3catcircus's page

I think we've all exhausted this subject. Somehow Snowlilly is the only one who can read the text and interpret it - apparently the rest of us (you know, those of us who perhaps parse the written word for a living or who have the capacity for abstract thought) must all be a bunch of drooling idiots.

James Risner wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

It's right there in the greatclub text that you keep choosing to ignore.

We are ignoring you ignoring the rules.

Ask your GM to deviate or "creatively interpret" the rules.

And which part of the definition is being creatively interpreted?

It is clearly stated in 2nd grade level English.

Club, Great wrote:

This larger, bulkier version of the common club is heavy enough that you can’t wield it with one hand.

How do you propose to interpret that RAW in a way that disagrees with my assertion?

If you really don't understand why they are different, pethaps rhe following may help.

The term "club" in the descriprtion of the greatclub is being used in the common sense of the word meaning a blunt wooden weapon. It could equally apply to a chair leg or a broomstick.

How the weapons differ is in how they are employed. The club is a one-handed simple weapon. The greatclub is a 2-handed martial weapon. The mechanical advantage and torque generated from a heavy mass on the end of a 2-handed swing far exceeds that of a 1-handed weapon with less mass. It'd be the same comparison of the handle of a hatchet vs a long handled axe or a standard claw hammer vs a 20-lb sledge.

The shillelagh spell is specifically intended to allow someone not proficient with a greatclub (martial weapon) to increase the effectiveness of their club or quarterstaff (simple weapon). At no point does the spell physically change the club into a greatclub. Perhaps the spell sucks in more mass to the weapon, but it never physically lengthens itself to the length of a greatclub - it is still a 1-handed weapon.

The description of the greatclub notes that one of the names it is known by is shillelagh. Based upon this, I'd say you can't use the spell to turn a greatclub into itself.

So, you'd enlarge person, which makes your club or quarterstaff into a larger weapon, but you can't use shillelagh to make it into a larger weapon because enlarge person specifically prohibits stacking in this manner.

MageHunter wrote:

Yeah, I'm more a duffelbag person too.

Had a 10 STR rogue with a duffelbag. Dropped it as a free action at the beginning of every combat. DM hated it as it allowed my low STR PC to get away with heavy load (i.e. armor / encumbrance check penalty doesn't affect Perception! ;) )

I don't have an issue with this. This is essentially what modern soldiers do when carrying stuff via LBE. They'll drop their packs when engaged to increase mobility.

You essentially use whichever is worse: The penalties accrued from the sum weight of your gear, or your armor and shield's penalties.

Correct, which means that in the OP's, example, the MW backpack may or may not affect your effective load.

3catcircus wrote:

...

you've forgotten the rules which stipulate that you calculate armor by encumbrance unless weak or carrying a lot of gear.
...

I have literally no idea what you are talking about so...citation needed?

https://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/additionalRules.html

Carrying Capacity
These carrying capacity rules determine how much a character's equipment slows him down. Encumbrance comes in two parts: encumbrance by armor and encumbrance by total weight.

Encumbrance by Armor: A character's armor determines his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, armor check penalty, speed, and running speed. Unless your character is weak or carrying a lot of gear, that's all you need to know; the extra gear your character carries won't slow him down any more than the armor already does.

If your character is weak or carrying a lot of gear, however, then you'll need to calculate encumbrance by weight. Doing so is most important when your character is trying to carry some heavy object.

A masterwork backpack makes you treat your strength score 1 higher for carrying capacity purposes.

So imagine the following scenario...

A person with a strength of 12 is wearing equipment and carrying a masterwork backpack with 1 lb. of stuff in it. The total weight is 50 lb. He's carrying a light load.

He drops the backpack, losing the 1 lb. of stuff plus the 4 lb. of backpack. Now he is carrying a medium load and suffers speed and armor check penalties.

What is the other stuff that is weighing 45 lbs? If it is armor (which i assume part of it is from you using the word wearing), you've forgotten the rules which stipulate that you calculate armor by encumbrance unless weak or carrying a lot of gear. Chainmail and a light wooden shield alone gets you to 45 lbs. and drops your movement rate same as a medium load. So even with a MW backpack, he'd still be carrying a medium load.

This can work, but only if you make each plus dependent upon multiples of skill ranks (e.g. every 4 skill ranks gives you a +1 to your BAB).

You can then make BAB a class skill for the fighter types.

Trying to make it a straight skill, will, s others have said, break the game.

I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.

As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.

Take Warhammer RPG. You can throw lightning bolts, fireballs, and end up being able to teleport. But it's still a grim and gritty, low magic setting, because magic is rare, and there simply is not much healing magic around for anyone. People die of dumb stuff all the time in the setting. Warhammer never feels 'high' fantasy because of the healing access.

Having access to healing magic in all its forms allows you to do things you would never, ever dare without it, live through it, and more importantly, get right back into the fight. Worlds with powerful magic but no healing feel less high fantasy then they do hi-tech to me.

If you've another 'break point', please say so. But I believe healing is the magic that, if removed, has the greatest effect on the low/high feel of a fantasy setting.

==Aelryitnh

I agree - to an extent.

Removing magic healing or making it work less efficiently makes a difference between "we attack the castle, killing all of the orc troops inside" and "we'll bribe the front-gate guards to let us in to deliver this mcguffin by letting them have a taste of it."

What also drives the low/high feel is how "realistic" combat itself feels. The d20 rules just don't lend themselves all that well to a sense of "yeah, that's how it'd really work."

I'm not saying you need to get to Phoenix Command levels of simulation, but, for example, changing the damage model from a "subtract from this pool of nebulous points and when empty, you go from 100% effective to d-e-d, dead" to a "compare how much damage you took on each successful attack to a set of trip points and suffer graduated disabling effects depending upon those trip points, with the chance to go into shock, bleed out, lose a limb, or even suffer a one-shot/one-kill" will also significantly affect the low/high feel.

You can have fireballs and lightning bolts erupting all around you - and if the rules set makes you feel as if your PC has suffered horrible burns or an electrocution, it will engender a low-magic feel moreso than subtracting from a pool of all-purpose hit points.

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?

Games can be fun even when character death occurs. In fact, some of the most fun games I've played in involved character death as a central theme - Paranoia, for example, doesn't work without the idea of seeing whether or not you make it to the end of the adventure before all of your clones comically die.

I'm not going to reply in detail again as you mostly talk past me and/or don't read what I actually typed. I don't know whether you do this on purpose or through a lack of ability to read-for-comprehension. But I'll point out two things I said previously just to show you my criticism of your approach-to-discussion is a valid one.

First thing:
If you will read through those many quotes I supplied - and there weren't any counter quotes that I could find - you will note they had two things in common.

1) These people really liked Weapons of Legacy in concept.

2) These people largely ignore the NERFing in order to have fun using Weapons of Legacy ideas in their games.

