored class option, or changing a cleric's deity or domains) shouldn't be allowed in this minor revision. For that, they could just build a similar character. Many new players will like this, I think, especially if they can just keep right on playing Valeros as is, because they're happy with him.
3) Starting Chronicle Sheet. This paperwork has been the single most confusing aspect for anyone I've introduced to this game. You should provide a "Chronicle Sheet 0" that anyone may use, to be filled out as people make their character. This sheet has the 0 Starting XP, 0 Starting PA, and 150 Starting GP already in place, a spot to list all the equipment purchased, and perhaps comment bubbles with helpful things like "Your character name goes here", "Your name goes here", etc. You could have one of these with each pre-gen, because people playing pre-gens are most likely to be intimidated by the sudden blast of post-game paperwork.
I was quite surprised to see such strong approval of replays. Even more surprising, each was able to tell me that replays have worked out very, very well in LFR. LFR has its problems, they'll each admit, but replays is not among them.
I don't find it surprising, considering what has been posted on this thread by LFR players. Only one seemed to have a bad impression of replaying (the DM who knew less about the module than the players who had played through it 5 times), and the rest seemed generally in favour.
That's a good point. I think it's significant that, even here in this thread, people that have actually experienced the only "replays allowed" campaign are voting "yes, allow replays, it's a good thing."
Chicagoland Games had a flyer advertising Pathfinder Society on Sundays in October. The guy behind the counter didn't have much to add, but it's something at least.
Further bulletins as events warrant.
I've seen this too. I know that Chicagoland Games has very recently established regular LFR gamedays (in the past month or so), so providing PS as well would be at least feasible for them.
I'll make it up there when I can, but I couldn't commit to being a regular at those games.
I dont want replay for one reason. I play the game for the story. Period.
But nothing prevents you from adopting a personal "I won't replay adventures" policy, even if replays are permitted in the campaign. I will probably adopt just such a policy for myself, but I prefer to allow replays, as it seems it will help others and grow the campaign as a whole.
First of all, let me say this before I post my next question:
I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS ISSUE, NOR AM I MORE THAN PASSIVELY CONSIDERING SUCH A CHANGE TO THE SOCIETY. YOUR INPUT IS VALUABLE. PLEASE CONTINUE TO OFFER IT.
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
I was initially opposed to replays, as suitable only for "board games" like LFR and not story-driven roleplaying games like PS. But I admit I don't have a whole lot of LFR experience, so I followed up on this with a few friends of mine who do play LFR (two very active players and one active player/convention organizer). None of them currently play PS. These are smart guys whose opinion I value about the play environment as a whole.
They are unanimously and strongly in favor of replays. They each have a laundry list of good reasons for it (allows new players to level up to where their friends are, allows easier mustering in every environment (cons, game days, etc)., and removes worries that you'll play an adventure with the "wrong" character, to name the popular top three reasons). Each of my friends was dismissive of the "bad outcomes" of replays: the players who "power level" a dozen characters each in their basements are not people you're likely to see or play with (and, when you do, they are only playing one character at a time with *you*, so their massive stable of characters is irrelevant); the people who are likely to actively "spoil" scenarios for others are generally jerks you'll want to avoid anyway, and word about those sorts of players gets around fast.
I was quite surprised to see such strong approval of replays. Even more surprising, each was able to tell me that replays have worked out very, very well in LFR. LFR has its problems, they'll each admit, but replays is not among them.
So I'm changing my vote to "Please allow replays, even limited as you propose above."
I was ready to buy a six pack, but they only ship FedEx, and I'm not willing to pay $52 in shipping...
I'm also looking for a way to get these at a reasonable price, but coming up empty. Perhaps order a big order and sell them off to friends, that way each of us only pay a portion of the shipping.
But in answer to the question, nope, haven't tried them yet.
HOWEVER, note that you can enhance an Amulet of Mighty Fists without a minimum +1 enhancement bonus. So you can buy a +0 Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists for 5K gp, but a Flaming longsword would cost at least 8K gp. So it's not always more expensive, in a way.
