ciretose's page

In an effort to move the conversation out of the already full war priest conversation and get more into the weeds, I wanted to have a separate thread to discuss what I see as the core mechanic of the class and how to improve it/give it more of a "Class Feature" feel.

Here is my suggestion, please feel free to comment or add your own suggestions:

Step 1. You replace sacred weapon with a simple flat bonus that increases with level, similar to weapon training but only for the Sacred Weapon. You add a feat that allows you to select a sacred weapon other than your Gods favored weapon.

Step 2. You remove the domain/blessing feature entirely and replace it with...

Step 3. You add an ability to add various +1 weapon enhancements that are tied to Deities similarly to how the domains and blessings are tied to deities for rounds per level.

Saranae would get something like flaming, Pharasma would bane (undead), Abadar would get axiomatic, etc...these could be listed under domains or gods and gods would have multiple options, similar to how they are under multiple domains.

Step 4. Removed the bonus feats. In it's place add a list of feats and abilities based on the favored weapon (or taking a feat that allows another sacred weapon) there are listed a weapon groups for that weapon using the fighter weapon groups.

Under that weapon group are bonus feats you can choose from that act like combat mastery from the Ranger class. For example the thrown weapon group would have feats that enhance thrown weapons, and as a special ability perhaps returning (x) times a day. Light blades may have the TWF list from the ranger.

In addition, each group would have special abilities geared toward users of weapons, granted at appropriate levels similar to domain powers.

So lets say you are a Warpriest of Pharasma. You will have Weapon Focus at first level with your favored weapon and instead of a blessing you pick an enhancement you can add for one round a day per level. You pick Bane:Undead and for one round a day your daggers are undead bane.

Rather than getting arbitrary combat bonus feats, you get bonus feats specifically for your weapon group as bonus feats similar to Ranger Combat Feats, including the not needing pre-requisites, so perhaps you are a TWF dagger user or a thrown dagger user, since daggers qualify for both weapon groups.

So now we have a class that will be very different for each god and user, while focused on combat rather than casting.

Again thoughts or suggestions of your own.

So a friends and I were talking about Pathfinder and specifically guns and the gunslinger class and he took a position I had not considered before, but I think makes a lot of sense.

If we look at firearms in general, the advantage is in penetration, not damage.

If you were successfully stabbed with even a short sword it would generally do more damage to your body than being shot with a pistol.

As he put it, 50 cent was shot 9 times at close range and lived. Try stabbing someone 9 times with a short sword in the same spots and see what happens.

His position was that the touch AC rules aren't the problem. It is the damage. If you reduce firearm damage and make the critical X2, you now don't need to worry about rate of fire with things like pistols, even with the touch attack factor.

A simple pistol, for example, could be a 1d4 X2 damage weapon against touch AC. But now that the base damage is down, you don't need to be as concerned with rate of fire, even against touch AC.

More powerful guns could remain heavy damage, but with the current limitations toward lower rate of fire, creating a balance between the two.

We both agreed there would be nerd rage at the idea of guns doing less damage. But I thought I would throw this out there to start the conversation.

The advantages for us were this.

1. Rate of fire isn't an issue. You can have revolvers that fire like reloading crossbows with no issues, because they are only doing 1d4X2 damage. You want to dual wield revolvers? Fine.
2. Guns can be made less complex, because they aren't that great in terms of damage, so you don't need to add odd limiting factors.

Thoughts?

Would it be to difficult to have number of times Favorited added as a counter option in the profile?

Seems like a fun thing to have.

A friend posted this video.. It is about Star Wars but it's 4 rules reflect what many of us look for in a game, and where a divide lies in the community.

Players are adventures, and the world needs adventurers because it is full of terrors.

It is a dangerous place. Bad things happen, often to good and innocent people.

Evil actually exists. True evil that would bring down all that is good in the world.

Sometimes your hero loses a hand, gets placed in carbonite. Sometimes your mentor is struck down by the BBEG right in front of you as you watch.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

Consider the world of Star Wars. Not the prequels, we are talking "A New Hope"

The Empire won. The great heroes fought valiantly. The great heroes fought bravely. And the great heroes died. Obi Wan is hiding on a frontier planet. The heroes family is killed, his father turned to the dark side, and to help him escape, his mentor is killed right in front of him.

It is a dangerous world. If you aren't careful, you can go from hero of the story, to Obi Won making a sacrifice to help the heroes.

When you remove risk from the game...well you get "Phantom Menace".

We knew Anakin and Obi Wan lived. Padme too. We knew Qui-Gon Jinn didn't make it, as otherwise why is Obi Wan training Anakin. We just didn't know when.

So we never worried during the fighting, as the only character who we didn't know would be killed, (Jar Jar) well...we kind of rooted for him to die.

Arguably the most interesting character in the first movie, Darth Maul is "killed". This wasn't a coincidence.

