|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
James Jacobs wrote:
Which printing of Advanced Race Guide has the proper (human-like) Tiefling ages fixed in the table?
You make excellent points all around, and for the most part I agree with you (as our projected numbers attest) on nearly all acounts save one: Perego Regicona. So I’ll speak to that. In general, I see two forces at play here.
One is the “land grab” you mentioned - during and after the Humanist-Diabolist Civil War, with the church of Aroden in question (thus it’s massive estates in Rego Sacero), I think both petty noble (“new money”) and gentry noble (“old money”) alike would lay claim to the now-illigitimacy of property rights of the fallen church. And so! I don’t see the “land grab” as materially or geographically motivated at all - I see it more politically, socially, and economically motivated. The Diabolist-Loyalist nobility took claim of the land because they could, not because they had to.
Two, and I think this cuts closer to the population discrepency between our opinions, immediately following the Civil War, their was a great “noble flight” to the newly relocated capital in Egorian. Here is my key sentence from Bastards of Erebus (page 7): “Those nobles who remained were largely old families rooted in their traditions and their pride, content to rot in their declining [estates].”
So the way I see it, considering the impact of the two forces above, even after 40 more years or so (depending when you start the campaign) of Thrune-Diabolist rule, Parego Regicona has a much lower population than it once did, certainly far below it’s capacity, and is inhabited primarily by super-rich families whose worth individually makes up the majority of distributed wealth of the entire metropolis.
That said, I think my initial numbers are too low, so perhaps I can modify them into something like:
Population by District
Rego Cader - 5,400
*With the note that in mine, Scripa is the "industrial" district, with the shipping businesses and warehouses, and Pena is the "downtown" district, with the markets, trades, and taverns.
Good luck with your reboot. I know your players are lucky indeed!
Esoteric Metamaths Idea #1
Priced Proportionally to Metamagic Rods
+1 Metamagic Rod costs 11,000
And all of them can be used 3/day with virtually infinite charges.
That means the "daily unit cost" can be found by dividing by three:
+1 Metamagic Rod costs 3,667
But this is still the once/day cost - very different than the once/ever cost.
So here are the maths for dividing these unit costs by 20 and 50 respectively.
+1 Metamagic Rod costs between 183 and 73
Is this a fair band to price the cost of a one-off metamagic effect?
Esoteric Metamaths Idea #2
Priced Proportionally to Esoteric Component Table
The math of the table is calculated using the product of the Caster Level x Spell Level.
So, to keep things simple, what if we used Caster Level x Spell Level x Metamagic Slot Increase.
A 1st level wizard casting an Extended Summon Monster I expends 2gp (1x2x1) worth of Esoterics.
Is this a fair band to price the cost of a one-off metamagic effect?
Having wrote that now, I think I'm strongly partial to the second method, if not just for simplicity's sake.
I guess my big question is "do you think this effect is undercosted or overcosted or about right?"
Things to consider:
1) Esoteric Components will be available for purchase.
I'm going with the whole "your consciousness stretches out a single split-second and lives out an entire quarter lifetime in an alternate universe" angle so yes, both the physical and mental effects of aging will apply.
I am also looking for a way to game the psychological trauma. Perhaps a permanent penalty to Sense Motive checks and saves vs. Illusion?
Ideas for this second aspect?
Also, they would also suddenly gain ranks in a skill as if they had in fact lived those additional years (as house rule, older character are entitled to more skill points). So, ideally some combination of Necromancy and Chronomancy.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Just assign explicit roles for what you need. Tell them it's as essential to the game as having a character.
I bought one of those magnetized initiative trackers and tell them one of them must use it to track initiative for combats. Since it's magnets it fun, see? Next, when I announce treasure or other things, I tell them "somebody write this down because I'll forget" because it's true. Then, I ask that player to keep track of things between sessions and give us periodic updates. I find that folks who are drawn to Pathfinder are more likely to have a proclivity for minutiae, and chances are good such a person will end up in your group. Finally, I require that the folks at the table who have the most complex characters must do their own rules homework. And since that means they tend to become more familiar for the book, they become a shoe-in for the rules checker position.
But overall, I am just transparent with them in saying that if they help me do all the "other" DM stuff that that frees me up to think about the NPCs and metaplot.
The newness is starfinder folks. 5E is a similar yet different experience and folks who want gonzo fantasy stick with PF and thats not going to change soon. IMHO of course.
Half of my current group defected from 5e. I think of it as a promotion.
They all say that they wanted (and I quote) "more".
How do you figure Parego Regicona to hold just shy of 1/3 of the population?
The way I figure it, the "mainland" districts (especially Crua and Scripa, as you noted) are way more population dense than the scattered and walled off islands of the nobility - even nestled within a legion of servants.
I would *reckon* more like the following:
Rego Cader - 5,000
I am no historian, civil engineer, nor geologist, nor do I have any training to support my claims, other than having travelled a little in my own life and read my share of books...
For fun, what do you think the (rough) population breakdown is by district? Specifically:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
If "Slow" movement was set at base 25 (instead of base 20), this would give a nice spread.
