Asgetrion's page

When Bestiary 3 came out, I fell in love with the Living Graffiti, and I already have a couple of rough adventure ideas built around this monster. Yet I have a problem, since I just don’t get how some of its defining traits (namely Backdrop and Surface-Bound) work.

It’s a two-dimensional creature, a bit like the Shadow, and it’s ”bound” to the surface it was created on. It can move 25 ft. per action, but only on the flat surface it is inhabiting. The art in the Bestiary seems to imply it can take on a three-dimensional form to attack, but this is naturally just fluff, as it cannot actually step out of the surface at all – it can just attack adjacent creatures.

So far so good, right?

Yet I just cannot understand how the boundaries of a surface are defined. For example, if it is drawn on the outer wall of a building, can it move around corners, or is it limited to moving only on one side (wall) of the building? How about inside a building; can it transfer itself from a wall to the floor or ceiling? Or from a painting (canvas) to the wall the painting is hanging on?

And what counts as ”flat enough” for the Graffiti? Does the surface need to be perfectly flat, or do cobblestones or rough tiles count? What if the surface is slightly cracked, is it enough to stop the Graffiti from moving farther in that direction?

Come to think of it, how do you even destroy the surface? Is it enough to deal any damage, or do you need to surpass its BT, or perhaps completely demolish it? It’d have been great to have at least one sentence explaining how this works. I also find the bit about crit failure potentially damaging the surface weird... so you might actually inflict 2d6 extra damage to the Graffiti, or outright destroy it, on a critical failure?!? Wouldn't it make more sense if you destroy the surface on a critical hit, and damage your weapon on a crit fail?

Finally, I just don’t get the thing about abandoning it in the desert. Why? Isn’t it easier to trap the Graffiti in a portable surface (e.g. a canvas), and levitate or fly 30+ feet up to safely destroy it? Also, it’s a low-level creature, in any non-desert campaigns a completely trivial encounter for teleporting PCs.

I love the concept and think this could be a great monster with lots of story potential, but sadly, I find the execution a bit lacking. Is there any additional information about this monster somewhere, or have I just misunderstood how its traits should actually work? Has anyone else had to wrestle with these same issues in their game?

I am a bit confused to have discovered you apparently can etch runes on common, even low-quality items? For example, if I discovered a runestone with a potency rune on it, I could etch it on a rusty orc scimitar, right? There is nothing in the rules that would prevent it, I think, since the only requirements are that I need to have X gold pieces + the "formula" for the rune (and the downtime to do it). It may be implied that part of the price is to pay for a high-quality item, such a "masterwork" weapon to etch the rune upon, but it is not once mentioned or clearly spelled out in the text, at least not to my knowledge. Does it really work this way per RAW, or have I misunderstood something?

And what does it mean I need to have "the formula" for a rune? Are they supposed to be discovered, or does it refer to the level requirement or the rune(stone) itself?

I know you can only pick a General Feat with the Skill trait when you get a new Skill Feat, but does it work the other way around? What I mean is that when a PC receives a General Feat, are you allowed to pick a General Feat with the Skill trait? I think you can, but it'd be nice to know this for certain. :)

For example, could a fighter choose Intimidating Glare at 3rd level?

I finally picked up Gods & Magic at my FLGS on last Saturday, and I think there's a lot of well-written content in the book, but I also feel it underlines the problems with the domain system in 2E. It wasn’t exactly perfect in 3E, either, and I could understand that while 1E revised the domain list and domain powers, they had to maintain backwards compatibility as much as possible. As a result, many 1E deities got odd choices to fill up their mandatory 5 domains (I always felt it had to be 5 due to alignment domains ”consuming” one or two right out of the gate), such as Urgathoa getting Strength and War, or quite a few deities granting Luck and/or Protection to their followers. When subdomains came out in APG, they helped a bit in ”finetuning” each deity’s list of domains to better suit their portfolios. A small step, but a step forward nonetheless.

[Begin rant]

Before 2E was published, I remember James Jacobs saying they are going to revise the domains to better suit the Golarion pantheon. Well, if so I’m not seeing it, and although I love 2E a lot, I think the cleric class is a bit of a mess now (for example, Warpriests of the God of War get the short end of the sti… er, sword, so to speak). But speaking of domains and domains alone, I honestly think the list is more confusing than ever before.

First of all, there are still weird choices in the core rules that (to me) don’t make sense, such as Lamashtu granting Family as one of their primary domains… I mean, Soothing Words, really? Urgathoa has Magic and Might, because Necromancy, plus undead being tough? And Erastil's priests apparently love gold and riches (Wealth), while Rovagug grants Air to their worshippers? I think those are a few examples of domains that IMO don't just fit these deities, mainly due to spells that their followers will receive by choosing them.

It helps that there are 18 new domains in Gods & Magic, and many of them are actually quite good. In fact, almost all of them feel like they should have been published in the Core Rulebook. Or what do you think of such domains as Cold, Decay, Duty, Plague, Repose, Soul, Star, Time and Void?
I think it’s sad that all of them are just ”alternate domains” (representing ”lesser known aspects” of a deity) for the most popular Inner Sea deities, meaning your cleric cannot gain them until picking a 4th level cleric feat (Domain Initiate is required, by the way). An example: if your [Cloistered] Cleric of Pharasma wants to select Time or Soul[s] domain, it’s not possible until 4th level, because Pharasma is not really about having power over souls or time. It’s also super-annoying that these gods don’t have their ”primary domains” listed in Gods & Magic, you need your CRB to look those up. I mean, it would have been a single line per deity...

There’s a feat called Splinter Faith that lets you make up a cult-type group of followers, or as the book says: ”Your faith in your deity is represented in an extremely unusual way that some might call heretical.” Such a character is part of a fringe group of worshippers, which is not apparently part of the church hierarchy. They can cherry-pick domains among their deity’s primary and alternate domains, and also get to choose one outside of both lists (which still must suit the deity, however). That is actually the only way (per RAW) to create clerics of the goddess of disease (Urgathoa) that have access to Plague domain, or Kuthites that emphasize sorrow and loss (i.e. want to pick Sorrow domain) as a means to inflict mental and spiritual pain.

Secondly, it now includes quite a few that are (again, in my opinion) oddly named, or only marginally different from each other, at least based on the [literal] meaning of domain names. For example, I personally think Ambition and Confidence could have been just one domain, likewise with Change and Perfection (=Evolution? Transformation?). There are a few that made me raise my eyebrows, such as Delirium (Madness toned down, with some illusion vibes thrown in), Dust (Desert gods only, I guess?), Vigil (”You watch over those long passed and guard their secrets”…err, what?) and Cities (why is this not called Urban or Civilization, to better counterbalance Nature?). And what was wrong with War (or Battle, for that matter) as a domain name, how does Zeal describe better what this domain does?

