Just to clarify, most of those cure/removes you are referring to, were not a sure thing in PF1. True, they were automatic success in D&D 3.5 and earlier, but they have not been a sure thing for 10 years.
Silke, I must applaud you again, for your excellent work. The craftsmanship and detail of this conversion is sublime. I especially appreciate the way you amped up the creatures with templates and classes, adding immense variance, and verisimilitude, to an otherwise HUGE hack and slash old dungeon.
If only I could commission you to do the same to all the old "Greyhawk" modules...
Hugo Rune wrote:
Interesting post. I also have a tweaked crafting system that I wrote up several years ago. Available here
You've done a lot of excellent work. However, I believe your assumptions have one fatal flaw, driving your costs sky-high: using Inn and Tavern prices to set living expenses for craftsman.
Looking at the gear price lists as a whole, and comparing this with the listed wages for skilled and unskilled labor, it seems to me the Inn and Tavern prices are at an inflated premium. They are very similar to modern folk going out to eat and drink, not to mention staying at a motel/hotel. It costs MUCH less than this to keep a roof over your head, and food on the table.
Perhaps setting living expenses based on the listed wages, then applying all your other mathcraftical magic, would yield results.
I would keep in mind that Wizards only ever get Expert with Unarmored Defense, and Expert with Wizard weapons. If you think of them in PF1, where they had only poor base attack, and only feat heavy, or spell power reducing options otherwise, this is still better. I for one, have always championed the idea that if your Wizard wants to wield a sword like Gandalf, he should be able to with some effort, but without strangling himself. However, that has never been an option in these games, so why should they suddenly be competitive with Fighter?
Also, the "Warpriest" is really the base Cleric from PF1 and all previous editions. Remember those guys with Medium base attack, and simple weapons.
After all, Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.
This is also ultimately a fantasy universe, and the world itself may have different terms for each of these things then the historically accurate names of our universe.
Right, and having said THIS, there is a 40 year continuum from at least AD&D, through 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5, Pathfinder, and now PF2, wherein the longsword is a one handed 3ish foot blade, the bastard sword is a hand-and-a-half sword with a 4ish foot blade, and the great sword is two-handed with a 5ish foot blade.
I would use Alchemist as a template for Artificer, or even build an archetype for Alchemist.
Not only that, but the next entry for the Mithral chain shirt specifies it reduces check penalty. The Elven chain (also Mithral) is quiet, but does NOT have reduced ACP...????
Purify Food and Drink affects 1 CUBIC FOOT of food and water per level. Even a first level caster can affect 7.4 GALLONS of water. Being conservative, that's also about 20 or more POUNDS of food. And it has a 1 standard action casting time.
Not sure what you were seeing, but I think you can rest easy on this one.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when looking at product reviews, you find one that gives one star; and the comment says the product was great but the shipping screwed up, or they didn't like the price....???
My character wants to paint a picture or bake a cake. Do I use Profession (Artist/Baker) or Craft(Paintings/Cakes)? Can I just pick whichever one I want, and if so are we proposing that there are just two kinds of pastry chefs- the smart ones who use craft and the wise ones who use profession?
The wise one sticks with the tried and true to protect his business. The smart one unleashes his creativity, because change is inevitable....er, wait...
Lots o stuff
My group just finished the series after about 4 1/2 years of regular play; every week for the first two thirds, then averaging about every week and a half for the last third.
I am very curious about your alternate rules for the Organization. We thought it was a brilliant and compelling idea. It added much to out game, while not side-tracking the main play into endless hours of "management". However, we agree it is lacking, but we never altered it.
Alas, your link to the google doc isn't working. Could you give another try?
Carl Cramér wrote:
I find the level of detail in armor descriptions hamper the game world. Especially so considering that of all armors, only 4 or so are actually ever used past level 3 or so (masterwork studded leather, chain shirt, half plate, full plate).
I would shorten that list to Masterwork (and eventually Mithral) chain shirt, breastplate, and full plate.
In my experience, no one ever uses half-plate.
