Pillar

Cebrion's page

47 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I imagine they won't bother, and instead expect people to approach issues in a logical manner, because they really do not have the free time to address every "question of wording" that pops up. The issues they will address are those which amount to fundamental problems, of which there are few, and this is not one of them. If you are not satisfied with any of the explanations then I am guessing you will receive no satisfaction.


Diminuendo: Even if the buckler is strapped to the arm, its implementation so as to make a shield bash counts as an off-hand attack, as any shield bash is considered to be per those rules. But no, forget all of that, because you don't buy it.

So, we go ahead an allow for the attack to be made. As you say, the buckler only uses the damage dice and critical modifier of a light shield, but nothing else because, as you say, the buckler totally isn't a light shield at all. Again, as you say, the buckler uses no other aspects of the light shield rules (because it isn't a light shield), so we can assume the buckler is just a standard off-hand attack, as per any shield bash according to the rules for such (this one is just made while the hand is empty). As you say. Here comes the fun part.

Again, as you say, the buckler doesn't literally count as a light shield, only uses its damage and critical modifier, so welcome to the wonderful world of making an off-hand attack with something that isn't, or isn't even considered to be, a light weapon, like a shield bash made with a light shield is considered to be. Hey, as you say, the buckler totally isn't a light shield in this case, because the buckler only uses the light shield's damage and critical modifier, nothing else. In any event, the rules only state that light shields are considered light weapons when used to make a shield bash, and a buckler isn't a light shield as you have so aptly demonstrated, so we can't even argue that it would get the "light weapon" designation. As the buckler so obviously uses no other light shield rules, welcome to having a -4 penalty to hit with your buckler bash. Also, have an additional -4 penalty to hit with your Precise Strike too, just because that's how things work when an off-hand attack isn't made with something that is, or is considered to be, a light weapon. See? When we follow your arguments to their eventual conclusion, you do get to have your cake and eat it too, just not with the creme cheese filling. Pretty awesome, no?

Or is the cake not tasting good enough still, such that this conclusion is also utterly wrong, and only needs the slightest bit more Rules Lawyering to bring things to the desired conclusion? ;)


Which is fine, but the buckler still counts as an off-hand weapon, as all shield bash attacks do, meaning you can't make a Precise Strike and a shield bash in the same attack routine, as the former precludes the latter.

As to your ONLY point, the ability doesn't change your buckler into "buckler: the new weapon whose stats we purposely didn't put anywhere", but into "buckler: the tiniest of shields which normally can't shield bash, but which now can do so using the damage and crit profile of a light shield. It is however not new weapon with its own special rules of whatever you want them to be, but a weapon with stats just as you state them to be, and which can make a shield bash attack, the rules for which are clearly known regardless of whether you want to call a shield a heavy shield, light shield, or new weapon "buckler", the latter of which does not need to be changed into a shield because it is the smallest form of a shield (you may have noticed bucklers give a*shield* bonus to AC, as they are *shields*). You don't find rules in the book containing buckler bash for a new weapon "buckler", as there is no need to do so when they state to just use the damage profile for a light shield. The method of conducting a shield bash does not need to be mentioned at all either, as it works the same for all shield bash attacks. ALL shield bash attacks are considered attacks with an off-hand weapon. That's the way they work, and you wanting to ignore it by inventing the mythical "buckler" weapon and saying it is not a shield (which it is), and that obviously can't use the actual shield bash rules, but must use other rules that don't exist anywhere, won't change the fact that it is so. I get what you mean, but you are really reaching.

Paizo did screw up by copy/pasting the 3.5E buckler usage, which came from 3.0E, which is based on the fallacious descriptions of use in 2E and even in Unearthed Arcana 1E. When in use, bucklers are held in the hand, not let to flop about on the forearm in such a way that one would not have much hope of blocking much of anything. Strapped to the forearm, a buckler might deflect an arrow enough, but most attacks, even an arrow, will just spin the buckler around your arm when hit, as there is nothing...like a hand...holding it and keeping it from doing so; either the attack deflects up into your face, or down into your abdomen/leg- not exactly excellent locations to be hit/wounded! Bucklers can be slid up the arm (if they have straps and not metal or wooden handles), such that they are out of the way enough for a bow or crossbow to be easily used, but are still conveniently there to slide down to your hand in the event you need to drop your bow/crossbow and draw a weapon to defend yourself against enemies that have gotten too close to shoot at. The forearm position is not the position of use though. For those who don't know any better, as seems to be the case with pretty much everyone who ever wrote D&D rules for the buckler, here is an informative link:
13th century German Sword & Buckler Manual
A medieval training manual is a pretty legit source, no? Anyone could find this (among other things) if they bothered to look. The buckler really should be able to shield bash as a standard feature, but it can't. This is all just for information though, and has nothing to do with my point about the rules (the only point I am making here is that the buckler rules in (A)D&D in general have been horrible for literally decades).

Also, for some reason the quote within a quote didn't take, thus the quote foul-up.


diminuendo wrote:

No. The buckler can't normally be used to make shield bash attacks, but a buckler duelist can (at 2nd level), and does so as if using a light shield.

This is wrong; my Buckler does the same damage as a Light Shield, that is not the same thing as using my buckler as a Light Shield. Read the wording.

diminuendo wrote:

Buckler Bash (Ex)

At 2nd level, a buckler duelist can perform a shield bash with a buckler (use the same damage and critical modifier as for a light shield).

Ah, so the buckler just does damage and has the critical modifier of a light shield, and you're doing a shield bash attack, as the buckler bash rule states...but not really doing a shield bash attack because it is being done with a buckler, so you obviously can't use the light shield shield bash rules, because those rules only apply literally to light shields. And we can't use the shield bash rules for heavy shields, as that would be insane because they are huge! Doesn't matter that the rules for shield bashing for light and heavy shields are identical, with the exception of the words "light" and "heavy" in the descriptions, and there are no other rules anywhere else for employing a "shield bash" in the CRB. I guess they left them out.

But, yes, that is totally not the same thing. How silly of me, and how silly of the writers for referring to the buckler bash as a "shield bash" in the first place; something that is all too easily confused with the immediately recognizable term, "shield bash", the rules for which are clearly defined in the CRB in multiple places (but not for when you actually can use a buckler to do one, which you usually cannot). And then they equate the buckler with a light shield with regards to damage and crit modifier, as if that is some sort of point. What were they thinking? Their reasoning is unfathomable.

Might as well close the thread, as there is no answer to be had for a shield bash that does not follow shield bash rules because it is being made with buckler, which you can't use to shield bash normally, but in this case you can using the statistics of a light shield, but it doesn't use the shield bash rules for a light shield (and not any other shield bash rules in the CRB, because the only other rules there are is for heavy shields, and using those rules would obviously be insane, even though they are identical except for the word "heavy"), but some other utterly generic shield bash rules that they forgot to include in the CRB.

