Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm's page

Order of the dragon is not what I'm looking for if I want to hold the lines, he's who I want if I want someone to assist constantly(Which oddly enough, isn't always the best action to assist.)

Again, rule 0 is not the best defense. If it was I could say I don't like the cavalier because he can ride a flying pink pony in my home game, or that he's awesome because his alicorn kicks butt and my custom Order of the Black Saint is just what I needed.

Rule 0 has always been a last resort in all of my arguments. There are a multitude of orders to choose from. 16 paizo orders, including the ronin/knight errant which eliminates all the roleplaying shackles you so dislike. Would you complain if the ronin package was the only thing attached to the challenge? Or would you just complain that the challenge was too vanilla and lacked variety?

You have 16 options of orders to choose from, and there's a super genius book that has a whole host of other options, as well as other 3rd party stuff. If you really can't build your niche build after that, you're probably being picky. I'm sorry they only have peanut butter and chocolate but not peanut butter and fudge. At this point, rule 0 your peanut butter and fudge. To tell me it's a weak argument ignores the things that came before it.

Right, because magus has this edict system that tells me... oh wait, no it doesn't. Codes, tenants, alignment restrictions... Didn't I just talk about these and how they have their own critisims?

Have fun playing your enchanting duelist who uses her dazzling beauty to charm foes and turn them against each othe... oh wait, I don't get charm spells. I suppose I'll fall back on my planeswalker general build, where my character summons allies from across the planes to help him wage war.... oh, no summon spells either.

Darn, guess I'm stuck playing a blaster gish. Tell me again how class doesn't limit your roleplaying options?

Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:

the ronin, which is a build your own order RAW,

He has a build your own edict(why does need one?), but his mechanics are set in stone if we're talking about RAW.

So are the fighters, but you aren't complaining that they have to be weapons masters. If the challenge mechanic was simply: you must follow an edict determined by you and the DM and at certain levels you gain the benefits of the ronin order, with no other orders, would you still be complaining? Because there's no forced roleplaying here, just limited mechanics, which are a whole other complaint.

I don't have the space, nor time to go through every last class and explain how it affects its roleplaying, but I should note there is a huge difference between playing a summoner and saying my background involves figuring that out somehow, and having a restriction on my power and losing it all if I stop acting a certain way that doesn't have to do with the order abilities! Worse, for some reason I forget how to do attack non lethally with the flat of my blade, if I for some reason kill a man who surrendered.

Losing it all? You lose your mount, teamwork feats, banner bonuses, full bab and charge bonuses? And you lose it for one day because your evil knight was a jerk to a peasant. A good night's sleep and you're holding the line with the best of them. How often do you run into peasants that you choose to neglect or attack in your games?

And you don't forget how to knock a guy out, you simply suffer minuses like the rest of the plebes. Call it a wavering of resolve, call it your supernatural focus slipping, call it your patron god of your order abandoning you for your sins. Easy to fluff the mechanic. But I suspect you've got a thing against powers per day perhaps?

What you call mild... Is relative. Its a thread about personal opinion. It shouldn't be an argument when someone says "I don't like orders because it is a constraint on my roleplay". I feel like I can make my own characters, with their own personalities, and who act in their own way and use the mechanics given to help bring that idea to life. When I have alignment restrictions, edicts, codes, in the way of a character idea it can become a problem. More so when many GMs I know aren't interested in allowing people to be a little different. It's a completely legitimate criticism of the way orders are designed.

But, again, this criticism is a criticism of Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Summoners, Paladins, Druids, Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors, Anti-paladins and Witches, to varying degrees. The game forces mechanical choices upon you dependant on roleplaying choices. I'm sorry you dislike this, but it's been part of the game since 1975. This isn't the cavalier's fault, it's the game's fault. Here is really where you need to Rule 0 that stuff out of your game, or play a different game. If 16+ orders doesn't allow you to be different, you probably need to tune the mechanics to suit your tastes. But don't claim that there is no variety or that roleplaying choices are being jammed down your throat.

Pointed more toward mechanics, I dislike package deals you can't break out of. Orders happen to be that, you take the whole gig and you have to live with it. Mysteries you can choose revelations, or rage powers you get a very wide selection, but not so much with orders. They don't make the class feel more flavorful for me, more so just locked into a particular style of play "Hi, I'm a cavalier. I'm automatically part of an order of knights... Oh! And if I stop, I lose a good chunk of my abilities." I don't like that. Not only is he built for charging on a horse, but he's also always part of a knightly order or an errant, and errants are a specific order with specific mechanics unrelated to a be your own kinda' guy.

A cavalier IS a knight. That's what the class is about. That's where the powers come from. If you don't like it, rule 0 the class, or be a druid or a ranger if you want to be a beast rider without an order, be a dragoon fighter or barbarian if you want to be a mounted powerhouse without the ever-so restrictive orders. Or be a paladin or anti-paladin, where at least it doesn't tease you with the illusion of 16 choices and you become a mounted crusader.

Best yet, you can just dip 4 levels of cav and have that mount be as good as a full cav for the cost of one feat and not have to worry about the challenge except as a slightly helpful boost to your fighter/barb/ranger/whatever once a day. Losing it for breaking the edict becomes a tame penalty.

There are options, and full credit if you don't like playing a knight but you want the shiny powers that come with it, but the cav has non-charge builds, can keep up with a fighter with the gendarme archetype, even without going charge focus, has choices that allow you to not play a horsie-man, provides options that don't force you to roleplay a certain way to gain some benefit from the challenge (and quite good ones too, IMHO) and the class covers a broad range of historical and literary archetypes.

