Archon of Light's page

This is outstanding. I haven't purchased an RPG product in over a year, mostly due to the financial strain of being unemployed. But I am pledging, right now, to purchase at least one product from a third-party publisher this month. Thankfully, Paizo is making it easier for me to do this.

We need to support the last remaining bastions of decent RPG companies left in this deteriorating industry. But we also need to get others to help with this effort. I have posted on my own various social sites, like Facebook and MySpace, to encourage others to do the same. We need to support these companies, if for no other reason than to send a very strong message (you-know-who) that we will not tolerate having the value of our consumerism and our loyalty continually diminished. I encourage others to share this message with their friends and pledge to support their favorite third-party publishers with at least one purchase this month.

If you're interested, you can read the post I've made on my Facebook account below.

Now that 4e is here, are you planning to sell all of your 3/3.5e stuff, or are you going to keep it, or sell some of it? Just curious.

I'm keeping most of my 3/3.5e collection, but I'm parting with my 1st and 2nd Edition items through my Amazon account. Most of them are in excellent condition; some still in their original shrinkwrap! You're not going to find any "basement bargains", but my asking prices are reasonable if you're a serious collector. (Plus, I'm not gouging anybody with ridiculous shipping costs, like EBay allows.)

Hmmm, not familiar with the rituals (yet). I guess when i borrow my buddy's book, I'll look into it. Unless you care to paraphrase....?

My apologies for not elaborating sooner. I see a few others have already taken the initiative, but it appears not everyone noticed the 4e preview for Rituals posted on the official website not long ago. But now with content in hand, I can elaborate more thoroughly beyond mere speculation.

In 4e, Rituals take the place of some of the more ulitarian spells from previous editions, like Animal Messenger, Raise Dead, Magic Mouth, various Divination spells, as well as certain crafting feats, like Brew Potions and creating portals. The design goal was to relieve spellcasters from some of the more ultra-powerful spells as just another 'wave-of-the-hand' type trick, as well as some of the more unpopular and rarely used (yet still useful when the need arises) invocations. This allows spellcasters to concentrate on more combat-ready selections without sacrificing the ulitarian abilities in the process - something I felt really needed improving in previous editions.

I realize that it might not be an original concept, as previous posters have stated other 'similar' ideas being introduced in other sources - does it really matter? - but I feel the 4th edition write up on this idea really embraces the concept more fully than any other system I've seen proposed. But maybe that's because the rules were written to include that concept from the beginning, whereas a similar idea would have to be reworked to make it compatible with an existing system that wasn't originally designed for such a mechanic. It might take a little extra work, but I'm sure it can be done properly if someone really wanted to do it. ;)

No one has mentioned Rituals yet? That could be my favorite innovation from 4e. I don't think I really need to explain the obvious benefits, or how easy a similar system could be introduced into a 3.x campaign, but it is worthwhile enough to cast a vocal support for seeing it considered in the PRPG.

Just thought I'd give an update in case anyone was curious.

Posting on the message board proved fruitless, so I started digging around for a more direct contact method. After locating a rather obscure link to e-mail the customer service department (more or less), I received a fairly quick reply sent directly to my e-mail. The message was written and sent by a Customer Service Representative. Here's the gist of it:

I am glad to see that you enjoy our products. Although I realize you are not doing this for profit, I must let you know that Wizards of the Coast is not granting permission to use any of its intellectual property for fan websites. Your website would be considered a fan site. I wish I could tell you that it would be ok, especially if it was just for you and your friends. However, officially I can not say this, and therefore can not grant you permission.

I can't complain how this was handled. It was professional, timely, and courteous. Its their property, and its their right to do with it as they see fit. Enough said.

But I have to wonder. A) Are customer support representatives really authorized to grant permissions for using WotC intellectual property, and B) if so, who usually gets it?

At any rate, having gone through the same process over here previous to going to their site, now I'm starting to make the comparisons. Here, I post a message on the board and get a fast, courteous response from the Editor-in-Chief who makes no qualms about using the materials for a fansite with only a few, reasonable requests if he had the authority to do so. There, I must find the appropriate link to contact a customer support representative and get a fast, courteous response to let me know that the company is not granting permission to use any of its intellectual property for fan websites. Period.

In essence, one company is completely removing itself further from its fanbase (by leaps and bounds, it seems) while the other is focusing on keeping close to theirs. Granted, it's a different set of variables when one is a larger part of an even larger corporation while the other is still a small and personal company, but still... The contrast is a bit more than startling.

If Paizo owned it, I would have no problem with someone using that material to build a personal website and expanding it... I would ask them to credit where credit is due and provide links back to our website and to not charge money or try to turn a profit on the material. But it's not Paizo owned... so I can't say that for Savage Tide.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Even though you do not have the rights to this fabulous creation you helped to concieve, that would have been a very reasonable request for such a generous offer. I believe that this kind of supportive attitude towards potential customers, who are also their fans, can only help to propel Paizo into a stronger, more succesful company than they already are. It is this kind of customer support and friendly atmosphere that has renewed my interest for this hobby that I had almost lost completely over the last year.

Perhaps if I am unable to obtain proper permission (or at least an equally courteous response) from Wizards, then I might have to turn my attentions for something more Pathfinder-oriented. Either way, I really do need to find a way to support this company with more monetary means, but alas, times are tough these days. No dollars for gaming as of late, but if they return, they will not be used for any 4th Edition products. I'd much prefer to spend it here. (The christmas and birthday gift list is going to be unbelievable long this year. Luckily, I can just send everyone the same links.) ;)

IANAL and I'm not with Paizo Archon, but from what I've seen, its Wizards that owns all Dungeon content produced for the magazine lock, stock, and barrel. Unfortunately, not making any money off anothers work that's posted without permission doesn't put you in the right.<snip>

Thanks for the response, as well as the information. Even though I've come asking for my own personal gain, I'm sure others might be wondering what to do in this situation if it ever came up for them. There's bound to be a number of Shackled City, Age of Worms, and Maure Castle fanatics wanting to do something similar for themselves. Question is, who to turn to now?

I find it interesting because of the current circumstances involved. Here we have a product that was licensed to another company and now pulled back into the parent company's care. But now, the content material of the past is in direct conflict with their forthcoming material, and judging by recent trends in their actions, I'm not so sure they will be willing to go any distance to endorse such requests. Its simply not in their own best interest to do so. But then again, they've never been overly concerned with tiny fansites as long as everything was done tastefully within the context of what they've been trying to present, and given proper credits and links. I'll hit 'em up anyway, just to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll keep you posted.

I'm going to try and be as direct and blunt as possible. I would like to build a personal website for expanding the material originally presented in The Savage Tide Adventure Path. If possible, I would hope to gain permission to utilize some of the content and associated artwork for that particular series to enhance that website as necessary. In particular, I would like to utilize some of the materials that are readily available as free content from the various Players' Guide and Online Supplements. Of course, proper credit would be given for any materials allowed wherever possible.

My question, however, is who do I ask permission from? Paizo or WotC? And more importantly, would either one care as long as it wasn't making me any money and not reprinting material that must be purchased (as opposed to being downloaded for free)?

Sorry, I wasn't sure where the best place to post this question would be. Maybe I should ask more directly and privately via e-mail, but I thought it might be of interest to others who are faced with a similar dilemna. (Then again, I might be the only one who doesn't realize the obvious answer!)

Thanks in advance.

For the most part, I have to agree with almost everything the OP has stated in his posts. When I first looked at the new write-up for the barbarian class, I thought it was interesting. I like the idea of new Rage Powers that enhance the standard Rage ability, which is the defining characteristic of the barbarian class. It also gives the class more appeal and flavor than just being the alternate (but inferior) fighter class.

The problem that I find, however, is the implementation of using Rage Points instead of something more familiar and thematic to the 3.5 ruleset. This introduces an entirely new system unlike anything seen or used by any other class in the standard OGL system. Spell casters are not converting to a spell point system, fighters aren't utilizing some kind of action point system, and paladins aren't acquiring smite points for their featured abilities. So why is this class trying to make use of a point system while the rest are still utilizing the old tried and true methods?

I'm not saying that Rage Points are a bad idea or that they won't work, but when you look at the game as a whole, it does stand out as "different" to the point that it looks almost out of place. (Well to me, at least.)