Yep, I am totally with you now. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny thread, but I think the grapple control is the best point.

"I'm going to kiss you, and drain your levels!"

"Not while I've got you in a choke hold/full nelson/camel clutch you're not!"

Seems the most reasonable thing to me. A succubus can drain levels if she is in control of a grapple, or gains control of a grapple she was not in control of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

So I am not attacking with any weapon in my hand (as my Buckler is strapped to my arm) and I am not using a shield other than my Buckler.

Sound legit to you guys for TWF with Precise Strike?

No. The buckler can't normally be used to make shield bash attacks, but a buckler duelist can (at 2nd level), and does so as if using a light shield. Light shields:

CRB wrote:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can shield bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.

They are dead-on accurate here, as, I hate to break it to you, shields used in both offensive and defensive applications rely most greatly upon the shield strap held in your hand. When use offensively, you literally do have a portion of your now weaponized buckler/shield in your hand. So, no, you can't do it, as you actually have a weapon in your off-hand, the rules (very properly) stating as much.


If RAW is the only concern, there should be no concern with noise or visuals at all. The only concern is if a spell is considered a shooting attack or not.

If you are after a degree of sensibility as well, produce flame is not quite as perfect for sniping as acid arrow is, but at least it isn't ray of screeching disco ball strobe light death. That one you probably don't want to allow a Stealth check for, even if it is a shooting attack and therefor, under RAW, would be allowable. ;) Depends on how believable you want things to be. The Stealth check isn't just for hiding from the target, but also from anyone who may have been looking in the general direction of the sniper when the attack was made. Basically, was the attack enough of a "tell" to reveal the sniper, or not, to anyone in the area? The target may be getting shot in the back, but there could be others who saw where the shot came from because its form was an easy to see ball of flame, fiery ray, green ray, etc. So, those wanting to know the source merely have to ask, "Where did that come from?" The stealth check may have been perfectly reasonable to allow against those who were not facing the direction of even a spell shooting attack with an obvious visual cue, but for those that were it should not apply. They would simply say, "A ball of flame came from a shadowy form on the second story ledge right there."

To get the stealth chance at all, either the shooter needs to be using a spell with little or no audio/visual cues, such as a silent acid arrow, or or nobody can have been in position to observe them, such that the visual aspect of the spell will then not be relevant (i.e. a silent anyspell will work just fine). If that is not the case, then the visual aspect of any shooting spell used for sniping needs to be very minimal for there to even be a chance of making a further Stealth check when the shooter is within view of anyone.


Being able to initiate Stealth after the sniping is all about making a quiet, near motionless attack, such that one is allowed to then roll for Stealth before being noticed (because it is hard to tell where the attack even came from). Casting a spell with somatic and verbal components roughly equivocates to waving one's arms and saying "I'm over here, shooting you!" There is also the spell's visual effect. It is not too difficult to see where a burning ray came from. Most shooting spells are easily seen to have come from a particular point. An arrow or bolt is a silent, barely seen blur of motion, with no tell-tale point of origin. A spell without a visual component (or a visual component that doesn't have some sort of loud or glowing/burning effect, like an acid arrow) could be made equivalent to that using Still Spell and Silent Spell. For those spells with easily noticed sensory effects, either a new metamagic feat, Stealthy Spell (which either completely hides the sensory effects of a spell, or gives a +20 Stealth bonus against the effect being sensed), needs to be made, or a spell which obscures the sensory effects of other spells needs to be made. With all of that in effect, then you would have an equivalent attack that would allow a character to re-initiate Stealth after casting the spell. Basically, I am of the opinion that the situations need to be very similar to get a similar benefit. So, acid arrow cast using Still Spell and Quiet Spell would allow for the Stealth roll at -20, but scorching ray cast using Still Spell and Silent Spell would not.


Yes, they mean, "It is essentially exactly the same as a Nightmare in all respects, but with a pair of nasty horns it can attack with, like so..."


Yes, I understand it is technically not an off hand attack, which is why the full strength bonus applies. In every other respect flurry of blows is the same as two weapon fighting (and as further feats in that feat tree, as the Monk advances in skill, as cited in the Flurry of Blows section).

Also, "This feat [Piranha Strike] cannot be used in conjunction with the Power Attack feat."


Ah. I see. Flurry is considered two weapon fighting, but without an effective off-hand. Also, a two-handed weapons (double weapons or not) use by a monk in flurry of blows still counts as being used as part of a two-weapon fighting attack, and so do not get the 1.5 X Str bonus. It is always just the 1 X Str bonus no matter what sort of weapon is used. Just for the flurry of blows attack form though.

And yes, any "The rulebook doesn't say I can't do this..." conversation isn't even worth having, as it is just going to go something like this:

Player 1: "The rules don't say I can't do this..."

Player 2: "Well, the rules don't say that my character can't light your character sheet on fire, but he just did! I am pretty sure that means your character is dead, because the rules don't say that he is not dead. So, we go to the DM for a ruling."

DM: "Oh, he's totally dead. However, his items were also burned up."

Player 2: "Hmmm. I didn't consider that. Well, nobody can say the DM isn't fair and just with regards to people engaged in rules chicanery."

So don't be "that guy", or you character sheet is going to get burned up. :p


Jeff Merola wrote:
A monk flurrying always gets 1xStr, regardless of what monk weapon they're using, never 0.5 or 1.5.

Well, let's see:

Quote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in two hands.

So, what is a "full strength bonus"?

For an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1 X Str. For a two-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1.5 X Str. "Full strength bonus" does not mean 1 x Str. It depends on the weapon being used. FAQ required? Probably so.


diego rossi wrote:

Two comments.

Your system
- it is punitive for spontaneous spellcasters that have a limited set of spells...

You think a spontaneous caster whose main class feature is purposely limited in magic should be able to make all the variety of things that any other sort of not-limited spellcaster can make? What is the point of that difference then, nothing? Sorry, they purposely chose the "You lack variety, but can chuck a TON of the magic that you do know!" class, so they will not only reap the whirlwind of awesome, but reap the whirlwind of suck too, just like a specialist wizard won't be able to make items that use opposed magic, or just like rangers and paladins do not have access to fighter only combat feats. The player chose the class for a reason, so they have to take the bad along with the good. And, it is not like spontaneous spellcasters choose the most useless spells to put into magic items anyways, do they. I think they will be able to get by. The tiniest violin plays the sad song of sympathy for them. :p

diego rossi wrote:
...and make Master Craftsman unusable (and the non spellcasting Dwarf or Elf making special items is a staple of fantasy);...