And speaking of Zeal, there are other domains beside it that I think are a poor fit for what they’re trying to do, considering both the name and the spells they grant. Mostly it’s because IMO they represent ideals that in my opinion would fit nearly ALL the faiths (e.g. Ambition, Change, Confidence and Zeal), and some that are accessed by only one or two deities (e.g. Cities, Delirium, Dust, Secrecy). For example, I could very well see most Kuthites or priests of Asmodeus being extremely zealous and ambitious. Is it because I don’t speak English as my native language, and I’m missing some nuances here?
Finally, there also some ”areas of concern” or portfolios I feel are still missing, like Justice, Laws or Glory/Nobility, but I guess you can make it work with Truth and Duty, at least if you make slight changes to their descriptions.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the game, and many of the minor deities published in Gods & Magic now have domains that finally make sense. However, I think Paizo had a golden opportunity to create a more robust list of domains (or some other subsystem for the cleric) that would also serve the needs of the game and make the cleric class play better than its D&D and 1E counterparts. And by ”the needs of the game” I mean I wish I could use the rules for any setting, such as convert the FR deities to 2E as I did 10 years ago, but I honestly feel it wouldn’t work nearly as well as it did with the 1E rules.

[End Rant]

So yeah, summa summarum, I personally think domains in 2E are a huge mess, and the cleric class likely underwent many iterations before the designers just ran out of time. There’s a lot of good in there, but to me it seems like it barely holds together. I’m glad that at least as a GM, I don’t have to use domains for NPCs and monsters with divine innate spells or class features.

I'd honestly like to hear how others feel about this subject; what do you think about the available Domains and how they work in the context of the 2E rules?

I'm a bit confused about the wording of 'Heal spell. If I use the two-action version, the first level spell heals 1d8+8 hit points; that I can get. How about the three-action version of the first level spell, is it 1d8+8 or just 1d8 hit points to all within 30 feet?

How about the second level heightened version? It's clear that one-action heal restores 2d8 and the two-action version 2d8+16 to one target, but again, does the three-action heal restore 2d8 or 2d8+16 to all living targets?

Am I missing something here?

I have a few rules questions I hope you people can help me with:

1) There is no mention of it in the core rulebook, but I assume it takes an Interact action to get something out of your backpack? For example, if I drink a potion it takes two Interact actions? Is this correct?

2) If a one-action or two-action feat includes mention of several actions, you don't need to spend additional actions to perform them, right? I get that Sudden Charge lets you Stride twice + Strike for two actions, but there are others that confuse me with their wording, for example:

Make two clan dagger Strikes against different targets. Your multiple attack penalty applies normally to these Strikes. You then use an Interact action to gain the +1 circumstance bonus to your AC from your clan dagger’s parrying trait.

Does this mean you get to do two Strikes + Interact by spending two actions, or do I need to spend my third action to Interact for that AC bonus? If it's just two actions, why does it not say something like "Make two clan dagger Strikes... Regardless of whether they hit you gain the +1 circumstance bonus to your AC from your clan dagger’s parrying trait."?

3) Is there a point to cast non-cantrip spells as heightened versions, because in most cases (except for fireball, I guess) all you get is +1 die of damage? I mean, if I do already, say, 5d6 points of damage with a 3rd level spell, why "waste" a 4th level slot to do 6d6? I'm genuinely confused by this. I'd get it if the die size would increase, or if you got +2 dice of damage for each heightened spell level, but in many cases you simply increase the damage by 1 die. What's the point in heightening such spells?

I'm not sure if I understand correctly how Ancestry and Class Feats work. Namely, some Ancestries (for example, Dwarf and Human) do not get 17th level feat choices at all, which means they have to pick lower level feats at 17th level, and likewise at levels which offer only feats with prerequisites that you do not have? For example, if I'm playing a dwarf who picks Vengeful Hatred at 1st level, I'm forced to pick another 1st level Ancestral Feat at 5th level, correct? I wonder why, because I would have preferred more choice with Ancestral Feats and viable options at every level they can be chosen. Also, certain Ancestries get more Feats than others, I wonder if this was also intentional and why?

And speaking of Class Feats, occasionally you just don't have any choice at all with them either, because you don't meet the prerequisites or the feats do not suit your character. For example, at 16th level a two-handed weapon fighter can't choose any of the four feats, so I guess all of them must choose something else. This must be intentional, perhaps to balance out damage output between different weapon types, or because there are many great lower level feats for two-handed wielders?

Finally, I know that you can always pick lower level Ancestry Feats, but does it also apply to Class Feats? I didn't see any mention of that in the core rulebook.

A while ago the gear preview made think of Touch AC, and how it (perhaps needlessly) complicates combat, especially now that saving throws are in the limelight in a new way. Do we really need attack rolls for things like Searing light, Acid arrow or Disintegrate, since Ref saves already kind of take care of that? How many effects are there in the game that have to actually hit your body but not your skin? For example, acid must seep through your armor, and I think your leather armor and shield *should* protect you against flames. Disintegrate needs to "hit flesh" to work, I think, since it only affects organic material (IIRC).

I want to open this topic for discussion because I think Stephen's idea of granting circumstance/temporary bonus for these effects (that actually need only hit your TAC) should cover it. How many of these effects that justify TAC as a mechanic does even exist in the game?

I find the Giant template a bit difficult to understand; it seems it grants you +4 to Str and Con, and your size also increases to the next category. Therefore, shouldn't you *also* get +8 to Str and +4 to Con, if this template is applied to a medium-sized creature? Or do you have to choose?

For example, would a Giant Orc warrior have STR 25 (+8 from new size), STR 21 (+4 from the template), or 29 (+8 from new size, +4 from the template)?

I find this a bit confusing, because +12 to STR from a template is a lot; however, on the other hand, +4 feels like it's not really a "giant" version of the creature.

How does it work?

This might be a topic that has already been discussed and/or clarified in the past, but I tried a quick search and couldn't find anything on it, so here goes: does DR stack, and if not, which one applies if you get DR from two sources? For example, if I have a high-level invulnerable rager barbarian with the fiendish template, does it have DR 10/good or DR X/-, or both? Or would you get the "best of both worlds", i.e. DR 10/-? How does it work if you get two types of DR; do they stack or overlap?

My next session will feature a lot of Shadows, those horrible undead guardians, but as I looked at their entry in the Bestiary I felt a bit confused. Now, I have always described them (since BD&D) as a lesser version of wraiths, i.e. smoky and black ghost-like beings with glowing eyes, but it seems that these days they are more than that: animate, two-dimensional shadows gliding along surfaces and reaching hungrily towards you. Or maybe they always were like that, and I’ve just managed to ignore their description and focused on the stats? Anyway, I actually like that… except that I don’t understand how they’re supposed to work.

