Devil of Roses's page

So, I'm just now diving into the playtest, and I'm having a hard time understanding a couple things.

Am I correct, that with the current rules, I can't essentially play what would have been a standard dwarf in previous editions because each separate racial ability that has been the norm, is now an ancestry feat?

Am I also correct in that a first level 'human' with a 'half elf' or 'half orc' ancestral feat, basically pays a feat tax and can't actually buy any of the racial traits at first level?

Maybe it's because it's late, maybe it's because I've been drinking, but I can't find anything saying otherwise, and if that's the case, I think I'm done with new Pathfinder before it's even begun.

So I'm moving to Portland, once I get settled in with a job and all that fun stuff I'll be looking for a group to run games for. I'm a GM through and through and playing is something I only do once in awhile so it's kind of important I find a group I can be a primary GM for. The systems I enjoy are Pathfinder, Savage Worlds (particularly Hellfrost and Deadlands), Star Wars Saga Edition, Castles and Crusades, and more.

Those are what I have that I've played, I have and want to play many more games from d20 variants like Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved and Midnight; to strange RPG's like Monsters and Other Childish Things, Don't Rest Your Head, All Flesh Must Be Eaten (and the Army of Darkness game); I also have the Dresden Files RPG.

I am, and will be for some time, primarily a Pathfinder RPG player, it's the one I've invested much of my funds in. I have, however, been with a group that hates the thought of trying something new and different, that had players who'd latch on to one mechanic in a system they didn't like and then loathe the system because of it and thus refuse to play, I've felt like I've been suffocating being unable to run other games would like to stretch my DM wings. That said a group that is at least willing to try new RPG systems is definitely a requirement.

Might sound like too much to ask but a GM can hope can't he? :P

One of the great attractions of D&D/PF, IMHO, is the adrenaline rush that comes from facing character death on a regular basis, not knowing which fight could be your last. Yes, character death can be heart-wrenching, but fro me, it needs to happen occasionally or the game loses a lot of its spice. I would maintain that a character isn't really a hero unless he/she is risking his/her life. If they know they are going to win, and there is no chance of death, that ain't heroic.

With regard to the specific case of long falls, I don't really have a problem with a character ocasionally surviving, via a fluke, something like that. Luck exists, after all, and it can make for a great story. What I have a problem with, and what breaks immersion for me, is players deciding to have their character deliberately jump off a huge cliff, knowing that the rules allow them to do so with no chance of dying. Escaping a dangerous situation by sheer luck can be heroic. Doing something incredibly stupid and suicidal because your metagaming self knows that your character will survive it, isn't heroic, it's just, well, stupid. And in our game, characters sometimes die when they do stupid things. We wouldn't have it any other way.

Hmmm, that's actually one of the things I dislike about D&D, how the threat of character death just isn't real enough for the players. There's a lot of the 'Eh, ten arrows is no biggy, I still have 55 hp left!' and sure eventually someone might crit you for 60hp and drop you but compared to other games PC's just don't quite feel as mortal. Level based systems make it even more so.

Yeah I don't care. Zombies are at the bottom of my "monsters to worry about" list, and for good reason. In the cold they freeze up, in the heat they explode and die, biting is the worse method of transmission of a disease possible, they rot and fall apart, their most dangerous predator is also their supposed prey...

Honestly the idea that a zombie apocalypse can happen is laughable in the first place.

You need to read World War Z. It was heavily researched and very well done and explained why fire is one of the worst things you can use on a zombie. Why? Because afterwords you have a flaming zombie walking around. The author goes into detail about the use of many military weapons that don't do a damn thing to a horde of walking dead because they rely solely on damaging vital organs that are, well, no longer vital. It also explore the socio-political effects a zombie outbreak might have. That and the bite isn't the sole method of transmission, if you get scratched, be it light or a deep wound, you're at risk of exposure to the disease.

Of course this is also dependent on the rules the zombies follow in the relevant game/book/movie. Some aren't disease based at all, others can run and think, if you look at the All Flesh Must be Eaten game there are numerous 'deadworlds' wherein zombies are a terrifying force indeed. One that stood out as being particularly freaky involved them being reanimated by nano-technology gone amok. Which eventually led to modern society being pushed back to a much more primitive era.

Gorbacz wrote:

+1 for Dungeons of Golarion ! (But please, nothing like that horrible Dungeon book from WotC that came out in the dying days of 3.5)

You mean Dungeonscape? Which was written by Paizo's own lead designer Jason Bulmahn?

I kind of feel bad saying this but I thought Dungeonscape was one of the worst gaming products WotC put out and was something of a herald of the end times... But, that's just like, my opinion... man. :P Please note: I only flipped through it for half an hour at the book store so maybe I missed something...

The way I see it even good designers have bad days or products, I love Wolfgang Bauers stuff but so many things in Fortress of the Stone Giants had me scratching my head wondering "How the hell does this make sense?" (while I have many complaints about that modules the first and foremost: mummy-monk with harpy monk students guarding something that wasn't nearly worth the hassle of getting into it with a picture of it bound in a fashion that made it's stat-block make little to no sense at all >.<)

Sorry wolfgang, you're still one of my favorite designers evar...

*prepares to duck thrown objects*

So, um... land of plagues much?

Damn you HBO...

Gods I hope this series can be filmed to completion. That would be awesome if a fantasy series was not only high budget but high quality and not canceled before it's time. I think that would be a television first.

Druids kick-ass. I made a half-orc druid with 18 STR + 2 racial = 20 at 1st, had him take Craft Wondrous as a feat so he made a belt of STR +6, then took +1 STR at 4th and 8th... STR 28 before wildshaping... in huge animal form, STR 34... had him take Craft Arms and Armor as well so next move is to improve his Dragonhide Plate to +5, his heavy shield to +5, then after that, he's going to save his pennies to craft a book of STR +5, for STR 39 in huge animal form... then have the bard in the party cast rage on ya for an extra +2 and I'll be at STR 41...

