Covetous's page

I echo the above guy in regards to WARs artwork, I do wish you had some of Diterlizzis work though I remember his Planescapre stuff & it was awesome.

I do have a question though; I'm reading about the new classes in the APG, what about Prestige Classes (PrCS)? I'd love to see your version of the Blackguard... among others.

This is something that I've been thinking about off & on. How about taking a page from the old NeverwinterNights game? If I remember correct it had the standard spells DCs, but it also included later on via expasions a +1 to spells DCs based on every 5 ranks the character had in either Concentration or Spellcraft. Could not the same thing be implemented in the Pathfinder system? I think it'd work for single & multiclass characters.

Potential advantages:

Spells DCs would go up & keep on an even level/scale with saving throws.

Spellcasters wouldn't be wasting any ranks since they'd be adding to a skill they use normally anyway.

No feats/abilities would be rendered useless. I.E.: Heighten Spell, Spell Focus & a few others I can't think of are still useful.

Possibilities for abuse of this system: none that I can think of right now.

Potential Disadvantages:

One more thing to remember/add-on. Spells now being: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate Modifier + Misc Modfiers + every 5 ranks in Spellcraft.

Better for single-class Spellcasters.

"Why every 5 ranks?" Anything lower brings the potential for abuse of this system & spells DCs start exceeding the saves of potential victims. This is especially true for those "powerhouses of spellcasting" such as Demons, Dragons & various other beings Who already have dangerously high spells DCs as is.

To the OP (& the rest here) thank you! I thought I was the only one with issues when it came to spellcasting under the 3e/3.5 system; although my issue has always been that it didn't seem to allow for more subtle spellcasting i.e.: a spellcaster who defeated foes through spells such as Charm or Hold or Ray of Enfeeblement as opposed to "blowing them to smitherines", since spell strength was & is based so much on the STAT modifiers as opposed to the spellcaster.

I'm still looking for a compromise on how I can make it simple & still keep it based on the Spellcaster though. At one point I thought I had the solution by making spell DCs: 10 + spell level + half caster level, rounded down + modifiers + misc modifiers. Unfortunately that system worked OK at lower levels but once you got to 7 & up the numbers just got outragious & too much in the spellcasters favor.

I'll give some of your suggestions a whirl. Paizo people, if any of you read this thread, you've already taken on the grappling problem; please take on the issue with the DCs of spells.

If I could change one thing...hmmm. I would say the magic system. As it is it relies too heavily on modifiers as opposed to the spellcaster.

Covetous wrote:

I also voted Pathfinder just based on the Alpha 3. I've glanced through the 4e PDF, I'll get the books eventually but so far you can color me unimpressed about 4e (or should I say $th edition?).

Wouldn't $th edition be 5th? That $ looks a lot like a 5.. You're not allowed to complain about $th edition until it's announced next year.

Lol. I found it... interesting that on the keyboard the $ sign is the same key as 4 when considering WoTCs new D&D standard for the next decade or so (if we're lucky; it may only last 8 or so like 3e).

Although I'm very excited about 4e, I think Kobold Quarterly should stick with 3e for a few reasons:

- Kobold Quarterly replace Dragon in a lot of ways, and harkens back to a more traditional game
- There is going to be lots of support for 4e in other "quarters".
- I imagine a lot of Kobold Quarterly's fan base comes from Paizo fans, the majority of whom like 3e, Pathfinder, ie. a more traditional form of D&D.

Just my two cents, but it would be nice to keep 3e alive so people always feel they have a choice.

I also voted Pathfinder just based on the Alpha 3. I've glanced through the 4e PDF, I'll get the books eventually but so far you can color me unimpressed about 4e (or should I say $th edition?). In my view Pathfinder is the easier path in blending the 3e/3.5 stuff I've got (particularly the Prestige Classes). I remember reading that 4e was supposed to be compatible with the 3e/3.5 stuff... my question is, "on what planet?" I've seen nothing thus far that would give you a clue about how to translate your 3e/3.5 characters into the "new standard", especially in the case of PrCs.

One aside: I would've voted Arcana Evolved based on it's more fluid magic system, but Pathfinder is much better rounded.

Covetous wrote:

(eTools is decent, but it's so unstable it's not even funny & a disaster to add anything to without ETH).

Have you used a more recent version Covetous? Version 1.5.666 was quite stable and usable - fantastic really. Unfortunately E-Tools was the first casualty of Wizards going to 4th edition.

