I messed up. I moved from Boston back to Minneapolis and I forgot to tell Paizo. (I did tell all my Kickstart orders though, thank goodness.) So my order went to Boston and then got sent back to Paizo. Worse yet, it probably got back to you guys around Gencon.
I have updated my account address to list my place in MN. What else do I have to do?
How many miniatures do I want to play the adventure path?
I got my cases and allot of RotRL miniatures. They are of course excellent but .. I have yet to DM or played RotRL so I do not know what I need. I also have Heros and Monsters.
Let's assume I want to get four of each Common, 2 of each UC and 1 of each Rare for both RotRL and H&M. In the adventure path, what will I need extras of to depict a battle? Lets ignore figures not in the sets. So if I need a bunch of Gnolls, no need to discuss.
As some examples, if I need about six Ogrekin in a single battle, I would want 1.5 times the usual Common allotment. (4 Commons x 1.5). Between H&M and RotRL I should have about 24 foot-goblins (6 Commons x 4). Do I want 1.25 times because I should have 30 in the first fight? (Numbers are totally ficticious.)
I was finally allowed to open my Heros & Monsters case for my birthday yesterday. I am looking to trade. I use MaxMinis dot com. Feel free to enter an account in MaxMinis and look for Duncan and Dragons.
Is there a better trade site that may have replaced or competed with MaxMinis? Hordlings is gone right? I have not seen a formal Paizo trading area so I think I am being polite to advertise MaxMinis. Not many people seem to have started using MaxMinis with Heros & Monsters.
Key highlites are that I have an extra Lich, Vampire, Manticore, Troll, Half-Orc, Spectre, 2 Gargoyles and 2 Ettin. Looking to trade and get a Frost Giant and Ogre in addition to some common and uncommons.
I was DMing this weekend and ran into a situation. The parties Warlock had a power that allows him to teleport an opponent. The party happen to have been standing on the city walls being attacked by a spell cast mounted on a Manticore. He wanted to use the teleport to seperate the rider from the mount. My call was that the creatures could not be seperated and the spell caster and manticore were teleported together.
I don't care about this exact situation since it would have been fun to drop the spell caster 50 feet or so. What I am concerned about is at higher levels when they are in aerial combat. One attack could drop a rider to their death, no saving throw, although admittedly you need to succeed in the attack. It would require anyone with intellgence to use Dragonrider armor. And I don't know if all classes even have access to armor that can accept Dragonrider enchantment.
It also concerned me because it seems an easy way for me, the DM, to kill half the group. A couple of teleporters could just teleport the characters off of their mounts. Likewise, with the ability to teleport a rider off the mount, the same logic should allow you to teleport an item away from a person holding it.
The only thing close I could find in the DMG is how to handle forced movement on a mounted character. It really did not help. Any ideas or rules anyone has seen?
EDIT: The DMG says: "Forced Movement: If an attack that forces movement targets you but not your mount, you can choose for your mount to also be affected, so that you and your mount continue to move together." I just felt that teleporting is not similar enough to say this is the same rule for teleporting. But I think this would be the intent of the designers.
Craig of Alea Tools has posted a thread on ENWORLD, here, to try to get input on how people are using Alea Tools in their 4th Edition games. He has also made it a contest of sorts by offering 'free stuff' for 'winning ideas'.
He has posted a JPG of the chart I made for what colors designate conditions according to my house rules. I also posted an explanation of my thought process for the design. Any input, posted here or there, would be appreciated. The input is partially for me and partially for Craig who is trying to advise people on how to use Alea Tools for 4e.
Finally, how do I post an actual excel spreadsheet (or clear JPG) of the chart?
I am currently the party Leader. I have picked Bravura Warlord. For those who have not looked at the class, they have a lot of powers that are based off of 'give the enemy a free attack in order for your ally to get a free attack.' It is fun. I keep loosing consciousness.
I am a Dwarf. I use a Reckless Maul (+4 damage, -2 to your AC). So I gave up the shield option. I picked fun feats that helped healing and charge and such. My fighters are a bit 'cautious' and I frequently went in first with a Charge. I did not fare well.
Eventually my DM and I talked and he let me exchange a bunch of feats to take Scale Armor proficiency, Heavy Shield proficiency and Durable. I just could not spare the AC and hit points. I also have a Walking Dead Cloak (2 surges when I take 2nd Wind) and Dwarven Armor (daily free surge) so I do not suck up too much healing resources. The Reckless property is now on a Craghammer and I use the Reckless property sparingly. I also wait for the fighter to get engaged and then I move into a tactical spot in the second line. I also cannot safely engage brutes since they 'always' hit. Finally, the group never seems to line up right for me to use my 'all allies in X radius heal' powers.