30/25/20 and 25/20/15 for "regular" and "slow" races.
I'll divide maps into two types: Geographical and Strategic.
Dunno if that helps - good luck with your paper!
I'd like to discover a way to price the usage of these special components to achieve Metamagic effects at a similar cost-ratio when one compares the per-charge usage of metamagic rods. Here is my initial outline:
1) I am already using the Optional Components and Greater Component Effect rules.
Anybody else doing this in their home game?
Before anybody leaps in and cries "MCD!" I'd like to share that I already use many house rules to address this situation, as well as developed a trust with my players in that they won't wreck the game for themselves or me. So, in effect, I've really already decided to give casters a little "boost" in this way because I know it will add some spice to my game. But thanks for your concern anyhow!
My Self wrote:
Instead of having the strange class skills math (1x class skill level + 1/2x non class skill level) for determining max ranks you can have in a skill, perhaps you simply can't raise a skill to over 1/2 your level if it isn't a class skill this level?
This is pretty much what I meant to say. Skill Points still purchase Skill Ranks 1-for-1, but a character cannot raise a cross-class skill past half the HD (minimum 1) of that class.
Another thing to consider is the Hybrid classes that have "counts as [other class] levels for feats" (ex. Brawler's Martial Training) count as synergy towards the skills of those class as well.
If you go this route, you may consider also allowing the "skill feats" (Athletic, Skill Focus, etc) grant one of the skills they modify as a class skill in addition to the feats normal benefits. That way, if a player really want to be good at a cross-class skill, they can leverage their feats to effectively remove this cap.
Ok I do have some feedback as I am deciding which template to add to another bestiary creature.
Some of the templates add spells to the creature's capabilities. However, I find some of the spells to be inappropriate for for low level creatures. Perhaps add a scaling HD (or CR?) range? Like HD 1-4 gain the "3/day" powers instead 1/day, HD 5-8 gain the "3/day" and "1/day" powers normally, HD 9-12 gain unlimited use of the "3/day" powers and the "1/day" powers instead 3/day, and HD 13+ gain unlimited use of all powers.
Maybe rename the powers "primary" (1/day) and "secondary" (3/day) and they could universally adhere to this scheme.
That's a quick fix, but something like that.
My Self wrote:
Basically. But notably lacking both the "fractional arithmetic" and the "half-strength" rank-for-rank efficacy, thus forcing high skill-point but low-class-skill characters to spread out their ranks, or to multi-class, in order to get high skill bonuses with non-INT cross-class skills.
Simply divorcing skills from INT removes the primary incentive to invest in INT balanced against the other 5 ability scores (for any character not casting with it), and any ability score with negligible mechanical importance may as well be removed from the game altogether - or be explicitly conceded as a dump stat.
But if you are deadset on it, perhaps develop a rubric for rewriting which classes get which number of ranks per level?
Base: 3 ranks per level
Full BAB +0
Full Spellcasting -3
Three good saves -1
note this gives you vastly different results than classes as-printed
What about making class skills matter more?
Maximum number of ranks for cross-class skills are half that of class skills (minimum 1) cumulatively.
So, when your wizard reaches 7th level, he still gains (2+INT) skill points, but can only have a maximum of 3 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.
Or, when your multiclass fighter-wizard adds his 4th level of wizard on top of his 3 levels in fighter, he can have up to 5 ranks in Swim and other cross-class skills.
This has the side effect of making traits matter more.
The players in my game who wanted to invest in more skill points intentionally prioritized INT along with their various other ability score wants. So, had I used this house rule with them at character creation, I imagine that my PCs would be less intelligent than they are now - for better or for worse.
Perhaps give something back to INT?
Let INT add to CMB and CMD.
Then, if you do some of the above, consider breaking apart INT as a single super stat for prepared arcane casters: divide "spells known" and "spells per day" between INT and a second mental stat. Perhaps WIS for wizards/alchemists/magi and CHA for witches/arcanists?
I house ruled Charmed Life to be a free action that can be done at any time, but it's still a fairly weak ability even then- why the Swashbuckler can't have an 'always-on' save bonus, or, you know, better base saves, I'm unclear about.
Perhaps a "gas tank" bonus (so long as the Swashbuckler has 1+ points of Panache)?
Also, have you considered implementing the Unchained Action Economy?
Do you think it would be OP if the swashbuckler could make more Immediate actions in a round then normal maybe through a feat or as a added ability.
In short, if you did this as a class ability (and not a feat for reasons explained above), I would tread carefully. Maybe:
Though I am neither person, taking a cue from Spellcraft:
*I changed the counterspell rules in my game from identifying as a free action to an immediate action - thus too with above.
**I use a different "Psychological AC" in may game instead of a flat "20" here.
Perhaps [2d4x2] Gargantuan Swarms of horses that take up 20x15 spaces using Trample fast approaching in [2d4] "waves."
Trample (Ex) As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature's slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature's trample attack is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.
On the surprise round, players have an option to climb to safety, or cast fly or levitate or jump (or other evasive spell), or hide behind something (granting them cover).