Episode two and three were somewhat more tense, as aside from Yoda and Obi-Wan we didn't know who may or may not make it of the Jedi's. Great heroes all, we knew many and more would fall. But we knew Padme would die, and we knew the children would be sent away and we knew that Anakin wouldn't really die and that Obi Wan would win.

If you know the outcome, the story loses much. If the heroes can not fall heroically, the story loses much.

This is not an argument for DM's to kill characters. Nor is it an argument for players to not be upset when characters die.

Fear of the loss you would suffer if your character dis, and how upset you would be is part of what makes you so excited to win.

It is an argument for not removing death from the game, and for slowing the trend away from death being something to be feared toward a more video game style approach.

Han shot first. Because if he didn't, he would be dead. Han Solo's story would end with him shot in a bar. But he shot first, and so someone else's story ended.

It was that kind of setting. That kind of world.

The kind of world we love.

Don't childproof the game.

So I was trying to come up with some new curses and I figured why not brainstorm with the community.

I was thinking of a concept where the Oracle is haunted by nightmares, which leave them fatigued as the curse.

The problems to be resolved would be:

1. If this is removable fatigued, it isn't much of a curse. If it isn't removable, what is the boon.

2. What other boons should come. Access to dream style spells would world for later.

Also, I figured people could propose other curse ideas for general discussion.

So I had an idea for a simple bump to the rogue that would make a huge difference.

Magical Device Aptitude

Prerequisite: Minor Magic

Benefit: A rogue can take 10 on a Use Magic Device check.

Normally you cannot take 10 with this skill.

Advanced Rogue Trick
Magical Device Mastery.

Prerequisites: Magical Device Aptitude, Minor Magic

The rogue becomes so confident in the use of Magical Devices that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. When making a Use Magic Device check, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

You would need at least 4 levels of rogue to get the first one, and 10 for the 2nd.

Thoughts?

So in an effort to have more productive discussions over testable things, I present a discussion of the Fighter Crossbowman Archetype.

The Hypothesis: This archetype is substantially weaker than other ranged fighter options, even when considering possible synergies.

So first, we need a baseline of what expectations for what an archer should be able to do, and then we need to see how good a crossbowman we can make.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion about rules and how to read them and such lately...let me give my unrequested advice that has lead my group and everyone I've played with to happy outcomes when they are deciding if an option is or is not allowed.

This honestly isn't meant as an attack at anyone, but more of a friendly guideline to follow that I believe will help you get along with your fellow players and GMs.

1. Just because it is not specifically forbidden, doesn't mean it is allowed. The book can't cover every possible idea you can come up with, that is why you picked a GM for the group, to adjudicate those grey areas.

2. If an option seems to good to be true, it probably is. If you can't find a trade off, there is a good chance it was an unintended use, and probably an exploint. There is no secret best possible option intentionally written into the game. A game with only one best option is a game that sucks. The intention was to have all options have pluses and minuses. If you think you found an option that has no minuses, you are probably wrong.

3. If you think an option has a trade off, show the math. Sometimes options seem like exploits, but when you actually break it down they are fine. But yelling that someone is dumb and can't read the rules isn't going to help you win friends and influence people. If the math shows you are right, feel great. If the math says you are wrong, deal with it.

4. If the Devs say you are wrong, 99 times out of 100 you are wrong. If the Development teams says you are wrong, 100 times out of 100 you are wrong. Thank them and if you don't like it house rule it.

5. Because some guy on some forum on the internet said it was ok doesn't mean it is ok, unless that guy on that forum is the GM for the PbP or whatever you are running. Citing guy on the internet is like citing Wikipedia. Quite often correct, but very far from always, particularly in anything controversial.

6. Ask yourself "What do I think the Devs were trying to do here?" This is a bigger question that what is the intent of the rule, and gets to what is the context of this rule in the broader format of the game. If I read it this way, does that impact other areas of the game?

7. Looking for ways around restrictions is a very quick way to find yourself on the wrong side of a reading. Restrictions are intentional barriers to force difficult choices, not something "system mastery" allows you to ignore. Trade offs are what the game is based on, not something to avoid.

8. Ask the group before you show up with your "discovery". Get approval off table, not at table.

9. If something seems broken to you, it probably seems 10 times more broken to everyone else. And if it is broken...well...the defintion of broken is...broken. So don't do it. It's broken. I can assure you the people who wrote the book didn't intend for anything in it to be broken in the same way the person who build your car didn't intend for things to be broken. A man walked into a Doctors office and said "Doctor, it hurts when I do this". Doctor said, Don't do that.

Same thing with things that are broken.

10. If you find yourself angry because someone won't allow you to do something they think will make the game less fun, take a step back and realize that you are now telling someone they have to do something they don't want to do, that they think will make the game less fun, because you want to do it and refuse to explore other choices that you could also do which would be fun for both you and the person you are yelling at.

