Argamae's page

I have skimmed through this thread but did not find any earlier mentioning of this, so here I go:

On page 13 APG (Elves, Favoured class options) -
- the bard and the fighter get the same option: add +1 to the elf's CMD when resisting a disarm or sunder attempt.

This sounds like a mistake or as if one Favoured class option was omitted (most likely that for the Bard).

@Blackgragon: just for the record: what is a BBEG?

Since poison effects have already been watered down in D&D 3.x a lot of old-school-bite has been taken out. It is a tricky question. On the one hand you have lovable player characters built up over numerous sessions, integrated their background stories into your campaign and all, and then they die off in an instant by some bad die-rolling. On the other hand it is important to keep the players on edge and to provide for thrill & tension. If the players know or even sense that their characters will very likely not die "on a whim" then it tends to get into the game. The players will eventually become bored and not really thrilled when confronting certain monsters or situations. Or worse, they tend to become overconfident and take in-game risks their characters would rather not take, leading to a silly game.

Well, so I am in favour of DM and SoD - barely.

The DC 15 is too high, and I'll tell you why.

If I want to hit an opponent with a +4 modifier to his CMB (pretty low level) and I have a +8 CMB (Either really high for low level or 4-6 level) I still need to roll at least an 11 to hit. Thats a pretty big gap between levels.

I would not think that a close to 50% chance to execute a maneuver which potentially harms or disadvantages an opponent is too high.

You said you are playing an Alpha 3 monk. Well, with all the house rules that is hardly the case. If you are interested in Alpha 3 playtesting (which is where you put your thread into) then it would not make much sense in changing the rules right from the start. That really is not what playtesting is about.

But that is just my opinion.

I very much like the idea as proposed by Mosaic and will use it in my campaign. Has every potential to become an official rule, too. :)

Argamae wrote:

@SirUrza: Well, if you think of sailors as PCs and "adventuring fighting men" your point is valid - they would be warriors or fighters/rogues. But, honestly, MOST sailors are just normal guys manning a ship or boat. Therefore I would go with Modus0 and reason that they be experts. Makes sense to me.

If they're regular guys manning a boat they don't need stats at all.

Sure they do if they get into conflict/contact with the PCs. ;)

I must step in here.

Negative and Positive energy, and their associated energy planes, are not in any way associated with Good or Evil. They're natural forces as cosmologically divorced from the concepts of manifest Alignment as you can get. Frankly the positive energy plane is more hostile than the negative energy plane (negative certainly has more population amid the devouring sterility, as opposed to positive's soul-incinerating furnace).

The -only- reason that positive is portrayed as 'good' and negative as 'bad' is perspective. An intelligent creature "living" via negative energy would certainly reverse the tags and be just as correct in their own particular bias. Xeg-Yi and Xag-Ya are both living beings composed of their respective energy types, and guess what? Neither of them has a good or evil alignment. The evil undead that dwell in the negative energy plane aren't even native to that plane, they're immigrants by design or accident. The natives of the plane that I can think of like the energons, trillochs, etc they're all true neutral.

Of course, you are right on some accounts. I did state my point somewhat falsely or at least misconstrued it. As energy planes both the positive and negative plane is devoid of an alignment per se, as you correctly stated. But what both energies do pushes them towards a certain alignment (even if only in the perspectives of other creatures, I'll grant you that much).

The Positive Plane is full of life and the power of creation, while the Negative Plane is a void that sucks the life out of every living creature and turns all into nothingness. Since "giving life" and "creation" is more closer to "good" or good-aligned gods, and "draining life" and "nothingness" is more to the taste of "evil" and evil-aligned gods - and there is why those planes are "viewed" as being either good or evil. (Of course, even the overflow of life on the positive plane is destructive to most beings that get trapped there).

Whether there are more inhabitants on the negative plane as opposed to the positive plane (or vice versa) I do not know for certain.

modus0 wrote:

All real sailors (not cabin-boys) would be Experts, and thus would have Use Rope as one of their 10 class skills.

