eldrwyrm's page

Some thoughts, probably doesn't really need spoiler tags with the level of detail I'm giving, but just in case:

Year of the Open Road
** spoiler omitted **

Year of Corruption's Reach
** spoiler omitted **

In general I think Year of Corruption's Reach would translate more easily to a homegroup running in a different rule system. The lore/influential characters(both friendly/villian)...

That's really useful information. Thank you. Based on the description of 1/08, I really wasn't looking forward to running that one, so it's nice that I can skip it.

This summer i'm going to start running a year-long campaign for my home group using the new Savage Worlds Pathfinder rules. The plan is to run several episodic games, with a loose through plot. Does Year of the Open Road have a plot line that runs through it, similar to season 5, Year of the Demon?

This summer i'm going to start running a year-long campaign for my home group using the new Savage Worlds Pathfinder rules. The plan is to run several episodic games, with a loose through plot. Does Year of the Open Road have a plot line that runs through it, similar to season 5, Year of the Demon?

I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.

Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?

I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.

So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.

For a 600 page monster book, yes I would pay that kind of money- once. For the first book out of the gate, to get the campaigns up and running, I would pay that kind of money. For later releases, I would not be interested in dropping that kind of money, or going that deep on new monsters. I think the current books are a good size for bestiaries after the first Monster Book of Monsters.

I'm late to the game on this post because I had skipped it the first time around. However, they were talking about this on the Know Direction podcast, and I wanted to put my $.02 in.

My primary concern is that the lists of what you can and can't do at specific tiers will become something of a memory nightmare.

"I'm going to pole-vault across that gap."
"You can't do that until you're at expert."
"Is that expert? I thought that was trained..."
"Let me check... no, wait, you're right, trained. But earlier when you leapt out of that loft without taking damage, that should've required expert..."

I foresee variations of that conversation happening constantly.

This is my greatest concern. Now not only do I need a table to tell me how far a running character can jump given a total number, but I have to try and keep track of what kind of jumps he can attempt? My 5th female dwarven fighter is an expert intimidator, but since she's only expert and not master, can she stare down a minotaur?

Dαedαlus wrote:

I'm far less concerned with that and more with the fact that YOU CAN PICKPOCKET ARMOR RIGHT OFF OF A GUARD.

How many times have we seen in various fantasy books thieves that could steal the rings off your finger by shaking your hand? Legendary pick-pocketing is almost a staple of the genre. Granted, it's not stealing the armor off the guard's body, but there are days I can't take my own ring off and you're telling me this schmuck can steal it without me noticing it?

I would love for xp to be slowed down. Even something as simple as requiring 2+current level to get to next level. (So going from 1 to 2 still takes 3 xp, but going from 7 to 8 takes 9.) Perhaps even 3,3 then current level xp. (Which would be 3,3,3,4,5,6, etc...) Or whatever formula desired, but let us -play- the characters for a while. Not just churn through them.

I am not a fan of this idea. It makes sense for people who have the time to play every week, or even a couple of times a month. I play 10-12 scenarios a year; I started playing my 9th level character in 2011 and just made 9th level at GenCon last year.

If I have to play 6 scenarios to make 4th level, it's going to take me the better part of a year to level mid-tier characters and I'm never going to get to play high level characters. PFS is the only time I get to play upper-mid tier characters, I would much rather see them keep the 3 modules per level and the slow option.

If you crit a Dying roll, you heal to 1 and regain consciousness with 2 actions.

Edit: cover provides +2 AC. Taking Cover as an action grants an additional +2.

Edit #2: animal companions get 2 actions, and you have to spend an action to command them.

Edit #3: Friday's Blog is about proficiencies. Monday's is about the Fighter.

Edit #4: rings of protection and cloaks of resistance are not in the new stuff. This is part of the new approach to magic items.

Jason is running the guys from Game Trade Media at GAMA right now.
https://www.facebook.com/Gametrademedia/videos/1472858266156741/

We just found out that zombies are susceptible to slashing weapons and take double damage.

Edit #1: Zombies can't make a bite attack unless they make a successful claw attack.