What does that make you in that situation?

That's it. Those are my tips. I've got several groups, a lot of friends, a wonderful wife (who tells me she loves me in real life and hates me on the internet...) and everything is coming up Milhouse for me after following the above advice.

Take it or leave it. :)

So level 1 through....whenever the latest conventional wisdom...the martial can "tank" and "block" for the more fragile casters.

But at higher levels, AC matters less and the HP gap isn't as relevant.

There has been a lot of talk about giving Martial abilities that are like spells...why not go another way.

Why not give them resistances.

Why not set up feats with high BaB entry requirements (or even class abilities) that make magic less effective against them.

Who are the classic fighter/martial heroes, thematically. Achilles, Sigfried, Cuculain...what do they share.

They have Tick-like Nigh invulnerability.

Why not, instead of trying to boost them to the point they are unrecognizable as martial classes, we instead make them fighters capable of filling the damage soaking of high level play.

Why not give access to viable spell resistance, spell sundering, ridiculously saves and resistances, all accessible based on high BaB and or high levels in pure martial classes.

Thoughts, suggestions, ideas?

So I was thinking about one class parties, that is full parties that are made up of only one class that could survive an AP.

The ¾ classes as well as Cleric, Druid and Oracle seem easy. So I went with more of a challenge.
An all monk party.
First up, Crafty the Gnome. Taking advantage of the new SLA ruling, he will be taking craft wondrous items at 3rd and Craft Arms and Armor at 5th (possibly potions and wands later as well) to help the party in that regard, as well as UMD so he can use scrolls for crafting and wands for…well…wands. He will taking dangerously curious trait to make it a class skill, and the charisma bonus will help him as well, making him the party face. He won’t be the strongest, so I will take the Sensai Archetype, and even if I don’t pour much in Dex, he should be pretty hard to hit, stealthy, and his bardic performance will aid the others. Will likely take some quiggong along the way, as why wouldn’t I? He will be a bit feat starved relative to the others, but he is filling the caster/bard role so he won’t be as frontline, hopefully.
Second up, a Zen Archer, for all the obvious reasons. Also some quiggong mixed in there.
Third up, a monk of the healing hand, mainly for the Ki Sacrifice at 11th level, when people tend to start to die. Quiggong powers mixed in here, so I can qualify for Arcane Strike. I am on the fence about this one, because I hate to lose Quivering Palm.
And finally, just a Quiggong Monk, which will be working toward the abundant step feats when they are available, aiming to become a caster killer.
Feel free to comment or post your own single class parties. Preferably for more challenging mixes.

Pretty straight forward, for those not in aware:

"The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."

So let's build and see if it is or isn't exploitable. The goal isn't to prove it is broken, but rather to stress test to see if it is or isn't. Most PrC have skill requirements that functionally have the same level restrictions, but maybe there is an issue somewhere in there.

So far I have heard concern over

- Aasimar Eldritch Knights (Either Magus or Starting at 3rd with Wizard or Sorcerer)

- Mystic Thurge (can qualify at 4th level with only one lost level.

Possible other PrC to look at (off the top of my head)

- Arcane Trickster (now only requires one level of caster class) for a couple of races

- Bloodmage (Can start sooner)

- Divine Assessor (Can start sooner)

So...is it a problem or is it no problem. They asked, let's take a look.

So uh...what's in them?

So one of the suggestions in the next "Version" of Pathfinder would to have feats that grow with the player, similar to how Power Attack and Skill Focus improve as the player improves.

So a few questions.

1. What feats should do this.
2. How should they do this.

To start off, I'll offer my suggestion of having all of the manuver feats (grapple, trip, etc...) improve with BaB.

So for example if you take Improved grapple with +1 BaB you get what is now improved grapple. When your BaB reaches +6, rather than having to take greater improved grapple, the feat automatically improves to become greater improved grapple.

Similarly, Vital Strike would be one feat, no chain, bonuses coming automatically at +11 and +16 without additional feat investment.

This saves the feat cost (arguably feat tax) and rewards high BaB classes with feats that stay useful at higher levels, growing with the character.

Thoughts/suggestions.

Following another thread to it's logical conclusion...

It's 7th level, I'm a martial class and I want to pick a feat. I take leadership and make myself a crafter.

The crafter takes Craft Wonderous items at 3rd and Craft Arms and Armor at 5th and you basically have them cast all day buff spells on you in the morning then craft the rest of the day away. They can make most of your equiptment, magic items and possibly even potions.

As a GM, would you allow this to adjust WBL for crafted on a new character?

Honest question.

And for the record, I would. You spent a feat, the cohort "exists" and could reasonably be your cohort for exactly that purpose.

Since apparently this is a major problem for some people, I thought I would start a thread to discuss basic table courtesy and manners.

If you follow these basic rules, you will have no problem finding games.