I'm sorry you don't like them, but for anyone on the fence, I feel your arguments are about taste or flaws in pathfinder versus the class itself.

SOL In PFS? Why is that? Anyways, my point was that its best to have suggestions for RP values, rather than enforce them. That said, Evil cavalier who cares about his teammates might want order of the shield but not care that much about the weak. Or for a closer to real life example a chevalier who doesn't care about the people, but does a fine job as a knight holding the lines. Order of the shield is about protecting the common folk! But as it just so happens, not everyone's into that gig, but plenty of people could be all about holding the lines and being resolute.

I don't disagree, but the order of the dragon will do a lot of what you're looking for then... Which is kind of my point. Unless you are obsessed with a mechanic and it doesn't fit your corner case build and your GM isn't flexible, the cav has a myriad of other options that probably could, if you're willing to sacrifice a little mechanically. Just like an evil cleric cannot channel healing and a good cleric cannot heal the unliving easily.

I am not a picky eater, I like trying new things and lots of flavors. I however do not like being told what my dish is, and what I am eating tonight. I can ask for a suggestion, but please do not pick out my menu and tell me that I wanted the chicken when I wanted the beef. Though I'm not one to go to a Mexican restaurant and expect Spaghetti, I do expect my choice between Taco's and Burrito's.(Supposing we're using the food metaphor, and an attempt to keep the food simple.)

Rule 0 is not a great defense for a problem someone might have. The best core is open and flexible, but with many suggestions and further ideas through books and setting specific stuck in setting...

Well, they may not have a ground beef burrito, but they do have bean, chicken, pork and steak burritos, and a ground beef taco, enchilada and taquito.

Seriously, with the samurai on top, the cav has so many flavours, three which are horse free, and all of which have lots of orders to pick from, plus the ronin, which is a build your own order RAW, that I find it hard to imagine anyone who actually likes the class having trouble fitting the roleplaying to the mechanics.

Your argument sounds like an argument against classes, because all classes are going to force you into a roleplaying niche with their mechanics, because that's what they do.

I'm not trying to paint you as immature. I understand that there are systems that offer more in class flexibility, and even classes like the fighter and the rogue offer more roleplaying options than the cavalier.

But I do think that having very mild restrictions attached to the orders isn't that oppressive and is unlikely to constrain your roleplaying.

I use words like shackle and frustrated because you sound passionately opposed to the notion of mechanics being attacked to roleplaying. However, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that this is a feature of the game:

Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Summoners, Paladins, Druids, Cavaliers, Oracles, Inquisitors, Anti-paladins and Witches all have mechanics that are linked to roleplaying and if you'd like, I can provide corner cases for all of them that the RAW doesn't allow me to roleplay. Singling out the cavalier for this crime, even though it's one of the more flexible classes in this respect, is narrow sighted.

A few things:

1) The samurai is a cavalier, for all intents and purposes. And the Huntmaster, Beastrider and Sword Saint all do away with the "Only Ponies!" stuff that seems to rankle people. I'd expect more down the line too.

2) The cavalier easily out does the fighter. The charge builds laugh at iterative attack DPRs, skill points and challenges are lovely swag and the mount is powerhouse icing on the cake.

Especially at level 1, when that free horse makes your action economy and gold economy FAR stronger than your average martial.

3) The mounts are useless in dungeons argument is a little bunk. Yes, sometimes you can't take your charger up the 50 ft wall, before you get fly or levitate spells, but even with that nerf you have a full bab challenge/buff tank/face who is slightly weaker than a fighter. This isn't a weak character without the mount. With it, action economy wins the day 90% of the time.

4) The "orders restrict my roleplaying" is silly. They inform it. The comments regarding choosing a domain, choosing a school or even choosing a rage totem are spot on.

You can play an order of the cockatrice as shy, dull and boring, but when he hits the battlefield, watch out. In fact, how many sports stars could be described in this fashion? Jonathan Toews of the Blackhawks springs to mind for me immediately.

What order forces you to "roleplay a certain way? They're just mechanics with a flavour, and even RAW that flavour doesn't force you to do anything, it just defines the roleplaying elements of the order. The cockatrice cavs will generally be flashier, the swords more martial, the star more pious, etc.

But you can be a cocky member of the star, a pious member of the dragon or a cooperative member of the cockatrice, just like you can be a druid who is scared of snakes, a barbarian who loves court dinners or a paladin who gambles. All without Rule 0 too.

You can dislike the class, just like you can dislike clerics because of the religion thing, wizards for the casting arcane spells thing or druids for the nature thing.

But there's no real gripe with the cav I can see beyond preference. They are mechanically potent, offer a variety of flavours within the confines of "mounted warrior with a code" archetype and the mount isn't really the anchor people make it out to be. Even without the mount, the other features are potent and there are tricks around the size problems too.

There's a 3rd level spell called create food and water. To allow a 0 level spell to turn poop into food makes this 0 level spell akin to a third level spell, as poop is ubiquitous and easily obtained.

As for create water being 0 level: Water is one of the 4 main elements of the prime material plane. Spells that create fire and air are of similar levels and presumably these things are conjured from the plane in question. Show me the demi-plane of food, then we can start talking about a 0 level spell making food from waste.

At best, I agree with the idea that the poop will not make you sick after a casting of the spell, with all the toxins, bacteria and other harmful elements purified, but the nutritional value of it will be that of soggy newspaper. And if the seige were extended, perhaps one round of purified s!&&e will get you through the day, but by the second and third goes, there's nothing nutritional left to process.

