Cinderfist's page

25 years of playing, exactly one campaign got over level 15.
Which is why I find all the griping about high level casters so annoying.

The game needs to be broken into tiers with normal advancement stopping at 15th level give or take.

Dagon:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264508/

The Island of Doctor Moreau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau

Both of these might give you some ideas.

If you would like a good real world example take a look at Rothenberg in Germany. It is a perfect example of a typical walled city from medieval times. Just a google search of maps will give you a good idea of the size of the city

There really is no single answer to this question. It really comes down to the DM's world building.

There are a number of questions you can ask yourself to come up with an answer. So that your foot soldier, town guard, commoners, etc fit in and don't break verisimilitude. Here are a few to get you started.

First, What is your world's level cap? This sets the scale. Are there more then a small handful of epic level people in the world? The more epic people the more mid level people there would probably be. So your commoners can easily scale up to match. On the other hand if your looking at E6 or a variation then you would probably scale down.

How special are your Pcs : Are your pcs considered heroes right from level 1? or are they common folk themselves that may or may not rise to greatness.

How much adversity is in the life of a commoner : In a large metropolis where people live relatively safe and comfortable lives your typical commoner or guard will be low level as their day to day is rather mundane. On the other hand if your town is more remote, colonial, in a war zone, plagued by bugbears from the mountains, settled by veterans from a war etc. then your commoners probably have a few levels and your guards a few more to match.

I envisioned it as you are using the weapon as part of the casting, like a battery you are drawing a little extra power from.
Any spell cast while holding the weapon would benefit from the +1 ECL

I think I would just apply it to arcane spell casting, but that's just my worlds flavor.

As for type, i'm not sure I would type it. I would let it stack with anything since you can't wear more then one suit of armor. So you can't get more then a +1 on the Will saves from it. As for the bonus to armor I would just bake it in. A chain shirt made of this stuff just gives +5 AC.

Well here are a few from my campaign world:

Ashen Stone A heavy dark grey marbled ore with black flecks
Weapons: Blunt only(does not hold an edge/point), -1 AC of the wielder, weapon damage dice increase 1 step
Armor: Heavy Armor and Shields only. +1 AC, +3 Armor check penalty, -1 max dex bonus

Orichalic Light weight Reddish copper colored metal with latent magical energy
Weapons: +1 Effective Caster level or +1 DC while wielded
Armor: +1 AC, +1 Will saves, -2 Armor check penalty

Mythrical Bluish Metal conductor of magical energy
Weapon: Evocation Spell Dc +2 if wielded while casting but wielder must roll 1d4. Weapon overheats if cast spell level exceeds result of the die. Wielder and weapon take 1d4 points of fire damage per level difference
Armor +1 to saves vs magic, -2 to armor check penalty.
Shields forged of Mythrical attract and absorb magic missiles and force effects. Magic absorbed does 1/2 damage to the shield.

Pyrum Brassy Metal with a reddish patina
Weapons Upon a successful attack the metal begins to glow with an inner heat. Damage increases by +1 fire per successful attack +5 max. –1 fire per round without a successful strike.
Armor: not used for armor, repeated blows would burn the wearer.

Well there was
Evard's Black Tentacles
Abi Dalzim's Horrid Wilting.
Aganazzer's Scorcher

Spelling may be off..

Cinderfist wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cinderfist wrote:

#5.) I would like to see standard progression cap at 10th level. Then have an advanced/Epic book with a different progression for 11-20. Then one Path to Divinity for 20+

First, level 17 IS Divinity. There's a 'Wizard 20 can match the feats of Jehova from Judeo-Christian Myth/History' thread somewhere on these boards. Most gods from Myth don't even require level 17 to emulate.

Second... why do you need a progression cap? Why can't GMs simply select the levels they want to play?

Is this about Adventure Paths dragging into later levels than you want to participate in?

It was just a quick rattle off of an over arching change. The specifics would take over the thread.