1. BYOS, BYOS and if applicable definitely BYOB unless you are told there will be food and drink provided. Even then it can't hurt to bring something. And frankly, you really should bring enough to share if you want to really be courteous and welcome at all gatherings.

2. Be on time and be ready to play. Don't show up at the time the game was supposed to start and start rolling up a character. Have the materials you will need as ready as you are able (laptop, book or printout)

3. When starting a new game or new character, run your concept first by the GM and then by the rest of the group. Not the character sheet, just the concept. Don't put anything on paper until you check in to make sure the concept fits in with what other people want to play.

4. If you are doing something you think is going to force a rule check, either mention it beforehand or have the rule ready when you do it. Stopping a table to find a rule is annoying.

5. Use the time between turns to get ready. When possible, have your spells available to show your GM or to check yourself. Be ready on your turn.

6. Be a part of the party, not a lone wolf. Look for synergies with your fellow players and try to create reasons for everyone to be a part of the party.

7. If you aren't interested in the game the GM is running, politely bow out. Don't try to force a square peg in a round hole. Other games will come.

8. If a game is dying, let it go. There are lots of other ideas and concepts you can try if the group isn't into what you are currently running. Rebooting is always better than group collapse.

9. You are "a" GM, not "The" GM. You can be replaced.

10. You are "a" player, not "The" player. You can be replaced.

11. If the rest of the party is zoning out while you role play, tone it down. It's a team game, not your own personal acting debut.

12. If you think the GM stinks, run your own game to show how you think it should be run. If the rest of the group agrees with you then changes will come. If not, you'll learn how hard it is to be on the other side of the table and be more likely to...well...STFU.

13. Keep your group's dirty laundry off the messageboard. Seriously, don't post asking strangers to affirm your players or GM are a jerk. If you really need advice, come here with a post asking how you can change, not how you can change everyone else.

14. Be nice to the books. If possible, buy some to add to the communal library.

15. Rules discussions are for downtime, not at the table. Even death can be corrected in this game, so just wait and talk to your GM when there is some downtime.

16. If you are GM, make sure there is some downtime periodically for players to go eat, use the bathroom, talk, plot (or for you to scramble to come up with a plan when they throw you for a loop). If a player seems upset, give them time to talk to you between encounters before it blows up.

17. Die with dignity. It happens to everyone. Start working on your 2nd character (assuming you don't already have a pre-approved backup) or something.

18. Remember it is a game, and the people at the table are your friends, and no one is (generally) getting paid to be there. Rather than acting like you are entitled to customer service from others at the table, put yourself in the mindset of helping to provide the best game for everyone else at the table.

19. When you mess up, apologize. It seems like a small thing. It isn't.

20. Don't just design for yourself, design for your group. This goes for GM's and players alike. If you thinking about what you want and not thinking about what would be fun for everyone, you are doing it wrong.

Feel free to add your own.

Let me both welcome you and apologize for all the puns sure to follow.

So many times on these boards in threads where the OP expressed and intention to attempt a concept we see a group of people charge in seemingly saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU WILL GET YOUR PARTY KILLED, WEAK BUILD FOR CONCEPT IS WRONGBADFUN, ALL MUST OPTIMIZE, BUILD MOAR PYLONS!!!"

So once and for all, can we establish what the baseline to contribute is, and if anyone can meet that baseline with a concept, everyone who continues to attack the OP for wrongbadfun should then STFU and GTFO of the thread, unless they have something actually productive to contribute to making the concept work

My proposal for defining the baseline is this:

Look at the Bestiary Monster Creation Guideline for a creature of a CR equal to the level of the class.

If you would rather have those stats on an empty sheet that the proposed build at that level, you can say it is under powered.

Otherwise, it's not. It is viable and able to contribute in a normal game with normal expectations, and therefore not going to come into your home game and stab a baby.

Can we agree to this? And if not can we discuss what the baseline is and should be?

Spoilers abound...

I did not like Dawnguard. It was a horrible disappointment for one reason.

It made no sense.

Were the new armors cool? Yes. Were the new perk trees great? Yes. Was it cool to turn into a vampire? Yes. Hell, were the new locations like the Soul Cairn beautiful? Yes, all of the parts were wonderful additions to the game world.

Except the story made no sense. Jarringly, painfully, no sense.

You are recruited as as a Vampire Hunter. You are sent on basically the first mission to go kill Vampires. You discover an ancheint Vampire with an elder scroll and...YOU ESCORT HER TO THE HEAD VAMPIRE SO SHE CAN GIVE IT TO HIM?!?!?!

Worse yet, she knows he is evil, so why does she want to give it to him? And why do you help her? And why does he let you go?

Yes they added cool things, but it was like they watched that cool video we all watched with all the ideas they came up and said "Put in all the things!" without even trying to make sense as to "Why". Worse, they ruin Canon by throwing Elder Scrolls around like candy.