Second thing:
You completely ignored this potential area of compromise (and here I'll quote myself verbatim). "I'd rather take Ancestral Relic than a weapon of legacy; much more straightforward, fits more easily into the existing system, and without the giant, not-worth-it downsides."

I'm not talking past you and I did read what you wrote. I'm not ignoring the ancestral relic vs. Weapons of Legacy.

What I'm doing is saying that while your argument may be valid for a high-magic campaign, I don't believe it to be the case for a low-magic campaign.

The way Weapons of Legacy doles out the magic effects associated with the item, while exacting an also-increasing toll to go along with it, is how magic should work in a low-magic campaign.

Let me try that again:

3.PF is a fantasy, high magic, combat simulator.

Ignoring the words "fantasy" and "high magic" in the descriptor allows you take make a point but not a point relevant to the discussion in this thread.

It absolutely is relevant - from the description of the game: "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is an evolution of the 3.5 rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game, designed using the feedback of tens of thousands of gamers just like you."

Nothing in that description says high magic, and if you go back to the origins of the game, OD&D was, at its heart, swords-n-sorcery - definitely not high magic.

And note how popular the Weapons of Legacy approach has been. Which is to say virtually not at all. It totally NERFS the item usability.

Here are a representative sample of opinions (Spoilered for length of post):

There's a whole thread over at GitP to fix this:

GitP

This is the most insightful comment I've seen on Weapons of Legacy:
"I like the book, if only as a source for ideas. More specifically, I like to convert the legacy abilities into abilities for Intelligent Items."

That's exactly what I'd use it for. As a way to spec out intelligent items (that have their own agenda which may or may not coincide with the PCs goals).

And this approach, I've actually used and it works pretty good:
"I'd rather take Ancestral Relic than a weapon of legacy; much more straightforward, fits more easily into the existing system, and without the giant, not-worth-it downsides."

So - because some people seem to have an entitlement mentality towards the way they approach the game, it makes that supplement "NERF" the ability to use magic items? How is the loss of 12 hit points, a -3 penalty on your attacks, and a -6 on your saving throws - at 20th level - nerfing a holy avenger? this is no different than any other rule that gives you something in exchange for giving up something.

For giving that up, you get (at 20th level) a +5 holy cold iron longsword that allows you to do the following:

area greater dispel magic at will
heal self 1/day
spell resistance = Paladin Level +5
break enchantment 1/day

Even at minimum wielder level (Paladin 1, +4 BAB), it is still a +1 cold iron longsword - which is amazing in a low-magic campaign in and of itself.

Actually - what that means is the BBEG will preferentially send in the minions to NERF the PCs by cracking them in the knees. Nothing like an easy afternoon of mopping up the gimped Heroes.

Yeah, and?

Smart players ensure that their PCs have their own minions to deal with them. Smart players figure out how to have their PCs trap and interrogate the minions to give them an advantage in taking out the BBEG in the most efficient and ruthless manner possible while minimizing their own chances of actually getting into combat.

I notice you use the word "nerf" quite often when there is a suggestion about how to tweak the rules in such a way that players don't have unstoppable Exalted-style PCs which comes off like an overinflated sense of entitlement... Is this only when dealing with trying to implement a low magic campaign, or do you feel the same way in regards to any rpg campaign?

That isn't really twisting words so much as a potential misunderstanding. "Lack" means either deficiency or complete absence, and it isn't really possible to deduce which was intended from the context.

My intended context was to mean significantly hard, if not impossible, to find.

No magical healing being able to be bought from Ye Olde Magick Shoppe. No magical healing being able to be bought from a cleric of a friendly religion.
No cure potions found scattered throughout the dungeon.
Cleric-provided healing only as a ritualistic casting (taking 10 minutes to cast) and then only as a way to reduce a wound level by one step.

For example: Fighter Joe (Ftr 1) has a moderate wound to his sword arm, a critical head wound (blinded in one eye with blood shooting out like fireworks), and a light wound to his chest. Luckily, Rogue Jim uses his heal skill and stabilizes Fighter Joe after he goes into shock. Joe won't die right now, but he is in some serious trouble. After dragging Joe with them as they flee the goblin guards, they set up a temporary triage in a storeroom and bar the door.

Cleric Fred (Clr 1) can cast Cure Light Wounds. He can reduce the wound level to Fighter Joe's chest and completely heal it. He can't do anything for the critical head wound or the moderate arm wound. The best that he can do is perform a heal check to perform first aid using barke of willowe and ergot of bread. He is successful, which means after dragging Joe back to the safety of town, they can seek out the services of a skilled chirurgeon to perform extended healing services at a +3 bonus.

Had Cleric Fred been 4th level, he'd have been able to cast, in succession, Cure Critical, Cure Serious, Cure Moderate, and Cure Light to completely heal Joe's head wound. He'd then need to expend another Cure Mod, Cure Light for the arm wound and an additional Cure light for the chest wound.

You could get this effect simply by denying resurrection or making it cost prohibitive. That would be easier and not have unplanned side effects across the 3.PF system. Since said game system is built around the idea of a fantasy high magic combat simulator major tweaking will cause major side effects.

Actually - you only need minor tweaking. I've made these tweaks and play-tested them and they work just fine. More importantly, Pathfinder is definitely not a fantasy high magic combat simulator. For it to be a simulator, it'd have to replicate the physics accurately - and it doesn't.

So, for example, the side effect this approach will have is:

That after centuries (millennia?) of the game world plugging along, heirloom magic items will be fairly common and buku powerful. Yes there will be virtually no "+1 swords" but every modestly wealthy family will have Holy (or Unholy) Avengers and the like. And the wealthy families? Why their stuff will be artifact level items.

On the contrary. Looking at the first entry in the Weapons of Legacy book, for the Bloodcrier's Hammer, it can't be wielded until the PC is at least 5th level - and it is just a +2 warhammer at that point. The other benefits include being able to detect creatures with the earth subtype within 60 ft. at 6th level up to freedom of movement while standing on earth or stone at 20th level. Using the weapons also results in attack and save penalties and a small loss of hit points.

Not exactly artifact level, nor would you want to use it on an everyday basis. Exactly how magic items ought to be treated.

Other items in that book are equally treated - magical effects as you go up in level, usually limited to the number of times per day (at 20th level, the Bright Evening Star ring allows you to summon an elder fire elemental only once every other day) and usually with some increasing amount of penalties.

In fact - the holy avenger you mention is reworked into a weapon of legacy. You don't get the +5 holy cold iron effects until 20th level (at a cost of -3 Atk, -6 on all saves, and loss of 12 hit points from your max).

Side effect:

No magical healing means no high level adventures. Look at all the protection pro athletes have ITRW and note that for the contact sports (contact far less brutal than melee combat) most athletes are forced to retire due to injuries and general performance-inability by their 30's.

Alexander the Great may have marched from Greece to India but the army he had in India was mostly not Greek soldiers. And that was just a decade of campaigning.