By level 16 this druid would be STR 43 with all the above accounted for... I think this is the maximum STR score you can achieve in the game, as a druid, with the allowable wild shapes... at level 17 the druid gets access to the shapechange spell which may grant forms (such as form of the Giant II) which would raise his STR to 45 or more... but as a druid, without shapechange, I think 43 is the highest (which includes rage spell)

If anyone else knows how to raise the STR higher please let me know...

Cheers,

PDK

Your DM must love giving you guys tons of down time. :P

I was quite the opposite of a cruel GM. I had my moments of course, there was one situation where I declared a PC's fumble hit another PC effectively offing a character that annoyed me as a GM and the rest of the players. There was another instance where I had been dead set on killing one character simply because I had been in a bad mood and he had annoyed me severely. He survived but everyone was looking at me like I had turned into a werewolf. Beyond those incidences I was a fairly tame DM, growing up with a 'good guys should win' mentality and more or less letting my PC's waltz through most campaigns.

This changed not long after high school. At one point a player had gotten sick of me being a nice DM, hell the entire group wanted me to stop fudging dice rolls and let PC's die when their number came up. It started slow, one PC forgot to take a 5 foot step when fighting a troll ad quaffed a potion thus provoking an attack of opportunity and getting himself killed. Another game had a TPK when the PC's assaulted a family of trolls in their lair, they fought valiantly but as individuals against a foe that were organized and experienced against adventurers.

The most memorable TPK was in a Forgotten Realms game. It started slow, with one character's arrogance and ended badly. A small town was being assaulted by a small undead army, this included ghouls, ghasts and spell-stitched variations as well as your standard skeletons and zombies. The PC's were 7th or 8th level and most were effectively min-maxed via FR supplements.

One player was a rogue of a race of fiend blooded winged elves. He had a high AC and was good in melee as well as ranged. He was taking on a group of I think 12 ghouls who simply couldn't hit him without rolling a nat 20. He was doing well taking them down one a round and got a little cocky and decided to fly above them. This permitted an attack of opportunity which he wasn't too concerned about: until that nat 20 was rolled.

Okay, no problem, he'd have to roll a nat 1 to fail his fortitude save... a roll of the die:

1.

I laughed evilly as I put my knack for being a descriptive narrator as I described the other pc's watching as a lone ghoul reached up and raked it's filthy claws along his calf whereupon the elf froze in mid flight and tumbled into the pack of ghouls to be devoured and only able to scream.

The battle went down hill from there with the horde of undead eventually overwhelming the PC's and picking them off one by one. The only player to survive did so only because she didn't show up.

I'm rarely giggling with glee at a TPK but I was downright cackling that evening. Though I suppose it doesn't count as an evil GM thing seeing as the PC's utterly enjoyed it.

Personally I think the hammer came down on spell casters. If you are fond of playing any of the spellcasting classes as they were in 3.x then at first you might look at the nifty new school/bloodline/domain special abilities and giggle with glee and then as you start to notice the changes to the spells you'll begin to weep. I'm of the thought that many of the spells needed to be toned down a little but whereas I though they just needed a shave off the top PRPG went and cut them down to the knees with little to no thought about adjusting their level to something more appropriate to their power.

Barbarians were quite disappointing in the end, many of their abilities are the type that even the role-players in my group roll their eyes and scoff at.

Fighters were given a boost and are definitely good, if not great, at what they do (as they should be) but keeping them backwards compatible meant keeping them very much the same as their 3.x counterparts just with higher attack and damage.

Rangers are pretty badass but are specialized which means if the campaign moves away from their favored enemy/terrain for a long period of time then they're hosed. I know some DM's are cruel and sadistic enough to intentionally do that so make sure to only play a ranger if you have a reasonable DM.

Some of the problems with Monks were addressed and while they didn't get the fighter BAB that many people clamored for they did get it in regards to Combat Maneuvers and their Flurry of Blows which makes them effectively good 'two weapon' fighters/grapple monkeys. I think they were improved from previous editions but still suffer some of the faults monk haters have discussed. I've seen monks played by people who know how to properly play them to devastating effect and will not jump on the "Monks Suck" bandwagon. They're just not ideal for beginners or people used to thinking with the fighter/spellcaster mentality.

Paladins are pretty much the king of the hill when it comes to Good vs. Evil games. They can be countered, and fairly easily, by neutral beasts as I've proven in some of my games wherein our groups Pally was cut down by a direbeast and would have died regardless of lay-on-hands had not the party cleric effectively sacrificed himself by swapping places with the Pally and taking the hit. I've seen a Pally singlehandedly take out a demon three CR's higher than them. Not a class for players who like to spam their powers rather than use them in moderation, easy to piss off GM's who can't handle such things in that fashion.

Bards... well... honestly I can't say much about bards. Few of my players ever cared much about them enough to play and those that did only did so in 3.x I can't say much on their improvements.

Rogues got a much needed overhaul. You can now put one through Age of Worms and not have him feel utterly useless without hunting down that prestige class that allows them to sneak attack undead. Now with being able to sneak attack things they couldn't before (there are still creatures they can't sneak attack but it makes sense for them and you're not likely to have a campaign focused around most of those) and their rogue talents they can be pretty nasty. Some of the rogue talents suffer from being utterly useless like many of the barbarian rage traits but many of them are not. Basically good changes all around there.

Sorcerers: Aside from my firm belief that sacrificing versatility for being able to cast more spells in a day is most definitely not a fair trade (I'm not big on spontaneous casters in general *shrug*) the sorcerer got a nice overhaul. I doubt I'll see any of my players running them but their bloodline abilities are pretty neat. These are countered by the complete nerfing of spells however which seemed to continue the mentality of 'if this spell is useful in combat then it must be too powerful and needs nerfing!' mentality that's been seen since the transition from 3.0 to 3.5.

Wizards: I liked the school abilities and personally can't think of anything I dislike. The focus was a good idea for those who don't want a pesky familiar around and like item crafting. Item crafting in general was altered a bit and personally I like the changes.

