My advice for a new GM is don't start with Mythic or at a level 10+ campaign. It might sound great to just throw power at the PCs and have them unravel your epic plot-line, but it's difficult to balance. That's not to say that you can't; it's just significantly harder, and for a new GM I don't see any real benefit in going ham out of the gate.
Mythic adds a whole host of power level issues that need to be adjusted for by each group individually. Mid-high level games can be pretty wonky in and of themselves without Mythic. Adding them together is asking for a headache if you're not properly prepared.
But there are a lot of ways to look at the reasons for not applying a gender difference in the game.
From a standpoint of wanting their game to appeal to as many customers as possible, though, making male and female characters start on an equal basis is a benefit. A lady gamer reading through game systems is probably going to feel more inclined to play a game that doesn't penalize her for playing a character the same gender as her. That's a big part of the market. I don't think that applying a penalty to female characters will make the game more appealing to most men, except maybe a small group of misogynists.
Let's be real here. I agree that gender equality is a move to appeal to the roleplaying player-base, but the real motivation here isn't to bridge some moot point about how female players might respond to sexism in game (if anything light-fantasy sexism caters to heroic women stereotypes); the primary motivation to make this move is female characters for male players.
Some guys have fetishes for herculean or otherwise powerful women; others just have a fascination with the notion of playing a woman (to the point where they will only play as female characters). It's an interesting social phenomena, and it is the overwhelming reason a form of gender equality (not exactly full equality, but close enough for our purpose) exist in high-fantasy settings. The genre itself is designed as a form of instant gratification where most forms of logic are thrown out the window--which is the cause for an innumerable number of debates, including this thread.
I've had the idea of a hybrid viking/samurai/roman nation stewing around for awhile now. The idea would be a nation with a strict caste system which would probably be along racial lines, although not necessarily. The lower castes would be compartmentalized into lesser houses that would vie for favor and glory by waging continuous warfare/raids against distant lands. Part of the fun could is playing with the the stereotype of a raider. A demi-human house comprised of mostly half-orcs with a samurai-esque disposition raiding/killing for the glory of their homeland is not something you see every day.
Unless a player of yours is falling behind in terms of optimization I wouldn't tell your players anything. Half the fun is figuring out stuff by yourselves, and the power gaming meta can prove stale (abusing items is simply too easy if you allow it).
If they are having difficulty completing premade combats, maybe you should help them a little, but beyond that no.
Are you planning on riding it once you hit 7 (are you small sized already)?
This particular companion seems to be a one-trick-pony (or elk, as it were), specifically a charger. It's not particularly fast, so it matters more on what you want it to do. If it's flanking and charging for your allies that's different than if you want to use it as a mount (specifically for feats).
#1) Well, if you want to go full dark souls/demon souls, the mechanics of those games are fairly straight forward. In demon souls, simple defeating a great foe would restore humanity, whereas in dark souls a consumable was required. Either method (even both) could be easily implemented.
Have you thought of the use of hero points or a similar system for this? The ability to use hero points as per usual or to burn them to regain mythic powers would work thematically. This would allow you to grant hero points as a boss reward and potentially as part of a unique consumable item.
#2)In one of the books of the damned I'm pretty sure they have a table for souls as currency (although, admittedly, it was a fairly lackluster section from what I recall). Again, if you're going draw directly from the game, whatever currency you choose, it would be absorbed into the PC somehow. However, I think this is a point where I would diverge from the game. There is a lot of potential for soul or essence storing items for plot devices and as generally interesting items.
I like the concept of a game where the characters can see huge piles of gold and other riches and watch as they struggle with that strong looting instinct. It seems like a perfect plot device, to trick the PCs into looting a worthless treasure with the potential of having angry guardians and a whole assortment of problems associated with such a horde, such as curses.
#3)To me in order to faithfully mimic a dark souls setting subtle lore hints are key. Allowing the PCs to piece together the history of the crazy realm they've entered would be half the fun of it, and to that end I would advise a lot of careful planning. Having strategically placed dead NPCs, ambiguous dialogue with not necessarily trustworthy NPCs, and
rich tidbits of item and monster lore scattered about would be essential.
My group runs a collaborative character creation. Everyone starts with creating a fairly complete vision of their history and everyone else takes a look at it and has a chance to alter and add something. Once everyone is done with that they move on to personality and then appearance. After all that they establish the characters' links and perspectives toward the other characters.
The group has limited input, each member can only alter a limited number of things or add so much depending on the category, and the player of any given character has a limited number of vetos per category (and the group as a whole can majority veto bad changes).
Overall it's a very unique system that generates very interesting characters. The goal is to role-play a character you didn't have complete creative control in creating. This makes for very unique, and in a fashion non-linear, characters. Because of the number of different aspects added to the character, no matter how bizarre they may initially seem, they have a way of creating very well fleshed out characters, and since the players establish the links between each other and how the characters initially view one another a lot of interesting party dynamics occur.
It also serves to make the players invested in the other characters and how they act and develop, as they played a crucial part in establishing certain aspects of that character. It's very satisfying to see your fellow player role-play an aspect you thought up.