That so? Because I would build them as fighters or rogues that go swashbuckler.

@SirUrza: Well, if you think of sailors as PCs and "adventuring fighting men" your point is valid - they would be warriors or fighters/rogues. But, honestly, MOST sailors are just normal guys manning a ship or boat. Therefore I would go with Modus0 and reason that they be experts. Makes sense to me.

As for the original topic: Profession should not necessarily be a class skill. It would be reasonable to assume that most characters pursued a job (which can also be a craft, mind you) before turning to a life of adventure. But ever since adopting a character class they would likely not have the time or drive to follow their original profession anymore.

I would chime in with those in disfavour of Fighters getting PERCEPTION and STEALTH as class skills. This is still a class system (as opposed to a skill system) and as such it facilitates class "roles", no matter how non-typical a player portrays his or her character.
Also, I find it rather useless and contra-productive to cite "real world situations" and all that as proof that fighters would be crippled and what not if they don't have access to PERCEPTION or STEALTH. Firstly, because a "soldier" in the real world is not necessarily a "fighter" but more often than not a combination of classes, depending on his service branch and battlefield role. And a "guard" is not necessarily a fighter, either. For much the same reasons. So all this comparing is actually for naught.
Someone said that we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a game here - and should think along those lines. I wholeheartedly agree.

Also, since this is a heroic fantasy game, I am in favour of removing PERCEPTION from the Commoner npc class.

For those who are still unhappy with all this should find multiclassing the answer to their problems.

I actually found Mosaic's idea of opening a thread dealing with "minimal class skills" very intriguing. Reducing class skills to an absolute minimum is a good thought. If no one else is doing it, I just might open up a thread myself.

You fail to see the point of that post.

And the point in discussing the rules, is that the purpose of the rules is to support stories. That is the entire reason we use a rule set to play the games in the first place. If the rules come first, just play WOW.

The secondary purpose seemed to strike home. If you don't like the idea of bloodline powers for everyone, then why do you like them only for sorcerers?

Now I can fully go with the whole bloodline for a straight up sorcerer. It then becomes the source of his powers. 4E (as far as I can tell- and I may be wrong here) no longer allows multiclassing, so this would fit right in. That is why it smacks of 4E. There are some good ideas in 4E, and I plan on using them in my games if they fit.

The point is the mechanic breaks down with multiclassing into the sorcerer. And while there mnay be precedents to this found in 3.x, that does not mean that it is good mechanics. 3.x is rife with bad classes. Just because it existed does not mean it should be used.

Well, maybe I fail to see something here. Could be.

In terms of "Rules And How They Can Be Applied To Story Gameplay" just think of it this way - the powers of the sorcerer's bloodline lie dormant and they emerge only if the individual heeds the calling and focusses in on them, allowing them to come out and manifesting themselves. In Gamespeak: only when you follow the Sorcerer class. So while you can be a cleric who has a human mother and a celestial father, your powers might lie dormant (and you might have that nagging feeling every now and then that there is more to you than meets the eye) and do not emerge because you effectively hinder them by not focussing on them thanks to your preoccupation with being a cleric. So, to make gameplay fair for everyone, you just need to take your time and awaken them - i.e. take a Sorcerer level.

@Krome:

The bloodlines don't "kick in" for a race because of game balance issues. That's what a good game is all about. If you would rather go for the "story comes first" approach then by all means lose the rules completely. What's the point in discussing rules when you make statements like that? So you want to be a cleric with the benefit of a bloodline, go ahead and make it happen. But don't expect everyone else to just sit idly by. Soon all sorts of "let's break this rule because the story comes first and I want these powers for my character" will be flying high.

Rangers aren't Fighters, that's why you keep the armor restriction. If Rangers can wear Heavy armor, they're better then a Fighter in every way.