IMNSHO using low magic really changes the game and it just might be easier to use a system designed expressly for that. Others, upstream in this thread, like rules-tweaking to get the low magic ideas to work out. To me, that's a lot of work for very little gain. As I said before, after that much alteration/adaptation of 3.PF you've basically backed your way into learning an already existing system.

Actually - no magical healing simply means that high level characters are a lot wiser in how they pursue encounters with the enemy. It means instead of having instant access to 100% curative magical healing, they get to either slog it out at a variable penalty to their performance for being wounded, they have to have retainers tag along to heal them with chirurgery and non-magical curatives, or they have to run back to the safety of their campaign tent and heal up for a while (all while their mortal enemies are plotting and scheming...)

And - let's consider that "barke of willowe" was considered magical when it was first discovered and used by ancient alchemists, priest-diviners and witch-doctors. Never mind that we know it is simply the salicylates in it. In fact, even when scientists knew what the active ingredient was, they still didn't know how it actually worked until 1971...

I don't know if it has been expressed how I'm going to say it:

Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff, with stats, magic items, spells, etc. being a form of resource management. Can I explore further with only 2 spells left? Will this be the last swing of my sword needed to bring down this monster before he stabs me in the kidney and I need to burn a cure potion?

Low-magic is desirable because it brings a different kind of resource management. What it does is force players to think more strategically in the long-term and more tactically in the short-term. Perhaps it'd be better to sneak past the guards rather than carry on a frontal assault? Gee, I'm still in the process of recovering from that fight with that orc and I'm not back up to 100% - I think we'll need to plan on attacking from a distance and then running to a new spot, picking off these goblins when their patrol ranges away from their lair.

What low-magic requires is a bit of tweaking. Magic items, while much rarer, need to be cool. No +1 swords. The GM needs to devote time and energy to devising magic items that have some character that makes PCs want to keep them. Couple of ideas that come to mind include the ancestral daisho from 3.0 Oriental Adventures (starting at 4th level, you can sacrifice gold or experience points to imbue your katana with magic) and the 3.5 weapons of legacy where you can "unlock" different abilities at different levels. And keep them they will, because there are no Ye Olde Magick Shoppes anywhere.

Low-magic does much better if you implement a wound system rather than using hit points - both to allow players to better gauge their characters current status and to provide a combat system that feels more gritty. I've adapted the wound and healing rules from a modern game (Twilight:2013) for use because it allows character actions that suffer penalties from damage but allow them to better gauge when to get the heck out of dodge. Effects ranging from a -1 on all actions, to -2, to -3, etc. with chances to go into shock allow a slow spiral giving PCs sufficient warning of when they are losing battle and need to flee. Once the death spiral waterfall goes over the edge, though, its lights out. Major amounts of damage can result in bleeding out, instant unconsciousness, death, or catastrophic limb amputation.

Low magic requires enhancing the Heal skill to include chirurgery and allowing the use of curatives and the environment to offset lack of magical healing. Again, I've adapted TW:2013. Each PC has a healing factor based upon their CON score. Couple that with level of shelter and current conditions and you come up with how quickly each wound level will heal (for example, best conditions but no extra care and the lowest level wound that needs healing results in getting rid of the wound in just under 2 days). Critical wounds that are left to naturally heal have a risk of resulting in a permanent impairment (think missing limbs, blindness, horribly-disfiguring scars, etc.) Now, you get extended care by way of the party's healer, and the chances of that stuff happening decrease. Did I mention the possibility of disease or wound infection complicating matters?

Low magic requires a GM to recognize that most encounters are going to be against humanoids and animals rather than fantastical beasts at least until the PCs increase in power level. Think chasing down bandits who've robbed you while on your way to deliver a millstone to your lord's manor more often than stabbing purple worms from inside them.

Low magic requires a GM to change it up when it comes to diseases and poisons. Think cholera and snakebites rather than cackle fever and blue whinnis.

Funnily enough, 3catcircus . . .

Ogre: Constitution 15

Light Wound: 1-7 (less than 1/2 Constitution total, rounded down)

Moderate Wound: 8-15 (1/2 Constitution total to full Constitution total)

Serious Wound: 16-30 (Full Constitution total to double Constitution total)

Critical Wound: 31< (More than double Constitution total).

Your suggestion and mine handle the ogre pretty much exactly, except that I'm comparing against fractions of Constitution instead of fractions of Hit Points.

Not trying to prove anything (I'm well aware that my suggestion is a rough-draft idea that I came up with very late at night and is riddled with flaws), but I just thought that particular example was humorous :)

No worries. I think it is an artifact of using CON for a creature in the range of small - large. If we swing outside that range, I think it breaks down.

My houserules adapt the wound levels concept from Twilight:2013 but fraction off of hit points because it is easy to do. If I were to use that system all the way, I'd have to establish base hit points (i.e. trip point of a moderate wound) using the formula [10 + (STR + 2 x CON)]/4, which breaks down when you swing outside of the small to large size band. (The dragon would only have 27 base hit points using that formula). Since your suggestion is based off of CON (which is a linear variable in the formula, above), it would probably have the same issues if you just used CON.

A purple worm (gargantuan) would have base hit points of 50 by fractioning statted hit points and 24 by using STR and CON.

A scarlet spider (tiny) would have 1 hp (fractioning) and 8 (STR/CON) - which is twice its statted hp.

I think you'd need to, if adapting off of CON (or STR/CON as in the formula I listed), have to use a size modifier, a la Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty system.

I threw this together this morning. It works like ** spoiler omitted **...

Let me suggest a system that is easier and a little better to control.

Split a creature's hit points into different fractions to establish wound levels and then compare damage to it to determine the results of the wounds.

For example: A standard pathfinder Ogre has 30 hit points. Set the wound levels as follows (and conveniently enough, it matches the cure spells):

Light: 1 hp
Moderate: 7 hp
Serious: 15 hp
Critical: 22 hp
Dead: 30 hp

A standard Pathfinder Great Wyrm Red Dragon has 449 hit points. It's wound levels would be:

Slight: 1 hp
Moderate: 112 hp
Serious: 224 hp
Critical: 336 hp
Dead: 449 hp

A standard 5th-level human fighter (assuming Con = 10, max hit points at first level and 1/2 + 1 hit point thereafter) has 34 hit points, resulting in wound levels of:

Slight: 1 hp
Moderate: 8 hp
Serious: 17 hp
Critical: 25 hp
Dead: 34 hp

So - if the fighter hits the ogre and does 12 points of damage, you don't subtract hit points, you just compare the 12 points of damage to the wound levels, see that it is more than 7 and less than 15 which means the ogre suffers a moderate wound.

A homebrew I've been kicking around uses this approach and establishes the following effects:

Slight: -1 on all actions
Moderate: -2 on all actions; make a DC 15 Fort save or go into shock (fail by more than 5 and start bleeding out too)
Serious: -3 on all actions; DC 20 Fort save or go into shock (fail by more than 5 and start bleeding out too)
Critical: -4 on all actions; automatically go into shock; DC 25 Fort save or start bleeding out too.