So now that I am cowardly wimp, I still I feel like a liability. I still suck up the Healing Surges that I should be using to help the party. I always run out of healing surges first and the group takes an extended rest. Is the Bravura Warlord pretty on paper but works out poorly since 'hit-me, hit-you' does not play well? Am I missing another major weakness besides the need to maximize hp and AC? The only thing keeping me alive is that I threaten to come back as a female gnome bard if the DM kills me.
This section is the heart of the change. The rest is the details.
Swift Actions (No Swift Actions give AoO except Stand from prone)
5-foot step (only allowed if no other movement)*****
Cast Quickened spell (or one with a swift casting time) only allowed once per round
Cover from mount (DC15 Ride check)*****
Direct or redirect active spell**
Draw weapon or similar item (wand) (pre-req: BAB +1; no failure chance) +
Drop prone (no failure chance) ****
Fast mount or dismount (DC20 Ride check)****
Open or close door or similar item (chest)**
Hand off object (Receiver takes Immediate Action)+
Pick up an item (must be in same square)**
Ready or loose shield (pre-req: BAB +1; no failure chance) +
Stand from prone (DC35 Acrobatics check)**** - Causes AoO
Switch hands with an item (no failure chance) **
Use extraordinary ability****
Plus sign mean new action.
Asterisk designates change *Old Std **Old Move ***Old Full ****Old Free *****Old No Action
Immediate Actions (Takes Swift Action from next round, No AoO)
5-foot step (pre-req: Step Up feat)+
Cast spell (1 immediate action casting time-like featherfall)
Receive handed item (DC10 Dex check or drop item)+
Receive thrown item (DC15 Dex check or drop item)+
Plus sign mean new action.
Asterisk designates change *Old Std **Old Move ***Old Full ****Old Free *****Old No Action
EDITORIAL- Basically any Move or Free actions that did not cause an AoO are now Swift Actions. I think Stand from Prone Acrobatics should not cause an AoO but I did not want to get more controversial. The Swift Action conducted during Movement failure chance needs play testing. Draw Weapon/Ready Shield are 'new' since they are Move actions is you have no BAB versus a Swift Action if you have a Bab of +1. If people really want Open Doors and Pick Up Item as having an AoO, just make them Move Actions which, with the new logic, causes them to have an attack of AoO.
I see no changes to Actions in Combat for PfRPG. I don’t understand this since the game has had major additions in the form of Swift Actions and Immediate Reactions that were bolted on with splat books. 3.5e had virtually no changes from 3e in Actions in Combat so we are dealing with a virgin set of rules. We have been told this is ‘open play test, not open design’ yet this rule set has had no changes I can identify. Several of us have attempted to suggest changes. From memory, I have seen recommendations for new Actions, development of Swift Actions, developing mechanics to ‘combine Move Actions’, development of Actions that cause Immediate Reactions, changes to Partial Actions, new Conditions (admittedly a tangent) and unified theory for Attacks of Opportunity (another tangent).
Is there a reason for no change? Was this intended to be ‘no change’ or were we being asked for input? Are there fundamental reasons such as the splat books being easy to exploit if we changed Actions in Combat? Are those of us who find the ‘Full-Round or Two Action’ system overly restrictive the minority? (Isn’t that what play testing was meant to identify?)
Do I take this to mean that Actions in Combat will remain unchanged? I find this disappointing since I feel this leaves players with three bad choices; undeveloped 3.5e Actions in Combat, House Ruling PfRPG Actions in Combat or adopting 4e Actions in Combat.
P.S. I am disregarding the ‘if it ain’t broken’ argument. We playtested 1-1-1 Diagonal movement for goodness sake! I also know I have bad ideas sometimes (maybe even often). I also know that ‘high-level’ combat needed to be the priority as it is ‘almost broken’. I also know no one should have to work through Xmas, even Design Gurus. But we were given nothing to work with for Actions in Combat.
