Gorum's page

I believe that Pathfinder is the absolute best evolution of the 3.0/3.5 system ever conceived. It takes what is best about those systems and nearly perfects them. It reinvigorated my love of the game and kept me playing roleplaying games when the 4th edition system failed to interest me.

Since then, my personal tastes have changed. I no longer have the time nor the desire to pour over tomes of information as I designed my perfect characters both mechanically and thematically. Where once I poured over each book to satisfy my hungers, now, I have evolved/devolved to something simpler. 5e scratched the right itch at the right time in the right way for me. I have returned to my original forgotten realms campaign that I ran pre-pathfinder and am quite content to stay here for now. In this regards, I believe the original poster may be feeling something similar. There isn't anything particularly better about one system or the other, they are just different. You may simply be experiencing what I have, a change in your own personal tastes.

I have zero ill will towards the Pathfinder line. I enjoyed my time there and will continue to lurk when I have the desire to. I wish nothing but prosperity for both systems.

Solomani already converted Iron Gods to 5e

Glad someone did. Is his work available somewhere?

Our DM says it takes 2 or 3 hours to convert 1/6 of an AP.

FWIW, I do my conversions on the fly. I dont think I would tackle Iron Gods simply because it is so different. The rest I can either find something in the MM that is close enough stat wise or just take the relevant DC/AC value x .75 and call it good enough. Sure there are always exceptions but that works often enough I can keep the game moving.

Did someone say there is no prestige reward for these? I see that you end up choosing a faction in the end but do you gain any Prestige in the process?

Witch Ancestor Patron Theme PG. 83
Should the 12th level bonus spell be Greater Heroism?

Ok, I am a bit confused and I've spent enough time searching threads to find the answer that I feel like I am going in circles so if someone can answer this question or point me to some form of official answer, I would be happy.

1. Can a player with an existing character use an archetype if none of the abilities that affect him apply yet.

My assumption here is no but wanted to verify.

2. I have a registered character that has no statistics or race or class or anything. He has never been played and is literally nothing more than a name. Can I build him using an archtype? I am basically wondering if the date of creation is how question number one is determined.

To extend the list a little more:

#35: Gorum

Thank the gods!!

This is probably a dumb question or just my mind messing with me but can these two feats be used together?

I asked this roughly once before but I still am unsure as to the answer so I thought I might bring it up here.

It is my understanding that a basic Pathfinder Society character is allowed to have two traits. These traits are pulled from the Character Traits Web Enhancement as well as various other Companion Books. These two traits that are taken must be from two distinct categories of traits. From what I have been able to gather, Faith Traits are a generic non-deity specific trait. Religious Traits are specific to a deity or two.

In Qadira there is a trait called Flame of the Dawnflower that is listed as a Faith trait according to the text but also calls for a specific deity (Sarenrae).

Should this be considered a religious trait?

Anyone?

As far as I am aware, they are considered separate traits, so you can have one from each.

Faith is a general trait, while religion is specific to the deity of your choice.

That was kinda what I thought except I ran across a trait in Qadira, Gateway to the East that is listed as a Faith trait but restricted to worshipers of Sarenrae. Flame of the Dawnflower is the name of the trait.

I tried to see if this question was asked before but couldn't find anything. Are religious traits and faith traits one and the same or are they considered separate categories?

I have been toying with systems from several sources but none of them truly seems to be what I am looking for. The grim'n'gritty 4.0 rules are decent but I would like to keep the d20 roll. I have also been looking over monte cooks experimental might rules in regards to grace and toughness and like the idea of some portion of your hp coming back quickly and other portions not coming back quickly. I also like the idea that critical hits apply directly to the toughness portion similar to the method used in the Star Wars RPG. I have seen and even used the reserve hp system but it just isn't what I am looking for either. As this is going to be an online game, I would like to reduce the number of critical hits but keep them more deadly without going to far. So, I have attempted to combine some of the rules I have seen including a modification of the Green Ronin set critical damage rules. Here is my first draft and was hoping to get some feedback from the excellent community here.