Otherwise, I agree with all your sentiments.
Personally, I would love if the bestiary entries also had a chart/sidebar for knowledge checks. It'd make for a faster reference for the DM and serve to help establish how known different creatures are, without tying it in to CR. Because really, why are older dragons harder to ID than younger ones (And if you decide that they're less common in your setting, you can easily bump the DCs by a bit)
Oh gods yes! This should definitely be in the bestiaries, as well as a tactics bullet point.
*Please, please do something to standardize special material items. I have some character concepts that would just love mithral weapons but it's just cheaper to buy adamantine weapons.
I strongly second this. If a material can be made into a weapon or armor, we need sensible pricing for all possible items.
My personal preference is to have a more realistic cost increase that takes into account weapon category (light, one-handed, etc.) and size of the weapon or armor.
Spell/effect sub-school/sub-types for negative/positive energy.
CONSISTENT spell statblocks. Basically NOTHING should be cut/paste in the entire book. Look at and properly apply standards to EVERYTHING.
And do not ever truncate a spell stat block because it "works as x", I would prefer shorter, simpler spell descriptions; then repeat in similar spells.
Speaking of which: I will second in the strongest terms, BigNorseWolf's sentiment for less wall-o-text rules, and more bullet points.
Unified system of ranges for spells and weapons.
James Jacobs wrote:
Fair enough. Thanks James.
James Jacobs wrote:
And to reiterate: I'm still finishing this up, so if anyone has any hopes and ideas and suggestions for what to include in what's more or less gonna be a big sandbox setting/96-page gazetteer of a town and its Hinterlands... now's the time to speak up! I'll be here watching and reading and occasionally commenting.
A very small thing, but it would be great to finally have a definitive version of the Firepelt cougar. Currently, it has been statted mainly as a cheetah, with Sprint. But it is described as a Leopard, which would give it Pounce.
Would be cool to see a definitive image that matches the description. As well as a proper stat block and animal companion version.
Looking forward to this book. Alas, my group just finished RotR Anniversary Edition a few months ago. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to run it in the future. Of course, then I will be converting all your hard work to PF2!
Well, when you put it like that...it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you don't want to discuss the subject. Stop discussing the subject.
For myself, it is not at all about new players and the learning curve. I want my games to have a healthy player base, but that is a secondary concern. A good basic game and good rule writing (or re-writing) can take care of that.
The problem with the complexity of the 3.x games is playing and running them. We recently finished Rise of the Runelords at 19th level, and we're in the last big fight of Way of the Wicked right now, at 20th. And let me tell you, if it wasn't for HeroLab, it would be almost unplayable. Even WITH HeroLab, we make mistakes constantly just trying to keep everything straight. Yesterday, we played for about 11 hours, with minimal sidelining, and we covered round 6 to round 13 of our struggle against the Mitrans. And we are experts, playing with the same group members since 1987 in 1st Ed., 2nd in 1989, 2.5 in '95, 3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in '03, and PF in '09.
However, I agree that 5E is too simple, or rather, too shallow. Which is why I keep hesitating to launch a 5E campaign. I agree with your last, that a middle ground would be preferable.
Sorry, I should have said.
I love your system for languages, and couldn't agree more that 1 per rank is ridiculous.
Regarding the value of points in this skill vs. other skills: when you gain a rank in Stealth, you become around 5% more likely to succeed at sneaking. When you take a rank in Linguistics, you become about 5% more likely to decode an UNKNOWN language, and as a bonus, you are fluent AND literate in a new language.
I think that is a bit much. IMO, your use of Linguistics to actually communicate is brilliant, and the stepped fluency is great as well. If someone needs a polyglot angle, it should be feats/traits combined with ranks in Linguistics using this system.
I have a 20th level Int using Sorcerer who speaks and writes over 20 languages. I didn't mean to, I didn't intend to, I don't want to. It's just automatic, and silly. It is as you say, the party encounters some ancient scrawl, and the DM says does anyone speak ____? The Wizard player and I have ALWAYS said, "yep."