You are talking about D&D dwarves and elves, not Norse mythology dwarves and Tolkien/fairy tale elves, right? What you describe as a staple has never been a staple of D&D. Ever. The staple in D&D has been dwarven clerics making dwarven items, and elven wizards and clerics making elven items, not dwarven blacksmiths and elven making the items. Not that I don't like the idea of the feat, but my system doesn't disallow the use of Master Craftsman at all. I simply didn't bother to outline this feat usage as nobody in my campaign has it, and nobody is likely to get it either. A non-caster character really has to want to go down this path, and be built very particularly to do it well at all. A character with that feat will require something other than their tools and some materials to accomplish what they wish. They will need magic in one form or another, but it will need to come from outside agents. The process would be very ritualized, and involve additional rare sympathetic materials in addition to the spells. Those things would likely be combined in some special way even, such that their power is unlocked during the crafting process, thus allowing a non-spellcasters to do what they otherwise couldn't.

diego rossi wrote:
- wasting all the materials when making a potion is making even less appealing a weak crafting feat. If you want to penalize a crafting feat, penalize Craft wondrous items. That is the strongest crafting feat.

They are the easiest things to make. Potions have a DC of 12 to 14, total. Outrageous? I think not. Way too easy to get that total very, very quickly. Many 1st level characters have Int 17-19, and with even 1 rank in Spellcraft, the class skill bonus, and Skill Focus, even a 1st level n00b will likely start at +11 on their check, and 1st level potions an scrolls have a DC of 12. As you can see, I didn't exactly screw the n00bs over. :p Unless the player sets out to fail at making these simple things, it will be rather easy to make them on a 2+, or close to it. Of course, even if one fails to make one of these simple items, the loss is not very great, and there will be no chance of making a cursed potion or scroll.

diego rossi wrote:
About Brew potion and Craft wondrous items i have houseruled that the elixir and other use activated elixirs, oils and similar items are made with Brew potions, not Craft wondrous items to bolster a bit Brew potion.

I certainly agree with that. I would add anything that would be created using alchemical techniques- oils, salves, elixers, unguents, dusts, glues, pigments, solvents, potions, etc.


All of the strikes can be either with a monk weapon or not, though it is more beneficial to make them all with a two-handed monk weapon so as to get a 1.5 X Str bonus instead of the 1 X Str bonus to damage on each attack.

As to off-hand attacks, monks are different. They do not make true off-hand attacks, as stated in their entry. For characters of other classes this is not so, and so they cannot use a 2-handed weapon (that isn't a double weapon) and make offhand attacks, even if one could say it were being made with a foot or head. 2-handed weapon fighting and 2-weapon fighting do not allow for each other to be usable at the same time, unless through the use of a two-handed double weapon. In the latter case, you do get the 1.5 x Str bonus, and do get the off-hand attack, but you can't do all of that and deliver an additional kick or head-butt too.

Also, don't assume that the lack of mention of something in the rules means it is possible. Rules are, in nearly all cases, written to tell you what you can do, not what you can't; rules are written to be inclusive, not exclusive. If something isn't mentioned, assume that you can't do it, not that you can.


Okay, not so much directed at me then. Still, I appreciate the discussion. :D


I understand both uses of the 12-4 table, and even for characters that are proceeding along, that table is still just a guideline. The is difference between the WBL chart and the XP chart for instance. The XP chart is rigidly defined. Characters don't need "about this much XP" to level up, it is EXCALTY the listed amount. On the contrary, the amounts on the WBL chart are *recommended* amounts, not EXACT amounts. As such they literally guidelines.

Read about the 12-4 table. The table is defined as showing amounts for an average fantasy campaign. Depending on what sort of campaign you want to run, the listed amounts can be halved or even doubled. Really, they can be made whatever you want them to be. You are not limited to using them as is, halving them, or doubling them either. Those are ALL just recommendations; once again, for n00bs who have never done this before. You have to give them a starting point for reference, and so they have. People who don't know any better would look at the numbers and say they are rules. "You can't go over the numbers guys! It's in the rules!" Well, the rules not only say you can do this, but expect that you occasionally will, as the game is somewhat fluid in regard to character wealth. N00bs might not initially know that, but experienced gamers should.

As such, the numbers listed are not THE definitive numbers for ALL DMs to use, or even a medium wealth campaign DM to use. They are just the suggested numbers for that level of wealth/magic. The 12-4 chart contents, by its own explanation, are guidelines. The numbers are not sacrosanct. If I were writing up guidelines for a Pathfinder sanctioned campaign, I would require the numbers be sacrosanct, but only in the interest of establishing a recognized level of play for everyone taking part so far as WBL is concerned. That is not the general case for player/DMs though, whose campaigns, and the events that occur in them, will vary from adventure to adventure. Sure, one should shoot for those numbers, depending on the style of play you prefer and the numbers you ultimately select (those listed, or otherwise), but some adventures might net more treasure, and some less.

The point of those numbers is only the recommendation that you come close to them for a desired "feel" to the campaign so far as the level of wealth/magic is concerned. They can be lower, or higher, and they often will be depending on what treasure is found, what of it is kept and by whom, or if it is sold at a lesser value. The numbers will fluctuate, and I surely am never going to tell a player, "Sorry, dude. Your character can't claim that item because he'll just barely go over his WBL limit. As everyone else is also now tapped out on the WBL, I guess you'll just have to leave it behind." Either that, or the next few encounters will be with thing that don't have any treasure at all, which is what the CRB recommends. Guess what? Things will work out by next level apparently, but then we all knew they would (because DMs can choose to make it so). ;)

Anyways, that is the reason why none of the sections in the various books talking about the WBL say "YOU CANNOT GO OVER THE LISTED AMOUNTS! EVER!!!" anywhere. The CRB allows for people purposely changing its numbers. Whether people do this or not, the CRB not only allows for discrepancies with those numbers- it expects them, and even gives recommendations on how to deal with it. So, there really is no point in arguing about the numbers on the WBL chart, as they are not set in stone. Saying they are is simply untrue.

Enough of that though. The creation process is not broken because of this at all. It is broken due to its ease, and due to the many ways it can be abused so far as what can be made and by whom. The use of a WBL, of whatever set values the DM chooses for its levels, is a good way of limiting the amounts of things for the players in general. I just don't think there are enough requirements that must be adhered to in the making of magic items. My creation rules are more limiting, and more challenging:

* A character who uses arcane magic, and has the requisite item creation feat, can create magic items with arcane functions. They may be aided by others who know/have the ability to use similar arcane spells or powers, even if the helper does not have the requisite item creation feat.