Firstly, Celanian, you are being obtuse. It's a damn hard fight. No one is arguing it's not. I even said earlier in this thread that it was a harsh encounter to throw at your specific group. However, you didn't handle it well at all. Several people here lightly illustrated a variety of tactics that could have worked with a reasonable chance of success. There are even more had your party prepared or used spells properly.
With a half-optimized party my group would run circles around that encounter. No ambushing, tactical traps, or AoE disables means it's a relatively simple encounter of hit point whittle. Being underground makes it infinitely easier to scout and bottleneck as you have plenty of corners and tight spaces to abuse (you even had familiars and a summon to use), and it becomes significantly harder to use clear line of sight and numbers advantage underground unless you are ambushing someone.
A single cleric with hold person is hardly the end-all-be-all. If you engage properly the tieflings should be dead/disabled round 1 (them getting the jump on you was a terrible circumstance) either on a surprise round or as part of a bait rounding corners. If the cleric manages to catch you off-guard and hold person you, sure, you're boned. If you make them chase you, it becomes a lot harder for him to do that as you know when they're coming (both the cleric and the skeletons make a ton of noise, unless he casts silence which would be dirty).
Simply checking the doorway with your party group 10-30 feet behind your ranger would have improved your chances to respond appropriately dramatically.
For a level 2 party, it's winnable. If your party is anticipating a tough fight and came prepared, it's more than winnable (as the circumstances make it a relatively simple encounter on a fundamental level). Your party obviously didn't come prepared for that. What you take from that is solely up to you. Do you think your group should learn from this and be more prepared and think a little more carefully about party composition, tactics, and role optimization? Or would your group prefer to man fight everything with a reasonable chance of success for bum rush tactics? Both are completely viable and enjoyable options. I've played with groups that choose one or the other, and depending on my mood and game I have myself have chosen one over the other at different times.
So basically they got the jump on you and you lost. Forgive me, but I'm not a particularly empathetic individual. The way I see it:your party, as a whole (despite having a summoner), was poorly optimized and failed to utilize basic concepts of strategy. Instead of trying to locate the enemy you unfortunately turned around the wrong corner and got jumped against a force that couldn't have snuck up on you if they tried. Being underground doesn't change what it requires to be seen or heard. That they managed to get 3 people within 30 feet of your party without you noticing is most certainly your party's fault.
As I said earlier, this is where strategy is key. You ran into them and lost. Whether or not your group is ok with running this sort of game is up to your group. You obviously were not an optimized party; throwing this sort of challenge at you was harsh. How you handle the situation is up to you. Being blindsided can be rough, and most people would naturally respond negatively. If your group can handle a more challenging game, then good for you guys for taking a TPK in stride. If not, then there's nothing wrong with that either; games are meant to be fun.
There is a reason going beyond CR+3 isn't recommended (at least for lower levels, as by 10th you practically have to). It's hard. It's not against the rules. There is a reasonable expectation for veteran players to be able to handle it. However, it's certainly not for everyone.
Getting 4 people to act and retreat when they and their opponents had a mix of initiative rolls would've been a nightmare. Combined with double movement costs for no visibility and that would've been a recipe to get the party killed piecemeal.
The major problem here is that the tieflings managed to get close to your party and then activate their abilities. You had no scout? They didn't close any distance to get to you? They didn't die during the surprise round/first round of combat?
What you're describing is how you died, not why you couldn't win.
CR+4 is definitely doable with a very tactically inclined party, especially if they are somewhat optimized. There are a few very big monsters that break this understanding of CR, but an encounter built to challenge a party consisting of lesser enemies is certainly a winnable encounter. However, you can't just barge in and try to overpower them. That won't work; you will be slaughtered unless you are playing the pokemon party with enough summons/companions to go toe-to-toe with an army of mooks.
You seem to have a big issue with darkness, however, it's not a huge deal unless you are ambushed or trapped and don't happen to have dark vision. Simply running away could have prevented a TPK, or the tactical use of sleep or color spray, etc. If you get the jump on them they may never get the chance to waste the first round of combat to cast a darkness spell (and believe me, against an optimized party, using a standard action to cast darkness can be suicidal).
The key to victory against that sort of encounter is either getting the drop on it and wiping half of the mobs (or more which is more than possible with a few first level spells, magic missle not being one of them) or simply whittling them down via ambush/hit-and-run/traps or superior ranged combat (it has virtually no long range potential).
Running blindly into an encounter hoping to slug it out with anything that doesn't have "Helpful NPC" written on its forehead is a surefire way to get TPKed, for future reference. I've played with harsh DMs before, and believe me when I say that a few monsters with a couple of mediocre spell-like abilities is not particularly challenging to a party well versed in dungeon-crawling.
Just be glad you don't have to carry around a 10-ft pole all the time.
Whether or not your group wants to play like this is another matter entirely. Barring any severe circumstances hindering their chances of success, that encounter is winnable by a 2nd level party. It for damn sure isn't easy, but it's doable. However, it's not everyone's cup of tea to not go toe-to-toe with the enemy and have a reasonable chance of success.