Edit #2: if you take damage to go below 0 hp, you go to 0 and gain the "Dying (x)" condition. If you get to dying 4, you die. You have to make a save determined by the strength of the creature that took you to 0, modified by your Dying (x) amount. If you save, you gain a hp, and if you get back to 1 hp, you are unconscious and no longer dying. If you get healed to greater than 1 hp, you still have the dying condition and have to make the save. If you fail the save, you lose the dying condition but are unconscious. If you make the save, you are conscious.

Edit #3: a fighter that doesn't spend an action to ready his shield can spend his reaction to raise the shield and get the AC bonus, but not the Shield Block ability.

Edit #4: If you want to hold an action, it costs 2 actions.
5' step is an action and does not provoke any reaction.

trying to catch up after being away for 20 hours. Where is Resonance being defined?

my wife and I are 100% happy about goblins being made core :)

My wife and I are as well.

Guess who our first 2 characters will be in PFS after PF2 goes live?

"PCGen" was mentioned, is this good?

I have a friend that has been using PC Gen for 5 or 6 years now and he has finally given up on it because he pulled out his character sheets at a recent Con and all of his animal companion info was worthless. From my understanding, as long as your character is basic and doesn't use any kind of companion or alternate features, you're fine.

Classes are part of the DNA of pathfinder, as are Armor Class, Hit Points, leveling, and Vancian Magic. Sure, there are other systems out there that don't, but taking any of those strands of DNA out of the game fundamentally changes the game. If you make that fundamental a change in the game, it ceases to be the game people thought it was, and people leave the game to go find something else. (See D&D 4.0)

Speaking of D&D 4, your first point sounds an awful lot like the "per round, per encounter, per day" structure that D&D4 used. I don't think you're going to find many fans of that here.

In the interview with Know Direction, Erik commented on the fact that Goblins have lived at the edge of human society for a while in some areas, raiding landfills and dumpsters for usable castoffs and the like. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that one or two goblins out of a large tribe might become more interested in the civilization they've been parasiting from, and try to live more symbiotically. This is particularly true for the type of more intelligent goblin that might lean toward becoming an Alchemist.

It's similar to the domestication process of the first wolves. Most of the pack avoided humans, but a select few found benefit in a closer association. It doesn't require a wholesale change in the behavior of wolves, but in time those that do change may become something far removed from their ancestry, even while maintaining similar physical characteristics.

That was my impression from the play-through podcast, but I didn't know whether to attribute that to player/GM experience, or system.

I look at a PC goblin the same way I look at PC half-orcs, half-dragons, lycanthropes, and either monster race that plays as a PC: it's the exceptional character, the lone wolf trying to find a place in the world. They will have to deal with all of the assumed prejudice, and their life will be difficult, but eventually they will make a few friends and find a place to call their own.

Does anyone have any experience or credible theories on whether the new action system will improve speed of play, particularly in combat.

From the moment I read the title of the encounter, I wanted to read more. This just evokes "adventurer cool."
The map was stunning, but as I DM I would have to do a lot of "room decorating," which has it upsides, but a few features would be nice.
My party always tries to "Save vs Box Text." I need short room descriptions that set a scene quickly. I can fill in locational details, or they can see those on the tactical map.

Still, this one gets my vote, it is just cool and I would find a place to drop this adventure into a campaign.

I like this, particularly Find the Mark. I think this translates well to the images we all have for swashbucklers, and combining that with Thrust will allow them make a strong point. This, combined with last week's chase rules is moving this up to number 2 on my "items to purchase" list, right behind the Pathfinder rules.

This exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I've been using a modified version of the Spycraft rules, this is much better. Thanks. Definitely looking forward to getting this.

My issue with CMB as written is that between evenly matched opponents, you have a 70% failure rate (1-20 vs 15). Even a specialist vs non-specialist has a failure rate of 50%.

Will the Pawfinder rules include miniatures rules that provide adaptations for usage of plushies like Pound Puppies and Pound Purries?

Actually, they should be scaled for Beanie Babies. More readily available and still have a high collectability factor for those who just have to have that ultra-rare impossible to find for less than a week's salary figure.