Clerics were altered in a manner I dislike considerably and being one of my favorite classes have received the most house rules. They no longer get Heavy Armor, their spells are weaker, and they are further pushed into the healbot niche. I like the positive/negative energy burst but I don't think there's anything wrong with the cleric effectively having the "Turn Undead" 'feat' as it's written, basically allowing them to choose to turn rather than damage undead. I really hate the idea of feats being necessary to let the class do what they should be able to do already so the argument 'well if you want this ability back just take the feat' falls on deaf ears here. Never mind the remove curse, cure disease and neutralize poison spells, all require a caster level check against the DC to beat which makes scrolls effectively useless.

My house rules for clerics include: Heavy Armor is free for clerics of more militant deities. Turn Undead is given free to clerics using positive energy and if they buy the feat they can effectively turn while damaging. Cure Disease and Neutralize Poison clerics can substitute their healing skill in place of their caster level instead giving them a reason to keep the heal skill going through their levels.

Druids: If you liked wild shape you'll hate the changes to the druids. Pure plain and simple it was another example of castrating a class where a little trim off the top would have sufficed. At least in my opinion. Then again I always thought CoDzilla was a myth, powerful but easily countered by any DM worth his dice.

Now don't be confused, I loved a lot of the changes, I thought the paladin was pretty badass and loved how they changed the rogue. I think there's a lot of caster hate over at Paizo though :P Those are pretty much my take on the classes in regards to their failings, I think they all have improvements here and there and some I don't think are bad at all (i.e. rogue and paladin) but then I'm also used to a higher powered game and players who like to abuse their power don't last long. Many of the 'broken' qualities that were nerfed have been viewed, in our group, as abilities that are only broken if you have bad players (or DM's I suppose).

I don't know. That's my take at least.

The author came out and admitted it was a typo. One square = 10ft.

Grrr, had to suspend, no paycheck until about Saturday or Sunday. Curses.

Um, if it works on Shackles it should work on Manacles, they're only slightly different in design, virtually two separate words for the same thing. To deny that would amount to DM dickery. That and Gods and Magic is 3.5 so...

Never underestimate a party’s ability to mess up the simplest of tasks, or to cake walk through the most difficult.

Amen to that.

Ran one of those Forgotten Realms 'Super Adventures' that were published right before 4th edition came out and the PC's went in the back door and with a combination of good rolls and a flaming canoe they busted through the most difficult encounters fresh out of the box and worked their way up to the entrance of the 'dungeon'. By the time their resources were depleted they only had the weaker of the enemies to deal with.

I've got one group playing Legacy of Fire and another group chomping at the bit to get started with Kingmaker. Running my two most anticipated AP's at once... that's some kind of awesome for my gaming experience.

Wow, 16th level, it's been awhile since an AP went that high. Or at least it feels that way.

Just stumbled across this thread, haven't read much of it but to answer the OP:

It would have to depend. I like the idea of a Pathfinder Modern system but there were things I absolutely hated about d20 modern that made me not spend more than $8 bucks on a copy of a sourcebook from a bargain bin. I suppose it would depend on the the core premise, I can say right now, stat based class system would be a deal breaker. That Fast, Strong, Smart hero nonsense was about as lame as Al Gore trying to be metal in my not-so-humble-opinion. I also think the Rite Publishing model of PDF + Print on Demand would be better than aiming for $70,000 but then I'm A: not a game designer/publisher and B: pretty sure this has already been addressed.

I guess I'd have to see where it was going and then would likely sign on late in the game.

I can see them as being fun with the right group but mine weren't that group, instead of enhancing and bettering the game with a little frustration they had the potential to ruin the fun of the session. It was about half and half in the end with two of my players coming away from that session in a foul mood and the other two quite happy they were able to slaughter the annoying pests. One even threatened to leave, suffice to say I nixed their shatter ability and ignored the normal fumble rules I typically had in effect, no need for adding insult to injury.

He cast Haste in the first round. While he could have summoned something in round 2 it wouldn't have been able to do anything until round 3 unless I'm missing something in the alteration made to the summoner rules. At which point it was all over but the crying. Both the Oracle and the Paladin went first in round three and when the Glabrezu tried a spell like ability it was AoO'd to death. If the combat had been longer then the Huge Air Elementals would have been a nice touch. To be honest I had been hoping the person who played the Paladin would play the Summoner, he's the most knowledgeable one in the group for that sort of thing and would have been the best at putting it through the ropes and showing off what it can really do. Should we manage to get another play test in I'll be sure to mention that to whoever runs the summoner.

So I was originally planning on playtesting the Summoner on Sunday but I got impatient and wanted to see it in action. That and who knows how many other people are running 1st level play tests and the like? So I canceled our standard Saturday game of a rather colorful take on the Red Hand of Doom and opted, instead, to have a playtest night. I tried to give my players as much of an advanced notice as possible but alas we were only able to get in a few hours of gaming.

The test run would be for a higher level campaign than that of the game we're running later today. I decided to start our Rise of the Runelords game from where we left off. The conclusion of Fortress of the Stone Giants would offer the recap of the campaign up to that point (quite convenient with the library there) and run the beginning portion of Sins of the Saviors which is a nice mini dungeon with only a few encounters. Perfect for a quick play test.

So, they rolled up a trio of 12th level characters. Two of the players played APG characters while a third, deciding that the witch and the cavalier held no interest to him, decided to play a paladin seeing as he had rolled up some good stats. The characters were:

Imub: A 12th level human Stone Foci Oracle. Anyone familiar with a certain Earthbender from a certain animated TV show would know who this guy was based off of if they examined his name a little.

Arthas: A 2nd level human Fighter, 10th level Paladin. A reluctant Paladin who answered the calling for reasons that went beyond his wants or his family.

Ka'Im: a 12th level halfling Summoner. A halfling from the distant South East with an Eidolon of disturbing qualities.

Gorthrek: a NPC meant to fill the rogue slot if we got far enough that it became necessary. Suffice to say it did not.

