Anyone else?
Search Posts
I have a Player that wants to use Magic Missile to qualify for that +4 to hit bonus on his next action. I'm saying that it should require a "to hit" roll, so he can't use Magic Missile, but he could use Scorching Ray. Thoughts?
I felt that this should be a knights only campaign. To encourage this I gave the players Mounted Combat, an extra trait & more starting equipment if they chose a Class / Archetype from a list I created (plus these classes would count as Fighter Lvls / 2 to qualify for feats). The Classes on that list were: Barbarian, Bard, Cavalier, Cleric, Fighter, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger and Samurai. I won't list all the available Archetypes, but there about 60. My players made the following (all are human): Akratos: Ranger (Skirmisher) / Child of the Crusade / Order of the Fiery Lance = Trickster Axia: Magus / Riftward Orphan / Family member of a Taldan Barony = Archmage Bahtor: Cleric (Crusader) / Exposed to Awfulness / Order of St. Clydwell = Guardian Bram: Cavalier (Strategist) / Stolen Fury / Knight of Ozem = Champion Jond: Paladin (Shining Knight) / Child of the Crusade / Order of Heralds = Marshall (+ some Guardian) Kevros: Paladin / Touched by Divinity / Eagle Watch = Hierophant (+ some Champion) Akratos & Jond are half-brothers. Akratos is a bastard.
I'm not sure at this point if I'm going to run this all the way to the end of chapter 6, but I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm cutting the class level progression by 1/3, but I'm taking the Mythic to 11 (the group of gifted squires is starting at Tier 1). So far a Tier is better than half a Character Level - I'm thinkin' it's more like 75% as good. So I'm not really worried so far about the PC's being underpowered. I've already planned to add one Minor Artifact weapon, and if need be I can balance the lower levels with some more powerful items. BTW, just to tell you, my group consists 6 squires: a Cavalier, a Cleric (Crusader arch.), a Magus, 2 Paladins (1 core, 1 Shining Knight arch.), and a Ranger (Skirmisher arch.).
Really, really neat idea. I'm ambivalent about the "Rod criticism," but it does open up the concept of a Rod of Wands wherein a Metamagic feat is applied to Wand inserted inside it at a cost of 2 charges per use of the wand, instead on one (etc. regarding "cost" to use an amplified version of a wand). My only real criticism is that it's priced waaaaaay too low. Is it better than a Ring of Evasion (off the top of my head)? IMHO, I think it's better, certainly more useful more often, which means it should be 3 to 4 times the price listed. But price is a lesser issue for these designs. It's a great concept. Congratulations!
Half again as many PC's is equivalent to a +1 CR. There are several methods you can employ. 1) Increase the number of monsters or opponents by 50%.
These are the simplest methods. You could also add other templates, such as fiendish, if it better fits the encounter.
So if said Ranger's comrade is engaged with a bugbear in a 5' corridor in front of our friendly, neighborwoods Ranger. The Ranger's Precise shot feat negates the -4 penalty for firing into melee (as has been the case since 3.0), but his comrade is still providing soft cover to the bugbear, granting a +4 cover bonus to AC. I think that cover it. Thanks! :)
If a Ranger with Precise shot fires at an opponent engaged with a comrade, he doesn't take the -4 penalty, but his opponent still gains the benefit of Soft Cover (+4 AC) automatically. Is this right? An engaged opponent has soft cover, if you will, that's why you have a -4 penalty. These seem like the same thing. There's no example of soft cover / firing into melee in the Core RB. Can someone explain how soft cover / firing into melee differ and how they are to be used, por favor?
We use the Grid Method. http://invisiblecastle.com/stats/help/grid/ It does two things: 1) Higher than Elite Array average stats.
This results in characters that almost none would do with a point-by system, and very few would via arranging a set of dice rolls in their order of preference. So far I've had a fighter start with an 18 INT, but only a 15 STR. My knight character, an AE akashic beefed up for PFRPG, started with mediocre STR 13, CHA 8, and 15 or 16 in everything else. I also have a Ranger with an 18 Wisdom, but only a 13 STR, etc. We've done this in 4 campaigns so far and seen over dozen unique character builds. Our players have been making the best of their non-min-maxed, but high stats builds in very creative ways. It's lots of fun! IMHO, all other stat generation methods pale in comparison. The Grid Rules!
The problem with the Alignment System isn't Good vs Evil. We all understand to one degree or another of Morality. Good is Moral. Evil is Immoral. Neutrality can be Amoral or Good people willing to do Evil things to defend a group of good people, etc. The problem is Law vs Chaos. Here we find nothing like Morality at all - no evolutionary adaptation (objectively speaking, i.e. sans religious or philosophical definitions). Originally, D&D had 3 alignments: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, which represented Good to Evil. It was AD&D that added the 90 degree L-N-C shift. What they did to define Law vs Chaos was to string a bunch of personality traits (etc) together and defined them as Lawful or Chaotic. The problem is that this makes no practical sense whatsoever. Chaotic = undisciplined? What? So there's no such thing as a highly disciplined individual who rigidly believes in absolute human liberty as the ultimate governmental code? What? Dwarves always behave rigidly, while elves behave randomly? Really? In conclusion, Morality exists in the real world and everyone has a practical understanding of it. L-N-C does not. L-N-C is D-U-M-B. A better paradigm might be Liberal-Moderate-Conservative, which means their far less important than actually being Good or Evil.