Is the saving throw to resist the temptation of catnip a Will roll or a Fortitude roll?

Will to resist. Fort for the after-effects. Options for physical dependency and addiction should be treated as a disease and a curse, much like Lycanthropy. A character so afflicted suffers penalties on their Will save, but a similar bonus on their Fort save to be able to function afterward.

Krome wrote:

All this talk about cats, dogs, hamsters, ponies, mantids, crocs...

And no one has even bothered to question why a sheep doesn't have a Charisma of at least 20?

Hrm ... I dunno ... I haven't heard THAT many tales about the formidable seductive prowess of sheep ...

That's because Krome is a Dwarf. Charisma is all relative between species.

If Pawfinder becomes a reality as a classic, I want to play the Russian Blue proficient in Kung Fu. Also, the high priest of Clawthulu should be named Mr. Tinkles. (In case you don't remember.)

[Chuckle all you want, and feel free to run a Monty Haul campaign style circus.

Of course, that entirely depends on the goal of the campaign. I'm already playing in one campaign that has the feel of "Saving Private Ryan" in Full Plate. To offset that, for the same group I run a campaign that feels more like "The Mummy" or "The Three Musketeers." I give my players a little more lattitude in what they can do, and they appreciate that. They pay me back by creating really fun gaming sessions full of high energy combat and memorable Role Playing scenes. Everybody goes home happy.

Barsellius, my answer would be to House Rule a feat that says Female Warrior Characters from "that society" have a one time option of substituting CHA for STR on Attack and Damage rolls, and that it stays with them for the rest of their career (unless you allow re-training rules). On the flip side of that, don't be afraid to use it to your own advantage, especially if she gets attacked by someone prettier than her. Play it up, let the party be surrounded by a group of these "Amazons" and taken into custody. The situation is fraught with good RP fodder.
Be aware though, that you have to be equally willing to consider something just as bizarre for other characters, especially those who are not your GF. If one of your other players says "I want to be able make armor out of leather wrapped in linen and make it look like regular clothes," you'll have to think through the rules on that. (Coincidentally, armor like that has been found in the ruins of Troy. The linen functions the same way that silk did in oriental armors, its weave distributes the force of impact; particularly from arrows.)

Good luck with what you decide, and I hope it adds to your campaign in a positive way.

I've got a version I am using right now. It's modeled on Force Points from Star Wars, but has a "die bump" mechanic as well. Characters start with 1 hero point at creation and earn them for heroic actions, or in some cases I will grant them for really good roleplaying (my group tends to gloss over a lot of RP situations and I'm trying to encourage them).
Sometimes character have a roll they have to make, or a very difficult roll to make. In that case, they can declare before the dice roll that they are spending a hero point. If so, they add 1d6 to the roll, and it counts as part of the roll. Yes, that means that the player cannot roll a 1 on a save, could potentially roll a "natural" 26, and yes it also means that they are more likely to get a crit. I'm willing to accept that as DM, since Hero Points probably aren't going to get wasted on flunkies and minions, unless there is a real need for someone to do something really desparate.
On the back side, if they blow an important roll or miss it by "that much", they can use one after the die roll as +1 to their own rolls or a +1 to their AC. My feeling is, they are supposed to be heroes, they should be able to pull off that occasional "OMG, did you see how close I came getting my head taken off!" or the "He thought he had dodged my attack, but fate was with me and my strike was true."

I don't think they should be part of the standard rules, because they are not appropriate for all games. They do make for a good optional rule though, especially in very heroic or swashbuckler type campaigns where characters need to be able to pull off the occasional "OMG feat of daring-do."

Take a look at the Pic they want the Caption for...

Hubba Hubba...