Remove the story and the "stuff" is great. But the story ruined it.

Contrast this with Dragonborn. You return to a place you've been before, and they know it. You play with nostalia and canon. The reason you are there makes sense. The things you do, make sense. It isn't perfect, but I don't have to completely suspend disbelief of any logical reason on the first real mission so you can deux machina me to being a Vampire.

The most hyped new feature in Dawnguard (riding the dragon) is probably the least interesting thing in the quest to that point.

And yet, some people loved Dawnguard.

I think I may use this as a test in the future to figure out who I want to game with. If you aren't bothered by the horrible story in Dawnguard, because you only cared about the shiny new ways to kill things...well, we probably aren't compatible gamers.

There is another thread that is kind of blowing my mind right now.

I understood that some people feel restrained by things like alignment restrictions of classes. I don't agree, but I get that if you were playing in settings that didn't follow it could make sense to loosen such things for house rules.

Now there seems to be an argument that having your character actually make sense, in the setting you are playing, is to much to ask.

Really? Making sense is now an excessively high bar to reach?

I am not talking about people who want to play in silly concept games, that is almost a completely different sub game where everything makes sense, because of the setting.

I'm talking about people who sit down with the presumed intent of playing a game equivalent of an AP or Module, where there is an immersive world where the characters "exist" as presumably part of the world.

And yet...asking them to make sense is a bridge to far.

I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

Making sense should not be an unreasonable expectation in character design. A GM shouldn't have to "house rule" making sense into the pregame. It should be an assumed goal.

Obviously "sense" will vary from table to table. Some will allow things others would forbid.

But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?

That is now to much to ask?

*mind blown*

Idea for a challenge game.

One person picks a level. Two people each have an option of making a PC or choosing a creature from the bestiary of that level, completely unknown to each other (under spoiler tags)

They appear and fight it out.

Only thing I can't figure out is the arena.

I am on record as not being a fan of either of these items.

Metamagic Rods are functionally purchased feats. Only better since you don't have to prep the spell in advance. Items should not obsolete feats, IMHO>

Pearls of Power overcome a class limitation...why? To what end? The whole reason Sorcerers lag in spell progression is because of the advantage of being able to recast the same spell...which is overcome by this item.

So what would be the problem if they were removed from the game, as I want to check in before I officially house rule them out to see if there is any reason to leave them in.

As a comment on the recent spat of "Evil GM" threads, allow me to explore possible roots of this issue.

When a group of people sit down to play a role playing game, a decision is made. Someone from the group will be running the game. Who will that be.

Now if you are like me, you have a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, people to choose from. Sure, you may have a friend or two who is kind of wacky that you like to game with for comic effect, but you aren't letting that guy run the show.

Not with so many other, more reasonable choices.

Similarly, when you want to run as a GM, if you have a large group of very reasonable people in your life, it is actually a challenge to decide who you will invite, and who will be out of this game, either for logisitical purposes or just philosophical disagreement on game play.

So, you know, if you can't have this happen...well...I'll just go ahead and say it. Like attracts like.

So if you are having problems at your table...maybe start with the person in the mirror. You picked these friends, you decided to sit down at this table, you decided to invite these people, you decided to put that GM in charge.

Just sayin'

So I'm listening to NPR and Kevin Spacey and David Fincher are discussing actors and directors, and it occurs to me this is a near perfect analogy.

PCs are actors, GMs are directors.

It is not a flaw that the Player is going to try and create the most powerful thing they can. It is the players job. The player is trying to make a hero, someone exciting and interesting and fun to play.

This is what they are supposed to do. It is, in fact, their primary job.

However, if an Actor shows up on the set of a Western attempting to play Robo-Cop, it is the job of the director to get them into the movie that is being made.

A good GM say to the player "Here is the setting, audition your idea for heros in this setting".

And then, the GM sits back and sees how creative his players are as they audition ideas. If an idea doesn't work, the director, well...directs the actor to try to come up with something that will.

The GM should never tell a player what to play or how they must act, but they absolutely should guide them toward choices that fit the setting and the group.

Because they are the only person who knows the setting, and they are the one in consulation with the rest of the group in forming the story.

If a player isn't interested in making something be part of the setting, the player doesn't get cast in the campaign. If they are, most everything else will resolve itself as things go on.

Just a fun little discussion of what would be the Ultimate 4 person party for the AP, considering both utility and fun. It is obviously subjective, so please post your own.

1. Human Wizard - (Transmutation School).

Why? This is a AP all about anchient wizards. It is full of spellbooks and rollplaying opportunities and at the end, this player could become the new runelord of Greed. Hence picking transmutation.

2. Human Bard (Archeologist Archtype)

Why? This fills a ton of party roles. You have your trapfinder, secondary caster and healer, party face...not to mention the bardic knowledges are going to very much come in handy. Not a power house, but a jack of all trades that will come very much in handy throughout the campaign.