Use the hit point rules from pathfinder society as the base meaning max at first level + set number based on hit die each level.

Hit Points are broken down into two parts:
1. Vitality = [Constitution Score + (Level x Con Modifier) + Toughness (if applicable)]
Vitality is your actual life force or physical condition. Damage to vitality causes the character to be fatigued immediately.
Reduced to 0 vitality = disabled
Less than 0 vitality = dying
Reduced to negative con score = dead

2. Stamina = Total - Vitality
Stamina returns at an accelerated rate outside of combat / physically straining situations.

Critical Hit rules are adjusted as follows:
1. Reduce base threat range by half.
2. Reduce multiplier by 1.
3. Confirmed critical hits apply directly to Vitality
4. A x2 multiplier does not double damage but instead adds half the weapons base damage to the damage roll. A x3 multiplier does not triple damage but instead doubles the base weapon damage to the damage roll.

Additional Concept Rules
1. Stamina can be spent to perform additional maneuvers. (not defined at this point)
2. Vitality can be spent to power additional spells (not completely defined at this point)

Thoughts?

Well,

I'm pretty sure mountain rangers can't take crocodiles or dolphins, but other than that, no. As a GM, I'd restrict it to what is in the area. If the setting is a desert, I wouldn't give them a mountain lion, for example.

Thanks, and pardon my horrible grammar. Is = Are.

Is there any restrictions on which animal companions in the Bestiary are available to Rangers?

As the title says does a smite evil get multiplyed on a critical hit and where in the Pfrpg book does it mention this.

I agree that this damage should NOT be multiplied.

You can wield a weapon in a hand using a spiked gauntlet... the spikes don't interfere with normal hand function (else the description would say so). The disadvantage compared to the normal gauntlet is just the cost.

OK, thanks for confirming that.

I'm also thinking that a spiked gauntlet count as as being armed, so you wouldn't be able to arm a weapon in a spiked gauntlet hand.

Is this statement correct?

I was under the assumption that another weapon could be wielded in the hand that wears the spiked gauntlet. You just couldn't attack with both the spiked gauntlet and the weapon being held in that hand in the same round.

From a game mechanics perspective, is there any reason for any character not to use Spiked Gauntlets? As far as I can tell you can have them on while wielding other weapons, they (the gauntlet) cannot be disarmed, and they allow the character to count as armed.

Monks have no need for them, I understand that.
Wizards likely have no use for them.
Druids though nonproficient, would still gain the above advantages.

I understand the flavor argument behind not using them, I am speaking strictly from a game mechanics perspective. Thoughts?

The problem here is that I could easily go either way on allowing or disallowing, both sides present valid arguments. I was just curious as to what the design intentions were.

OK, first, between 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder Beta and now Pathfinder Core Rulebook I can't keep track of rules changes but I have a question about Spiked Armor in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

1. Can it be used as an offhand weapon with a two-handed weapon?
2. Can you use your offhand to carry something (such as a potion) while wielding a weapon in your primary hand (like a battle axe) and using the armor spikes as an offhand weapon.

I've thought about this a few times and I am mostly happy with the starting skill allocations. I have seen games that rely more heavily on skills and those that rely less on them. As I look over the classes, here are my thoughts.

Fighter - This class is borderline for me. But, since I added that feat (can't remember the name) that allows a fighter to use his first level feat to change his skills from 2+Int to 4+Int I have been happy. Those players that want fighters with more skills have the option.

Cleric - This class is strong enough to me that having low skills seems more of a balancing factor and I am fine with it.

Wizard - With the Int bonus to skills, they seem fine to me with regard to skills. Haven't had a player complain yet here.

Rogue - Skill monkey. The pathfinder changes to skills really bumped up their options. I'm ok with them.

Bard - If there is one class I would change, this would be it. They aren't the greatest at much and I feel this class should benefit from the 8+Int spread.