I would like to see Actions in Combat modified. I base this on experience with 3.5, PfRPG and 4e. There have been previous discussions about Swift Actions, Movement/Opening Doors and Partial Actions. My suggestions are:
Swift Action: Expand this to include non-magical actions such as opening items (Doors and Chests), picking up small items (one hand carriable) and drawing an item (sheathed weapons or quick draw items). This will allow more freedom instead of 'little' actions wasting an entire Move Action. Perhaps a non-magical Swift Action can be done during a Move Action with a certain BAB level, Dexterity, or DC 15 Dex check. [This is just an extension of the 3.5 Swift Actions and the 'drawing your weapon while moving' rule.]
Partial Charge and Restricted Withdrawl: Besides a ‘Partial’ Full-Round Action being an oxymoron, it is unnecessary. Both Charge and Withdrawl can currently be done when you are restricted to only a Move or Standard action. Just make them both Standard Actions and eliminate the 'special rules' for Partial Full-Round Actions. This also allows these Actions to be taken as Readied Actions. I recommend Charge allow you to move up to half your movement rate and then attack. (Some people feel you need restrictions on other Movement Actions that turn; like no standing up before you Charge and no other movement in the round after you Charge.) I recommend Withdrawl allow you to move up to half your movement rate with the first 5' not drawing an Attack of Opportunity (AoO). I also like the idea of eliminating Withdrawl entirely and making it a 5’ Step as defined below. [These Partial Actions are non-intuitive, cause FAQs, beg people to question the rules, and give people incentive to make House Rules.]
5’ Step: A new Move Action that allows 5’ of movement without an AoO. A Full-Round Action allows a free 5’ Step as long as no other movement occurs that round. With this addition, you could now use a 5’ Step to withdrawl or do two 5’ Steps to maneuver in melee. [This rule has always been there. This just defines it different to make it useable for other occasions.]
Draw Ammunition: A new Free Action. Or add it to the Free Action 'Prepare Spell Components'. [This is unnecessary since it is elsewhere in the rules but I think this way.]
Restricted Activity: Eliminate this option. I think the changes recommended above would allow removal of Restricted Activities. If I missed something, change something else to get rid of Restricted Activity. Can we get rid of Start/Complete Full-Round Actions also? [I hate special rules.]
Tell me if I missed something or if there are flaws with this thinking. I think this is where 3.5 was heading before 4e. I just find it the next logical steps. Somebody with good search skills might want to link the previous discussions. I don’t claim to be the majority opinion on this topic from previous threads.
EDIT: The way my brain works, Table 9-2 should be in the following order; Full-Round Action, Standard Action, Move Action, Swift Action, Immediate Action, Free Action, & No Action. Large to small ranking.
EDIT2: Why isn't Charge listed under Full-Round Action descriptions starting on page 138?
I am co-DMing with another guy and we do not agree on a ruling. The situation in question is when using a 'Hungar of Hadar' Warlock Power. Basically, creatures in the zone get attacked and it puts up a zone of total concealment. The player frequently puts it up so that the monster is just inside the zone and a PC fighter is just outside the zone. The monster and fighter are adjacent. Everyone agrees that the monster in the zone gets total concealment against the fighter.
The player and other DM's opinion is that the monster also gets the -5 to hit for total conceament striking out of the zone at the fighter. (I think they are confusing the description from the flavor texts and saying the monster is effectively 'blind' since it is in "complete,impermeable darkness".) My opinion is that the monster is not affected by the concealment since it is on the edge of the zone fighting outward. I believe the monster can get line of sight from one of his forward corners into the opponent's corners out of the zone and not be affected by the zone.
Who is right?
Rule from PHB 273: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
I have not found anything yet explaining what how to handle 'NPC character' as opponents. You know, a 4th level Wizard as opposed to a 4th level Blaster. I know the design philosphy is that the guy will only last few rounds, so use a predesigned monster, but if a fight should break out how much experience is a NPC (designed with character levels) worth? Furthermore, I like the idea of occasionally making a character to throw at the PCs.
I now await the verbal jabs as it is probably as plain as day in the DMG on page xxx.
I am running two more 4e demo's for 3.5 groups. Both group plans on staying with 3.5 or PfRPG but just want to know what the heck 4.0 is. What 4e demo should I run? What else should I talk about?
1- I am thinking of running the 4e demo from RPG Game Day. I got the adventure, maps and miniatures. I have seen the comments on ways to improve the adventure. I got about 4 hours. I do not plan on spending time in role playing. I just want to explain the rule mechanics. Are there any other choices yet? Should I find a few rooms from H1 or H2? Venture 4th PDF?