I think you're supposed to be level 3 before you take on Palavine. Our group had substantially more members but we still ran into trouble because we were too stealthy and fought more of the mooks.
Also AC 21 +7 to hit are both abilities of the CR 2 Skeletal Champion from the Bestiary.
Ah, you are correct.
Giving them masterwork weapons and breastplate+heavy shield is a pretty harsh move in this scenario. With their base stats they would be challenging naked, using claw attacks.
Technically speaking, 3+CR over player level is an acceptable range, but it's meant to be exceptionally difficult.
The skeletons sound off. Unless they were 1 HD (which would beg the question of how they managed +7 to attack and 21 AC), they are higher than a CR2.
The encounter doesn't sound terribly difficult, from a strategic point of view. However, you mention that you felt you couldn't retreat; what were the circumstances for that? Could you not retreat to a more favorable position? Fighting that particular group of enemies could be done relatively safely from a distance or out in the open. Darkness isn't terribly difficult to counter if you aren't being ambushed by it.
A well planned ambush could decimate that encounter because it lacks versatility (assuming the skeletons don't have excessive hit points and the rogues don't carry an armory on their person). Did the sorcerer/summoner have any spells left at all?
It sounds like your party rushed into a room of death; they then turned the lights off and murdered you. Playing with lighting is dangerous as a DM, as it has the potential to be one of the most unbalancing factors in the game (which is why it's ridiculously easy to obtain dark vision). Still, it is inherently unfair for those races who don't have it when those circumstances arise in the lower levels. From a strategic standpoint, it's not the hardest thing to avoid, but it can be an issue.
The skeletons do sound unfair, though, because I can only imagine they had more than 1 HD. I wouldn't be too pleased about them.
However, rushing into an encounter like that with few resources and not considering a tactical retreat or relocation seems foolish, as it was meant to be an extreme challenge which for low levels means almost solely terrain, positioning, and initiative abuse.
Was it unfair? It was a little bit. Could you have handled it better? Probably, though I lack the specific details to make a fair assessment. From the information provided I think it's safe to assume fighting on their terms was suicidal.
do trees, hemp and vines not exist in MDT's world?
I had a much longer response to this going, but then I realized it to be unnecessary. Now I challenge you, what reasons could you come up with that would prevent such a thing as a race stranded on a continent, in a fantastical setting, from getting to another?
I could come up with a dozen or so right off the top of my head, both historical and fantasy driven. If you can't, then I don't know what to say.
Or, are you saying the space marine should be allowed, in all his glory, on the Northern Continent, with pod and laser rifle and advanced cybernetics?
Bolters and genetic augmentation are the standard issue for Space Marines, not lasers and cybernetics. Pray the omnissiah didn't hear your blasphemies!
As to your setting, personally if you had a good reason for the continents not having continuous trade, especially if magic and such is prevalent, I wouldn't see a problem sticking to those races. There could be plenty of reasons that would be acceptable, but arbitrarily saying no seems odd.
From a personal perspective, I've never felt a particular race to be absolutely crucial to a character outside of setting dependent circumstances (which is part of the reason I abhor dramatic core gameplay changing racial feats, such as the ones in 4e; why else would you play a dragonborne!?). Social circumstances make for a great base to create a character. Half-elves who are racially discriminated against play differently than those that aren't. Similarly, a true-breeding racial group of half-orc samurai might not suffer the same stigmas that the traditional orcish lot do. Races don't exist in a vacuum that you can pop them out when you have some picture in your ahead about some vague character. I've had a game where elves were evil fey-like cannibals. You could play an elf, but that's not a Tolkien elf (neither are core rulebook elves for that matter). The circumstances, the ideologies, and cultures are what matter about each racial group. It's the setting that makes the races interesting. Yeah, humans don't have claws, but vikings sure weren't boring, nor were samurais; hell, the Garamantians were a pretty interesting, if not a bit obscure, bunch too. From the spice trade controlling Aksumites to brutal, technologically advanced babylonians, humans have plenty of material to make them interesting.
I don't need a tail to make a character feel special. If a race fits a setting and my character concept cool. If I feel the need to play a half-vampire, cybernetic ninja that can fly and has a railgun I'll play a different game, like Champions. If I want to play an immersive game where my character has a place in the world and that world's story, I'll play D&D and its ilk. That's not to say stand out characters are bad. In the traditional sense, drow were the black sheep go-to characters, and they make for very interesting PCs. What makes them that way is the world they're setup in; I wasn't really a fan of eberron drow, for instance, completely setting dependent. I don't think the concept of kitsune is particularly cool, or drow for that matter. Black elves, great another color of elf, whoopy! (talking to all you old faerun players that remember the 50 shades of elf from that setting). However, they have stood the test of time precisely because a setting made them interesting, where the others were devoured by the all powerful umbrella of regular "elf".
That super "original" half-vampire rogue of yours isn't really that special, sorry to say. The half-vampire rogue, Haldrich the flayer, high marshal of the inquisition, whose job it is to hunt tieflings and other demon spawn and cultist because in that setting undead are seen as "pure" (not subject to demonic taint) and unbiased, now he's a lot more interesting. That character may go through his own tribulations as a half-vampire which could add even more depth to his character, but a good chunk of Haldrich is the setting. Any old half-vampire could thirst for blood and have a moral dilemma about it. Not all of them are revered as blessed beings.