I would humbly suggest looking for another method to incorporate this otherwise excellent idea of adding rage powers for the barbarian class. Something more familiar. You could start with allowing barbarian characters to add their base Constitution modifier to the number of times per day they can use their rage ability.

I would also consider creating Rage Powers as talents with a specific power level attached to them, just like spells. As the barbarian gains levels, he learns a new power of a particular level that becomes available to him. He also gains a number of uses per day for each power level in a manner similar to the current spell-casting system. For example, a 5th-level barbarian might be able to use any combination of 1st-level Rage power he knows up to three times a day, and one 2nd-level Rage power once per day. Convert the current list of available powers based on the proposed rage point costs (i.e. 3 rage point abilities = 1st level power, 6 rage point abilities = 2nd level power, up to 4th level for 12 rage points or higher). Then come up with a delayed "Rage Power Per Day" progression (like "Spells Per Day" table for any other spell-casting class) that is appropriate for the power level you want to allow the barbarian class to gain.

That's just an idea, and maybe not a great one, but it is more familiar with other standards being utilized in the current ruleset. Food for thought.

Judging by the majority of response given thus far, I have a feeling that these options will be left simply as that: Options. That will likely appease the many different perspectives and styles, which is more likely the goal of Paizo's design team rather than deciding what's good for us. That said, I've already stated my preference for which system I would most likely use regardless of any other possible suggestions and propositions. But I am still baffled by remarks like these:

I haven't read this whole thread, but it seems like a lot of people are really into racial hit point bonuses. I think this particular approach is a bad idea. Sure, it looks good from a flavor perspective, but it has problems mechanically.

I am on the edge of my seat, waiting to hear how the difference of two(2) hit points has ruined the integrity of this delicately balanced game. Two hit points for the span of a character's career is not a deal-breaker in my book. Two.

It only works if the races are balanced such that the "frail" races get more/better features to offset the disadvantage.

Yes, they're terribly underpowered with their +1 AC bonus for size, making them harder to hit. Oh, that's right! Elves aren't considered small, so they don't get that. But they do recieve a +2 Dexterity bonus, which roughly translates to a +1 AC bonus under most normal circumstances. Granted, they lose it if they're flat-footed or wearing particularly bulky armors, but it still improves their aim whenever they're using any type of bow (which, by the way, they have free proficiency with regardless of their chosen class). I'm not sure what more you need to compensate for because of the loss of two extra hit points (and let's remember these are extra hit points, not the standard max they will get anyway... and while we're remembering things, Paizo did up the base hit dice for wizards, sorcerers, and rogues to give those classes another edge!).

As it is, the system just rewards dwarves, who already have a pretty nice bag of goodies, with the best bonus.

What about half-orcs? They get the same bonus, too. Except without the nice bag of goodies. So either nobody thinks its unfair for half-orcs to get them, who really are the underpowered of all the races as far as packaged benefits are concerned, or nobody cares about them. I just thought that was curious.

I much prefer the flat +6. It makes 1st-level characters a little tougher without going overboard (like the double HD or Con score options) or being unfair to certain characters (like the racial option).

I think Racial is a variant of the Flat option. Either one of them works fine for me, really, and I think they are the most favored of all. Personally, it doesn't bother me that anyone would favor Flat over Racial just as a matter of preference. That's all that really needs to be said. I can respect that. But there's nothing even remotely unfair, unbalanced, broken, or unplayable about two extra hit points. None. It's simply a matter of preference, and let's leave it at that.

But for myself, I would choose Racial because, balanced or not, it just makes more sense to me. And it is NOT such an upsetting factor that one race might have two more extra hit points than any other. My guess is that the most vocal opponents of the Racial option are the players who have a particular fondness or preference for playing the 'frail' races and feel they are somehow being cheated of those two extra hit points.

So once again, my vote is leave these purely optional, but the preferred choice at my gaming table will be Racial. Just stop trying to sell the 'unfair' angle on it because there really isn't one. It's fine to just not like it. Really. ;)

Personally, I have always preferred the max HP at level 1. Class has always been the prime mover of HP, and breaking from that means a lot of things that I don't think the designers or players want. For example, elvish or halfling fighters and rangers are penalized, despite the fact that elf and halfling rangers (especially) are supposed to be particularly appropriate. <Snip!>

How is it that anyone is being penalized when they're recieving bonus points that they weren't getting before?? ALL the races are recieving extra hit points at first level based on their particular race. Some are obviously getting more than others, but so what? You're really going to cry about the other races recieving either 2 or 4 more hit points at first level?! By the time the party reaches third level, its not going to make much of a difference and no one will really care.

Look at it this way: halflings and gnomes gain a number of saving throw bonuses, not to mention an Armor Class bonus for their size. And elves have always offered the best package of bonuses and abilities in the game, so I don't think they're really being cheated here. They're still getting more hit points, which I think should make more some people happy considering they're the only race that has a -2 adjustment on their Constitution scores.

Say what you want about the proposed options (and do I agree with leaving them as options), but let's not overreact and call "extra hit points at first level" a penalty. If that's your idea of getting penalized, then I am more than willing to take some abuse. ;)

Elven magic and elven weapon familiarity aren't any benefit at all if you're a straight fighter. Slow and steady isn't much benefit if you can't wear heavy armor. I'm not saying any class is a bad choice for any race, I'm saying there are already enough incentives to choose a "favored class" without spelling it out and giving an arbitrary benefit.

I sense we're about to go in circles a few more rounds before we reach the beginning once again, but I'll press on a little more. ;)

These are actually very good examples of racial benefits that don't really work for me because, as you've pointed out, they only work better for some classes over others. If it were up to me (and it obviously isn't) I would remove these entirely or rework them so that all racial benefits work just as well regardless of class selections. THEN I would add additional benefits working specifically for favored classes that could be selected, perhaps as race-exclusive feats. But that's just me.

OK, but the XP modification was easy to drop, bonus hit points aren't so easy to ignore.

Yes they are! What are we talking about here? Maybe 20 more hit points at 20th Level IF they take the one class and nothing else. I think most CR 20 opponents can wipe away 20 hit points with a single attack, So what is so difficult to ignore? I'm not saying I actually like the bonus hit point idea, but its hardly unbalancing if they left it in.

Why do you assume just because I stated a preference that I didn't playtest? Do I need to provide a detailed log of how combat went to back up my opinions? I understand how the playtesting process works and feedback explaining how scenarios were affected by the new rules could be improved or tweaked would benefit the overall process... but not including specific situations doesn't invalidate opinions.

Because you did not specify that you did playtest all of this, unlike the majority of posters here. And like it or not, a more detailed explanation would be much more appreciated and give more credible evidence to anyone's claims. Sorry if you thought this was really about you. Its not. I just used yours as an example because its the one post almost everyone would have read in this thread. Do not assume every person on this board is as knowledgeable in the ways of playtesting as you pride yourself to be. But its gotten to the point where its getting difficult to sift through the 'untested' opinions and theories and get to the more factual ones. That was the basis of my post.

A few parties were made in which all characters were made using a different option each time. The characters trounced 1st level challenges every time with less and less fear of dying with each new batch of characters that had a higher hit point total. Because the threat of a lucky shot disabling someone was gone, the party healer didn't prepare a single healing spell (relying on Turn Undead as a spontaneous group heal, and it was only needed once). Victory was no longer a gamble, something the players hoped to achieve... it was expected, and it was pretty dull.

Now THIS is something I can sink my teeth into. That explains a lot better why you felt clerics and druids were less useful with the changes. Before, you only told us they were. This actually shows us and I'm now understanding your POV much better than before. Just keep that in mind. Thanks.

Isn't +2 Dex, +2 Int, elven magic, and weapon familiarity enough incentive for an elf to be a wizard? Isn't +2 Con, slow and steady, greed, hearty, weapon familiarity, hatred, defensive training, stability sufficient incentive for a dwarf to be a fighter? Isn't +2 Dex, +2 Int, +2 to Perception, Acrobatics, and Climb, +4 to Hide, and bonuses to saves sufficient incentive for a halfling to be a rogue?

Those are incentive enough to play an elf, a dwarf, and a halfling character respectively. The benefits will be useful to any class they choose to play so its not really an incentive (for me, at least) to play a certain class over another. Maybe I'm just not being shallow enough and looking to be bribed into making certain choices that offer the best incentives.