The spell does not CREATE food. So if an apple were dropped in acid and half of it was destroyed, the other half would not miraculously return. And that's exactly what is happening to the apple that you eat and poop out.

I'd even go so far as to say food which has been partially lost to rot will only return in the amount that is still intact: jerky will not become a steak again.

Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:

Cavs are a completely viable tier 3 class. They trump the fighter as far as I'm concerned, if only for an animal companion and the opportunity to rock a x3 charge with a x5 potential critical by level 3. If they nova, they can end a fight before it begins with a solo or a BBEG.

I'm a big fan of the Cav but one-shotting encounters isn't all that fun for me. Also, a lot of GMs would start setting up fights to prevent you from charging because one player trivializing encounters is boring for the other players.

If a class that, with little to no optimization, can warrant the DM nerfing it through rule 0, I think we can safely say that it's a viable class.

I would design fights to prevent one shot kills as a DM as well. But there's something sweet about coming across a terrible, slavering monster, huge in size and killing it dead in one glorious charge.

But that's a flavour best tasted as a treat, I agree. But that's the same with a pounce barbarian going nova. Both builds equal terrible solo murder.

Add to this the buffs, social skills and an animal companion, the cav is combat ready and has out of combat utility.

Summoner, Summoner, Summoner.

It's a party of 6 that can heal, bump any skill with a buff spell and fill any role required. Add the fact that it's 3 arcane casters, and it's gravy. Beats 3 clerics any day.

Druid, Druid, Druid is a close second.

Vital Strike in FAQ

See the note in the link below:
Multiplying damage from multiple sources

The vital strike FAQ is irrelevant, because a mounted character isn't charging, the mount is. Their attack (standard action) simply gains it's benefits.

The multiplying damage one, however, seems to say that vital strike is not multiplied. My mistake.

So damage should be:

1d8 vital strike +
1d8+17 Lance +
1d8+17 charge multiplier +
1d8+17 spirited charge +
2d8+34 critical

So 4d8+51 and 6d8+85.

But Vital strike is AOK still.

Since pounce is more likely to take place than a spirited charge if you are medium I would still take the barbarian, and you can vital strike on a spirited charge.

Seriously? At level 10? Large creatures are PRETTY darn common by then. And in those cases of 5ft corridors, how often is the barbarian pouncing anyways?

And whether the Barbarian is SLIGHTLY more optimal is a moot point. Point is that the Cavalier is viable, and actually has a fairly common corner case superiority to a Barbarian. The power attack multipliers alone dazzle.

And a full armour BAB with a host of party buffs that break the action economy is fantastic. Couple that with an animal companion who can take narrow frame and still contribute, and you're laughing.

Lets face it: Any scenario that involves the mount squeezing likely involves one of the melee martials waiting behind the tank, using their composite bow. This is as much of a corner case as not being able to charge. And the Cavalier is an excellent tank, so the Barb can stand behind him with his bow, lamenting how he cannot pounce.

Cavs are a completely viable tier 3 class. They trump the fighter as far as I'm concerned, if only for an animal companion and the opportunity to rock a x3 charge with a x5 potential critical by level 3. If they nova, they can end a fight before it begins with a solo or a BBEG.

Quandary wrote:

And Beast Totem Pounce builds get nothing but accolades. If Charging is that hard, why doesn't Pounce get equally panned?

Charge builds are problematic because, like Spring Attack builds and Vital Strike builds, they only allow one attack per round. Pounce gets accolades because it solves that problem.

Yeah, but with x4 damage with peak BAB, your DPR is likely better with one attack than 4 attacks with diminishing BAB, other things not withstanding. And a first level cav is doing x2 and your barb is only getting one attack. It's not until end game when pounce overtakes spirited charge for potential hits, but the spirited charge still has a higher chance to hit.

Tack on a vital strike build and the mount charge build is formidable. The large creature argument is the only thing which is really bogging the cav down. That and the flying mounts.

But in the high levels, most dungeons are probably large creature friendly, and the Cav has a RAW GM clause for other mounts, and the mount is described as similar to a druids companion. They should have just allowed anything that could be ridden. I would as a GM.

Bellerophon is a great example of a flying cavalier. And elven eagle knights are all sorts of awesome. Or Deurgar carrion crawler knights. The class lends itself to so much that horse/camel/wolf denies, beast master not withstanding.

Yes. These two characters simply aren't compatible. What we have here is a case of "double poppycocks":

The Diabolist is using inherently Evil creatures to establish Order? That's not LN, that's LE.

The Paladin is okay with Devils working for him, as long as they're controlled by someone who isn't Evil? That's not a Paladin.

To be fair, our Diabolist is also working with an inherently good Paladin to establish order, which, by your thinking, isn't LN, but LG.

So LE + LG = LN. Order trumps morals in this case, which is very LN.

So the character is LN. Which is okay for the Paladin, because Law and Order are good things in their worldview.

Which brings us to the difficult dichotomy of why Evil is a no-no for Paladins, but Chaos is not. It's been a double standard since the dawn of the 2 axis system that CG and LG can be bosom pals, but LG and LE, LOOK OUT!

So we need to be flexible. The PC is clearly trying to play their character well, being morally conflicted and all, as is the Diabolist, antagonizing the Paladin in a harmless RP fashion. This is all excellent stuff, so why are we trying to be Stupid Good (The inverse of Lawful Stupid) and blow it up?

Playing a Paladin, or any lawful holy character and playing an evil/chaotic character side by side requires give and take. The Lawful Goods must be willing to loosen their code to casual transgressions and the chaotics/evils must be willing to abide by their ally's code to a degree: it's a reality of teamwork.