Then, each round one "wave" comes. Since the width of the gully is 50' across and the swarms take up 20' width each, there happens to be two (randomly determined) "safe spots" each round (If you wanted to game this, you could have the PC make a Perception check to see where next rounds "safe spot" will be). And so, the PCs must play the avoidance game until the stampede passes.
Maybe something like this:
Determine how many extra "days" they can squeeze out of their remaining rations - the PCs are essentially free to choose this number once the reality of scarcity sets in.
They don't have to make Starvation checks for that additional amount of days. But after that time has elapsed, they begin making the Starvation checks with an added penalty equal to the number of days they extended.
So: X more days, but then -X.
Perhaps some of your random encounters could involve the PCs essentially walking into another "encounter" between other NPCs - like a random street thug robbing a party of petty nobles, or a monster attacking a gang of street thugs, or two gangs of street thugs battling over turf.
Or an encounter with a street thug who quickly steals one of the PCs valuables (perhaps using the Appraise skill to identify the PC with the most expensive item) and lures them into an ambush with the whole gang!
Or half-way through one of these encounters, another third party comes into the mix. It is a heavily populated city, after all.
1 - red herring
2 - "side" scene
3 - foreshadowing
4 - direct plot
5 - direct plot
6 - direct plot
7 - double encounter (roll twice)
8 - interrupted encounter (roll twice)
In short, it doesn't always have to be with X monster...
You can have it both ways.
You can run a linear plot, but insert a "random" table if the PCs venture through different districts at different times (night and day), crafting each "random" encounter to add to your plot, but rolling "randomly" at the table to determine exact sequencing.
Populate your table with encounters that either advance your plot directly, foreshadow something to come later, serve as a hook to a "side" scene, or even a red herring.
This leaves you with the flexibility to be (or appear to be) random, but also (since the actual table is on your side of the DM screen) choose by silent fiat.
That said, I do not have a need to recalibrate and condense every knowledge skill (I have other uses for my OCD!), instead, I have a need to maintain compatibility as much as possible with the CRB (Core Rulebook) as written, because of the abundance of new players I introduce to the game (thanks 5e!).
But this thread pointed out a "hole" in those knowledges that I can now address. Also, it got me going over each sub-skill with a fine tuned comb (to "doublecheck"), and brought to my attention the functions of Arcana that ought to be Spellcraft. I have fixed those now.
Lastly, my players aren't ready for a skill that deals explicitly with "martial knowledge" - which I would call in my game Warcraft (and model after Spellcraft) if I were to induct it - but if and when they are, I will include it.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Perhaps, similar to Confusion, create a Nausea table, like:
25% - Queasy - limited to one Standard or Move action only
Two results allow limited action, Two allow no action and possibly worse, to balance against "old" Nausea
I give my players options.
First, is the impressive Legendary Rogue - a very versatile upgrade to the core rogue that keeps all the flavor and adds some punch.
Second, is the classy Glory Rogue - a more narrow build, but if you want a rogue who lives and dies by his DX and CHA scores, I definitely recommend giving this a shot.
Third, there is the Unchained Rogue - a tough skirmisher with cool de-buff attacks and an arsenal of special skill "unlocks" - this is recommended if 3pp options are off the table.
Finally, I give my rogues, whether they use one of the options above or not, two additional abilities to compliment they're being a (mostly) non-magical class in a magical world. The first is a limited ability to re-roll a d20 a limited # of times per day. The second is the ability to "take 10" with a few skills despite danger/distraction.
The rogue in my game who is using the 1st and 4th option is having a blast. I have had a blast playing the 2nd option in a game years ago. Haven't tried out the 3rd option personally yet.
Terrormonger Bat Swarm (CR 3)
N Diminutive animal (swarm)
switched the skill focus from Perception to Intimidate for special effect
bitter lily wrote:
What about a Lesser Staff that used lower level spells only? Or that allows the use of higher level spells but at lower casting level? To compensate, they take 2 days to charge per spell level that exceeds the wielder's highest slot?...
I'm not accusing you of anything. There is a system of consumable items in place, of which you change one element, I was simply asking if this will entail changing the rest too, or if you'll be satisfied with making potions as cheap/expensive as scrolls. I know now, and I'd like to have returns about how satisfied you are with this single change after you've had time to playtest it.
Sorry my humor didn't come across - I keep forgetting that tone is basically impossible to communicate intentionally over message posts.
Yes, just a little boost to "everyman" items (potions) and not anything else. And yes, I'll let you know how that goes.
That said, what Amaneunsis said upthread really got me thinking - I wish I could think like that on a regular basis. Instead my reasoning is something like "I want to give my martials a little boost"...
If you are accusing me of exacerbating the martial-caster disparity, worry not because potions will be available at the same price for both classes.
To answer your question: The first reason is that cheaper potions turning into cheaper permanent spells (via Alchemists) is less worrisome than cheaper scrolls turning into cheaper permanent spells (via Wizards). The second reason is that potions are capped at 3rd level spells.