And there's always Ranger via the Bond with Companions options. You can go all Aragorn and bark orders at them that has a beneficial effect in combat. Battle Scout (APG) & Skirmisher (UC) archetypes both have leadership abilities. Heck! You could take both archetypes! They don't overlap!
3.5 / PFRPG characters are so much more versatile that you can have any weakness in the old-school paradigm (fighter, M-U, cleric, thief) and still be quite successful. My group has proven this time again. In the Eberron Age of Worm one of us ran (we have 3 rotating GM's, including myself) we had no cleric, although we did have a barbarian / druid / nature's warrior and a bard. Wands of CLW are the cheapest healing in the game. Even if you have a cleric (playing the healer role), you *still* want these. We got through all 20 levels just fine. The final battle was almost a joke. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. In the current campaign (Rise of the Runelords) we doing fine with no arcane spell-caster (we're all knights - and this was before the magus, or pathfinder came out). With UMD we get by using arcane wands & scrolls. We do have a paladin and a fighting cleric, and they do channel to help wounded comrades in a pinch, but we do not rely on this as a strategy. Fully buffed the cleric is the most powerful knight in the party, and that player would rather dig in and fight alongside everyone else - front of the line. We all have the shield wall teamwork feat. There are innumerable tactics to deal with a wounded man or a man down. Combine strategy with *high AC* and lots of HP's and we *usually* don't need anything more than that Wand of CLW's after we win the fight. I'm running Second Darkness for a different group of mostly pathfinder (even 3.5) nubes, and they have no cleric. And they're dealing with it just fine. I haven't even considered throwing in a heal-bot. I'd rather let the player's use their brains to solve problems because in my experience - that's exactly what they will do. However, a nudge here or there (invisible, of course) are a good idea from time to time. I've converted the ancient TSR module the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan to PFRPG. Because of the poison gas issue, I added a wand of delay poison (8 charges or something) for them to purchase from their Riddleport contacts along with a few other things being sold, if they wanted to. That's a cheap, emergency situation contingency item that they couldn't pass up, so because they had that they're only taking 1 HP damage per minute instead of 1d6 (in the tradition of the module). As a DM I only give players what *they need* and not what's best for them. Trust me. Those damn players are clever bastards. They will usually find a way to win on their own, and, in doing so, are more satisfied to boot!
I do like the basic concept, but 10 points is *far* too many as a mechanic. If you're going to make the feat system more complicated to add balance, you should do so in the simplest way possible. 1) I would favor a 3-point system, not 10. Every feat costs 1, 2 or 3 points to represent poor, average, great or good, better, best (or whatever). 2) I could care less if a fighter used new fighter feat points points from his new level along old feat points from the previous character level to buy a general feat. If a player wants to use a fighter feat to buy skill focus: stealth, because it's a thieves' guild campaign or it fits his stealthy fighter character concept, I say more power to him. Also, IMHO, Master Reynolds' ratings of some feats value needs to be reconsidered. Enlarge Spells = Endurance = Empower Spell = 5 pts?!? NO WAY!!
I agree with Penne. I like the recharge feature because it's different. It recharges on a unique condition, which means sometimes it's usable once per day, and other times less. "Flask of Liquid Sunlight" could stand some improvement, and here I see the validity of the criticisms about being a consumable. "Elixir of Sunlight" has a much better ring to it. Congratulations Adam!
So we went from 26 years, to 11 years, to 5 years...6th edition in 2014? Yes! And the duration between 6th and 7th edition will be a negative number . . . we all just missed 7th edition last year. #U@&!NG blasted multi-dimensional time continuum! Go back in time and step into a different universe, indeed . . .
A rose by any other name . . . I didn't realize my statement would be considered controversial. I've been playing since 1977-8. I've played & GM'ed every edition, including 4th. IMHO, I see a natural evolution from 1st edition (D&D and AD&D) to 2nd edition to 3rd to 3.5 and finally to Pathfinder. I see 4th edition as different and not very good, it's true. But I must concede that this a moot opinion. But none of that concerns me. What does concern is the Brand, Dungeons & Dragons, aka D&D. What if 5th edition is a failure? Does WotC simply discontinue D&D and Hasbro puts that entire trademark on a shelf, possibly forever? Will Pathfinder, the rightful heir to the brand (based on the quality of the content of their contribution to D&D), be unable to be identified as a natural evolution of said brand? That would suck. Heck! Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax might rise from the dead, united once again, to slay Hasbro. A zombie apocalypse could result. OK, just kidding about the last part . . . ;^D
D&D as a board game only. <shudder> You're probably right, but the only difference is that D&D is not a toy or a game like monopoly. It's really a series of books. They bought WotC for a card game. They may not care about being in the publishing business. Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
HA! Don't you mean "NEW" Coke? Using that as a parallel, what we should expect from 5th Edition is "Coca-Cola Classic" or D&D 3.75, (i.e. very similar to Pathfinder). WoC didn't realize what they had with Paizo. They wanted to eliminate competition with Paizo, but instead created competition they couldn't handle. Business people at Hasbro / WoC failed to recognize not only the talent of Paizo's staff, but the talent pool of thousands of 3.5 gamers that were fans of Paizo's superior products. Paizo went a different route and listened to all of to make an even better product that's still D&D. I don't know if even Monte Cook can save WoC from this blunder. I foresee day when Hasbro will sell Paizo the D&D Trademark for pennies on the dollar. Let WoC make cards. They're really good at that. Then WoC will one day make supporting products for Paizo's Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder Edition! LONG LIVE D&D!!!