Now I agree, demon summoners aren't exactly casual transgressors, so a solution should be found that doesn't result in PVP, splitting the group or effectively killing a character. I've suggested 3 options, others have chipped in their ideas, and I'm sure we could come up with more.

I disagree with the suggestion that the paladin engage in PVP or quit the group though. That's uncreative and not fun. Especially when you have a CE adversary that forces natural enemies to unite. That's interesting story telling.

Sweet gygax's ghost you optimizers here! The guy is level 2! And has a reasonable build, but even before you posted that: LEVEL 2!

How in the abyss is he going to be a lead anchor unless he's SERIOUSLY screwed up, ala a wizard with 7 INT and CON.

Mind you, even a level two wizard with a bow could still be dealing tolerable damage.

It takes an amazing amount of work to mess up a 2nd level character.

Perhaps levels 5-10 "carrying" a player becomes an issue, but unless the player is breaking the build, ie the strong dumb wizard or the wise, athletically inept barbarian, early tier games with a group of 5 players should not be an issue.

I have to disagree -- if you don't want them casting spells that let them bypass stuff, just ban those spells. I wouldn't give them the spells, pretend like I was OK with them, and then turn around and make them never work. That's dishonest.

(If you're going to allow those spells at all, a better solution is to design adventures that REQUIRE their use. That requires a lot more creativity on your part, but it makes the casters feel special without allowing them to hijack the whole game world.)

I think it's circumstantial: Teleport is a useful, valuable and fun spell, as are planeshift, knock, and all the other spells that make it faster to get places and can work in a pinch when the rogue is dead.

But when the PCs decide to use teleport to bypass the guardians of a treasure room or knock to get through a "quest door" that's when magical counter measures are called for.

More often than not I like it when a spellcaster can offer a creative use of a spell, but some encounters are designed for the Martials and Experts, so you need to use countermeasures to prevent spellcasters stealing the spotlight.

I do agree that designing adventures with the caster's spell list is a good idea though.

All of this accomplishes exactly nothing unless you also ban Magnificent Mansion, teleport, plane shift, etc. -- all the spells that allow the casters to freely disregard all of the above.

Well this is what dimensional anchor, materials like otataral (an antimagic ore from Erikson for those out of the loop), time constraints and reactive dungeons/encounter flows with intelligence gathering monsters are for. If they stop after one fight and pop into their mansion, immediately provide an ambush right where they'll pop back out.

Time sensitivity is the best way to force 5-7 EPD though. Someone will die of poison without the cure, the magic security will only be suppressed for x hours, Lord Deathkill returns in two days and he's a challenge too great, etc.

High-level casters are a problem because their spells let them contol the narrative. There are two ways to deal with that: either empower the martials similarly ("OK, fighters now get an entire kingdom as a class feature at 10th level, and a world-spanning empire at 15th") or else simply nerf/remove the offending spells.

Well, Part E covered non-class feature agency, and I agree that nerfing the spells or limiting them (ala spells as Gygaxian treasure instead of a right)

The key thing with these tips though is to not use them constantly: Give the casters time to shine too.

Clerics should get undead encounters to be the superhero just as much as the caves full of otataral quest will nerf the casters and force the party to lean on the martials and experts.

Variety is the spice of life and sometimes the fighters will suck and sometimes the casters will suck.

My two electrum:

Easiest way to balance casters and martials is to:

A) Start reacting to caster tactics

Hope my two electrum help!

I see people post dpr., but I don't actually know the equation, and I've seen a few different versions of it. If someone can post it on here, since that is the actual thing the OP was asking about, then i'llgladly give the dpr, in all-use/situational/optimal conditions.The barbarian build I posted, which is a pretty straightforward, gets all the damage 100% of the time when he hits, has a high dpr I can imagine.

The witch hunter and raging brutality are options for extra damage. Everything else for his damage is standard, use all the time, will work all the time damage.

Typically, I use this:

(Average CR AC - Attack Bonus)x [(damage dice average + flat bonuses)+(Non-critical damage)] + [(critical multiplier - 1)x(Average CR AC - Attack Bonus)x(damage dice average + flat bonuses)x(critical chance)]

or

H = Chance to Hit
D = Average Damage per hit
N = Non-critical Damage
X = Critical Multiplier
C = Critical Chance

[H(D+N)]+([X-1]HDC)

In my experience, summoners win the DPR contest due to action economy and lots of arms wielding falcatas.

This was inspired by discussion of the inquisitor and the notion that the new class is redundant because the cleric has it's bases covered.

But does it really?

The inquistor is something we can point to throughout history and say "yep, that sounds analogous". The Agents of Daoist Mandarins, the Spies of the ruling Brahaman, The Inquisition of Spain, The witchhunters of New England, the list goes on. Any culture with zealots willing to spy for the cause has inquisitors.

And the paladin: A crusading warrior who fights for the faith. Classically european, the paladin also fights a jihad, is a suitable analogy for the samurai or the wuxia and even tribal totem warriors. The paladin is the spirit warrior.

Which brings us to the cleric. Why, they're the priest! History and fiction are abound with this archetype.

Except, perhaps they are not.

Really, think about it: Aside from those who we would call paladins, who are these chainmail wearing warriors who wield clubs and invoke the deity?

The priest and the white wizard are certainly fantasy tropes, as are the shaman and the martial arts Monk.

But where are the clerics? Friar Tuck perhaps. The crusaders (from whom the paladins also derive inspiration). Where else is the heavy armour battle priest common, where the trope also doesn't scream paladin?