2- I am thinking of talking about design philosophy. Explain some design changes. I just don't want them to see one part of the rules and make assumptions (Player; 'Magic Items suck! There are no stats boosts!' Me; 'No Characters now get more frequent ability bonuses as they advance.') I like to explain things in trade off terms. Example: 4e tries to give you powers and choices at each level , but in exchange multi-classing is less open.
Handouts – Character Advancement (Pg 29), Combat Crib Sheet and Conditions (Pg 277)
a- Roles- Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader – Monsters have roles also.
b- Races – Special Powers and more ability bonuses.
c- Choices. -Character building. Show an example from the book. ('Fighters generally follow two builds at first level...').
d- Character Advancement on page 29 and how it affects high level play. More powerful abilities but manageable.
e- More power from the characters, less from magic items. Characters get more ability bonuses, feats and powers. Generally, Magic gives you a special ability, not being better at something you already do.
f- Defenses – Armor, Will, Reflex, Fort. Attacker’s success determines the outcome. Saving throws are now a chance to negate the effect on future turns.
g- Healing is a character resource instead of a Cleric resource; Healing Surges, Second Wind, Dying.
h- Always Something to Do, No ‘Time Outs.’ Goal of getting rid of the 15 min. adventure day and down time. At-Will and Encounter Powers give you something you can always do. Savings throws and Dying means even if you are out, you roll to see if you are back into the game. Incremental effects: Patrified; Slow, then Immobilize, then Petrifies.
i- One roll actions. Attack is a d20. Critical is 20 with maximum damage.
j- Interactive Abilities. Characters powers frequently affect each other. Team work and paying attention during others turns is important.
k- Slightly modified actions; Three actions with substitution; Standard Action (Atk, Charge, Use Power, Second Wind), Move Action (1-1-1-1 Movement, Run [Move +2], Shift (5’ step with no AoO), Difficult Terrain), and Minor Action (Draw, Door)
l- Square Bursts (One Damage roll, Several attack rolls, Criticals possible) Close Burst No AoO
Let's not write a book here, but short concepts that I can elaborate on. Thanks!
Anyway, I was reading the latest Dragon article and I thought; 'It is stupid to have criticals do maximum damage and then add +1d6 from a magic weapon. You need to stop and find a 1d6 or else add another die to the dice you roll 'just in case' you get a twenty.'
Since I am always right, I said; 'Wouldn't it be easier just to make the extra damage due to a critical equal to the weapon damage rolled?' Basically a magic weapon that does extra critical damage does damage equal to the damage die of the weapon. So if you get a critical you do maximum damage then add your damage roll as the magic weapon damage. And for those who are persnickety, just add one damage for those piercing weapons that do 1d8 extra damage on a critical.
Of course I have only read the rules once here, I might be way off. But one of the points of 4e was to speed play after all.
EDIT: Or is there a House Rules section for 4e and this has been suggested about 3 times?
As a fence sitter, I don't like what this means. The ENWorld Pick of the Week is only selected from 4.0 stuff. From ENWorld's perspective, I think this makes sense. I think it will continue to build the wall between the communities and the boards. But I guess that is the reality.
Just wanted people to know that 4.0 stuff is out there.
Edit: ENWorld is where I went for news for 'D&D'. I did not even know they had boards until I heard Paizian's talking bad about the ENWorld boards because of 4.0.
I think one of the comments made by Paizo was that PRPG might be the version of D&D that 4th Edition players advance too. Why not make this a formal design objective?
This is not totally thought out, but it would go along this line. Try to see if a slight modification of PRPG could make transition easier.Some examples:
1- Actions - I don't see a huge difference between the standard action, movement action, free action of 3.5 and the standard action movement action, minor action from 4.0. Why not just adopt their new methods so it is easy to switch 'up' to PRPG.
2- Movement - 4.0 uses 1 square is always 5'. Rough terrain is always 2 squares. Bursts are always squares. PRPG seems to want to stay with 1-2-1-2 Diagonal movement. And likewise PRPG wants to keep cones and bursts as triangles and circles, not squares. Why not add rough terrain equalling 2 squares (10') to PRGP? Likewise, get rid of the the 5' step and make it a 5' shift. That way if people wish to move up, it is easy to learn the 'more realistic' PRPG rules.
3- Spells - 4.0 uses At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers. PRPG uses the 'more complex' multi-level spell system. But look for ways to make 4.0 system 'forward compatible' to PRPG so it is easy to switch later. Maybe make feats more encounter/at-will power like (as you started to with Combat Feats) so PRPG is seen as a step up.