In one of my gaming groups, where are the Knights of Aroden - which is an Order we all belong to, not just the party itself. The ultimate purpose of this order of knighthood, is to restore Aroden to godhood, but our party is not involved with that. It's just a background thing. We are Knights that do not lose faith, and are dedicated to law and good. It was tough to get all the players in the group to go with this, but I'm so sick of menageries of heroes with wildly different outlooks, moral compulsions, and goals meeting in taverns and going off on wild adventures together. It has worked out *beautifully.* We don't even have an arcane caster of any type, but we still get by (my PC does have UMDevice). So I say, go for it! Be one of the faithful that never surrenders what they believe in. That's an AWESOME CHOICE, not a lame one. Excelsior!
I've got a player who's been anti-power gaming for years, but is otherwise a great player; he really gets into the spirit of the game. His choices often puzzle other gamers. Starting at 3rd level, he built an Inquisitor 2 / Monk 1. He intends to go Inq 11 / Monk 4 (2nd Darkness AP). Despite rolling high stats (we use the grid method & don't use point-buy anymore), including 17 STR, doesn't make up for the +1 BAB. Although his character carries a great axe (half orc), he doesn't use it, and this character eschews all ranged weapons. Everyone started with 2,250 gp to buy stuff - including magic, and my good buddy bought an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 for 2k. However, everything he does has an internally consistent logic to it. He approaches PC creation like an actor does a role, ignoring mechanics that might contradict his interpretation of his badass character. But we don't say anything about this to him. He's stubborn as hell, and has literally been playing D&D since the game began. As long as he's having fun, I don't have a problem with it. I'm looking for little opportunities here and there to help him out. Where things get very difficult is when you have maniacal, uber-munchkins, who treat your game like a video game, and guys like my friend in the same gaming group. Try balancing a party like that! And it was even worse a situation when we were using the Hero System! Other options for inducing similar headaches include hitting yourself in the forehead with a 2x4, or drinking an entire case of Gordon Biersch's Bavarian Hefeweisen - one of the worst beers I've ever tasted. Cheers! <8D
WRONG!! I disagree with *everything* you said! ;^D
Will it list the conditions? (I.e. sickened, nauseated, exhausted, etc.)
Nuts! I *hate it* when I make that mistake! ARGH!! ;^D How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign? You have nothing to worry about there from me, however, I think you should realize, that I will not be using Psionics along with the core classes & magic. I am currently working on a psionic-based setting using the following mish-mash of classes: Akashic (from Arcana Evolved)
OK. You might be thinking, "So what?" Well the point of my example is that making Psionics even *more* adaptable by offering different variants of the Psi-classes. I think they're are more guys out there with other, similarly independent ideas of their own. IMHO, a Psionic System that was compatible with a variety of campaign concepts would serve you best.
OK, this is probably waaaaaay late & no one will read this, but what the heck. Here goes. I've criticized psionics heavily on these boards for a variety of reasons: 1) Conceptually I think psionics should be inferior (in power) with Arcane and Divine magic. Laws of physics that enable a wizard to toss around fireballs and disintegrate spells render mere mentalism impotent by comparison. Additionally, the power of a god *should exceed* the power of a mortal mind, and therefore a clerics power should be greater as well. 2) To me, the psionics greatest strength should be his/her versatility, and the 3.5 versions does this quite well, both with the versatility of a mana system and the range of powers the psionic can use. The problem is is that the 3.5 system makes playing wizards & clerics useless if psionics are an option. The psion is simply superior. He has terrific offensive & defensive abilities, neat utility powers, can stack bonuses like a wizard & cleric combined, *and* has healing powers! Despite nerfing the Psychic Warrior's Hit Die and Attack Progression, she's still superior to paladins & rangers, and I'd rather PW got d10's & Fighter BAB, maybe fewer power points, than nerf other basic class abilities. I'd much rather improve the paladin to make him the equal. 3) I think the 3.5 psionic system is extremely well designed. Frankly, it's pretty awesome, but it simply overshadows core magic & classes, and *that* I don't like.
If you had made a similarly powerful system part of the Core Rules, but clerics & wizards were more or less the same. You didn't do that, so no worries. My 2 coppers . . .
I would change the Ranger Spell lists. They're horrible. What's with all the plant magic? Are Rangers little Druids in spell-casting training bras? No! They are mighty hunters, and their spell lists should reflect that.
besides that? halflings Ha ha! Yes! +5! ;^) Since 1/2lings were originally hobbits, and as such, stolen from J.R.R, they should be rolled into a single munchkin race (with at least some mythological foundations, like elves & dwarves, etc): Gnomes! Furthermore, since being small and slow is a disadvantage, unique capabilities of both races should be included. But, that's just me . . . ;^)
And on the same train, no more 2 skill points per level (minimum 4 points). Ditto.