None of this is to say that players and a DM couldn't collaborate on a world together. I wouldn't advise it for the sole purpose of creating some super specific character. I think that if a character is so central in your mind that you have to make a world around it, you should probably scrap it. That can't be healthy for your state of mind, and I've met several very fragile/bipolar examples of players who get too into their characters (particularly weird characters). If, as a group, you want to make something, like an underdark campaign or of some other specific setting, that's cool. If you want to try and convince everyone at your table to play an underdark campaign for the sole purpose of you playing a gloaming, then I'm not sure you have your priorities straight.
A good rule of thumb I've found is that when you have a "brilliant" character idea that you're dying to play, scrap it. After that think up 1-3 more and scrap those. The end result is usually a much better, more fulfilling character. I've typically found that player's who get upset when their initial idea for a character gets shot down to be fairly immature, and I have played with a good friend who does just that for my entire D&D career. He pouts, but then he quickly gets over it and somehow, through the tears and anguish, manages to create a new character that matches the setting much better and has a blast. Who knew that could happen? Live without Hilde, the half-giant half-lizard woman wizard? It seemed impossible at the time...It's funny because he does it to this day and even I have been guilty of it to a certain degree in the past. However, we survive as humans today by making compromises. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but in the end we can make it work and have a great time doing it.
In the GMG it has that you can buy 1st level spellcasting service in a Thorp, that it says has fewer than 20 people. So I would say you are looking at least 5% being spellcasters. Now most of those would most likely be Adapts.
In the Core rulebook it states that you can only reliably find any casters able to cast 1st level spells in small towns or larger, and higher level casters scale with settlement size (this is all in the spell casting services section).
This can be interpreted in two major ways:
1) The GMG creation guidelines are there as a way to set a bar as to how high a level a caster may be in any given settlement for quick reference purposes.
2) The GMG does an awkward job of revising the rules for purchasing spells.
I've been running relatively low magic campaigns for years, and I've never considered going back. The 3.x system of magical walmarts is a tedious monster, so I removed it completely. Everyone flying and being immune to everything by mid-level is obnoxious. It makes the game stale because every party ends up using the same spells and getting the same magic items. The checklist of magic BS a party has to pack before they head out is silly. A potion and scroll for every occasion bogs the game down, and the sheer efficiency of certain items makes others simply too easy to pass up.
Inherent bonuses and stat adjustments. I pretty much only use the table. The rest of the rules are alright, but I find they keep too closely to the christmas tree item affect. I also keep secondary weapons and shields equivalent to standard weapons (it's not a particularly elegant solution, so you do get a slight power spike for those users at certain levels; by mid level it's going to happen in a regular game, so more power to the sword-and-board!). Mechanically speaking, this fills the gaps to allow for the creation of more level appropriate content for PCs.
Using these rules has many interesting consequences. For one, running PCs against humanoid adversaries is a lot easier. You don't have to worry about them picking up a treasure trove of simple +X magic loot from every item slot of a dead humanoid NPC's corpse. It also gives PCs incentive to use a variety of different weapons and armor, but in the same breath does not allow PCs to design their builds completely around any given item/enchantment.
For real magic items I typically make them grant powerful effects, such as being made of adamantine. Realistically, adamantine is a disgusting property in and of itself. It basically makes your sword a slightly weaker version of a lightsaber, and I reserve this sort of "magic" item for higher levels (a PC can go on quite the sundering spree with something like this, and the results can be pretty spectacular). Weapons that can bypass DR become truly sought after items.
This doesn't mean magic items have to be simple. I like magic items to be special. Some simple things can be amazing, but complex can also be nice. If you want to give your players an angelically/demonically possessed greatsword that allows for them to summon the entity inside or for them to allow themselves to be possessed and gain special outsider benefits, etc, stat that sucker out and have a blast. You can go pretty crazy or as minimalistic as you feel is appropriate for the campaign. In a low-magic environment, as the DM YOU have control of what the party ultimately possesses and what they fight, for the most part.
I personally keep magic DR intact and make rare item materials a form of magic item. It makes certain monsters absolutely terrifying. Sometimes I lower the DR of specific creatures by an appropriate amount: anything past ten typically goes to around 10 and enemies who have 10/magic sometimes get a reduction to their DR by a few points or by 5 if it is a particularly low CR or has very high damage potential. This is also a very interesting way of nerfing the damage of archers, as they have the most difficult time attaining things like silver and adamantine arrows. I don't personally like DR being a trivial thing. In standard D&D everyone bypassess essentially every type of DR if they are well prepared.
As for attaining magic items, I've done low to virtually no magic item campaigns, but I personally enjoy having them. I don't make them easy to get, but they exist. Questing specifically for magical gear is completely viable; in fact it's one of the biggest motivations for my players.
