Asturysk's page

I have only one real comment about the Alchemist so far, it seems to work pretty well. It is a bit bland in some areas BUT I do have one suggestion that I think may help it keep it's flavor and uniqueness without adding "more power" to the stew, so to speak.

I noticed all the alchemy related class features were listed as Su (Supernatural). This seems to take the wind out of the sails for what is supposed to be a concept who deliberately chooses a path away from magic in the traditional sense and in the context of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 (of which Pathfinder is a continuation), the strength of alchemy in that it is "mundane" and able to function in the absence of magic.

I propose that all of the Alchemist's class abilities be downgraded in category to Extraordinary abilities, allowing them to function in Anti-Magic Shells, in campaign ares where magic does not function, etc.

By doing this, it gives the Alchemist strength that in the general context does not overpower or imbalance the game, but provides a certain flavor of uniqueness and flair of choice. After all, there has to be a reason for someone to want to take to this class, and if it's just another spellcaster, it might as well not be called an Alchemist, no?

My answer as a longtime DM to this argument is simple.

Get a reach weapon. Stop whining.

Reach is a mechanic I have seen both NPC's and PC's make clever use of, and if players feel it is unfair, they are not thinking outside of their self-imposed box.

Pendagast wrote:

FOCUS on the bard charm/performance issue.

And Purple, Bards have six skill points on paper, but Bardic Knowledge gives them +1 for every Knowledge skill, and an additional +1 for a chosen Knowledge skill that they want to be a main one, plus all of those are class skills, so an additional +3 each. That's +4-+5 per Knowledge, and there's...what...six of those? (can't recall)

They get a lot more skill points than you are accounting for because it's all bonus due to Bardic Knowledge and Class Skill bonuses.

I believe you are mistaken on this. Here is what Bardic Knowledge provides:

At 1st level, a bard selects one Knowledge skill. He gains 1 bonus skill point to place in that Knowledge skill and an additional skill point every time he gains a level. In addition, a bard adds 1/2 his level (minimum 1) to all Knowledge skill checks and may make such checks untrained.

This means that a bard gets one extra skill point per level to place into a single knowledge. He gets a scaling bonus to checks, but since we're talking actual skill points, there is only just the one bonus picked at 1rst level.

As written, a bard gets a base 6 skill points per level, plus the bardic knowledge knowledge bonus. He must spend two skill points each level into two separate categories of Performance to fully utilize his Bardic Music abilities. There are also ten different Knowledge categories. While the free Knowledge ranks and bonuses over a career of 1-20th level are nice, let us remember these now take the place of the old Bardic Knowledge that allowed a bard to know useful information about anything, and as such their role must be weighed in the context of how useful such checks will be. Even allowing for the fact that we have in essence 20 free ranks of a single Knowledge and a +10 bonus to Knowledge Checks, we still will have spent 40 skill points gaining ranks in two categories of Perform.

This is what is called a net loss; for skill points that is tantamount to a bottomless pit that eats away at 33% of your skill growth over your career. I heartily encourage the proposed revisions mentioned by J.J. in how Performance categories relate to Bardic Music to rid the "skill tax" effect.

Um, I don't get this survivability of re-rolls clap trap. I play characters very much not mechanically min maxed. I half the time will roll stats down the line instead of rolling and selecting where they go and I don't use re-rolls. I also never plan a build ever, nor do I allow my characters to know about magic item stacking and what's out there without ranks in knowledge: arcana. and yet I've never had a problem with survivability. the only time my characters died, they usually were accompanied by a total player kill. So when I see people say that it makes the game more enjoyable for the people who don't min-max, I gotta call bs. It makes the game less lethal, that's all it does. now if less lethal is more enjoyable for your group then by all means, go for it and use them and have fun with them. But don't use the people who don't min-max as an excuse for adding them to the game. An optional sidebar for hero points is all that's needed.

You said it! This is what I was trying to say in a nutshell!

And why is this a problem if your player is having fun? Trying to lock him down into a fixed "Role" is the purview of 4th Ed, why are you trying to take away from his flexibility and choices?

I have to chime in here.

As a DM I have had some recent high level campaigns and I must say that with the various options available from all the supplements in 3.5 that dependency on magic items at high level is NOT a foregone conclusion.

What is a problem is not the items themselves or the stat blocks. The so-called Big Six is a fallacy, as there are literally hordes of feats and spells that cover for the bonuses they give. What is a problem, is the magic shop mentality that was created with 3.0 and 3.5. I'll explain a bit further.

The most significant campaign in question that helps illustrate what I speak is one that I ran originally in 2nd Ed and later converted and ran again in 3rd Ed. The campaign was a modified Night Below module (adjusted to go levels 3-20). While 2nd Ed literally had supplements that offered the opportunity to buy items from a chain of magic shops (Encyclopedia of Magic), we never used that option and played primarily in the spirit of old school "Use what you find". This was perfectly fine, especially considering the variety of really useful or unique magical items that are seeded in the mod. No one ever felt like they didn't have a good selection of interesting gear, and if I as a DM felt maybe someone needed a special reward, I'd randomly roll or seed it as part of the encounters. Things like the Helm of Underwater Action were greatly valued by the PC's, in addition to other miscellaneous items such as Leomund's Cottage and Boots of Levitation. Even with spellcasters that eventually created enchanting laboratories and sacred altars to make occasional magical items, the rules as written back then left a great deal of discretion to me as the DM for the opportunities of creating.

When we ran again in 3rd Ed and 3.5, the most problematic assumption given was the "every recipe and item is available" mentality. Players began to go through the various choices of items and enchantment traits like they were buying from a Sears catalogue. It quickly became out of control. With the ability to cherry-pick their own gear, the PC's became more focused on optimizing their gear than on the adventure and story. Each session became about wringing what they wanted from the game world's regions and settlements, seeking out the perfect combo, rather than in pursuing the actual path to adventure. After discussing this problem with the gaming group, everyone agreed that something important had been lost along the way, and decided to do an inventory purge and replacement with campaign items only.

I reset the magic items gained, established new guidelines as to crafting and "recipes known", made the availability of tailored items found for sale extremely rare, and emphasized the positive social contact with new allies and communities as being beneficial to crafters who wished to learn new "secrets and recipes" of enchantment. People began to enjoy the game again, and playing with what they found or earned as rewards they found that they did not suffer at all in lacking the cherry-picking of magic items, as they had more than enough spells, feats, and class abilities that covered them as they progressed. Sure, it meant that there were some harder choices as to what spell or feat to select, but that actually increased the fun and challenge for the group as they now had to budget their overall resources a bit more efficiently and not rely solely on magic items as a crutch. Interestingly enough, when Magic Item Compendium came out, the most popular of interest amongst the players were the smaller "low cost, limited use per day" items from the book, as well as the introduction of augment crystals for flexibility. None of these things were game breaking, but rather allowed the PC's to operate as a classic sword and sorcery game pursuing a quest with what they had rather than for the sake of "cash and carry" item slot stacking.

On the DM side, I found I was able to concentrate on giving a good story again, rather than worrying about treasure drops. I found that most stat blocks still worked just fine, and that PC's rarely if ever had to worry about being outclassed. They came close to TPK a few times, but that emphasized the fun and challenge for them, and they asked that I never softball the opposition. Each victory became meaningful not only for the challenge and need for them to be clever and resourceful, but also because now the treasure they found actually felt more meaningful, having earned each item with blood and sweat.