Subsequent similar wounds: if you take a second wound of the same severity, it becomes a wound of one level higher. For example, if you have a moderate wound and take a second moderate wound, instead it becomes a serious wound.

Shock: you are unable to act for the remainder of the round; at the beginning of each round, you have to make a DC 15 Will save or be unable to act during that round; in addition, for the remainder of the combat, any action that would put you into shock makes you begin bleeding out instead.

Bleeding out: at the end of every round, your wound level increases by one until you exceed critical at which point you are dead. An ally can make a DC 15 heal check to stabilize you at your current wound level prior to bleeding out.

This system naturally also lends itself to hit locations, which allows you to have effects like reducing movement speed (leg wounds), chances to drop held objects (arm/hand wounds), loss of consciousness (head wounds), or chance of amputation (limb wounds).

It also naturally lends itself to using armor as DR.

As you can see, most opponents will take a few hits before dropping, but the stuff that is SUPPOSED to be scary (such as a Great Wyrm Red Dragon) remains scary because it requires many more hits and chances are it won't just go into shock and bleed out without some help...

How about giving the same treatment to the adventure paths following RotR?

Arriving to this discussion late...

Bloat is coming back only if you insist on using every source all the time.

Stick with the core rules and the Ultimate books and be done with it. No need to add those Pathfinder Companions or any of the fluff from the campaign setting books. Even if a player runs out and buys the new shiny doesn't mean I have to let him or her use it.

Actions in Combat
Parrying with a weapon and blocking with a shield would become a standard action. Where weapons are concerned, the roll would be based on BaB and would benefit from Weapon Focus, enchantment, etc. Where shields are concerned, the shield bonus would be added to this roll.

The old Advanced Player's Guide from Sword Sorcery Studios provided these types of rules.

They split Armor Class into 4 active defenses that you add to a d20 roll: armor (basically the last resort), parry, block, or dodge, where you decide - parry, dodge, or block, with armor as the fallback should my roll fail.

Other things I'd change:

1. Add morale checks.
2. Use margin of success (beat the to-hit check by 3? add that to your damage result) and introduce the idea that beating the check by "x" amount results in a critical hit rather than by rolling a 20 (or whatever the threat range currently is for a weapon).
3. Provide an option to make spellcasting a feat-and-skill based system instead of Vancian.
4. Go to a d20 dice pool mechanic - higher skill ranks or a higher BAB ought to afford you more chances at success. While you could argue that increasing the result of a check is increasing your chance of success, being able to roll multiple dice does so in a more meaningful way. And - additional successes could add to your margin of success.
5. Hit locations.
6. Change the hit point mechanic. I favor the idea of having a fixed "base hit points" that are a result of your Con and Str (with a scaling factor for size) and then having different multiples act as trip points for wound levels (e.g. take 1 pt of damage and you are -1 to everything, take 1x your hp in damage, -2 and chance of going into shock, take 2x your hp in damage and at -3, with chance of bleeding out, etc.) This could be coupled with hit locations so you could end up with a few flesh wounds to your torso but end up bleeding out of your femoral artery... This could be coupled with dice pool mechanics so that the -1, -2, etc. penalties act to reduce the number of dice you roll instead of subtracting from the result.
7. Armor as DR - how about scaling it based upon weapon type, using the crit multiplier? So - using a dagger (Crit Mult x2) against full plate (Armor Bonus +9) would result in the normal DR 9 to become DR 18 while using a greataxe(Crit Mult x3) against leather armor (armor bonus +2) would result in DR 6. What I'm going for here is using some way to define armor's ability to stop kinetic energy vs. a weapon's ability to penetrate that armor.

Thanks for your replies!

So, I'm working on a Forgotten Realms campaign conversion of a few prestige classes and one of them included as a prerequisite one of the feats that was removed for Pathfinder. I suppose I could convert these to just be a minimum level of skill ranks, but the feats were, I think, fine (from an intent standpoint) to begin with.

I haven't been able to find anything regarding why feats like Diligent and Negotiator were removed. As far as I can see, they add +2 bonuses to two skills - not exactly overpowering since there are feats in pathfinder that provide similar mechanics for other skills.

Anyone see any problems with house-ruling them as follows:

Agile: +2 bonus on Acrobatics and Escape Artist
Diligent: +2 bonus on Appraise and Linguistics
Investigator: +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Perception
Negotiator: +2 bonus on Diplomacy and Sense Motive
Nimble Fingers: Replace with Deft Hands

I use Combat Defense, consisting of 3 active defenses (block, dodge, parry) and one passive defense (armor). These are amashup of the Combat Defenses rules from the Sword Sorcery Studios Advanced Players Guide and Armor as DR from Ultimate Combat.

Block Defense uses the shield and you can make one block for each attack you have each round - so if you have BAB +6/+1, you can block 2 attacks each round.
BD = shield bonuses + BAB + 1d20

Orich Starkhart wrote:

What's a "true VP/WP system"?

I'm talking about the Vitality Point / Wound Point system presented in Star Wars WotC 1st and 2nd edition lol. It's what the vigor and wound system in Pathfinder is based off except the reason it doesn't work well is it probably became apparent to the designers that a simple chapter wasn't enough for such a big overhaul.

From your responses, I'm wondering if you realize that both Armor as DR and VP/WP were changed from 3e and are handled differently in Pathfinder?

Armor as DR includes a check to see if the crit is a crit based on a d20 roll that includes DR rather than a standard 2nd to-hit roll.

VP/WP now does crit damage just like standard, subtracting from VP before subtracting from WP, but ALSO does the crit mult in damage directly to WP on top of that. Crit multipliers and damage stay the same, threat range stays the same.

The psionics system presented in the Green Ronin (?) Advanced Players Handbook for 3.5 and the Spycraft Shadowforce Archer psionics system are similar and very cool, being skill-based (feats gain you entrance to the particular skillsets) and there is the concept of psychic strain.

Much more interesting than the "psionics is like magic, but different" approach originally taken starting with 3.0 since it gives players the ability to customize much more.

3catcircus wrote:

How about you just suck it up. Me - I don't even allow use of Crane Wing to begin with.

ANY character should have a chance of being killed by a lucky blow, let alone being hit.

A 10th level PC ought to still be frightened by being surrounded by an orc horde.

And thsi is exactly what I am talking about.

Have you ever seen Ip-Man? There are many scenes where he is surrounded by adversaries but he almost never gets hit. Why? Because his DEFENCE is that good. He is a purely defensive fighter, only striking when the opportunity arises (i.e. AoO).

Except Pathfinder isn't IP-Man. Especially PFS where you need to equalize play for everyone.

Want to use it in its original form in a home game - have at it. Otherwise, if you want to play Ip-Man, it might be best to choose a different RPG to do so - Exalted would work well.

I'd just not suggest using armor as DR. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy about a more realistic approach but it bogs down the game mechanics. Worrying about hit locations is an even worse way to go about it.