3. Human Paladin -

Why? Many campaigns are hard for Paladins. This one isn't. The bad guys are bad. Immunity to fear and detecting evil will very much come in handy at many points in the campaign. He is your tank, your secondary face, your nova against the BBEG and yet another healer.

4. Human Druid -

Why? Because this is a heavy travel campaign over lots and lots of different terrain. Wild shape is great for scouting, and you will absolutely need scouting.

Thoughts, or post your own.

In an effort to provide a target rather than a complaint, let me spell out some of my concerns with the rules and guidelines and discuss ways forward for improvement.

1. Craft Wondrous Item needs to be split up. All of the others are pretty much fine considering you are giving up a feat for a relatively narrow field of study, but craft Wondrous Items is ridiculous. At a minimum sub-divide it into clothing and actual items, but I think a good point of discussion is how we can divide up this far to broad feat. If you make this several categories with different feats rather than one feat, a lot of the overpower concerns are addressed.

2. Why is the Wizard making weapons and armor? When did wizarding including blacksmithing and tanning. Not saying they shouldn't have access, but it adds nothing to the game that the Fighter can't make his own weapons and armor as well as a guy who has no proficiency at using such things. Yes they added master craftsman, but that should just be a rule rather than a feat, at least for weapons and armor. Opening it up to much? Perhaps, which leads me to...

3. You should have to be proficient in a weapon or armor to craft that weapon or armor. Will this mean Wizards will have less ability to craft weapons and armor. Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not in my opinion. At least not if you are making it easier for the other classes to craft for themselves if they choose.

4. You shouldn't be able to take 10 when crafting. You are getting an item for half-price, failing on one every once in a while isn't an unfair addition.

So lets look at just those changes.

Now Martial classes are the best at making weapons, fighters the best at making armor. Seems right.

Wizards, and casters in general, are still are the best at making magic items. Seems right.

You will need a heavy feat investment to fully outfit yourself, regardless of class, which seems right considering you double your WBL.

Thoughts? Particularly on ideas on how to subdivide Craft Wondrous Items.

So there is a lot of discussion of versioning and updating...but the solution to most of the problems is already being implimented.

Versions.

Currently there is Pathfinder and the Beginner Box version of Pathfinder.

Both are more or less fully compatible with the core buisness (Adventure Paths and Modules) but both are very different.

Expand this with a re-boot in 3 to 4 parts, each with a "separate" rule set depending on your preferred playstyle.

Game 1: Beginner Box. Your simplified entry level rule-set designed almost entirely with new player in mind. Basically the beginner box as it is.

Game 2: A revised and cleaned up Core. This is your base game, only now it will be kept as clean as possible from any ambiguity, creep, etc...this is the baseline game in a core rule book that is the clear next step up from the Beginner Box, designed for the purist, and the baseline the APs and Modules are written to.

Game 3: Advanced Rule Set. This is where we start putting in spells and feats that require some adjudication and maybe GM approval, or things that could be open to abuse but are still fun. These are your splatbooks that push the envelop a bit. Marketed as included only with GM approval, but will still work if plugged into the core model. Some things will eventually drift over to core books, but this is where borderline things start out.

Game 4: Experimental Rule Set. This is where stuff like Words of Power or Alternate Armor rules go. Stuff most of us won't use in our game, but that we might buy and give a go. If things work they can get moved down to the other rule sets eventually, but this really is the Dev playground.

The key is all of this is compatible with the core buisness. The publishers can choose if these would be completely separate lines or just separate sections in the larger hardcover releases.

Either way this gives the game room to grow while still keeping creep at bay and making sure all rules encourage purchase of the core buisness items.

Thoughts?

Why do you let them run? Seriously, why?

One assumes that generally 5 people who know the rules are sitting at a table when this thing happens, and those 5 people have to decide "That person is someone I'm going to invest hours of my time allowing to run a game."

So why do you do it? Why do you come to the table and then complain on here about it? Why don't you run?

If you don't trust your GM, why are you letting them GM? Why can't you find someone else in the 5 people making the decision who isn't going to a be a "jerk?"

And does everyone else think they are a jerk, or are you the only one that is having a problem?

Because...well...if five people sat down and picked someone they all think is a jerk to DM, doesn't that kind of implies they think that GM is the lesser evil of the other four?

This is a story that is not about a paladin, but illustrates why many of us hate the paladin threads.

I have a player in one of my groups who decided to make a clouded vision oracle. He spent a lot of time coming up with the concept, worked hard to maximize the benefits he could get out of darkvision and to minimize the penalites of his limited vision.

When I am running rather than playing, particularly as we get to higher levels with so many creatures on the board, I often will forget that he can't see something on the table that is outside of his visial range.

He always reminds me.

Let me say that again.

He always reminds me.

He made a character that he wants to play. He wants to play the charater, not game the system.

