Feaelin's page

Be sure to make clear what is being discussed and what the paradigms are:

1) In 3.0, items have a 'size' that is a measure of the size of the item.
2) In 3.5, items have a 'size' that is the size of the person that uses the item in question.

My first reaction to this change was that it was a pointless change.

But after the time passed, I found that it made game play simpler. I saw far less discussion about whether something would fit or could be wielded by a given creature than when we played 3.0.

This is a case where we sacrifice a little information for those rare situations for clarity in those situations that come up more frequently.

The most frequent thing is "Can my character wear/wield this item". The 3.5 system makes answering that questions simple: If the sizes don't match, then you suffer a penalty or can't use the item. The 3.0 system it was a game of calculating the difference in relative sizes and what you were allowed to wield. "A tiny weapon is light for X, and two handed for Y, and not usable by Z". After having genuinely tried for a while, I wouldn't go back.

If you genuinely need to know the size of an item (rather than the size of the intended user), that information is available. The need is rarer, so it is covered in an less detailed, generalized fashion. (page 166, if you are so inclined). Strangely, I don't recall ever needing table 9-10...

3. The classes did need a boost. Most stray off into pclasses as soon as they qualify or take multiple classes to garner valuable abilities.

Interesting assertions. You're making three separate assertions here:

1) That the power levels of the (core?) classes in 3.5 are not powerful enough.
2) That players opt to choose to have prestige classes instead of a pure class a majority of the time
3) And that #2 is because the core classes are flawed.

Taken together they're interesting, because:

1) I prefer playing a pure base class over having a PrC...because I feel it dilutes the power level of the base class.
2) I had believed that people had a preference for PrCs because:

a) They are new and exciting.
b) Prestige classes can provide a specific flavor that makes a
character unique. The "Mourner" prestige class is a favorite of
mine in this regard.
3) Some PrCs (and some new 'base' classes) are as written, more powerful than they should be. And there isn't any specific guilty parties there, both Wizards and Third-party authors have "over-cool'd" some of their favorites. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has never been my feeling that the core classes were too weak as a whole. Saying so seems definitionally contradictive...if ALL the classes are too weak, what is left to compare them to?

I suppose the monster CRs...if that is the case, is it the classes that are at fault, but our ballpark measurement of how tough the challenges are?

The power level of a class is hard to judge. Power level is extremely situational. Any given character or group of characters could apparently be weak, but in the right situation or a moment of clever tactics and they completely kick ass. And the reverse is true. You have an uber character or group of them, but bad tactics (or great tactics of the enemy) could still pummel you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had a chance to review the core classes in pathfinder in detail, but I would be cautious: This is one of those areas where significant changes could dramatically reduce compatibility with 3.5.

I read elsewhere that a design goal is that if I'm running a pathfinder module for my 3.5 gaming group, it will work. If there are significant changes to the core classes...I doubt that will be the case. Not without tweaking. Or a extra page or two in the module that says "If you're running 3.5, you'll need to reduce the class levels of Brunhilde, Henry, and Jack, and reduce the hit dice of the Gorgon..."

The paladin is an alignment paragon primarily in the sense that a paladin believes and acts according to X, Y, and Z and since X, Y, and Z map onto the alignment called Lawful Good, all paladins are Lawful Good.

To put it another way, paladins are all Lawful Good in the same way that all fathers are male. Being Lawful Good isn't so much a requirement of being a paladin as a fact of being a paladin. Being a paladin isn't a club you join or even a profession you take up; it's who you are.

Well said, Maliszew.

The Paladin and Ranger seem to have a problem in that:

They have spells, which at first seems cool and balances out what they might otherwise have instead. BUT.

My impression is that those spells come too late in the game and are overshadowed by the spellcasting ability of druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer.

So I wonder: Should the spells be replaced with something else? Should they come sooner, but be slower paced? Do other groups get more mileage out of spells for Rangers/Paladins than we have?

For example, I really like the "holy aura" for paladin ideas, at least conceptually. That is in following with the Leadership nature a paladin is supposed to have.

But look at it this way, in my campaign Dwarves get crafting bonuses and similar things as racial bonuses at higher levels. Its nothing big, it doesnt bump the power level up a whole lot.

Conceptually it represents that Dwarves in my world are naturally crafters and are always whittling or something in their off time. It allows the player to sink their skill points into other more "useful" skills while still allowing for the stereotypical (in my world at least) master craftsman dwarf.

I like this sort of thing. Anything that helps make a character more interesting without changing the amount of power. I've seen a fair bit of "You can have one additional skill point per level if it is spent on a Profession skill" as a rounding tool.

An excellent post, Wrecan. I believe it covers the issues involved well.