That sounds like an interesting thread, any interest in making it?

Hehe I'd love to, but I am in the middle of writing the current chapter for my campaign this weekend. And I can't afford the time to get sucked down that rabbit hole :) So maybe later once I have enough written.

There are a number of ways to accomplish this. It really depends on what effect you really want to have.
Are you planning on playing in the 15th-20th level bracket a lot?

Cinderfist wrote:

#5.) I would like to see standard progression cap at 10th level. Then have an advanced/Epic book with a different progression for 11-20. Then one Path to Divinity for 20+

First, level 17 IS Divinity. There's a 'Wizard 20 can match the feats of Jehova from Judeo-Christian Myth/History' thread somewhere on these boards. Most gods from Myth don't even require level 17 to emulate.

Second... why do you need a progression cap? Why can't GMs simply select the levels they want to play?

Is this about Adventure Paths dragging into later levels than you want to participate in?

It was just a quick rattle off of an over arching change. The specifics would take over the thread.

okay
#1.) The ridiculously overly complex lighting rules.

#2.) The completely deficient random treasure generation and horrendous cross referencing needed to use them AND the unhelpful monster statistic of Treasure: Standard.

#3.) The level of cross referencing needed for some monsters. Seriously,
Troglodyte>Stench>sickened. There went 5 minutes of table time. Just put the damn effect in the monster stats.

#4.) The warrior npc class. You're a fighter.

#5.) I would like to see standard progression cap at 10th level. Then have an advanced/Epic book with a different progression for 11-20. Then one Path to Divinity for 20+

Cinderfist wrote:

Toblakai wrote:

I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.

Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.

When you have a module that spans 4 levels, the power level of what the party can face changes rapidly throughout the module. So it becomes more important that the party be X level by page such and such.

If, or in, a setting where leveling is slower (so that a module only spans 1 or 2 levels) you find that mandatory party leveling isn't needed.

I'm not saying one is better then the other just pointing out one of the reasons why DM leveling fiat has become popular, at least here on the boards.

Even back in 3.5 my group just leveled when the GMs decided it, which I do too. That being said we appreciate the framework that the XP system provides.

Oh the ideas been around for even longer then that. Even in 2nd Ed. it popped up now and then.

I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.

Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.

If, or in, a setting where leveling is slower (so that a module only spans 1 or 2 levels) you find that mandatory party leveling isn't needed.

I'm not saying one is better then the other just pointing out one of the reasons why DM leveling fiat has become popular, at least here on the boards.

I'll throw this out there. With the intent of making powerful and permanent magic items more rare,
(not the Op's intent I realize, but as an example of how Xp costs aren't automatically a bad way of doing things)

In my home brew world permanent magic items cost XP.

You still need to take the required feats
And the rules for item creation are such:

Crafting Permanent Magic Items in Te'Lar requires the caster to imbue the item with a life force or the power of an exotic material component.
As such magic items have an Xp cost equal to the crafting Gp cost.

This applies to any magic item except:
Potions
Scrolls and Scroll like items (Runes, Tattoos, etc)
Wands

The Xp cost incurred while crafting a magic item may be payed in one of three ways:

Direct Drain: The caster pays the cost by personal xp loss

Siphon Essence: The caster drains the xp from a willing or unwilling victim
Draining xp forces a Will Save each hour upon the victim. Dc= 10+Caster's Level+The caster's casting stat modifier
Upon a failed save the victim is drained of 50 xp points.
If a creature is drained to 0 Xp and then drained again it will provide 100 xp but be aged 1/5th of it's max age.
A creature killed in this manner is treated as if it died of old age and cannot be raised without powerful magic.

Research: The caster can spend time researching an exotic component that can pay the xp cost in part or in total if used in the crafting
Exotic Components to be researched have a Research Score(Rs) = The Base XP cost divided by 20.