Like I said before, anything they come up with is likely to be easily disregarded or ignored if that better suits your tastes. I'd prefer to see something that can be ignored rather than seeing nothing at all.

I noticed the Designer Notes concerning starting hit points and, after seeing all of the other changes, I really hope none of these changes to starting hit points are implemented. <snip>

I don't mean to derail this or make an attack on anyone, but posts like these are getting ridiculous. There is too much personal emphasis on what every individual wants for his Pathfinder RPG based on his preferences. This isn't directed solely at the OP, but his statement here is a very good example of what I've been noticing in just about every post I read in this forum. I can only imagine what it's like for the designers who are sifting through it all for a smidgeon of unbiased and ambiguous feedback and ideas. Discussion is good. Input is good. But all this conjecturing and speculation without any real playtesting of the proposed ideas is, quite frankly, non-productive. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think it has to be said.

Case in point (again, not picking on the OP but his statements are a good example of others doing the same thing):

I'm all for characters remaining useful longer, but making everyone just tougher at first level reduces the usefulness of a cleric or druid for the first few levels of the game... not to mention makes things seem unbalanced against monsters of equal level.

What exactly do you base this on? Can you be more specific? Have you tried this with an actual group to test it out? It wouldn't be that difficult to roll up some new 1st level characters and run them through some quick scenarios using the various options to see if it really does make the cleric or druid less useful, or unbalance the game. And then explain to us why it was or wasn't the case.

I will agree that keeping these ideas as options is a good idea since they will appeal differently to different individuals. However, I am also a strong supporter of boosting those critical hit point values at the first level. My favorite options, thus far, are the Racial and Flat methods in that order. Racial just adds more flavor and gives dwarves and half-orcs... both of which fall short on features compared to other races... even more value as playable races. Flat works just as well, but the opportunity to boost the dwarf and half-orc races is not something that should be so easily dismissed.

Both of these provide a very modest boost to starting hit points without greatly altering the game structure over the long haul. Six hit points is a drop in the bucket in the larger scheme of things. But at first level, it is the difference between falling quickly to a stray arrow and staying in the fight that much longer, and consequently, allowing the players to play in the game more. Enough said.

When it comes down to it, we're not just looking at what we want for our own games, but how the Pathfinder campaign will be shared by all. Remember, the Pathfinder Society will allow for a shared experience by everyone, which means that certain standards must be established and maintained across the board to regulate balance and fairness of play. So while I can appreciate people offering their own personal feedback championed by their own personal preferences and styles, let's not forget the bigger picture in all of this. You can always cater your home games with whatever preferences and options you like. But the real goal here should be to come up with a fair, unbiased, and balanced system for ALL to share.

Again, sorry for the rant and the slight derailment of thread, but it had to be said.

I agree with the OP -- dropping favored class is the easiest and most efficient way.

You are correct. That is why no matter what rule or idea they come up with for favored classes, it will be very easy and efficient for any group to drop them completely from their own personal campaigns if they choose. But I also suspect that others will also adapt their own variations and ideas from other sources, like in this forum, for example, to accomodate their own personal styles and choices. Such has always been the nature of creative games fueling imagination.

Regardless of how this appears in the final manuscript, it is an important feature to keep in this system. Favored classes define the affinity and nature of the various races, though I would extend this further to vary between different cultures as well. I would just prefer to see a stronger pronunciation of these affinities reflected in some way more than what we have already seen thus far. If not, I will likely add my own house rules anyway. Such has always been my nature when dealing with this game. ;)

I like the idea of favored classes, but I'd like to see the benefit more diversified.

Each class would get an entry such as this:

"Favored Benefit: if [CLASS NAME] is your favored class, you gain [INSERT BENEFIT HERE]".

<snip>

I don't think this should be a class entry, but a racial entry since that is where you find favored class options listed. Furthermore, a dwarven favored cleric and a half-orc favored cleric shouldn't necessarily gain the exact same benefits. Favored classes are a reflection of the racial culture, and not necessarily the class itself.

So, for example, the dwarf entry might read as follows:

Favored Class: A dwarf character can select either Fighter or Cleric as his favored class at first level. Once selected, he can never change his favored class. Upon gaining his first level in his favored class, he may select a special benefit from one of the following:

Racial Enemy Focus (Fighter): A dwarven fighter specializes in fighting one particular racial enemy that commonly threatens his homelands. He gains a +1 attack and damage bonus whenever he is fighting such an opponent. This benefit stacks with the normal +1 bonus that all dwarves recieve when fighting a hated foe. The character selects a racial type from one of the following choices: goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, orc, ogre, troll, hill giant, stone giant, frost giant, or fire giant.

And so on...

There could be several options for fighters and clerics to choose from, and even allow for improvements as characters gain higher levels in their favored classes. Ideally, these shouldn't necessarily introduce completely new abilities, but they could improve or enhance already existing ones. I guess it really depends on how far the designers really wish to take it, but I'm already thinking of house-ruling a lot of these ideas when the PRPG is finally released.

I'm going to agree with this, but only to an extent. With the removal of multiclassing penalties, the real benefit of 'favored classes' has been greatly diminished. But that does not mean that the concept should be completely discarded, either. We simply must look for a better mechanic to restore their value again. Bonus hit points seems to be a fair idea until something better comes along. So let's throw a few more out there for good measure.

Bonus Skill Points
This is a real simple, solid idea that isn't so good that no one can resist it. However, I would add the stipulation that this bonus skill MUST be used only on class skills of the favored class. That just makes more sense to me.

Improved Racial or Class Features/Abilities
Ideally, if a race favors a certain class, then their abilities should be slightly enhanced. A dwarf fighter, for example, might be better focused at attacking their racial enemies, and gain a +2 attack bonus against orcs and goblins, instead of the standard +1 bonus. An elf wizard, on the other hand, might automatically gain an additional spell from the enchantment school for each level gained, or increases his DC by 1 for casting such spells even if he does not secialize in that particular school. Of course, this kind of benefit is almost too good to pass up for any character, thus, I would add a stipulation that these bonuses only come into effect as long as the character's favored class level is greater than any of his other classes.

Unique Feat Access
This last option doesn't grant any bonus feats, but just allows the character access to special feats whenever he might normally gain a feat that would otherwise be closed to him. These feats should be different than any other feat and reflect something about the race and their favored class that no other race can duplicate on their own. For example, a Half-Orc Barbarian feat might be a unique rage ability that no other barbarian of any other race can learn. A Halfling Rogue feat, on the other hand, could allow the small folk to make a Stealth check as a free action at the beginning of the first round of combat, even if caught by surprise or flat-footed. No need for additional stipulations on this one since the character does not gain any bonus feats; he just gains a little more selection that is unique to his race and class.

Again, just throwing out ideas. Comment if you wish. Ignore or disregard as you like.

My apologies for posting this in the incorrect place. I thought this post got eaten, but it wasn't until later that I realised there was a new forum specifically for new rules suggestions. Feel free to remove this post.

I really like the idea of the bloodline class feature for Sorcerers, but I feel something is still lacking. Almost all of the benefits gained by selecting a bloodline are physical ones, which might be great if the class was more of a physical combatant. Perhaps that is the intent here, but I think it really misses the most obvious opportunity by not offering something that works with the true class feature and the one that really makes it not much different than its Wizard counterpart: Spellcasting.

Aside from the numbers, there is no real distinction between the two arcane classes when it comes to spellcasting. One knows less spells, but casts more often. That's it. But if the sorcerer has a real natural talent with such a limited focus, perhaps he should show it better. Maybe he should be able to manipulate and control his focus in ways that a mere wizard could never easily do.

So what if, for example, a Celestial Sorcerer gained an ability that gave his allies a temporary morale bonus in combat whenever the sorcerer casts a spell that successfully overcomes an evil outsiders spell resistance or saving throw? Or a Fire Elemental Sorcerer could ignite any fire-based damaging spell on impact to temporarily blind nearby targets? Or perhaps an Infernal Sorcerer might be able to imbue any spell with a visual aspect with a minor fear affect?

I'm just spit-balling here, but hopefully you get the idea. Just food for thought.

This project has excited me more than any of the 4th Edition stuff to date, and it has certainly rekindled my interest in gaming once more. Alas, I have no group of playtesters available, so I can only offer my humble opinions and suggestions based purely on perception and speculation. Even if that lowers the value of my input, it is all I have to give and am so willing to provide freely.