I understand Paizo's approach to "fixing" languages. But, since the inability to communicate so rarely comes up, it would be nice if it wasn't ignored by any party with a Wizard or Bard (i.e. all of them).
I would have Comprehend Languages grant effective rank 2 fluency and a +5 or +10 competence bonus on Linguistics checks. Then require skill rolls to communicate.
Saint Bernard wrote:
I'm guessing, at Rogue Genius Games. Try the website.
Not bad, if you like statting up deities in this way. I definitely used to, but since have leaned more toward no stat deities with avatars limited to "mortal" power levels. But, to each his own.
[EDIT] My apologies. Upon re-reading your rules, I see that you have written them with this in mind. No hard stats for the god, just the avatar. Cool.
I will, however, point out that Deities & Demigods was not 3.5, but 3.0. I would keep that in mind when converting some things over. For example, DR is different in 3.5 and by extension, Pathfinder. It starts at 5 and generally stops at 15, with 20 reserved for really special toughs.
Nope. This is not an official option = house rule.
You know, I just did some math, exploring the possibilities of all those free metamagics. Although I would still be conservative in granting unlimited combinations of feat stacking, you really can't break elemental damage spells. Balancing DC against damage output, with the reality of Saving Throws of challenging encounters and resistance and protection from energy spells...have at it.
I worry though, that a super spell metamagic combo is hiding out there somewhere...Caution.
This is interesting. My initial gut reaction was that it is way too much free power. However, I have recently completed two campaigns in which we began at 1st level, and ascended all the way to 19th or 20th. I definitely noticed that damaging spells lose their luster around 13th or so. And most other spells have little effect on BBEGs due to low DC's.
One idea seen on these boards, that I have contemplated is granting Heighten Spell for free. So, basically you can cast any spell you have in a higher slot for more DC. But then you won't be casting your biggest spells. Your idea also addresses the relative weakness of lower level spells, particularly damaging ones. But, the cool part is that you have to choose between DC and expanding damage or targets, etc.; and you have to have the feats.
Now, I wouldn't allow stacking of the same feat, as it easily gets out of hand, and super combos are too easy to acquire. But otherwise, I think this may work well.
I strongly resist the urge to say "try another game". It is used overmuch in response to someone's tinkering with PF, and it bugs the hell out of me. However, in this case I have to second the thought that 5th Edition D&D may be what you are looking for. There is less customization, and much more "describe what your character does, and I'll ask for a roll", type of play.
It depends on what you like about Pathfinder. If you can tinker a few things, and present your game in such a way as to get from your players what you want, then I support that. But the game you describe would be much easier to achieve with 5E. Not even so much the rules, or how it plays (although, that would help too.), but the feeling the players get as they read the books and build their PCs. It sets the parameters much closer to what you are looking for. If the players are veterans of 3.x/PF, then it is difficult to reshape how they see and use those rules. But, introduce new rules that they aren't as familiar with, and they may be amenable.
Whatever you chose, Good luck, and good gaming!
Oh, I agree; that IS how it should be. But, everyone has to have the right mindset to enjoy it. Not only the lethality, but missing most of the time. The successful hits versus a challenging opponent are far fewer in GURPS than in most systems.
Regarding the pincushion: the abstract nature of hit points means that every "hit" is not necessarily a solid penetrating injury. Otherwise, every combat in the game above 5th level would look silly, and destroy verisimilitude. In your example, probably 15 hits are near misses as our hero throws himself to the ground, and rolls into a defensive crouch. The next two or three hits are more telling, and the last couple arrows might be sticking through him somewhere non-vital.
When I GM, I describe most hits as near misses, and the strain of not getting filleted. I describe crits as actual wounds, gauged against how many hit points the target has. And the last couple hits are the ones that lay open. I also use the bloodied condition from D&D 4E to describe the state of combatants. It isn't tied to any mechanics at present, but it let's you know when someone is at half hp or less, without a heal check.