Fact is, when Gygax and Arneson came up with their undead killing healer, they really pigeonholed the class. Not truly an archetype for priest (most fantasy eschews armour and weapons, making them more like white wizards) and the existance of the Druid and the Monk kind of kill the counterparts of other cultures, save perhaps medieval Muslim cultures?

The cleric, as a class, is bogged down with legacy trappings and really fails to cover what literature and history have painted the mystic to be.

If they ever do revamp the class, I'd love to see: Wizards BAB, light armour at most, more channelling mechanics, more customization based on their gods.

Lose the armour and weapons, unless the god calls for it. Lose the martial competency: most priests were not warriors. Give them more magic powers: this is what the holy magician is known for.

Let's let Paladins be Paladins and Inquisitors be Inquisitors. Let's carve a new niche for Clerics.

Wizards and Clerics are hard for newbies because they have a huge spell list.

If you, as the DM curate that list for them, it's as easy as a fighter with 3 feats.

Vancian Magic has little to do with it being complicated, other than permitting a variety of spells.

What a wonderful discussion, aside from a little sniping.

For those who ask: Why Vancian?

I say this: D&D has offered alternatives throughout it's history. Psionics have been part of the game since 1E and plenty of homebrew magics have popped up in 3pp and dragon magazines.

But none of it stuck. D&D players, the majority of roleplayers for many years, have gone with some variation of Vancian, because it works. It's mechanically sound and the fluff does excite some people. (Full props to the cake analogy for the answer to "Fire and Forget")

Certainly Vancian magic isn't the sole reason D&D dominated the roleplaying scene and it's bastard stepchild Pathfinder dominates it now, but I'm hard pressed to say it isn't a sizeable chunk of it.

Vancian magic is simple: Here's your spell list, pick 2 level 1s and 1 level 2. Put an asterix beside the ones you pick. When you use that spell, erase the asterix. You don't get to use them again until the next time you sleep. Easy. No math, no fuss.

And from a design point, it's easy to reign in caster craziness in the levels that most people are playing at, 1-10.

As for the idea that "It's dumb that a character gets to be awesome once or twice a day then they're dead weight", I disagree. This is a great thing to me. If you want to be steady and stalwart, play a fighter, if you want to be flashy but frail, play a wizard. It gives the class a different flavour, and the CORE 4 principle that AD&D was built on does the flavour thing quite nicely.

As for mechanics versus literature:

In Middle Earth, most magic is a result of magic items, not spells. Gandalf opens magic doors with passwords, throws fire with his magic ring, fights with a magic sword and so on, and it seems to be powered by his soul/spirit/whatever. Extended use wears you out.

In Harry Potter, Magic is a series of patterns you learn. This wears you out.

In Earthsea, you learn the true names of things and it lets you command them to do things. This wears you out.

In Fionavar, you draw it from a living source or the earth or the gods or magic items. This wears you and your source out.

In the Dark Tower, you take drugs that give you heightened telekinesis and telepathy, if you've got the touch. This wears you out.

In Malazan, you tap other dimensions. This wears you out.

In Star Wars, you manipulate a mystical energy field. This wears you out.

Most literature has the mechanic of "magic makes you tired". However, many systems that have "Magic costs you HP" tend to be boring, because you rarely want to spend the cost of HP just to be effective.

The other common trope is "Magic=eventual insanity". Also not really a fun empowerment fantasy, which is what 90% of roleplaying is.

So unless you want a starwars d20 style VP drain or a CoC style insanity chart, comparing magic mechanics to most major works of fantasy is probably a bad idea.

We want our heroes to do awesome things, but we don't want them to die constantly. High Fanatasy literature demands expensive magic for dramatic tension.

D&D is cheap magic, and it's more fun. And Vancian magic has done a superb job for almost 40 years.

As for MP/PP, as I said above, Psionics aren't a new thing to the game and video games have been using MP for years. However, Video Games are the definition of the 15 minute adventuring day (how often have you run out of MP and not had a potion/tent/sleep button handy?) and PP never really took over Vancian in popularity.

I'd argue that strategic spellcasting makes for a better game than purely tactical. You pick your spells based on the intelligence you've gathered. If you picked wrong, things get hard, drama ensues. If you picked right, things are easier and you are rewarded for good planning.

I dislike sorcerors because they are just "Pick some useful spells, probably combat ones (because who needs knock?) and spam away". Your tactics and your strategy are boring. Same goes for psions and warlocks and most other pick and spams. But that's just my taste.

That being said, I think having several styles of magic is a good thing for the game. Psions, wizards, witches and oracles all have different flavours and that's a good thing.

But I think Vancian is simple, elegant and is my preference to teach new gamers.

We seem to have wildly varying opinions on what a "random" encounter is.

Some people are saying "I like random encounters if they introduce entire sub-plots or story arcs". Again, how is that a "random" encounter? Sure, a DM could start with an actual random encounter and then build something from there, and it evolves into a sub-plot or an arc, in which case it was random in the first place. It's a wonderful and awesome thing when a DM puts that kind of work and energy into something that started out as a purely random encounter. But if he introduced it with that intention all along, then it was never actually "random" to begin with.

"Random" is a word we still use to mean, uh, random, right?

They are still random if you improvise connexion. You roll a bandit encounter, randomly. You then, on the fly, give the bandits shields +1 with a certain insignia. A Grey Hawk let us say. Random.

Then, after the dungeon with the ogre king, you roll another random, a black knight. He too has this Grey Hawk on his tabard. He challenges your fighter to single combat. Random.

And you proceed to rescue the mayor's daughter from the mad alchemist with the wererats.

