|
|
|
Recent posts by
airwalkrr:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Werecorpse wrote:
I disagree with your premise on this though I see it is linked to the to hit combat bonus that small things are given. IMO in the example you gave you effectively said that when an ogre tries to hide, whether it is from a human, or another ogre it does so at -4. Well that makes sense to me because the ogre is big. Why should an ogre be more able to hide from another ogre than from a human?
An ogre is big RELATIVE to a human. Relative to another ogre, it is medium-sized.
You misunderstand my system if you think an ogre is more able to hide from another ogre than a human.
Example: Under my system, an ogre with a Dex of 10 attempts to hide and rolls a 10. After his size modifier, his result is 8. Another ogre with a Wis of 10 comes along and makes a Perception check to see him. The new ogre must roll a 10 or higher to see the hiding ogre because, as a large creature, he takes a -2 on his Perception checks. Then a human with a Wis of 10 comes along and makes a Perception check to see the ogre. The human must roll an 8 or higher to see the ogre because, as a medium character, he takes no penalty on his Perception checks.
So you see, a human still has a better chance of spotting an ogre than another ogre. And a halfling has an even better chance. But a halfling doesn't hide better from another halfling than a human does from another human.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graywulfe wrote:
Ok here's another idea to get away from the I'm smaller so I see better problem, which I don't personally think is a problem but I believe in compromise.
base the stealth bonus on difference in size.
1 size larger -4
same size +0
1 size smaller +4
extrapolate from there.
graywulfe
Though mechanically results would be identical, I would prefer a static system like the one I suggested because a variable system like the one you suggest because it requires fewer on-the-fly adjustments that slow down the game.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spoiler Alert!
Seriously. Spoilers for Drakthar's Way follow.
If you don't want to know secrets I suggest you leave now.
Or you could stay and have all the secrets spoiled.
But that wouldn't be very sporting now would it.
Now be a good little player and run along (unless you are a DM or a player who has no intention of playing Drakthar's Way or simply doesn't care).
I am a little more than halfway through converting Drakthar's Way to Alpha 3 and I wanted to make some notes. My group is using the complete Alpha 3 rules. The only house rules we have affect combat, not statistics. With that in mind, I have noticed a few things about converting a dozen or so monsters that I would like to share. Some are surprising, others less so.
To begin with, the task of converting is a bit more difficult that I had envisioned. Because of my desire to try to stick to the letter of the rules as much as possible without violating the spirit, I have run into a number of conundrums, particularly with skills. First of all, there are a fair number of low intelligence monsters whose only skills previously were Listen and Spot and they split their limited skill points between the two. Now that the two are combined, I am left with two options: a) try to keep the new Perception modifier similar to the previous Listen/Spot modifier and find new uses for the skill points or b) simply combine those ranks into Perception, resulting in a higher modifier.
Additionally, it should be noted that MANY monsters have the Alertness feat, but after conversion have little use for the bonus to Appraise (as many of the monsters I am converting carry no treasure). For creatures like goblins, who value treasure, it is reasonable enough to leave the feat alone, but for animals, it is hard to justify (true story: my dog clearly failed his Appraise check to determine the difference in value between my cell phone and a chew toy). In some cases, I have been swapping the feat with Skill Focus (Perception) and trying to reduce the Perception bonus back to its 3.5 range by putting points into something else. This is easy for monsters with flight as I have simply been able to put any extra skill points into Fly. But not all monsters fly. I am hoping they will do away with the Fly skill anyway, so my optimism in this regards paves the way for fear that this will be but a temporary fix. In other cases, I am swapping Alertness for Weapon Focus, Toughness, or something similar that almost any monster can benefit from.
Next, for most monsters with class levels, I have been left with a preponderance of extra skill points. In the cases of rogues, I usually look to place the extra skill points into classic rogue skills like Stealth, Climb, Use Magic Device, etc., but the choice is not as easy for classes like the ranger.
I have also noticed quite a few creatures get more hit points. All humans do because of the Favored Class rule. And since many NPCs are written with iconic roles in mind (i.e. dwarf fighters, goblin rogues) a fair number of demi-human and humanoid NPCs are gaining bonus hit points as well. Not to mention where I figure Toughness is warranted as a replacement for Alertness.
In all, it seems the power curve is being boosted all around. My biggest concern is the rising bonuses in Perception making it harder for the PCs to sneak around. I have already heard enough complaints about the "fact" that "every monster in the MM has Listen and Spot as class skills." This was mitigated in 3.5 by the fact that monsters with low Intelligence scores could only max one or the other, but were usually written as having their points split between the two. Now it is a different game. I am left with the decision of whether to keep them split by putting points in a brand new skill (and potentially creating a new role for the monster) or making the monster more perceptive than before.
More to come as I continue working. This will be something of a blog-post for the time being. Thoughts are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lord Tataraus wrote:
Well, I agree...except I am coming from the angle that Halflings are just better with Int rather than Cha, maybe its because I often have cannibalistic and bloodthirsty halflings in my games that aren't that charismatic, cute, or lovable.
I guess that depends on your paradigm for halflings. Tolkienesque halflings I would think are quite charming, although I don't think there is any justification for saying they are any more charming than men. If you think of Beltar every time you think of halflings, well, I can kind of see your point. Personally, I always saw Beltar as more of a parody of halfling PLAYERS, but that's just me.