The improvements and enhanced features of all the classes presented in the latest release were very impressive to me. The sorcerer, by far, gets my vote for "Best Improvements". The Bloodlines provide some much-needed flavor to this class, which in my opinion, has always suffered from a real lack of identity. But the bloodlines do not feel complete to me. They focus on the physical attributes and abilities of the characters, but the class still remains a spin-off class of its wizardly counterpart and rival. So while the bloodlines are a great step in the right direction, I think there's something more that can be done; something that will really distinguish them from being just another arcane caster. After reading the other class features, and more than a few threads on this message board, I'd like to suggest another idea to build upon the current idea of Bloodlines, if you're willing to indulge such.

I feel the Bloodlines would work even better if they also had some profound affect on the sorcerer's spellcasting capabilities. Something more than just the numbers allowed per day. Give them themes for the types of spells they are naturally better at utilizing and manipulating, reflecting their unique bloodlines in ways that a mere wizard could never duplicate. For example, an Infernal Sorcerer might gain an ability that causes a Bane spell effect whenever he casts any spell that causes fire-based damage. Or a Celestial Sorceror might grant a temporary morale bonus to any good-aligned allies whenever he slays or banishes an evil outsider opponent. Or perhaps the Fire Elemental Sorcerer is able to ignite his fire-based spells on impact so that the flash temporarily blinds any adjacent targets.

I'm just spit-balling here, so feel free to disregard or ignore. But I just thought this was something that might work really well with what you've already offered, and it might be that little push that really sets the Sorcerer apart from the rest. Either way, keep up the good work! I look forward to seeing what more will be accomplished.

Actually, the problems with changing a mechanic like that are a little more complicated. <snip>

Agreed. However, the Rage ability is a feature, not a mechanic. There's a difference. If you change the Rage feature to work somehow differently, the change is made across the board. And if done properly, it will be balanced and not upset the entire system. We all know that the Rage feature as written is already underpowered compared to most other class features, so there's a lot of margin to work with.

Wild Shape, on the other hand, relies on a specific game mechanic, as you mentioned. But what are they trying to change? The feature (Wild Shape) or the mechanic (Alternate Form)? Again, there's a big difference.

But we must have faith in the expertise and care that Paizo has demonstrated in the past. That's why we're still here, and that's why we're giving so much to this feedback process. We should encourage them to stretch the boundries rather than restrain them into our tiny circle of comfort. We don't need a revision of the rules. We need an improvement. Otherwise, we might as well stick with the system we already have. That's why I'm here; to see if they'll make a product that will get me interested in the game again. I've already quit 3.5 and I'm not moving forward to 4th ed. Otherwise, I'm out.

I was under the impression that Paizo's intent with backwards compatibility was the opposite; that you will be able to play adventures written for Pathfinder using the old 3.5 rules with minimal conversion. Since their goal is to provide continuing rules support but not require players to drop their old game system if they don't want to.

And that would be an example of (brace yourself!) forward compatability. Now ask yourself, if that were the case, why would they need a revised ruleset?

Disagreed. There's a reason that the PS2's ability to play PSX games was described as "backwards compatible."

Uhm... hate to burst your bubble, but you are actually agreeing with me here. PS2 is the engine (i.e. the ruleset) and an older PS1 game is the 'adventure module'. But thanks for offering yet another reason why video games and tabletop games don't translate the same way. ;)

..., I think that streamlining the system, making multiclass characters more viable, giving low-skillpoint characters enough skills to make them competent in multiple areas, and otherwise simplifying the system is indeed progress.

That is exactly what I had tried to do on page 9 of this thread. The only thing that is 'unsimplified' about it is that I didn't use the conventional names and labels and went further outside the box than everyone is comfortable with. But it accomplishes these same goals you have stated here, and it is based from the groundwork provided in the Alpha Release, which I do think is a step in the right direction.

Here's the problem that I don't think people are understanding: What exactly does "backward compatability" mean?

To me, "backward compatability" means that I should be able to take a group of characters using the revised PRPG rules through any adventure or product written originally for the standard 3.5 rules with little or no conversion or adjustment. Whatever rules are added or changed or adjusted in the "3.75" version should not affect the difficulty or gameplay presented in the "3.5" product. That's backwards compatability.

Forward compatability is bringing characters using the 3.5 rules into products designed for 3.75 edition, or higher. That just doesn't happen. The reason for a revision is because things need to be changed or adjusted. If a 3.75 version is on the way, why wouldn't want some things to change? Might as well keep using 3.5 if you think nothing's wrong with it.

So if the new barbarian class, for example, uses a different system for rage with new abilities, does it really make it less compatible? What's really changed that we can't run these characters in an older module or adventure path? We're assuming that the 3.5 system with all of its hundreds of sourcebooks and player options is a perfect, delicate balance for everybody. Its not, and you know this! So what if a new barbarian class made it more balanced for barbarian characters, or more importantly, more interesting or even more FUN! How is the compatability affected by this? I'll tell you: it's not! If anything, it'll be enhanced.

This isn't directed at anybody in particular, but if you're so worried about the 'feel' and the 'sanctity' of the pure 3.5 game system being jeapordized, then this new book is not for you. The 3.5 system is COMPLETE. You already own it. There's more than enough source materials and adventures out there to last anybody through a dozen campaigns or more.

This RPG needs to be something more than just a few tweaks and adjustments. We know the flaws of the 3.5 system. They've been discussed and hashed out for years on message boards like these. I don't expect an overhaul of the entire system, but we shouldn't be afraid to explore more boundries and options that would actually improve the game to the point where others would actually want to go back and play older materials and campaigns again with a newer, better, smarter rules set. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if it's broke or not. If it can be done better, this is the best opportunity to do so.

Thanks for the tip, DeadDMWalking. My posts weren't nearly as long as my original one, so I'm not so certain that was the real factor of these incidents. It doesn't exactly inspire my confidence for this forum, but at least I know what to expect now. If that's the case, I suspect that I won't be here for very long, so I'll contribute what I can on this one topic has brought me here.

Getting back to your remarks, gr1bble, I understand your perspective now. I'm not familiar with anyone else's designs here and I'm not really inclined to dig through nine pages of posts in this thread to find them. So unfortunately, I don't have any basis to make a comparison as to why the system I proposed is any better or worse than someone elses. It is also irrelevant to me.

If someone else has thought of a better way, that's great. I'm just proposing something completely different, which I suspect is farther outside the box (and effectively, outside most people's comfort zone) than anyone else had thought to do. To me, there's not much point in trying to reinterpret the original 3.5 ruleset if we're not trying to improve it first. I don't want to see another revision. If that's the case, we might as well stick with the old clunky version that we've already gotten used to.

That said, I think DracoDruid has the right idea to find the inherent flaws of the old system in order to address them with a new one. That is the approach I took when I worked on mine and spelled them out (somewhat) with bullet points in Goals (from my post above). Whether I was successful in addressing those problems is a matter of opinion until it can be more thoroughly tested. I leave that to readers here who may be able to find potential exploits or weaknesses that I have not yet discovered myself. But I do recognize the strengths of this system, but I'll have to indulge you with the details at a later time when I get the chance.

Sorry. I don't spend a lot of time on messageboards. I have to ask, though. Is it normal to have your posts disappear?? I've had two posts vanish today already. I'd love to add more to this discussion, but I'm not going to spend any more time re-writing every reply I make because of an annoying glitch (or maybe an overzealous moderator?). Maybe someone can shed some light before I invest any more of my time on this...

Archon of Light wrote:

Let me see if I can simplify it for you...

Ok, let me re-phrase.

It's not that I think this system is particularly complicated or non-backwards compatible. It's more that to me (and maybe I'm just particularly thick or something) it is clearly more complicated and less backwards compatible than my current preferred system (the "Epic Meepo" system).

And I don't see what benefits it provides over that system that make the additional complication and lesser backwards compatibility worth it. Maybe if you could give me a bullet-point summary of what you're trying to do differently with this system (and why, in your opinion, those differences make for a better skill system)?

Ah, now I have a better understanding of your perspective. I didn't realize you had previously professed a preference for another system and are measuring everything else against that. You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but I do not troll these boards regularly and I had opted not to familiarize myself with the previous eight pages of posts on this thread. Not to worry, though. I'll only be here for a short time.