Flaming? Bah, a sissy enhancement. Go for a +0 vicious amulet of mighty fists. :)
@WelbyBumpus: One problem with that. Heighten says that the spell has a higher spell level than normal, so it's possible a spell can't be heightened by 0 levels.
As you said, the idea crossed my mind, but I rejected it because:
(a) I don't think you can heighten a spell by zero levels, and
(b) it violates the spirit of the trait, in my opinion.
Yes, but we left the spirit of the rules by the door when we entered this thread. :)
Sure, but that doesn't mean that half-baked feats like Sanctum Spell should be suddenly immune to silly hijinks when going from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
I was actually looking at metamagicked cantrips a couple of weeks ago (specifically to use in combination with the Magical Lineage trait), and I didn't see any cantrips that benefitted much from metamagic. Extended Daze was the best I could come up with, and that gets obsolete pretty quickly.
You're just a step away from the answer, Hogarth. Take the Magical Lineage trait (Magical Lineage: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.) and the Heighten Spell feat. Heighten your chosen 1st level spell by 0 levels, giving it an effective level of 1st, reduced to 0 by the Magical Lineage trait. You've made your 1st level spell into a cantrip.
Voila! At-will 1st level spell, no splatbooks needed!
Please do not allow replays. Replays are fine for board games (like LFR is rapidly becoming; what little roleplaying 4E allows seems excised from LFR adventures), but not roleplaying games. Additionally, not everyone can separate player and character knowledge.
* I see that you're more of a simulationist, Anguish, but I agree with your concerns about withdrawing. Perhaps a withdrawal means you don't provoke one opponent you are adjacent to as you begin your withdrawal? That preserves what I'm looking for--the fact that withdrawal from a giant is valueless--but doesn't allow someone to dance through the thicket of blades just by calling it a withdrawal.
* For my "Stand up from prone" rule, it seems that a better result would be to require an Acrobatics check (after all, movement doesn't provoke if you succeed at an Acrobatics check, so there is an analogy within the rules here). A "Kip Up" feat to let you automatically succeed at these checks does not seem out of line, as the feat would be much less applicable than, say, Mobility.
* The "20 minute recovery" house rule does nothing for spellcasters, true, and they are usually the ones calling for rests, rather than fighters who are low on hit points (after all, those guys just burn through the wand charges and they're fine). I'm reluctant to go as far as the Trailblazer rules, which allow all powers to reset on a short rest--that seems a bit too 4E for me.
Asgetrion, your 10%/50% rule seems like a good start, but what's to keep characters from just taking ten "short rests" in a row and then get back to it with 100% of their hit points recovered? Whether the characters stop the exploration for 20 minutes or 200 minutes is not much of a difference--it's when they stop for 480 minutes (8 hours) that most spellcasting resets. Vagrant-poet's limit of "Con modifier" rests in a day may be the way to go here.
Thanks for the thoughts, all. I wouldn't say I've got *gripes* with the game, but I see some proud nails that need hammering down, and in some cases I'm not sure how to hammer 'em.
After looking over the final PFRPG rules, identifying my issues with 3.5, and reading some very good analysis of the 3.5/PFRPG rules set (such as Trailblazer), I wanted to come up with one page of formal house rules for all of the PFRPG games I run. Here they are, with my annotations hidden behind spoiler tags. I'd appreciate any input from others about where I might be off base (or on track) with my house rules.
Characters
1. No Favored Classes. No character chooses a favored class.
Annotation:
I already find the favored class bonus to be far more of an irritation than a genuine feature. The extra hit point or skill point is nice as a player, but not at all necessary, and it’s easy to forget where those few extra points came from when looking over a character sheet. Favored class is an artifact of older editions, and there is no reason to keep it. This reduces character power, but this loss is offset in other ways in these house rules.
2. Hit Points. Do not roll for hit points. Gain maximum hit points at 1st level, and half of maximum plus one (plus Constitution modifier) for each level thereafter.
Annotation:
A good rule from Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society, easy to remember and implement, resulting in hit points that are not “swingy” and easy to institute when making (or rebuilding) a higher level character.