Ex.) A +1 long sword costs 2,000 xp to craft. The research score [2,000 ÷ 20] = 100
Research points are accumulated for every 4 hours of research with an appropriate knowledge check [typically knowledge Arcana; but Nature, Religion, History or another may be used at the DM's discretion ]

Ex.) Merklin the Mystical is researching an item that has a (Rs) of 100. He spends 4 hours in a library pouring over old tomes and makes a Knowledge Arcana roll. He gets a 16. He then spends another 4 hours at some time and makes another roll scoring an 18. He had now accumulated 34 points towards the 100 needed.
Once an item has been researched the DM reveals what the ingredient is. The Caster can then try to acquire the item. The item is used up in the crafting but once researched the same type of ingredient can be used in crafting additional identical items without further research.

Chaos Ticket,
This is actually one of our house rules. You caster level is your character level. We've been using it for 2 years without any problems.

Well just to interrupt the "we don't use xp" parade
We do use XP.
You gain XP for over coming a challenge not just for defeating monsters.

In fact we still require spending Xp to craft permanent magic items.
(anything other then wand, potions and scrolls)

And Undead drain XP.

We view XP more as a measure of personal power then an accumulation of experiences.

This sounds like your asking to see what house rules people use, just using another way of saying it. Or am I missing the point?
If you are interested in browsing other people's house rules I can link mine if you like.

In this case "My Self" this is for a 5th-6th level party.
It is intended as the opener of the encounter with the creature that is just around the bend and had attacked the herd.

It's the first and only major encounter for the day, so the party will be at full resource capacity.
Horse movement speed is 50' so they will be moving at 200' (full run)
The encounter takes place in a 150 foot long gully between two 15' tall cliffs spaced roughly 45' apart. (So the stampede will fill the gully)

There is a broken statue at the top of one of the cliffs, pieces have tumbled down into the gully. One of them is large enough for a single person to hide behind. (I'll place it randomly on the map)

The party is:
Human cavalier in heavy armor, so Mv-20', Full run 60' Horrible climb skills so depending on where he is in the gully when the stampede starts and where his own horse is will probably decide if he escapes or takes horse to the face.

1/2 Elf Paladin - MV-30' Full run 90' Same boat as the Cavalier.

Petal(homebrew plant/fey race) Oracle - Has Fly 30' as a movement so she will probably just fly up and out of the way if she isn't already.

Human Wizard: not sure what he will do, new character for the player and it will be the first encounter the pc will be having.

Human Ranger: Usually she just shoots things with a bow.. so probably she will try to run or climb the cliff.

Essentially the encounter will scatter the pcs on the play mat for when the main opponent engages.

I am planning on roughly 45' wide by 120' long. I haven't set a specific movement rate. Though I can just reference normal horse speed if needed.

For those who might be interested here is what I went with.
I used a modified version of the swarm rules:

Horse Stampede:
Hp( 3 Hp per creature)
Hp-300 - 100 horses
AC-10
Creatures standing in a square over which the stampede passes suffer 6d4+8 points of damage and may make a Reflex save DC-17 for ½ damage.

Those that fail their save are subjected to a Trip attempt with a CMB of +10. Those tripped by the stampede suffer an additional 8d4+10pts of damage.

The horses are only interested in fleeing. If the swarm loses ½ its hp it will break up into individual horses that do their best to move away from obvious threats.
Single targeted attacks can only inflict damage to the swarm up to the max hp of a single horse (18hp)
The swarm is Immune to critical hits.

Well for the specific encounter I am crafting it will be a gully some 50' across and 150' long. There are two 15' escarpments on the right and left side. There is a broken statue on top of one of the ridges with pieces of it scattered about the gully floor. The party will most likely stop to investigate and while doing so will hear the stampede coming.

Once the stampede of horses( in this case) appears they will have about a round to react before the horses come through the gully at a full run.