If his character can't see the flying creature because it is too far away, he doesn't want to cheat.

If you make a paladin, part of playing a paladin is playing the code of that paladin. How you define that code is between you and you GM. But you made a decision to play a class with a specific limitation, in the same way my friend chose to play a class that can't see beyond a certain distance.

My friends Oracle is an absolute beast in dungeons and close quarters, but when you put him in an open field he has to adjust.

A paladin is an absolute beast against evil, and other times...has to adjust.

One of the reasons I get so short with people on the threads is that I come from a largely self policing group. We (Generally) don't invite people back who we can't trust to try to play the game honestly.

The few people we have in the game who can't handle this aren't allowed to play paladins and have to have spell sheets on the table and check them off as they go in front of the GM. They understand, it isn't a Red "A" on their chests, they just know they will fudge if we let them.

The guy who plays the oracle. No one questions him, he can play whatever he wants. He is always welcome at every table.

Everyone should strive to be more like him, rather than being "that guy"

Perhaps it is just me, but I like my game a bit gritty. I want a bit of fear at my table. I want to know that the rolls matter, and that I can't just make everything ok if something bad happens.

I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.

And I find that disapointing.

I don't come to the table to always have the good guys win, no matter how badly we perform. I don't want a participation trophy.

I want a world. A real, gritty, dark world where if my character makes it to high levels, it is an accomplishment I can be proud of rather than a function of patience.

And I want to have to decide if it is time to hang up my haversack after a few to many run ins that didn't go my way.

I am looking for immersion. I am not looking to be a disney hero, who knows it will always work out for everyone. I'm looking to be a Joss Whedon hero, who knows good will triumph, even if not all of us are around to see it happen.

Why is the game drifting away from me?

There was a discussion about the cost of raise dead that took a turn that kind of confused me, and I think it may be a source of some of the divsions in the game.

Raising your character from the dead is rarely about how much it costs in games I've played it.

You find a way to do it, because you care about your character. And more importantly, because your party cares about them.

You are a band of brothers/sisters. You bond through these adventures where you risk everything to save people you care about. Sure, they aren't real, but they are real when you are at the table.

When things are going well, the table is at damn near panic when one of our "friends" is a dice roll from death. The idea of just rolling up another characer is almost crazy talk. Of course you are going to spend whatever it takes to bring him back (and play behind a level in the old days) because he's your friend and that is what you do.

Are there times you are ready to move on, sure. Sometimes you don't bring them back, because you are ready to move on and change characters.

But that is rare (and in our games, can have consequeces...we have had old PCs that died be brought back as undead challenges...). It is rare because when your friend dies, and you can bring them back, you do it because you care.

The math isn't the question.

If I play with a GM or other players who aren't invested in creating a world that matters, I feel like that game failed. If I can't get the players to care, I feel like I have failed as a GM. If I can't make a PC the table feels is part of the setting and matters enough to save, I feel like I have failed as a player.

I am not saying it is wrongbadfun if it is about the math for your table, but it seems so strange to me to think that way about a fellow adventurer.

Thoughts?

Discussion from another thread moved here to reduce derail.
The Flynn Effect.

Is the video private for anyone else, or am I special?

If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.

It really is that simple.

When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?

If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.

Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...

But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?

The rule at my table is simple. If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table. When in doubt, majority rules.

In one of the first really epic campaigns I played in, one of the players was lagging a bit. He was a good player,had a great backstory that became integral to the plot...but it was 3.5 and he had a gnome rogue that just didn't roll stats very well. The gap kept growing and although he had some epic moments, often he was frustrated by the relative power of other party members.

Later in the game, the GM helped him out by having things happen to him that increased his ability scores a bit. It was fully in story, hard fought, but it also brought him in line with the group expectations.

This is how I plan to use the Mythic Rules, based on what I've read so far.

The Mythic Rules will be something I have in my toolbag to pull out and reward players who do everything right, make the game better, but maybe bit off more than they could chew with a concept that didn't work.

In that game, the gnome rogue ended up landing a killing blow on a demon we had been chasing for, well, years. It was epic have the little gnome that could land the final backstab, and that would have been a perfect time to reward the player with something like this.

So while I fully expect the munchkins and power gamers to abuse and exploit these on the forums, out in the real world I make this suggestions to the GMs.

This is yours to make adjustments at your table. To reward strong play and story.

Use it for good, not evil. :)

Instead of listing things we want, for a change let's list things that you would remove from the game, or rules you would revert back to the 3.5, or pre-errata/playtest version.

Just off the top of my head, to get the ball rolling I would remove (or at least increase in price)

Most metamagic rods
Pearls of power.
Antagonize

I would revert

Sunder to pre-errata.

Go!

I think the discussion of specific roles is a bit...off. It isn't to say that roles don't exist, but rather that assignment of roles to a party member isn't the only, or best way to approach accomplishing the goals.