Social Encounter as Conflict: This is what I prefer. With a more complex social conflict system, every member of the party gets to participate in a meaningful way without stepping on one another's toes. It allows you to distinguish the sort of social strengths your character has (negotiator, information gatherer,...

This would be the "ideal" I think. At least for my enjoyment of the game. I think though, that it isn't the game system that needs changed to achieve this ideal.

I think to achieve this the GM needs time and creativity to present challenges that offer those kinds of opportunities. It would help to have "Excellent examples" to draw from: There are plenty of modules, but only a few have good mixed encounters. There is plenty of discussion on how to design creatures, magic items, and combat challenges, but less on Traps and situations where combat cannot be the solution. We see it in the movies, but it doesn't make it into our games as often as it should: The hero has a boss, friends, family, etc. who they have to maintain good terms with, but can place them in social conflicts where the combat won't work. I have see a few articles discussing it, but fewer still actual examples.

It might help to provide a detailed mechanism for it, but it might not. It might help to simply demonstrate how flexibile the existing game is: write encounters where a fighter's combat ability is important in a /social context/, etc. Perhaps a "Mission: Impossible"/Alias style encounter where each character has a task to perform to make the whole thing come together: the wizard uses prestidigitation to help the rogue steal the plans, while the bard distracts the crowd/victims...or the fighter provides the distraction by starting a brawl, etc.

Feaelin: You clearly play a bard the way i would like to see them played and the way in which i would and have personally played them. However, from having played with far to many less that great D20 using groups, i have rarely seen bards used, and when they have been frankly there where there to provide bardic music and that was it.

Bards are the 'social class' despite there class features not because of them. i will admit it did sell them short a better term would be to describe them as the 'generalist' of a party, but it isn't because i dislike them. I would like to see them become a character class who should be considered to be as important in every game as fighter, wizard, clerics and rogues. or if not bards, another class who perform a social roll.

You raise some good points. I'll admit it is a challenge for the GM and a challenge for me, to play Drum well, and not fall back on being "buff guy".

I was wondering if this new iteration of the D&D rules could fix a particular system problem: Races only really matter at the first levels. The more powerful the characters get, the less racial benefits matter in said characters' background.

One way would be to go back to the Basic Edition, where "elf" was a class. Do away with race as a concept, and replace the each race with a class.

I'd not be enthiastic for it, but I can see how in some settings it might be appropiate to approach the game that way.

Here's another option. Let each character have a free level in one of the five NPC classes appropriate to their concept. Doesn't change their ECL or CR or what have you, gives them a few more hp, a few more skill points, a couple more weapon proficiencies, maybe a feat. Increases survivability, and provides some character depth.

I'd ignore this level when calculating any level-dependent or HD-dependent benefits or effects. So a Rogue 1/Adept 1 would be considered a Rogue 1 for all future intents and purposes.

GM fiat would be required to encourage the occasional Peasant upbringing, but isn't that always the case?

I like this idea, Lumpy. It is akin to the various '0-level' approaches I've seen. Various ideas for addinng a little variance to the classes, without subtracting from the classes by saddling it with an extra level.

Or perhaps offer each character a choice between:
1) Additional hit-points (free toughness perhaps)
2) Additional skill-points (I believe there is a feat for this as well)
3) One Proficiency..
etc.

Basically, force the player to /choose/: A little more survivable? Or little more skilled? etc.

Any time the player chooses between things, the character becomes more unique. Explaining in-character why the character is that way, or chose that way further defines the character.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding hit points in general:

I, too, oppose larger hit dice for any of the classes. If anything, I'd favor some form of slowing gain rate of hit points.

The primary thing that increased hit dice does, or rules such as 'you're still alive at negative con, or a negative number ==HP': Draaaaaags out combat. Especially at those levels where you 'dink the enemy to death'.

Sure! Characters at the early levels are fragile, especially wizards. This means they have to pick and choose their fights and confrontations. This means a wizard has to play smart or pay the price.

I've played many wizards over the years. Sometimes I've been lucky (am now, in fact) and have a high constitution, sometimes not. Sometimes the high constitution made me overconfident: Florian nearly got himself killed a few weeks ago b/c he thought he could go toe-to-toe with the guys "Come on, I have a quarterstaff"...if his friends hadn't stepped in, the next session would have been a funeral service...

Toughness can help offset that first level, if you really need the extra hit points. I've found though that as long as you play with a little sense of tactic and good cooperation from your party, you'll stay alive. Sometimes you can really shoot yourself in the foot: I've charged into things I shouldn't...and lost a character!

The point of the game is risk. If you raise the HP to the point the risk is "slim", then your character becomes boring...because he can survive anything (sadly, I've watched bad movies like this, too).