I guess what I am saying is that pat of the fun and enjoyment of D&D, especially for old school players, was the weirdness and cool factor of treasure you could find and learn to utilize. At all levels, but even at high level play with minor artifacts/relics, the items themselves were neat tools in a toolbox, but never overshadowed the game once the decision to let go of the tailored/cherry-picking attitude was made. Perhaps the best way to emphasize this is to print a sidebar or notation in PF about how the lists of items available in the DMG is just that, a list for the DM and not for the players. While enchanting is certainly easier now in many ways, the DC check for creating is actually a control I appreciate as a DM. Maybe it's possible to add a mechanic or notation for DM adjudication in regards to learning recipes or what might be considered universal items (such as generic pluses) and what are specialty recipes?

Once again assuming that a fighter hits on an 11+ on average (meaning that on a full attack they hit more often on the first attack and less often on later attacks), that 5% chance requires, on average, 20 attacks, which is going to be a lot less than 18 rounds if there are full attacks involved. If there is not a full attack, then the odds to hit go up and it will still take less than 20 rounds.

If the fighter is instead optimized for crits, using a scimitar instead, (15% crit chance) then it takes an average of just over six attacks to get a crit.

Yikes, I must have had a brain-fart just then! Thanks, I have amended my math above. :-)

Asturysk wrote:

At this level an average 1% chance of a confirmed critical hit (longsword 19-20 critical range, 2 in 20 squared equals 4 in 400) for a limited creature type death effect is not game breaking.

You don't have to roll the 19 or 20 again to crit. You have to hit the target's AC. Assuming your fighter hits only half the time, that's a 10% chance for a crit with a vorpal longsword.

True enough, I was assuming a high AC worst case scenario. If you assume a 19-20 for the crit and a 11+ (hitting half the time) for the confirmation, your actual probability increases to about 20 in 400, which is 1 in 20 or a 5% chance. With the keen falchion/kukri/scimitar we are looking at 60 in 400, which is a 15% probability.

This is not bad, but still requires an average of about 20 attacks to reliably get off; which at 14th level is going to be about 5 rounds worth of full attack to get off for the longsword and about 2-3 rounds worth of full attacks for the falchion/kukri/scimitar...

I still say at this level that save or die effects are not broken, particularly with the limitations of creature type and the ratio of actions needed for the average probable "kill" result. If you compare it to what a 14th level rogue, spell caster, or tailored-gear fighter is doing over these rounds, there's little outstanding with the expense and effort put into such an item.

*Edited with thanks to Ross for pointing out my brain fart on the math*

Might be easiest to base it of certain force/construct spells that base their combat stats off the HP and BAB of the user/caster. For example the iron version might still summon construct barbarians but with the following guidelines.

1) They have HP equal to 1/2 the user of the horn.
2) Their HD/BAB is equal to the character level of the user, with a Strength score equal to the Charisma of the user.
3) Construct Traits spelled out, including how their Rage and fatigue relates to their immunities.

This is just off the top of my head, but I am sure that something along these lines can make the horn actually worthwhile. Just scale the ration of the summons with that of the user, based off the type of horn.

Leave it alone.

Just because YOU dislike the mechanic and concept does not invalidate the weapon. It's a +6 equivalent weapon at the minimum, and given the cash value of such a weapon, I can safely say there are many combinations of enchantment that are far more deadly statistically speaking than a vorpal blade. Most players will never voluntarily enchant the vorpal quality to a crafted weapon, and as such a DM would have to seed this item for it to really see any actual use.

Given the cash value of the weapon (72k) and the wealth guidelines (no more than 1/2 total value in a single item), we're looking at a minimum of 14th level (185k) for a character to reasonably expect to possess such a sword. At this level an average 1% chance of a confirmed critical hit (longsword 19-20 critical range, 2 in 20 squared equals 4 in 400) for a limited creature type death effect is not game breaking. Even if one assumes an improved critical or keen scimitar/kukri/falchion, our chance of a confirmed critical increase to only a 9% probability. Assuming a hasted full BAB character attacking, this means that with 9 times out of 100 swings, that it takes an average of 25 rounds worth of encounters before a character achieves a "kill" result with the weapon.

Whah.

A comparable value weapon crafted for a PC to their specs will always be a bigger threat. There's no need to push for this trait to be changed.

Too bad we aren't all as genius as you. Why even bother with dice at all, I wonder? A good DM can easily adjucate the outcome of anything the players come up with.

Bah. Those "Anyone who likes X, is just a video game/MMO/WoW geek" comments always get my blood boiling.

See my reference to risk and challenge for the answer of why one bothers rolling dice.

And just because your blood boils doesn't make the comment untrue. The addition of Action Points/Force Points/Hero Points significantly alters the genre and flavor of the game. Save the Force Points for Star Wars. Save the Hero Points for Mutants and Masterminds. I play them both and they are perfectly fine for those games. But leave them out of sword & sorcery role-playing. They just don't belong. The game changes too much and the dynamic is irrevocably altered. It becomes a video game.

Asturysk wrote:

Bad rolls happen. Suck it up and move on. This is a game and without risk, there is no point to playing.

Tell that to The Storyteller. The guy who works his bottom off to develop an intricate and colourful character. The guy who doesn't really care about max/min but instead builds an interesting character who has mechanical weaknesses that make for good roleplay. The guy who picks up Craft instead of Tumble, then makes a point of crafting mechanically pointless things like belts or quivers that have artful carvings on them.

The that guy that the character he's been building into as much a person as he could just fell off the side of a mountain because he failed a Climb check by 6 and then failed Reflex save you gave him to see if he manages to grab hold of another party member before he plunges, and then the party barbarian fails a check to grab him, while holding onto the rope with his teeth.

"Suck it up and move on."

Sure. There's raise dead in this game. Assuming you've got the a} time, b} funds, c} caster available. There's also the spiral-of-doom that happens because you lose a level. A character that was weak enough to die once is quite possibly under-powered and stands a good chance to die again (and again [and again]) if they lose a level.

I will absolutely agree that Action Points should be a sidebar. But please relax and realize that throwing out rhetoric lie "coddling for the video game players" is insulting at best. In fact, please name a video game where you can pause the action when it REALLY, REALLY matters and roll an extra die to increase your odds of success by an average of 15%.

I'll tell you another thing about action points. If the chips are down and you KNOW that this next attack HAS to succeed or the universe is doomed, and you roll that D20, and you see... um, well, add my modifiers, I'm flanking, Power-Attacking for um, okay, favoured-enemy applies right now from my Ranger level and um... 18! "Wait,...

I have been both the player and the storyteller. I myself don't make optimized builds. I play what I want to play because of concept. But that player choice isn't a license to invalidate the issue of risk balanced with story. A *GOOD* judge/DM/GM/storyteller will balance and build accordingly, knowing the PC's and what they are capable of. They will know the rules, know the variations possible, and have the good judgment to adjust CR and hazards to provide the desired outcome and challenge desired. Honestly the argument of Hero Points needed for dramatic outcome is weak. Dramatic outcomes are the result of cooperative efforts and *work* by both the judge and player. The Hero Point is just a "feel good" way of dealing with something without building the trust, the expertise, and the investiture of time and effort needed for a good game. Quite honestly, it's a lazy man's way of making for "dramatic moments".

As for the argument that PC death and raising loses levels and further hampers the PC, I think you need to re-read how PF deals with death and raising. There is no level loss. Furthermore the arguments of cash on hand, ability to cast, and resources are matters the judge sets. The judge has control on what it takes to help a party if it needs a leg up. Just as I state above, this is a matter of good storytelling and good motivating. Given the example of a fallen PC and insufficient levels or funds, a skilled judge can introduce an NPC who can do the task at hand of raising the deceased, and give the party the motivation for repaying that favor.