For the record, I am not totally on board with the whole stat adjustment "fix." A lot of them seem forced, like the half-orc +2 to Wisdom (don't orcs have -2 to Wisdom?). I think there are other ways to balance a race than by simply offering stat mods.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Squirrelloid wrote:
You apparently have a far more unified idea of dungeon than i do. I think of things like RttToH which features monsters separated by fiendish traps whom, even if they could get past the traps to encounter each other, would sooner kill than talk. Not that you can't build a dungeon otherwise, but I'd consider those exceptions to the general rule. Most dungeons are forgotten ruins in remote areas you venture to for the promises of riches - retaliation isn't especially likely. (And who's going to care if they start killing the local orc tribe).
I will give you this. There are a lot of classic dungeons like the Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain that follow the paradigm you suggest. But there are just as many such as the Pits of the Slave Lords or the Temple of Elemental Evil that follow the paradigm I describe, if not more.
Squirrelloid wrote:
Also, planeshifting to your own private demi-plane is risk free, as its small enough you're a short walk from wherever you want to be and there aren't really any wandering monsters. (They'd have to deal with all those Symbol of X the cleric and wizard tiled the place in which triggers to 'not the party').
I don't know where you got the idea that PCs are capable of crafting their very own demiplane, but such a task is not a simple matter. First of all, in order to even use plane shift, you have to have a tuning fork keyed to the plane to which you desire to travel. Acquiring such a tuning fork might be an adventure in and of itself. Second of all, there is no spell in the PH that lets you craft your own demiplane. I believe there is an epic spell for that however. Third, even if you were to find a small, private demiplane, and even if you were to find a tuning fork for it, and even if it WERE to be uninhabited, unless all of your dungeons are inhabited by nothing but traps and mindless undead or similar creatures, chances are someone in that dungeon is eventually going to figure out where you keep plane shifting to and either find a way to follow you or find a way to keep you on the Prime next time you return (i.e. dimensional anchor). Monsters use magic too, and they are not fond of having their lairs disturbed.
I think we've belabored this point enough. Suffice it to say, the ability to escape from battle does not mean the job is done. Your DM is going easy on you if his dungeon are all static environments that let you rest whenever you feel like it. DMs like that are what make the 15 minute workday possible, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirth Gersen wrote:
In my campaign, it would be a blessed relief. Either way, there's got to be some way we can both be satisfied with it. It's a game rule, not world politics; the lack of a solution for both of us just means that our creativity is insufficient to the task, not that one can't be found.
Well, I rather like the idea of simply reducing the mobility class of fly spells since hitting the PCs with a nerf bat seems to the be the main idea behind implementing this skill in the first place. Of course, at that point I think we need to try to gauge whether the gamer community at large thinks such a change is necessary, then let everyone who doesn't like it house rule it. Either way, I will probably keep flying the way it was in 3.5. But I like Paizo products and will probably keep buying them so not only would I prefer to not have to house rule things, I think it would be in the community's best interest not to include the Fly skill in the core rules if there is not a significant demand for it. I don't think there is a significant demand for it. Maybe I am wrong, but this thread hasn't seemed to invite overwhelming support (although those that support it do tend to be arguing with me more, heh).
I would be happy if the skill were minimalized to the extent that I could ignore it in future Paizo publications without having to do significant conversion.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Requiring a feat to use potions of fly would be fine with me; a feat or a skill, either way is OK. It could be a bonus feat for natural flyers.
I know a lot of people advocate rolling it into acrobatics, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Realistically-speaking, I can tumble and jump, and have very good balance, but I also get airsick. Game mechanically, acrobatics is already verging on "too good," to my mind. I'd just like flying characters to somehow be an exception, rather than the default.
I agree with you completely. You know, this probably could be solved by simply reducing the maneuverability rating of spells then allowing PCs to take the Improved Flight feat (Draconomicon) that increases your maneuverability rating by 1. Good fix for those who think it is too easy for PCs to fly, easy to ignore for those who think 3.5 fly is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaisoku wrote:
Casters don't have dead levels, they get new spells and more spell slots per every level. It's not like a Fighter who literally gets hitpoints and skills and BAB on some levels.
Sorcerers especially get more every level as they gain more spells known constantly.
What you say about the fighter is true, but what you are missing is that caster level progression for a sorcerer is analogous to base attack and hit point progression for a fighter. If a fighter can get his base attack and hit points from another class PLUS get additional class features, what is to stop him from doing so?
Sorcerers can get that same stuff from a prestige class, so why not? Granted there is more to encourage sticking with the sorcerer class in Pathfinder, but I'm not sure that it is enough. Giving the class an exciting new ability each level (even if that ability isn't that effective in battle or solving problems) keeps the class interesting enough to hold a player's attention captive from level to level. I've never seen metamagic feats get much use, and when they do, they are rarely superior options to spells of their level anyway. Maximized magic missile is only better than ice storm if you are fighting one opponent, but that isn't always the case. Quickened fireball doesn't exactly trump delayed blast fireball either, especially considering that it contributes to rapidly depleting your spell repertoire for the day.
I don't think giving sorcerers a few more metamagic feats gives them a significant boost to the power curve, but it does give players something to Ooo and Ahh over when they would otherwise be making fairly mundane choices that they make every level anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|