That said, I can't really offer a fair comparison between what I offered and someone else's that I'm not already familiar with. But then again, I never claimed it to be better than anything else out there. I leave that for everyone else to decide for themselves. I can clarify things a bit if parts seem unclear or poorly worded, but I'm not trying to 'sell' it. Its just another idea, and probably one that hasn't been thought of yet; I suspect it's more 'outside the box', as well as outside everyone's comfort zone.

Besides, I started the bullet-points with Goals, IIRC. Someone else did it better? Great! I wouldn't know, but I'm just working off 3.5 and the Alpha Release here.

I do think my idea makes multi-classing a lot less complicated and keeps things fairly balanced. I'll bullet-point those if you like. But I think it's better if someone tried it out and see if they could find any loop-holes or exploits I might've missed.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Archon, I like your system a lot -- it's one of the few workable hybrids that allows near-infinite customization as well. Unfortunately, I suspect it's complex enough that the Saga skill system proponents probably won't voice much support for it.

I suspect I'm in that camp. To me it seems both overly complicated and not terribly backwards compatible...

Let me see if I can simplify it for you...

1) Starting characters determine your class.

2) Figure out your Preferred Class Skills and pick the appropriate number for your Primary Skills. (Remember, Preferred Class Skills are the same as the old Class Skills.)

3) Spend 4 skill points to buy a rank in four other skills that aren't Primary Skills. These are your Secondary Skills, and since you're only 1st level, you can only spend one skill point for each skill.

4) You're done.

When you level up, you just buy more skill ranks in whatever skills you want to improve or pick up. The only time the "special rules" come into play are at the 5-level marks to convert Secondary into Primary skills, and if you multiclass. Does that look less complicated? If not, let me know where it does. Maybe I'm missing it.

And as far as backwards compatibility, its still about DCs and modifiers, isn't it? You're still using the same skill sets, as far as I can tell. The modifiers might lag a little behind in the beginning compared to the expected rate of 3.5, but is it that much of a difference? There's a trade-off for having more useful skills for everyone in the beginning instead of having one or two really high-ranked skills that are useful in certain scenarios. I haven't done the exact math, but the numbers can be changed if it's that big of a difference.

As far as I'm concerned, if all we're doing is trying to reinterpret the original rules set instead of improving it, then we might as well stick with the 3.5 version. I think improvements begin with making changes about how it is done, even if the outcome isn't 100% accurate in the translation. But that's assuming that the standards of 3.5 are infallible, which we know that they are not. Is there really that much of a difference between a 4th-level character rolling against a DC 25 and a 14th-level character rolling against a DC 35? The game scales with the characters and the expectation is that the characters are just maintaining their favored skills to keep up with the challenges.

Sorry, that was running off on a tangent, but... the point is, I don't see where the backwards compatibility is missed. A character at 15th level using this system doesn't have much more or less skill points than he is capable of having using the old 3.5 system IF I did my math right. Someone can double-check or playtest it if they like and let me know where it doesn't, and that is something that can be adjusted and addressed.

Reposting here per Dracodruid's suggestion.

When I look at the proposed system in the Alpha Release and the countless other alternatives on the message boards here, all I can see are just reinterpretations of the 3.5 rules. Most of these are still constrained by the weaknesses of the original system, though a few good ideas have surfaced in places. This is by no means the ultimate solution, but perhaps it will give some ideas and reinforce others already made by adding one more voice. Take it. Leave it. Tweak it. I'm just hoping for an improved system, instead of just a revised one or avoiding something completely different (like 4th Edition).

Goals
„X Simplify the skill system without sacrificing complexity, logistics, and game balance.
„X Maintain backward compatibility with the original 3.5 rules set.
„X Minimize bookkeeping and numbers crunching involved with skill sets.
„X Make it faster and easier to maintain, even at higher levels of experience.
„X Give skills extra value at higher levels, not just bigger modifiers.
„X Multi-classed characters should be balanced and less complicated.

Basics
„X Hybrid of skill selection and skill points.
„X Use all skills available in PRPG.
„X Characters will use two types of skills: Primary skills and Secondary skills. Read further down for more information on each.
„X Class skills are now called Preferred Class skills. "Cross-class" terminology is no longer used. A skill that isn't preferred by one class is just any other skill.
„X Intelligence modifiers no longer directly affect number of skill selections or skill points gained, thus removing retroactive modifying and higher level builds, but they still have an influence. Read more below.

Preferred Class Skill
„X Preferred Class Skills (PCS) are skills that are closely associated with a particular character class. They are the same as Class Skills. A character with more than one class gains the Preferred Class Skills from all of their classes.
„X A character that uses any Preferred Class Skill gains a +3 modifier to all of his Primary skill checks, and a +2 modifier to applicable Secondary Skill checks.
„X Only Preferred Class Skills can be selected for one of the character's Primary Skills.

Primary Skills
„X Primary Skills are skills that characters select for their focus. Only Preferred Class Skills can be selected for Primary Skills.
„X Primary Skills do not use skill points to purchase or improve. When a character increases in level, his primary skills advance with him.
„X Primary Skill Check = 1d20 + class level + 3 (preferred class skill modifier) + ability modifier + racial modifier.
„X At first level, a character selects a number of primary skills based on his starting class. Clerics, fighters, paladins, sorcerers, and wizards begin with one (1); barbarians, druids, and monks start with two (2); bards and rangers get four (4); and rogues start with six (6).
„X Characters can convert Secondary Skills to Primary Skills as they reach higher levels. Read about Secondary Skills and Gaining Primary Skills below for more information on this.
„X (OPTIONAL) At higher levels, Primary Skills can be used to achieve special results, unlock different and unique abilities of certain classes and special feats, or used in extraordinary ways. (This would have to be developed for each individual skill. Just an idea.)

Secondary Skills
„X Secondary skills are the complimentary skills that are acquired from experience, training, and practice. Secondary skills are any skills that a character purchases or improves with skill points.
„X All characters receive 4 skill points at every level.
„X Skill points can be used to purchase ranks in any available skill, except Primary Skills already selected by the character. Skill ranks cannot exceed the character¡¦s level.
„X Secondary Skill checks = 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier. If the skill is a Preferred Class Skill, then the character also adds +2 for preferred class modifier.
„X A Secondary Skill can become a Primary Skill when a character reaches 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level. Read below for more information.
„X Characters can have a number of Secondary skills equal to four plus their Intelligence modifier. The TOTAL number of Secondary and Primary skills allowed is equal to 10 + (2*Int Modifier).

Gaining Primary Skills
„X When a character reaches 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, he has the option to convert one of his Secondary Skills into a Primary Skill. In order to do so, the Secondary skill must meet a few qualifications.
„X Only Secondary Skills that are Preferred Class Skills can be selected for Primary Skills.
„X A character must have a number of skills ranks in the selected Secondary Skill equal to his character level minus his Intelligence modifier. For example, a fighter reaches 10th level and has a 12 Intelligence score. He can select any Secondary Skill that is a Preferred Class Skill for him with at least 9 skill ranks.
„X A Secondary Skill that becomes a Primary Skill loses all skill ranks, but no longer requires skill points to improve.
„X A character that does not have any eligible Secondary Skill, or chooses not to convert for a new Primary Skill will receive 2 additional skill points to spend instead.

Rules for Multiclassing
„X A character with more than one class applies only the appropriate class levels for a related skill check. If a character has more than one applicable class for a skill, then the class levels will stack.
„X When a character takes a level in a new class, he may automatically convert one of his Secondary Skills into a Primary Skill as long as a) the Secondary skill is already a Preferred Class Skill or becomes one as a result of taking the new class, b) the character has enough ranks in that skill to meet the conversion requirements, and c) the character has not reached the maximum number of Primary Skills allowed.
„X Characters that takes Bard or Ranger as a new class may convert up to two Secondary Skills at the time the class is taken. Characters taking Rogue for the first time may convert up to three. These are unique features of their respective classes.
„X If the character cannot meet the requirements to gain a new Primary skill when he takes a new class level, he may receive 2 extra skill points for each secondary skill that he would be allowed to convert instead.

I don't know how late I'm coming into this, or whether this discussion is still on the table. When I look at the proposed system in the Alpha Release and the countless other alternatives on the message boards here, all I can see are just reinterpretations of the 3.5 rules. Most of these are still constrained by the weaknesses of the original system, though a few good ideas have surfaced in places.