3. Starting Gold. Do not roll for your starting gold; take the maximum amount.
Annotation:
Starting gold means so little over a character’s career that there is no reason not to just allow the maximum amount at the beginning.
4. No XP. XP is not tracked. Leveling up is performed at the DM’s discretion. Spells or effects that cost XP instead cost 5 gp per 1 XP that would be expended.
Annotation:
I find XP is generally more trouble than it is worth to track. The PFRPG now has even less items that require XP expenditures and no XP loss upon death, so the game is already two big steps to being XP-free. This does make magic item creation virtually worthless, but I almost never have magic item crafters among my player's characters.
5. Feat Retraining. At every 4th level, a character may drop one feat known and replace it with another for which the character qualifies (the new attribute just gained may be used to qualify for the feat). You must still meet all of the prerequisites for every feat and prestige class you have.
Annotation:
This just formalizes a way to retrain out of feat choices that a character isn’t much using and is no longer happy with. Skill choices don’t need this type of retraining, since skill points are far more plentiful than feats, and it is more comforting to think “hey, I used to be a good sailor, although I never use that anymore” than it is to think “I used to be proficient in repeating crossbows, although I haven’t used one in the last five levels.”
Skill and Attribute Checks
1. Aid Another. When characters aid each other, the lead character is agreed upon after the dice are rolled (usually this is the character with the highest total).
Annotation:
Characters assist each other on crucial skill checks in order to succeed. DMs let them coordinate because they ought to succeed (DMs that don’t want characters to succeed instead generally require the characters to roll separately anyway). This allows a greater chance of success when the characters work together, which makes skill use more fun.
2. Aid Another with Alternate Skills. The DM may permit Aid Another attempts with an alternate skill, if the player makes a reasonably good case (i.e., an Intimidate check to aid party trying to Bluff a guard). Someone rolling an alternate skill never becomes the lead character.
Annotation:
Being unable to contribute at all effectively in an assisted skill is not fun, particularly when you have a good reason to be doing something else to help (I will use my Perception to help our group’s Survival check to follow the tracks). This flexibility has a cost, however—no matter how well you roll, you can’t be considered the lead character. Furthermore, the DM can always nix abusive or inappropriate uses of this rule.
Movement and Combat
1. Cover. Opponents may not count your allies as cover. No creature gains cover from a creature smaller in size than it is.
Annotation:
Characters who use ranged weapons fall into two types: those that need to use ranged weapons but aren’t good at them (i.e., low-level characters, or even high-level characters against a foe they can’t reach), and those that use ranged attacks and are really good at them (i.e., archer rangers, halfling wizards). The latter folks will usually hit regardless, but the former folks need a little help. They are already making a sub-optimal attack to try to join in the fun; providing additional cover just because your fighter is in the way is not particularly fun or interesting. Regarding creature sizes, I don’t know whether this rule is ever stated in this simple form, but it’s easy to remember and quite sensible.
2. Standing Up. Standing up from prone does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Annotation:
The most precious commodity in the game is character actions. Standing up already requires a move action; having it also provoke an attack of opportunity is unnecessary overkill.
3. Charging. Allies do not block a charge or impede movement during a charge.
Annotation:
Charging is the only movement in the game where you cannot freely pass through your allies (this includes running, swimming, or walking around blinded). There is no sensible reason for this, so I’ve removed this restriction. Also, rules that keep characters out of combat, generally speaking, run counter to the nature of the game.
4. Moving Five Feet. Any movement of five feet never provokes an attack of opportunity. That is, even if you are blinded and moving through difficult terrain (so each five feet moved costs you 20 feet of movement), you do not provoke if you have only physically moved five feet.
Annotation:
Situations where a character’s “five foot step” is actually a move are uncommon, and it is always an unpleasant surprise when these debilitated characters take a wallop just for scooting a short distance. It always feels to me that the rule, and not the monster, is blindsiding you. This house rule is easy to remember: “5 feet or less, no AoO.”