Similarly, the party would never need to be in a situation where death is the only possible consequence under a skilled judge in the first place. Establishing the world and the risks is the job of the judge, and creating risky and challenging scenarios where death is not the desired outcome is part and parcel of the storytelling process. Sure, if you don't want the PC's to fall until the dramatic final battle, then don't establish scenarios where death is the outcome. It's not an "all or nothing" choice. Hero Points are a lazy crutch for Pathfinder. They work well in a genre where there's a fast and free-winging vaudevillian story, such as comic book super heroes. But in fantasy, they turn the game into a video game given the amount of safety nets that already exist for the Player, not the least of which is that death is neither permanent nor debilitating beyond the judge's desires.

*shrugs*

I see no need nor justification for the mechanic of action/hero points.

I am dead set against making any "Hero Points" or "Action Points" part of the Pathfinder game rules. Put it in an optional "Unearthed Arcana" supplement if you must, but leave it out of the core standard rules. It's just coddling for the video game players and has no place in the game. What next, a "Save Point" that you can reload to? Pfeh!

Bad rolls happen. Suck it up and move on. This is a game and without risk, there is no point to playing.

Well... I currently have a human character using their human martial training to have greatclub proficiency. This is based on A&E/DMG weapon equivalency rules, as the character is an "Oriental" style character and chose to use a bokken/bokuto (being listed as using greatclub stats), which are the wooden training swords most Asian martial art sword schools use for practice. But these wooden blades are deadly in the hands of a trained wielder, and the famed Miyomoto Mushashi is said to have slain his greatest personal rival with such a weapon. As such, I can totally understand why it should be a martial weapon proficiency, at least in this context. It's not just something any person can pick up and use effectively. It requires a degree of training and skill to make this wooden sword into a lethal weapon. You can of course pick it up and swing about, but you'd just be using it with less potential than a warrior. Granted the stats are perhaps underwhelming, but from a certain point of view it is basically a blunt bastard sword. The crit range could stand to be increased a bit, to maybe 19-20, but it's not a deal breaker for me, as I picked the proficiency for story reasons.

This is kind of a tangential rant. It only relates to psionics in the arguments that some folks have put forth earlier in this thread and in casual game-shop conversations I have had.

Nothing is more irritating to me than to hear people say psionics is the perfect way to replicate Asian mysticism and mythic martial arts for Oriental style games. As a Chinese-American, an Asian History major, and a student of martial arts since childhood, I think I can safely say that the idea of psionics has no relation at all to the concepts behind Chi and the folklore of Chinese and Japanese myths and legends. Psionics is all about the mind, about empowering the self, and has nothing to do with spirit and "breath" that underlies the legends of most Asian heroic legends and their style of "fantasy"; as the underlying concept of that genre of stories is letting the "self" go, and leaving it behind for spiritual and faith-based enlightenment. If people want psionics bad enough, I am sure Paizo will probably print something for Pathfinder to include it. But please don't try and wrap it up in the trappings of the cultural style of fantasy I intimately know, cherish, and identify with, because that's just insulting. I've already been looking forward to seeing Golarion include other Earth-based cultures, particularly the Asian ones, but I'll go crazy if the wonkiness that is psionics gets put into it.

*gets off the soapbox*

I've got a plethora of different desires for epic play.

First I'll chime in with the "epic-in-scope" end goal being desirable. I like playing "nation builder" type of characters, and epic levels seem to me to be the range where you can affect nations, religions, travel, and the world stage of a campaign setting. This is the exciting and rewarding style of play I like most, creating something with my character that feels like it will last and affect the scope of life for the people of the lands. As such, the kinds of opportunities and challenges that utilize mechanics directly designed to impact nations and ideas are what I want.

I also like the idea of smooth advancement. Keep the mechanical progression as close as possible to what people know and play already. Something that was always awkward for the current system is when people multi-classed and took epic levels in non-epic classes, it felt like a jarring disconnect, since totally new BAB, saves, and feat rules were used.

And finally, as strange and nebulous as this might sound... the game has to feel special, a cut above what adventuring experiences came before. I hate to use this example, but Exalted by White Wolf is rather close to what I think of. Gods amongst men. Or at least as veritable titans, but not in a literal Monster Manual sort of way. It's like achieving epic levels should feel like achieving enlightenment or ascension beyond the mortal ken.

I'm dead set against psionics in fantasy games. While much of this is based on the terrible imbalances of psionics in earlier editions of D&D/AD&D, the main bone of contention I have is that it doesn't suit my vision of fantasy adventure.

I have heard all the arguments for psionics in D&D, particularly since the revised Psionics book for 3.5 came out; and while I will agree with the Pro-Psionics crowd that the new rules are much more balanced now and work very similarly to magical effects, I'll still point out the elephant in the room. Psionics don't need different rules, if all you want is concept.

Explain away any of your normally-magical effects and spells as psionics if you really want them that badly. The *ONLY* reason for players to demand a separate set of psionics rules is to get around the existing rules sets, tactics, defenses, and knowledge of "how the world should work", and thereby exploit an advantage, no matter how slim, over the rest of the world and the NPC's/monsters that reside in it.

From a visionary point of view, psionics has no place in sword & sorcery, high fantasy, or historical-based venues. For me it conjures up bastard visions of Mister Spock crossing fingers mind-melding with Gandalf; or even worse, nightmares of spiky-haired Akira clones imploding knights on horseback. It just doesn't work for me.

But even in game settings that do have such weird and strange mysteries as the powers of the mind, making them separate and alien to magical systems and casters is creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one. If the mechanics are simply variants of spells, why not simply use the spells themselves for mechanics and create whatever fluff you want to cover up the crunch? Why *must* there be a totally different set of rules? Why should a psion be any more flexible or enduring than a sorcerer? In my many long years of dealing with players clamoring for psionics, it's been my experience that they really all want the same thing: to be able to pull stuff on other characters without playing by the same rules everyone else uses. Sometimes this takes the form of utilizing the cultural ignorance of a world unfamiliar with psions. Sometimes this takes the form of a player pulling a fast one over DM's and fellow players alike. It's never been because a player wanted to play alongside everyone else. it's the mark of someone who wants to play separately from everyone else.

Now I know that more books published offers more of a revenue stream, and it's tempting for Paizo to look at the demographics and offer a sourcebook for the cross-section of players that demand such a publication. But really, with the PFRPG being an opportunity to equalize inadequacies of the past, why import over a sub-system that is guaranteed to do nothing but further demonstrate the gap between non-core, non-pure-class characters and their splatbook counterparts? I say leave the concept of psionics as a distinct and separate rules set in the dustpile of history, and if you *must* include the option, do it as a set of variant alternatives for sorcerers and other casting types.

One of the most frequently requested topics for Pathfinder RPG rules exploration once we've put the Core Rulebook to bed is Psionics.

It seems to me like a vocal and forthright minority of d20 players REALLY like psionics as written, and would like to see us publish something for which backwards compatibility is the primary design goal.

I would guess from my experience over the last two decades of playing the game that about half of the total audience does not like psionics. A lot of them REALLY don't like psionics for one reason or another.

The funny thing is that I think an overwhelming majority of d20 gamers are OK with the idea of telepaths, empaths, psychics, and the "concept" of psionics.

And yet a lot of them do not allow the current (or any previous, let's be honest) version of the psionics rules in their campaign.

I am convinced there is an audience for a Pathfinder RPG Psionics book.