Get out there and take some risks! Do it enough times, you'll know the tricks of survival, and won't need those extra hit points!

no a bards primary role is buffing and mini magic effects.

I am talking about a class or classes, whos raison for existing is to do stuff in social encounters.

Drum would be deeply offended by your assertion. He would require you to call him "Mr. Fasketel", no familiarity permitted.

My bard, Gwaylar "Drum" Fasketel, has been a unique experience. He doesn't stand around "buffing" the players, but gets up front and saves their asses from those they don't want to fight. He turns the arguement around with we're at odds with authority and he's talked us out of a fight on occasion when the villian was too much for us to handle.

He's the "Face" for our team. He negotiates for better pay when the patrons want it cheap, he bails the them out of jail when the drunken types get arrested, etc.

He's also the guy that steps in and says "You know, I read about this once..." when the cleric/wizard types are standing there scratching their heads...the triple whammy of Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (History) combined with Bardic Knowledge makes him an excellent researcher when it comes to finding the answers.

He does have his quirks, of course, a couple of weeks ago the party had to convince that it simply wasn't possible to haul an entire library with him...

To say a bard is merely for "buffing and minimagic" is like saying a cleric's purpose is to "turn undead". Be wary of over-simplification.

Do not underestimate the Bard's advantage in a social situation. He usually has high charisma, and often high bluff or Diplomacy. If she has to, she can resort to using fascinate/suggestion, or enchantment spells...but often, she doesn't have to.

The game actually has a great deal of opportunity to design social encounters. There aren't good guidelines for designing them, but the tools are there: Present a social situation, consider what kinds of skill checks would achive various ends (Diplomacy DCs, Bluff DCs, etc.), arguably if a demonstration of prowess is required, perhaps a fighter's BAB becomes a skill check against a DC, etc.. Not unlike designing a good trap (heheh, social traps!)...

To me palidins should be about zelotry and unshakable faith in a god or philosophy. Not 'we are the shining examplers of Lawful goodness.'

Zealotry, btw. :)

An interesting view (see below), but a person that had unshakable faith and zealotry to an evil god would:

a) behave in an entirely different way
b) have entirely different needs in terms of abilities. You could of course adapt the existing abilities (smite evil becomes smite good, for example) but that seems boring to me. If you really want a champion for a non-paldinic deity or alignment: make one.

The blackguard is NOT an example of this, since a blackguard's design goal is to create a "fallen Paladin" (for Eddings fans: Martel).

There used to be a fan based attempt back in the 1st edition days, a document titled "Champions of the Alignments": Eight additional classes each with their own set of abilities. I don't recall the author, unfortunately.

The view that Paladin is about unshakeable faith/zealotry in a god or philosophy is a misconception of the intended spirit of the Paladin. A paladin's goal is to do the right thing. All the time, every time, without exception. In word and in deed. Even to the point of arguing with their deity, if necessary...

Keep in mind that this is an Alpha. We are intentionally pushing things a bit to gauge people's reactions. Skills is a good example, and that system is currently undergoing revision based on playtest feedback.

I'm glad you commented on the skills, that was one of the items that stood out to me as a concern from my initial skim of the rules.

Is it really a majority view that players (in 3.5) pick their initial limit of skills and then stick to those throughout their character's levels? I would find that interesting, because while I /tend/ to do that, I don't always, and no one else my group does. I'm the exception in the group!

I've created a master list since I began collecting Dragon, back with Issue 278, December 2000. It's in Wordperfect. If you wanted to PM me your e-mail address, I'd be more than happy to e-mail you a copy.

P.S. I did the same for Dungeon since Issue 86, May/June 2001. This list also includes all the WotC mini-adventures, FR perilous gateways, cliffhangers adventures, random adventures, etc.

I'd be happy for you to e-mail them to me. :). I'll happily accept more loot. :)

My address is: feaelin@kemenel.org :)

Some one else decided to put together such a list for you available at The Dragon Dex. It is current up to Issue #323 as of August 22, 2004.

Say. That's pretty excellent. For most things, that will work for what I was looking for. Hmm. None of the categories seem to include the "dungeoncraft" or the various articles about the social issues (e.g. dealing with problem players, etc.)

But still a good thing!

I find myself digging through the numerous dragon magazines I have looking for a particular article (or particular types of articles, like today). I was wondering if there was any resource out there that provides an easy way to find the articles I'm looking for?

Or at least some input on how everyone else handles this issue (ha ha). :)

(I'm currently trying to look at the articles that deal with the social issues of gaming, e.g., player behavior, teamwork, good GM qualities, etc.)

I keep all of them. Used to keep them separate, but some of them I left where they were, because the companion article has relevance...