So i'm thinking the horses would work as a swarm doing x damage to anyone caught in their path. Perhaps with a trip chance to knock the victim prone which would then cause trample damage.

I am trying to figure out how you would craft an encounter involving a stampede of say 40-100 large herd animals.
I'm thinking some sort of adaption of the swarm rules would make the most sense. It would just sweep through the area doing damage to anything in its path.
Has anyone crafted or come up with rules for something like this?

Here is the root of your problem....
~quote
The orc starts crying and begging but is quickly and ruthlessly put down by the LE.
orc starts crying and begging
orc starts crying and begging

What the hell is wrong with your DM's orcs?

mardaddy wrote:

I recall an old Dungeon Magazine offering in 2dEd AD&D, where the party comes across an abandoned but intact hamlet.

All the structures are mimics, complete with "baby" outhouses...

I think the monsters were House Hunters... around issue 18 or 19... and fairly deadly.

Yup Dungeon Magazine #19. The Vanishing Village. The Inn was an Ancient House hunter with a 54' tongue hiding behind the front door. The stable and outhouse were younger forms. The church was another ancient one with younger annex buildings. It's a "village" of 12 "buildings"

Interesting read.
I've been working on a monk replacement as well. Very much a work in progress.
Martial artist

You can hit Home to go to the main page and view my house rules if you are so inclined :)

Feasting upon their tear stained character sheets.

Same level as the lowest level pc with the minimum xp for that level.
I've not see this method result in more then a two level spread among the pcs more then once or twice. Having a party with a 4th level pc, 2 3rds and a 2nd doesn't generally cause me balance issues.

Personally I despise that everyone levels at the same time withe the same xp table. Insisting on this is one of the barriers to fixing the balance between the classes that seems to bother some people. It also is what killed multi-classing from 2nd edition.

I don't know if you are just looking for "official" stuff. But here is a race from my homebrew:

En'tarie
Racial Alignment: CG
Stat Adjustments: +2 con, +2 Chr, -2 Int

Natural Armor: +2
Size: small or medium
Speed 30'

Skills: +1 Climb, +2 Knowledge Nature, +1 Survival

SA:
Photosynthesis: Do not need to eat daily but must spend 1 hour per day under natural light or start to suffer from starvation
Thorns: The hand of En'Tarie sport small thorns that inflict 1d4 points of damage if used as a weapon. Their unarmed strikes always do lethal damage.
Seasonal Pollen: During the spring, summer or fall (choosen at character creation) the En'Tarie gains a pollen attack usable 1/day as the Glitterdust spell. During this time they leave a light dusting of pollen in their wake giving creature a +2 to track them and imposing a -2 penalty on stealth checks.
Berries: In the season following the Pollen season the En'tarie produces berries in their crown. Enough berries are produced each week to provide an effect when eaten equal to one goodberry spell +1 per 3 levels

Vision: Normal, Low light penalty: -4 perception in low light or darkness
Weapon Familiarity: Whip, Spiked Chain
Favored Classes: Druid, Ranger

Appearance: Generally smaller then humans with proportionate weight and pointed ears. Skin tone tends towards green and brown hues. Other exotic colors possible but rare.
Eyecolor is green. En'Tarie lack hair but have growths on their heads that take many forms. Some are vine like crowns or branch like horns. Many sport small leaves and buds while some have larger hair like fronds.

Starting Age: 100+2d20yrs
Middle Age: 200
Old: 500
Venerable: 900
Max: 800+ 4d100 yrs

Height: S: 3'8" + 1d12"
M: 4'6" + 1d12"
Weight: S: 40 + 2d20 lbs
M: 80 + 1d20 lbs

I'm just asking a general question. If this were to happen to me, I'd probably be the GM, though.

I'm wondering how you guys have or would solve the problem of a strange, possibly disruptive template. Do you guys just call it quits and have the player roll up a new sheet? Do you give concessions- change the circumstances of the event so their template doesn't get in the way of party enjoyment? Do you meet somewhere in the middle, like giving a Vampire the ability to trade Dominate Person and that fog form thing out in exchange for the ability to walk in sunlight (briefly) and cross moving water?