I fail to see how double-digit math slowd down the game...

Roll to hit. Subtract DR from damage. Rinse, repeat.

Adding the variant I described adds one extra roll when being attacked.
Additionally, it forces all players to continue to pay attention to the game when it isn't their turn to attack - and that's a good thing...

Hit locations already exist using Called Shot rules from Ultimate Combat, so expanding it to allow random hit location is as simple as looking at the ones digit on your attack roll - no extra work at all.

Logically, you can combine Armor as DR, Called Shots with random hit locations, piecemeal armor, and VP/WP and add minimal extra work for a much richer combat experience...

To mesh them, I would simply drop the Armor Defense roll, and grant DR as per normal. I'd also add deflection bonus to the other rolls. I actually really wanna try this.

Other than adding deflection bonuses, this sounds like the way to go.

Reasoning is as follows - deflection implies that a "repulsion force" is actively sitting on top of your body pushing against incoming weapons.

Dodge means you are physically moving out of the way - whatever deflection bonus you have wouldn't come into play because the attack doesn't approach you.

Blocking (with the shield) would likely only involve a deflection bonus if the shield itself provided the bonus and not armor or a ring or something - since you are "attacking" by using your shield to block and the attack isn't approaching the rest of your body.

Parrying shouldn't get a deflection bonus because the deflection isn't also covering your weapon.

I'd apply dodge bonuses to the Dodge Defense.

The other problem I'd have with using Armor and DR as-is is that Defense = 10 + shield bonus + Dex mod + other mods + armor enhancement bonus, which would overlap with the block defense.

If we use Armor as DR and just apply the parry/block/dodge defense, we end up doing the following:

Armor Defense = 10 + shield bonus + Dex Mod + other bonuses (including deflection) + armor enhancement bonus -> STOCK VARIANT
Block Defense = Shield Bonus + BAB + 1d20
Dodge Defense = Dex Mod + dodge bonus + other bonuses (except deflection)caused by any magic item other than armor or shield - ACP + Ref Save + 1d20
Parry Defense = BAB + Str (or Dex) Mod + magic weapon bonuses + 1d20

Critical Defense Check Bonus = DR + Dex Mod + shield bonus + deflection bonus -> STOCK VARIANT

DR = armor bonus + armor enhancement bonus + natural armor bonus + 1/5 levels or HD -> STOCK VARIANT

So - a 5th level tank fighter (STR 18, DEX 14) with Dodge feat, +1 ring of protection, +1 longsword, + 1 heavy steel shield and +1 full plate (Max Dex + 1, Armor +9, ACP -6) would have the following:

AD = 10 + 2 (shield) + 1 (shield enhancement) + 1 (Max Dex) + 1 (ring) + 1 (armor enhancement) = 16
BD = 2 (shield) + 1 (shield enhancement) + 5 (BAB) + 1d20 = 8 + 1d20
DD = 1 (Max Dex) + 1 (Dodge Feat) - 6 + 1 (Ref Save) + 1d20 = 1d20 - 3
PD = 5 (BAB) + 4 (Str) + 1 (magic weapon enhancement) + 1d20 = 10 + 1d20
DR = 9 (armor bonus) + 1 (armor enhancement) + 1 (5th level) = 11
CDC Bonus = 11 + 1 (Max Dex) + 2 (shield bonus) + 1 (shield enhancement bonus) + 1 (ring) = 16

So - this guy has a reasonable armor, is really good at blocking or parrying (dodge not so much), and a significant DR, as well as a really good chance of avoiding a critical.

Now lets look at a rogue (same level and Dodge feat, Str 14 Dex 18, + 1 ring, +1 leather armor and +1 short sword, but no shield)

AD = 10 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 16
BD = 3 (BAB) + 1d20
DD = 4 + 1 + 4 + 1d20 = 9 + 1d20
PD = 3 + 2 + 1 + 1d20 = 6 + 1d20
DR = 2 + 1 + 1 = 4
CDC Bonus = 4 + 4 + 1 = 9

This guy isn't much harder to hit (even though wearing lighter armor - solely due to his Dex bonus), and has a very good chance of both dodging and parrying, but will take a lot more damage when hit and has a higher chance of suffering a critical.

If we use the Armor Defense from SSS rather than the stock variant, armor defense becomes as follows:

Fighter: 9 + 1 + 1d20 = 10 + 1d20
Rogue: 4 + 1 + 1d20 = 5 + 1d20

Perhaps if we drop the shield bonus from armor defense in the stock variant?

At which point, the ADs becomes:

Fighter: AD 13
Rogue: 16

This makes a bit more sense - the rogue will be harder to hit, but the fighter takes less damage when hit - and we can keep the PD, BD, and DD as-is. And it is in keeping with the concept of Combat Defense in that armor can always be a defense even if you fail while using the other 3 defenses. If we use the Armor as DR stock variant but drop shield bonuses, it is a passive check rather than an opposed roll - just like it is now...

So - fighter joe could choose to block an attacking troll's attacks with his shield:

Troll attacks (claw/claw/bite) getting 20, 12, and 11. Joe rolls 19, 9, and 3. He blocks the first claw, but misses blocking the 2nd claw or bite. Luckily, his armor defense (13) causes the 2nd claw and the bite to glance off his armor.

Mr. Troll has stats as follows:

AD = 10 + 2 = 12
BD = 4 + 1d20
DD = 4 + 1d20
PD = 9 + 1d20
DR = 6
CDC bonus = 8

Fighter Joe swings his longsword,and rolls a 14. Mr. Troll's attempts to backhand the sword swing and rolls a 2 - he fails. The 14 beats Mr. Troll's AD, and Joe rolls for damage and does 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 points of damage, but the troll's DR results in him only taking 4 points...

So - I think dropping shield bonuses from stock Armor as DR Defense and calling that AD, while adding a dodge bonus to the DD, keeping BD and PD as written and DR and CDC as written works pretty well.

Is it really that hard to roll a set of %-ile dice?

How about you just suck it up. Me - I don't even allow use of Crane Wing to begin with.

ANY character should have a chance of being killed by a lucky blow, let alone being hit.

A 10th level PC ought to still be frightened by being surrounded by an orc horde.

3catcircus wrote:

Found it. No rules for variable DR or weapon vs armor, but it breaks AC into 4 different Combat Defense opposed rolls.

Armor Defense = Armor Bonus + Natural Armor Bonus + Deflection Bonus + 1d20.

Block Defense = Shield Bonus + BAB + 1d20.

Dodge Defense = Dex bonuses - ACP + Ref Save + 1d20.

Parry Defense = Max Attack for weapon used (i.e. BAB + Str or Dex bonus + magic weapon bonuses + 1d20).

You can use AD even if other defenses are tried and fail. BD can be used once per round for each attack you can make. DD is a free action, even if Flat footed, but each use in the round after the first is a cumulative -2 penalty. PD can be used for both hands, but both are at -2 penalty unless using the Off Hand and having TWF.