* A character who uses divine magic, and has the requisite item creation feat, can create magic items with divine functions. They may be aided by others who know/have the abilty to use similar divine spells or powers, even if the helper does not have the requisite item creation feat.

* A character who uses both arcane magic and divine magic, and has the requisite item creation feat, can create magic items with a combination of both arcane and divine functions. Alternately, such items can be made by two characters- one who uses arcane magic; the other divine magic- working together, so long as both of them have the requisite item creation feat (i.e they both know how to make the type of item in question, and so can fully pool their talents to create something beyond the scope of what either can achieve individually). Each caster may be aided by one helper who knows/has the ability to use similar arcane/divine spells or powers, even if the helper does not have the requisite item creation feat.

* A magic item cannot be given a particular function unless the creator has the ability to use a spell or power that mimics that function (at least somewhat closely, but preferably exactly, if possible), and the Caster Level of any item cannot exceed that of its creator. Ignore the +5 DC references, as no character will allowed to "pull magic that they have no knowledge of out of their butt", or make items that use magic of a completely different type (i.e. a wizard making a potion of healing; a wizard who doesn't now fireball making fireball scrolls, etc.)

* The DC for creating magic items = 10 + the level prerequisite of the item feat to be used + the item's caster level. Yes, harder to make items will actually be harder to make. For example, scribing a scroll of a 3rd level spell cast at 6th level of ability has a DC of 10 + 1 + 6 = 17, while crafting a wand of a 3rd level spell cast at 6th level of ability would have a total DC of 10 + 5 + 6 = 21.

* Whatever Skill is used to create a magic item, the creator cannot "Take 10" or Take 20" on the Skill Check.

* Proper assistance will gain a non-cumulative +2 bonus on creation checks, and reduces the time (but not the cost) to create items by 10%.

* At least one special ingredient/method must be used in the creation of any magic item (no bonus is gained for this, as it is a basic requirement). For example, the wand material for a wand of fireballs could be made out of metal forged in fire (brass is the metal of choice), or carved from the bone of a creature with the Fire type. Creativity is encouraged, but not any "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" sort of creativity. :P

* Using additional special ingredients/methods (beyond the first) will give a +1 to +5 cumulative bonus on the skill check per additional special ingredient/method used, at the DM's discretion.

* Creating an item at a place of power (a confluence of ley lines, item appropriate non-material plane, etc. for arcane magic; a high altar, item-appropriate non-material plane, etc. for divine magic) will result in a further +1 to +5 bonus at the DM's discretion (the more appropriate/powerful the place is, the greater the bonus).

* A failed creation check wastes half of the value of any materials used (excepting scrolls and potions, in which all of the materials are wasted), and uses all of the required time. The remaining materials may be used to try again by paying only for the remaining costs, though the second attempt does again require the full usage of time.

Net effect? Spell casters will be required to choose any item creation feats with the same level of care that other classes choose their feats. And evil wizards won't be making maces of disruption or holy avengers, clerics won't be making vorpal swords of speed, elves won't be making dwarven throwers, and orcs won't be making boots of elvenkind. And, if characters don't go about things carefully/thoughtfully enough, there will even be the slightest chance of creating a cursed item.


Gauss wrote:

The rules (guidelines, whatever) I am referencing for crafting and exceeding WBL limits are on Ultimate Campaign p173.

Those rules (guidelines, whatever) were created to specifically address the situation in your example (a single character or cohort crafting for the entire group or a single character benefiting from crafting far more than they should).

How you choose to implement this is not covered, it is a 'meta-rule'. Nothing in-character to rationalize it, just something to balance the rules elements.

MCBaine wrote:

And this is perfectly acceptable if they are Level 6 in my opinion, but I'm waiting for one of this dreaded in-game example where the group pools money by selling their whole stuff to afford crafting this single imba item...

That's not happening any time soon I guess.

And saying they are not greedy because they pool gold strikes me as odd, they are just greedy as a group for magic items, not individually for gold. It is not as if the group isn't getting something out of it^^
They may not be uncooperative or stupid fools, but greedy... I would argue that ;)

The pooling of funds isn’t a problem. In my campaign, just having enough money at all is merely the first step on the path to creating a magic item. My magic creation rules are, by design, more…draconian. >:D Charcatealso can't cdate items with a higher CL than they themselves have (that is such a can of worms for the ultra low DC value they set for item creation in the game). Special materials are always needed, which might incur extra costs (and time) simply by needing to travel to get them. They might also need to find the right person to make a required item, and so on. It is also perfectly reasonable to simply tell players, “The materials or craftsman you need to make this particular item is unable to be found.” Money can’t procure what is not there to be procured. That will be very rare answer though, an reserved only for the making of an item which would really mess with the game. I’ve been doing this for a while, and there is a solution for everything. ;)

WBL is just a guideline for the DM though. The p.173 example in Ultimate Campaigns keys on on what I was thinking about, which is PCs created "on the spot" for a player. Such a PC will have a certain amount of money to spend on gear, and with item creation feats they could use that money to make items with a total real value far beyond their WBL guideline. That section really serves as a warning to both players and DMs that one should not go too crazy with the item creation if you are creating a PC with a level beyond 1st level: “However, game
balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn’t just let you craft double the normal amount of gear.” What going over the limit tells you, as a DM, is that it is likely time to start reigning in the handing out of treasure in minor ways, or begin to impact the wealth of the PC, which happens all the time for a variety of reasons. It could take the form of pickpockets/robbers, unexpected expenditures in the form of taxes, entering an area where things cost +15% of the CRB values, where selling stuff can only be done at 30% of the cost of items, etc. Guild/temple fees and required services are also options. These are all things the other PCs have been dealing with their whole adventuring careers. The n00b PC doesn't just get to skate by without "feeling the love" too. ;)

People need to remember this book was also written for those who have never played the game before, and who do not know what “acceptable” levels of treasure for adventurers may be. If such folks were to go by every visual reference they had ever seen, killing a dragon would obviously net adventurers a few dump trucks full of gold pieces, gems, and other loot. How many millions of coins is that? Heaven forbid they had only even seen the Hobbit movies, and Smaug’s treasure hoard is what they think to be “normal”. n00b DM: "The dragon is dead, and you have BILLIONS of gold pieces to spend!" LOL And so, yes, some guidelines were needed in the book. The chart does not give hard and fast limits though.

Thanks to you all for pointing out some oddball things to me though. Hope I haven’t been (or will continue to be) too much of a monkey wrench in the thread. :)


The WBL are not hard limitations for what characters can have, but are a guide for use in creating NPCs and giving them a generally acceptable level of money to purchase gear. That is why I am asking for more clarification as to what Gauss is referring to with this multiple item creation feats = +50% WBL thing. If that is part of the WBL, then it is for NPC generation guidelines. They could be used as guidelines to generate a PC, if a new player dropped into an existing group with higher level characters, but just at the start. It is no guideline or limitation on what characters can acquire afterwards.