Before I even found this thread, I tried to put together something different altogether. I read through the original post, at least, and saw that a lot of the options the designers are looking for are also some of my own. This is by no means the ultimate solution, but perhaps it will give some ideas and reinforce others already made by adding one more voice. Take it. Leave it. Tweak it. I'm just hoping for an improved system, instead of just a revised one (or something completely different, ala 4th Edition).

Goals
„X Simplify the skill system without sacrificing complexity, logistics, and game balance.
„X Maintain backward compatibility with the original 3.5 rules set.
„X Minimize bookkeeping and numbers crunching involved with skill sets.
„X Make it faster and easier to maintain, even at higher levels of experience.
„X Give skills extra value at higher levels, not just bigger modifiers.
„X Multi-classed characters should be balanced and less complicated.

Basics
„X Hybrid of skill selection and skill points.
„X Use all skills available in PRPG.
„X Characters will use two types of skills: Primary skills and Secondary skills. Read further down for more information on each.
„X Class skills are now called Preferred Class skills. "Cross-class" terminology is no longer used. A skill that isn¡¦t preferred by one class is just any other skill.
„X Intelligence modifiers no longer directly affect number of skill selections or skill points gained, thus removing retroactive modifying and higher level builds, but they still have an influence. Read more below.

Preferred Class Skill
„X Preferred Class Skills (PCS) are skills that are closely associated with a particular character class. They are the same as Class Skills. A character with more than one class gains the Preferred Class Skills from all of their classes.
„X A character that uses any Preferred Class Skill gains a +3 modifier to all of his Primary skill checks, and a +2 modifier to applicable Secondary Skill checks.
„X Only Preferred Class Skills can be selected for one of the character's Primary Skills.

Primary Skills
„X Primary Skills are skills that characters select for their focus. Only Preferred Class Skills can be selected for Primary Skills.
„X Primary Skills do not use skill points to purchase or improve. When a character increases in level, his primary skills advance with him.
„X Primary Skill Check = 1d20 + class level + 3 (preferred class skill modifier) + ability modifier + racial modifier.
„X At first level, a character selects a number of primary skills based on his starting class. Clerics, fighters, paladins, sorcerers, and wizards begin with one (1); barbarians, druids, and monks start with two (2); bards and rangers get four (4); and rogues start with six (6).
„X Characters can convert Secondary Skills to Primary Skills as they reach higher levels. Read about Secondary Skills and Gaining Primary Skills below for more information on this.
„X (OPTIONAL) At higher levels, Primary Skills can be used to achieve special results, unlock different and unique abilities of certain classes and special feats, or used in extraordinary ways. (This would have to be developed for each individual skill. Just an idea.)

Secondary Skills
„X Secondary skills are the complimentary skills that are acquired from experience, training, and practice. Secondary skills are any skills that a character purchases or improves with skill points.
„X All characters receive 4 skill points at every level.
„X Skill points can be used to purchase ranks in any available skill, except Primary Skills already selected by the character. Skill ranks cannot exceed the character¡¦s level.
„X Secondary Skill checks = 1d20 + skill ranks + ability modifier + racial modifier. If the skill is a Preferred Class Skill, then the character also adds +2 for preferred class modifier.
„X A Secondary Skill can become a Primary Skill when a character reaches 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level. Read below for more information.
„X Characters can have a number of Secondary skills equal to four plus their Intelligence modifier. The TOTAL number of Secondary and Primary skills allowed is equal to 10 + (2*Int Modifier).

Gaining Primary Skills
„X When a character reaches 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, he has the option to convert one of his Secondary Skills into a Primary Skill. In order to do so, the Secondary skill must meet a few qualifications.
„X Only Secondary Skills that are Preferred Class Skills can be selected for Primary Skills.
„X A character must have a number of skills ranks in the selected Secondary Skill equal to his character level minus his Intelligence modifier. For example, a fighter reaches 10th level and has a 12 Intelligence score. He can select any Secondary Skill that is a Preferred Class Skill for him with at least 9 skill ranks.
„X A Secondary Skill that becomes a Primary Skill loses all skill ranks, but no longer requires skill points to improve.
„X A character that does not have any eligible Secondary Skill, or chooses not to convert for a new Primary Skill will receive 2 additional skill points to spend instead.

Rules for Multiclassing
„X A character with more than one class applies only the appropriate class levels for a related skill check. If a character has more than one applicable class for a skill, then the class levels will stack.
„X When a character takes a level in a new class, he may automatically convert one of his Secondary Skills into a Primary Skill as long as a) the Secondary skill is already a Preferred Class Skill or becomes one as a result of taking the new class, b) the character has enough ranks in that skill to meet the conversion requirements, and c) the character has not reached the maximum number of Primary Skills allowed.
„X Characters that takes Bard or Ranger as a new class may convert up to two Secondary Skills at the time the class is taken. Characters taking Rogue for the first time may convert up to three. These are unique features of their respective classes.
„X If the character cannot meet the requirements to gain a new Primary skill when he takes a new class level, he may receive 2 extra skill points for each secondary skill that he would be allowed to convert instead.

In preparation for running this Adventure Path soon, I remembered reading the discussion on this thread regarding the amounts of XP awarded. The potential progression for PCs to exceed the recommended experience levels for each chapter had me curious, so I decided to plot out the XP awards for the first two chapters of the Savage Tide and see for myself. For those of you interested, this is what I came up with.

The numbers listed for each entry represent the total potential XP that can be earned by the players if they can defeat every trap or enemy with a CR rating as listed in the adventures. The default party composition suggests there are four characters of equal levels, but I've also included parties with 5 or 6 characters of equal levels without scaling the modules. In other words, you can also see what a larger group would earn if they ran through the adventures without making any adjustments, as per Scaling the adventure sidebars might suggest. This is also assuming that I didn't mess things up and was completely accurate in my account, so assume a margin of error.

THERE IS NO HONOR (Characters: 1st level)
The Blue Nixie: 2,250
Vanderboren Vault: 1,200
Under Parrot Island: 1,200
Lotus Ambush: 900
Taxedermist Guildhall: 900
Lotus Dragon Guildhall: 16,800
TOTAL: 26,100
4 Character Party - 6,525 each (Level 4)
5 Character Party - 5,220 each (Level 4)
6 Character Party - 4,350 each (Level 3)

BULLYWUG GAMBIT (Characters: 4th level)
Kraken's Cove: 23,000
Wormfall Festival: 5,400
Frogs In The House: 13,600
TOTAL: 42,000
Net TOTAL (Both adventures): 68,100
4 Character Party - 17,025 each (Level 6)
5 Character Party - 13,620 each (Level 5)
6 Character Party - 11,350 each (Level 5)

Keep in mind that this is fairly straight-forward and unbiased interpretation. If the party had only reached 3rd level by the time they began Bullywug Gambit, the XP awards will be a little higher for them until they hit 4th level. Also, there are some encounters that are a little more difficult and some that are a little more easier because of special circumstances, like the crocodile pit in the Lotus Dragon Guildhall. And of course, not every party is likely to encounter every single enemy or trap listed in the adventures. As Mr. Jacobs pointed out before, the theives within the Guildhall are likely to flee the area once they discover a number of their own already vanquished.

At any rate, I am also on board with some of the others who have posted their concerns about the standard "XP for kill" method of gaming. Awarding XP in alternate forms, such as Roleplaying XP, also does not sit well with me. The game itself lends very few other incentives of in-game rewards and encourages a style of play using XP as the all-mighty denomination for "gaming fun" currency. But it is also an essential part of the game, because without it, your characters could never advance in power and will not keep up with the more demanding challenges of higher level adventures. Such is the nature of the game.

What I intend to do for this campaign is to award a flat XP amount based on these values at the end of certain sections of the adventures. In effect, the players will be rewarded for completing story goals, rather than for the number of foes they can slaughter or route. This allows me, as the DM, to take control of the party's advancement and ensure that they progress adequately as the story line does. This also removes the player's mentality of maximizing their experience by looking for every possible battle and focus more on the story goals.

So for example, the party successfully returns the Blue Nixie to Lavinia. Regardless if they killed everything on board, captured them, or sent them running away, their primary goal is still accomplished and everything on board had to be dealt with to do so. The entire event is worth 2,250xp according to the DMG, and I am content to give the party the full amount to divide among them evenly (or 562xp each).