Sources:
I restricted the PC's to Pathfinder sources only. They made their characters rather well given they weren't allowed other D20 material. While I permitted magical items from the various Pathfinder Companions and other Pathfinder books (like Seekers of Secrets) the PC's pretty much stuck to the PRPG. They were allowed 2 traits as well though those hardly factored in.

Magic Item Problems: Suffice to say it's been awhile since I've started a game at higher levels and one of the first things the PC's thought about was getting item creation feats to halve the cost of magical items. Suffice to say I wasn't too keen on it but couldn't find advice on how to handle it and maintain balance without otherwise demolishing a valid idea. In the end I permitted two items made per PC at half value but instituted a market value cap.

Actual Play (Warning SPOILERS ahead.)

The PC's teleported in to the town of Sandpoint and were almost immediately summoned to see Father Zantus considering they chose to appear near the church. They had a feeling something had happened, Sandpoint couldn't seem to go three days without some crises or danger cropping up. Apparently one of their old haunts, the Catacombs of Madness, had decided to open up a 30ft diameter sky light. After a squad of 10 of the town guard went down to investigate they disappeared. Given the disturbing noises that had been issuing from there since the town leaders were certain that death would flow forth from that pit and into the streets of the town above.

With a wearied sigh they chose to investigate rather than kick back in the rusty dragon. The Oracle proved the most proficient to this task. Putting his Earth Glide and Crystal Sight as well as his blind sight to use when he needed, he explored the former catacombs of wrath eventually coming across the cleared stairwell. Finding a patch of earth to glide into was easy enough considering the cave-in that had occurred so he followed the shaft to it's base and easily found the secret door with his Crystal Sight. A quick cast of Detect Magic also revealed a faint abjuration aura further down the corridor. He poked his head into the main chamber inadvertantly setting off the Alarm spell he had seen before heading back to report his findings to the party.

*Note: While their exists a strong mechanical argument for why the Stone Speaker Oracle cannot glide through worked stone. The flavor reasoning is kind of weak. The same went for the Eidolon and the reasoning behind why it couldn't wear armor. They understood why it shouldn't be able to but the reasoning felt weak and cheap, they sort of damaged the flavor of the classes in both cases.

The PC's eventually made their way into the main chamber of this temple to Lamashtu where they were confronted by a hidden scribbler. Refusing to answer any of his questions unless he showed himself, something even he was not mad enough to do, he grew angry and set one of the guardians on the PC's, one guardian who promptly became two as it summoned a second Glabrezu to the fight.

Battle: Playtest classes and a paladin vs. 2 upper echelon demons!

When they spied the demons through the fog they wasted little time. The Paladin charged forward into melee declaring a smite evil and promptly made the first Glabrezu feel his blade. Meanwhile the summoner sent his Eidolon forth and the large sized creature couldn't move in to attack the other one without getting an Attack of Opportunity from the first. With a +20 to hit it EASILY cut through the Eidolons defenses. The Oracle cast Divine Power on himself. As both Eidolon and Glabrezu had a fifteen foot reach they didn't need to close much further.

The Eidolon went and full attacked with claws, bite and a tentacle strike and after damage reduction came into play did a total of 5 points of damage. The Glabrezu's went. The one on Arthas the Paladin didn't even scratch him what with the Paladins bonuses from Smite Evil in place it boosted his normally considerably AC to over 40 meaning the Glabrezu had to roll a nat 20. The other one full attacked the Eidolon and with it's 27 AC they hit with both pincers, a rend, both claws, and it's bite. The Eidolon was dust by the end of the first round. When it's handler Ka'Im went he promptly cast haste.

The second round proved devastating. We roll init for every round though it didn't matter much as the only change in order was the Summoner went before the Glabrezu's. The Stone speaker used his Earth Glide to bypass the Glabs' Attack of Opportunity range and popped up behind him but the damage dealt was a mere 7 points after reduction. The Paladin used his hastened full attack to good effect as he promptly tripped the Glab, rolled a critical on the first attack and hit with the following attacks. By round two a Demon with 180 hp was dead.

The Summoner, well, the Summoner knew it's summons would effectively be useless so he just sort of stood there. The other Glabrezu moved in to assault the Paladin, it had a better chance to hit the man but still needed a pretty absurd number to get past his normal AC. This is where I groaned. Both the Claw attacks, and the Pincer attacks came up 3's. The bite was a little better but not enough to hit. So a full attack wasted that might have been put to better use using a spell like ability like Reverse Gravity or Powerword Stun. Though on a meta game level those wouldn't have done too well either.

The third round was where things ended. The Oracle tried to cast Dismissal but couldn't get through the Spell Resistance and the Paladin got another full round of attacks wherein he tripped and brought the Glab from near max to 31 hp. When it tried to use a spell like ability the two got attacks of opportunity and killed the thing.

Battle End

Conclusions?

The Eidolon isn't all it's cracked up to be even at mid level play. Now to be fair, it could be it probably wasn't as properly optimized as it could have been, but anyone looking at it would have thought it competent to go through a 12th level game.

Against such powerful things the Summons weren't even considered, the flanking bonuses they could have contributed might have been nice but the PC's had no trouble hitting the Glabrezu's they needed to damage them which only the Paladin was any good at.

The Oracle was pretty good. I had to think on my feet a bit more than usual with the Earth Glide in effect and I can see that causing considerable problems to unprepared GM's in dungeon crawls along with Crystal Sight. In combat, well, I can speculate that against non Demonic entities that mighty pebble ability would have come in handy as well as the rock throwing but alas we were only able to get in the one combat.

Given the starting gold and the stats rolled primary stats were easily placed above 25 and while the Oracle and the Summoner had their AC's in 20's the Paladin was at 37 prior to the smite.