Druid, Barbarian - Looks ok.

Paladin - I will have to wait to see the final version of the Paladin before I make a call here. I know there have been considerable changes to the class.

Sorcerer - This class should benefit from a bump. The nature of the class itself seems to call for an increase. Wizards have the larger intelligence.

Ranger, Monk - Looks good as is.

The benefit of an added skill point or hp for those taking favored class levels was a change I enjoyed that also helped those that wanted a few more skill points. The human race also can benefit those that want more skills.

I am one of those that didn't particularly care for 4th Edition. I don't have any problems with the game, I just like 3.5 and Pathfinder more. Then I picked up the Star Wars Saga System and fell in love with the force power rules. These rules, modified slightly, became the psionic rules for my game. And so far, they have been a hit. Concerning Arcana Evolved, I am also a fan of Monte's work. I used his magic system for awhile but it was just easier for my players to use the base 3.5 system. I did keep the Akashic (with some tweaks) and Unfettered as available classes.

bump

Incidentally, something like an Int cap can, for those meleers that do have reason to take high Int, produce a feat that's miles better for some people than for others, all at the same level. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but it might be exploitable and in general, a feat of greatly varying power is going to be hard to balance.

The other problem with sword and board, that D&D combat is to a large extent about damage, will still be around given that 2H is inevitably going to do significantly more damage in a sane world. That's a function of the way that combat works, though, particularly when you add in spells (which tend to limit how long combat will last).

I like that the feat gives characters an alternative (int based) method of gaining ac. I also love the idea that the bonus would be double for sword and board users. I don't believe that it has to scale perfectly for higher levels especially because it is a prereq for many feats out there.

Shield bashers are seriously hampered by the Dex 15 requirement of Two-Weapon Fighting.

I completely agree with this statement. It just doesn't seem right that you need as much dex to attack someone with a sword as you do just smack them with your shield that's strapped to your arm.

There is some disagreement in my group about the function of the Turning Smite Feat. I understand the feat to affect only the target of the melee attack and that the radius is no longer applicable. Is that correct?

Gorum wrote:

I am curious as to what others thought would be the pricing of a magic item, a rod for instance, would be priced that replicated the effects of one of the "extra" feats. For instance, how would you price an item such as Rod of Extra Turning, Rod of Extra Rage, or Rod of Extra Lay on Hands. Perhaps this has already been done, but I haven't been able to find a solid argument for pricing. Thoughts?

I don't have access to the book right now, but the Nightstick in Libris Mortis is a rod of extra turning.

Interesting. The rod in libris mortis grants 4 additional turnings per day at a price of 7,500gp. This seems too cheap to me.

I am curious as to what others thought would be the pricing of a magic item, a rod for instance, would be priced that replicated the effects of one of the "extra" feats. For instance, how would you price an item such as Rod of Extra Turning, Rod of Extra Rage, or Rod of Extra Lay on Hands. Perhaps this has already been done, but I haven't been able to find a solid argument for pricing. Thoughts?

Now I want

A) snites = to 1/day + cha mod at level one

B) lay on hands = same as now only healing 2 hp per level

C) Detect evil = move equivalent action to concentrate, maybe a swift action to activate.

Now this question is directed to the people who think the paladin plays fine as is, especially gorum and maverick, are any of these changes that you feel would push paladin abilities over the top? Do you think this manages to fix low level play and keep the paladin feeling like the same class? And if not then isn't this a good compromise to keep yourselves happy and the people who actually want a little improvement?

----

Actually I've seen it happen alot.

Clerics, Bards, and Sorcerers are all offenders on this.

A re-written paladin that I proposed a long time ago, had the Divine Grace break up the bonus to saves over several levels instead of all at once - this has curtailed the class dipping in my games.

As for your idea of a smite Evil type bonus that's always in effect - it too promotes level dipping. The same classes specifically can take a level of Paladin and get their charisma modifier to attack rolls all the time.