Then,on the way to the city, you roll a random encounter: Goblin Ninjas. You drop this Grey Hawk down again, suddenly you've created an organization or something, randomly. This organization employs bandits, ninjas and knights errant. You now have a random sub-plot, or perhaps a major plot.

Maybe you learn the mad alchemist and ogre king too were agents of this Grey Hawk. Maybe all these seemingly random, and truthfully actually random, events were the work of a mastermind who has travelled back in time to stop the heroes at level 20 from killing his evil god, but the process has left him weak, forced to rely on agents until he can restore his powers. Then, after explaining this, he reveals he is now full strength and will kill them: BBEG!

So two or three unconnected "dungeons" and five or six random encounters, with a few unrelated stone giants and owlbears, make for a grand campaign, with just a little improvising.

This is how truly random encounters can become stories. FTR, I made all that up as I wrote. That may be a campaign for a few weeks now. Thank you.

If you were to build Gunnar Smith, a Human commoner at level 1 with 12 int, skills: craft:Gun +8 (+1 rank, +3 trained, +3 skill focus, +1 int), craft alchemy: +5 (+1 rank, +3 trained, +1 int) with the feats Skill Focus: Craft Guns and Gunsmith and the heart of the fields trait applied to craft: guns and profession: merchant. I assume he levels up through roleplaying experience. It would go something like this:

Week 1: Gunnar hits the town, knowing a little about guns because a gunslinger recovered on his farm and taught him a few tricks, he decides to take up the gunsmithing trade and become an apprentice. He hires on as an apprentice with a gunsmith, a retired gunslinger in fact!

Earnings: +8 craft + 10 (I'm "taking 10" just to simplify the math. This would be slightly below the average) = 18/2 = 9gp - (poor living standards 3gp/4) .75 =8.25gp!

Week 2-3: Gunnar works for the gunsmith again. Earnings = 8.25 + 18 - 1.5= 24.25gp!

Week 4: Gunnar has some cash now and decides to get himself some tools for 15 gp, and he sets himself up in a tiny shack that doubles as a workshop, storefront and sleeping quarters, bumping his cost of living up to Average (2.5gp a week). He also hires an untrained commoner to spread the word that he's selling goods and another to fetch components for him(1.4gp/week). This takes him a day.

On day 2, with his 5.35 gp, he crafts 53 pellets and sells them to a musketeer for 53 gold.

Day 3: 53.05gp crafts into 2 silver bullets and 30 pellets for 530 gold to a wolf hunter.

Day 4= 530gp crafts into 1 keg of black powder for 100 gp, sold for 1000gp.

Day 5-6: Black powder. Day 7 3430gp (five copper tip to his two hirelings, who are sent on their way now.) Gunnar now rents a proper workshop (wealthy, 25 gp/week), hires a trained apprentice (2.1gp/week), buys some masterwork tools for him and his apprentice (130gp) and some trained salespeople to attract clients(4x2.1=8.4gp/week).

Week 4 earnings: 3300gp, plus renting a nice place with masterwork tools and 5 employees come week 5.

Craft: Guns skill is now +12 (+1 rank, +3 trained, +1 int, +3 skill focus, +2 tools, +2 aid another (I'm assuming our trained apprentice is hitting 10 with his base +7 (1 rank, 3 skill, 3 skill focus, 2 tools)

Week 5: Black Powder sales boom! 3300 + 7000 - 700 - 25 -10.5 = 9564.5gp

Weeks 6-30: Gunnar becomes the cities premier blackpowder producer and moves into the high life (250gp/week) He also hires some bodyguards (5 x 2.1/week = 10.5gp) 9564.5.5 + (7000 x 25=175000) - ([700+250+21=971]x25=23525) = 151,049.5 earnings. Gunnar is now a 3rd level commoner with the master craftsman feat and a +17 craft: guns. (3 ranks, 3 trained, 3 skill focus, 2 master craftsman, 1 int, 2 tools, 2 aid another, 1 trait) and a +7 profession: merchant (3 ranks, 3 trained, 1 int)

Gunnar can now set up several workshops of masters and apprentices working (4.2 gp/week per pair) and have them churn out 1000 gp of black powder a day netting 6295.8/week. Assume hiring 10 pairs/week for the shops and you have a net profit of 6296.8gp/pair. If Gunnar hires 10 pairs (that's 20 employees, plus 5 guards and 5 salespersons, 30 total) his profit, without ever working as a smith again, becomes 62968 - 250gp for his lifestyle =

62718gp/week

He of course buys masterwork tools for all his employees (-650gp), putting his net worth now at 150,399.5

By the end of the year, without any more improvements, he is a level 4 commoner and is worth:

1,530,845.5gp

By age 17, Gunnar Smith is a level 4 commoner millionaire.

Perhaps there would be a few more taxes and some of the hireling costs would be higher and maybe a little more overhead or time to get the business rolling, but I think taxing 500,000gp for those things would be fair and still puts us over the top.

Gunsmiths: Doing in one day what takes others weeks.

I like to think for the three years after becoming a millionaire, Gunnar decided to take up the gun and use his money to safely tag along with real Gunslingers. By age 20, he is a Level 4 commoner/level 10 gunslinger who has crafted himself a badass +3 pepperbox rifle of seeking and speed.

His business providing our unnamed sprawling metropolis with all it's gunpowder needs is still very successful.

That doesn't avoid all metagaming. A player could decide "this NPC is lying to me.". Maybe he's read this AP. Maybe he picked a change in the GMs tone. He doesn't NEED to be told "You feel like he's lying" to feel like he's lying. It's when you don't say that, but a player jumps to that conclusion, that I find myself in a grey area.