This prevents having gigantic ACs that are impossible to hit. I've not evaluated how it would affect Armor ad DR.

Thats a pretty neat take on it. Do you actually roll all four of those in one round or choose one? Because that seems like a lot of rolling.

MY SPELLING ERRORS CORRECTED IN THE ABOVE

The idea (I think) is that you pick one of the four defense methods for the round, with Armor Defense also always being available since block, dodge, and parry can be used multiple times each round, but you could, in theory, seem to be able to use a combination.

For example - Your stalwart 6th level fighter gets attacked by 3 goblins and a troll that enters combat in round 2.

Round 1:

Goblin 1 swings with his chopper and you decide it would be easiest to parry using your off-hand weapon.

You attack Goblin 1 and kill him, but manage to fumble your off-hand attack and drop your dagger.

Goblin 2 attacks and you decide to dodge.

Goblin 3 attacks and you decide to dodge (at -2 penalty)

Round 2:

You ready your shield.

Goblin 2 and 3 attack and you decide to block them both with your shield.

The troll attacks - you decide to dodge the bite and one of the claws, but will parry the second claw. Your parry fails, so you also get your Armor Defense.

Notice I didn't stipulate armor type worn in this example - a sword-and-board fighter in Full Plate would never use dodge since the armor check penalties mean you likely start out in the negatives before rolling d20.

From inspection, it looks like the Armor Defense (1d20 + armor bonus + natural armor bonus + deflection) is acting very similarly to DR (armor bonuses + natural armor bonuses + 1 per 5 levels or HD).

I've been mulling over how the Combat Defense variant and the Armor as DR variant could be mashed together.

Found it. No rules for variable DR or weapon vs armor, but it breaks AC into 4 different Combat Defense opposed rolls.

Armor Defense = Armor Bonus + Natural Armor Bonus + Deflection Bonus + 1d20.

Block Defense = Shield Bonus + BAB + 1d20.

Dodge Defense = Dex bonuses - ACP + Ref Save + 1d20.

Parry Defense = Max Attack for weapon used (i.e. BAB + Str or Dex bonus + magic weapon bonuses + 1d20).

You can use AD even if other defenses are tried and fail. BD can be used once per round for each attack you can make. DD is a free action, even if Flat footed, but each use in the round after the first is a cumukative -2 penalty. PD can be used for blurry hands, but both are at -2 penalty unless using the Off Hand and having TWF.

This prevents having gigantic ACs that are impossible to hit. I've but evaluated how rid would affect Armor ad DR.

You may want to check out the variant rules in Advanced Players Guide from SSS (White Wolf d20 imprint.) It is likely OOP, but since it is, I believe, OGL, I'll see if I can dig up my own copy that I fat-fingrred from the book.

I think it has rules for Armor vs. Weapon type and variable DR

First - the idea of DC16 save, DC15 partial save is already baked into the system in the form of "save for half" effects, but that doesn't sound like what you are looking for - it sounds like you want a graduated system.

I Not exactly seen it as part of D&D, but I've seen systems where the amount that you succeed or fail a roll improves or worsens the effect.

Example: a target number on a d20 to-hit roll is x. You roll y, which beats x by 5. You add 5 to the damage you do on your attack.

For attack spells, the amount your attack succeeds could be added to the base save DC. Exceed that, fully negate the effects. Exceed the base save DC and you take 1/2 damage or something along those lines.

For example:

Level 1 Wizard Joe with Int 16 needs to succeed on a melee touch attack to zap Fred the Fighter with a Shocking Grasp spell. He needs to hit an AC 12. Joe rolls a 17 - success! He beats the roll by 5.

There is no save per the spell, as written. If the spell had a save DC, it'd be 10 + 1 + 3 = 14. Since this is a melee touch attack, you could make this a Fort save. So - the base save DC is 14. The full save DC is 19 (14 + 5).

Joe rolls his 1d6 for damage and comes up with a 4. Fred makes his Fort save and gets a 17. Fred takes 1/2 damage. Had Fred rolled a 19 or higher, he'd take no damage. Had he rolled lower than 14, he'd take full damage.

Another example:

Wizard Joe wants to cast Ray of Enfeeblement on Fred. He again needs to beat an AC 12 and gets a 15 - beating it by 3. This makes his spell save DC 17 (14 + 3). He rolls a 1d6 and gets 5 for the amount of Str he'll weaken Fred by.

Fred isn't having a lot of luck today and gets a 15 on his Fort save.

As written, he'd take no Str damage. Instead, now, he takes 1/2 damage since he beat the base save DC, but not the higher DC caused by Joe's attack roll exceeding the minimum needed to hit.

Another way of doing this would instead be to just stay on the save DC only and figure out by just how much a save is failed and apply that - for rolls that fail by 5 or more being critical failures.

So - let's say instead of rolling a 15, Fred rolled a 12 and failed the saving throw for the Ray of Enfeeblement (but we aren't enhancing Joe's effects by how much he exceeded the needed to-hit roll, so the save DC is just a 14). He failed, but by less than 5 - perhaps this causes 75% of the effect instead of 50% of the effect for making the saving throw. So - his Str penalty is 5, less 1/2 of 1/2. So - instead of 5, he'll take a Str penalty of 4. (since 1/2 of 5 is 2.5, rounded down to 2 and 1/2 of that is 1).

So - Fred failed his save by 3. Perhaps

What about using WP/VP instead and using a condition track for VP?

Perhaps:

Full - 76% VP = full capability

75-51% VP = -1 to all actions

50-26% VP = -2 to all actions, make a Will save (DC 10 + dmg/5) or become dazed. If you fail the check by 5 or more, you must make a Will save each subsequent round in the encounter.

25-0% VP = -3 to all actions, make a Fort save (DC 10 + dmg/5) or become stunned. If you fail the check by 5 or more, you must make a Fort save each subsequent round in the encounter.

If you are already dazed and suffer an attack that would cause you to become dazed, you become stunned instead.

I'm going to suggest picking up a copy of Toxicant and converting the 3.x stats to Pathfinder. The author has gone to the trouble of providing many different poisons, venoms, and toxic chemicals - animal, plant, fungus, and mineral. Ubiquitous poison gas trap? Now you can choose amongst ammonia, chlorine, phosgene, etc.

Death Head mushroom is like DC 31 and it is a tiinnnyyyy amount to kill a person.

UPDATE: I was able to pull out my copy of Toxicant, and they make poison even more brutal than I remembered.