Excellent! I think is really cool as it's exactly opposite of a spell in a can. A neat item for a rogue, glyph exchange! However, I do think the bonus to disable device should be raised to +4, but no big deal. Congrats for making the top 32!
Neat, useful, and not over-powering . . . the ignore stacking effect is fine as it's in no way unbalanced. A fairly straight-forward shield buff in the form of a wondrous item, which is my only criticism for it, and my greatest admiration for it. Very clever, sir! Oh, and congrats for making the top 32!
Very unique in its Cthuloid grossness. It'd be a great item for an evil cleric. Congrats for making the top 32!
Nice! I want this one for some of my characters! Congrats for being chosen, as well!
Thank you, gentlemen.
Ladies & Gentlemen, 1) How easy was it for your group to get through the Starry Mirror? Would you have done anything differently to make the puzzle easier/harder? 2) Not mentioned in the book, but if a PC wanders around inside the SM for a while first, does he/she have to "walk the pattern" (heh heh ... Zelazny) starting from whatever color she/he happens to be standing in at that time, or from the color originally entered? 3) What's your favorite color? Red? NO, BLUE! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh ;^D Thanks, FM
If you are using the hardcover, it is mentioned on page 197 in the Behind the Scenes for the TotSE. The magazines mention that the mayor is missing at the start of SotSP only under the Cauldron Authority figures section. Thanks.
I've just ran the tax revolt (Ch 5 - Demonskar Legacy), and as the player came out to give his speech to break up the riot & passify people anger about all the new taxes, a pesky PC cast detect magic and noticed that was some sort of enchantment on the mayor's person (I assume this was a result of Vhalantru or Lady Rhiavadi's influence). I fear that my players won't want to search for Alek Tercival, deeming the mayor to be more important. Do you have any idea what kind of excuse / explanation I could give about what the mayor's enchantment is? Additionally, the mayor disappears at some point in the next chapter or so, but I can't find in the text exactly where. Do any of you happen to know? Thanks, - FM
Thanks, section8. Ya know . . . I thought of that very idea an hour or so after I wrote this, and I also thought of having Thifirane Rhiavaldi creating scrolls of nondetection for Zarn, too.
I've got a few 'Blue Duke' problems myself. I have the SCAP hardcover & my players have gone through Drakthar's Way, which introduced Zarn as a mysterious figure & potential boss monster (or what have you), but he's also makes an appearance in CH 5, Demonskar Legacy, where he's supposed to help the PC's battle the fire elementals at Minuta's Board. The paladin will instantly know Zarn is evil and the jig is up *LONG* before he's supposed to be battled in later chapters. To make matters worse the text states that Zarn will make 'multiple uses of Cone of Cold to extinguish the fire,' but Ogre Mages can only use Co'Cold 1/day. How do you recommend I solve these problems?
how about anyone can wear anything, having proficiency lets you keep your typical movement rate and reduces the Armor check penalty by -4 (to a minimum of -1, before masterwork) That, sir, is an excellent idea.
Even so, the calculation and adjustment as STR scores change is too much of a headache. But, according to the rules, you are *supposed* to make those tabulations anyway!
We are in agreement, as I've posted here
Nuts, the link didn't post right . . .
BTW, I am really pleased to see some serious consensus about the armor / encumberance / movement issue. What's the point of the walking (read: base) movement penalty for medium and heavy armor? How does it make the game more fun? How would removing the movement penalty (based solely on armor, not on weight, mind you) unbalance the game? In the D&D / PRPG system, how do you create a team of heavily armored, honorbound knights as characters, yet still have the required range of other abilities? Thank you, - FM
I've been on record previously (during the fighter playtest) as supporting this idea - encumbrance straight up, not worrying about armor categories for movement. Jason, so have I, which I've also reposted again today (I have no desire to search for when I originally posted this, as it was something like 2 years ago or more . . . http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/equipment/armorMediumArmorNeedsRevamping#15
Yep, that is the bar bones fact. Armor isn't worth the feat you got to get it. The weight is a problem, there is a max Dex, there is an armor check penalty, and the biggest problem, the reduced speed. Although I disagree with you about relative amount of protection that armor provides, I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with you about the weight and movement problems. I wrote about this here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/equipment/armorMediumArmorNeedsRevamping#15 I also agree with you that the Armor Proficiency feats suck, and that the penalties for not having these feats is too high. Shouldn't a reasonably skilled Rogue be able to infiltrate a group of knights by wearing armor just like theirs? Why must the Rogue be so easily identifiable because he's always wearing *Leather Armor?* RE: Krome criticism about 3.5 buffs spells being too short, I agree, however I think that 1 hour per level is too long. In 3.0 there was no reason to play a Fighter or a Paladin, when a Cleric was superior to either by simply buffing himself hours beforehand. If 1 minute per level is too short, and 1 hour per level is too long, then the obvious compromise is 10 minutes per level.