5. Withdraw. If you take the withdraw action, no point in your movement provokes attacks of opportunity.
Annotation:
Withdrawing is an action of last resort. No one takes the withdraw action unless they are forced to by being in a very bad situation. Even so, against creatures with reach or multiple creatures, the withdraw action is effectively useless. Since taking the withdraw action is itself a penalty of sorts (in that you cannot meaningfully contribute--or even roll a die--for the round), penalizing withdrawal with AoOs seems like overkill.
6. Attacks of Opportunity. A character provokes attacks of opportunity for only three actions:
a. Movement out of a threatened area. Movement out of an opponent’s threatened area (not threatened square) provokes an attack of opportunity. You can move into or within an opponent’s threatened area without provoking an attack of opportunity. A five foot step or the withdraw action can be used to avoid this attack of opportunity.
Annotation:
Worrying about attacks of opportunity are one of the most significant ways to bring the game to a crawl. Micromanaging positioning for fear of taking an attack of opportunity is not fun and works to create a static, locked-down combat. This rule prevents characters from running past an enemy or attempting to disengage thoughtlessly, but otherwise provides for increased in-combat movement. If it does not seem reasonable that a character can close in on a monster with reach without taking a hit, look to the next rule. Note that this rule really helps rogues and other characters that benefit greatly from flanking.
b. Charging out of a threatened square. If you leave a threatened square when charging an opponent, the opponent may take an attack of opportunity against you.
Annotation:
The previous rule assumes that a reasonably careful opponent can get up to a giant to attack without taking an attack of opportunity: this rule encourages active and fluid combats, as mentioned previously. However, a heedless rush at an enemy with reach should pose more significant danger, hence this rule. Note the balance between this rule (which slightly penalizes charging) and the rule regarding allies not blocking charge lanes (which provides for more prevalent charging).
c. Other Actions. Per the rules, some actions provoke attacks of opportunity.
Annotation:
Except for standing up and withdrawing, now.
Recovery
1. Resting. Resting for 20 minutes allows a character to heal all hit point damage (unless some condition, such as a cursed wound, negates healing).
Annotation:
This is likely to be the most controversial house rule, but sit back and think about it for a minute. It’s really designed to prevent the “10 minute adventuring day,” particularly at mid levels. Twenty minutes is enough time for virtually all round/level or minute/level buff spells to drop, so the characters will “debuff” in this downtime. Without this rule, what do characters do when finishing up a tough fight and expecting another tough fight? They pull out their wands of cure light wounds--the most ubiquitous magic item in the game--and start burning through charges in a race against the durations of their minute/level buff spells. This house rule just gives them the healing, in exchange for taking away the buffs.
In essence, a wand of cure light wounds every level or so is a “tax” on adventuring that every group has to pay in order to get healing they need. It’s also not very fun to roll for this healing outside of combat: “speed healing” out of a wand is often hand-waved anyway at 5 or 6 points per charge by many DMs anyway.
So what this rule does, at its core, is assume that the whole party would otherwise have enough wands of cure light wounds to get everyone up to full fighting strength when taking a short bit of downtime. This assumption is maybe erroneous at very low levels (1st to 3rd), but those are the levels at which characters need every one of their precious hit points to survive (and this rule gives those to them). It also may be erroneous in a low-magic-item game, but party healing in those games just makes playing the cleric less fun. If you’re willing to assume that the whole party would regularly heal up using their magic item resources after a fight, then you lose nothing by instituting this rule. If you really think it’s necessary for game balance, then cut 750 gp out of the treasure they would otherwise find once or twice each level. They’ll never know, and it’s just like they bought the wands and used them during the downtime anyway, but without the bookkeeping.
Note that this rule makes playing the party healer (cleric, paladin, etc.) more fun. It also lets people with class-based healing (like lay on hands or a monk’s healing) use it in combat instead, where it is most needed and most fun to use.
Please feel free to comment on what you like or don't like about these house rules. I've already heard from a couple of people that these rules lean toward "gamist" rather than "simulationist" games, which seems true to me.