Caption: Adventure is closer than you think. -Valeros

BTW- Can that be used as page art for the page that talks about surprise rules? just a thought. :lecherous grin:

OMG! Underling!! That's just wrong, funny, but wrong. (See next post)

Mosaic wrote:

This gets to one of my continuing concerns with the upcoming Pathfinder RPG, and that is an over-blending of the PRPG concept and the Golarion concept... I'm worried that the Pathfinder brand name is overly identified with all things Golarion, which, in the short term, means easy cross-marketing, but in the long term might limit the attractiveness of the Pathfinder rule-set to third-party publishers. If Necromancer creates a new adventure series using the Pathfinder rules, is everyone going to assume it's set in Golarion, and will this limit it's appeal to folks who aren't running Golarion campaigns?

This is a legitimate concern, and it's something that we're keeping in mind. Our intention is to maintain a separation between the PF RPG and Golarion... We want folk to use the PF RPG books to run any number of games, be they set in Golarion or elsewhere.

I am glad to hear this. Quite frankly, the last thing I want is to buy is another world book for a campaign setting I'll never run. I also don't want to see the rules set so dependent on that campaign that I end up having to buy it in order to "get the full scope." I like good location books. I like good "theme" books. In both cases I usually want to drop them into an existing campaign, so I'd rather they stand on their own.

I also don't want to see re-treads of previous stuff. I can adjust stat blocks. Or, if you really want the stat blocks re-done, maybe have them done as a supplement to the original source material. Don't waste an entire book reprinting source material.

What titles/ideas would you like to see us explore?

I agree with the person who said books following the 2e model would be better. Alternative builds and backgrounds, ways to flesh out niche characters within a given class, alternative higher level developments that are not prestige classes. Things like, "So you're a 14th level fighter, you've raided every known dungeon, and you have no head politics- now what?" Or something like, "You're a monk in the Occidental tradition, from a country that is western in philosophy, and the monastary is Teutonic in nature. So are you a monk, or are you a fighter, or are you a priest?" Source material that answers those kinds of questions in a way that relates to the current d20 model would great.

To go along with that, it would be nice to see your level of development applied to DM sourcebooks: Villians, Worldbuilding, Focused Campaigns (particularly "Muskets and Magic"). I also agree that a "Jungle Sourcebook" would be way freakin' cool. Something like the 1e "Dungeoneers Survival Guide" and "Wilderness Survival Guide" (both of which I still use for source material).

A good set of Psionics would be nice. I haven't used psionics in a while because they are just too poorly built. A good design might bring me back, and I'm sure my group would appreciate that.

I'm ambivalent about epic rules, it's just not my bag. However, if you could do something thematically similar to the old "Immortals" box set rules, that would be cool.

I would be very excited to see a new "Savage Species."

I would love to see a book for running "low magic, high adventure" campaigns. Campaigns that look like movies like "Indiana Jones", "Bourne Trilogy", "The Mummy", or "3 Musketeers." Let's face it, one cleric with a good turn ability can wreck an entire ghost story adventure. How lame would "The Haunting" have been if a Priest showed up and said, "I channel and destroy the spirits that are haunting this house."

We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?

I would like to see that held as "Alternative" rules. I really don't want to see a constant expansion of the Core Rules. If I'm recruiting someone in, I would like to be able to say, "This one book has all the Core Rules. That's it, you're done." I don't want a ton of new Core classes and races that I have to tell my players they can't use because they don't fit my world. If they're optional books, it's a lot easier. Also, if I ever go back to the Con Gaming World, I don't want to have to carry half-a-dozen Core books to the table. If I'm DMing at a Con, I only want to have to have 3 books.

Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?

Prestige classes didn't bother me as long as they brought something worthwhile to the table. I think there was an overabundance of them, and I think there were too many "organization specific" prestige classes. Those make sense in a campaign book, they don't make sense in a class book. Also, a little less repetition would be nice. Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters should all be able to qualify as Snipers the same way, especialy with the current model for skills.

I'm hoping you guys can help me. I'm trying to find some good rules for ship-to-ship combat and boarding rules that would be compliant with Pathfinder.

Thanks

The Elder Wyrm

... invented moral relativism.

... convinced me to buy a 44 oz. drink before going to see "Titanic," and then made me sit in the middle of the row.

... wrote "Achy Breaky Heart."

... pitched "Hannah Montana" to Disney executives.

okay, point made. allow me to retract the "highly specialized circumstances" portion of that remark.

