Adam Howat's page

Please cancel my Pathfinder Adventure Path subscription after #20.

Thanks to all the staff and contributors at Paizo for many good products and good times. I may return someday.

In otherwords, I see a Fighter as a canny knight or an aspiring general more than an autistic killing machine.

Haha... Awesome. Just... awesome.

Aside from being hilariously put, though, I think that nicely sums up the idea behind expanded class skills and skill points for the fighter. Because the fighter covers such a broad range of archetypes - from knight to general to duelist to bodyguard and on and on - a player needs some skill options in order to communicate the particular character he/she wants. And although simulationism is indeed a separate concern from game balance, that doesn't mean it's not important, and I don't think the two would really interfere with each other in this case.

Now, with the way skills work in the Beta (no more paying 2 points per rank for non-class skills), I'm less concerned about the fighter's actual class skill list. A fighter can still put ranks in Knowledge (nobility), for instance, and if he has a reasonable Int he'll be pretty good at it without the class skill +3. Not as good as the bard or wizard could be, but that may be OK.

Nonetheless, I too would still like to see some expansion to their class skills. The suggestions I've seen so far seem pretty good (though I'm not sure about Perception), so nothing to add there.

Their number of skill points is the much bigger concern, I think. With the current 2 per level, a fighter with average Intelligence can max out two or three skills at a given level. This has him choosing a small number of essential skills, with no room to flesh out his background or personality via some secondary skill choices. And yeah, skills aren't the only or even the best way to flesh out those things, but they help. I really think crunch should feed fluff whenever possible, and expanding their skill options would be a relatively painless way to make that happen.

(Incidentally, I'm among those who think all classes should get at least 4 skill points per level, for pretty much the same reasons as the fighter.)

With regard to calculating attack and damage bonuses (which I agree can be a major pain), perhaps the Str bonus could be replaced with a flat bonus to attack and damage rolls. The Beta already did this with the spell Divine Power, and it made me very happy. This bonus would of course scale with the types of rage (probably +2 for normal rage, +3 for greater, and +4 for mighty).

If Jason ultimately agree with our plea to change the Con bonus to temporary hit points, then the two changes together wouldn't seem all that weird. Ability bonuses and their attendant recalculations would have been eliminated altogether.

The only disadvantage I see is the loss of 1.5x Str bonus on two-handed weapons. But with things like Power Attack and Overhand Chop helping out, this doesn't concern me.

Let me restate my position, please. I think if you evaluate it carefully, you'll agree that it accomplishes the intent of your option (not killing a character immediately) while still allowing for the possibility of 'instant death'.

A save or die effect deals Con Damage on a failed save, and HP damage on a successful save.

This allows the chance that a Save or Die will cause 'Instant Death', but doesn't guarantee it. The toughest characters are least likely to be killed outright. A character that fails the save and survives will be greatly weakened and more vulnerable to another casting of such a spell (or a hit point damaging spell) making retreat and escape high priorities). Thus even surviving the death effect (on a failed save) makes the spell highly effective.

In addition, if the spell only does hit point damage, the opponent suffers no penalties until they drop into the negatives. A creature struck by a death effect with many hit points has little to fear from such a spell.

If the opponent succeeds on their save and take only hit point damage, they are not greatly weakened, and they are no more vulnerable to additional save-or-die spells than they were before the first spell.

This helps keep the flavor and power of save-or-die without making them so 'game-ending'. A character that fails the save and takes 15 Con Damage (with a 16 Con) is still 'in the game' but not 'in the fight'.

Some spells could deal Con Damage and others could deal Con Drain. The important point is that the Con effect is limited to a failed save, not a passed save, and only direct hit point damage is used on a passed save.

This also closely mimics the 3.5 rules (fail=die, pass=3d6 damage).

I heartily approve of this option. Con damage is very scary, but obviously not as scary as instant death. And incidentally, this has made me realize that there are currently very few offensive spells that do ability damage, which I find a bit odd. Yes, it's a bit of a pain to recalculate one's stats due to ability damage/drain, but once you get used to it, it's an underused mechanic that could be quite handy in the creation of all kinds of frightening but not necessarily game-ending effects. And I'll take a little clunkiness in order to get away from the blandness of plain HP damage. (And since almost every player I know already loves Ray of Enfeeblement, the point may be a bit moot.)

The option other than Con damage that occurs to me is a large number of negative levels (which are a bit easier to deal with, bookkeeping-wise). The problem there, though, is that 2d6 negative levels (for example) is much more dangerous to a 10th-level character than a 17th-level character, so it wouldn't mimic the possibility of instant death quite as well as Con damage, since Constitution and other ability scores tend not to increase so steadily. This could be mitigated by making the number of negative levels scale with the caster's level, but despite all that, I think I prefer Con damage.

So we've got Con damage covering the instant-death spells, and Dex damage/drain sounds like a fine choice for Flesh to Stone, as do Int and Wisdom for Feeblemind and the insanity effects, respectively.