I've got the most recent version, but part of the problem is that I've got a lot of custom-made/custom-added stuff (I run Scarred Lands in addition to my home brew). I've exported what I can into ETH but some of it gets lost when I uninstall & reinstall my OS; particularly when it comes to higher-level characters, eTools has a tendancy to freeze when I try to open or update/upgrade the imported character. If I don't have their hard-copies then I'm pretty much SOL.

The best character & monster generating program I've ever had the pleasure to use was the Core Rules program for 2e; oh how I wish that WoTC had gotten the people who did that beauty for the 3e one. Don't get me wrong, CMP did an awesome job in making lemonaide from the lemon that is eTools but it doesn't negate the fact that it could've & should've been so much better.

But I ramble. Thanx for the info people.

Thanks for the replies all. Like another poster above wrote, I'm also looking for versatility. I don't wanna get the Pathfinder stuff only to throw out all my other 3e/3.5 stuff, I'd like to be able to mix what I can. I'll definitely be checking out RPGX come next year, I just hope that it's more stable & user-friendly then PC Gen is (eTools is decent, but it's so unstable it's not even funny & a disaster to add anything to without ETH).

I'm not sure if this was asked already & it may be a tad premature, but are the powers that be at Paizo considering making a (character & creature) program for the Pathfinder system?

I'm gonna try the system that the guy on cbg suggested, as I'm doing a playtest of the Pathfinder stuff at the end of the month anyway. So far it looks promising & just based on the math it does scale more closely to saves while still allowing the lower level spells to increase in power. Of course though spell levels are pretty much removed in this manner; I'm not entirely comfortable having a 1st level Charm be as powerful as a 9th level Wish though.

Another idea that I've been toying with is this: DC = 10 + caster level (or 1/2 caster level)+ Spell level + Misc Modifiers. Under this method caster level & spell level are accounted for, 'though STAT modifiers are removed from the equation entirely & I'm not completely sure I'm comfortable with that either.

Trying to scale it more to the caster & still keep it simple isn't as easy as I initially thought.

In the cbg boards someone suggested removing the spell level part of the equation entirely, effectively making spells DCs thus: 10 + 1/2 caster level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers. According to that poster it allows scaling more closely to saves.

You should've seen what it was like when I rounded up at the odd-numbered levels. Rounding it down seemed like a step in the right direction. Still quite a few quirks to iron out apparently. The Black Bards system sounds interesting, I'll check that out too 'cause frankly they way that the spell system is now just don't work for me no more it's simply too reliant on modifiers.

With Heighten Spell, aren't you giving up a slot? Even with Sorcerers a lost slot is still a lost slot. Admittedly though I've only used my system on low-level campaigns. I've used it twice in higher-level play but both of those were one-shots. One was for D&D day which was an SL adventure I did where the characters were around 8th level, another was an AE adventure where the characters were 10th. I can only get so much info via one-shots.

That's why I'd like people to try it out on a more consistant basis & gimme their thoughts on how I could balance it out further.

Howe does your party fare against enemy spellcasters under your system? The low will saves folks (fighters, rogues) must be having a very hard time with all the Charms and Dominations flying their way.

They fare pretty well. The saving throws aren't as slanted as you may be led to believe. Granted they are tougher to save against in a sense, but it is consistant. Also remember that as characters gain levels their saving throws don't just stay where they are. Even in your example where Rogues & Fighters have weak WIll saves, they do increase & they can get feats to increase them or abilities to increase their chances of saving vs these spells.

Under the current system saving throws go up while spell save DCs pretty much remain where they are. That DC 15 1st level Color Spray will pretty much remain at that DC long after the spellcaster in question has gone to his mid & higher levels, unless the player in question is anal about increasing just the one stat, & even then it's slower then the increase of the saves that a potential victim will have against it (a stat goes up +1 every 4 levels, while saving throws on average gain at rate of +1 every 2 levels for ALL saves). I've seen too many times where a spellcaster doesn't really bother with the low-level spells after a certain point because the opponent will just save against it with relative ease, so they make all their low-level spells slots as either support spells like Mage Armor & Fog or damage dealing spells like Magic Missile.

All I ask is that people try out my system. The Alpha is still under playtest anyway, what do you have to loose? I admit that I'm slanted in a way. I want people to try it out & gimme their experience in using it so that I can fine tune it accordingly. With any luck when the real version of Pathfinder comes out they'll have incorporated something along these lines for their own spellcasters.

I also posted this on the GM Tools thread, wasn't sure which one this'd fit better in.