The Lotus Guildhall, on the other hand, has a lot of variables, especially when it comes to the number of actual opponents the party may or may not have to face. In such cases where the party's approach and methods could be a big factor in what they will end up dealing with, I'm going to award a flat 75% of the total value (or 12,600xp total=3,150xp each) if the party achieves their goal, regardless of how many opponents they actually face. So a group that is more efficient, clever, and/or cautious than a group that just hunts everyone down is automatically rewarded by getting the same XP with fewer fights.

Since I'll be playing with a party of six characters, however, I'll need to scale up some of the encounters to make sure they are still being challenged. This won't affect the XP awards since they are being distributed per individual, rather than as a lump sum for the group. Hopefully, this will work out well. I'll keep you posted if you're interested on how it goes. Feel free to do something similar and let us know how it works for you.

Because of the setting none of my characters were Medium of Heavy armor (except for one wearing elvin chain which is consiered light).

Since most of them at 8th level have AC's around 28 it doesn't appear to be a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what are their Dex scores and what kind of magical armors/protective items are they wearing?

Why not just use the SRD's DEFENCE BONUS varient rules.

They play well and save you a bunch of work.

FH

A) I don't think they play that well, and B) I like this kind of work. ;)

I would actually be concerned about the playability of the abilities at lower levels. <snip>

I've already scratched off the first three options because of this reason. Unfortunately, these forums don't allow me to go back and edit them, so all I can do is move forward. Thanks for the heads up, though.

Of course, the option may not be taken. I like that it is optional. I would make them feats with a pre-req of "Can only be taken at character creation". This gives the player the option to take them, but it also requires some sacrifice (heavy armor protects and hinders, can't be all positives). They still have the option to use the heavy armor if they need it. It's not like heroes always adventure in the same place, they may go north for an adventure or the rest of their lives.

Considering that I am designing these rules specifically for the Savage Tide AP, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming they won't be heading too far north. Even so, these are not options meant to be open to any character class. That's why they are not feats.

Oh, and I do use the rules for Heat Dangers, so wearing Heavy Armors is not without risks. (Check out DMG pg 303 to see what I'm talking about). I will also use bull rush or grapple attempts to knock them into the water by the smarter opponents, which most pirates and cutthroats in these types of settings would consider it a very sound tactic. ;)

I would also suggest re-reading pages 171-2 of the PH. Be careful of the way you classify the bonuses, stacking can cause issues later on. I would give the bonus as an unnamed bonus. You already have enough restrictions on how it can be used to warrant this type of bonus.

Each one had a different type of bonus for a reason. They fit their descriptions and gave each one their own unique benefit and disadvantage over the others. Plus, I'd prefer not to leave them stackable with everything else. That's overpowering. And since their already cut, the point is moot anyway.

Regarding your DR, that's what makes the Barbarian so cool! You're giving the Fighter abilities that require feat selections or multiclassing for "free" (yeah, at the cost of 2 feats later on, but you get the benefits before the "cost" at tenth level).

Let's put this into perspective. Barbarians have a d12 for hit dice. Barbarians can also rage to increase their Con, and gain even more hit points (even if only temporary). Barbarians are designed to take large amounts of damage, but are easier to hit. Fighters, on the other hand, use a d10 for hit dice and wear heavier armor to protect themselves. A very small amount of DR for them is not going to help them as much as it does a barbarian. But it does help. IMO, it's a very fair and balanced feature to add. I don't see it as taking away from the barbarian as much as it is a nod to the class, allowing the fighter to embrace one of their remarkable traits.

Your Martial Defense is much better laid out. My problem is "What makes the Monk so special?"

What does a monk have to do with this particular feature for a fighter? I wouldn't know because I don't allow monks in my campaigns, so perhaps it's just irrelevant to me.

Yeah, this is a bit harsh, but I also have constructive criticism : )

Maybe I missed the 'harshness' somewhere, but I appreciate you coming forth and offering your perspectives on this. Thanks. :)

I've played with this one in my homebrew campaign, and run into the issue that chain shirt + Dex + Wis = much preferrable to heavy armor (esp. for multiclassed characters). I've introduced an alternate class feature that trades Medium and Heavy Armor proficiencies for the Swashbuckler's Grace and Dodge class features (effective Swashbuckler level = class level in the class normally granting the armor proficiencies). Alternatively, they can give up all armor and shields for the monk AC bonuses (likewise). The first option in particular has been successful, because the player (who has a bard/paladin with the Devoted Performer feat) now feels like he gets something for not having the paladin's usual heavy armor, but the bonuses aren't really all that great--certainly not good enough to be game-breaking or even close to overpowered.

Thank you for sharing your insights! It is certainly easier for me to speculate what may or may not happen, but until I put it to the test, its really anyone's guess how things might work out. Sharing your experiences with similar house rules is very appreciated, and something I didn't think would be so difficult to find after posting this in several different forums.

The more I have thought about this, the greater my own insights have become on this subject. When I looked over the various armors in the PHB, I found that all the armors can potentially provide nearly the same amount of protection (typically around +7 to +9) if the character had a high enough Dexterity bonus. The only real disadvantage occurs when the character is denied this bonus, such as when he is caught flat-footed or immobilized. (Incidently, I found that the chain shirt was WAY too good for the price listed. I'd recommend increasing the cost significantly, like maybe THREE times as much, or just getting rid of it altogether. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter option, but I've not yet decided.)

When we remove or penalize the use of heavy armors further, we encourage players to compensate by dumping more points into their Dexterity scores. In a point-buy system, this means sacrificing other pertinent scores and creating a group of extremely nimble and highly agile fighters, clerics, and paladins. That should be a choice, not a requirement.

So I looked back at my original premise: to compensate for not using heavy armor. In my experience, most characters were not able to obtain heavy armors until they've earned enough gold, which usually takes a few levels to get. Even treasure hoards and opponents wouldn't have such strong armors at first level. So why are we trying to give them this extra advantage right away?

Currently, I'm taking a different approach and introducing some new and different ideas for alternate class features. By delaying the benefits a few levels, I have completely eliminated the level-dipping problems that seem to be the plague of so many gaming tables. Also, since they are now suitable for higher level characters, the benefits themselves can be slightly better and more powerful without worrying about unbalancing at beginning levels.

Sometimes I look back at what I started on and just want to smack myself in the head. What was I thinking?! Well, here's what I'm thinking now. These first two are options for the Fighter class. I'll add more as I create them for paladins and clerics. Feel free to critque these and see if you can find potential flaws in them, or suggest changes that you think are better.

Damage Reduction (Ex)
Similar to the barbarian’s class feature, the fighter is able to absorb or shrug off some amount of injury from each blow or attack. Beginning at 5th level, the character gains damage reduction 1/-, and improves by 1 point for every five levels thereafter (i.e. 2/- at 10th level, 3/- at 15th level, and 4/- at 20th level).

A fighter who chooses Damage Reduction as a class feature does not gain Heavy Armor Proficiency at first level. Furthermore, he does not receive a bonus feat at levels 10 and 20. Unlike most of the other class features here, however, the character will still benefit from this ability while wearing heavy armor.

Martial Defense Discipline (Ex)
Some warriors believe that the best defense in a battle comes from one’s own skills. Such fighters disdain the use of heavier armors because they can severely impede their maneuverability, and may consider it a sign of weakness or a lack of faith in one’s own ability.

Beginning at 5th level, the fighter adds a 1-point competence bonus to his Armor Class while wearing medium or lighter armor and not carrying a heavy load. This bonus increases to +2 at level 12 and +3 at level 19.

This bonus applies to Armor Class even against touch attacks, but not if the character is caught flat-footed, when he becomes immobilized, or is helpless. This ability does not function whenever heavy armor is worn.

A fighter who trains in the Martial Defense Discipline does not gain Heavy Armor Proficiency at first level. The fighter does not gain a bonus feat at level 12.

It just occurred to me today...

For any of these abilities, the applied bonuses combined with the normal Dexterity bonus for Armor Class cannot exceed the armor's Max Dex Bonus. Dexterity bonuses are always applied first. Thus, a character with ability scores of Dexterity 16 (+3) and Wisdom 14 (+2) using the Intuitive Defense ability could only gain a total of +4 bonus when wearing Chain Shirt (3 for Dex, and only 1 for Wisdom).