Money is also a problematic issue when it comes to adventuring as the pathfinder system assumes the PCs will have moon-sized chunks of platinum by the end of their careers. I typically solve this by drastically reducing the monetary rewards, if there are any at all, for various adventures. Players can make a very comfortable living, significantly better than they could otherwise. Not every goblin shack has a few gold in it. This income can cover housing, base making, luxury good purchases, land, paying servants, etc, depending on their level. Depending on the world I typically allow players to maintain their stuff and get a little extra spending money on the side. If they want to save up or are looking to buy something specific we discuss the details between game sessions and come to an arrangement on costs or we make a quest out of it. Castles aren't cheap. It is an incredible undertaking to fund the creation of one.
Personally I've found that players willing to indulge in the finer things in life tend to make this a lot easier. Penny pinchers are more work, but as a DM it's my job to give the players shiny things to spend all that gold on. All this is very campaign specific, but just be aware that it is an issue. Deal with it early, even if it is a rough fix to start.
As for loot, it can be an ordeal in and of itself. Retrieving large art pieces and statues, etc, can be a hassle. Gold isn't exactly light-weight either, and no bags of holding can make for interesting situations.
As for spell-casters, I started with no casters to see what it was like. Then, I allowed limited casting and caster multi-classers. I've evolved to allow essentially every type of caster. My main rule is don't be an ass. It's not an elegant rule, but it has worked for me and my group for years. My casters and I go over what spells they're thinking about running and I give the o k or ask them to change them depending on the campaign. I typically ban out obvious problematic spells, like Teleport. After that, depending on the feel of the campaign I make adjustments to the list. Frequent bans are as follows: Polymorphs and illusion spells that change appearance, Enlarge/reduce person, spells that enhance weapons, knock, virtually every summon spell,anything that creates items/food/water, and most flying spells. Typically any spell that eliminates a skill check is subject to question. I make exceptions all the time for character concepts, but my players need to ask in advance so I can adjust encounters accordingly. I like spells providing for new tactical options, but I don't like spells trivializing the world at large. I also don't like players picking spells because they are they are simply the best option. As a result, depending on the world I make modifications or outright ban spells like protection from evil and the various resist element spells. Often times I don't ban spells but give them rare spell components or focuses to make them a tactical option (huge gems aren't so easy to come by in my world, etc). Similarly, I don't allow item creation feats. Typically if a player really wants to make a magic item it becomes a quest (gotta figure out how to actually do it, gather up all the stuff, find an appropriate work space, and then actually make the item which may or may not require help). I often make exceptions for scrolls and certain potions.
Healing can also be an issue. Typically I go with a very specialized method of making HPs more like skill/luck. Physical damage isn't typically taken until a character's HP reaches negative (I make exceptions for various special attacks and certain crits). That's when blood starts spraying and bones get broken. For an average game, if a player hasn't been actually wounded or isn't fatigued/exhausted they roll their HD and heal an amount equal to the roll+con mod. If I want a tougher game it goes to an hour and I restrict divine healing by a lot.
A much less drastic alternative that I've used is giving players an ability or item similar to the old belt of healing.
The real question, I think, is whether or not you want to make the game harder, more gritty and real, or just streamline it. After you've decided that, creating a setting/rules becomes a lot easier.
edit: I'm sorry this post is so massive. I didn't realize just how big it was until I clicked submit.
I don't think buying magic items is at all an efficient use of money in a war. Other than a few of the cheapest wands and some of the more potent scrolls, they are overpriced for such a purpose.
The real question is, how much does it costs to employ a war mage for any given length of time? Does he work by commission? I imagine this would get ridiculously pricey, so much so that it wouldn't be feasible with the standard service rules, even if you had a large discount.
An mercenary war mage might come with his own wand in his equipment. He may or may not charge for the use of said wand, but the advantage here would be that you probably wouldn't pay for the full cost of the wand. Unless we are fully arming a standing military or some sort of conscripts, a mercenary squad should come fully armed which brings me to my next point.
Vassaldom is something we really should be considering. Most medieval wealth comes from land. Coins are nice, and hiring mercenaries is vital to warfare. However, I don't think it's reasonable to assume a fully commercialized economy for every nation within a fantasy setting nor could we expect full standing armies from every nation. This poses a question of what it requires for magic users to become vassals and if other vassals will bring their own spellcasters and what that entails. That also raises the question of whether or not they would bring their casters at all. They are an incredibly valuable resource, and an individual lord or a caster lord might not be so inclined to send their most valuable assets, or themselves for that matter, into the fray. A more centralized government might not have such reservations.
This is all incredibly setting specific , but it bears mentioning. How much cash a nation has on hand to spend directly affects their military power. How much they can swell their ranks with mercenaries is an important question. The bigger question is, how much does a mage cost to hire?
Now comes the really big question. Does it cost more to higher a caster than a standard non-casting class? How much is an 8th level Barbarian worth in comparison to an 8th level wizard? If the caster deviates from that price by much, I have a feeling that any non-caster mercenary would have a lot more bang for their buck. The level system, in general, makes things really wonky when it comes to warfare, as a higher level mercenary could very easily make a huge difference on a battlefield. When a single man can slaughter hundreds of men or more by himself, whether he's a spell-caster or not, that changes the dynamics of things by quite a bit. If the high level archer can kill a man with every arrow what happens to that battlefield?