I also think this would be worth playtesting. Iron Heroes has in interesting method for DR, in that Armors *only* add DR, they don't increase your Defense (or AC), but the amount of protection a given suit of mail provides is random (i.e. Plate Armor provides a d8 of DR). This makes sense because some parts of any suit of armor is easier to penetrate than other parts. The CONAN RPG also has an interesting Armor as DR system. DR is not random, but weapons provide AP (armor penetration), which lowers the DR of the armor. There are also offensive tricks to bypass armor. Brother Willi argued that DR didn't make sense because it wouldn't help action magic missiles & fireballs, etc. My counter argument is, "So what? Armor doesn't help against those things either, with the exception of touch spells, but in either place, DR could simply apply.
I am a radical, sure. What I really want is a simplified Weights & Measures system, or whatever. There should not be two encumberance systems, one based on wearing armor, and another based on carrying everything else. If total weight & only the encumberance chart on page 125 is used to calculate whether a PC's speed is reduced or not, it's just much simpler. More importantly, for me, the Gygaxian concept that plate armor is so cumbersome as to physically reduce your walking speed by 2/3 or more has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. Doing summersaults & cartwheels isn't much harder than normal, but I've seen guys in the SCA do backflips in their plate armor. Lastly, what's really the point of reducing base movement speed for wearing plate armor? How is it fun? What is achieved by these rules? WHY HAVE TO GODS OF GOLARION FORSAKEN ME? ;^D
I've posted a similar idea to Mr. Valente's before, and I shall do so again, as we share some similar ideas. Mine are a little more radical, as I wish to simply moving in armor and encumberance in one fell swoop. Note, I am in favor of an Encumberance Points System, that Krome, and others, have suggested. Encumbrance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumbrance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumbrance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed/ PRPG rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30′ as a standard move action, and can run x4 that. That's stunningly counter-intuitive. So I’ve come up with the following house rules 1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 108 of the PRPG. 2) Use Table 8-4 (pg. 125): Carrying Capacity for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done. 3) If your character’s total weight carried indicates a LIGHT LOAD, then your character suffers no movement penalty whatsoever. 4) A MEDIUM LOAD doesn’t lower your BASE MOVEMENT RATE! 5) INSTEAD, a MEDIUM LOAD lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack. 6) The rules for HEAVY LOADS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties, i.e. your BASE MOVEMENT RATE is reduced to 20, and your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT is only 60.) Why 3-6? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chain mail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect, is how fast you can run!
So nobody else cares about this, huh? I have seen it come up before... Indeed you have. The armor movement & encumberance rules have been a peeve of mine for decades. I've posted the following criticism & solution before: Encumbrance is something that has bothered me, both as a GM and a player, for some time now. The encumbrance system is just completely off. It doesn’t even mimic fantasy well. I don’t like how a movement rate / encumbrance is tied specifically to a suit of armor. A suit of Full Plate armor is about 65 lbs on average. That weight is evenly distributed across your entire body with straps & buckles, etc. That’s heavy, sure, but *it’s made to be used in combat,* and fitted for its wearer. Now let’s apply that suit of armor to our heroic 3.5 Ed Fighter with that 18 Str and we have a little common sense problem. According to the rules, a light load for our hero, let’s call him Joe, is 100 lbs. Impressive. Joe is an incredibly strong human being (or dwarf, or whatever). And yet, in his plate armor, Joe’s base movement rate is 20, and his run is just x3 that. At first glance, that looks fine. But what happens when Joe is unarmored, but picks up his armor (in a large sack or something) and carries it over his back? Well, the answer is, according to 3.5 ed rules, is that Joe has no movement restrictions whatsoever. He can walk 30 feet as a standard move action, and can run x4 that. That's stunningly counter-intuitive. So I’ve come up with the following house rules 1) Ignore the Speed Rules listed under Table 7-6: Armor & Shields on page 123 of the PHB (3.5, naturally). 2) Use Table 9-1 (pg. 162): Carrying Capacity for ALL ENCUMBERANCE instead. Just add up the weights and you’re done. 3) If your character’s total weight carried indicates a LIGHT LOAD, then your character suffers no movement penalty whatsoever. 4) A MEDIUM LOAD doesn’t lower your BASE MOVEMENT RATE! 5) INSTEAD, a MEDIUM LOAD lowers your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT to x3!! Unless you’re a dwarf, then you can still RUN with a heavy pack. 6) The rules for HEAVY LOADS remain unchanged. (You suffer both penalties, i.e. your BASE MOVEMENT RATE is reduced to 20, and your MAXIMUM RUN MOVEMENT is only 60.) Why 3-6? Because carrying a *fairly* heavy weight, like I often did when I was a FedEx Courier, doesn’t slow down the rate you can walk at, only how long you can carry said weight. What you can’t do while carrying, say 45 lbs, is RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!! Wearing a suit of chain mail isn’t going to affect how fast *you can walk!* But, what it does affect, is how fast you can run!
