barasawa's page

I like Power Points while the Vancian fire & forgotten stuff just annoys the heck out of me.

Now that I've made that clear, I don't switch a group over to PP unless all spellcasters agree to it. The reason is simple, you wouldn't believe how many people have problems with keeping track of the power points.

On a side note, I've had some success with people using a bowl of glass stones to represent their power/mana. Use a 5 point power, take out 5 stones, but if you need a hundred or more per player, it can get kind of cumbersome or expensive. (The cheapest I've found the glass stones is at aquarium shops and dollar stores craft sections.) Props like that can work well, but it's not for everyone.

Also, just a side note, imo the d&d magic system doesn't convert to a power point system all that well without a massive overhaul.

Thanks for the input everyone.

>^_^<

I remember that D&D used the different flight maneuverability categories to define how you could move when flying.
I can't find that in Pathfinder, and it looks like the flight mc (good, poor, etc) has become nothing more than a skill modifier for the Fly skill.

Is that correct, or did I miss something?

Also, a possible inconsistency I'd like to check on. The text of the Fly skill says that you can turn up to 45 degrees by sacrificing 5 feet of movement (without fly check).
However, the table shows turn greater than 45 degrees by spending 5 feet of movement (and making fly check), as well as 180 degrees by spending 10 feet (and making fly check).

So was that a typo and you only spend the movement for turns greater than 45 degrees?
Or You spend 5 feet to make a turn and make fly check if more than 45 degrees, spend an extra 5 (10 total) if the turn is 180 degrees?
Or possibly spend 5 feet for the first 45 degrees of turn, and either another 5 feet for more than 45 degrees, or an 10 feet additional for 180 degrees?

I personally think it's 5' no check for up to 45^, and either 5' with check for more than 45^, or 10' with check for the max of 180^.

I wouldn't be asking, but one of the other players started asking and I can see his point.
(There's always someone that will look at it different no matter how carefully you worded something.)

Thanks everyone

You can take 20 on perception tests when looking for traps.
The rules say it, so do the devs.
It's even a specific example of taking 20.

The only negative repercussion to failing a perception test is that you don't see it. Not seeing something may have secondary negative effects, like that unlit train running you over, but it's not a result of the skill check failure.

It's not metagaming unless the players are using knowledge the characters can't reasonably have. "I'm checking the area 10' west of the east door, and 5' south. Ok, I found the only trap in the room, let's go."
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to check for traps on that gilded chest, or on the door to the high priests sanctum. That's not metagaming, that's being reasonably cautious. Going over it multiple times is probably a good idea, those trap makers are devious. As to checking every single 5' square you're going to travel through, that's just nuts. Still not metagaming, but taking 3 days to go down the hall is insane and totally paranoid. Unless you're in the legendary hall of a thousand traps, bane of adventurers and nightmare of rogues. In that case, paranoia may be your only chance at survival.

It's been my experience that groups having to put up with rogues that check every freaking square, soon get sick of it and either kill the rogue, talk them out of it, or leave them behind. It's kind of like a mage checking everything he sees with detect magic, rather than just the pile of loot you just got, or the suspicious painting that seem to be watching you.

Freds pretty sure this chest is trapped, and he doesn't want to take any chances, so he takes 20. He looks it over good, and doesn't see anything. Not good enough, maybe he missed something... so he goes over it again, this time peering into the cracks with a light on the off chance of spotting something. Still nothing, not giving up. He thinks back to what his mentor taught him for a bit, then starts looking for any discontinuity in the wood grain and metal. Nothing. There's no way the noble would leave his magic seal in an untrapped chest, would he? No, but Fred still can't figure it out. Hmmm... Taking yet another look, trying to figure out what traps could be there, Fred finally notices something he hadn't before. The lock is obviously a Smargaff design. Those things are tough to open, but they also have 3 inch bolt sticking up on the inside, and the placement of the lock wouldn't give room for that bolt... Ah Hah! This lock must be a decoy! Carefully peering inside the keyhole while carefully reflecting some light in it, he see's it's not deep enough for the normal key a Smargaff would use. It's definitely some kind of trap meant to fool people trying to pick the lock. (DC 30, take 20 + 11 skill = 31, a success and couple minutes)
Fred then searches it for the real opening mechanism and finds it, a set of brass buttons that must be pushed, and in trying to open it, triggers the second trap (DC 34) that his previous search (taking 20 for a 31 total) missed. Guess his GM really wanted to make things difficult.

I have the original paperback printings from the 80s.
Had a lot of fun with it.
Easy to pick up with it's uncomplicated system, perfect for newbies. And it has enough options that most players will enjoy it also. Rules Lawyers feel a bit stifled as there's not enough conflicting stuff for them to abuse.

Would love to get the new version/printing since nobody touches my originals without signing over their firstborn. (20 year old well loved and used paperbacks just can't take the abuse of the common player.)