So I took a look at Undead Revisited, but it didn’t help much; cool plot hooks, ideas and variant abilities, but no concrete advice on linking the flavor to mechanics.

Now I have a host of questions about Shadows: for example, should they be impossible to spot without light, even with darkvision? How do you hit them; are you supposed to strike at the floor or wall to hurt them? Or strike at empty air, estimating where their invisible "essence" should be? How do they attack you; do they “rise up” from your own shadow as “concrete” (spectral) and visible creatures, or do you just see their shadowy limbs moving along the floor/wall? And is a flying/levitating character immune to their attacks, if they’re supposed to be two-dimensional? (obviously not per RAW, but my players would ask this if I described them “as written”)

How do you describe and run Shadows in your game?

A couple of days ago I was going through potential hazards and monsters to use in dungeon environment, and I noticed that green slime's description and art still does not (IMO) correctly match its statistics. Back in AD&D, I remember that it was explicitly noted that green slime could only affect "live" flesh and would quickly turn a victim into a patch of green slime as well. Buth here is how it works in 3E and PF RPG:

Green slime devours flesh and organic materials on contact and is even capable of dissolving metal. A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime.

These days it simply deals constitution damage, yet the text from PRD implies it devours/dissolves all flesh, apparently even that of dead creatures? Even though it cannot harm them, since corporeal undead are immune to con damage? (Unless, of course, dead flesh would be equated to wood or metal...)

My point is, based on how it's been described in the game, I've always felt green slime is corrosive, and this is also supported by the art piece of the poor, melting goblin in the core rulebook (p. 416). Shouldn't it simply deal acid damage, then? I don't know, somehow it all feels contradictory to me, but then again, we always shrugged at the whole thing back in AD&D, too (however, it did make more sense that it simply turned you into slime, instead of devouring your con score).

I'm also a bit puzzled by the reference to cold and fire damage; green slime does not have HD or HPs, so is one point enough to kill it? And what about "cutting it away"? Do you have to cut away the victim's arm or leg, or would one point of damage (again) be enough for this purpose?

Thoughts?

I've never really thought about it before, because I've been quite happy with the existing swarms in 3E and Pathfinder. However, when Bestiary 2 came out, I thought I should try creating a swarm of crawling hands.

Here's the thing: the rules on swarm subtype don't mention anything about changes to base creature's stats, AC, HD or saves. When I compared, for example, bats to bat swarm, it seemed there was no method to this madness; +5 to some stat, -1 to another, and so on. Is there a method, or am I just missing it?

In the end I just took a look at Crawling Claw Swarm in Lost Empires of Faerûn and used it as the baseline, modifying some stats according to the crawling hand entry in Bestiary 2. I also changed the size of the hands to Tiny (half damage from weapon attacks), because it made sense that you could use weapons on this swarm (weapons work normally against individual hands, after all).

Here's what I came up with; feel free to comment, criticize and offer advice on how to improve it:

***************************************

CRAWLING HAND SWARM (CR 3)

XP 600
N Tiny undead (swarm)
Init +2; Senses blindsense 30 ft., darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 14 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 32 (4d8+12)
Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +4
Defensive Abilities swarm traits; Immune undead traits, half weapon damage
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., climb 40 ft.
Melee swarm (1d6 plus tripping grab)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks distraction (DC 11), smite fallen
STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 14, Con -, Int 2, Wis 11, Cha 14
Base Atk +0; CMB —; CMD —
Feats Toughness
Skills Climb +9, Perception +4, Stealth +12, Survival +4; Racial Modifiers +4 Survival
SQ swarm traits
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Smite fallen (Ex) A crawling hand swarm inflicts double damage against prone combatants.
Tripping Grab (Ex) A crawling hand swarm may trip foes with its swarm attack. If the opponent fails a Reflex save DC 14, it falls prone.

I noticed something today when I leafed through my copy of 'Misfit Monsters Redeemed'... namely that monsters do not seem to get iterative attacks for natural weapons, even though their BAB would higher than +6. I checked my Bestiary to see if it was a "glitch", but no -- apparently monsters only benefit from high BAB if they use weapons.

Has it been always been this way in 3E and for some reason I just haven't noticed it? Or did PF RPG change this to balance higher attack bonuses with multiple natural weapons? If so, how come monsters with only one natural attack (Lurking Rays, for example) do not gain anything to compensate for this?

I know I've talked about this issue a couple of times before, and maybe it's already been beaten to death on this boards, but it still bothers me. My problem? PCs using 'Detect Magic' and 'Arcane Sight' to avoid magic traps.

Now, I have firmly believed that the mechanics allow this; after all, are not magic traps, uh, magical? It was pretty simple in 3E, because you couldn't have 'Detect Magic' constantly on -- unless you had 'Arcane Sight' made permanent on you (and I think only a single wizard in my group ever did). Ergo, magic traps were dangerous, and made 'Detect Magic' a very valuable spell to memorize (well, even more valuable as it already was in terms of finding magical items).

But not so in PF RPG, because every spellcaster in my group now has it constantly "active" (just to spot magic traps, mind) -- they simply choose it as one of their three "at-will" orisons or cantrips. I've tried implementing Concentration checks every now and then, but the players just shrug and say: "Don't bother -- I'll just cast it again immediately if it fizzles. And nobody moves a single square before it's on!" (followed by a general agreement from all non-spellcasters). Then I tried reminding them that it requires three rounds before they can actually locate any hidden magic traps, but again they thwarted me: "Sure, but we'll move only 60 feet, and then I'm spending the next three rounds concentrating... rinse and repeat, okay? Just like with those 10' poles, which has always been a legit tactic, right?" And that is actually how we've always rolled -- no need to point out every square you're poking into, it's enough to say that you're doing it while going forward.

So, magic traps have become less frequent in my adventures; I just don't see the point anymore, because they detect them anyway. And if they can't disable or dispel them (or circle around), action might grind to a halt.

A couple of days ago I realized that the rules for traps say that only the PCs with the Trapfinding class feature can detect (and disable) them. Whoa... WHAT? Does this mean that 'Detect Magic' and similar means cannot? I checked the "classic" spells that work as magic traps, and indeed the entries seemed to imply that Trapfinding is the only way to notice them. Or maybe I'm just confused, and it refers to the Perception check? (it's 3 AM over here, and I'm too tired ATM to double-check this.)

Anyway, I know I could easily houserule this; we've had all sorts of magical backlashes and potion-addictions for long-term abuse of spells and items. Heck, I could even say that constant concentration gives them a hellish headache that no cure spell or Heal check can remove. But I also know that my veteran players might see it as an underhanded GM method to downplay their crafty (and legit, at least in their eyes) tactic to avoid traps. I *might* go with a compromise; an active DM (or similar spell/ability/item) gives you the Perception check as if you had Trapfinding, but I wish it was more explicitly stated in the rules so that I would not need to houserule it.