So is this really a question about how casters affect warfare? If we stick to the general theme of low-level NPCs mostly fighting the wars, and if they are as expensive as I imagine they might be, I doubt it. If we have any sort of mid-high level components, they throw everything out of whack and then it might come down to what cheesy strategy we could come up with abusing spells that weren't designed with this thing in mind. This also throws a question of how should we be designing NPCs in this environment? Base NPC classes are very limiting.
There is a lot to consider. As it has been pointed out, the utility of certain spells might be incredibly advantageous on a case by case basis, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty, the vancian spellcasting system is awkward at best.
I actually don't see a problem with a large chunk of the farmers being low level spell casters. If you look back in mythology, how many farmers wives were midwives?
I see it as perfectly acceptable for farm wives to be adepts or low level oracles, healing, blessings, and such.
You see that as acceptable, but the marauding orcs don't like the fact that their CR 1 butts have to contend with several 5th level spellcasters at every thorp, and that just down the road in virtually any direction there are several more. And the small town or larger settlement that is the hub for these smaller settlements have even more spellcasters of even greater potency to deal with any sort of rabble, be they orcs or bandits or w/e. The bestiary can't cope with this reality. The militia have big sections of spellcasters; farmers themselves are casters. Who do these poor monsters pick on that would require an adventurer to deal with?
mdt wrote:
The problem is you seem to have this fixation with the PCs being the only people in the world working on the problems int he world.
The idea that the PCs are special snowflakes and the only people in the entire world who can deal with problems is, to me, the stupidly illogical one. They are just the people dealing with these problems at this location at this time, and usually if they fail, someone else will take up the slack (which is why people always seem to 'pop up' when someone dies, to take their place solving this problem at this time in this place).
Sir I refuse to argue your house rules (NYAH!).
The default setting clearly make all PCs special snowflakes. It sets out by saying they are better than the vast majority of people and great things will be expected of them. They have the potential to be the stuff of legends. This is a fantasy setting. Most of our concepts of a fantasy settings are purely illogical. None of the utopian-esque, egalitarian high fantasy BS makes any sense if we are taking the real world as any sort of example, but it is by far the most common setting for D&D. Dungeons don't make any sense (I mean like none at all), and neither do dragons for that matter. But that's besides the point. It's a setup from the get-go, a sham. The PCs are indeed special snowflakes trying to save the world, not watch as the army of ridiculous casters, that they practically trip over in your vision of a setting, have virtually nothing to fear from a good chunk of the bestiary they are likely to encounter.
You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'NYAH NYAH NYAH' every time someone says something or points to rules you don't like.
To be honest you do this a lot.
I agree with him on that particular ruling, however. It's how I interpret it. It's not 100% clear, that is certain, but I believe his view makes more sense from a purely RAW perspective. The player's book is clearly the more detailed rule that players have the most access too, and the GM guideline is just that, a guideline that shows you how powerful a caster can be in any particular area you happen to create on the fly.
There is also a RAI argument to be made here. What you propose is absurd. Plain absurd. You would never need an adventurer for anything because half the world's populations are multi-leveled spellcasters. Goblins and orcs? Yeah right, the local hamlets have enough druids in a days walking distance to make an army of relatively high level casters. With your understanding of the way this fantasy system works a good chunk of farmers are magic users. They have to be, by necessity. There aren't enough regular people to do it otherwise. Even if you do want to cling to your own interpretation of the rules (lets be real here, there is definitely room to argue what the correct ruling is; you are not right just because you can shout NYAH the loudest) at a certain point we really should take a step back and really take a look at what's actually being said. Logic should prevail not the need to be right.
In the context of mass combat, Pathfinder's standard ranged weapons (bows and crossbows) are thousands of times deadlier at the extremes of their range than are modern military firearms, because they have a minimum 5% accuracy.
There's very little reason to use melee weapons as a primary tool of mass combat when a natural 20 with a bow always hits what it's aimed at. You'd have formations suffering higher rates of casualties before they even closed with one another than the side that got crushed would have suffered in an entire ancient or medieval battle.
The rules for mass combat in the Ultimate Campaign don't follow those rules at all, though. Similarly, it makes provisions that unloading all your arrows/bolts will have an impact in army cost/maintenance.
While theoretically an automatic success mechanic would have interesting applications, throughout 3.5 and in pathfinder via the ultimate campaign, rules for mass archer attacks have been hashed out to prevent such things.
Also, historically bows and light ranged infantry have found eras of dominance both in medieval and ancient warfare. However, they don't often maintain that level of dominance. They are not the end-all weapon for a variety of reasons, including armor advancements to tactical ingenuity. If we're looking at serious army compositions, polearms are probably our go-to weapon for a high middle-ages feel, surprisingly enough.
It is reasonable to assume that any rules for mass ranged combat, those already established or forthcoming, would not succumb to mechanical abuses as simplistic as this.