Here is an example - Conus Geographus (Cone Snail) Venom

Cone Snail Venom:
Dose: .007 oz (200 mg)
Onset: 2d6 rounds
Duration: 3d8 rounds
Save DC: 18
Symptoms: Blurred Vision, Cramps (1d10 cramps over the duration, each lasting 1d4 rounds, result is PC stops movement), Incoordination (-5 penalty on attacks, defense actions, skills or feats that require coordination, -2 Dex, Critical Failure requires a Reflex save or suffer immediate AoA from all opponents currently engaged), Localized Pain (Fort save or considered entangled), Minor Swelling (sting), Nausea/Vomiting (Nauseated, Critical Failure requires Fort save or immediately begin vomiting - considered Stunned for 1d4 rounds), Numbness (-1 Reflex saves), Weakness (Exhausted)
Damage: Paralyzation (Paralyzed), Mild Asphyxiation 1d4 hp per round.
Save Results: Avoid paralyzation, reduce asphyxia duration by 85%

So - anytime from 12 seconds to 1.2 minutes after envenomization, symptoms and damage starts to occur and last over the course of anywhere from 18 seconds to 2.4 minutes.

The Toxicant rules allow the GM leeway as to how to apply symptoms and damage; I'd go for a timeline approach (for example - 21 rounds and 8 symptoms results in each symptom occurring, in turn, every 3 rounds and continuing for the duration, while the damage occurs every round).

Best-case scenario for damage: 1 hp damage.
Worst-case scenario for damage: 96 hp damage.

And - considering the symtoms may have adverse effects, poison is even more of a problem.

What is nice about Toxicant is it aleady has a built-in conversion to Pathfinder since it gives a duration - assume each symptom gets one save and the damage gets a save each round and you are pretty much good to go.

The only down-side is you pretty much have to throw away the core Pathfinder poison list, so trying to implement this for the monster venoms in combat is a bit challenging. Easiest thing to do is look at the DCs and pick comparable ones.

For example: scorpion venoms range from DC 10 to DC 27 (10, 12, 13, 17, 20, 22, 27) in the core Pathfinder bestiary . Toxicant scorpion venoms range from 10 to 40 (10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 38, 40).

Say I was pitting my players against the tiny standard Pathfinder Greensting Scorpion. I'd go with the Toxicant DCs and set the DC 10, 14 poisons (Yellow Scorpion, Red Devil Scorpion) = to the DC 10 standard Pathfinder Greensting Scorpion.

I could then vary which one depending on, say, terrain or environment - one time, the PCs could suffer the kidney damage of the Red Devil scorpion, and another time, suffer the paralyzation of the Yellow scorpion, which keeps players on their toes instead of the "we know, Fort Save DC 10, and sickened if we fail" for the standard Pathfinder Greensting scorpion.

I'm going to suggest picking up a copy of Toxicant and converting the 3.x stats to Pathfinder. The author has gone to the trouble of providing many different poisons, venoms, and toxic chemicals - animal, plant, fungus, and mineral. Ubiquitous poison gas trap? Now you can choose amongst ammonia, chlorine, phosgene, etc.

Death Head mushroom is like DC 31 and it is a tiinnnyyyy amount to kill a person.

I'd like to keep some of the core to Pathfinder unless I can whole-sale implement a class-less system since a lot of the changes would be minor (i.e. core statistics like BAB turn into a number of dice in your pool rather than a bonus to-hit, Fort/Ref/Will mod becomes a number of dice in your pool rather than a bonus to saves, the Barbarian's rage will boost Str and Con just like always does - except now it ends up being more hp due to the fact that base hp = [10 + Str + 2 x Con] / 4, A Paladin with Cha 18 now gets to add an additional dice to the pool when smiting, etc.)

The Reflex System I am trying to adapt core mechanics from also uses a class-less life-path system, but uses 8 attributes instead of 6 (it includes the equivalent of Perception as an attribute called Awareness, and an Education attribute) - it is for a "modern real-world" as opposed to "medieval fantasy" game.

For example - the "Religion" occupation (requiring minimum attributes in their equivalent of Int, Wis, Cha) Provides 16 skill points to distribute (no more than 6 in any one skill) amongst Command, Instruction, Intimidate, Language, Medicine, Performance, Persuasion/Psychiatry, or to increase attributes at the rate of 4 skill points per 1 attribute point, as well as 6 personal skill points that can be spent on a bunch of other skills (or an attribute at a 5:1 ratio of skill points to attribute points).

I could easily see converting this for Clerics and stating that they can get 16 skill points to distribute amongst the class skills for clerics under Pathfinder and turning each spell school into a skill that you could add ranks to.

In any case - my intent (regardless of whether I go whole-hog or institute a minimally-invasive dice pool system) is that combat should be a lot more likely to end in the losing side being smart and running away (or just not killing everything they come across) unless they want combat to rapidly go from "its just a flesh wound" to an avalanche of shocky and bleeding-out combatants.

I think this also solves the wizard vs. house cat sample problem...

House Cat:

7 base hp
AC 4, DR 0
Base melee to-hit: 15 (Dex due to Weapon Finesse), dice pool 1d20
Base claw damage: -3, pen 1
Base bit damage: -2, pen 1

That's right - the cat has to have a significant margin of success in order to inflict significant enough damage

NPC Wizard (1st level):

12 base hp
AC 5, DR 2
Base melee to-hit: 10, dice pool 1d20
Base melee damage: 3, pen 1
Base ranged to-hit: 17, dice pool 1d20L
Base ranged damage: 3, pen 1

Why not just play shadowrun or steal their system. This just seems like it would wasre a lot of time with rules and complicate the game a lot more

I specifically chose to not use Shadowrun for two reasons:

1. I don't have the Shadowrun books.
2. The Reflex System uses a d20 as opposed to a d6, so it is less complication rolling a pool of d20s and comparing the result to a TN (aka DC) than trying to convert to a d6 system.

An example of this system in play would be a bog-standard orc vs. a 1st level Fighter.

The orc would have the following stats (as relevant to this example):

base hp: 13
hit location hp thresh-holds: head 1, 7, 13, 20
torso 1, 13, 26, 39
limbs 1, 13, 20, 26
AC: 3, DR 2
Base to-hit TN: 18 (Str + Weapon Focus)
Base weapon stats (falchion): dmg 4, pen 1
dice pool for melee: 1d20
Initiative: 4 (1/2 Int)
Encumbrance Initiative Base: 12 (lightly encumbered)
Morale: 4 (1/2 Wis)

Using the NPC 1st-level fighter (Pirate/Buccaneer), his relevant stats would be:

base hp: 14
hit location hp thresh-holds: head 1, 7, 14, 21
torso 1, 14, 28, 42
limbs 1, 14, 21, 28
AC: 5, DR 1
Base to-hit TN: 16 (Str + Weapon Focus)
Base weapon stats (cutlass): dmg 3, pen 1
dice pool for melee: 1d20
Initiative: 5
Encumbrance Initiative Base: 12 (lightly encumbered)
Morale: 6

So - at the beginning of the round, each rolls initiative.

The orc rolls a 16 vs. his Init (failing), so his Init is 12 (just has Encumbranced Initiative Base). The NPC rolls a 3 (success), so his Init is 12 + 2 x his margin of success (5-3) = 16 - so the NPC can attack first.