I'm going to divide this into two sections. Needs and Wants. All parties need to be able to do the following, preferably without resorting excessively to consumables.

1. Remove Enemies from the Battlefield: Generally through removal of hit points, sometimes through SoS spells. The enemy has to go, and you need multiple ways of doing this.

2. Party Recovery: Early on this is just healing, but later in the game this becomes much more broad. Party Members will be hurt and/or killed and the party needs to be able to deal with this in the field.

3. Out of combat interactions: You need to be able to deal with out of combat social and skill encounters.

Looking at the three items, there is obvious crossover. Classes like Bards and Inquisitors cover all three, but not as well as some specialist classes.

The next division is more group wants, depending on party play style.

1. Stealth and Initiative: Not always combined, but the concept being the party that decides the terms of the combat starts with a significant advantage. Stealth allows you to get the drop on the enemy, and initiative allows you to set the terms of the encounter by going before the enemy.

2. Control and mobility: While you would prefer to choose where you fight, and to go first when you get there, if that fails you want to be able to effect the battlefield, either through control spells or by being able to get where you want to be, regardless.

3. Social Interaction and Intelligence Gathering: Allies are better than enemies, and the fight that can be avoided thanks to a good party face and/or effective intelligence gathering is in and of itself a combat win.

4. Versatility: Being able to do a ton of damage in a given encounter isn't helpful if that isn't the encounter in front of you. Being able to adapt on the fly when something unexpected occurs is just as important as being dominant when dealing with the expected.

The classic 4 accomplishes filling these roles in very specific ways, but that doesn't really make the classic four the ideal set. In fact, in many ways the classic 4 is somewhat lacking, particularly with regards to social interactions (who is the high charisma face in a party with a fighter, rogue, cleric and a wizard?) and versatility. Not to mention Stealth isn't exactly a strength of the Cleric or Figher.

Would you rather have the classic 4, or a replace the Figher and Rogue with a Bard and Ranger for example? Perhaps then replace the cleric and wizard with an Inquistor and Magus? And in that party, there are less "roles" being filled by a specific person and more situations being dealt with by the combined skills of the party.

Thoughts? Additional "Needs" and "Wants" I missed? Areas of disagreement?

Ashiel and Tels please stay out. This isn't about either of you and I'm not interested in either of your input since you got the last thread locked.

Let's try this again.

One of the primary divides on the messageboard seems to come from a disagreement of the role of the rules in relation to the game.

On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between, but those people are nice and don't argue on the messageboard.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules.

So when I hear about someone trying to argue for loopholes they have found in the rules that allow them to do things counter to the logic of the setting, I want to throw a book at them. They are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

To be clear, I'm not demanding agreement with my position. I'm open to discussion. Both sides are perfectly fine ways to play, however I feel like they are also incompatible with each other. I just want to see if people agree these are the sides in conflict and if they see ways that I don't to get around the incompatibility.

Carry over from another thread. I said the following.

"On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.

When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules."

1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

Munchkins and power gamers. I want you to attempt to stress test the following changes to the monk.

First, under unarmed strike replace the last paragraph and the chart with:

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below."

with

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would. At first level a monk's unarmed strike does 1d6 hit points of damage. At 4th level the monks unarmed strike gains a +1 enhancement bonus. For every four levels beyond 4th, the monk gains an additional +2 enhancement bonus to a maximum of +5 at 20th level."

Second replace:

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. He can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to his monk level by using 2 points from his ki pool."

With

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. A monk may spend one ki point to heal himself as if casting cure light wounds. At 11th level the monk may spend 2 ki points to heal himself as if using cure moderate wounds. At 15th level the monk may spend 3 ki points to heal himself as if using cure serious wounds. At 19th level the monk may spend 4 ki points to heal himself as if using the spell Heal."

And finally add to the end of Diamond Soul:

"Spell resistance may be raised or lowered as a swift action."

Munchkins and power gamers. I want you to attempt to stress test the following changes to the monk.

First, under unarmed strike replace the last paragraph and the chart with:

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below."

with

"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would. At first level a monk's unarmed strike does 1d6 hit points of damage. At 4th level the monks unarmed strike gains a +1 enhancement bonus. For every four levels beyond 4th, the monk gains an additional +2 enhancement bonus to a maximum of +5 at 20th level."

Second replace:

"Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. He can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to his monk level by using 2 points from his ki pool."

With

"Wholeness of Body (Su): AAt 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. A monk may spend one ki point to heal himself as if casting cure light wounds. At 11th level the monk may spend 2 ki points to heal himself as if using cure moderate wounds. At 15th level the monk may spend 3 ki points to heal himself as if using cure serious wounds. At 19th level the monk may spend 4 ki points to heal himself as if using the spell Heal."

And finally add to the end of Diamond Soul:

Spell resistance may be raised or lowered as a swift action.