Anyone else been having problems with this? How have you ruled it in your games? Or have I misunderstood something?

I love the idea about haunts, but even after reading the rules in GMG about how they work, I'm a bit baffled about the following things:

1) Can you harm a haunt after the surprise round? The book seems to imply that you can use positive energy *only* during the surprise round, and after that it's futile. How about persistent haunts... can you harm them on any round after the haunt manifests?

2) Is the haunt's effect instantenous (on init count 10) and then just *spoof*... the haunt vanishes? If so, can you harm it when it's "gone"? Or do the visual/auditory manifestations remain (i.e. walls keep bleeding and so on) even if the haunt's effect doesn't?

3)Yet about the effect... I can understand how a haunt that "casts" an instantaneous spell works, but what about a haunt using something with a longer duration? Say, 'Bestow Curse' or 'Feast of Ashes'?

4) Does the "primary effects are fear-based" mean that there's always a save against fear involved, even if the haunt's true effect is as a different type of spell (such as 'Fireball')?

5) Do you gain XP from falling victim to a haunt, just as you would if you trigger a trap? Or only if you permanently destroy it by fulfilling the conditions?

How much does Paizo add shipping costs to EU, namely Finland? If I were to order a bunch of D&D minis, would they all be added to the same package and consequently be included in the same shipping cost? Or is the shipping cost always per product, i.e. per mini, even if they are shipped in a single package?

SOME DESIGN NOTES:

In the end, I took the wight stat block, and more or less ignored the 3E Kaorti altogether (I even dropped the resin armor, but kept ‘material plane vulnerability’ in allowing cold iron to penetrate DR). Instead, I came up with some “Far Realms-y” abilities I thought were appropriate for my concept, and tried comparing them to existing monsters. In 4E terms, my Advanced Kaorti Necrosavant Wight is a “solo controller” -- a monster who can hold its own against a group of PCs (even one that has several “melee” characters). Instead of draining Con or bestowing negative levels with slam attacks, it has a nasty aura and gaze attack. It can also unleash a psychic scream or a force wave that will confuse or knock down opponents. And yet it can spit acid that entangles opponents (the only “remnant” of their ability to produce resin).

There’s also something I liked in 4E that I wanted to playtest in PF RPG rules; namely, the “recharge” mechanic for certain abilities. Now, I could have just used ‘once/day’ whatever, but again I feel that I’m not sure how many times a certain HD monster should be able to use them (“Can I let this Fire-themed monster use Fireball on consecutive rounds, or will it result in nigh-instant TPK? What about its other abilities… do they throw it all off-balance?”). Also, if the creature “misses” with its best abilities, it’s often suddenly a very one-sided fight. The recharge mechanic bring a bit more tension to the table, as certain abilities may be recharged when something happens (e.g. when a monster the monster drops below half its HPs) or when the monster rolls the target number on D20 at the beginning of its turn. I don’t know how it will work in the end, but I want to try it.

Please note that ‘Necrosavant’ and ‘Soulshattering Gaze’ and other silly names are both a sarcastic joke and also a (very small) nod towards 4E. Since this experiment was inspired by 4E mechanics, I thought it would be appropriate in some sense.

What I want to know is that have I gone *completely* mad, or is this an exciting monster to run? Does it feel thematically appropriate for a “Far Realms-y” undead monster? Is my idea about trying the recharge mechanic a complete waste of time and energy? Also, I definitely want to hear opinions on whether it’s a good and balanced “solo” end boss encounter for 6th level PCs who have romped through a few fights before that, and probably not at full health -- despite having two healers in the party. Or is the CR totally off?

Feel free to post ANY sort of feedback; constructive critique is always appreciated, and I don’t mind negative opinions either! :)

I'm a bit confused about how afflictions work. I get that you first need to roll to see if you contract it -- if you save, you're fine. However, if you fail, say, the initial saving throw vs. poison, does it affect you immediately? Or is the first save "harmless" in the sense that you do not yet take any ability damage from it?

To illustrate this with a concrete example:

A fighter is poisoned with Greenblood Oil. He fails the saving throw, and contracts this affliction. Does he immediately take 1 point of con damage for failing this save, or not? Or does the effect (1 point of con damage per failed save) come into play when he fails the first "real" save after contracting the affliction?

As I was writing an encounter featuring rogues inside a shop -- naturally crammed with shelves and tables -- I realized that as per RAW, they could use the 'sniping' action mentioned under Stealth skill against the PCs. If I'm reading the rules correctly, a 10 ft. table or shelf (that provides cover) would enable them to Sneak Attack "legally" as long as they get cover or concealement. Or am I wrong here? Can the players claim that, for example, a 10 ft. long table turned sideways is only two squares worth of "hidden" area and therefore not in spirit of the rule, as they can pinpoint the potential squares a courching rogue is sniping from? And likewise with a rogue shooting from behind a shelf?

What do you think?

First of all, I really love how templates work in PF RPG, and I've been using them quite extensively ever since the Bestiary came out. Now, since the last session I suddenly realized that I can't recall seeing any guidelines or restrictions on applying them; I can understand Advanced or Giant Ogres or Wyverns, but can I apply these templates on ANY creature regardless of type and subtype? Even outsiders and undead, and even when class levels might be a more "realistic" way to advance the creature? And would such creatures be "officially sanctioned" for published Pathfinder RPG adventures?

For example, can I actually "legally" create Celestial Giant Babau (to offer an extreme example) and Advanced Human Warriors? How about Advanced Giant Fast Zombie, instead of building a Bugbear Zombie from "scratch"?

In 3E every template listed which types it can be applied to, and I'm guessing that at least some templates (Advanced, Giant, Celestial, Fiendish, et al.) can now be slapped onto anything?

I'm not sure if this topic's been already discussed, but do PCs always get an *automatical* Perception check (unless the trap says otherwise) to notice a trap, even a magical one? Secondly, does *everyone* get to roll, or just the "lead guy" (or whoever is about to spring the trap)? Or do you always need to actively *search* for traps to get the chance (Perception check) to notice them?

I mean, the rules in general talk about "if you succeed on a Perception check..." (implying, to me, that you always get to roll first), but the covered pit trap mentions that "They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it" (i.e. searching for traps). Is this just an exception?

Finally we completed the second session of this playtest adventure. The final part included a couple of ogres, a few advanced bloody skeletons, a 5th level witch and her familiar, and the “boss” encounter: a sea hag with 6 skum “minions” -- plus a couple of traps, of course.