I am uncertain how to proceed from that basic assumption.

So I'm asking you:

What does Psionics mean to you?

How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?

What is an absolute deal-breaker?

Thanks again for the give-and-take.

--Erik

I favor the way it is now. A coup de grace for example is someone literally walking up to a helpless character and slitting their throat. It's ridiculous to say "I'm a heroic character and therefore should not be killed by this!" I understand the desire to want to play a heroic campaign that isn't crippled by fear of death, but at the same time there *MUST* be the risk and concept of mortality.

Similarly, a spellcaster has so many advantages, particularly as levels rise and damage scales as you mention, that the risk of losing a spell due to a well-timed blow simply has to exist. If all an AoO entailed ws sucking up a stray hit of HP damage and still getting off your spellcasting action, then there are no more tools left in the toolbox for non-casters to disrupt and stop a casting opponent.

Leave this system alone. Backwards compatibility is losing its focus what with all these suggestions for "improvement".

I like this rule and use it in all my games. It's come out quite a few times, and no one I've played with has ever felt like the game was cheapened by it.

On a side note- I also agree that I don't want to see PF go the way of 4th Ed and remove all traits that have been labeled "unheroic" just because players are afraid of seeing character death.

Back to why I like this rule though; I have found it does two things.

1) Increases fighter/warrior player morale to know that they have the potential to inflict a save or die roll on a monster or enemy, particularly because they never run out of "fighting potential" while a spellcaster has finite spells per day.

2) It has made for the most memorable bragging rights when a particularly tough and terrifying encounter has been won by the "lucky blow". The tales get told over and over again with laughter, and when players are having fun, I am having fun.

3) It keeps the PC's on their toes realizing that they can always suffer death, regardless of how high level play changes the tactical dynamics of the game. Without that tension, my players would not enjoy the game nearly as much. There needs to be a sense of risk, even in the most favorable and casual of violent encounters.

Following the basic precedent provided by the various skill feats, one could perhaps make feats scale along the lines of:

At +1 BAB the feat provides "X" bonuses/benefits.
At +10 BAB, the feat provides "2X" bonuses/benefits.
At +15 BAB the feats provides "2X+Y" bonuses.

This is just off-the-top of my head, but it would seem to help the basic idea of growing the fighter upwards without necessarily forcing more feats and growing outwards.

Why not simply adjust the +1 bonus throwing bonus to instead be the "Throw Anything" feat? It's basically filling the same purpose... a bit more effectively too.

Asturysk wrote:

I am not making the argument that it would not be beneficial to player characters, I am certain that it would make many players happy. It would however force DM's who disagreed with this to "argue down" against the printed rules if this was adopted. In reality I say there is no problem with 2/level. It's easy to raise the bar as a home rule, but nigh-impossible to lower it. Bottom line, as a GM you will almost never run into any players arguing with you if you choose to raise the skill points per level to 4. However you will almost certainly run into argumentative players if you tried to lower a printed 4/level back down to 2/level.

This discussion period and playtest isn't just about the players and giving them "More, more, more!" It's about setting a benchmark that GM's can also easily implement with as little conversion, arguments, and difficulties as possible.

Out of curiosity, why would you want to lower the bar to 2, if the core rule was 4?

This isn't about giving the players more, more, more. It is about what several of us see as an imbalance, and wishing to correct it.

The change from 2 to 4 skill ranks per level will have a very small effect on combat, if any at all (most skills for fighters are not used in combat), which is where the fighter is supposed to excel. It will have an effect out of combat, where a lot of fighters have little to do.

I actually have tried giving more skill points to characters to encourage conceptual and non-combat skill proliferation. I want my players to always to feel that fluff is as valuable as crunch. However this has never resulted in the desired effect. What *does* occur is those extra skill points end up going to Tumbling, Spot/Notice, and other directly combat related skills that are the purview of other classes.

In my 25 years of experience as a DM, I have found that if a player really wants something conceptual for their character, if they really desire to have their fluff supported by crunch, that they will find a way to do so, even if limited by a conservative rules-set.

In this case, it's not even that difficult or constrictive for a fighter to do so while playing with a 2/level skill progression. Spending 10 skill points and 1-2 feats allows a Fighter still maintain parity in their combat role, while allowing individual tailored traits to shine.

What I take exception to is the attitude of entitlement that says the bar must be raised to 4/level and I am the one who must argue with my players if the bar is raised, must police and restrict them into not stealing other classes's thunder, rather than a dissenting GM simplying house-ruling the skill increase without a likely argument in his or her own group.

For those that argue that increasing the number of skill points for the fighter would not work well, I suggest trying it.

I know a lot of people have given the reasons why they support 4+. I know I have. I know I care very deeply. For me personally, this was of such importance that I do not plan to adapt to Pathfinder at the current time. The main reason is that I have tried it. It was far more beneficial than I expected. It makes the game better for everyone.

I cannot stand the thought of a new game system that does not correct this travesty. I am convinced that if anyone gives it a genuine shot, they will love it as a DM and their fighter players will love it as well. They will not be 'better than the other classes'. The rogue, ranger, and wizard will all have more useful skills more often - but the fighter won't feel like they're completely useless all the time.

It is hard to argue against play experience with opinion only.

I am not making the argument that it would not be beneficial to player characters, I am certain that it would make many players happy. It would however force DM's who disagreed with this to "argue down" against the printed rules if this was adopted. In reality I say there is no problem with 2/level. It's easy to raise the bar as a home rule, but nigh-impossible to lower it. Bottom line, as a GM you will almost never run into any players arguing with you if you choose to raise the skill points per level to 4. However you will almost certainly run into argumentative players if you tried to lower a printed 4/level back down to 2/level.

This discussion period and playtest isn't just about the players and giving them "More, more, more!" It's about setting a benchmark that GM's can also easily implement with as little conversion, arguments, and difficulties as possible.

Asturysk wrote:

Furthermore, most of the above feats I've listed give greater bonuses for getting 10 or more ranks in the skill, usually bonuses between +4 to +6, or +5 to +10 if they have both a skill-related feat and a focus. Assuming a Fighter spends 10 actual skill points (one every other level), by the time he's done, he'll have a base value of +14 to +16 (or +20 with both a skill-related feat and a focus) in the desired skill. It's very possible to have even more with a good attribute or magical gear (usually relatively cheap, such as Eyes of the Eagle) that enhances his final skill modifier. A standard maxed skill will only have +23 base value at the highest levels, so we are only seeing a difference of 3-9 points, and this is comparing a human Fighter who spent 10 skill points out of a base thirty and two feats out of twenty-two. I think if the "concept" is important enough, then this is hardly a large sacrifice to endure to achieve scores that are not only "good" but in the benchmark of skill modifiers, outstandingly excellent.

Hmmm, I do believe that you need to look at your numbers again. You are comparing a fighter who has put not only ranks into a skill, but feats as well, to get your +14/+16/+20 number, but are not doing so for your +23 comparison of max skill.

If you had in the bonus from the feat, your are now talking about +27/+29/+33. So a difference of not +3 to +9, but +13.

There is nothing wrong with my numbers. I was pointing out how a Fighter had the feats to spare to achieve this result, whereas another class with more skill points but only the standard 11 feats would be likely to not utilize those feats to raise their skill ranks. The original complaint about Fighters was in comparison with baseline ranks of other classes. In any case the final skill modifier results I quoted are still well into the range of what I'd call highly skilled or a master in regards to benchmarks. And remember my example assumes that Fighter will only put 10 actual skill points into a skill, rather than the maximum +23. My point still stands, it's a fallacy to claim that a fighter cannot possibly spread his existing 2/level skill points and achieve qualified skill ranks.