You proved my point. How is magic rare or uncommon when even a 100 person village has several 5th level casters?
Hold the phone. Where did you get this from? According to the goods and service rules for spell casters you aren't even guaranteed ANY spell casters at all until you reach a small town (200-2000 pop)which would be guaranteed to have a handful of first level casters.The numbers you listed were the maximum that an adventuring party could expect from any given settlement.
Using your calculations, with that in mind, there would be hundreds of casters, not tens of thousands.
That is the updated version. A lot has changed. The Fighter Specialities aren't anywhere close to being fleshed out, but the gist of it is there. I'm thinking about adding other archetypes like great weapon fighters, but we'll see.
I know it looks a little crazy, but my method of working is throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. Everything will be toned down in time. I'd rather it start off overpowered as all hell and then work my way down to an acceptable, if not slightly overpowered, state.
If anyone could give feedback/throw ideas, especially for defensive abilities and the fleshing out of the specialities, that would be greatly appreciated.
So we're back to house rules about setting specific rules?
I cannot debate house rules. You are always correct on house rules, because they are HOUSE RULES. Since you are arguing your house rules, you are always correct.
I understand the reasoning behind this one liner of yours, but it is fundamentally flawed. You're using it as a crutch in your argument to hand wave away everything that's being debated. No one is house ruling anything. This is, relatively speaking, common sense applied to a well established fantasy setting archetype. Within a typical fantasy setting magic users are a small fraction of the general populace (including Pathfinder's official Golarion setting), and within that group is a further subdivision which includes sorcerers. That makes them rare. We could argue endlessly on what rare actually means, but if you want to look up Golarion specific stats, there are threads out there to confirm this (as it follows the generic 3.5 rules for populations and magic).
mdt wrote:
Let's say you had only one ancestor for a given bloodline, after 10 generations, assuming only two kids per generation...
2^10 = 1024 people with that bloodline.
Go another 10 generations, and you have millions with that bloodline.
And that's only 1 dragon, or one demon.
Even if you submit that only 1% of the people with a bloodline will be a sorcerer, after 10 generations, that's 10 people. And after 20, it's tens of thousands.
You don't have nearly enough factors in order for these rather arbitrary statistics to mean something. It's a nice gesture to put a little thought into something like this, but it requires a whole lot more to make something that is presentable for this sort of theoretical graph to be useful. Also, you sort of demonstrated the complications of why the sorcerer population could be quite small. Assuming only a very small portion of actual descendants inherit the correct traits means you could see a rather dramatic shrinking in the number of viable sorcerers after a certain number of generations.
The fact that the number of magic users is low, that they aren't all sorcerers to begin with, and that we could pseudo-logically deduce why everyone isn't a sorcerer all point to the fact that they are indeed "rare". However you interpret the actual figure is up for debate, but this seems so far off topic that I'm not sure it's useful to this thread anymore.
I'm not assuming anything, I using the book as written.
A sorcerer is not a half-dragon (or at least, doesn't have to be).
I never said sorcerers were half-dragons, or even close to that. You don't seem to understand my point at all. I suggest re-reading it because I was talking about "Generations ago" as well and the likely-hood of those traits actually being passed down over a very long period of time.
The point being, having just one Dragon impart his draconic essence into humans could, a thousand years later, result in tens of thousands of people with his DNA smouldering around in their genes. Then do that for jennies, efrit, elementals, vampires, and so on... Doesn't take many boinkers to spread sorcerer genes around.
Just a random nitpick here, this premise is fairly inaccurate. You're using humans as a baseline when infact you're talking about half-humans, etc down the genetic thinning of said half-breed's line. This assumes that a half-breed gets a chance to breed at all and that they have the same fertility/infant survival rates as a human.
Assuming that they survive, are allowed to breed, their lineage survives, the appropriate genes stay alive without crossing a new line back in, etc, is an awful lot to assume.
Then you also assume that everyone with any trace of non-human ancestry automatically has the potential to become a sorcerer.
Depending on how "realistic" your world is, the fact that such unions could be quite rare could very well make sorcerers exceedingly rare. Genetics being what they are could very well remove all traces of sorcery over time.
In a not-so realistic world or one in which half-breeds are relatively common occurrences, you could have nations of sorcerers. It's really more about the setting. However, I think the default setting favors the former rather than the latter.
This is my first post here, and it is my hope that you fine folks could help me with my old fighter fix.
It has been quite awhile since I've been active in a 3.X system. Originally I made this fighter "fix" for 3.5 way back in 08. I had modified it quite a bit after I had initially posted it on the Wizards forums; however those modifications didn't survive the years and computer upgrades.
So here I am today with the rough draft pilfered from my original post. I like a lot of the Pathfinder changes, but the classes seem far too tame for my liking. I am a person who likes having abilities and options, and I see the 3.X system's action economy as the perfect place to both enhance and diversify the class system.
Keep in mind this is a straight port from a 3.5 post and I haven't had time to modify it beyond trying to get the formatting for this forum to an acceptable level (I still don't know what to do about the table). Like I said before, I had made a lot of modifications to this. The parry system got reworked and anything that had a feat prerequisite or a flat bonus to hit were made more elegant (incorporating the feats into specializations and making bonuses to hit more specialized). Each of the combat specialities also had an upgrade path that filled dead levels. Combat Superiority was also tweaked to make it not so spectacular.