The great thing about adding more restrictions is that you can now introduce feats to get around them. For example, we can add a feat that allows you to apply your Wisdom bonus first instead of your Dexterity bonus. I'm not sure what the great benefit of this would be, but you are basically giving priority to your Insight bonus rather than your normal Dex bonus, which I believe is a Dodge bonus. Of course, you would at least need to have the Intuitive Defense class ability as a prerequisite.

The feat idea is an option, but I think adding the standard Max Dex restriction helps puts things back in line. Does that look better now? Any thoughts?

thank you Archon of Light. I Have been enlightened. I like the idea but will probably keep more RAW. We already started the campaign and i do not want to argue with my players about it. But I like the feats and may incorperate them in the game.

Thanks. I like to help break the stereotypes and get people thinking differently. This is definately something that should be added at the beginning of a game rather than dropped into the middle of a campaign. However, feel free to present the ideas to your players and see what they think. If they really like it, you might be able to work it in with only some minor adjustments. You never know.

And just so nobody is confused, they are not feats. Think of them as new options for character classes that begin with heavy armor proficiency for free. If anyone could take these as a feat, they would be overpowered without some serious prerequisites. Even so, they would still be very exploitable and potentially damaging to the game.

Those seem a bit too powerful to me. But maybe that's just me. And in the end, you're the DM, and if you're ok with it, then roll with it.

I've posted this on several different boards to gather as much feedback as possible in order to troubleshoot it better. Sometimes having a few different perspectives can help identify possible chinks in the armor. This helps me to think about changes that may be needed that I didn't consider yet, and hopefully I can do this before I introduce them into a running campaign.

First thing I should add is that this potentially works better in games where rolling stats do not generate a lot of high bonus scores. I've always been an advocate of point-buy systems, so I never really have to worry about characters who are so powerful at the start just because of some lucky rolls.

The biggest offense for exploitation is in the armors themselves, especially chain shirts. Medium armors are not as appealing as light that allow for less skill penalties and potentially equal Armor Classes for characters with good enough ability scores in Dexterity. Heavy armors, while more restrictive with skill checks and movement, still afford the best protection even without a decent Dex bonus. As it is, medium armors are not nearly as appealing as their competitors. That's just the way WotC designed them. I'm thinking of adding DR 1/- for medium and 2/- for heavy armors to remedy this. I might also remove certain armors that are just too good, like chain shirts. With a system like this in place, they no longer need to cover that particular niche to compete with medium armors.

One thing I've noticed about the DnD system is that it is very tightly wound; any change you make to the core system tends to affect a lot of other things around it. But I expected as much. ;)

In preparation for running this adventure series, I am making a few modifications to some of the standard rules. This is one of the ideas I came up with and thought I'd share with all of you. It's easy to adapt to any setting that makes heavy armors seem kinda obsolete. So feel free to use it. Critiques are welcomed. Enjoy!

Modifying Heavy Armor Proficiencies
Unlike many other ‘typical’ campaigns, heavy armor is not as common in this particular setting. The hot and humid climate makes it very uncomfortable to wear for more than an hour, and can potentially be dangerous to the wearer if worn for long periods of time. Heat, dehydration, and exhaustion can cause more problems to a character in the long run than the immediate protection that it provides.
For a seafaring traveler, however, the danger is even greater when close to open waters. Even a strong swimmer can be greatly impeded by wearing any weighty gear that restricts his movements. A person who is unable to swim should avoid even shallow waters because it only takes a few feet to find yourself on your back and unable to reach the surface for air. In essence, wearing heavy armor is like wearing an anchor that will most likely just pull you down to the bottom.
For these reasons, it seems impractical to expect that characters from regions like this are frequently trained in the use of these types of armors. That is not to suggest that heavy armors do not exist here or are never used by anyone. It is simply less practiced and not as common as other places. Anyone may still take the feat normally as one of their normal selections if they meet the prerequisites.
If you are playing a fighter, cleric, paladin, or any other base character class that grants Armor Proficiency (Heavy) at first level, then you have an option. You may retain your armor proficiency and deal with the hazards of wearing heavy armor in the given environment, or you can replace it with one of the following abilities listed below.
These options are only available at first level if you belong to one of these classes, and only one of these abilities can ever be taken by a character. Thus, you cannot select one when you create a paladin, then select a different one when you decide to take a level of cleric or fighter. They are not feats that can be taken at any time.
These unique abilities reflect a considerable amount of time spent in a region that lends itself to a certain lifestyle or technique. They are intended to reflect the conditions of the given environment and encourage characters, which would normally rely on heavier armors, to keep in theme with the setting without being punished for it. Each option allows the player to utilize the strength of his particular character, and compensates for the loss of a potentially better defensive rating in a way that is neither superior nor exploitable.

Weathered Skin
Your skin has grown thick and rough from many years of exposure to the sun, wind, and water. As a result, you are able to absorb more pain and solid blows against your bare skin; the more that is exposed, the better you are able to do this.
Benefit: You gain a natural armor bonus to your Armor Class equal to your Constitution score bonus if you are wearing light or no armor. If you are wearing medium armor, then you only add one-half your bonus (rounded down). You cannot use this ability while wearing heavy armor.
The bonus applies to Armor Class even if the character is caught flat-footed, when he becomes immobilized, or is helpless, but not against touch attacks.
Special: This ability will not stack with any other abilities that grant an Armor Class bonus from Constitution-based skills or abilities.

Disciplined Defense
You are trained in the art of fighting defensively using your maneuverability and reflexes in a skilled manner. Through practice and training, you are able to control your movements more efficiently and effectively, making you harder to hit in a fight. This ability becomes impeded or restricted when wearing medium or heavy armor.
Benefit: You gain a competence bonus to your Armor Class equal to your Intelligence score bonus if you are wearing light or no armor. If you are wearing medium armor, then you only add one-half your bonus (rounded down). You cannot use this ability while wearing heavy armor.
The bonus applies to Armor Class even against touch attacks, but not if the character is caught flat-footed, when he becomes immobilized, or is helpless.
Special: This ability will not stack with any other abilities that grant an Armor Class bonus from Intelligence based skills or abilities, such as Combat Expertise.

Intuitive Defense
You are trained in certain fighting techniques that allow you to read your opponent and anticipate his moves before he even makes them. Through practice, training, and meditation, you are able to avoid or counter blows more effectively, making you harder to hit. This ability becomes impeded or restricted when wearing medium or heavy armor.
The bonus applies to Armor Class even against touch attacks, but not if the character is caught flat-footed, when he becomes immobilized, or is helpless.
Benefit: You gain an insight bonus to your Armor Class equal to your Wisdom score bonus if you are wearing light or no armor. If you are wearing medium armor, then you only add one-half your bonus (rounded down). You cannot use this ability while wearing heavy armor.
Special: This ability will not stack with any other abilities that grant an Armor Class bonus from Wisdom-based skills or abilities, such as a monk’s AC bonus class ability.

If nothing else, Pathfinder is designed for long term success, and, with any luck, it will become an industry leader and role model for future generations of adventure products. More than any other adventure product released anywhere else, this series promises to deliver the "complete package" in terms of campaign-style gaming without the need to purchase excessive sourcebooks and materials to expand your enjoyment.

People need to stop trying to make the comparisons and stop looking at this as the substitution for Dungeon and Dragon magazines. It is not meant to be a replacement for either of these, even though it does take some of the best ideas and concepts from them to create a wholly new product. The subscription format is a unique approach to such a product, but it makes sense to me. For $2 less, I can have the product shipped directly to me every month when the product is released and not have to worry about running to the store and hoping there is still a copy available for me to purchase. I approve!

The one idea that really appeals to me about this product is the value for the quality of everything it has to offer. The books will provide relevant source material to run the campaign (not just a single-shot adventure!) for me to utilize, minimizing the amount of extra work that I may need or want to do for myself. How I would have loved to have seen the awesome Red Hand of Doom adventure to have been given this kind of treatment. (I'm sensing that James Jacobs probably shares that sentiment more than anybody!)

I believe the formula is good, and the results will be phenomenal. The only thing that really hinges on this product's success will be the quality and the flavor of the setting and the adventures themselves. Considering the positive responses and reactions to previous endeavors with the Adventure Path series, the new information revealed in the Paizo blogs, and the given track record of quality productions and customer interactions by the company, I have no doubt that many of us will not be disappointed.