I don't think it's really workable. The obvious mechanic would be your DEX Mod in squares, or +/- 5' per DEX Mod, but that could quickly become too powerful. A more realistic method might be +/- 1' per DEX Mod, with the stipulation that it only comes into play if you have at least 3' give or take (ie you can round off). Hustling, Running & Sprinting (ie x2, x3, x4 movement) counts for this purpose. If you had a 12 DEX, your base move & x2 wouldn't change, but at x3 & x4 you'd get an extra 5' of movement. Regardless, I don't think anything involving increased movement because of high DEX scores are worth the math, and DEX is already a really good stat, anyway. It doesn't need to be improved as much as, oh say CON does. ;^)
The Once and Future Seneschal agrees. And a Senescal, to boot! Knights! Squires! Prepare for battle! No longer shall you be limping around like turtles in your armor!
Search Posts
I'm confused by the rules for Requests, which seem to contradict themselves. The Request action says:
You can make a request of a creature that's friendly or helpful to you. You must couch the request in terms that the target would accept given their current attitude toward you. The attitude conditions say the following: It will accept reasonable Requests from that character, as long as such requests aren't at the expense of the helpful creature's goals or quality of life. It is likely to agree to Requests from that character as long as they are simple, safe, and don't cost too much to fulfill. (Doesn't mention Requests) The unfriendly creature won't accept Requests from the character. It doesn't necessarily attack, but it won't accept Requests from the character. The GM Core section on Social Skills says: When a character uses Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Performance to influence or impress someone...It often makes sense to adjust the DC based on the target’s attitude for Deception, Diplomacy, or Performance, making the DC easy for a friendly creature, very easy for a helpful one, hard for an unfriendly one, or very hard for a hostile one. You might adjust the DC further or differently based on the PC’s goal; for instance, the DC to Request something an indifferent NPC is fundamentally opposed to might be incredibly hard or impossible, and it might be easy to convince an unfriendly creature to do something it already wants to do. Then there's the Tense Negotiator feat, one of whose benefits is: You can attempt checks to make Requests of creatures who're indifferent or unfriendly toward you. I've quoted these from the Remaster version where appropriate, but as far as I can tell none of the quoted text has changed between Premaster and Remaster. All of these seem to indicate something different. The request action clearly says that you can only make requests to creatures which are friendly or helpful, and you have to ask for something that they would accept - per the descriptions of friendly and helpful, this means simple, safe and non-costly requests for friendly creatures, or requests that don't harm the character's goals or quality of life for helpful creatures. Tense Negotiator also confirms that you can't normally make requests of creatures which aren't friendly or helpful. But it doesn't work properly if you enforce the requirement for the request to be one "the target would normally accept given their current attitude to you" as stated in the Request action, since unfriendly creatures normally explicitly won't accept any requests. The attitude descriptions themselves explicitly say you can't make requests of unfriendly (or hostile) creatures, but don't say that for indifferent creatures. This strongly suggests that you're supposed to be able to make requests of indifferent creatures. Reading the attitude descriptions, it appears that Helpful creatures automatically accept requests that aren't opposing their goals or quality of life, without having to make diplomacy roll at all. From this section of the rules, it looks like you're supposed to be able to make requests for anything, and make requests of indifferent creatures, and friendly/helpful gives you lower DCs or automatic successes on reasonable requests. Finally, the GM guidance explicitly says that you can make a Request to an indifferent creature, and even request things which it's fundamentally opposed to (albeit at a very high DC). It even indicates that you can make a request to an unfriendly creature, and that the DC might be very low if you request the right thing. Could we get some clarity on which of these is the correct reading?
I've been reading about Lastwall on the Pathfinder wiki, and I think I've noticed a continuity error. According to the page on Lastwall itself, the Hordeline was the third border line between Lastwall and Belkzen (after the Sunwall, and Harchrist's Blockade, both failed), and was constructed after Harchrist's Blockade was overrun in 4517. But according to the page on the Hordeline itself, the Hordeline it was created in 4515 and overrun two years later in 4517, which seems to be describing Harchrist's blockade. Could someone with access to both books check the citations for both those articles? And if they are both "correct", maybe a passing writer could weigh in on which is the canonical Hordeline?
In most D&D-esque systems, where some classes expend resources over multiple encounters and restock them when they rest, there's some common wisdom regarding how many encounters a party can face per day. Often this is spelled out by the game designers explicitly. Has Paizo made any comments about how many encounters they anticipate players having per day? If not, how many would you recommend? I've repeatedly seen people on these forums claim that PF2 doesn't need such guidelines because there are ways to restore hp, etc, after every encounter so the resource drain of PF1 isn't really a thing, and I'd like to save time by responding to those claims in advance. To some extent, they seem to be valid. I tested the system by making a party of 4 characters (including a Champion) and running them through the first floor of the fortress in Age of Ashes, and thanks to some lucky dice rolls and regular use of Lay on Hands I was able to get through the whole thing without anyone dying and without having to rest for the night. But the game didn't feel great. In 90% of the battles, my casters were on cantrip auto-attack, and contributing a lot less than the martials. I'd been anticipating using the druid as a healer, but in fact his healing spells only got used once in the final battle, where a character was at risk of dying. It was OK, because I was also playing the martial characters and that was fun, but if that had been a real game and I'd been playing a caster in it I'd have found it extremely boring, because of the large number of encounters per day. And even the martials were less fun to play than they would have been with more status effects and buffs flying around. Conversely, if I played a campaign which had just one encounter per day and the casters were able to nova all their high level spell slots on each encounter, it seems like they'd be controlling the battles and it would feel bad to play a martial character. Both of these extremes seem bad to me; bad enough that I wouldn't want to play in a game which regularly used them. But presumably, there must be some amount of content per day between those two extremes where the casters don't end up either controlling the game or relegated to cantrip duty in battle. What is that amount of content? Does it vary depending on the difficulty of the encounters, or the level of the party? How much tolerance is there in going over or under the amount, before the game becomes un-fun?