Do we still want to try this with other "save or suck" spells such as charm and compulsion effects? I understand the reasoning behind Cha damage as the replacement for these, but it's not as clear and direct as the above examples. When you almost get dominated, your sorcerer spells and Bluff checks get worse? That could make sense in an odd way, but I'm not wild about it. What do others think?

Positive Channeling- Undead are damaged and those that fail saves refuse to come within 10 feet? Fits the huddle around the cleric image well (8 squares of saftey), especially for a tense "we cant fight them all but the cleric could get us out to the exit and daylight". Obviously, enough damage can destroy them flat out.

I too find that to be a pretty cool image. I think I will try Black Bard's way in my new campaign and see how it goes.

And yeah, making undead flee is just annoying. Particularly when it's not in a dungeon, but outdoors, my first thought was always, "Oh great, now they're going to go eat the first non-cleric they find, and we'll have that to answer for." Adventurers usually have enough things to feel bad about already.

... set up us the bomb.

Davelozzi wrote:

I seem to recall something about a tower that drove everyone crazy who entered it, but I might be mixing it up with something else.

Eando Kline tells us this story in the "Skinsaw Murders". No direct info on the Tyrant, though, only that his tower is located at the banks of Lake Aletheia (wherever that is)

Thanks to both of you for the reminder on that one. Though now that I've re-read it, I'm not sure how it gels with the material in the Gazetteer. Is Kline describing Gallowspire? If so, it doesn't sound as big as I imagined (though I have no basis for that).

Honorable mention: Neither country by itself, but Nirmanthas and Lastwall's relationship is really appealing to me. I'd really like to see the dynamics between them fleshed out, and possibly have their respective struggles escalate. I just love the idea of these two good nations of differing ethos fighting back to back.

I heartily agree on this one. Actually I'm about to try a campaign in this region (starting in Nirmathas and then moving north from there), so I too am curious about their relationship. Both are run by capable warrior types, so I'm sure there's lots of mutual respect. But I wouldn't think they get much chance to aid one another, what with their thinning manpower.

Some others:

Ustalav - I often like some traditional horror in my games, and this is a great place for it (and, in fact, is stated as such). The history involving the Whispering Tyrant is quite intriguing, and I'd love to see more about how his influence still affects the land.

Taldor - A crumbling empire makes a great backdrop for many sorts of adventures. I also think Taldor offers more moral ambiguity than the thoroughly evil Cheliax (though I like that one, too). I could see 'good guy' PCs on either side of the decline: Do they fight to preserve and restore the once-glorious empire, or do they work to deal the corrupt bureaucracy its death-blow and pave the way for something new?

Nidal - Thoroughly creepy and fun. Its unapologetically evil theocracy makes me think of the land of Stygia in the Conan stories (though I guess one could say the same of Cheliax).

Naturally, a guy described as "the greatest evil mankind had ever known" (Gazetteer p. 38) is going to sound a bit intriguing, even if it is an exaggeration. Plus it's a cool name.

So, are there any other "official" details about the Whispering Tyrant currently? Powers he had beyond those of a typical high-level lich/wizard? Noteworthy minions still on the loose after his defeat? Does he have any direct influence over the area around Gallowspire? How exactly was he imprisoned? And is there anything else cool about him that I wouldn't think to ask with the minimal information I've got?

Also, although the Tyrant himself sounds much too scary to use directly in anything but a very high-level game, I'm interested in ways to incorporate his influence. (My upcoming campaign will probably spend a fair amount of time in the Lastwall/Ustalav area.) It sounds as if plenty of his undead creations are still around, and perhaps some nearby orc tribes still think back to the glory days when he led them to establish a pretty massive empire. Does anyone (Paizo staff or otherwise) have some other ideas for how the Whispering Tyrant might affect a campaign, without it being entirely about him?

Thanks much.

This is a minor point, but in further defense of the reduced list of Knowledge skills:

I was at first a little leery about folding (planes) into (religion), though it makes sense in most cases. As a long-time fan of Planescape and related such things, I worried that you might lose the feel of planar adventuring. After all, characters in settings like that probably didn't read about the planes in religious texts - they've actually *been there*.

But this actually isn't a problem, because DDMW's proposed Knowledge (regional) is flexible enough to cover it. If you want a character who's traveled the planes and learned about them through practical experience rather than theoretical teachings, give him some ranks in Knowledge (regional - the Abyss) and Knowledge (regional - Arborea), and so on. I think this actually captures the feel even better than straight Knowledge (planes); a character may have been to many planes, but he's unlikely to have equal knowledge of all of them, and he might not have bothered to learn about certain ones at all.

Wouldn't surprise me if I was the only one worried about this, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I too concur with DDMW. Combat feats seem like an unnecessary distinction that will almost certainly cause occasional confusion for some players.

His point about Power Attack stands as well (though I don't think that's actually listed as a Combat feat). I like the simplicity of the new version (and the way it prevents players from using an obnoxious Power Attack vs. AC chart), but the rigidity is sure to screw over many monsters as well as PCs. More the former than the latter, actually, especially giants and other big basher types.