True, but in GURPS, getting hit hard with penetrating damage in a vital area, with insufficient armor, is pretty much instant death. And that's if you're a starting PC with the typical 100 point build, or a veteran conqueror with 600 character points. Still dead. Of course, the 600 point conqueror is REALLY hard to hit...
That sounds fantastic, and should be included in APs from the start. Or at least released as addendum expanded content online.
Kudos to you if you create such a guide. I wish I had such for CoCT. I am cobbling together what I can from these boards and the old Guide to Korvosa.
Agreed. I have considered this for a long time. Honestly, I am not really worried about just straight allowing one feat per level of any type. However, your idea of splitting them up would go a good way toward ameliorating the munchkining. Good idea.
I have also considered simply leaving the base feats at every odd level alone, and adding skill/background/flavor feats at every even. Haven't done any critical work on this, so categorizing them would be the hard part. Not enough obvious choices, but it could be done.
Very nice. I am thinking of starting a P8 game myself, and this looks like a synergistic set of house rules for that.
Regarding crossbows: The touch AC works, but is powerful. Personally, I would probably have them ignore an amount of Armor bonus, or just half armor bonus. Just a thought.
What my group has done with crossbows, is lengthened the reload time for the heavier types, with reloading mechanisms (belt and hook, crows foot, cranequin) reducing this time. The Rapid Reload feat reduces it one step, so there is a minimum amount of reload time. In effect, light crossbows can fire no more than once per round, heavys are slower, and we introduced the Arbalest as an exotic weapon that does 2d6 damage. Most important is that each type has a base Str (light +0, heavy +2, and Arbalest +4, and they can be increased to +2, +4, and +6). However, crossbows are treated as two-handed weapons, so at maximum they can do +3, +6, and +9 damage. Inadequate strength increases reload time.
Put this all together, and you can model an Arbalest crew (with a Pavise [huge tower shield] for cover) using a cranequin to reload a powerful weapon over several rounds. On the PC side, you can have a heavy crossbow with a +6 damage bonus that fires once per round.
The last option I would add, especially if slow crossbows are embraced, is to allow Deadly Aim to benefit from the two-handed weapon rule and grant +3 damage per -1 attack.
In regard to your death and dying rules, double Con is workable. To add to urgency, you could increase the rate of dying to 1d4 per round. A half step would be negative Con + HD. So and 8th level fighter with a 16 Con would die at -24 hp.
Thank you all for your input. My quest for making Armor as DR work has furthered thanks to all your criticism. I will continue trying to homebrew armor as Dr for pathfinder and hope that someday will make it work. People have suggested GURP's armor as DR system and I will be sure to check it out to see why it works and maybe can hash up some conjoined GURPs Pathfinder armor system.
GURPS in a good system, but it's strength lies in the fact that PCs don't get hit very often. GURPS has active defenses based on skills; every attack is an opposed roll. You "miss" a lot, but when you hit, oh boy. The various types of weapon figure into it, as well. Slashing, and piercing do multiples of what gets through armor.
Armor is life....but not getting hit is even better.
Indeed. I am supposed to run CoCT in the future, and I have found a gold mine of great alterations here on the boards. As we were still in the RoRL, I hadn't looked at much on that until recently. Our GM for that AP was very good at getting us through with a decent challenge, and that took all he was able to give. I am a little bummed though at the unexplored depths of possibility in that AP. He told us many times of the shortcomings, but I see here on the boards so many alternatives. I would love to thicken the background, and mire my players in the story.
I think one symptom of a straight, as it comes, run-through is the seeming disconnectedness of the various layers of Karzoug's minions. Some of that is natural and right, but you have to go out of your way to show the players the rhyme and reason to much of it. Saving it for a big exposition at the end, or indeed after the end, is not very satisfying. We spent four YEARS playing that AP. Realizing the connections after the fact, and largely out of character is no fun...
Yeah, the optional Pathfinder system for Armor as DR from Ultimate Combat doesn't work. You have to combine Armor DR with a "Defense" system, coupling AC to skill (level) instead or in conjunction with actual armor. Gear it to favor light fighters with little to no armor avoiding most attacks, and heavy infantry with heavy armor absorbing most attacks.