With all that in mind I'm hoping for comments on the action economy and how to improve it; ideas for new defensive abilities that aren't tied to feats (as specific specialty trees will get defensive bonuses when I finish them based off of feats); and finally I'm really looking for any glaring problems my system has coming into pathfinder opposed to 3.5. Any other comments, ideas, or inspirations are welcome.
A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor(Heavy, Medium, and Light) and shields(including tower shields)
Weapons Training:
Fighters train obsessively with armor and weapons of all kinds, and learning to use a new weapon is a simple task. By practicing with a weapon he is proficient with for 30 minutes, he can switch any feats specific to a single weapon to a different weapon he is proficient with. He may adjust any number of feats in this way, but he cannot change them in such a way that he no longer meets the prerequisites for other feats he possesses.
Bonus Feats:
At first level, second level, and every even level thereafter the fighter gains a bonus feat.
Heroic Expertise:
Beginning at 3rd level a fighter may choose one of the following expertises. To apply their expertise the feats in question must be fighter bonus feats.
-Dexterous Expertise: The fighter may choose to ignore the dexterity requirements of feats.
-Intellectual Expertise: The fighter may choose to ignore the intelligence requirements of feats.
-Wise Expertise: The fighter may choose to ignore the wisdom requirements of feats.
Adamant Resolve:
At 4th level as an immediate action a fighter may reduce his base attack bonus by up to one half and gain a bonus equal to the sacrificed amount on their will save, this effect last until the end of their next turn.
Combat Specialty:
At 5th level the fighter may choose one discipline to focus in.
-Powerful Specialty: Requires one feat thats effects a special attack that is modified by size(Tripping,Grappling,Bullrushing etc).The unique training, experiences, and abilities of a fighter lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger. Whenever a fighter is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the fighter is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. A fighter is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this ability stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category. (Note: they don't get to wield larger size weapons)
-Ranged Specialty: Requires Pointblank Shot. The fighter may use ranged weapons while being threatened and not provoke attacks of opportunity, additionally they gain their bonus from PBS at a range of 60ft.
-Finesse Specialty: Requires Weapon Finesse and Dodge. Use dexterity instead of strength for bonus damage with finesse weapons, in addition their dodge bonus applies to all foes within 60ft.
-Defensive Specialty: Requires Combat Expertise and Combat Reflexes. Gain an additional attack of opportunity per round per point used for Combat Expertise, in addition for every two points of attack bonus spent in Combat Expertise gain an additional +1 AC bonus.
-Shield Specialty: Shield Specialization and Shield Bash. Whenever the fighter uses a shield and any other weapon they can apply all feats that would normally be transferable with Weapons Training to the shield and the other weapon, in addition they gain their shield bonus to their touch AC.
-Weapon Mastery: You gain proficiency with all weapons and any transferable feats through Weapons Training is automatically applied to any weapon you wield, in addition you gain Quick Draw as a bonus feat
-General SpecialtyNo Requirements. Gain an additional bonus feat, in addition you gain an additional bonus feat at 10th, 15th and 20th level.
Disrupting Attack:
A Fighter of 6th level may delay his action in one round without compromising his Initiative in the next round. In addition, Whenever a fighter declares that they are readying an action they may use this ability in place of the normal specific readied action. As part of this action a fighter can take a 5ft step and make a single attack action(Note: This does grant the use of a 5ft step even if you've already moved that round). If you attempt a disarm or sunder you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack.
Mettle:
At 7th level a fighter can resist magical or unusual attacks. If he makes a successful Will or Fortitude save against an attack that normally would have a lesser effect on a successful save(such as any spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), they instead completely negate the effect. An unconscious or sleeping fighter does not gain the benefit of mettle.
Combat Parry:
At 9th level as an immediate action the fighter gains the ability to counter enemy attacks with their own. As part of this immediate action the fighter makes an opposed attack roll, if this attack succeeds the fighter thwarts a single enemy attack, if it fails the enemy's attack is resolved as normal.
Weapon Master:
At 10th level fighter is a master of their weapons and can manipulate and utilize weapons in ways few others can. With this ability a fighter can change the damage type of his weapon to slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. This affect activates automatically against corresponding damage reduction. In addition the fighter adds +1 to their attack and damage roles.
Extended Reach:
At 11th level the fighter has learned to master the area around them. A fighter gains 5ft to their reach.
Combat Form:
At 14th level a fighter has developed their own unique fighting style. The fighter gains a bonus +1 on attack and damage roles and a +2 bonus on all special attacks opposed checks(such as sunder/trip/bullrush etc)
Combat Superiority:
At 17th level a fighter’s prowess in combat allows them to take advantage of the slightest errors in an opponent’s guard. As a swift or immediate action the fighter can make an attack at their highest base attack bonus.
Combat Mastery:
A 20th level fighter can take 2 immediate actions in any round.