'Nuff said. :-)

It's linked to evil because that is part of the D&D cosmology. There are absolutes of "good" and "evil" - they are not (wholly) philosopical concepts. And so the positive plane/energy exemplifies "good" while the negative plane/energy exemplifies "evil". A lot of abilites and game concepts are built on this foundation; e.g. Turning Undead. If the undead wouldn't be aligned to a specific energy then there could not exist an energy that is in opposition to achieve the "turning effect".
However, the game does allow for all kinds or morality shades when it comes to characters. Necromancers who feel the pull of the negative/evil plane but constantly strive to avoid these "urges" are viable and even playable characters. And you also have a lot of undead that are not--by their personality or ethics--evil. Their nature or substance or whatever is linked to the negative plane, true, but the rest of their "soul" or personality is not required to.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for keepin' up the spirit of pen&paper rpg and for your courage to stick to your convictions in the face of adversity, namely WotC/Hasbro. And thanks for making us--your customers and audience--part of the process.

The late Gygax, I think, would have very much approved. And what the heck, if you make a buck or two along the way then these are bucks well earned. ;-)

Let us all honor the effort by playing PATHFINDER and introducing it to new gamers! Keep the spirit of pen&paper gaming alive!

Lately I've been thinking a lot about two-weapon fighting. The numerous threads about rangers and monks have been an inspiration; monks because Flurry of Blows is essentially two-weapon fighting.

I'll see what I can do - without using a Rogue. I chose a two-weapon fighting monk to illustrate some of my points.

Okay, but... well, WHAT exactly are your points? Or did I miss something?

I'm not sure how much of the D&D combat system I would want to revamp (and still make it mostly backwards compatible). I mostly want to make sword & shield a viable option for fighters without having them resort to shield bash via the two-weapon fighting route.

My understanding (possibly flawed) of the historical response to two-handed weapons was the invention of plate armors that deflected blows away from the wearer. Someone with an actual medieval history degree please correct me if I'm wrong. Weapon and armor development through the medieval period was a chain of attacks and defensive counter measures. I'm not sure we can hope to capture much of this in a game with mechanics as simple as D&D.
CJ

Well, my concern is that once you start taking into account "real mediveal fighting" you will find yourself in need to change THE WHOLE D&D COMBAT SYSTEM. This is most certainly not desired; else one should just start playing Hârnmaster or good ol' RuneQuest. So, it is reasonable to stick to the D&Desque "fantasy combat" and see if a little more believability can be obtained by making small adjustments.

As far as I understand it (and I am no expert, either!) a plate mailed warrior with a two-handed sword was a terror to unarmoured opponents without reach weapons. But once the opponent(s) got inside the 2h weapon warrior's swing radius--effectively preventing him from being able to build up his swing's momentum--he was doomed. Think of a peasant's revolt where unmounted knights were overwhelmed, pinned down and then killed by trusting sharp weapon ends through their slitted visors. Not pretty. But I digress.

The point I am trying to make is this: you can at least try to simulate some of this stuff by making creative use of the CMB. And to get back to the specific topic, you could give shields a couple of bonuses for CMB checks when trying to make or prevent certain maneuvers instead of just raising their AC bonus (or in addition to increasing the AC bonus). E.g. you could give the wielder of a tower shield a bonus to his CMB when resisting trip or "deflecting" overrun and bull rush maneuvers if he/she rams the tower shield into the ground. Just a thought.

I'm just curious if anyone knows why orcs are categorized as "vermin" instead of humanoid?

Huh? Where did you read that?

It occurs to me that there are what could be considered examples of non magic using characters using 'rituals' in fiction- in the 1999 film The Mummy for example, where Imhotep is called up and ultimately dispatched again by such means- although they are often cast/read from books/tomes/grimoires that might be considered minor artifacts (or certainly magic items) in their own right.

That said, I'm not sure to what extent such a mechanic would fit the flavour of the Pathfinder RPG.