That was one of the main concerns I had with it being too lucrative. Having...
You know I understand that some DMs wouldn't allow that because of the whole paladins loose powers if they stop being paladins, but I've also known DMs that consider classes as toolkits and allow, even promote level dipping to hit your character concept and I've gotta agree with Robert here, now that I think about it. a lvl one pally dip would be a big boost, go to level 2 and you have kick ass saves and always get your cha to an attack.

Sorry for my slow response, been hectic at work and haven't had time but concerning your suggestions:

A. Your suggested change to smite sounds good but I'm a bit worried about dipping. With some sort of control it could work but can't think of anything at the moment.

B. This change looks great.

C. I'm ok with the move equivalent to concentrate, not sure about the swift to activate though.

I also have an issue with other classes dipping into paladin to get the saves but don't know if I would actually change the ability or not.

Okay, here's my two-cents... I've been a fan of Paladins from day 1... Day 1 being 1st edition D&D back in '79, with a scuffed secondhand PH my Dad gave me after he got a new one for his birthday. Jason Lawbringer was an early exercise in role-playing, my Lancelot, my Galahad, in a world of sinister assassins and demonic fiends up to no good. I had a blast playing him.

So with that experience under my belt, I was of course cautious when 3rd edition made certain changes to the Paladin of old... spells at much earlier levels, Lay on Hands curing much more than the original 2 hp/level (unless your Charisma was lower than 16, which was hard since everyone was used to needing a 17 or better to be a Pally in the first place), and saving throws that would make Elminster jealous. I was stoked! And best of all, the concept works. It really does. You see, in battle, your character is what you make him. Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, or reformed abolitionist, in combat we are all created equal. We are. We just have different tools to get the job done, but the rules are the same. Fighters get more feats, but if they don't pick ones that boost their strengths and de-emphasize their weaknesses, they suffer. Likewise, a paladin needs to choose feats and skills that emphasize his strengths. Obviously, high Strength and Charisma scores go with that... special abilities are based on Charisma, including Smite to hit bonuses, Save bonuses, and Lay on Hands healing... Strength for obvious melee combat bonuses to hit and damage. High Con is nice too, but not essential.. d10 HD helps on that end. Int gives more skills, but you can live without it. Wisdom helps with Will saves, but that's what your Divine Grace ability is for. And Dex... well, if you're going to strap on plate mail, anything above a 12 Dex is a waste of good points.

But don't take my word for it... see for yourselves: My group is currently in the first Pathfinder adventure path. We have a group that has a Paladin in it. The player runs a standard "sword n' board" pally...

I have to agree with Maverick28. I just don't think the class is bad as is. I would be ok with some minor tweaks/boosts but I feel the class does fine now. I still rally against the idea of the SE ability being a duration based ability because of backwards compatibility. The most needed improvement in my opinion was the Cha being used for spells and that change has already been made. I'm all for some modifications to the class but I worry that some of the proposed changes are a bit much.

Well, the problem with paladin is that his advantage over the warrior were his spells, saves and auras, which should have been roughly equal with the feats the fighter gets. The spells however take too long to cast. Fighting classes need to be ready for battle NOW, not after four or so rounds of boosting, which made the spells somewhat less appealing. That's why I'd go for faster casting time (swift is fine with me).

The same could go for ranger (his spells are also mostly self boosts)...

I will be playing in a playtest for the beta rules and after reading a through a couple of the paladin posts going on on the boards and looking over the classes, I don't have a problem with most of the class as written for the beta. I do think that LOH seems a bit week, especially at low levels but a simple fix would be to just add a Paladins Charisma bonus to the healing for each use. This would help the low levels and not significantly affect the higher levels when they gain other more powerful abilities. Detect Evil seems fine to me as is but that seems to be just a matter of opinion.