I must chime in and offer to Jason that he should not feel brow-beat about the Weapon Training as well.

Honestly, there are MANY human cultures and variations that could justify such training. While some might speak about Merry Olde Englande as their benchmark, others might think of Ancien Régime France, Imperial China, Ptolemic Egypt, Delaware Nations, and so forth.

This racial feature does not overly affect characters or character creation. The warrior classes don't get any use out of it, and the "combat-support" and "support" classes won't have the kind of BAB and class abilities to exploit the martial weapons to fullest potential. It's just to offer variety so that humans can "come in different flavors" just as they are supposed to. I like and support this because it's not game-breaking and it offers human characters a degree of versatility and variety that makes them unique as compared to elves and dwarves who come from homogenous cultures.

People didn't play Fighters for 20 levels in 3.5e. One of the reasons is the lack of skills. 2 levels of Rogue did wonders for that part of being a fighter.

Now, extra skills have been added to the fighter's skill list, excellent! This I like.But with 2+int SP no one is going to take them. I have problems with people taking knowledge skills with rogues! Which makes it hard for me a DM to design adventures using heavy knowledge skills.

Removing the x4 modifier ROBS the fighter of any chance at fleshing out a background. In 3.5 a 10int Fighter had 8 skill points...in PF he has 2. I don't care that the ranks even out because of the +3 for having a rank in those 2 skills. It makes for a dull, low level fighter. It's front-loading ability while taking away flexibility.

I do love the new system, except for first level.

Stop thinking of the fighter as a lowly foot-soldier. They are the elite, warriors are the lowly foot-soldier. Fighters deserve more skills. Skills are generally not used in combat, especially the ones the fighter has access to. Adding a few extra skills (4@ level 1 or 4+int) is NOT going to break the system, only make it better.

As far as using up skill focus and the other skill background feats, they don't normally get used, why make a fighter spend feats on them to make up for a lack of foresight by the WotC designers?

Well, first off... in the group I am currently running in, I have a player who is running a pure class Fighter with the planned goal of 1-20, nothing but Fighter, and he is loving it. I've played alongside pure fighters as a player, and they've never complained about lack of skills.

I don't think I've ever been a proponent of the "fighter as lowly foot-soldier" attitude. If you read my post, I stated that they have always been portrayed in gamebooks and flavor as being elite fighting men and should be played that way. However, because the concepts of the class can span several flavors of professional soldier, the class as a whole needs to be easily tailored towards all sides of the spectrum, and not all concepts of Fighters will have a need or use for excessive skill points. Giving them the minimum needed for basic skill proficiency across the board and a surplus of feat slots to allow for the opportunity to spend feats that add to those skills is more than adequate.

As far as stating that those feats I mentioned "don't get used"; again I must disagree and offer rebuttal. I have run for and played with player characters that do take those feats. I submit that a fighter who really wants greater proficiency in concept skills should take those feats, instead of bringing everyone to the same "optimized" level.

Personally, I didn't think that the human ability block as printed needs any changing, but if I absolutely had to tweak it, I might chose the suggestion of "Humans take a non-proficient penalty of -2 instead of -4."

Actually, what with the changes to the Paladin's spellcasting (Charisma instead of Wisdom), I think a small boost of sorts to the Ranger's spellcasting ability isn't a bad idea either. However in this case, instead of changing the casting stat (which makes less sense here anyhow), let's go a bit more radical and change the actual spellcasting style itself!

I like the suggestion someone made about making the ranger a spontaneous spellcaster. Their list is small enough anyways, it could work like the warmage's list; so you wouldn't even have to pick spells. This would provide a level of flexibility and a "naturalistic" approach to rangers that makes for a nice contrast to that of druids.

Since we're assuming backwards compatibility with the existing supplements, why is this a big deal?

Most Ranger players I know that make frequent use of their animal companion in combat simply take the feat Natural Bond after gaining their companion. Those that like buffing themselves and their pets simply take Practiced Spellcaster, and are fine. Honestly, this is a non-issue from my perspective and I've run countless sessions and campaigns with animal companions proving themselves quite viable through adventures as high as 18th level.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's suggestions, but this really is an issue that makes me scratch my head, as it's never been a problem in my experience.

I will say though, I do like that idea of Favored Enemy sharing with the companion an excellent idea!

Since the other biggest users of medium and heavy armor in the game tend to be Clerics and Paladins, I'd support a push to give Fighters a level-based approach towards negating the speed penalties of Medium and Heavy Armor. It'd also give Fighters a reason to keep wearing the medium armor they bought in their early career rather than saving for a rapid upgrade like the clerics and paladins go for. This gives them other opportunities, and I am all for that!

I understand the arguments in favor of more skill points, but I'd like to add this warning to those who push for more skill points to support the argument that Fighters need more crunch to support their fluff of concepts.

Firstly, fighters do span a very wide range of archetypes, and I don't think anyone who has ever played a fighter will ever disagree that fighters are and should be role played as consummate professionals as opposed to the thugs that fall into the purview of the Warrior NPC class. The Fighter represents, after all, the knights, the mercenaries, the sappers, the engineers, cavalrymen, all the highly trained and talented soldiers that are the exceptions of warfare, not the norm. Achilles is an excellent archetype for the classic fighter, as would be Sir Gawain of Arthurian tales. However skilled at arms these men were, doesn't mean that they would necessarily be outstanding in other fields not directly related to war.

And to be frank, in addressing the argument of Heal being a skill directly related to soldering, I can most assuredly say with experience that most soldiers are only rudimentary trained in basic field dressing, which I would judge akin to maybe 1-5 ranks of the Heal skill at the very most.

However I digress, I wanted to counter the argument that more crunch to support the fluff was *needed* to play a concept Fighter who had other skills besides those in the Class list. A Fighter has a vast number of feat slots, and can freely acquire skill-related feats such as Alertness, Deceitful, Magical Aptitude, Persuasive, Self-Sufficient (for all you would-be Healers out there), and of course Skill Focus. If he wishes to be highly skilled in his Class Skills and doesn't have enough skill points to max those skills out, there are feats such as Athletic, and Animal Affinity to help raise those numbers as well as the afore-mentioned Skill Focus. With a potential TWENTY-TWO feat slots in a career of levels 1-20, surely a Fighter can spare a handful of such feats to "Fill out concept"?

Furthermore, most of the above feats I've listed give greater bonuses for getting 10 or more ranks in the skill, usually bonuses between +4 to +6, or +5 to +10 if they have both a skill-related feat and a focus. Assuming a Fighter spends 10 actual skill points (one every other level), by the time he's done, he'll have a base value of +14 to +16 (or +20 with both a skill-related feat and a focus) in the desired skill. It's very possible to have even more with a good attribute or magical gear (usually relatively cheap, such as Eyes of the Eagle) that enhances his final skill modifier. A standard maxed skill will only have +23 base value at the highest levels, so we are only seeing a difference of 3-9 points, and this is comparing a human Fighter who spent 10 skill points out of a base thirty and two feats out of twenty-two. I think if the "concept" is important enough, then this is hardly a large sacrifice to endure to achieve scores that are not only "good" but in the benchmark of skill modifiers, outstandingly excellent.