Oh, it would most certainly be a fantastic addition to the "flavour" of the Pathfinder setting, what with the Lovecraftian stuff and all. In fact, I would probably come up with such ritual rules even if the guys at Paizo would not anchor them within the final rules. Chelaxians binding devils to their service, hidden cults in Absalom striving to re-awaken ancient horrors, splinter factions of certain deities prying into the truth behind Aroden's death, religious merchants of Abadar drawing a circle to bless important business ventures...

I would also abstain from making that 1st level ability much more powerful. Maybe some of the specialist abilities need a little tweaking here and there but overall the power level feels just right.

Yeah, but two-handed weapons fighters were pretty scary and lethal - at least as long as someone didn't get inside their striking radius. With an up-close melee situation those 2h weapons didn't do you any good. Question is: wouldn't you want to change this aspect as well if you vote for an upgrade of shields?
Just a thought.
But overall I feel that you have a valid point there. I too would like to see shields getting a better "value for money".

Excellent point Argamae. I also like this more open mechanic. With a little creativity it can also be used for things like pulling the rug out from under someone, yanking a curtain down over their head, pushing a statue over on someone, hitting them with a chandelier whose rope you've just cut, and so forth.

I do however think the current DC is too high. I'll be using a DC of 11+CMB for my games.

Thanks, that is EXACTLY what I had in mind. As for the too high DC, well, we are still very early into the campaign and I will keep an eye towards the CMB as we progress and the characters have gained a few levels (and fight tougher monsters).

I was wondering: does the 0th level specialist Wizard ability (Hand of the Apprentice) function as a standard Mage Hand in addition to its combat utility, or can it *only* be used to wield weapons?

As it says in the description: it functions like "mage hand" but has the additional capabability of wielding a weapon. So, YES, it works like the spell "mage hand" in every other aspect.

More specifically, the CMB does away--at least to a certain extent--with the pre-fabricated cutout combat maneuvers. And that is to be applauded! Of course, there are still things like Bull Rush, Sunder or Feint, but the more open mechanic of the CMB allows for more creativity for the players. Before, I got the impression that D&D always facilitated maneuvers that were 'officially allowed", nudging players towards a "adjust-the-situation-to-fit-a-certain-maneuver" instead of the much more creative "think-of-a-maneuver-that-best-fits-the-situation" attitude. GMs can easily adjust the CMB requirements for a creative maneuver the player comes up with instead of telling him "no can do".
At least that is the way I see the possibilities.

@Salama: that is great work indeed! Thanks a lot. We are using your sheets with the RISE OF THE RUNELORDS campaign which started May, 31st. Keep up the cool work, your sheet is so much more stylish than the "official" one!

...and if you have just too much time to spend, remember the A4 format, will you? *grin*

Thanks for your kind words. I had my form-fillable sheet almost ready, but then I actually just forgot to finish it... I'll make tha alpha 3 version fillable from the start. You are right about the rage section, I'll propably drop it from the alpha 3 version. Actually my sheet was originally A4 (I live in finland, so that's standard here), But I changed it to same size as the rulebook is. Now it would need a lot of work to make it to another size. I think I could make such thing with the final beta, but I'm pretty sure it has it's own character sheet, which would mean that my work is no longer needed =).

Sounds great. Until then I will use your current Alpha2-Sheet.

And as for your work no longer being needed - you are not getting away that cheap, buddy! I seriously doubt that the official sheet will beat yours! :-)

Thanks to all of you who contributed Character Sheets! I like Salama's sheet best and I hope that he will make a form-fillable version available soon. Since Alpha 3 is due next week there might be some more changes. But I think those will be rather minor ones.

Salama, if I may suggest some things? For a more "universal" character sheet I would lose the "Rage Points & Powers Section". It's for barbarians only and it takes up quite some space, making for a "dead" section for all other classes.

Is there a chance you could make this sheet into a standard european size (DIN A4), which is a tad larger than the standard american letter size?

My campaign is starting end of May and I know my players will love your sheets. Thanks, Salama! :)