I also had another thing of note. I limited the use of this for the purpose of the playtest but one of the PC's acquired the Craft Wondrous Item feat and wanted to know how much they could buy at 1/2 off. I permitted a few items and imposed a GP limit on them but wasn't used to how to handle it seeing as it's been years since we've tried to start a game at such a higher level as opposed to working from 1st level on. Unrelated I know but I will say I'm hoping the Game Mastery Guide will have advice for situations like this.

All in all it was a good session. The Glabrezu's weren't altogether pushovers but with the Paladin in the party they were mincemeat from the beginning. I might of made the encounter even more challenging but two CR 13 creatures should have been more than enough. Considering one full attack dropped the Eidolon (who was softened by one attack of opportunity) I'm hesitant to view the Eidolon as the all powerful monstrosity some people have been claiming it to be.

Anyway, not sure if that helps you folks over there at Paizo but it made me re-think a few things. I'll post again after our first session in the Legacy of Fire wherein we have a Summoner and a Witch.

Devil of Roses wrote:

...deletion of the standard action doesn't actually make the Summon Monster SLA take a whole round. See page 221 of the PRPG.

Yes it does

P221 prpg "1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

Summon monster spell description says Casting time: 1 round

Curses, foiled again!

I plan to play test with Jasons amendments as that's what he's asked for. Really I don't see the need to scale back the duration when you consider the 1 SLA cap anyhow.

Given the number of uses a day if you do need to resummon in combat, odds are still good you won't run out, plus it opens up different kinds of utilitarian use of summons like I mentioned earlier.

Conjurors are good at a whole school,

Summoners are good at one aspect of that school, in that one aspect they should probably outshine a conjuror.

My sentiments exactly. Summoners should rock the summoning. While the Eidolon feature is nifty and all if you're going to call something a summoner class then dammit, it better be awesome at summoning, otherwise call it something like the Eidolotron or Eidolonator or whatever. :P Either way, we play this sunday, unfortunately whenever these playtests things occur attention shifts or boards are closed or changes are made before I've a chance to get my group together. It's a touch irksome.

Ur all wrongz, ur rulz suxxors, u shuld yooz my house rulz and higher me to run pizo!

NOTE: The sad thing is I think I remember a letter to Dragon Magazine back when 3rd edition first came out wherein the letter writer stated the rules for 3rd edition were almost verbatim his house rules and that Wizards should just hire him as a designer. I'm pretty sure the guy was serious to boot.

I know I'm guilty of the above. It's a bad habbit of mine in general to speak, then think, then speak again with a more level headed take on things. Unfortunately that doesn't get rid of the fact I opened my mouth too early to begin with.

We're running a game on Sunday so I'll have a player playing the summoner at 1st level. I might try and run a one shot 5th or 10th level adventure just to see how things change as well at higher levels.

Since the summon monster ability is a SLA, wouldn't it be a standard action even without the deleted sentence?

Ooooh, good point *runs off to check in his PRPG* Yep, you're right, as it didn't make a statement to the contrary the deletion of the standard action doesn't actually make the Summon Monster SLA take a whole round. See page 221 of the PRPG.

Honestly that makes me a little more happy. I'll see how it plays out in actual testing of course. Damn Sunday isn't getting here fast enough.

Hmmm, perhaps further discussion should wait until people actually play test things, the fact that enough people whined to get a change made before any genuine playtesting took place irks the hell out of me to begin with but that's to be expected in the online medium I suppose.

Good changes. If anything I'd like fewer/no magic items on the eidolon.

On the SMs, I firmly believe the ability's duration/novaability needed nerfing and was very vocal about it. Though letting them be standard action would be fine, and really at 1 rnd/lvl you don't need to do the "only 1 at a time" clause. Then it's basically just some normal extra SM spells that are faster than normal, which is OK.

Personally I think better duration and limited summoning would make things more interesting, sort of give them an edge on other casters without giving them too much. It would also make summons useful on a utilitarian level rather than focused on purely combat related matters. Something I think has been a major flaw with 3.5 and onward wherein the mindset was that if it was useful in combat it was too powerful hence the nerfed fly spell and over land flight spell. Both of which suck compared to the former which had far more uses than just flying around for a few rounds of combat. Honestly I think more duration = more powerful seems silly. Summoned monsters are weak enough, they tend to go squick easily, letting one linger around for a minute per level isn't absurd in the least in my not so humble opinion.

Hmmm, at first glance I'd have to say I agree with the armor ruling but the summon monster change is a bit much. I'd say keep the minute per level and allow them to be summoned as a standard action (i.e. a free improved summoning feat which only makes sense, these guys should be the best at what they do) but restrict them to one SLA summons active at a time.

I have a player who'll be running a Summoner and he made a good point. While the Eidolon is a cool feature and the primary one of the class he want's to be able to Summon monsters, not have a pet, he'd play a druid for a pet class. He's kind of lippy about these things anyway, just disheartened that he didn't actually get to playtest it in it's full glory I imagine. I, however, will wait and see how things play out this weekend.

I'm quite fond of Legacy of Fire, in fact it's at the top as my new favorite AP, mainly because our RotRL's game just fell apart at the Fortress of the Stone Giants. The PC's didn't like the adventure, there were things that made great sense in a flavor aspect but left the PC's scratching their heads, laughing, or simply being unable to take it seriously. I did, however, like how they mixed creepy with classic in the first half of the AP and I would probably reinvent FotSG altogether if I ran it again. Maybe make it an actual fortress...

In order, my favorites are:

Legacy of Fire
So many reasons. Even though, at first, I had no interest in this AP seeing as I had no interest in an Arabian style setting. In fact I thought the City of Brass was rather lame (I was a Sigil fan, still am but I no longer consider the City of Brass to be lame :P). The first module grabbed me and I've been hooked ever since. It was also refreshing to get out of Varisia, sure it is a great gaming area but three AP's is enough for me.