It reminds me of the story I heard from a fellow geography teacher. She was teaching about national parks and said "Did you know that Utah hs five national parks It's the most in any one state." One of her studets responded "Well which state is Utah in?"
I can only name four of the five off the top of my head.
Did you forget Capitol Reef? Everyone forgets Capitol Reef, and it's one of my favorites.
We haven't been converting our Season 0 games a whole lot, due to the promise of backwards compatibility ensuring you don't have to. However, in one adventure where I was playing my monk, the DM went out of his way to rebuild an NPC monk that we fought using the new rules, so I could face off against "myself". It was quite fun, although I despaired of being able to do the same against him, as his character is a paladin.
But lo and behold (and very, very minor spoiler), the next day I ate a scenario that included a paladin of slaughter as an enemy! I was able to rebuild that evil paladin to square off against him, and give him a taste of his own class, evil-style. Good times.
If I have a point here, it's that I don't think you have to convert at all, but that you can if you think it will add to the play experience.
As a fellow Savager who has run a Pathfinder adventure in SW, I would highly recommend the Fantasy Companion. It has tonnes of spells, monsters, animals, equipment, and other rules for running a good Savage Fantasy campaign. And it's cheap too! $20 for the PDF I believe.
Seconded. I've also heard that the Fantasy Companion is a great product and really helps with a fantasy-world conversion. I don't have it myself, yet. But soon.
Seems like a holdout for an expanded errata is wise here, and probably forthcoming. As I don't intend to use Tome of Secrets for a few weeks, I'm happy to wait for this.
It's a rule that makes a lot of sense in more circumstances than any other rule I've seen. It might not be a perfect rule, but it's the best I've seen.
Flat DC? Way too easy to get around at even low levels and unrealistic.
15+BAB -> Doesnt' take into account agility or strength
CMD -> Sort of covers it all. Maybe the size bonus isn't perfect but larger creatures generally have more reach and more time to react as you move through their large area of control.
The biggest reason it's a good rule is because CMD is written on every creatures sheet and doesn't need to be calculated on the fly.
Good summary of all of the reasons I like this change, too.
Correct. There are a few different ways to have access to an item:
1) If the item is listed as Always Available, you may purchase it if you can afford it. The GP cap from Prestige Award does not apply to Always Available items.
2) If the item is on your current Chronicle, or one of the previous 2 Chronicles, you may purchase it at the price stated on the Chronicle. The GP cap from Prestige Award does not apply to item access from Chronicles.
3) You may spend 1 PA to purchase an item worth 150gp or less, or 2 PA to purchase an item worth 750gp or less. The rules do not seem to indicate that the GP cap from PA applies. Please note that spending PA for this or any other purpose does not reduce your GP cap, which is based on your lifetime PA.
4) You may purchase ANY legal item which costs less than your GP Cap from Prestige Award. You do not have to have received access to the item from any source, it simply needs to be PFS legal. This is the only type of purchase for which the GP cap applies.
That's the most succinct and thorough explanation of a rule that has a ton of people confused. I think this should be quoted in the FAQ.
I agree this is succinct and useful. However, regarding #3, I thought that the PA expenditures let you "obtain" the item at no cost--the language above seems to indicate that you're paying PA in order to be able to pay gp to purchase the item, and I don't think that's correct (or very useful, actually).
finishing my second read through, then buy a mod to run sometime next week :)
one more question:
I know gencon will recieve mod support, but will other conventions?
(living greyhawk did real life regions based on geography, so traveling to out of state cons gave great flavor, -inter-actives or "specials" were another reason to attend a con. - games that were either con-exclusive OR released early only at the con.)
(im really asking for my gaming group.. if LG was still around we would prob. attending more conventions as this was tons of fun)
I know that a lot of conventions here in the Midwest run Pathfinder Society adventures along with LFR and other campaigns. You should review convention offerings to see whether your local conventions also offer Pathfinder events. You might contact the event organizer, particuarly if you can get a couple of people to judge, and ask whether he or she would put Pathfinder Society events on their slate of offerings.
In short, the more you participate at conventions, the more likely they are to have Pathfinder Society support!