First of all, I have to say I LOVE the Templates in the ‘Bestiary’, and especially how Simple versions are easy to apply even in the middle of a fight (I did so with one of the ogres, and gave him the Advanced Template). Secondly, if you ask me, Paizo has done a very good job with re-evaluating monsters – a 3E Sea Hag (CR 3) would have likely killed at least one PC instantly (the fighter), and modifying the ‘save-or-die-instantly’ version of ‘Evil Eye’ into something thematically and mechanically more appropriate gets my approval!

Everything went pretty much as anticipated, especially with the ogres (although they almost managed to bring the rogue down) and advanced bloody skeletons (they channeled them into dust). I was rather surprised that they discovered and managed to disable the ‘Deep Slumber’ trap that was waiting for them at the entrance to the witches’ cave (which now had a single witch in it). She had succeeded in Perception, and had consumed two potions to boost her AC and survival chances (Potion of Barkskin and Potion of Blur). When the PCs dismantled her spell trap (still unaware of the witch who rolled 25+ on Stealth), she began with a ‘Stinking Cloud’ (lead PC failed his save, and blocked the path, nauseated). Then she cast ‘Summon Swarm’ and ‘Summon Monster III’. It turned out to be a more challenging fight for the PCs, because melee characters missed the witch a few times (they did hit her a couple of times), and the poor, nauseated rogue just tried to crawl away from the spider swarm (and, to his luck, succeeded in EVERY Fort save and I rolled damage poorly). The witch fell under ‘Hold Person’ for one round just as she had used ‘Misfortune’ Hex on the dwarven fighter and cackling to extend the duration (which made me sad!). Aside from the swarm, summoning spells did her little good (the PCs all have decent ACs for their level, and the monsters rolled poorly). This pretty much ended the fight, as she was surrounded and hacked to bits way too easily to my taste.

The final combat against the Sea Hag started promisingly, as the dwarven fighter failed his save and became staggered; he succeeded on his next save and the rogue succeeded, too, before everyone realized they can avert their eyes. Nobody was affected by her Aura, mainly because of the Paladin. This ended up being an easier combat than I predicted, as the skum only hit once or twice during the whole fight (and they didn’t roll poorly). I loved the new Sea Hag, because under different circumstances (more “minions”, perhaps, and if the PCs had failed in their saves more often) it would have been way more difficult to beat. It felt “just right” for a monster of its Challenge Rating, though.

The players were a bit dismayed that they couldn’t charge or run inside natural caverns or tunnels, which I think played against them nicely (the dwarven fighter has picked Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack). In the end they compensated with well-honed group tactics and spells.

Some additional thoughts about this session:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITCH

- I’m still of the mind that all or at least MOST hexes should be ranged touch attacks OR used as a swift action (alongside touch spells, for example). I know the witch has her spells, but what’s the point of flavorful, cool class features, if they’re always suboptimal choices in combat? Or, alternatively, maybe they should all be related to non-combat situations in the same way ‘Blight’, ‘Disguise’ and ‘Cauldron’ are?

- Maybe the familiar should be able to deliver Hexes, too? Just a thought, although “sacrificing” them this way seems a bit foolish (although I *DID* try it once with disastrous results, as described above). All in all they felt pretty worthless in combat, and I totally forgot about the second witch’s familiar (I just told the players it had fled as the witch was slain).

I'm going to be running a playtest session involving a group of witches and a cavalier this weekend, and as I was statting them up I realized that either I've become blind or dumb as I could not find answers to these questions:

1) Is the familiar already included in the witch's CR (in the same way summoned creatures are)? Or do you gain XP for a familiar as if it were a separate entity? If so, since a familiar's 'effective level' is equal to that of the witch, is it treated as a creature of its "base CR" (1/4 for a rat, for example) or at the same CR as the witch?

2) Do familiars gain "extra" skill points "normally" as their INT score advances? And do they gain any additional skill points from their 'effective level' becoming higher (equal to the witch's class level)?

I've posted this suggestion before, and after having playtested it in my own campaign, I have to say it we all like it so much that I'm once again trying to "lobby" for it into PF RPG. I can't remember who originally posted this idea, but I think it really makes criticals a bit more meaningful and fun to everyone!

It's really quite simple: one multiplier (i.e. the "base" damage dice) is maximized, and the rest of the dice are rolled -- bonuses are added as in 3E/Beta.

Some examples:

* A character wielding a longsword (+5 damage bonus): 1D8 + 10 + 8 (max. damage) = 1D8 + 18 (instead of 2D8 + 10)

* A character wielding a greatsword (+8 damage bonus): 2D6 + 16 + 12 (max. damage) = 2D6 + 28 (instead of 4D6 + 16)

* A character wielding a greataxe (+3 damage bonus): 2D12 + 9 + 12 (max. damage) = 2D12 + 21 (instead of 3D12 + 9)

* A character wielding a scythe (+12 damage bonus): 4D4 + 48 + 8 (max. damage) = 4D4 + 56 (instead of 6D4 + 48)

It's a relatively small "tweak", at least at high levels, but it guarantees that you'll *always* inflict more damage than with a normal hit -- it's frustrating to get a critical with, say, a rogue in melee, and then roll something like 6 points of damage with your rapier or longsword (bonuses included) or something like 20 with your greatsword, even though your fighter has +7 damage bonus.

I don't think it would break the game, and at least my players seem to prefer this system over 3E/PF crits.

Thoughts?

I've seen others posting comments that some weapon types need "more love", and I must say that I agree, to some extent. But I rather think it's more about certain weapon groups (such as Reach Weapons and Shields used weapons) that need more love.

WFRP has a lot of qualities, and that same line of thought could be applied in PF RPG as well (since the mechanics would support it effortlessly).

For example, 'Disarming' (e.g. Ranseur could have it) could be a quality that lets you add +2 to your Disarm CMB check. Or, alternatively, table 7-5 could include a text like "+2 to Disarm CMB checks" (of course, the font size would need to be smaller). 'Tripping' could be another such quality, and more weapons could have it (I think spears should give you bonus on tripping a foe). Shields should give you (at least) +2 (or maybe the whole shield bonus?) to Bullrush attempts. And so on.

Also, in my opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if the weapon type (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing) would have more impact in the rules -- for example, certain feats ('Stunning/Staggering Critical' and such) would benefit from bludgeoning weapons (e.g. +2 to save DC).

Thoughts?

After contemplating this issue for a while, I'm not sure if *ALL* 2D4 damage should be converted to 1D8 or 1D10, because some polearms may need it. However, the "problematic" weapons listed above would probably be more in balance with the other weapons?