Well historically it was called out in the text of the monster that could inflict the change of status. And what it said was... a character that succumbs to _______ falls under control of the DM and becomes an NPC.

It's really dependent on the flavor of your game world. Are they viewed as curses that exact a heavy price or are you viewing them as stat increases that make you superhuman and let you sparkle? or something in between.

They had a tendency to refer to it as "neutral" or "True Neutral" but I'm not sure what you mean by there was no true neutral. Where are you seeing that? In old monster descriptions? In the AD&D Player's Handbook (with the famous idol on the cover) I don't see what you are referencing.
My text is straight from that book.

I don't think it's a bad idea Davor, but i'm more inclined to do something like:

Fighters: 2nd level gain proficiency in exotic weapons.
(a one level dip is already a popular choice to get heavy armor, pushing exotic weapon proficiency to 2nd will keep the 1 level dip from being crazy good)

Also I think a number of the exotic weapons could be downgraded to martial.
A lot of the monk weapons are exotic for no reason I know of. Most of them are just re-skinned daggers with the disarm ability, No reason they couldn't be martial.
The lasso, whip, net (to name just a few) I don't see why these should cost a feat to use either.

If you're looking for paizo products they haven't done much at all with the planes. But if you're not opposed to older material and can find a copy, the planescape
"A Guide to the Ethereal Plane" has all the goodies you need.

amazon - ethereal plane

Neutral is, more or less, nothing. No opinion, leaning, or desire either way.

The problem with TN, and why when it was created TSR initially said it was impossible to play, is that it's the lack of alignment.

You don't care about law or chaos and you don't care about good or evil.

Usually Lawful is opposed to Chaos. Law and order vs. Personal freedom. Usually Good is opposed by Evil, altruism vs selfishness.

Neutral is the lack of support or opposition. Thus NG, or someone who cares not for Law or Chaos, only Good, would be opposed by someone who cares not for Law or Chaos, only Evil.

But then you get to the null value - someone who has no strong beliefs about anything.

Hey man, sorry but this is completely wrong. TN: from the 1st edition player's handbook.

This set the ground work for TN to be considered the center around which the other alignments are organized. Frequently this has been played as someone who believes a balance must be struck between good and evil, law and chaos. And can be believed just as fervently as any other alignment. There are numerous examples of characters (especially in comic books) whose shtick is "the balance must be maintained"

To the OP, I can see how TN could be considered opposed to all the alignments. But it only appears that way when viewed from the perspective of any one of the other alignments. The reality is that TN consists of all the other alignments because each alignment must exist to maintain the balanced wheel of which TN is the hub.
For ex. It is perfectly acceptable for the TN character to endorse the actions of a CE character when faced with a place where LG has become too over-achingly dominant. And then travel to the next kingdom and help a resistance group over-throw an evil tyrant.

Another popular take on TN is the druid philosophy that Nature is the natural state of things or the law of nature that all things have a time to flourish and a time to wither.

Apathy, or only caring about yourself, has typically been considered a NE trait.

Personally, this is one of the rules we have ignored from the beginning. It just doesn't add anything to the game. And if you use it against the pcs it just steals their thunder.

Oh let's see, (never a fan of formulaic weapons and WBL table slavery, these weapons power usually exceeded what is recommended)

There was Kestilon the elderly befuddled wizard and his intelligent staff of power that would constantly argue back and forth. He was an NPC the party would seek help from now and then and accompany them if he could remember where he left his boots...

The there was an intelligent Katana: Kirioto-san that insisted it's wielder have ranks in perform ceremonial tea and calligraphy (I made the skill have useful effects so the pc didn't feel they were wasting skill points) and maintain a fancy tea set worth 100gp per level of the wielder. In exchange he granted the use of certain samurai class powers and increased in power along with the pc.