This is where you need to get creative: If he's read the AP, change it up, if he's basing it on a dice roll start giving him red herrings. Don't force your PCs to do anything, but reward the one's who roleplay well. Fiat xp for roleplaying the encounter, treasure falling in their laps ironically, easier encounters because the villain thought they were soft and gullible, so they didn't prepare as well: incentivise believing the lie on failed checks, suddenly the meta-gamer will be role-playing instead of meta-gaming.

But don't punish a player for being suspicious even if they can't get a read on the situation: sometimes people are cautious, and sometimes the paranoid are right. This is legitimate roleplaying, and can be rewarded as well.

Rynjin wrote:

How are they redundant though?

All of them are unique.

How are they redundant? Conceptually.

Summoner? We have conjuration wizards in that niche.
Cavalier? Fighter.
Witch? Sorcerer/wizard.
Alchemist? Wizard with a feat.
Inquisitor? Fighter/Cleric.

Nothing here that couldn't already be done, and done effectively with the core classes. At most a few feats would have sufficed.

I realize that the ideal specificity of classes is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, the APG classes don't broaden the range of concepts that can be realized -- it just introduces additional mechanics in a game that already has too many.

On a only marginally related note, I thought D20 modern's take on classes was extremely clever.

In a class based game, you really only get two choices:

1. A handful of core concepts as classes:
Warrior, Caster, Expert are the 3 default D&D classes. (One could argue white mage versus black mage in the caster class, but magic is magic is magic.)

From those 3 classes, feats/talents/skills/whatever fluff title build your archetype : Paladin? Warrior with a little white mage and heavy armour. Summoner? White mage and Black mage with a talent that gives you a pet and more talents to make that pet tough. Bard? A whole lot of Expert with social skills emphasized and a dip into white and black mage for support and charm spells. Monk? Warrior with white mage for buffs and mysticism, and expert for acrobatics and mobility.

Ta da! Simple class choice, incredibly complicated class build to get what you want out of the archetype. D20 Modern and Gurps do this.

OR:

2. Many classes, each offering an incredibly distinct package that summarizes a classic archtype:

Snake-Eyes is a Ninja, Conan is a Barbarian, Galahad is a Paladin, Gandalf is a Wizard, Eowyn is a Fighter, Shir is a Rogue.

If anyone said I want to play a character like one of the above and chose the class I listed, any harsh criticism of that choice would be pedantic: each class does something mechanically that the others cannot do.

Even when spells and supernatural abilities allow Clerics to out fight Fighters or Wizards to out rogue Rogues, the way Wizards and Clerics are doing it are obviously different, and while that has no mechanical difference, it has a story-telling difference. I want to be Eowyn, shield-maiden of Rohanbecause she overcame sexist adversity and through force of will became a powerful warrior, and that's awesome.

I don't want to be Eowyn, smiter of Iluvatar, because I think gaining my strength through a god's spells as lame, even though I might gain a mechanical advantage.

And while you can say this is just fluff, it isn't for beginners. They look at a class and say "that's it, that's my character". The more classes there are, the easier that is. It's hard to find Ash from Pokemon in the Wizard class. The druid seems more obvious. But the Summoner isn't too far removed.

I can see Zatoichi in the fighter class, perhaps, but he's a samurai. Good thing I have a class for that!

More classes = More archetypes. And with MUCH simpler builds.

Where D&D and Pathfinder sometimes fail in this second options is this:

The fighter and the rogue are too bland to be true archetypes. Their cousins: The Paladin, the Bard, etc. are much stronger flavours, but are also redundancies of the Fighter and the Rogue, because they are the ur-archetypes. Wizard and Cleric suffer from this a bit too, but not nearly as much.

If you don't like chocolate chip mint or chunky munkey because they are similar to chocolate ice cream, and you prefer putting mint and peanut butter in your pure chocolate yourself, that's fair. But you must see why some people just want their Ben and Jerry's.

Taking zero is an interesting house rule, but it puts the passive user at an extreme disadvantage.

The rules of this game are modeled on the d20 system. That system assumes that average circumstances result in average results most of the time. Every save DC is based on 10+whatever, AC is based on 10+whatever, and opposed rolls (making a successful saving throw or a successful attack, etc., are based on everyone, including monsters, having about the right amount of bonus that they will succeed about half the time - because half the time they roll low and fail and half the time they roll high and succeed. This is an expectation that "average" is around 10 and rolling lower than average should fail while rolling higher than average should succeed.

Yes, there are variations of it all over the place. Having a good BAB and a good STR means your best attacks will succeed more than half the time, but your worst iterative attacks won't, etc.

Nevertheless, the combat rolls, skills checks, monster abilities, CRs, etc., are all tailored around this general principle: average conditions result in average rolls result in average success half the time.

This is why Take-10 exists. Without danger or distractions, people can choose to get the average result. Usually this is enough, especially if whatever they're doing is something they are reasonably good at (but it's a bad idea to Take-10 on something you're really bad at).

Your "Take-0" houserule is far outside the system as designed and essentially amounts to a flat -10 penalty for common, ordinary tasks under common ordinary situations.

I'm talking purely about sense motive. If you aren't looking for a lie, then why are you taking 10? Taking 10 usually implies taking action.

It can apply to perception checks too: a guard is on the lookout, watching for things, an active action, a man eating supper is not. The guard takes 10, the man eating supper takes 0 to his perception checks. At my table at least.