4-- Likewise, adopt some of Monte's healing based on the character limits, not on the the spell caster ideas. Make the PRPG heaing system the step up from healing bursts, but similar.
Finally, by making it easy to use PRPG with 4.0, it might keep some PRPG customers if they can 'steal what they want with House Rules from 4.0'. Everyone uses House Rules anyway.
P.S. If WotC can steal the Adventure Path concept, we should be able to adopt some of their stuff. I know it is more complex than this, but you get the idea.
The Wizards site finally seems to be updated with DDI information. But the site is also being fickle. Based on what little I could see the DDI subscribers might have all the digital content. No buying books for me!
I am a volunteer DM for D&D Game Day. I will read the quick start rules for Shadowfell and I presume they will give us something for the event.
I want to know some hard and fast rules to 'forget' when teaching 4.0. Sort of a reverse primer. I am mostly a fence sitter but am leaning towards PRPG. Since I have been spending more time looking at 3.P rather than 4.0, I am afraid I may have missed something.
No re-iterative attacks - - Understand the At Will, Encounter and Daily powers.
No spell slots - Understand the At Will, Encounter and Daily powers.
No Savings throws - Everything has an 'Armor Class'
No free 5 foot step - It costs a Move
No 1-2-1-2 Diagonal movement
This Flip Mat looks fantastic and may be more versitile than you imagined. Looking at your preview it looks like I can use my MapPack; Village-Market Place to overlay the central portion of the map and create different market layouts. (Preferably with the PC's chasing a thief through the market that is now different then they remember.) Was this intentional? (If it was not, somebody should take credit anyways.) You might want to think about making another Map pack with smaller size shops than your Map Pack: City that can fit on the Flip Mat:City Market. Then the whole thing can be customizable. (I might buy a second flip mat and a scissors and do it myself) Nice synergy between your products also.
First, I don’t know if I will like 4th Edition but, either way, I probably won’t switch for awhile.
I was talking over 3.5 vs. 4.0 with a long distance friend. As usual the topic of ‘I have more 3.5 books and adventures than I can use before I die’ came up. Then the often heard, 'WotC has been putting out poor product, twice a month, for the past 18 months.’ I responded with something like, ‘WotC was probably distracted by 4.0 and wanted to finish everything up. At least they finished everything, although possibly at the expense of quality’ (P.S. I think we knock WotC overly much about quality).
We are all caught in the emotions of losing what we love and some of us are excited about what 4.0 might be. What more did we really want more from WotC? They have extended themselves to saturated the market and give us as much as possible for 3.5. They have created enough to keep us happy forever.
We have more than I would have imagined: Core Books, Optional Rules (PHB2, DMG2, Unearthed Arcana, Tome of Battle, & Tome of Magic), Compendiums, Splat Books (Complete Arcane, etc.), Race Series (Races of Destiny, etc.), Expeditions Series, Environment Series (Sandstorm, Dungeonscape, etc.), Game Aids- (Dungeon Tiles, Fantastic Locations & Miniatures), Several Campaigns (including a new one in Eberron), Modules and Dungeon to give us our monthly fix (Although they took the Dungeon name back, they indirectly created Pathfinder that can support us indefinitely), Allot of third party companies (indirectly created again), and last, and least, Software Support (I suspect they tried to re-group and then decided to do the D&D Insider thing.)
What else do we really need to play forever? Not your personal preferences to make something just like your home-brewed campaign. Or 'I want more psionics.' Or 'I want another campaign like Eberron.' But what else is really missing? Is there any real gap?
P.S. Let’s not make this a whine about quality. Experimentation sometimes breeds good and bad.
Does Paizo have a plan to get Pathfinder/GameMastery Modules into a RPG Computer Program format (like DM Genie or DM Familiar)?
Having adventures available in a RPG Computer Program is definitely a value-adder. Currently no major player has a strong SW initiative and WotC is obviously pursuing it. I believe WotC are going to make/buy a program and use it to support the core rules, rule additions and adventures as they launch Dragon/Dungeon Online. I am afraid overtime, this value may move a lot of us away from Pathfinder. Even if we love the Pathfinder books, we will move over to whoever gives us SW support.
Or maybe this is not new. Here is the idea. WotC spends so much energy on art work, have you ever thought of combining your Item Cards with their art work? I love looking at your art work and creating new magic items but they already have the done the stat work. Your relationship with WotC might make it possible (or impossible, I don't know much about this). You probably have card ideas for a few year but if not, I would cetainly buy. (Actually, I buy most of your stuff anyways.)