Allows true "swashbuckling" while giving a great reason to wear armor.
It touches on many things and bonuses, and is no mean feat; but pulling it off would be a master stroke.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Good call on revising the healing amount for regenerate. However, I feel like it's too close in spell level to do the regeneration thing AND a more powerful heal. What I propose is that the spell grants fast healing 10 for 1 round/level. This would reflect the regenerative effects of the spell, and also grant an identical amount of healing to your idea. I just like the flavor more. And it has less utility than an actual heal spell for the one spell level difference.
Quixote: I like most of those, including what you did with Elemental Burst properties---but doesn't changing to a flat cost preclude putting flaming burst on an Amulet of Mighty Fists or with various features that let you temporarily put +N's worth of bonuses on your weapon? (Can't remember offhand which let you put on flaming burst but it feels like there are some in the rules; I let paladins do it with divine bond.)
Agreed, Quixote's list is pretty epic.
Reading the discussion on elemental burst weapons it occurs to me; why not just make the burst quality the default at +1. I mean you're right, the chance to do +2d10 on a crit isn't worth much. And elemental damage becomes pretty useless at higher level, because it can never break through even the lowest resist energy effect, and only on a 6 vs. the lowest racial resistance. Also, the bane weapon special ability, which grants +2 enhancement and +2d6 damage vs one type, is +1 equivalent. So yeah, I think I'll just roll burst into the base elemental weapon special ability.
Holy crap dude. This sounds epic. Makes my group's run through the AP look really boring. In fact, it makes if feel really boring. Sigh.
I sometimes think of how I would run it, using many of the great ideas on these boards...but, I have played in the same group for 30 years now, and we just finished it....
I like all of these. Our group has used the weapon feat versatility for years now. And it truly doesn't matter, we all still settle on one weapon and use it exclusively. But, there have been a couple of cases where someone took up a different weapon in the group with no penalty. Worth it.
I am very intrigued by your "divine spell book" idea. If I were to implement this, I would also use it as an opportunity to make domain spells spontaneous. That is, they could be swapped for equivalent spell level prepared spells. We have experimented with the spontaneous domains in the past, and there was no issue, but some would think it overpowered. I think that this turns it on it's head. Instead of access to all cleric spells, many of which are totally antithetical to a given cleric's religion, I would limit access to the general spells, and grant easier use of domain spells. This puts the flavor of the gods interests front and center.
Ok, thanks everyone! I've got a lot of great stuff to look at here, thanks to all who responded. I might revive this thread if there is something particular that I have further questions on. Cheers!
It's cute the way he imagines that he has any control at all over the UNCHAINED BEAST that is a house rules thread. ;)
Ryan Freire wrote:
I'd scale with 1/2 character level of the user to represent better expertise by more experienced characters and keeping the base primary stat mod the same to represent the basic power level of the item.
While that does put the bonus on the experience of the character, it is important to remember that most items are based off of spells, and the mechanics of spells (and spell-like abilities) means DC= 10 + spell level + ability bonus. Of course one could change the formula to emulate Supernatural and Extraordinary abilities, DC= 10 + half level + ability mod.
I don't yet have an opinion on what the best solution is, although I support the idea. I just wanted to point out JohnHawkins suggestion is less "invasive".
As and aside, I have long considered abandoning the spell DC formula altogether. Changing to 10 + half caster (or character) level + ability mod, would go a long way toward renewing the usefulness of lower level spells, and especially magic items (you could increase the effective CL). I originally thought character level was better, it would allow a higher level character who multiclassed in a spellcasting class to be effective. However, I have come to think that such transitions need not be catered to. After all, in PF the only good reason for such a major shift in character class is likely of the munchkin-dip sort.
SirGauntlet, I really dig your rules. You cover most everything I take issue with, almost. I don't agree with every little choice, but a great set that I would be happy to play under.
I wonder if you might explain your ABP system. I imagine from the chart that you just apply this bonus to most things covered by the Big Six. Could you elaborate?