Adding more skills points is not only not-needed but IMHO will not advance the desired result of more "Crunch To Fill Out The Fluff" either, as the typical player will simply look at the greater number of skill points he has at his disposal and simply spend those skill points into other mechanically advantageous skills that he might never have been able to consider before. A player who really wants to be good at a something can easily achieve that result by investing into the concept, and it works with the currently written rules. If a DM feels a player is genuine about helping a character fill out that concept, then the DM can reward the player with some "Concept-Only" bonus points, or just a flat circumstance bonus for that character when rolling the skill in question.

As mentioned prior, it's easy to add but not so easy to take away. Stuffing the genie back into the bottle after raising skill points for a niche possibility would be a mistake.

Play a Human with a minimum 14 Int.

With fewer listed skills in Pathfinder, there's no reason other than the "I Wanna Haz Everythingz" attitude to clamor for more skill points per level. This isn't about optimizing, it's about sacrificing a bit here or there. If having more skill points to spread around is conceptually important to you, then drop a few skill points from your maxed-out skills elsewhere, or raise your Intelligence a couple of points and live with a slightly lower Prime Attribute. Maybe consider playing a human instead of whatever other demi-race you might normally play; there's a reason they are considered in fluff to be the most ascendant and expanding race in most fantasy settings.

Most of the players I hear this "not enough skill points" complaint from are those who don't want to give up on their "gotta be the best" plan for character builds. That's my two cents.

Well, back in the old days, you got your followers after 9th level and building a stronghold/tower/guild-house. So maybe assigning it to 9th level minimums isn't so bad.

I do like having followers though, even though the cohort is more useful in a mechanical sense, having followers is very cool for those who like to play concepts for which a loyal staff or crew is de rigueur. I really do like the suggestion that followers be based on a block of "levels" or hit-dice that can be split up as the PC sees fit. There'd likely have to be a cap limit on that though, otherwise a PC would sink them all into high level followers that would be essentially another cohort.

The current way it's written might not be so bad if the duration started at 3 rounds and improved based upon levels. However, it still doesn't seem all that "lucky" if it can't be activated as an Instant Action, since it requires an investment of premeditated planning that seems antithetical to the concept of a servant of Luck.

Nah, this is pure fun for the player who chooses to stick with pure-class bard (and honestly, how many players actually do that?) The ability is actually really close to the Divine Prankster's Killing Joke ability, but allowing for any type of Performance rather than just comedy. I like the way it's written, and most high Fort targets of this ability aren't any more endangered by this effect than they would be by an Irresistible Dance spell or a Power Word Stun.

I also think this feat is rather nifty. Sure, it's not quite the Cliffs of Insanity style of trick, but then again, it's stylish in and of it's own merits. It's a way for an "einhander" fighter to still be effective without having to conceptually be quite like the dual-wielder or the two-hander warrior. Plus, it is rather nice in that it allows the character to use a single preferred weapon. From a game balance standpoint it doesn't allow the character to do anything more than what a typical dual-wielder can already, allowing the same number of attacks at the same penalty either way. It's a purely conceptual trait that helps a player develop a character to fight "just like how he sees it" at the cost of an additional feat. I as a DM think it's great and encourage this kind of variety.

I too have found the new skill system to be somewhat "pigeon-hole-ish". My group and I experimented a bit with the skills, and found that when building experimental progressions in an isolated vacuum, many of us had no choice other than to finish with "cookie-cutter" versions of each other's character sheets.

I won't say get rid of the new "Saga" system from Pathfinder since it seems to be popular with some players, but I'd recommend adding a sidebar for the optional use of the old Skill Points Systems, or vice versa. This way people can keep the versatility and complexity if they desire, or just go the "package route".

I have both the original and the new 3.5 version. The 3.5 version is well-written, but suffers from a lack of detail that I can only compare to a 140 minute classic film being trimmed down to a 80 minute cineplex style of storytelling. It tries very hard to stay true to the spirit of the original, but honestly I think it's only good for people who don't have the time or patience to convert and play through the original. Converting the module isn't even that hard in my opinion.

Strength Roll 1: 5, 6, 5 = 16.
Intelligence Roll 2: 4, 2, 2 = 8.
Wisdom Roll 3: 5, 3, 2 = 10.
Dexterity Roll 4: 3, 3, 1 = 7.
Constitution Roll 5: 4, 2, 3 = 9.
Charisma Roll 6: 1, 6, 2 = 9.

Yeesh, seems I am a not-so-smart fighter. Whoda thunkit. :-)

I too believe that Gygax is lounging in a padded chair in a luxuriously appointed apartment of the Old City, playing chess with Gord and Mordenkainen, while sipping fine wine from Celene.

Rest in peace, Mister Gygax. You brought many of us countless hours of joy and camaraderie. Your mark has been left on this world, and you will be sorely missed.

I'm not sure, but the "spite" comment may have been directed at me. Let me try to clarify. I certainly don't see a DM's job as being adversarial...if anything, I tend to be too much of a pushover. But I do think part of a DM's job is to try to instill some verisimilitude--how much is up to the tastes of each group, which only you can know.

And I think that means that when a player does something that is flagrantly reckless, sometimes there ought to be consequences--because if not, then there are no risks and therefore (in my opinion) the game is less fun. For example, if dynamite existed in the game (it doesn't, but bear with me), and if I had a player say, "I pick up the dynamite and hold it. Then I light the fuse." I'd ask, "Okay, then what do you do?" If the player said, "Nothing, I'm just holding it." I'd probably say, "Okay, that fuse is really getting short...are you going to do anything?" If he says, "Nope." Then it would eventually explode and I'd roll some dice for damage...maybe allow a reflex save for half. But if I said, "Whew! That one was a dud!" then I think the game would suffer.

Similarly, I run the sort of game where it is unwise to trust Chaotic Evil characters. Especially Chaotic Evil Demons. I'm not saying my way is correct, but it's just my style. I feel like the very word "Demon" should be a sort of red flag to the players. And my players know what to expect. I think it is a very good argument that to even get a cohort a PC must use a feat. I would certainly try to avoid punishing the player. I think I would try to warn the player that maybe she should choose a more trustworthy cohort...and I would strongly suggest that very bad things might happen from trusting such an entity. But I'd ultimately leave it up to the player. Again, if they want to play with dynamite, that's their decision.

If other people have games where succubi can be trusted implicitly due to their status as a cohort, that's cool. It's just not my vision of what Demons are. But...

Well alright, to be clear, I am not saying that actions and choices should not have consequences. What I mentioned above about the responsibility of a player actually matches what you described above. I do feel strongly that risk is an important part of a game, and I've had very un-fun games with groups that are so intent on "winning" that they view any setback as a strike against the game and the DM. They then want to win all the time. This is partially what sets me against the intent behind the 4th Edition design philosophy (see the Mining Car Adventure article).

But assuming I as a DM agreed to let a player have a succubus cohort for his/her PC, there'd be more than just a rubber-stamp attached to it. I'd have to work out why they were together in the first place and what draws the cohort to the character; why would the character trust such a creature? There's many different permutations of this of course; maybe the character is a chaotic evil blackguard and serves the cause of lustful excess; or maybe the character is an exalted deeds style of paladin who tries hard to exemplify the qualities of mercy and redemption... He might have saved the succubus from a horrible fate and she actually becomes emotionally attached to him. After all, as Rich Burlew points out at his website, being evil doesn't mean lacking the capacity for friendship or affection, selfish though it may be.

But yeah, I wrote what I did in response to the suggestion that such a cohort could be used to sabotage or betray the PC who it is attached to. To me that just seems spiteful and "after the fact", if it's an emotional or passive aggressive response to not wanting the PC to have a cohort that you as a DM already approved. I'm not saying anyone did such a thing, but that's the kind of reaction it seems like.