Smite evil could probably be changed, but I believe that it should still retain its single attack mechanics to keep it backwards compatible with other 3.5 sourcebooks. Perhaps an additional damage boost could be applied without changing the SE ability.In Monte Cooks BOXM, he has a class ability that can be taken as a feat called Godhammer. This feat grants a +1 to damage and an additional +1 per 3 levels on the first attack of each round. Perhaps by changing the damage so that it applied to only evil creatures and granting the ability as a permanent class ability it would strengthen the class slightly. Thoughts?

BloodBought wrote:

Here's a thought that would help regarding iterative attacks. What if we were to introduce high level combat feats that instead of requiring that you meet conditions such as using a full-round action or something, you introduced feats that 'spent' iterative attacks. This would allow for a fix to martial classes that would help to address the uselessness of the lower range iterative attacks without completely removing the flexibility of having the second attack.

You mean like Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike from Pathfinder Alpha? :)

Exactly, taking that concept and expanding on it has enormous potential. Giving up spell slots, attacks, ac, etc to use / take higher level feats could very well be the key. Higher dc skill tricks that don't break the game have been seen before but I would like to see it expanded upon. I think that high level play can be balanced with backwards compatability.

I am a big fan of the low/low-moderate settings myself and hope to use Pathfinder in that role. I hate the idea of magic item factories and high level dependancy on magic. I am most interested in seeing how they address high level play. I feel that changes similar to the beta version of dodge may help high level play, but other changes will be needed.

Maybe I missed someone mentioning it, but with some minor tweaking couldn't the Mage Blade from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved pretty much fit the roll you are looking for?

I'm not in favor of the orc druid as much. I believe that the cleric is more fitting to this race, so I vote cleric. Maybe Greyhawk has tainted my view, but it's a good taint.

Though it may be too late to change your mind, I loved Classic Monsters Revisited and the Critical Hit / Critical Miss Decks.

Hmm, so many choices. I would like to see the Pathfinder take on all kinds of things but in particular a book on the giant types would be sweet.
Ettins
Cyclops
Giants
Titans

Not sure what else giantwise, but some other monsters I would like to see are:
Tarrasque
Hydra
Ghoul
Slaad
Naga
Doppelganger
Efreeti
Genie
Beholder
Lich
Rakshasa
Treant
Umber Hulk

Monte has long been my favorite developer. All of my players have known that his books along the 3.0/3.5 line could stand alongside the core books and rare was the case that I wouldn't permit something. He has a strong eye at balance and I was heart broken when he announced that he was retiring from the game to do other projects. The experimental series that he put out recently had me drooling just to get my hands on something new from him. Now with him joining forces with Jason and the rest of the Pathfinder team, I know that Pathfinder will be my game of choice for years to come. I already thought the game was coming along great, this is icing on the cake.

I would just like to throw in some great 3rd Party books that I have used heavily.

Malhavoc Press
Books of Eldritch Might
Books of Hallowed Might
Beyond Countless Doorways
Legacy of Dragons
Ptolus

Green Ronin
Advanced Players Manual
Advanced Bestiary

AEG
Rokugan (to expand oriental adventures)

Necromancer Games
Tome of Horrors

Fantasy Flight Games
Traps and Treachery I and II

I am surprised no one has suggested this... But what about Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook? This system converts psionic (or as they term it, psychic) powers into a set of skills and feats. Using psychic powers is handled the same way as any other skill check. It even has a built-in power regulator: psychic strain. Using psychic powers basically causes nonlethal damage. The more powers you use, the more you "max them out", the more strain you take, until you just pass out.

I thought this system worked very well. The only tweek I'd suggest is giving the character class 2 separate skill sets: one for his regular skills, the other for psychic skills (skill points would be mutually exclusive: psychic skill points CANNOT be spent on regular skills, and visa versa). Otherwise, the psychic class would have to sacrifice his basic skills just to gain his class abilities. Try justifying to the wizard why his Spellcraft skill has to suffer just so he can use 2nd level spells.

Sadly, I have been unable to aquire a copy of the Psychic's Handbook myself (it's unavailable), so I have to make do with the appendix in the back of the Advanced Player's Handbook. Still, I think it works. Now I don't know about copyright laws and such, but it might be worth looking into.