I have the passive 0 to drop a hint if someone's sense motive is exceptionally good, or the liar is exceptionally poor at lying, and this is only in the NPC lies to PC scenario. Typically NPC bluff DCs are 10+sense motive for alert and 0+sense motive for passive. If I say I'm Bob from Camelot to a shop keeper, they should believe me, even if I'm Jack from Caerleon. If I tell I guard I just got hired and I'm their relief, then it's not really a passive scenario.

Inversely the Duke who asks the PCs to kill a bandit for him, but actually is a despot trying to get the PCs to kill a rebel leader, tells the PCs there is a bandit who needs to be brought to justice. Unless the PCs have knowledge about the Duke's evil ways, they probably should believe him. But mechanically, the Duke, a level 7 wizard, is rocking maybe a (+1 CHR, +9 skill) +10 total bonus against Lothar the Truthbringer, a 6th level inquisitor with a (+4 Wis, a +9 skill, +3 gaze and +2 alertness) +18 total bonus will nuke the Duke 28-20 and nix a classic adventure hook with a hackneyed but tried and true twist if you're giving them both a passive 10. But if Lothar has no reason to suspect the Duke is lying, then the PCs won't call for a sense motive and on goes the adventure.

If the PCs aren't looking for the secret door in the inn's floor that leads to the cultist's sacrifice chamber when their just in to have a drink, some stew and bed down, why tell them it's there before the series of mysterious kidnappings start an adventure? Same goes for villains with ulterior motives.

Sense motive shouldn't act as a passive lie detector, it should serve as an active one when the PCs want to follow a hunch. It also shouldn't spoil an adventure hook passively. Hence taking 0 in context that no lies should be expected until the players start asking for rolls.

I'm currently playing a dual-discipline psion (shaper/egoist) who thematically is a wild kellid witch with a style that is like a hybrid between a druid and a witch (she is a caster who calls spiritual beasts and changes into a variety of creepy forms). Her psicrystal is her former mentor's eyesocket polished into an amulet with an opalescent gem within the socket (the gem is actually not a gem at all but a concentrated spiritual essence from her mentor). Her psicrystal serves as they eye of her dead mentor on her journeys as she helps her young pupil on her journey.

During a recent tabletop game with her, she transformed into a centipede and began burrowing through the ground. Later she called a "phantom wolf" to attack the orcs who were chasing her. Later still her fetish (her psicrystal) transformed into a black cat. Everyone at the table was like "whoa I love your character, what is she!?".

"A psion."
Everyone else - O.o

Awesome. This is exactly why pathfinder rocks. You could probably build your concept in 6 different ways and still be able to roleplay what you want. Once you get the system, you get to own the fluff.

@ Dr. CM -- great post regarding experience levels; and, yes, class-based games are probably a lot easier for new players -- I know I started with them, way back in the day. That said, I and a lot of the people I've played with have been playing dozens of RPGs for 30+ years, so "past a certain level of gaming experience" is pretty much the standpoint we're coming from!

This is why I think 3E and Pathfinder are really successful games. They still hold true to the "Paint by Numbers" class systems for beginners, but they also offer the paints and brushes to start painting your own pictures once you've mastered the concepts.

Sometimes they don't always do the job (I agree, not all the multiclassing options are optimal), but 3.x was really the first time your class didn't have to define your character the way it did in previous D&D editions without arcane rules. (And yes 2E boosters, unless you were an elven fighter/mage/thief, your class was probably the first thing you'd look at to define the shape of a character. Your kit was probably the second thing)

Multiclassing, feats AND skills instead of proficiencies and errata for Gesalts, Warrior/Adept/Expert systems and the OGL to provide hundreds of different classes with different mechanics. It was certainly unbalanced, but the options were limitless(I loved reskinning Star Wars Nobles for D&D games!) and pathfinder's reverse compatibility enables you to curate those options while keeping it's core game a little more polished than 3.5.

It's the system's initial simplicity and real flexibility that kept it strong while 4E turned into "Everybody's a Warlock" tapioca pudding.

I still don't know why Ninjas are such a better fit for "elite goblin scouts and jobbers".

Not better, just "a fit". The mechanics say: This is a mobile stealth class with power points to govern their stealth/striker capabilities.

This sounds like a scout to me.

The fluff says: These are asians in pyjamas who are masters of killing in the shadows with strange abilities powered by ki.

The fluff is a valuable guide to give a player a familiar archetype to role-play, but a different set of fluff can still fit the mechanics. And I don't see it as meta-gaming to reskin a class for those purposes.

Classes are a slippery slope. Either you have a core handful of classes (Martial, Magic, Expert) and you let people multi-class, building a myriad of character archetypes from there.

Or you have a class for every broad archetype you can imagine. This of course makes all martial classes redundant after the fighter, because he is a truly blank slate, but the rogue is not the quintessential expert and the wizard and cleric are not quintessential magic-users.

So without a generic class called Expert that gets a d6 or d8 and lots of skill points and feats to do what bards, inquisitors, etc. do, or a Magic-user with one spell list that you get to pick from to define your caster type and role, you are compelled to have lots of classes, because fantasy archetypes abound.

Gygax and Arneson didn't start with the elemental 4 types of fantasy characters, they just picked 4 to suit the kinds of games THEY liked to play and a mold was set. Why are healers also kind of knights? Why are all experts criminals? Why are wizards so damned aggresive with their magic? The original build is flawed, though the concept of 3 core types of character is an excellent basis for game design, which is why it's still the most dominant force in RPGs.

Some mechanics may be broken, some may be fine tuned, but adding more classes to a game with 11 already isn't really that outlandish.

As for the pros and cons of the new classes, I'm pretty bullish: