Elondir's page

I have instituted the 2e psionics system instead of the 3.x psionics systems in my games. I just have a lot more fun with them. Most people would disagree with me, though. I like a lot of sci fi/fantasy crossover, though. I like it to be separate from magic in almost every aspect; otherwise it's just another spell list and not an alternate magic system.

Actually, I kind of wish the magic system were more like the 2e psionics system as well.

When you do XPH, would you please include a wild talent system like in 2e, where you have a 1% chance of having a random psionic power, with enough power points to use it once per day, plus 1 pp per non-psionic class level?

To me, Epic play is something like this:

You can make mythal-type things. You can cast a spell that creates a mountain in minutes. You can live forever. You can spam charm person on every sentient humanoid that ever comes within 100 feet of you. You live in a posh stronghold that spans several demiplanes that you created yourself. You have another mansion-sized stronghold that can earth glide, fly, spelljam, go underwater, greater teleport, and plane shift (it's your "RV"), or you can leave your stronghold to any point in the multiverse. You have an army of a few thousand soldiers at your command. You rule a small kingdom (or a few worlds). Your BBEG's are abominations (hecatonchieres), deities (Bane), cosmic entites (Cthulu), elder evils (atropos), planet-sized monsters (AD&D 2e MC9 stellar dragons), and other epic level NPCs.

Epic rules should be a simple extrapolation of non-epic.

1. No epic attack bonus or epic save bonus. Just keep the non-epic going.
2. Replace epic spellcasting with regular spellcasting for spells levels 10-19 at least; maybe higher levels. Make all the SRD epic spells regular spells with the appropriate levels. Make a repeatable spellcasting progression for casters.
3. The epic rules should scale out to infinite levels. This means hardening the CR scale, and that means as much playtesting as possible against as many levels as possible.
4. Incorporate epic into non-epic seamlessly mechanics wise (i.e. planar metropolis should be there from the start).
5. Make spell creation rules that can't be abused as easily as epic spellcasting.
6. Add some rules for ruling dominions.
7. And some rules for epic-sized battles (up to millions of combatants).
8. Don't put in the x10 cost multiplier for magic item bonuses beyond +5 for weapons, +6 for ability scores, etc. One formula for all magic items.
9. Keep the class features coming. It's boring if it's all just bonus feats and d6 more hp.
10. Allow prestige classes to gain levels past 10th BEFORE you go epic. It doesn't make sense to me to go fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 10/wizard +4 instead of fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 14, simply because you have to be 21st character level to take eldritch knight 11.

That's my input. Just extrapolate levels 1-20 out to 40 or 60 or whatever, with no sudden changes. I always thought that epic felt disjointed from non-epic because the whole game changes considerably at 21st level.

In 2e I generally used calculators to award xp after each encounter. We could grind through maybe 10 encounters in a four-hour period, so figure 30 encounters a session. :D

In 3e I found the CR system to be a total mess but made a computer program (until the better web pages came out) and calculated it all ahead of time.

Not sure what I'd do in Pathfinder.

How about a feat that lets fighters always take iterative attacks at full BAB? (i.e., +16/+16/+16/+16 instead of +16/+11/+6/+1). I've done the math using a decently-built fighter (I admit I'm better at building gishes than pure fighters, so I might have left out some good tricks) and found that it makes the fighter about even with high-level wizard direct damage spells.

Back to the OP, the fighter can be balanced well by letting one make all iterative attacks at full attack bonus instead of with penalties. You can go further and automatically grant the weapon specialization, weapon focus, and whirlwind attack trees for free.

And don't forget to let them find decent weapons and armor.

I would love to see all spells be the same spell level regardless of class. Maybe make an exception for cleric domains. This clears up half of the magic item formula problem, wherein you have to decide which class the spell is coming from when determining caster level and spell level.

I like rituals, but I don't like seeing the wizard lose all its wonderful power as a price. Essentially, rituals are just scrolls that anyone can use.

So here's my idea.

Let anyone use any scroll without a Use Magic Device check, and have tomes that let you cast it over and over again. Make the casting time 10 minutes like most 4e rituals. If the spell is on your spell list, or if you succeed a Use Magic Device check, then you can cast it at the normal casting time.

I have an idea for fixing the bard, and it's really simple. Give the bard the union of the bard spell list and the sorcerer spell list. 2e bards were like that and they worked great.

Of course I've never played bards as performers. (Don't get me wrong, Elan is awesome!) But in game, I've always used them as jack-of-all-trades types, more like a fighter/mage/thief/cleric with a whip.

I'm a gish fan, and I'd say that EK is actually a pretty good class as a second fighter/wizard PrC. I prefer fighter (or factotum) 1/wizard 5/knight phantom 10/eldritch knight 4. BAB +17 and 9th level spells. Add in practiced spellcaster (wizard) and you're casting as a 20th level wizard.

I've mostly used the BAB for ranged touch attacks like energy substituted scorching rays. But I do generally carry a greatsword or two for those times when you're forced into melee.

My only gripe about the EK is that you need five wizard levels which isn't very gishy when you need the melee the most (levels 3-6). I've thought of making a base class of it with average or full BAB (actually the +17 would be perfect), d6 HD, full wizard spellcasting with a three-level lag in spells per day, all martial weapon proficiencies, and heavy armored casting. That way you're an effective fighter at low levels and an effective wizard at high levels, though not as powerful as a pure wizard.

Anyway, I think the EK here is a nice update of it, although I still think armored casting (light) should be the level 1 ability.

Even though I have a bad dust allergy, I love the smell of a tiny, cramped used bookstore that's crammed floor to ceiling with 20-year old paperbacks in aisles barely wide enough to fit through. :D

Actually... what are the rules for researching new spells?

I checked the "Independent Research" in the magic overview in 3.5, and at best it refers to the DMG for creating new spells. Which talks only about what limitations to set for the different spellcasters, and how to balance spells.

As far as I can tell, there's no hard, fast rules on what needs to be rolled or done to actually research a spell in the core rules.

Maybe if this were better explained, we could compare the magic item bypassing requirements on such things as a Wand of Knock for the Sorcerer, etc.

That's a very good point. I think that it's because it's so difficult to balance non-direct damage spells, and is further messed up by the uneven power levels of the existing spells.

Direct damage spells are easier; just weigh the average damage per spell level (btw, Empowered spells are always better than non-empowered spells, at least for your highest level slots; for example an empowered energy-substituted fireball does more cold damage than a cone of cold. By that measure, empower spell should be spell level +3, not spell level +2).

Buffs can be measured by their impact on the level. Bull's Strength is a lot more effective for a 3rd level party to a 20th level party. So I guess the maximum level would be where the buff is useless due to enhancement items or just by having minimal impact on the existing stats. +4 ability bonus items become affordable around 14th level, so it's definitely a 6th level spell or lower. But finding where it's too powerful is a lot harder. Basically they grant a +2 bonus to all the things tied to that ability. So a wizard would either get +2 to hit and damage, or a d8 hit die, or +2 to spell DCs, etc. So it sounds like two free levels, meaning that a 1st level wizard is like a 3rd level one. Therefore, I think the 2nd level spell fits it just fine.

True Strike grants a +20 bonus for one round. In a four round battle you can use it twice, averaging out to +10 for the combat. That means the wizard fights better than a half-orc fighter with maximum strength and the weapon focus feats until 7th level, so I would say it should be a 4th level spell, not a 1st level spell.

But spells like Fly and Invisibility[i/] are a lot harder to gauge. Spells like [i]Grease and Glitterdust are even trickier. For example you can take out any land-locked creature that doesn't have ranged attacks, regardless of CR, by simply flying over it and shooting ranged attacks at it, because a natural 20 always hits.

Looking through it, I have some suggestions.

Remove bonus caps a la the Epic SRD only without the x10 multiplier. If you don't, please cap skill competence bonuses to +5, with a x10 multiplier after that. That makes skill challenges more workable.

Change the craft feats as follows:

Spell Completion & Trigger Feats:
Scribe Scroll -> Craft Spell Completion Item
Brew Potion -> Craft Single Use Spell Trigger Item
Craft Wand -> Craft Lesser Spell Trigger Item
Craft Scepter -> Craft Spell Trigger Item (two spells up to 7th level)
Craft Staff -> Craft Greater Spell Trigger Item

Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Rod, Forge Ring: Fold these together into one feat that includes Ability bonus (enhancement), bonus spell, AC bonus (deflection), AC bonus (other), Natural armor bonus (enhancement), all Save bonuses, Skill bonus (competance), spell resistance, and bonus feat (see below). Or you could split them into three tiered feats by bonus category.

Craft Magic Arms and Armor: Armor bonus (enhancement), Weapon bonus (enhancement), and all weapon and armor enhancement abilities.

Finally, list the relevant feat on Table 15-27. Assign each bonus type an item creation feat.

This will prevent people from using Craft Wondrous Item to create amulets of protection that make rings of protection pointless, or weapons that are also wands, without having forge ring or craft wand.

Allow the creation of items that combine feats, but require the prerequisite feats. For example, boots of teleportation would require Craft Spell Trigger Item and Craft Wondrous Item. A +5 sword that grants a Strength enhancement and shoots fireballs 1/day would require CMAaA, CWI, and Craft Lesser Spell Trigger Item.

Also, include "Grant Feat or Class Ability" on table 15-27 for items like the Ring of Evasion.

Yeah, okay.

On the famous "cat-vs.-commoner" debate:
I've woken up more than a few times with a cat paw sticking up in between the mattress and the headboard, trying to reach my head. Except when I grab for it, he pulls away really fast, only to repeat the process until I get out of bed to feed the little critter.

Something occurred to me that absolutely HAS to be in there.

WATER ELEMENTALS.

And all the non-proprietary Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Spelljammer creatures they can cram in.

Really though I'd be happy just to see all the old first edition AD&D Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, and Fiend Folio creatures updated reliably.

Multiclassing XP penalties were the first thing I threw out of 3e. It makes no sense to me to apply a huge penalty just because you want your character to be versatile instead of specialized. Multiclassing cuts your power by level drastically enough, why penalize it more?

I also use fractional BAB, because anyone who's ever tried a fochlucan lyrist knows that the BAB is horrible at low levels.

I also throw out epic attack and save bonuses, and just continue with normal BAB and save rates, because 20th level is arbitrary. The game actually starts playing like epic level closer to 12th level, and I hate the discontinuity between the non-epic and epic rules.

So I say good riddance to an arbitrary rule that was as bad as 2e racial level limits and class restrictions.

My personal preference is heavily multiclassing with lots of dipping for maximum versatility with the goal of making a "classless" character. Factotum doesn't cut it for me after playing one, but it's a really handy level 1 dip to take advantage of class skills (able learner makes them permanently class skills).

So, is there any chance of some random wilderness encounter tables appearing in the bestiary? I still use the old 2-20 tables and others.

I know that 3e had lava do 20d6 damage per round, but I think it should be a "die, no save" for total immersion, unless you're immune to fire (not just resistant). I mean, the stuff is thousands of degrees, so not even a 20th level barbarian should be able to survive even one second in it, let alone a few rounds.

Yeah! I allow it house rule, make it core!

For the first Monster book, everything in the SRD and as many from the Tome of Horrors as possible.

I would LOVE to see the Hordling, flumph, wolf in sheep's clothing, modrons, and giant space hamsters. I'm serious, I really miss the goofy stuff. It had its place. And modrons weren't really that goofy anyway. Just play Planescape Torment for what I mean.

I also like colossal creatures anywhere from 150 feet to several miles tall. In fact, I'd love it if dragons were bigger than they were in 3e.

Keep the ogre mage! A lot of us won't be using Pathfinder's default campaign setting. Maybe remove their SLAs and give them integrated sorcerer levels instead.

I do not think anything is a sacred cow in D&D.

More, I think the term has been deliberately misused in an attempt to immunize any and all changes from even the deliberate and considered or minor criticism.

A Sacred Cow is any change to an AD&D or OD&D mechanic that survived the change from 2e to 3e that creates excessive backlash from the grognards in its fanbase.

To really understand the "sacred cows" of Pathfinder you have to understand its target audience: people who are disaffected by 4e enough to not want to play that game, and continue playing d20 games instead.

To that effect, to answer the OP, Pathfinder's sacred cows would be everything that 4e removed from D&D that produced strong negative backlash: the 9 alignments, multiclassing (although it needs reworking - perhaps fractional BAB and making several class level-dependent abilities character level-dependent instead?), bonus combos, weird races, non-combat spells, craft and profession skills, etc..

Basically Pathfinder needs to find a niche alongside 4e. Where 4e is a "heroic fantasy small-group-tactics miniatures skirmish game", Pathfinder needs to be a "statistics-based interactive fantasy world simulation engine" which is essentially what 3e attempted to be.

I do. Here's my stuff. Blood Stained Glass, Symbiotech, and both on Soundclick. I play a lot of different genres.

I would love to see the Appearance/Combat/Habitat-Society/Ecology format applied in a PDF format containing updated entries for ALL the monsters from the original SRD (including epic and psionic) and maybe even the Tome of Horrors.

I prefer PDF because I like electronic versions instead of paper ones, and also because there's no paper cost restraint - if you want a 1000 page book, you don't have to pay $125 for it.

D&D, to me, is about a lot more than heroes going into dungeons.

D&D is a fantasy world simulator that is built using statistics.

And especially: if I have to get rid of most of the core rules and spend several weeks updating races, skills, feats, and spells from old editions, then it's not D&D.

Take a look at the beguiler spell list in the PHB2 and see how many spells made it to powers or rituals. Only 20% made it into the PHB, and most of the spells on the list are from the 3.5 SRD. Maybe that will change when the bard is released, but still, you get my point. I don't want to control combat by greasing the floor or putting a wall in place. I want to control combat by making my enemies change whose side they're on (and more importantly build a stable of magically dominated servants for my comfy and fantastic demiplane stronghold from which I can conquer the world).

I don't see any way to do that in 4e. Pathfinder lets me do that, thanks to its backward compatibility.

Now if paizo could come up with a mass combat system and a regency system.

I am concerned with the CR calculations of monsters and their associated difficulty levels.

In AD&D, the monster XP Values were often messed up, but since it took 50 creatures on average to level up, it wasn't much of an issue. But in 3e, the CR system was WAY wonky. I think that the most accurate system I've found was the "Immortal's Handbook Epic Bestiary" appendix titled "Challenging Challenge Ratings". But I don't think it's the be-all-end-all of CR calculators.

However, I really think that the only way to calculate the CR of a creature is to first see what the "average" character's stats are at every given level, so you have something to compare the CR to. The only way I can see this being done is to create a database of PCs of all races, classes and levels (including templated characters like half-fey and phrenic), made by newbies, average players, and powergamers. Make sure it includes all the character sheet stats and average damage by round for at least one tactic.

A note about templates: The level adjustment would have to be recalculated too, then the whole set recalculated with the new LA. Template CR adjustment must be calculated by comparing each stat adjustment with the discrete derivative (wrt level) of the stats of non-templated characters, not the stats themselves. If the derivative is nonlinear, then the template CR adjustment must be as well.

Once the database is complete and the averages/deviations are calculated, all you have to do is compare your monster's appropriate stats to the PCs and see what level it would be. This would also reveal weaknesses and strengths of the monsters and classes.

Also take into consideration "I win" spells and spell effects (for example a spell weaver can cast 6 magic missile spells in one round at one target, inflicting 30d4+30 hp with no save and no attack roll unless a shield spell is active. Then there's always the problem of flying invisible 5th level PCs dropping glitterdust and ranged attacks on earthbound CR 21 creatures with no ranged attacks. I'm not even going to go into the scry-and-die tactic). Many of these problem spells are already taken care of in the beta, but I bet there are still some to consider.

On a side note, please don't use monster names like "blacktoe merauder" or "iceblight basilisk". Those kinds of names just sound juvenile to me (I admit it's just a game, but you have to admit that "Cthulu" has a much more ominous ring to it than "Squidhead Devastator").

I lenarned how to be a GM with old 2E's DMG. What I liked the most is how nothing was written in stone, instead listing you many possibilities to aproach a problem like: "You can do this, or you can do this other thing, you can also take this option but then this will happen, and this last option, while possible, will result in hard feelings from the players".

A GMG must not only teach you to manage your campaign, it must also teach you to manage your players and improve your people skills. Guidelines for creating your own campaign worlds would be great (that was my favorite part in Alternity's GMG).

I agree, the 2e DMG is really good.

I like the idea of having the math worked out.

I would particularly like for Paizo to do some research and build up a database of average stats by level and by player type (newbie, average, and powergamer, possibly adding munchkin for those Ur-Priest/Sublime Chord/Mystic Theurges weilding holy avengers without penalties). By that I mean hp, ac, bab, str, dex, con, int, wis, cha, combat damage profile (average damage round by round to account for novas in the first round), skill check bonuses, etc.

I would love to see a section somewhere on dealing with "I win" situations, like invisible flying PCs, game-breaking novas, problem spells (defined as spells that end combat as soon as they are cast).

#1. I think you should add an ability at 3rd level that reduces arcane spell failure chance by 5% every two levels (5% at 3rd, 10% at 5th, 15% at 7th, and 20% at 9th) that stacks with the Arcane Armor Araining or Arcane Armor Mastery feats. That way, with AAM a 9th level EK would be at -40% on ASF chances, allowing the character to wear heavy armor with no chance of spell failure.

#2. I would like to see 10-level prestige classes scale out infinitely instead of being capped at 10th level. And I would like to see a better treatment of them than the Epic Level Handbook/Epic SRD did.