DogBone

Funny, I was just thinking of mentioning green ronins psionic system but since I haven't actually playtested it in my game yet I didn't. Just from what I have read though, the system looks solid enough.

Just wanted to reiterate that I feel there are three primary focuses for the Druid. Animal Companion, Magic, and Wild Shape. With the ability to "specialize" by choosing an animal companion or by choosing a domain, it would make sense to have a third Nature Bond choice that offered something for the wild shape group.

I just came across this thread and being someone that was against skill synergy, this is a nice alternative. I like it so much that I plan to start using it in my next game. Good job guys.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

2. Expand "lay on hands," and allow paladins to swap hp of healing for the ability to remove disease, neutralize poison, restoration, etc. This would actually be my preferred solution.

I like this idea. Mabe have "Lay on Hands" work more like the "Touch of Vitality" ability from the PHB2s "Dragon Shaman"

You would gain a pool of points like the new Barbarian's but it would work like "Lay on Hands" then you could spend more points (say 10) for remove a disease, or neutralize a poison. Then spend some more points (say 20) for restoration.
Just use the "Touch of Vitality" as reference

I also like the idea of expanding the "lay on hands" ability to include the remove disease and other afflictions but I am not too fond of the point system myself. This seems to be on the right track though and I could probably adapt to a point system, it's just not what I would prefer.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with the 4th Edition section that they are showing frequently. Though I have no plans of going to 4th Edition, there are many people that are. I remember being excited with 3rd Edition and looked forward to each bit of information that I could. With 15,000 downloads of Pathfinder Alpha Release 1, hopefully, there will be more news on the En World site for Pathfinder too, if for no reason other than to give it more face time to those that may not be aware of what it is. I hope than anyone that is still interested in the 3.0/3.5 rules at least gets the chance to see what is being done with Pathfinder.

First of all, what they need is UNLIMITED CANTRIPS PER DAY. They're Sorcerers; why should they be getting fewer cantrips than Wizards or Clerics? Maybe they only know certain specific ones and can't change that, but they shouls have them AT WILL like non-spontaneous casters.

Sorcerers will be getting unlimited cantrips. This was an oversight on my part. As for the rest, I think I we should wait till we see some playtest feedback before we pass judgement.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

This has already been addressed

For me, 4E was, quite simply, not needed. 3.5 wasn't perfect, but I have my doubts that any system will ever be perfectly the way I want it without a least a couple house rules. When 4th edition was announced, I didn't know what to think. As info trickled out, I told my players that I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of 4E in the future but it would come after we had finished the campaigns that we were currently involved in. With that in mind, 4E would of been out for a couple years before we needed to even think about it. I kept an eye on the tidbits and thought that some of the changes were kind of neat. More came out and I saw some mechanics of 3.0/3.5 that I liked were discarded and it started to lose a bit more of its shine. Next thing I know, core classes are delayed until later books which felt like nothing more than marketing, and campaign details were being thrown right out the window. Eventually, I came across the Paizo Pathfinder announcement and my initial reaction was cool. I liked the approach pathfinder was making. But, the real irritating aspect of 4E is the info about the GSL that is making its rounds. I loved the open third party support of the OGL and many of the 4E announcements just give me a bad taste in my mouth. My only hope now is that other 3rd party companies take a similar approach to Paizo and are able to succeed. I hope that there are enough people with feelings similar to my own to not only support a company like Paizo, but to actually create growth in the 3.5 field.

I would just like to say, I have seen many of the skill arguments across the boards and I appreciate the time you put into this post. I too have played around with different skill systems and the class skill / cross class skill argument has never made any sense to me either. I believe the class # of ranks seperates them enough from each other and making all skills class skills really opens up creating the flavor of the character. And, as a dm who also really cares about correct skill allocation, I couldn't agree more that this would make life easier.

Heres my two thumbs up.