Once again I'm starting a thread for Racial Feats, but this time I'd like to know if there's still any interest for "brainstorming" them? I've personally written down probably around 175+ Racial Feats all in all for elves, dwarves, halflings, humans and half-orcs (still working on gnomes, and half-elves get to pick both from the human and elven list). In my own playtest campaign we're using them, and my players love them, because they feel they add thematic "feel" of each race to the game mechanics. At the moment I've allowed one free pick at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and it doesn't feel like they'd make the PCs "overpowered".

So, is there any interest for discussing and posting Racial Feats?

I've lately thought about the 'Craft X' -feats and Craft skills a lot, and I feel it's kind of weird that there are two different ways of creating items with in-game benefits. I can understand why Craft (Calligraphy) or Craft (Weaponsmithing) function better as skills, but Craft (Alchemy), Craft (Trapmaking) and Craft (Poisonmaking) have always felt a bit "odd" for me.

Personally, I think they would work a lot better as Feats, since (in my experience, at least) not too many PCs actually put ranks in them, and I don't see that changing in PF. Also, I think it would be more internally consistent (from the game mechanics POV) if they were actually Feats.

For example (I've omitted the 'Benefits'-section from each):

CRAFT ALCHEMICAL ITEM (Item Creation)

You can create alchemical items such as sunrods and poisons.
Prerequisites: INT 13, 1 rank in Profession (Herbalist) or Heal

CRAFT MECHANICAL TRAP (Item Creation)
You can create complex traps.

Prerequisites: INT 13, 1 rank in Knowledge (Dungeoneering)and 1 rank in Knowledge (Engineering) and 1 rank in Disable Device

CRAFT MECHANICAL CONSTRUCT (Item Creation)
You can create mechanical constructs such as golems.

Prerequisites: Caster level 12th, 1 rank in Craft (Armorsmithing) or 1 rank in Craft (Blacksmithing) or 1 rank in Craft (Weaponsmithing)

Any thoughts?

As I already posted on the 'New feats'-thread, there are already literally dozens of threads about new feats and "tweaks" to existing ones -- and what's even worse, they're often about a single idea that the poster wants to get comments on. It's become hard to keep up with all that's going on, and good ideas tend to get lost in this jumble of threads.

Therefore I thought of starting this thread so that *ALL* "tweaks" and "alternate" versions (i.e. modifications) to EXISTING Beta feats could be found in one place. Not to mention that it would also be far easier for Jason & the other Paizonians to sort through ideas when as much of the information as only possible is to be found on one thread.

So, whether you want to post your own version of a Beta feat, or suggest a slight modification/"tweak" to it, feel free to post it here! :)

PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY OF YOUR OWN NEW FEATS HERE -- there's already another thread for them!

There are already literally dozens of threads about new feats -- and what's even worse, they're often about a single idea that the poster wants to get comments on. It's become hard to keep up with all that's going on, and good ideas tend to get lost in this jumble of threads (and there are feats posted on General Discussion threads, too). Therefore I thought of starting this thread so that *ALL* new ideas for feats could be found in one place. Not to mention that it would also be far easier for Jason & the other Paizonians to sort through ideas when as much of the information as only possible is to be found on one thread.

Feel free to post all sorts of feats here (i.e. Combat feats as well). PLEASE DO NOT POST "TWEAKS" OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PF BETA FEATS HERE -- I will start a new thread for them!

I'm going to start with a couple of my own ideas (inspired by non-OGL sources, I have to admit):

POLEARM SPIN (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting with both ends of spears and pole arms, often catching your opponents off-guard with a sudden blow with the haft of the weapon.
Prerequisites: DEX 13, proficient with martial weapons, base attack bonus +3
Benefits: You may use any weapon belonging to the Spears or Pole Arms weapon groups as a double weapon. Your off-hand weapon is treated as a quarterstaff, and the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons apply. The benefits from this feat do not have any effect if you're using a quarterstaff.

BRUTAL THROW (Combat)

Instead of accuracy, you have learned hurl weapons with such brute force that they are hard to dodge and shear easily through shield and armor alike.
Prerequisites: STR 15, base attack bonus +1
Benefits: You add your Strength bonus to your base attack bonus when you use thrown weapons instead of your Dexterity bonus.

This has also been discussed before on the Alpha threads, but I'm still advocating for slight "tweaks" in the Knowledge skill:

1) 'Knowledge (Tactics)' or 'Knowledge (Strategy)' to be added as a new "subskill" covering (military) tactics and strategies, plus games of skill.

2) Astrology should, in my opinion, either be a new category ('Knowledge (Astrology)'), *or* be included in either 'Knowledge (Arcana)' or 'Knowledge (The Planes)'.

I'm reposting this idea from the Alpha threads, on which someone (I cannot remember who, though) suggested a really great idea for implementing synergy bonuses into PF without any tables or additional skill synergy lists. If I'm not completely wrong, this is also how the skill synergy system works in 'A Game of Thrones D20', by the way.

The system is really simple: whenever you're rolling a skill check, if you have 5 ranks in another skill you may describe how that skill could be helpful in the situation to get an "automatic" (i.e. you don't roll against DC 10) +2 bonus to your check total -- if the DM approves. You can use two "supplementary" skills max. in each skill check.

Example 1: Your character is involved in a negoation with the local Duke, and he wishes to use his Diplomacy to convince the duke to help the party. You might describe how your PC uses his Knowledge (History) to bring out embarrasing or "inspiring" facts about the duke's family history.

Example 2: Your character is trying to shake pursuing monsters from his trail in the wilderness. You could, for example, describe your PC using his Knowledge (Nature) and/or Survival to "boost" his Stealth.

Example 3: Your character is trying to climb a wall in a dungeon. You might describe how your Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Acrobatics help your character in this situation.

In a sense, this is actually a bit like how 'Skill Challenges' work in 4E -- you give the players a chance for creative input, which should, in my opinion, encourage and emphasize storytelling and role-playing through a mechanical "lure" (i.e. the bonus(es) to the skill check). Occasionally this might even lead to player input inspiring future adventure/plot hooks.

I've playtested this system in my group, and everyone is really excited about it, because it is "loose" enough that you can be creative with your suggestions, and it also sort of "enforces" character immersion in a positive way.

I'm re-posting this suggestion from the Alpha threads (and the 'Cleric, Druid and Paladin' thread):

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of all the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames. A Magic Missile spell cast by a bard might manifest as bolts which are whistling as they soar at his enemies. And so on.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

Jason, any chance for something like this?

I'm re-posting this suggestion from the Alpha threads (and the 'Cleric, Druid and Paladin' thread) to give all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer) a *free* ability to "flavor" their spells with a "theme":

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames. A Magic Missile spell cast by a bard might manifest as bolts which are whistling as they soar at his enemies. And so on.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

Jason, any chance for this?