Again though, sneak/flank is still a special circumstance. Power attack sacrifices hit potential for damage. Druids in an alternate form are not "always on." A straight up bonus to attack and damage that requires nothing more than picking up a weapon and hitting the opponent is more powerful and I think the standard by which to measure.

I've proposed the following in other threads:

"Monks are proficient with all simple weapons, with unarmed strikes, and with shuriken."

Add an addendum to the sickle description: "this class of weapons includes the eastern kama."

Add an addendum to the light flail description: "nunchaku are an example of a light flail."

Eliminate the siangham, because monks could now use short spears.

"A monk can flurry with any simple melee weapon. Flurrying with other weapons requires the Temple Weapon feat [allows the monk to pick one martial or exotic weapon, with which he gains proficiency and the ability to flurry]."

Give monks a damage bonus equal to 1/2 class level when using weapons with which they are proficient.

This eliminates confusion, breaks the bland "all monks fight unarmed because it's better" stereotype, and allows sects of monks that flurry with glaives or spiked chains or whatever... and has the added benefit of eliminating three lines and a footnote from the weapon table, and three paragraphs' worth of text thereafter.

Couple of things about this that I'd like to comment on. I really like the idea behind this. I think it would give some much needed diversity to monks, as well as taking them out of their eastern mysticism roots. It would necessitate moving the flail to the simple weapons or adding it to the list of allowed weapons.

Okay sorry to bring up something when we've moved on (the joys of having no internet at home so you can only post at work *rolls eyes*), but the bolded part makes absolutely no sense to me, what spells on the paladins spell list are so powerful that the list needs to be shortened. When classes like warmage get every spell on their list when they hit a new level of spells and they have a longer list, why can't the same be done for a paladin.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The way the spontaneous casting rules are written, the caster has to choose just a few spells that they can cast from the overall list. I'm not talking about shrinking the list, I'm talking about the fact that Paladins would have to select 4 or 5 spells/level from the available list. It's a pretty fair bet that every Paladin will take Bless Weapon, Divine Favor, and Lesser Restoration for 1st level spells. Thus, every paladin ends up taking the most broadly useful spells, and loses access to the little bit of utility they do have.

Let's give them a channeling of divine power rather than positive energy that heals those with good alignmnt and damages those that are evil, rather than living/undead. Which I previously suggested in this thread.

I like this. This is cool and very unique and fits well in the concept of paladin as conduit of good.

Spontaneous casting is the providence of Sorc's and Bards. Leave it to them. In order for Paladins to be able to spontaneous cast, each would have to further narrow an already narrow selection to just a couple of viable spells. guess what, everybody will take the same spells and paladins will still be carbon copies. Only now they won't have any flexibility to change as the situation changes. I say leave the spell casting alone since it is comparable to other secondary caster classes and let's focus on the area where Paladins really need help.

EDIT: Either great minds think alike or you guys need to get out of my head. :-)

If you're going to talk about improving a specific level of advancement for a class, you should look at it in terms of balance vs other classes. On that basis, Paladin doesn't do bad. Access to spells at the same level as other secondary caster classes, check. Increase in the number of uses for a core class ability, check. Improved use of a previous ability, check. Advancement at 4th is comparable.

Now, if you want to talk about overall design concept, that's another discussion altogether. I agree that channeling should be independent of Lay on Hands. As it stands now, Paladins should not have access to Extra Channeling or any Channeling-based feats, since channeling is a function of LoH. If they do have access to channeling based feats, they will hardly get to use them since doing so will burn their ability to heal and support their party. I think if your going to make one a function of the other, LoH should be a Paladin only function of channeling. In that case, Paladins would need access to channeling sooner. If you want to deny paladins access to channeling feats, then call the paladin ability something else and make it specific to the effects you want it to have. If you want paladins to be limited in the amount of channeling they can do, then just limit it. Don't call it a dog and expect it to act like a cat.