Rise of the Runelords
I was excited to run this one, the only AP's that came close to matching that excitement were the Age of Worms and Legacy of Fire. It had classic monsters, a villain that wasn't some larger than life deity, and plenty of dark and creepy elements which I'm a fan of. (Fantasy horror is likely my favorite sub-genre of Fantasy literature) Alas our game fell apart due to, what I believe, is the AP's weakest module (Fortress of the Stone Giants, sorry Wolfgang) and social strife between my players (nerd drama for the lose). If I were to run this again I'd likely heavily alter or edit FotSG some how to better weave the way to number 5.

Curse of the Crimson Throne
This came out while I was running RotR so while I found it interesting my focus was elsewhere. That and the story didn't grip me enough. Knowing how my players think I know they'd look at Korvosa and go "Wow, this city kind of sucks" and from there it would be hard convincing them to care much about going to one of the more interesting cities in the region. I knew they'd have a hard time investing in it were I to run them through the AP. I also never read more than the first two modules as I eventually got into a play by post game as a player and didn't want to read too much.

Second Darkness
This sits in last for a few reasons. The first module never grabbed me, it was interesting but it just never made me go "Oooh! I really want to run that!" Sort of like the first 15 pages of a book needs to get my attention in order for me to read the entirety of it. I also didn't like the fact that it focused so much on elves. There's a lot of elf-hate in our group. Comes from reading too many fantasy novels where the elves end up over-glorified and the like. Apparently the AP suffered as the last two adventures had to be rushed due to Gen Con and PRPG elements. Things got changed last minute and the quality suffered for it.

All in all I think a good read of this thread will show that Legacy of Fire is not the least favorite. Likely it's more what previous posters have mentioned: People have other games going on. In a year or something you'll find more posts popping up here than before as old campaigns wrap up and people crack open those yellow and red volumes of goodness.

I have a lot of D&D music ripped from video games. Seems around the late 90's early 2000 a lot of video games came with the music on the cd itself. You simply skipped track one (which was almost always raw data and thus came off as an ear piercing screech) and boom, awesome gaming music. I did this with a Might and Magic game (number 7 I believe) which has amazing background music that doesn't distract too much. Hexen 2 had a beautiful sound track as well, a couple songs creeped one of my players out kind of like O'Fortuna might freak some players out only a little more subtle and sinister.

Though I preferred music with a more middle eastern sound. The first half of the 13th warrior soundtrack worked well for that, hell, the second half wasn't bad either. I also managed to snag the Prince of Persia sound track as well which was nice and had great combat music.

I said nothing about hand waving and I apologize if you got that impression. Yes, a DM is supposed to weave stories, that's why I DM, that's why I've been doing so for the better part of two decades. In that time the only times I've seen people go Nova was in high school and middle school when we were all still new to this whole D&D thing and didn't know any better.

I see where there might be a misinterpretation. It lies in my use of the word 'hack'. You're interpreting it as though I'm saying a DM should cut it from his game whereas the intention behind it was like saying 'he couldn't hack it so he left' or more precisely: he couldn't handle the heat so he got out of the kitchen. Your number crunching is nice though rather selective and unrealistic. Mainly in that you used the melee vs. a prepared spell caster type scenario.

I don't like number crunch scenarios, I find it's pointless compared to actual testing, anyone can run numbers but when the dice start to fall in an adventure that's been designed by a DM who knows his players and their characters all that number crunching tends to fly out the window. It might be useful for Pathfinder Society scenarios where things are far more restricted but when the PRPG starts to revolve around the Pathfinder Society is when I start looking for a new fantasy RPG to occupy my shelves. Not that the Society is bad but I'd rather have classic play be the focus than organized (*shudder*) play.

Then again my opinion is just that. Opinion with a little speculation tossed in. I have a player who will begin running a Summoner come Sunday's game wherein I'll discover whether I'll change my tune or just keep on rolling my eyes at the people who crunch numbers. I personally like the summoner class and want to see it in action before I pass judgment. Who knows.

I'm not sure where the idea that being able to prep for combat is over powered. Now sure, if I were silly enough to toss nothing but giant subtype creatures at my party, well, I'd be surprised if the PC's actually got in to melee with the things if permitted time to prep.

The fact is, though, not all encounters are created equal regardless of CR. You've been using melee oriented creatures against spell casters, the results will often be laughable if the caster is able to prepare. Ogres, I daresay, have been easy since 3rd edition came off the presses. I'm not sure what type of GM is running the show for Ash but the Eidolons haven't struck me as being impressive enough for their summoner to be casual throughout 3 CR 5 encounters plus a hill giant.

Again, I'll find out soon enough through playtesting but I still think your concerns are vastly overblown.

Then there's the easy way of balancing things. Villains are often prepared for the PC's and those are the encounters that really make them sweat. That and Ash he PC isn't the only summoner in existance, rest assured, he'll get a taste of his own medicine before the campaign is done. Not that he'd live long, a summoner is powerful, I'll grant them that, but that gives them the same target on their back that wizards and clerics get and he'll only have light armor to help him out.

But hey, you're talking to someone who thought nerfing spell focus in 3.0 was silly or never saw the mythical CoDzilla everyone was always whining about.

Seriously though, who Nova's? It's a noob tactic that, in less polite groups of more experienced players, is laughed at. There are psionicists who can make a nast Nova, as can a sorcerer with his umpteen spells, but who would? It's an absolute waste of resources and if a DM can't hack that sort of play style then perhaps they're on the wrong side of the screen.

Heh, is Ash were playing like that in my group he'd be rolling up new characters at the end of every night, provided he wasn't laughed out of the group for being foolish enough to go Nova in the first place. Seriously, who actually plays like this? Is this considered a valid play testing scenarios and does it represent a valid problem? On a tactical level the game involves a lot of resource development and if Ash managed to survive to the final encounter of a game with me and still held onto all of his daily summons then damn, the guy deserves to trounce the BBEG in such a fashion.

Kind of reminds of me of some of the CoDzilla Cleric scenarios. I've maybe seen a cleric get more than two personal buffs off five times in the past three years. These things just don't happen, or happen rarely enough that arguments of something being over powered based on such scenarios should be considered invalid.