I'm re-posting my original suggestion from the Alpha threads to give all spellcasting classes (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer) a *free* ability to "flavor" their spells with a "theme":

I have been thinking about giving all spellcasters a free class feature: 'Arcane/Divine/Nature's Flavour', which is essentially a modified version of the 'Spell thematics' (Metamagic Feat in FR). This Feat essentially lets you add some theme (flavour) to your arcane spells -- your version of the 'Shield' spell might manifest as green flames enveloping your body, or maybe your 'Greater Magic Weapon' makes your weapon glow golden (to give two examples). You don't really benefit from this Feat in 3E -- Spellcraft check DCs to identify your spells (e.g. when an enemy tried to counterspell them) increase by +5, but that's hardly worth spending a Feat. Well, I have to admit that I *have* taken it a couple of times just add some unique flavour to my PC's spells.

Psionics also have different types of 'manifestations' that you can freely choose -- e.g. it might be a sensory or olfactory "flavour". And Ars Magica lets you choose a "sigil" for all your spells which is always unique (and therefore acts as a 'calling card' for your spells).

I have given almost all NPCs (and many PCs, too) of *all* the spellcasting classes the ability to flavour their spells however they wanted, but unlike 'Spell Thematics', my version has no mechanical effect at all. For example, isn't it kind of cool when that evil Druid casts 'Flame Blade' and a blade of poison-green blade appears? Or when the ancient elven cleric casts 'Flame Strike', a cascade of bright, burning stars sear his foes? Or the half-fiend evil conjurer might summon his minion creatures among a burst of ethereal, heatless flames.

As it would be a "flavour-only" kind of ability, why couldn't all the spellcasters get this as a class ability in PF? I know that it's easy to "houserule" in, but I also know many DMs who always play "by the book", and do not allow any sort of "tweaking" or "houseruling". As this would not take up a lot of space (i.e. it does not have any mechanical effects), perhaps it could be included "officially" in the game -- as an optional rule in a sidebar, if not nothing else?

After pondering about it for a good while, I'm strongly in favour of the following system for increasing ability scores:

4th level: +1 to any stat
8th level: +1 to ALL stats
12th level: 1 to any stat
16th level: +1 to ALL stats
20th level: +1 to any stat

First of all, I think it would be more "realistic" in the sense that even the thickest fighter or barbarian may "evolve" and learn new tricks during his career -- it would be sort of natural to expect that his INT, CHA and WIS might rise. And even the clumsiest or skinniest wizard might get "tougher" and overcome his clumsiness somewhat, as he gets +2 to his DEX and CON by the 16th level.

Secondly, it would make "odd" stats feel better in the point-buy system, and, it would also make meeting PrC or Feat prerequisites (such as INT 13 for certain Combat Feats) easier.

Thoughts?

Note that most of my own ideas for Racial Feats revolve around giving tactical options or bonuses in certain circumstances (e.g. when fighting adjacent to an ally) or re-rolls to saving throws, attacks, skill checks and ability checks. That is because I think that out of all the possible mechanical options, those are more "dynamic" than simply giving "+2 to skills X and Y" or "+1 to attacks against race W".

Feel free to comment on and criticize my ideas, and also to discuss the merits and flaws of the Racial Feat system. :)

EDIT: Some of my Racial Feats "overlap", so that two or more races may pick them (they're included in each race's list). Also, the "fluff" and names of some of the Feats may be "sucky", but feel free to comment about that, too (I originally typed them in a frenzy, so there may be a bunch of bad ideas there!).

Tonight was the first actual playtest session, and it didn't start well. First of all, I slept very little during the previous night, and the first thing I noticed as I woke up was a text message from the cleric's player announcing that he couldn't make it. Um, the whole plot and hook of the session's adventure was built around the cleric, and although I briefly considered just "winging it", I realized that the intended hook wouldn't work on the paladin and the fighter. As they weren't worshippers of Tempus, it would have felt a very forced and weak to try to appeal to their "altruism". Besides, there were some foes and scenes specifically intended for the cleric, so leaving them out or modifying them would have made the whole adventure feel less exciting. The whole adventure would have been, in fact, pretty bland and weird without the cleric.

What to do? I woke up so late, that I practically had only a couple of hours to come up with something. I knew it didn't have to be anything particularly innovative or new, since the point of the first session was to convey the "feel" and "spirit" of their home town, introduce some NPCs, and to see if the players enjoyed the new system at all (i.e. enough to come back for the next session).

I wracked my brains and leafed through my modest adventure collection, but couldn't find anything suitable -- or, likely, was too panicked at the moment to see any ways how I logically could implement them into the campaign. Also, one of the players has played in all my campaigns, so I couldn't even use any of my previously-written material as a source of inspiration.

I'm okay with improvising stuff, but since the whole point of the first session was to concentrate on making the game seem appealing and things running smoothly, I couldn't fathom how to achieve that if I constantly had to concentrate on the next room/monster/description.
I decided to call one of the players, who happens to be a veteran DM himself (and a really good one, at that), and confessed the nature of my problem. He said: "Um, whatever you do, keep it simple -- you can't work miracles in a couple of hours!". Yeah, a good advice, and yet I only seemed to be getting really corny and all-too-often used ideas (such as the "Case of the Kidnapped Wizard's Familiar" or "Nobleman's Hunting Trip"). Not having enough sleep didn't really help, either.

Then I decided to make it *really* simple. Why not make it a "religion-based" adventure after all? The paladin might be expected to undertake a "holy quest" to achieve his hallowed status "officially" within the church. Furthermore, thinking about this quest's nature, the paladin would surely want to battle any clergy of an evil faith -- especially a paladin of Torm. I opened the good old 'Faiths & Avatars' to take a look at any enemies of Torm, and there it was: Torm's faithful are expected to seek out and slay any followers and cults of Bane, and cleanse any hide-outs or crypts of Bane's clergy. So, a previously undiscovered crypt/cult base of Banites from before the Time of Troubles, which had been abandoned since and rediscovered by someone only recently. The forest seemed a good place, and I decided to use wounded adventurers (feeling monsters and too weak to search the crypt themselves) as the "hook". Of course, the High Priest of Torm had been summoned (because of these adventurers was a Torm's follower) to an inn to heal, which is when he heard of the crypt.

The dwarven fighter was also easy to "hook", as his father has been working on a soon-to-be-enchanted full plate armor for the high priest, and as it was nicely finished on the day the adventure began (and the fighter delivered it), he was "recruited" by to help the paladin. In addition to this, I had fore-shadowed this by introducing the high priest as his "weapon trainer" and a close business-associate (i.e. a major buyer) to his father.

So, I quickly drew a map and included *very* brief descriptions (most of it religious "flavor") of each chamber, jotted down some notes on potential monsters and traps to use, some treasure, and I was pretty much ready to improvise the rest...