I've been trying out PF2 with some solo adventures (that is, me GMing and controlling the whole party of PCs at the same time), and one of the things which has frustrated me is the very small number of spell slots. I don't know if it's just my playstyle, but I found myself playing my casters very conservatively, relying on the Champion's Lay on Hands and the Medicine skill for healing and avoiding using any daily resources if I could get away without them. In doing so, I discovered that unless my dice hated me or I found an enemy my builds were bad against, I could generally get through anything less than a severe encounter without spending any daily resources like spell slots. Thus I still had nearly all my spell slots when I reached the boss, and I was able to nova him and win easily and anticlimactically. For the rest of the battles, though, my casters felt rather unexciting - since I wasn't willing to cast their spells on fights where they weren't needed, they were stuck just using cantrips which rightly seem to be less effective than martial attacks. All in all, while it was an OK experience while I was playing the whole party, I think I would be rather disappointed to either play a caster, or play in a party with a caster if they were played in the way I was playing them. And yet that method is the one I gravitate to since I dislike expending resources I can't replace if I think I can safely avoid it. They're Too Awesome to Use, as TV tropes would put it. (Digression: I think this effect is more pronounced than it is when I play PF1 because of the smaller number of spell slots making me want to hoard them more, and because the focus/medicine mechanics mean that hp isn't a resource you have to spend spells to restore any more, so unless there's an immediate time pressure I prefer to lose a few more hp and then rest for 10 minutes more rather than spend a daily ability to finish a fight faster.) Rather than just complain about the issue, I've been trying to think of a solution, and I wonder about simply making spell slots recharge like focus points. Nearly everything else seems to recharge at that kind of rate anyway, including hp (if you have a healing focus power, or the right skill feats), so why not? Of course, you'd also have to decrease the number of spell slots you get, dramatically, to avoid overwhelming the noncasters and nova-ing every battle. I'm currently thinking of someting like this: You get only 1 spell slot of each spell level you have access to. If you're a prepared caster, you prepare a spell in each slot at the start of the day as usual. If you cast spontaneously, then you can use the spell slot to cast any spell in your repertoire - use the official spell slot progression to determine how many spells you can have in your repertoire. A spell which lasts "until the next time you make your daily preparations" ends if you regain the spell slot using the Refocus activity. Otherwise, spellcasting works normally. If instead your casting comes from archetype feats, you get one spell slot if you have basic spellcasting, a second slot if you have expert spellcasting, and a third if you have master spellcasting. These slots' levels are equal to the highest level slot their respective feats would normally give you at your level. For example, if you're level 14 and have Basic and Expert spellcasting, then your two spell slots will be 3rd and 5th level. The Refocus activity is adjusted as follows:
Spoiler:
Refocus (Concentrate, Activity) Requirements: Either a) You have a focus pool, and you have spent at least 1 Focus Point since you last regained any Focus Points; or b) You are a spellcaster, and have at least one expended spell slot. You spend 10 minutes performing deeds to restore your magical connection. If you have spent at least 1 focus point since you last regained focus points, you may restore 1 point to your focus pool. If you have any expended spell slots, you may restore any or all of them. If you are a prepared caster, the slots you restore are automatically filled with the same slot they had before you spent them. You must choose at least one of these options, but may do both as part of the same activity. If you are regaining focus, the deeds you need to perform are specified in the class or ability that gives you the power you are restoring; if you're regaining spell slots then you must do the same activities you do in preparing your spells at the start of the day. These deeds can usually overlap with other tasks that relate to the source of your focus spells. For instance, a cleric with focus spells from a good deity can usually Refocus while tending the wounds of their allies, and a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic of the illusion school. Obviously, this is not a finished house rule. I'm not really experienced enough in the game to predict all the knock-on effects or judge what effect it will have on balance, so I'm posting here to ask: is this viable in principle, or will it break the game for some reason? As written, are martials and casters reasonably balanced in how much they can contribute to an encounter, or would it be better to be more generous/stingy? Does it make spontaneous casters too strong compared with prepared ones? How about archetype spellcasters? Which special abilities will need rewriting which I haven't noticed? How could they be rewritten? Are there more obvious solutions to the "Too Awesome to Use" problem which I haven't noticed? Specific abilities that I can see need addressing: Alchemist: Will need some equivalent recharge mechanics for its own daily powers Cleric: Divine Font gives several max level healing spells per day. Could become 1 extra highest level spell slot for heal, although that loses the charisma dependency. Wizard: Arcane School: Doubling the number of spell slots is obviously too strong. I'm not really sure how to adjust it down while still connecting a significant proportion of your spells to your chosen school. Perhaps some sort of buff for any spells you cast from the appropriate school, or an extra archetype-style spell slot progression for spells of that school? Bonded Item: Probably OK (casting a spell twice in one encounter 1/day) but a bit hard to balance against whatever adjustments are made to the arcane school.