I don't recommend a new GM run a tier 7-8 scenario, but there are several other situations where this could arise.
Actually, a GM new to the Pathfinder Society could already be a very skilled, knowledgable, and fun GM.
I think the proposed situation is actually pretty common. For example, I have a friend who doesn't play nearly as often as many of the rest of us do, and he has only a 2nd level character. He's a great judge, though, and we plan to tap him to run a game day for us where we play only the 7th+ level mods. I think his receiving half of the Tier 7-8 gp reward--the lowest the adventure provides--is a fine way to reward him for this.
You really shouldn't play down ever. BUT if that's the only way you can play, then it's allowed.
Great. Realistically, there are a lot of mixed-level tables at gamedays. Just yesterday I ran an adventure with three 3rd level characters, a 5th level character, and an 8th level character. They played the 5-6 tier, the lowest this particular adventure had, and they did fine--even though only one player was playing at the correct tier for his level. Did I do wrong here?
I occassionally put together a Pathfinder gameday when my wife is out of town; I also know of at least one group looking to put together a regular bi-weekly Pathfinder Society gameday.
I'm on the south side of the city, they're on the northwest side of the city.
I can shoot you more information at rules (dot) lawyer (dot) ron (at) gmail (dot) com.
Psionics were always an issue since First edition. They have always been unbalanced. In second edition a third level Psionicist could kill a red great wyrm with the disintergrate power...In third edition the Psion was still unbalanced and far superior to arcane magic or divine magic. I like psionics and all but please put in on equal level with the other powers in the game
I would guess that you haven't played with psionics in 3.5 to any great degree. Or, if you have, you overlooked the rule that the number of power points you can spend is limited by your manifester level.
I see this same complaint over and over across the 'net, and it's practically always from someone that hasn't really given 3.5 psionics a shot. I know; I used to say the same thing until I allowed a wilder into one of my campaigns and she played from about 3rd up to about 13th level. That character was very much on par with the other members of the party power-wise all the way along the line, and felt very different from the other casters.
Same thing happened to me with country music. I used to mock it before I really knew it, but spent a little time with an open mind listening to it, and now I'm a fan.
I've been helping a few locals convert their characters recently, and someone asked whether there is a level cap in Pathfinder Society. Another player declared that the cap is 12th level (that is, once you hit 12th level your character must retire). But I wasn't sure that was the case. I looked through the player's guide and couldn't find a statement to this effect. Since the 10-11 subtier is the highest PS adventures seem to go, eventually your character won't have any challenge--but is there a mandatory retirement at a particular level?
My Thoughts
The one thing that I think this book really could have been improved by was more callouts. As a longtime player of Third Edition, I tend to want to skim over the parts that seem familiar and go straight to the changes. I started to do this with this book, and found immediately when I made my first character that I had missed a well-hidden rule that explained how first level hitpoints were generated. It had been tucked away in the terms and definitions section which I had been quick to skip over. With so many subtle changes to the rules, callouts that pointed out key changes from 3.5e would have made jumping into this new edition a lot easier.
Nonetheless, after having played a couple of sessions using the final rules, I could scarcely be happier with what Paizo has done. The rules flowed nicely, and most importantly....
I am also hoping for a "from 3.5 to PFRPG" conversion document that calls out the key changes. Such a document will be invaluable for our first few games, but rapidly become useless as we absorb the information, so I'm glad to have it separate (and free!).
I am still going to be banking on the heal/flame strike combination just to take him down as fast as i can so that away i can move on to helping the rest of the party. if i need to grapple him i think i will use the elemental monolith spell out of the spell compendium. i think a colossal earth elemental should not have a problem grappling him.
Thanks for the grapple idea!! i had not thought of that yet
I think that's duration of concentration, so you can't do much else while maintaining that (like bringing on the hurt via heal spells).
Sean Mahoney's got a lot of good advice in this thread. Teamwork wins fights, particularly if your opponents aren't using it.
WelbyBumpus
(Pathfinder Chronicles Charter Superscriber),