I haven't read that. There is an "Im sorry guys. I can't make items beyond a cost of 24,000 gp until I get another level, no matter how much gold we have." rule? What page is this on, or do you mean it is one of Diego's house rules?


McBaine wrote:

Aside from not being possible as Diego Rossi stated:

This wand of fireballs (CL 10) would cost 22,500 gp (3*10*750). The wizard would need 11,250 gp and it would require downtime to make it in 23 days. If the wizard keeps adventuring, it takes him 92 days.

The character wealth by level indicates, that a level 5 character should have 10,500 gp, so he falls 750 gp short and is not able to craft it because he can not pay for the materials (which have to be bought in advance).

Even if he could get those 750 gp, he would sink all his gp from 5 levels in creating this wand. He has no other gear whatsoever - no protection items, no ability boosting magic item, no nothing.
How realistic is this in actual gameplay?! Answer: it isnt. You all asume theoretical scenarios in a white room. That is not how gaming happens.

Well, thankfully the level of spell completion items can't be jacked up, but your point about money is not much of a point. As to character wealth in game and theoretical scenarios, character wealth per level is meaningless, because guess what my players are doing *right now*?. They are not being greedy, uncooperative, stupid fools, and so are pooling their money to have the magic item crafters make stuff to benefit the group. Pretty savy, no? So far they have made a wand of magic missiles (CL 5) and they have just made a wand of fireballs (CL 6), which cost 6,750 gp. They look forward to seeing it roast many enemies, and no doubt they will see it do just that. They have also made eight scrolls and a few potions. The downtime is not really a factor either (14 days to make the wand of fireballs; less for the others); merely relegating most magic item creation to downtime between adventures, or between parts of adventure series, which is what they are doing. How's that for theoreticals in a white room?

I don't have problem with any of that though. What I really have a problem with are characters effectively being able to "borrow" the item creation feats of other characters. And arcane crafters being able to create items able to accept divine magic from others, and divine crafters being able to create items that accept arcane magic from others. And the whole orcs making elven items bit, etc. And the crafting above the creator's own capabilities/caster level for some items. And the, in most cases, 2+ on a d20 success rate. The challenge in making magic items shouldn't just be in the money (and yes, suggestions are made in the core book to do this very thing, and I do them). But, that's a pretty big list of significant things to be unsatisfied with.


I see what you mean about the FAQ. It throws everything off a cliff. How about one just creates a wand of fireballs at 5th level that has a caster level of 10th? That's just a DC of 5+ 10 + 5 = 20. Why, my Wizard 5 has five ranks in Spellcraft (a Class Skill), Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Magical Aptitude, and Int 18 for a total bonus of +17. So...to create an item which will break the game by allowing him to chuck fifty 10d6 fireballs against CR 6 encounters, he needs to roll...a 3+. Brilliant. If we are all understanding this correctly, the pearl of power FAQ person dropped a load in the bed on that one. Usually it is players who wil lbe hunting for ways to break the game balance, but you don't often have developers doing it for them in such a simple way. I thought the magic items creation rules were pretty bad before, which is why I use little to none of them, but apparently they are worse than I thought. They are certainly more complex than they need to be, are overly indulgent, and are unnecessarily scattered throughout the book.


"If the attack is successful, the rock deals bludgeoning damage to the target as if you had hit the target with your unarmed strike."
That last bit is key. Treat it just like a regular unarmed strike. It can be a ki strike, and there is no reason not to also allow it to be a stunning fist strike too, if the character has that ability. There is no reason it couldn't also be a Scorpion Strike, Gorgon Strike, and so on. This just allows one ranged unarmed strike to be made. What it can possibly do is fully limited by what other feats the character has. Interesting spell/effect, and most opponents would rather be taking only one attack from range than having a Warpriest/Monk smash their face in up close and personal like many more times than once.


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final


Ozy: You misunderstand. You can make items in the Core Book with a listed CL higher than the level of a character...only if the item in question has lesser versions of itself covered in its entry that do not exceed the creator's caster level.

The pearl of power example is perfect. A pearl for a spell of up to 9th level can be made, which has a required CL of 17- the minimum level to cast a 9th level spell. That is why 17 is the CL listed for a pearl of power (stupid notation method, but they list the greatest, not individually as they should). It doesn't mean that character below 17th level cannot make pearls of power though- they just cannot make one beyond their own caster level. No creator can make an item with an actual CL of its own greater than that of the creator.

For example, a Wizard 5 can make a pearl of power of 1st (CL 1), 2nd (CL 3), or 3rd (CL 5) level, but not a pearl of 4th level or higher, as they will have a CL of 7 or more which goes beyond the creator's caster level of 5.

So, go ahead and make them. Just be aware that the rules very much curtail creators to only being able to make items with a CL equal to, or less than, that of their creator. Hope that is clear enough.


Kchaka wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:
A stated design goal of the crafting rules is they're meant to be easy skill wise. Being 'able' to make the items has never been an issue. Paying for them and having the time to craft them is the scarceness in that aspect of the game.

Easy crafting DCs are not the problem. The problem is, by intending to make the crafting DCs easy, they have opened the possibility of making cheap magic items of levels above what players should have at their levels. There are alot of post with exemples of exploits, like:

- At lvl 3, crafting +1 weapons for 2,300g at CL 20(and also most items).

- A wizard can craft a scroll of any spell he wishes to learn.

- A 3rd lvl wizard could craft a Candle of Raise Dead with DC 24 and 1,125gp.

- At lvl 3, you can create a +5 Spellcraft Amulet with DC 15 for 1,250g, and with it soon a +10 for 5,000g and +15 for 11,250g.

There are some relatively cheap magic items that can solve big problems:

- At lvl 5, a druid could craft a teleportation spoon.

- A cleric could craft a flute of summon natures ally way above his level.

These are problems, and we all shouldn't have to make the same house rule to prevent these, it should be in RAW, not the other way around as it is.

Sure, a reasonable DM could fix all of this, but it would be much better if these rules didn't depend only on the reasoning of any DM. It would be much better if the rules were more strict, to prevent unreasonable DMs from doing crap, and the reasonable DMs would still be able to allow reasonable exceptions.

The rules do not depend on reasoning. They depend on people reading them. Okay, they depend on both. ;) As per pages 460-461 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook...

Quote:

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives

the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The
caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well
as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of
the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must
be contended with should the item come under the effect of a
dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the
caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast
the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For
other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item
itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as
the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a
higher minimum on the creator’s level)
.