There was a fancy cutlass that refused to come out of it's scabbard unless it was paid, no one was quiet sure where the gems went...

There was the noble longsword whose name I forget, Verily we must sally forth and slay the wretched beasties! He would gain bonuses the more beatup his wielder became and contest the wielder if they wanted to retreat. Nah, we shall have none of this retreating knavery! Strike him again, very roughly!

I would like to see something like this as well, in particular a pile of items that are balanced alongside the typical sword and sorcery, not items that are obvious replacements.

But then there was the whole thing where all the eyes could look up. And nothing is stopping the beholder from rolling forward like a somersault. Which would bring all 10 eyes to bare in a single direction.
But that was just being evil >;)

I like it, I'd remove the auto crit/auto hit and keep the scaling damage.
I like it more because we house rule a limit on 0 level spells per day. (4+ casting ability modifier)
So you can't just keep spamming it.
What did you mean by Aether as a damage type?

Yeah Blood Reader is banned in our games, Horrible piece of meta-gaming cheese that breaks the wall between character knowledge and player knowledge.
We were all pretty put off by it.

big fat "meh"

Well a number of the changes I would like are tied to our house rules.

I would put limitations on utility spells, specifically those that warp economies. Light,Dancing lights, Mending would be boosted in level.
Stabilize would not exist as a spell. Read Magic would not be a spell but an actual language.

Remove counter-spelling

Remove the concept of confirming critical hits.

0 level spells would have a cast limit per day of 4 + the primary caster stat's bonus. So a 17 int wizard can cast 7 0 level spells per day and that's it.

Evocation spells would all increase by 1 die step. They are too weak being stuck doing 2nd edition damage against current day HP. Fireball should be feared at 5th level, not be stuck waiting until it can be stacked with metamagic feats.

Skill points: classes with 2+ int would all increase to 4+ int

I would like to see monks re-designed with something like domains for clerics but based on styles.

I would like to see multi-classing fixed for caster combos, specifically a caster's spells should be cast with the caster level equal to their character level. So a F3/W4 would only have the spells of a 4th level wizard but when cast would go off as if the caster was 7th level.

Undead should be draining XP, not this laughable negative level crap.
For example a Wight should drain 400 XP, Specters: 700 xp, Vampires: 800+100 per HD over 5.

Crossbows should be able to have Str ratings like bows.

I would trash and replace both the wealth by level and challenge rating systems. Both have done nothing but enforce a "right way" to play the game.

I would make permanent magic items cost Xp to craft with 3 ways of paying the cost. (without spelling out the fine details) Direct loss by the crafter, slowly draining xp from victims, researching exotic components that substitute in part or wholly the xp cost.
Expendable items like scrolls and potions would not cost xp.
(we are trying out this system in our next campaign)

I would like to see prestige classes that actually deserve the name. Difficult to qualify for, Non dip-able (by fiat rule that once selected you cannot level in another class until complete)

I would undo the design philosophy that druids have to sacrifice melee if they want to be good casters and vice-versa.

Well that's enough for now. Honestly it doesn't matter though. We just house rule the game to make it fit our style of play.

Cinderfist wrote:

I am not sure it will slow combat down. It's not adding extra attacks or actions, your just using existing actions.

Attacks of opportunity don't happen regularly. Attacks of opportunity exist to influence how units maneuver on the battle grid. As a result, AoO only happen maybe once or twice per combat, if at all. If AoO can be used to block attacks, then there's little reason for every unit to use one to block an attack each round. It will always come up during an attack unless the target ran out of AoO. Also keep in mind that you can parry attacks of opportunity as well, complicating them further. Ultimately, it just adds an extra step to resolving an attack and making combat rounds slower.

This change would also devalue armor builds because any character can max out their Dexterity and pick up Combat Reflexes. It's better to get a 20 Dex to block up to 6 attacks per round than to get an extra +3 to your AC.