Using his cutlass, he wildly flails at the orc. His DC is 16 - the orc's AC (3) = 13. He rolls an 11 (success). His damage = 3 + 2 (margin of success = 13 - 11) + 2 (Str bonus) = 7. The Orc's armor reduces this to 5 (DR 2 x pen 1). Hit location (1d6, 1d6) results in a hit to the upper abdomen. We see that his 5 points of damage to the torso exceeds the 1st wound threshold, so the orc will have a -1 dice pool penalty to all physical actions (meaning instead of 1d20, he has to roll 2 d20s and pick the highest instead of the lowest except for passive resistance checks).

The orc attempts a called attack to the NPC's head (-4 penalty), so his DC is 16 - 4 (called attack penalty) - 5 (NPC's AC) = 7. He rolls a 6 and a 3, succeeding. His damage is 4 + 2 (called attack) + 1 (due to having to pick the higher of the two rolls) + 3 (Str bonus) = 10, reduced by 1 (DR 1 x pen 1) = 9. Looking at the thresh-hold for the head, we see it exceeded the 2nd wound threshold, so the NPC has the following effects:

1. He has to roll a Con check. His DC is his CON score (15). He rolls an 8 (success) and does not go into shock.
2. He is at - 2 dice pool for all actions of any kind except passive resistance checks - instead of rolling 1d20, now he has to roll 3d20 but pick the highest of the rolls.

Round 2:

The NPC has to roll a Con check and gets an 11 - he passes and can act this round.

Each rolls initiative. The orc gets 4 and 14 (has to pick the highest) - so his Init is a 12. The NPC rolls 20, 16, 19 (has to pick the highest) and also goes on a 12, but after the orc since his result fails worse.

The orc rolls and gets 9, 11 and hits (18 - 5 = 13), hitting the NPC's right shoulder/upper arm, doing 8 points of damage - just enough to cause the NPC to have to roll 4d20H now when swinging his cutlass.

The NPC rolls 2, 6, 19, 6 and fails since he has to pick the highest of the 4 rolls.

Round 3: The NPC's Con check is an 18 - he fails due to shock - he is semi-conscious and can take no actions.

The Orc decides to press his attack, rolling a 5 and a 10. He gets lucky and hits the head/neck area. He does 9 points of damage. A second wound at the 2nd threshold which bumps it to the 3rd wound level. The NPC rolls a Con check and fails. Since he is already in shock, he immediately becomes unstable and becomes unconscious.

Round 4: The orc rifles through the now-unconscious NPC's pockets. The NPC's slight arm wound becomes a moderate arm wound and his serious head wound becomes a critical head wound.

Round 5: The orc gets a few silver pieces and a shiny ring off of the NPC. The NPC's critical head wound is now deadly as the two hits to his head/neck area have resulted in such grievous wounds that he bleeds to death.

So I've been kicking around stealing ideas from some other games and one thing that interests me greatly (I've only done a single, limited playtest) is the idea of using a dice pool system.

Instead of the core mechanic being d20 + modifiers >= DC, I'm thinking of going all-in using the Reflex System mechanic from TW:2013.

Basics are as follows:

1. Your DC (aka TN aka Target Number) is the controlling attribute (Str for melee attacks, Dex for ranged attacks, Int for Int-based skills, etc.) with the intent to roll less than the TN.
2. Modifiers will still add or subtract from the d20 roll.
3. Each set number of skill ranks will allow you to roll additional d20 dice when using that skill, picking the lowest of the rolls - combat would also be based upon adding skill ranks instead of using BAB.
4. A modified TN of 0 = instant success, 20 = instant failure.
5. The amount you beat the TN by is a margin of success that adds to the amount of your success. Additional dice in the pool that also beat the TN will add 2 to the margin of success.
6. AC will be just "AC bonus + modifiers" and will lower your TN.
7. Armor will also use DR - half of the base AC bonus and will be multiplied by the amount of your weapon's penetration and subtracted from total damage you cause.
8. Weapons will have a base damage of the average of the current damage and a penetration equivalent to the current critical bonus.
9. Hit points will be based solely on Str, Con, and size, and damage will be compared to multiples of the base hit points to determine wound effects (anything from a flesh wound that causes you to lose one from your dice pool, to shock, blood loss/instability, and even one shot-one kill effects).
10. A hit location system will be used (head, torso, 2 arms, 2 legs for bipeds).
11. Whole-body magic damage (fireball, etc.) will be half of what it currently is (e.g. a 6d6 fireball will now be 3d6).

Other than the obvious (completely changing the base mechanic), what issues does anyone see with implementing this system (my intent is that combat should be deadly and not entered into lightly).

I can provide an example of implementation after receiving initial feedback.

Consider developing this into "blocks" of abilities that can be taken by anyone who chooses the "occupation" or "background" or "interest" while keeping the names of the classes as the block - and group skills and abilities by these blocks.

For example - you want your PC to have some abilities to be a Ranger. You could allow a "stint" as a Ranger to give you a certain amount of skills in say - the outdoorsy, combat, sneaky, etc. areas. You could keep the Int modifier but make specific breakouts of skills and not the standard "x + Int mod per level" that currently exists.

So - you might have a Ranger be allowed the following areas: outdoor, combat, magic, general, sneaky, physical abilities. The player wouldn't be limited to specific skills being class skills as is currently the case, but you could, say, allow no more than "n" skill ranks from the outdoor area and no more than "p" skill ranks from the combat area.

I'd allow things that are currently class special abilities at the rate of 1 per 4 skill points for additional customization - so you could have a Ranger who decides to focus on being a "hunter" who chooses favored enemy and track, but decides not to spend skill points on wild empathy or improved evasion.

You could also develop "backgrounds" that provide packaged skills and abilities at a discount as compared to if purchased individually - so say a "Blackforest Ranger" provides more skills than manually buying skills as a generic Ranger.

Me, I'd go all the way and develop a complete "life-path" classless system that includes opposed combat skills instead of BAB and AC...

Although d20 and Sci-Fi, the Traveller T20 system provides a basis for one way to go about going classless with its prior history section. It doesn't quite go classless. HARP/Rolemaster has a generic classless skill-based mechanic. Twilight 2000 V2/V2.2/V3 (aka Twilight:2013) has a superb classless life-path system.

Erik/Lisa:

Well. No other way to put this: You guys were right. I was wrong.

I can't *believe how freakin delusional* Wizards is if the think that anyone running an actual business is going to accept:

"11.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees."

Seriously...wtf? There may as well not even be a license. I have lost all confidence in Wizards with this single clause. This is a slap in the face to all serious publishers. The thing that pisses me off the most is that I was sitting in the FREAKING ROOM at Gencon when Scott Rouse explicitly stated that the OGL would live on. I took him at his word; I guess that makes me naive. I'm truly glad Lisa and Erik were wiser.

Hope this doesn't sound *too* snippy - I don't think it makes you naive, rather, it makes him (Rouse) out to be untruthful (or at least unaware of what WotC Legal was doing with the GSL).