That answers the whole "Characters can make items of higher caster levels than themselves." bit (i.e. they cannot). The only thing relating to Caster Level and Prerequisites is in a situation where it is possible to have an effect cast at a very low level, but the item prerequisites disallow lowering the Caster Level of the particular effect below a certain minimum required level for the item. While not the perfect example of this, a wand of fireballs has a minimum effect of 5d6, though it can be set as high as 10d6 (if the provider of the spell is 10th level). Any caster able to provide the fireball spell cannot provide an effect of less than 5d6 power though, as a spell trigger item must mimic the spell's parameters. Altering spell parameters for item effects falls outside of the realm of spell trigger items, and into the realms of Command Word or Use Activated items, like a ring of shooting stars or a necklace of fireballs. A better example would be a 1st level spell put into a non-trigger item, but that has an attached prerequisite "CL 5" for that particular spell, meaning the 1st level spell will always function at CL 5 with regard to duration and other effects.

Quote:

Construction: With the exception of artifacts, most magic

items can be built by a spellcaster with the appropriate feats
and prerequisites. This section describes those prerequisites.

And...

Quote:

Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order

for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells,
and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and
race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given
immediately following the item’s caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has
prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a
sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or
spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces
the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation
process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or
one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects
is used to supply a prerequisite.
It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in
the creation of an item, with each participant providing one
or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may
even be necessary.
If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they
must agree among themselves who will be considered the
creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s
level must be known.

And so the prerequisites for creating an item are given after the Caster Level, meaning the prerequisites do not include Caster Level (unless specifically stated for a spell, as I mentioned before), and so the overall Caster Level of an item cannot be ignored by taking the +5 DC penalty, as it is not a prerequisite.

By the way, the only reason I even recall this is due to my players very recently creating magic items (much to easily; seriously create a magic item on 2+ if you didn't build your character like a moron?) in my campaign. It's a giant book. I miss stuff all the time, and will no doubt continue to do so. :D Hope this helps with some of your questions.


An excellent product for cheap bastard gamers everywhere!

Okay, what I really meant to say was,

"An excellent product for the cheap bastard gamers that *are* everywhere!" :D

Well, and an excellent product for those who don't have much storage space, couldn't paint their way out of a wet paper bag, etc. ;)

Definitely a product that fills a niche/need.


Looks nice! A pic with a mini next to it for scale purposes would be great though.


LKL: Sorry for not veiwing every thread of every forum every day. Only the energy origins were sarcastic by the way; not the rest of the post.

It doesn't excuse your lack of tact though. Next time you could just say:

"This has alredy been duiscussed here<LINK>, here<LINK>, and here<LINK>." It gives the right message and makes you *not* look like an a-hole.

Everybody has their days where thye get riled though, so no biggy. :)

Energy powers based on a patron like a black dragon or something like that are more in the realm of a shaman's powers. A shaman might gift a warrior with a talisman or charm that might grant that ability, but a simple Barbarian warrior is not going to be conjuring energy forms. They should gain an ability that is more suited to Barbarians.

And no, I don't think a god of strength and war would grant lightning bolt ability to a Barbarian any more than a god of warmages would grant automatically confirmed critical hits to a Wiard who deicided to use a melee weapon. It is a matter of the ability suiting the class. You don't give Rogues the power to turn undead, and you don't give Barbarians the ability to use magic. That reasoning goes to what the core of the classes are all about to begin with.


After reading the latest Alpha release, things look to be coming together, but one thing stands out as being a little bit out there to my mind, and that is the Barbarian's Rage energy attack ability. do Barbarians bring forth acid from their bilious gut, fire from their glaring eyes, cold from their icy demeanor, and lightning from their arses?! At least scrolling video games(like that old classic Golden Axe) needn't explain themselves regarding goofy things like this, but this isn't a goofy video game here.

The Barbarian, archetypal opponent of magic, has the generation of a magical effect built right into their class? Pure insanity I tell you. What you could do instead is to simply replce this energy power with an ability that allows the Barbarian to ignore *ALL* Damage Resistance for the round instead. Say its the Barbarisn indomitable will that allows them to hack through all defenses. That at least sounds plausible, and more importntly it is certainly more in character with the class. Plus, it allows Barbarians to face off more effectively agaisnt those unnatural cratures that have reater levels of DR in the first place(Beowulf vs. Grendel comes to mind).

Very heroic if you ask me, and much better than arse lightning attacks.

;)


I agree. Eva does some really nice work.


One problem I see is in the balance of turn and rebuke.

When a cleric turns undead, *ALL* undead within the 30 foot burst can potentially be destroyed.

When a cleric rebukes undead, only undead of total hit dice equal to that of the rebuking cleric, and that are within the 30 foot burst, can potentially be controlled.

That is way out of whack. The cleric that rebukes should be able to affect *ALL* of the undead he is able to affect(based on what he rolled) that are within the 30 foot burst.

The evil cleric can potentially control the undead horde, but the good cleric can just as easily blast them to dust.

Holy/Unholy crap! That almost sounds balanced, don'tcha think?

And that doesn't even take into account the cost of the animate dead spell component, which is how rebuking clerics usually get hold of undead minions in the first place. I'm not sure why designers want to continue the screwing over of (usually)evil clerics in this way, when it is an obvious flaw in the rules. :/


I'll have to agree with the general concensus on the angular manga style art. It is certainly well done, but I cerntainly don't like it. I'd ditch it entirely and go for something more traditional. No "impressionistic" art(pastels, watercolor effects, blurred pics, whatever) either.


One possible means of fixing polymorph and making it very simple would be to just very clearly delineate what aspects of the assumed form a character gains. For instance, limit the in-game effects to certain portions of a creature's stat block, such as...

A character who is subject to a polymorph affect adopts the following statistics of the assumed form, as listed in the monster entry for the assumed form:

Size

Type; if you polymorph into an Orc, then beware of Orc-bane weapons!!!

Space/Reach

Speed(and locomotive ability- flight, burrowing, etc.)

Armor Class

Base Attack/Grapple*; unless that of the base creature is higher.

Attack*; the type of attack, and damage(bite 1d4+Str, Claw 1d6+Str, etc.) are always gained, even if those o the base creature are better. The "to hit" bonus is also gained ,unless that of the base creature is higher.

Full Attack*; "to hit" bonuses and number of attacks are gained, unless the base creature’s "to hit" bonuses and number of attacks are higher.

*"to hit" bonuses are subject to change from any Str bonus/penalty gained from the assumed form.