I can't help wondering, given that the new turning ability has engendered so much convoluted discussion over its logic, if maybe the designers need to reformulate it from the beginning again.

Personally, I'm not wild about the notion of its doing damage to undead as the main effect. Other things - like searing light and, yes, mass cure spells - can already do that. To me, part of what made turning interesting as an ability was that it didn't work quite like any other.

The damaging version also weakens undead of pretty much all CRs (except perhaps those that would ordinarily be instantly incinerated). Just a couple of turning attempts will whittle them down en masse. The more powerful undead are probably hurt the most by this, even if their turn resistance reduces the damage somewhat. Let us not forget that undead have pretty much the worst hit points of all creature types.

This also produces, in my opinion, not the best in-game aesthetic. Consider these two (albeit exaggerated) examples:

1. Standard 3.5 cleric tries to turn the uber-powerful lich. Nothing happens, and the lich gets to say something cool, like, "Your petty gods cannot harm me, mortal!"

2. Alpha cleric does the same thing. The lich takes some damage and says something more along the lines of "Ow! Quit it!"

Admittedly, 3.5 turning has its flaws in that regard, too. I don't enjoy making an undead creature cower in the corner while my friends beat on it until it's dead again. More proof that some third alternative needs to be worked out.

The healing of allies is a whole other question, of course, but I don't much like that either. In fact, I hate the idea of a cleric, in character, standing there going, "Well, we need some healing, but maybe I should wait until some undead show up. Or until those non-undead bad guys move away. How many times a day can I do this again?"

Yes, that kind of calculation will always go on to some extent with healing spells and other things, but let's not encourage more of it than necessary. It tends to pull one out of character, and while it would be nice to lengthen the average adventuring day with more available healing, but it's not worth sacrificing flavor and suspension of disbelief.

Here's a few suggestions for imporving the fighter. Some of these have already been stated, but I'll compile a list for reference. I don't advocate applying all of these changes. This is just brainstorming.

Begin the fighter BAB at +2 or +3, this will keep the fighter the best character in combat but still let other combat characters shine when their special abilities are in effect. Baseline, the fighter will be better, but, for instance, when a barbarian rages or a paladin smites, they will still have the advantage.

Add for the fighter only a damage or AC bonus of 1/2 fighter class level. The AC bonus should be a dodge bonus.

4+Int skills and a few Dex based class skills would not overpower the fighter.

Allow thr fighter to make all iterative attacks at full BAB.

Eliminate the Weapon Specialization feat chain. Make these feats fighter class abilities at the appropriate level.

I must disagree with three of these:

A +2 starting BAB would entice almost every character to take 1 level of fighter. (I certainly would, if I expected to spend any time in melee at all.) Their +1 is fairly tempting as it is, actually.

Although I would have to see some playtesting to be sure, allowing all iterative attacks at full BAB strikes me as scarily overpowered. And it would only compound a problem brought up by DDMW, which is that full-attacking is nearly always the default (and pretty boring) strategy for fighters.

Changing the Weapon Specialization feats to special abilities would make little substantive difference, since only fighters can use them currently anyway. Plus it doesn't make much in-game sense to me - other classes ought to be able to get good with a particular weapon with enough practice (again, as DDMW already said).

However, I agree that the fighter skill list must be expanded. 4 + Int sounds about right, and I generally agree with the skill choices that have been mentioned already.

I think Shadewest makes a good point that extra bonuses should only apply to damage (rather than both attack and damage). Fighters don't have that much trouble hitting things, but any time I play a martial character I eventually get frustrated with the relatively static damage as I advance. (Increased Str and reasonable magic items can't really keep up by themselves.)

I'm less sure about the dodge bonus to AC, and I definitely don't think it should be that high. I think I prefer Alpha's armor training ability - but perhaps one should have the option to choose "none" as an armor type.

That's their rad name. :)

Also, you get a cookie for using the term "rad."

Mmm. Cookie. Duh-licious.

I hope to bring "rad" back, actually. Also perhaps "tubular," but that will probably be more difficult.

Thanks to both of you for the response.

I have a very basic question about the Linnorm Kings: Are they, in fact, actual linnorms? Or is that just the rad name that they chose for themselves?
Of course, any other info about them would be appreciated, too. Thanks.

Thanks very much, Mr. Jacobs. All that should help me quite a lot.

Pathfinder #1 makes brief mention of aboleths and their possible connection to rune magic and the fall of Thassilon, as well as their creation of other monstrous races like the faceless stalker.
As someone who may soon use aboleths to some extent in a Varisia-based campaign, I wondered what other information might be available (or upcoming in future products): Where do aboleths reside now? Do they rule an aquatic or subterranean empire unknown to the surface races, or are they far less numerous today? Do they indeed practice a form of magic that resembles that of the Runelords? (This is by no means an exhaustive list of the questions floating about in my brain right now, but I wanted to keep this relatively short.)
Thanks in advance for any info.