"What, everyone brought chalk?" I've got a bit tired of seeing entire groups of adventurers all carrying exactly the same equipment, just because that's what was in the adventurer's pack. An average size party will have: 200ft of rope but no grapple
Clearly, this is a bit silly, so I set up some alternative options. These packs are a little more expensive than the standard one, as they include more gear, but they're still significantly cheaper than buying the stuff individually. For that reason, you can only buy these during character creation. Spoiler:
Advanced Adventurer's Pack
2gp, 0 bulk (see below) This pack consists of a backpack containing a variety of items which are useful for adventuring. Every pack contains the following items: Bedroll (L)
In addition, choose one of the following specialisations: Light, Delving, Exploration, Writing. The pack contains the items listed under that specialisation. Unless stated otherwise, each type of adventurer's pack contains exactly 2 bulk worth of items, which exactly equals the amount of "free" storage the backpack offers. Thus as long as the items are kept in the backpack and the backpack is worn, the whole kit effectively has a bulk of 0. Light:
Delving:
Exploration:
Writing:
If anyone wants to contribute more specialisation options, please do. To match up with the ones above, they should add up to about 16-17sp in value, and should ideally contain a torch or a couple of candles in case no one went for the light specialisation.
Apologies if this turns out to be a duplicate; there was some sort of hiccup with the forum the first time I tried to post this. I've been trying to work out whether Lonjiku's wife was Tian or Varisian, and there seem to be contradictions in the timelines. She has a clearly Minkaian/Japanese name, and the fan-run wikis seem to think she was Tian. Originally I assumed that they had met and married before coming to Varisia; but according to the RotR appendix (and the backstory in Jade Regent) Lonjiku was born in Varisia and never went to Tian at all. So...what? Was it just a strange coincidence that Atsuii was also from Minkai? Did he (or his father) deliberately seek out another Minkaian out of some bizarre wish to preserve their bloodline's purity (an odd decision when you're specifically trying to *conceal* your identity)? Or did she change her name when they married for some reason?
I'm planning on starting to run Rise of the Runelords, and am planning on making some adjustments to the plot. Based on a previous conversation with James Jacobs, I'm concerned that some of the things I'm thinking of may conflict with things in Return, which I'm interested in running at some future point. I can't really afford to buy Return at this point; at least, not just for the sake of checking whether my changes will be cause issues if I ever end up running the AP. Of course, I'll buy the path if and when I start running it, but in the meantime, would someone mind explaining the plot of the path to me in detail? With particular emphasis on what Alaznist gets up to (and has been doing before the path began) and on the time travel elements? Many thanks.
TL;DR: Currently, mundane healing is unable to stand in for a magic healer, even suboptimally. And if you have a magic healer, it's so weak in comparison that it's not worth investing in. To solve this, allow medicine to heal hp without Battle Medic as a 10 minute activity, let each creature benefit from mundane healing once per hd per day rather than the current limit; and reduce the DC and/or remove the critical failure effect. For various reasons, it looked like the playtest game I'm participating in was going to be without a class that could use healing magic. Initially we thought this would be fine. Perhaps suboptimal, but we could always rely on the medicine skill, and perhaps later someone could multiclass into cleric. But we then realised that the equivalent of Treat Deadly Wounds from PF1 is locked behind a skill feat. Without that feat (battle medic) there is no way to use medicine to heal hit point damage (other than bringing people from 0hp to 1hp). This is a serious problem, since nonhumans can't get their first skill feat at level 2. Thus, at level 1 a party without a caster with healing will have no way to recover hp other than bed rest, or items/NPCs the GM plants in the adventure. Obviously, this is a problem, as it means that every game starting at first level will need a divine/primal caster. The obvious solution to this is to shift the action that Battle Medic offers into an activity under the medicine skill, that takes a long time to do - perhaps an hour, like Treat Deadly Wounds in PF1, or perhaps ten minutes like Natural Medicine's option. Battle Medic would then turn that into a single action, allowing it to be used in combat. In a separate but related complaint, the amount healed by Battle Medic doesn't scale properly with level. Since at each level everyone gains an extra hit die, your healing should also increase by about a hit die's worth of hp to remain effective. The Heal spell does this; it starts with (a little more than) 1d8hp, and each level it's heightened increases it by 2d8. On the other hand, Battle Medic just remains fixed. Unless you make the skill master/legendary and get a high enough bonus to meet the greater DCs, but even then it can only do a maximum of 4 dice of healing which is worse than a third level Heal spell. This could be solved by simply allowing each creature to benefit from mundane healing once per day per hit die of the creature. Battle Medic would still be of limited value mid-battle, but at least it would be possible to play the game without someone being stuck playing a healbot caster. This also solves another exploit/problem: since Bolstered only prevents you getting healing again from the same person, you can get more healing if you go round asking lots of different people to heal you one after the other. A cleric would still be the best healer, since they a) have magic to augment their medicine, and b) they'll have a high wisdom naturally. Oh, and either lower the DC for Battle Medic, or ditch the critical failure effect. Preferably both, at least for the ten minute option I suggested above. Currently Nature is better than Medicine for healing people outside combat! |