Though who knows, I may end up eating my words, I have a player who will be testing the Summoner starting Sunday. Though I don't think I've seen someone who liked going NOVA during a game since High School.

Devil of Roses wrote:

Wow, so kind of a random thought, but why do Apes only have a 15 strength? I was under the impression they were considerably stronger without being dire.

15 Strength IS pretty strong, when you consider that average human strength is 10. An ape's average strength being at 15 means that a really strong ape (built using the 15 point buy method) could easily be above 20 in Strength.

As to why we put the Strength at 15, it's all about balance. We didn't want to change monster CR scores from the 3.5 SRD unless we had no other choice, and for apes (and any monster with the rend ability), a high Strength score EXPLODED the damage they do in a round. The only way to maintain them as a CR 2 creature and not turn them into TPK machines was to lower their Strength.

I don't think it would be terribly unbalanced if they had a strength of 18 or something, ah well, I suppose if it came down to it I could always make my own adjustments. I think I saw a company who sold PDF's on your sight that tried to make stats for animals as realistic as possible rather than what was listed in the 3.5 srd for the sake of balance and mechanics over realism. Can't remember them but animal statistics was always something I disliked about 3.5, just seemed like the stats were thrown together as an afterthought when there was a depth of research material at their fingertips. But they're just animals right? :P

Wow, so kind of a random thought, but why do Apes only have a 15 strength? I was under the impression they were considerably stronger without being dire.

Wow, one of the last cities in Varisia I expected to get it's own book, I'm surprised but pleasantly so. Look forward to seeing it.

As someone pointed out recently this is a lot of Adventure for free. Apparently the sequel is in the works and will cost a small sum of money. I haven't gotten too far in but this adventure of ancient ruins, dark cults and a region locked in the grip of an ancient demonic terror is already getting my wheels spinning. Rather reminiscent of a dungeon module dealing with the same Demon Lord but it is it's own story all the same. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some enterprising DM's wove them into connecting plots.

Give this game a look through, can't hurt seeing as it's free right? :P

Alas my game actually wound up dying because of a rift between the group over the magic items. We eventually gave it up when one of our older gamers went on a rant about the Fortress of the Stone Giants not making any sense and being ridiculous. I think the mummy-monk was what tipped him over the edge, especially seeing as the art showed his hands and feet as being bound, and the fact that there was a mummy monk and nothing where that particular encounter took place was worth anything of any real value (they were quite insulted by the scroll case).

No, Rise of the Runelords was not exactly the best AP as far as magic items went. Many of the ones they had were useless to the PC's and unless the DM altered things so that there were some rather eccentric collectors of +1 Ogre Hooks in Magnimar selling a lot of the loot the PC's found required a little more suspension of disbelief than most D&D games when it comes to the buying and selling of magic items (i.e. how a PC can get a fully charged wand in a loot pile and still only sell it for half the market value per the rules).

The AP was good (though I found myself loathing FotSG, likely more due to events surrounding the module than the module it self, I usually love Wolfgang Bauers work) but if the PC's are fond of their loot the DM should do some homework and drop a few items here and there as well as a couple eccentric collectors of giant magic equipment or my personal favorite: a Rod of Resize. Which would readjust an item to the size of the wielder of the Rod. Unlimited charges because anything less was a pain in the arse :P

Hmmm, I know this is a little late in the game but I recently got into the Black Company stories and purchased the setting as well and began looking for forum posts on the topic. I thought it was newer than it was (the d20 setting that is), guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm curious as to how this conversion might have gone. It would have required a lot of work on the GM's part I imagine but would have been doable all the same.

My personal opinion is simple, I can see the need to weaken some spells, but I think they went too far with some by cutting them off at the hip when they just needed to take them down at the knees. Change is good when it's needed, apparently the cleric needed change, though I think a lot of the problems are superficial at best (too many stacked buffs? Numerous solutions abound! Dispell Magic, don't give the PC's time to buff (quite easy actually), and many other options are open to DM's who want to deal with the pesky cleric) but getting rid of Heavy Armor just didn't seem like it was needed in light of everything else they did. It's just not that powerful of a feat in my opinion, even with the power creep, not even when combined with being able to wield your deity's favored weapon (which makes perfect sense in my not so humble opinion).

Thankfully, I'm the DM with my particular groups so it's easy enough to house rule that Clerics get Heavy Armor. The day I sweat that they have it is the day I put away my DM screen for good because frankly, if I can't handle that, I should either play something else or give up DMing.

Don't have time to give this thread a good read through but I would suggest, if you have the coin, that you hunt down a copy of the Black Company RPG from Green Ronin's Mystic Vistas line. Good rules for war and playing in a war torn land.

Setting, I'd have kept the setting even if I said "Screw d20 I'm going Savage Worlds!" and while I like most of the rules I'd have kept up my subscriptions even if Paizo stuck with 3.5 and did nothing with the rules. The adventures and the setting have everything I don't have the time to make up on my own. That and I'm still getting over my disappointment with some of the rules changes.

Although.... since people are mentioning low graphics and the OP mentioned "gold box games"... how about an actual "gold box" style game, with little 8 bit icons and all? :)

Google "Unlimited Adventures" Anyone with some patience can make Pathfinder Gold Box games. Wouldn't be able to use the 3.5 rules though.

A)the human hasn't been nerfed at all. Nerfing can only happen with final editions. The BETA was a playtest ruleset that wasn't meant as a final ruleset. The Human lost absolutely nothing from 3.5 and the pathfinder RPG so there was no nerf. In fact the flat human gained a +2 to place in any ability score.

The final rules set? Very well, humans gained a +2 to any stat, that's alright and personally I think that was the push they needed to bring them in line with the other races. However they lost their favored class advantage. In 3.5 humans were the race allowed to pick any class as a favored class, it was a sign of their flexibility, adaptability and their ambition. Now every race can do that. *That* is loss by giving everyone more. Which is why I think they should have Multitalented as well.