Special Qualities, but only those designated as Extraordinary(Ex), such as Water Breathing(Ex), Drow Traits(Ex), Poison(Ex)etc. No supernatural(Su)or spell-like(Sp) abilities are gained!!!

Abilities, but only Str, Dex, and Con; even if lower than the original form. Fortitude and Reflex saves may be better/worse depending on the new physical stats gained from the assumed form.

Environment, becomes a native environment while the character is polymorphed.

Just tie the polymorph spell to granting the affected character a list of monster stat categories from the monster stat block and there is nothing left to question.

Polymorph is certainly a complicated affect requiring a bit more effort than any other spell listed. Players should simply keep a list of stats for various assumed forms so that it doesn't need to be figured out during a game, when it will slow things down a bit too much. That is just a simple matter of showing consideration to both the DM and the other players.

Another, much simpler method, would be to add polymorph I, polymorph II, polymorph III, polymorph IV, etc. spells to the game, where each spell enables the caster to change into literally any *one* form, gaining its full stat profile(with a few notable exceptions), but the form assumed must have a CR less than or equal to that of the character's total levels. The initial polymorph I spell entry would therefore be rather small, as it would really only require noting what qualities of the new form are *not* gained. Very likely this would just be base hit points, base attack bonuses, Int, Wis, Cha, plus maybe a few other benefits/hindrances would be included(such as still being able to speak if the original form could speak).


I'm not really sure on a name for the combination of Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand. Call it "Legerdemain", as "Prestidigitation" really can't be used again. They are pretty much synonymous anyways, being trerms to describe slight of hand and magician's/ conjurers tricks, like making things disappear from one's hand, or escaping bonds "as if by magic".

The Fly skill is a tricky one, and might be better suited to not being a skill.


After reading though things, it looks very interesting.

The balancing of the races is excellent!!!

I like the realignment and streamlining of the skills, but I still am yet to be sold on the class/cross-class mechanic. This regards the implication that learning things is more difficult for characters of a certain class than it may be for others. I'd rather the system be slightly more open, such that you can have a fighter who has studied engineering for the purposes of siege warfare, and would know it as well as any scholarly type who studied the same, yet doesn't have to sacrifice a massive amount of skill points just to do so. Or, a fighter who was raised among mages could be as well versed in Spellcraft as any Wizard(he can identify magical properties), even if he can’t actually cast any spells. I could give other examples of this too, but it is a simple fix for me. I'd rather just have the classes themselves define the characters, and not have such stringent limitations placed on learning skills. Perhaps you could introduce a Feat called “Variant Training: Choose any two Cross-class Skills. These skills now count as Class Skills for you.” That would cover those instances where players want to play a character of a certain class, but who has skills outside of the norm and knows them very well. While it doesn't suit my view perfectly(like you can ever make all the people happy all the time anyways ;) ), the Skills system is still greatly improved. Some of the racial abilities also address this issue(half-elves and humans), but it would be a good option to make available to anyone through the use of a Feat slot.

The seldom used Escape Artist Skill should probably be rolled into the Sleight of Hand skill(both involve flexibility of the hands/body) instead of how it is now for Theft. Instead, combine Open Lock and Disable Device together, as both skills are completely related and really do require Perception, Dexterity, and Intelligence to pull off, and not just good hand-eye coordination. These tow popular skills will always be focused on, even if they are separate skills, but combining them makes sense and also has the benefit of freeing up a few extra points to spend on other, less used skills.

The Fly skill is an interesting addition. I can see why it was made a skill, as it is a skill that can be acquired through the use of magic, but is also one possessed by creatures that can fly normally(either through the use of wings, internal gasses, or a permanent magical affect). On the other hand, it does suffer from the same problem that the Scry skill did- you must be able to fly somehow in the first place to use the skill. The earliest level a character will gain a fly spell is 5th, and as it is a Trained Only skill it presents a further problem to noob characters who get their hands on a Fly potion. It also prsents the problem of expaling how a 1st level character can train in flying. Potions of flying are expensive, and the simple fly spell is way beyond a novice's abilities. The one odd thing I noticed about the skill is that is doesn’t have any size penalty built into it. Massive creatures ought not to have the same maneuverability as tiny creatures. While this may end up being dealt with in the monster book, it still needs to be dealt with here, as you can of course have things like flying gnomes(Small), and flying, enlarged, fighters(or en-spelled flying giants or whatever). The Fly skill needs to take into account all of these varying factors for it to work well. The size of the flier is one omission that comes to mind. Simply adding the “Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8” size modifier will fix the size issue in regard to skill checks, but bigger things should also have to spend more movement to maneuver(that isn’t covered at all). An en-spelled flying ferret familiar might be able to practically turn on a dime, but a fire giant who drank a potion of flying probably can’t (speaking of which, Fly should not be a Trained Only skill, as anything can be made to fly via spell or potion). Big things should have to move at least a certain amount before being able to conduct a maneuver. Maneuverability Class handled this before, but taking it out is not a good idea and it needs to be included in some way under the Fly skill. Also, the collision section of the Fly skill should have its DC modified by the current height of the flier as well(maybe DC 25, -2 for every 100 feet of height of the flier), if you collide with something 40 feet above the ground, yes, you are probably going to crash and burn, but if you collide with something at 800 feet in the air, you have a much better chance of pulling out of your death dive in time. There is no distinction made in regard to height when a collision happens under the skill as it is written. 10 feet or 10 miles in the air, it is DC 25 or nothing. That paragraph that says you cannot avoid a fall if you are involved in a collision should therefore be removed as the above option would cover the situation. I’ll leave it to you to hammer out the details though. I’m just here to provide opinions. :D

As to the revision of the 4 Core classes, I mostly like what I see. I think I get the gist of how Orisons are intended to work, but perhaps this re-wording would make it a bit more clear:

“Orisons (Sp): Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast each of these prepared spells an unlimited number of times per day, at will, as a spell-like ability. The number of orisons a cleric can prepare each day is noted in Table 4-2 under spells per day. Orisons are treated like any other spell cast by the cleric in terms of duration and other variables based on level. Orisons cannot be channeled through spontaneous casting.”

If Orisons(and Cantrips) are NOT intended to work this way, please explain a bit more about how they are intended to work. Thanks.

Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.

One other thing. Black Tentacles(Evard's Black Tentacles) used to be such a simple thing to take care of in 1e/2e. Please bring the Pathfinder version more in line with what the effect once was. Roll a simple Reflex save to avoid the tentacles or be nabbed. Strength check vs. DC 10 + caster level + ability modifier to break free, or do so much damage(tentacle has 1 hp/2 caster levels perhaps) to a tentacle to destroy it(and break free). The current damage level is just fine. It is just a royal pain to make use of this spell in-game when it has grabbed a whole crap-load of enemies. Resolving this spell each round slows the pace of the game such that even a sloth would scream "Hurry the **** up with that spell effect already!!!" :D Do this with Entangle too, and leave Grappling for non-spell related effects that target individuals(not groups).