I just have a hard time "training" trust in players I "adopt" who have been "broken" by previous DM's who were vindictive, ignorant, or adversarial in their past history. I feel these kinds of DM's create players who become paranoid, defensive, and distrustful of the Player-DM relationship. I work hard with these players in my groups, trying to teach them that they can and should trust me, and that I won't cheat them or break the rules to achieve a pre-determined outcome. So I react strongly when a DM casually advises to just mess around with a player's new cohort, especially if it's after the fact of DM approval. I feel it not only gives DM's everywhere a bad name, but also fosters the wrong kind of environment for friendly gaming.

Stebehil wrote:

Completely off-topic now, but that AC bonus should be along the line of +1 per two levels, considerably higher than a monks bonus - otherwise, it would be pretty useless.

[tangent] I was thinking of including the Wis bonus to AC at 1st level into that Monk bonus (I forget that they are independent class features, sometimes). The Olman fighter would also be able to use Shields, and might be well-served to take Shield Specialization-type feats to beef up their dependence on this single item of 'armor.' Ideally, they would still end up a few points less than an armored fighter, but would, A) save a lot of money on car insurance, and B) swim better. :) [/tangent]

I'm just happy to have re-ignited the Suel/Bakluni War. The Rain of Colourless Fire and Invoked Devastation were old-school. I can't wait to see what they bring to the table this time!

Actually, I think the best way to mechanically handle the "Olman Style" of fighting without having to resort to homebrew is to use the crunch of the Swashbuckler base class, and you hardly have to change anything to give it the fluff flavor of an unarmored light fighter from the jungle. A shortspear is a one-handed piercing weapon after all, and a obsidian war-club can be treated as a light mace which works with weapon finesse. Add in the benefit of higher skills points and access to skills such as Tumbling (swinging from jungle tree branches and vines, ala Tarzan), and it's really not necessary to have to make up new crunch where existing crunch would suffice. A tweak here and there in terms of the descriptive text, and the mechanics still would work fine.

Asturysk, thank you. I actually have the Expedition hardback (shipped to me by good old Paizo), but the others shall definitely be ordered and downloaded.

Snorter, thanks; I actually was poking at it via the Canonfire! site, but it is certainly good to know that people I already am aware of having a bent for quality are involved.

My pleasure! Oerth Journal is awesome, and was the source of my Greyhawk fix for a long time.

A word of advice for you though. While all the stuff I mentioned is some of the greatest for finding both crunch and fluff, there's something else to consider. When looking for older Greyhawk materials there's a double edged sword; the curse and blessing I discovered as I built up my own collection from childhood memories was that the best source material was actually the steady volumes of interconnected modules, such as Against the Giants, Vault of the Drow, the Vecna series, the Slavers, the Lost Tomb series, the Falcon series, as well as the standalone "Classics" like Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, Night Below, and so forth.

Unlike Forgotten Realms which relied more on comprehensive campaign books and sets, much of the built up history of Greyhawk was through the adventure modules, many of which ran through successive story arcs that connected to one another. These actually build up the "history" of the world as it happens, and then the boxed sets and sourcebooks compile what happened and narrate it, while also filling in all the spaces with vivid details; giving you the kind of places that characters go in-between the epic adventures, fully fleshing out the local tavern where they drink, gamble, and spend their gold with names, descriptions, rooms.

Because I am not sure what sort of stuff you like best, the classic adventure and epic storylines, or the everyday grit and detail that really brings a roleplaying campaign to life, I wanted to make it clear that it's a different way of gathering campaign setting information that what you might be used to with the Forogtten Realms. :-)

This is the best site for PDF versions of out of print games that I know of.

Go to RPG NOW.

Here are the books/titles I would recommend as source material:

World of Greyhawk Box Set.
Greyhawk Adventures.
From The Ashes Box Set.
Ruins of Greyhawk.
Treasures of Greyhawk.
Living Greyhawk Gazeteer.
Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk.

Technically the last two are for 3.0/3.5 and can still easily be found in game stores, with Expedition to the Ruins being a relatively recent release. In fact, I am pretty sure you can get them through the Paizo store. Check there first for dead-tree versions.

There's another old boxed set that is hard to find and not currently available through any PDF source that I know, and that would be the beautiful City of Greyhawk boxed set. I own one, and I adore it. It's got the entire city of Greyhawk detailed out from beggers on every street corner to the secrets of each small dank alley, plus complete maps and entries for both the surface and the undercity. You might be lucky enough to find a copy cropping up on Ebay every now and again.

Also, I'd be remiss in not recommending that you search Ebay, Amazon, and used bookstores for the following novel titles:

_Greyhawk Adventures 1: Saga of Old City_, Gygax, Gary. TSR, 1985.

_Greyhawk Adventures 2: Artifact of Evil_, Gygax, Gary. TSR, 1986.

_Sea of Death_, Gygax, Gary. New Infinities, 1987.

_Night Arrant_, Gygax, Gary. New Infinities, 1987.

_City of Hawks_, Gygax, Gary. New Infinities, 1987.

_Come Endless Darkness_, Gygax, Gary. New Infinities, 1988.

_Dance of Demons_, Gygax, Gary. New Infinities, 1988.

_Nightwatch_, Bailey, Robin Wayne. TSR Books, 1990.
(The book was released under the "TSR Books" label, was not advertised as a Greyhawk novel, and does not feature the word "Greyhawk" on the front cover.)

These novels are really one of the most immersive ways of getting a great vision for the Greyhawk setting, though to be fair the last book really isn't that helpful for normal tabletop campaign inspiration unless you choose to run a Epic Elder Evils style of game. They can be fairly affordable, as I managed to get my entire collection of Greyhawk novels under a budget of $40.00. They really are worth the effort if you can get them.

The sheer fact that the Leadership feat that attracts the cohort in the first place is a Character feature purchased through a feat, makes it a character mechanic just like a familiar or an animal companion. It is not the DM's place to start running the mechanical extensions of a PC's features any more than it would be appropriate for a creature conjured through a Summon Monster spell to be run by the DM, for a DM to tell a PC what he/she is thinking or feeling (emotionally), or for the DM to tell the paladin player character what he/she can or can not do in terms of alignment-affecting actions. A DM can cajole, suggest, caution, or advise, but ultimately whatever is part of the character sheet itself needs to be handled by the player responsible, because that is, in the sheerest essence, what responsibility is. As I've said, if a player abuses or exploits a cohort, then the DM may tell him/her that those actions will have consequences, and if such actions persist, the PC may lose the cohort and have to attract a new one at penalties. It's no more or less different than a paladin or a monk having to follow a pattern of behavior, i.e. their code, in order to keep their class features. But to start using the cohort as a "spite" NPC or as the heavy-hand of the DM, is just the mark of a poor DM and a guaranteed way to piss off and alienate your players. This is not an adversarial game. If you play the DM versus the Players, then it's just a recipe for a self-destructive game.

I made the switch from basic D&D to AD&D in a matter of months. I made the switch from AD&D to 2nd Edition AD&D within the span of new books being available. But there's something to note here:

Most of my 1rst Edition stuff worked pretty easily with my 2nd Edition rulebooks when the transition happened. In fact for about a year or so, TSR was putting out books that were "bridge" books meant for use with either. I didn't lose the functionality of my previous books when the change happened.