B) As for the rest of your post about an extra feat and a skill point not being enough. I will merely say that for every person you bring me that agrees with you I can find one who disagrees and many that think that humans are the *ONLY* class worth playing. I disagree with them as I disagree with you. I think the human class is balanced just fine amongst the rest of the classes. But there was no Nerf to the human.

Then we'll agree to disagree. In 3.5 the racial stat modifiers amounted to +0. Races got +2 to one stat and -2 to another. Mathematically that would be seen as +2-2=0 PRPG bumped it up one which meant it was only fair to give humans and half breeds +2 because everyone else got +2. However all the races are now flexible with their favored class bringing them in line with humans which results in +1 gain for all races and no gain for the humans.

As for people playing humans, I don't doubt it, I play humans most often myself even if they are weaker mechanically. Hell, I did so in 2nd edition when there was little doubt they were weaker.

Some stuff regarding Xorials post and WotC having made the OGL and thus allowing us to have the PRPG

Well, you're right there, the company named Wizards of the Coast did create the OGL. But the company that is WotC now is a far different beast than it was when the OGL was made. There were different people at the helm and Hasbro had yet to enter into things. One could argue that that company is different from what it used to be in everything but name.

As for the microsoft analogy, meh, Wizards had to pick a direction to keep RPG's viable, they were out of material to publish for 3.5 and in order to make money had to do something drastically different. I think one thing that is a far more apt comparison is big guy little guy. Wizards runs it's business with a corporate mentality, it's a large company compared to most gaming companies, is run by an even larger company, and serves the bottom line. Their decisions are largely business decisions. These recently involved making the rules simpler and easy to understand, there's a lot to keep track of sure, but all in all it was easier to understand than 3.5 was. It involved taking some inspiration from MMORPG's (there's no denying this, wizards even admitted to it, the key word being inspiration) and aiming the game at a younger target audience.

If you look at the videos from PaizoCon it's mentioned that the customer base for Paizo is on the older side, I believe 25-35 or 40 is where the big numbers lie. I imagine 4e has a larger younger fan base, well, it obviously does but I mean per capita.

Wizards went in a completely different direction than Paizo as far as the flavor of the game went. Though, as with many smaller companies, I will say I believe the PRPG shows more of a love of the game than does 4e. Not saying the people at Wizards don't love the game, but I believe it shows more in the PRPG, sort of a higher concentration sort of thing.

4e and the PRPG are two different beasts. Considering they both bear the legacy of the most popular RPG in the world at their heart in a few ways. WotC obviously has the license and the title, but both companies have members who have been around since TSR, in fact I'm almost willing to bet that Paizo has more Old Guard than Wizards but I'm unsure. Either way it's irrelevant, whatever captures the 'feel of D&D' is up to the player of the game. Not even owning the brand name or publishing a product that holds onto the games roots a little more can change that.

This is a result of me ranting at 5:30am without sleep. Yay :P

I think the changes to the classes will be the most useful thing for me. That and the Combat Maneuver system. The classes mean I'll see more players playing classes that had only been glossed over before, Bard, Paladin, Monk are all parts of these. My players had touched on them before but they were classes that were only played on a whim, only recently have I had any player look at the Paladin and go "Wow, I really want to play a Paladin now" I've even had a couple grudgingly look at the monk in approval. Then again when I was on vacation I stayed with some people among whom were a pair of power gamers that showed me some rather frightening monk builds which involved multiclassing and prestige classes but still made the DM in me shudder.

I love the Combat Maneuver system, my players have felt it's benefit, as they have it's down sides, but once one gets used to it's concept it's a lot easier to manage than the previous grapple rules.

I dislike a lot of the spell changes and will likely, sadly, be reverting to 3.5 or at least houseruling them to be a little less full of suck.

I like a lot of the feats but felt Power Attack really didn't need a change. It never slowed game down for me even when we had players who sucked at basic addition working with it. Honestly it was spellcasters who slowed the game down sifting through their spells trying to decide which ones to cast that slowed things down more than anything.

All in all I'm glad I have only one monster of a book to reference though I suppose once the Bestiary comes out the two manuals will weigh more and take up as much space as the core 3.5 set :P But at least I can use the PRPG Corebook as a bludgeoning weapon for when I walk alone late at night :D

Devil of Roses wrote:

On another note, I finally saw the changes for the Remove Curse/Poison/Disease spells and while I can see the reasoning behind it, well... it just seems too much. Or too little for a 3rd level spell. A caster level check against the poisons DC? It becomes far too easy to make that a wasted spell than anything.

The older versions (which automatically worked) in turn meant that, once the party had access to these spells, there was little point in using curses or diseases. The next day, the cleric would memorize the appropriate spells, cast them in the morning and the Dread Plague was solved. Now, if four members of your 5th level party are infected with a DC 20 disease, it's likely to be an ongoing problem likely to last several days (and possibly be life-threatening), rather than a 20 second "I memorize remove disease and we go on to the next plot point".

I understand this but couldn't there have been a middle ground between making diseases and poisons and such dangerous via the nerfing of spells and making a 3rd level spell nearly useless? I'll admit once you're able to cast those spells it rendered such status effects useless but then they castrated a 3rd level spell without any compensation. No bonus to that caster check, it's more like allowing them to make a second saving throw or something, it would have been a good chance to make the heal skill a more worthy investment.

It's like saying the Empire State Building is too big and reducing it to a four story office building. At least in my not so humble opinion.

The changes to the fighter, the Combat Maneuver system, the changes to domains and blood lines (though I still consider sorcerers to be weak), the changes to barbarians, clerics (save for the spells, blech), wizards (again, save for the spell nerfs), thieves... I mean rogues, bards, druids (save for polymorph), ranger, monk, the combat maneuver system, rogue talents!, did I mention the combat maneuver system? While it's about the same size I love more about the system than I dislike and what I dislike is easily house rules.

Humans were commonly played in my 2nd edition games, not because they were powerful but because they were familiar, and their flexibility with classes was pretty much the only edge that made them worthwhile which is now commonly shared.