I don't have a problem with Paladins not being able to channel as well as clerics. Clerics are conduits of the power of god for all kinds of purposes. Paladins are conduits of god's power for the purpose of putting the smack down on evil. If you want to say a paladin can only channel as well as a cleric 3 levels below his own, so be it. If you want to say a paladin can only chanel 1/day/4 levels, its all good. Channeling definitely needs to be separate from LoH though. If for no other reason than for ease of book-keeping and rule clarification.

I'd like to put in my two cp on the discussion and the "feel" of the paladin.

Regarding the idea of "targeting" or "marking a target": that feels like a ranger, not a paladin. When a paladin decides to hunt down a particular target, it's called a quest. If an evil being escapes being destroyed and the paladin goes after him, it's called a quest. When a paladin gets to the end of the quest, he calls down the might of god and smites the evil being. The smite has nothing to do with having finally caught up to his target. Smiting evil beings is just what he does.

Even when he's not smiting though, evil creatures of all types should fear the paladin. As it is now, if a paladin approaches the lair of the BBEG, Bob the evil lookout does not overly worry about the Paladin. After all he is only a little evil so the paladin isn't going to waste his precious Smite on him. Let's say Bob calls a team of evil red-shirts led by BillyJoe the evil seargent-at-arms. BillyJoe is probably far more worried about the fighter that's cutting his red-shirts to ribbons than he is about the paladin that's squared off against him, because he's too small and too weak to be worthy of a Smite. This is just wrong, everybody from Bob to BBEG should be going, "Oh crap, it's a Paladin."

I think the way to fix that is with a +x/+x bonus against all evil creatures. However, I think that should be based on level, not on smites left per day. Let's say that BBEG has the ability to summon so fairly serious evil minions. The Paladin ends up burning all his smites just to survive. Now, BBEG steps in and says with an evil laugh, "Your god has deserted you and you have no power against me." No, god has not deserted him, he just can't call down the big thunder. The +x/+x bonus should represent that the paladin serves the heavenly hosts and that they go where he goes. Smite represents the paladin calling on god for special strength against a particularly vile enemy.
The other reason I prefer the level basis is that Static Bonuses are easier to keep track of than Dynamic Bonuses, especially in the heat and confusion of combat. The bonus should be a Sacred Bonus so that it stacks with Prayer or Bardic song and other party buffers; since this benefit is a function of the Paladin's individual faith.

Smite should affect all evil creatures equally. I understand that god may look down and see the evil goblin sorcerer and say, "It is mortal, this too shall pass." Demons are forever though, and god doesn't want them running around the yard ruining the grass so he puts the real smack down on them. However, gods shouldn't see things in shades of grey. They are gods, and all things are or are not. It is evil, or it is not evil. If it is evil, destroy it.

As for the calculation of Smite damage, I agree it should be 1d6/2 Paladin levels. From a "feel" standpoint, the power of god flowing through you does not increase just because you got a lucky hit. From a rules standpoint, I think increasing it to 2/Paladin level can become too powerful in scenarios with mulitple itterative attacks, especially if Bless Weapon is in place auto-confirming all crits. Besides, 1d6/2 levels works well for rogues and is an established rule that people are familiar with. It also gives paladin players an opportunity pick up a buttload of dice and throw down, which we really don't get to do very often.

Ultimately, the rules for a paladin should serve the purpose of making him THE go to guy when evil hordes appear, not just when the BBEG comes along.

I would change that to any light weapon or any single weapon the monk is proficient with. Two nunchucks, in. One longsword, in. One double weapon like a staff, in. One polearm, like a nagatina (halabard), in. Two katanas (bastard swords), out.

I like this iteration from a flavor standpoint as it shows that the monk has focused his study in a single weapon or very small group of weapons. At that point the monk becomes known for his skill with his favored weapon, perhaps even going so far to become known for his skill with a single weapon (think Li Mu Bai and the Green Destiny).

All profits made from your game material are the property of Wizards of the Coast.

I believe they will phrase that as, "All your profits are belong to us."

Thou shalt use only the 4th Edition mandated product. Any attempt to house rule or implement anything into your game from any other system shall be punishable by 30 lashings from wet noodle.

Anything fun or useful from any other system is now verbotten. There is one system. Ash naz gimbadul.