Jason, Erik, Mike, Lisa, et al.,

would it possible to have an entire "Races of Pathfinder" supplement which would include more 'fluff' about the races *and* dozens of new Racial Feats for each of them? Not to mention new magic items and spells. I know several DMs (myself included, naturally) who would more than willingly dish out the cash to get their hands on such a book.

Any chance for such a book as a supplement to PF RPG? :)

Here's a tip to all who are interested in designing Racial Feats: FR Campaign Setting, Races of Faerun and (apparently? I don't own it) Eberron Campaign Setting all have Regional and/or Racial Feats that could be modified and "tweaked" for PF races. I also recall a Dragon article or two dealing with this issue (there were Racial/Cultural Feats for Greyhawk, at least?) but can't recall in which issues.

NOTE: You can "tweak" those Feats to fit almost any race, as long as they feel thematically "right" -- one of the Human Feats I posted was based on an FR Regional Feat ('Cosmopolitan') and another for dwarves on a Racial Feat for Grimlocks! ;)

This would only be a minor change, but I was thinking about the 'Hatred' ability and how it would be more interesting to actually get to pick the enemy that bonus applies to -- just like rangers get to pick their 'Favored Enemies'. You see, I think it's logical to assume that different clans defend their halls and holds against different types of monsters, so if you want your dwarf to have 'Hatred' towards aberrations, in my opinion it should be possible. Not to mention that it would make dwarven rangers even more fun to play! ;)

Any thoughts?

After taking a look at the new classes, I must say that I like them. Actually, I love them... the monk makes a *lot* more sense now (the monk level to CMB is a *great* idea!) and the ranger had me drooling... I want to play one, but since I'm the DM... *sigh* ;)

There are some minor tweaks that I'd like to see done with the bard's abilities (e.g. 'Deadly Performance' is just *too* good when compared to, say, the Ranger's 20th level ability) but I'll get to them later when we've playtested the stuff.

So, I just wished to say that with each release and changes the Pathfinder RPG is gradually shaping up to be way better than I ever dreamed of. Congratulations and thanks for all the hard work you've done! :)

...since I see watchmen/city guards and adventuring paladins and fighters being the embodiment of the concept of "alert warriors". So I'm wondering why Perception is not a class skill for the fighter and paladin?

In fact, I wouldn't mind if *every* class had it as a class skill, since it *is* probably the most often used (and therefore, important) skill in the game.

Another thing: I like the fighter's 'Bravery' ability, but would it be possible to give them 'Fearless' at higher levels?

...or will we have to wait until the PF RPG comes out next year? And do you still want us to post these Feats here on the Alpha 3 threads (or Alpha 2)?

(This was originally posted in the Racial Feats Category -thread)

I was taking a look at those 4E Racial Feats, and that got me thinking: Feats you pick at 1st level should matter at higher levels, too. Too many times that Iron Will or Dodge has felt pretty insignificant by the time my PCs have hit Level 10 or 15.

Here's the thing: what if Feats in PF could be organized into "Feat Trees" so all of them could "upgraded" via the following simple and elegant mechanics:

BASIC level: +1 to two rolls/+2 to one roll.

IMPROVED level: Once per day you may reroll any roll related to the abilities given in the basic level of the feat.

GREATER level: Your bonus from the basic level scales with your level, so that you get a bonus of +LVL/4 to any rolls related to the abilities given in the basic level of the feat. This bonus stacks with any bonuses from the basic level of the feat (to the maximum of +6 at 20th level).

For example:

* * *

*DODGE (Combat)

You have mastered a defensive stance that allows you to easily react to your opponents.

Prerequisites: DEX 13
Benefit: You receive +1 Dodge Bonus to your Armor Class until your next turn.

**IMPROVED DODGE (Combat)

Your mastery of defense allows you occasionally to evade blows in ways that border on miracles.

Prerequisites: DEX 15, Dodge
Benefit: Once per day you may call for a re-roll on any attack roll that would have hit you. You must accept the result of this second roll, even if it is higher than the first one.

***GREATER DODGE (Combat)

You have perfected your defensive stance to the degree that you easily evade almost any blows from your opponents.

Prerequisites: DEX 17, Improved Dodge
Benefit: You receive an additional bonus of +1 bonus/4 levels to your Armor Class until your next turn. This additional bonus stacks with the bonus from Dodge.

* * *

This way your Feats would truly matter at higher levels, too. If three feats per "Feat Tree" feels like too much, another possibility would be to just make *all* Feats that give bonuses to function like the "Greater Level" in the suggestion above -- i.e. the bonuses would scale up with your character level. That way when you pick Dodge, it grants you +5 to your AC at 20th level.

Any thoughts? Which way would be better -- "automatically" scaling Feats (the paragraph above) or these "Feat Trees"?

There's been a lot of discussion about critical hits and tweaking them.

Here's my suggestion (originally posted in another thread):

Natural 20: Regardless of whether you confirm the critical or not, you get your LVL*1/2 bonus to damage. If your confirmation roll succeeds, you do not multiply this bonus damage -- it is simply added to the final result. This would make natural 20 feel more significant at higher levels -- whether your actually "crit" or not.

NOTE: This could also apply to Skill Checks, too -- you would add 1/2*LVL to the end result (which would affect such skills as Craft, Perform or Profession, at least)?

Another suggestion:

Natural 20: Instead of applying any "level-based" bonus damage, each weapon could have 'Qualities' that would grant "special" effects on natural 20, such as Stunning with bludgeoning weapons? (NOTE: In Warhammer FRP every weapon has Traits/Qualities that, for example, occasionally let you stun your opponent or roll twice for damage and pick the better result). Maybe you could even improve these Qualities with Feats, such as taking 'Stunning Strike' (+4 to FORT DCs against Stunning when you're using a weapon that has this quality)? Piercing Weapons might have 'Bleeding' (which would stack with the rogue's ability), and 2-H weapons might do 1 point of CON damage. And so on.

Thoughts?

Does anyone agree with me that some of those are just odd, and frankly, I've rarely seen anyone picking them for their characters. I mean -- 'Atletic' gives you +2 on your Swim and *FLY* (?) skills (shouldn't that be Climb?) and Stealthy +2 on Escape Artist and Stealth. In my opinion they don't even add any flavour, since a character who takes Skill Focus o n Stealth or puts enough ranks in it is far more "stealthier" than a fighter or a low-level rogue who would pick this feat.

So, I'm suggesting that either the bonuses are more significant (i.e. worth burning a Feat on skill bonuses) and the Feats are tweaked a bit so the benefits match the flavour (i.e. 'Athletic' doesn't really bring flying to mind...) *OR* these Feats are cut from the game altogether.

Some of them might be redesigned as Racial/Background Feats, though.