When TSR went belly-up and then WotC saved D&D and released 3rd Edition, my gaming group was in the middle of a massive 2nd Edition campaign. We were all excited that WotC's staff at the time were all basically contemporaries of our age group and generation, brought up with AD&D and they had a "By Gamers, For Gamers" attitude for 3rd Edition. We all bought the books and quickly realized that it was not going to be compatible with our ongoing campaign, so we decided to finish the game and prepare a new one in 3rd Ed as soon as this one concluded. None of us felt anything was bad or unfair at the time but we all said the same thing... "This is an awesome game, but it's not quite D&D." Nobody pretended that it was the same. For us, it was a re-invention or reinterpretation, like listening to a cover song of an classic oldie by a talented new band.

Now over time, as the game grew more colorful in variation and many old-school things and concepts "reincarnated" under new rules, we gradually accepted 3rd Ed as our game again.

When 3.5 came out, we all had mixed feelings. Many of us felt like Monte Cook in that a new edition wasn't necessary and it was partially a money-grab. But there were enough fixes and changes that we felt improved the game that we accepted it. In addition, like the old transition of 1rst to 2nd, 3rd Ed to 3.5 Ed was smoothed near seamless, and our old supplement books continued to see use, even to this day. It didn't take much to adopt something from Song & Silence into 3.5.

The thing is with 4th Ed, there's multiple factors involved.

1) WotC handled the transition very badly, particularly with those of us in the RPGA.

2) The game design is shifting to something incompatible with previous editions.

3) Rather than seeing the staff and designers as "one of us", we now see people of a whole different generation and background who have a totally different concept of gaming and role-playing than we do.

4) Economically there is only so much the market can bear over a period of time. None of us have the overflow of disposable cash that WotC seems to imagine we do; cause if we did, we'd be playing and buying Games Workshop. ;-)

5) Rather than perceiving the new edition as a "reinvention of something classic" in the vein of my example of a cover song, we've now heard the oldies song remade for the fourth time by Jessica Simpson. There's no pretending that one even remotely bears any resemblance to the other anymore. And so it feels... as shallow as Paris Hilton.

So that's the perspective that I and my gaming group are coming from.

And I have something to address with Crosswiredmind's statement about

I am one of the people who have said that many of the people who currently say they won't switch will likely switch at some point...

Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:

"So please, reassure me again that I'll probably play 4th Edition, regardless of how I feel now."

You probably won't. But you are not everyone. You are not even most of everyone. You are one person.

So when you make a blanket statement about people being likely to change, if at least one person is an individual who can consciously make the choice to not switch editions, who *exactly* are you talking about then? I certainly am not a member of the faceless masses.

The thing to understand is that while it's one thing for people to criticize or state an opinion on 4th Ed, they are talking about a product. When you and countless others say to people

It happened with the switch to AD&D, 2E, and 3E (and 3.5). It happened with MegaTraveller. It happened with the switch between RunQuest 2 and 3. It happened when Star Wars went from West End to WotC.

I have seen this pattern so many times I feel no need to qualify my statement. I have been a gamer far too long to be duped by the "I won't switch! You can't make me!" bluster.

What it comes off across is like when one is having a religious debate with zealous fundamentalists who say "You just haven't felt the Holy Spirit, but you will...". It sounds patronizing and condescending. It doesn't matter what your reasons are for saying it, or if you even have a good basis in experience for saying it; because now you've switched from making a judgment call on a product and started making a judgment call on people, total strangers who you have no actual frame of reference for making such comments about.

I hope that explains my perspective.

You should of course be aware that cohorts are not NPC's under the control of the DM, but rather are gained by the PC and controlled by the PC's Player (with DM apporval over the initial cohort of course). BTB there are no screwy actions the DM is supposed to play with the cohort nor should there be risk of the cohort leaving the PC over alignment differences so long as 1) the PC has already paid the Leadership penalty for differing alignments (if different), 2) The cohort and PC have established compatible motivations and goals and 3) the PC has done nothing to mistreat, abuse, or exploit the cohort. The basic gist of being a fair DM in regards to cohorts is, if you are going to allow a PC to take a monstrous cohort, look it over and get ALL of your doubts and misgivings out in front NOW, because it's unethical and unfair to start retro-actively changing the chort and the way cohort rules are written once the cohort has been approved and is in-play. Putting a genie back in the bottle is just overall harder to do in any game. It's made even harder if the Player sees that you've just broken the rules to do it. The only time an ethical DM should be able to justify "overriding" a cohort and taking control of the cohort away from the PC it is attached to, is if the PC is obviously abusing/exploiting the cohort in an OOC manner (IC exploitation is another story- some cohorts can be dysfunctional masochists after all) and/or the DM feels that the PC has undergone an alignment shift that no longer allows the character to remain goal-motivation compatibility with the cohort.

In the case of the Succubus though, honestly... only a Chaotic Evil PC ought to even consider having one, simply out of compatibility's sake. Even a chaotic neutral character would have a hard time in RP justification keeping that cohort around.

I know the above might seem reactionary compared with what everyone else has written, but I look at DM-ing as a trust issue. As a DM, I need to establish a bond of trust with my players that I am not out to screw them over or cheat them out of what they have earned, both mechanically and through roleplay. I always tell my players that I play *with* them, and not against them. Once that bond is established with them and they know I won't arbitrarily change the rules, cheat, or behave unethically, they won't blink or bat an eye if I sic Orcus against them and they get TPK-ed. Cause they know I did it fairly and with good reason. :-)

After all, this is a game to have fun.

There are Magical & Masterwork Instruments, as well as new Spells that allow a Bard to sustain one bard song while starting a new song, have two or more songs going simultaneously, or any combination of the above.

In effect it is possible for the right kit and spell combination to allow a bard to have Inspire Courage, Inspire Greatness, and Inspire Heroics all active in the same set of rounds. At which point he gets voted MVP by any fighters or warrior classes in the group. :-)

There is a Prestige Class called Arcane Heirophant from the Complete Arcane that combines both the features of an Animal Companion and a Familiar together. It's mid-difficulty to qualify for pre-reqs, and requires some build-up "suck time" at the lower levels, but it's reasonably well-written and offers a cool concept at the cost of some power.

1) Do you plan to convert to the new edition of D&D?

2) If Paizo converts its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

3) If Paizo does not convert its RPG products to 4.0, how will that affect your purchasing patterns for our products?

A1) No. I have been discussing this with my local gaming group, from DM's to Players, and they all agree that 4th Edition isn't viable economically, nor do they agree with the changes occurring for the new edition. It is our plan to continue playing 3.5 with our existing libraries and we are buying up as many of the 3.5 modules and supplements that have been on our "To Buy" list now.

A2) Unfortunately, as much as I feel a strong sense of affection and loyalty to Erik Mona and Paizo for trying to save Dragon, Dungeon, and Greyhawk, I buy what appeals to my tastes and not based on people behind the product. Right now, I am strongly behind the quality stuff Paizo puts out, because it does appeal to my tastes, my favorite world and/or styles. If this were to change to the game that is 4th Edition, I really don't see any way to keep the tastes the same, and money spent versus the time/work saved buying supplements and then converting them.... well... it's just not likely to last long. I would likely slow down and stop buying from Paizo.

A3) Right now, I've been pimping the Paizo stuff to everyone in group of gaming friends. I like what has been coming out of the company, and I appreciate the fact that the people behind Paizo share a similiar history, taste, and style in terms of what we like and expect out of fantasy gaming and D&D. I'm a huge Greyhawk nut, and even though Greyhawk is off-limits to Paizo, as a DM I can still use what you guys publish and adapt it with a minimum of effort. So chances are, so long as the quality and value remain consistently good, I'll continue buying at my local game store and encourage others to do the same.