Based on what I've seen so far, you have a guaranteed sale from me. I look forward to seeing more of the modifications.


That WotC hasn't sent off a copy of the 4e rules to Paizo says to me that they do not plan to facilitate Paizo competing with them in any way whatsoever, even though it would probably be to their benefit to do so. The rules must surely be cemented in place at this point, at least to the extent that they could share them with 2nd party companies who planned on bolstering the WotC 4e core product line with products of their own. This is surprising considering that WotC's own product releases for 4e are really not that far off themselves. I can understand Erik's trepidation about book trade deadlines and GENCON. His hands are pretty much being tied, as well as forced to seriously consider alternatives. Paizo need not(and should not) be as beggars at WotC's table.

4e looks to not even be remotely compatible with what has come before, and I won't even comment on the mutilation of the background fluff that looks to be the hallmark of this "much improved" and "better" edition. At least with 3.0 there was enough similarity that a conversion could be made without too much of a loss. With regards to 4e and WotC's target audience. I just don’t think they will be as successful as they think they will be at prying this new audience away from consoles like Wii, games like WoW, and other such things. The interest in D&D simply isn't strong among this new generation that has had so many other choices available to them for over a decade. WotC is coming very late to the table.

Yet, rather than pull along the old gamers with them into this new frontier, most everything WotC is doing seems aimed at leaving the older gamers behind. Being an older gamer, I have money of my own and do not have to beg my parents to buy me something, and I spend liberally on things that appeal to me. Pen & paper RPG games appeal to me, as I grew up with them. I’m not much of a fan of on-line games and console games(though PC game are another story). As it has been presented so far, 4e does not appeal to me. A Pathfinder 3.75 RPG set of books sounds VERY appealing to me, and if WotC continues to waffle on giving Paizo a copy of the 4e rules so they can make their own product plans in a realistic time frame, then I certainly hope they seriously consider doing their own thing. Keep making great products, as you ahve bee, and I(and others ) will continue to buy them.

*EDIT:* Also, I have found from personal experience that many in the gaming industry in particular have a very skewed interpretation of ethics and morals. Regarding the 4e-5e djinni back in the bottle thing and deciding on whether or not to convert to 4e, look to you own interests first. Make your choice soon, such that you will never have to be subject to such a problem to begin with. Regardless of how friendly you may think you are with contacts over at WotC, its best not to(even partially) put the future on your own company in their hands. I have seen first hand that people's ethics and morals become much more fluid when their own futures become involved, and nothing makes them more so than the all mighty dollar, which is THE bottom line. As you said yourself, when 5.0 comes around, and surely it will, those friendly folks you know as WotC now might not even still be there, or be in a position to make a decision that also benefits you. They might even have to look to their own interest before yours, and you wouldn’t blame them for doing so either I bet. Look to your own interests and your own future.


For how many charaters is the adventure set up for? The "standard" four as in the Adventure Paths, or something else?


How about yuan-ti? Open, or closed and shut off forever?


As to things taking into account a younger audience, just read the blog and see what is being done with goblins. They are very faery tale-ish, yet still mean and nasty. They are more in the style of things from "The Hobbit"(as opposed to "The Lord of the Rings" which is written in a decidely different style) than with any sort of dark horror fanstasy. Goblins, or anything else for that matter, can be tailored to suit the atmosphere you want to have for your game.

I prefer mean and nasty things with no clownish apsects to them at all(or very rarely), but I do see the point of it. The game world isn't being designed *just for me* after all...


I notice in the Transition page that initial Pathfinder suscribers will get not only the hard copy of each issue but a pdf copy of each issue as well. Will this be standard for those who have a hard copy subscription, or will there be an additional fee to get the pdf of each issue?


How about you post a sticky on each of the Poll options and fill us in on each of them as you are able to? So, I guess I voted for "all of the above" then.


Yeenoghu tops my list. I'd rather see other subjects that haven't already had an extensive article on them yet. Dagon had a hefty article not too long ago, so I'd black ball him, and any others that have had such comprehensive treatment. Go for the less developed subjects. I wouldn't mind seeing Lolth "demonized" and returned to here original state as a demon lord. Shabriri would be another lesser known option.


I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand the changes. Paizo will no longer be publishing Dungeon or Dragon magazine in *any* format. When the last issues of both magazines are published in September, Paizo will no longer have anything to do with Dungeon or Dragon magazine in any format(unless some new deal is worked out with WotC, which seems unlikely). Dungeon and Dragon *may* be published similar to what they are now in an on-line format by WotC. You'll have to ask WotC if they will be accepting submissions from writers for their on-line D&D content, as they are the ones who will be handling it.

As to Paizo, you should be asking if they are taking submissions for their new booklet Pathfinder. Coincidentally enough, I'd like to know about that too. :)


My hat is off to the folks at Paizo who have been laboring under this depressing cloud for many months now. It looks like they will weather the storm just fine. I look forward to their OGL content, and I am also very happy to hear about the deal with Necromancer Games as they produce most of my favorite 3rd party D&D gaming products. Thanks to all the Paizo staff and freelance writers and artists who have made the magazines as interesting as they have been for the past 5 years. I look forward to seeing the quality work continue in Pathfinder. Also, the transiton options for suscription holders are excellent and well thought out. Great work on that.

I'm sure the decision to end the magazines was not taken lightly, and has been in the works since last year. It’s sad to see these staples of D&D gaming leave the shelves and go digital, but it’s a common trend these days. Still, I'd rather not go blind (or get migraines or seizures) from prolonged viewing of a computer screen. Plus, the non-hard copy format will surely cut into my personal time visiting the "Throne of Iuz" to release a few otters into the sea (think about it for a bit ;)), as it's not so easy to carry my computer case and monitor with me(I have no laptop).

I can’t really fault WotC too much for what they are doing. It is forward thinking, even if I don’t like it, and most things revolve around saving more money or making more money. Either this moves pays off for them, or not. That of course all depends on the quality of WotC’s planned on-line content and how much they decide to charge for it. It’s a big change to be sure. Maybe it will be good in the end, maybe not. It is way too early to tell. Still, I will miss the magazines when they are finally gone.


Buy a copy of "Rary the Traitor", which kind of centers on Rary and what he has been up to. The Living Greyhawk Gazetter might have a few references in it too, but don't expect anything detailed.


Change Swim to Rope Use. Historically, most sailors didn't know how to swim, though knowing how to tie knots and use ropes was a necessity on board a ship.