Hmm that was not the intention, and I am not sure how you would get there.

Combat reflexes shouldn't even come up?

There's a class that already has this ability as a main class feature. The swashbuckler's opportune parry & riposte deed. If you really wanted it, you can just take the Amateur Swashbuckler feat. I'm not sure how I feel about giving it to every character in the game. It would likely slow down combat considerably, especially with your rules.

Having it work with shields would be a really cool idea and make shields a bit more exciting and useful than a flat AC bonus.

I'll have to look at the swashbuckler ability.

As a replacement for the fighting defensively rule.
You can sacrifice any number of your attacks to attempt to block/parry an incoming attack.
You roll an opposed attack roll and if you tie or beat the incoming attack you successfully block/parry the attack and take:
no damage?
or
transfer the damage from the attack to your weapon or shield.

If you use a shield to block the attack you receive a bonus on the opposed attack roll equal to the shield bonus.

Ex. Bob the fighter squares off against Omar the Ogre.
Bob is badly wounded while Omar is looking peppy. But help is incoming.
Bob goes first, but rather then try to hit Omar and give him another booboo, and then risk getting pasted, he decides to spend his attack to try and block Omar's incoming attacks until help arrives. (or if Omar went first. Bob uses his attack for the round to try and block. then when it is Bob's turn he only has a move action left for the round)
Omar goes and hits Ac-18 and rolls 14 damage Bob rolls an opposed roll as if he were attacking Omar and scores a 19! success!
Bob takes no damage and lives another round.
or
Bobs sword takes 4 damage, (14 dmg - 10 hardness = 4 dmg to the sword)

Thoughts? Would you just negate the attack or do damage to the item used?

I can't recall, since I don't have the books handy, if it was the black spine 2nd edition books or something in 3rd edition that delved into this concept with groups called Affiliations.
It was a a set of rules that let you setup organizations/guilds the pcs could join and gain and lose reputation with. As they unlocked levels of prestige they gained small perks that were granted by the organization.

Cinderfist wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I may consider borrowing this, if you don't mind.

By all means, feel free. :)

I think the adventure context would clear up any confusion about which door a pc would want. Their goals would let them decide.. okay do we want to get out of here and to safety, or are we here hunting for treasure/ a mcguffin, etc.

I don't think it's clear enough. Whichever way they want to go, it's still torn between the path you shouldn't forsake and your path.

Hmm, I think you are taking the forsake line rather strongly.

now a more strongly written line if it said Knight with Shield thus doth spake, Beyond me lies a path you must forsake

Then I could see the lack of clarity you've mentioned.

I may consider borrowing this, if you don't mind.

By all means, feel free. :)

okay cool Cyrad's is the logic I had formulated.
The "your" in the lance's line is idea the party not the sword.
ah okay some others posted while I was typing,
The pcs would be here looking for a treasure. So the wealth/doom would be the path to the guarded treasure they want.
The safe path would presumably lead out of the dungeon, to a dead end, etc..

He's a twist on the classic Labyrinth talking door puzzle. I want to make sure my logic is solid.
Which door leads to what?

You come to a room with three doors along one wall. Each depicts a Knight in plate mail holding an item: A wide gargoyle like face is carved above them. A voice booms from the gargoyle:

Harken now! and take note as, each door doth speak its quote. One path to safety and one to doom and one to either wealth or tomb. Now two doth speak in naught but lies, but from one, ye may, the truth surmise.

From each door them comes a different voice:
Knight with Shield thus doth spake, Beyond me lies a path to forsake

Knight with Lance in tone most vicious your path I guard, the shield’s fictitious

asking for a "pulling agro" mechanic in pathfinder is the equivalent of yelling "king me" in a chess match.
The boards may look the same but the mechanics are completely different.

Think about what you are asking for a minute. How would you like it if the DM used a pull agro mechanic on you.