Magic under the 3e system is pretty stagnent since it relies so heavily on the STAT modifier as opposed to the caster level. This really only leaves the option of having the spellcaster use damage-dealing spells. What if a spell caster wants to be more subtle then this, defeating opponents through spells such as Charm or Hold Person or Ray of Enfeeblement as opposed to defeating them with Magic Missile or Fireball?

Under 3e spells DCs are: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate modifier + Misc Modifiers.

In my game spell DCs are: 10 + half caster level (round down on odd numbered levels) + spell level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

Notice that under the second system even low-level spells will gain in strength more regularly & spellcasters will have more tactical options open to them other then just "blowing the opponent to smitherines". Also they'll keep in pace with the opponent as far as having to overcome their saving throws. Under the first system a mid level "victim" has no real fear of a Spellcasters Charm spell, under the second the Charm spell has a far better chance of affecting the same victim.

I encourage people to try my second system & let me know their experiences with it, positive & negative.

Magic under the 3e system is pretty stagnent since it relies so heavily on the STAT modifier as opposed to the caster level. This really only leaves the option of having the spellcaster use damage-dealing spells. What if a spell caster wants to be more subtle then this, defeating opponents through spells such as Charm or Hold Person or Ray of Enfeeblement as opposed to defeating them with Magic Missile or Fireball?

Under 3e spells DCs are: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate modifier + Misc Modifiers.

In my game spell DCs are: 10 + half caster level (round down on odd numbered levels) + spell level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

Notice that under the second system even low-level spells will gain in strength more regularly & spellcasters will have more tactical options open to them other then just "blowing the opponent to smitherines". Also they'll keep in pace with the opponent as far as having to overcome their saving throws. Under the first system a mid level "victim" has no real fear of a Spellcasters Charm spell, under the second the Charm spell has a far better chance of affecting the same victim.

I encourage people to try my second system & let me know their experiences with it, positive & negative.

My thoughts on Pathfinder as of the Alpha 2 release. Having DL'd & read it I can say that there's things I like & others that I'm uncomfortable with. First my likes, in no particular order.

~ Pretty decent variant/upgrade of the 3e ruleset, Monte Cooks AE being the other. At least as far as the Alpha is concerned the rules have been streamlined somewhat. One of the issues a friend had/has with 3e/3.5 is, as he put it,"the excessive legal-ese".
~ Compatible with the 3.5 ruleset for the most part. In order to go into some of the Prestige Classes (PrCs) certain requirements, mainly in the skills areas, will need to be altered but it shouldn't present too much of a hassle.
~ Elimination or combining of useless or redundant skills. Like in Mr. Cooks Arcana Evolved Move Silently & Hide are combined, Concentration has been balled up into Spellcraft.
~ Armor class is a bit more fluid, regardless of the character.
~ The art.

Now my dislikes.

~ Unnecessary power creep. The classes by & large have a +1 HD raise (Sorcerers & Wizards are now D6, Rogues a D8) how come? I can understand it in AE due to it's system, but here... This is even extended to some of the races. Why are humans & Half Elves given a +2 ability score bonus? I like SL in what they did with half elves, I prefer them to be more versatile as opposed to more powerful for no apparent reason.
My problem with the power creep is simple, how are low-level characters supposed to develop? It's like if someone gives me 10 million bucks,what's the incentive for me to work at that point. The low levels are about survival & finding your niche in the world/setting; when you
have stuff handed to you on a silver platter it kinda defeats the
purpose of adventuring.
~ Heavy focus on overcoming the issues with grapple & polymorph. In all honesty I've never had an issue with either one under 3e or 3.5. My issue was always spell strength under the 3e system since it relies so heavily on that casters statistics as opposed to their level. Specialist Mages & Subtle Spellcasters were royally shafted under 3e; In the former case they were giving up more then they were getting & in the latter case spell strength remains rather stagnant since it relies so heavily on your Primary statistic which only goes up every 4 levels, while the ability of a potential victim to save against spells continues at an even pace.
For those interested, here's my definition of a Subtle Spellcaster: A Magis user who defeats foes though using non-damage dealing spells such as Charm, Sleep, Hold Person, Ray of Enfeeblement & similar.

I'm interested in seeing what the other core classes are like, particularly the Bard. The Bards song was never as helpful as I would've liked under 3e/3.5, hopefully Pathfinder will fix this oversight. While I don't mind bards in a support role, I do want them to be more then the "I sing songs" ability booster role they are currently. Bards & Monks were/are also a problem to PrC into, though for different reasons.