JRM's page

The cover resolution is very low.

Yes, I noticed that too.

The thumbnail doesn't link to a "proper sized" version of the cover when clicked on like the thumbnails on the product discussions for issues #145, #146 and #147.

…Hmm, the cover images for #149 and #150 are also low-resolution.

The picture of Bilt has a broken link.

It points to http://static4.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderTales/PZO8500-ThePatchMan- Blit.jpg which returns a "The requested URL was not found on this server, or you do not have permission to access this area" error.

I'm guessing it should point to http://static4.paizo.com/image/content/PathfinderTales/PZO8500-ThePatchMan- Blit_500.jpeg, which is the 500-pixel wide version of the picture.

To be honest heavy crossbows should have a strength requirement.

Well if we were being realistic, crossbows would have a draw strength, and the relationship between the crossbow's Strength and that of the user would determine what type of crossbow it would be, e.g something like.

e.g. something like:

Crossbow Strength = User Strength or less: light crossbow (standard action to load and fire, can be cocked by hand.)

Crossbow Strength = User Strength +1 to +x: heavy crossbow (full-round action to load and fire, needs a stirrup or lever to cock).

Crossbow Strength = User Strength +x+1 to +y: arbalest (requires multiple full-round actions to load and fire, needs a windlass or cranequin to cock.)

When fired, the weapon uses the crossbow's Strength instead of the user's strength. Oh, and a weak character can always get a burly character to arm a crossbow for them.

This isn't an original idea, plenty of RPGs have use it (like GURPS and Aftermath, for example).

Gnolls are polyandrous, so the First Mate and Second Mate of the gnoll pirate ships are actual mates of the captains!

(I love my bad puns!)

I guess great minds think alike, because I've got Gnoll pirates in my campaign world who have the same Matriarch captain & mates hierarchical structure. They mainly operate galleys, since they may not be the greatest of sailors (they often employ other races to help operate their ships), but they're sure strong oarsmen. Fifty Gnolls with a +4 racial bonus to Strength can row a small galley a fair bit faster than 50 humans can, giving them a significant advantage in manoeuvering at sea*.

*I'd have said naval manoeuvres, but Gnoll belly-dancers never caught on ;).

"Swallow Whole" as a D&D mechanic only allows a creature to swallow something 2 sizes smaller than itself, you have them listed as tiny. Is there a size smaller than minute?

Oh no it doesn't.

Many 3/3.5E D&D monsters are able to swallow creatures more than 2 sizes smaller than themselves (e.g. the SRD's Dire Shark, Purple Worm and Tendriculos can all can swallow creatures one size category smaller than they are, while the Gibbering Mouther can swallow a creature its own size).

The only size restriction built into the Swallow Whole mechanics is that the monster must grapple the target. Since you can't usually grapple an opponent more than one size larger than yourself, presumably it's normally impossible for a monster to Swallow Whole a victim 2 or more sizes larger than itself.

Ah, no, originally the barbarian was its own class in 1e's Unearthed Arcana, not counting its original publication in - if memory serves correctly - the pages of Dragon magazine prior to that.

You are correct. "The Big, Bad Barbarian" by Gary Gygax, Dragon #63, pages 8-11. The class was a lot closer to the literary inspirations Thurgon mentions back on page 3 of this thread (Conan, Fafhrd et cetera) then the 3rd/4th edition version. It was based on wilderness skills, alertness, toughness and fighting skill and, most significantly, had nothing resembling a Rage ability. A 3E barbarian is closer to some of the non-official AD&D Berserker classes that cropped up in a few magazines back then.

Well, I'm sure REH didn't stat him up with barbarian levels ;)

On the other hand, I'm almost willing to bet that without Conan there would not have been an impetus to include a barbarian class in D&D in the first place.

Definitely. I had a go at statting up Conan as a 3rd edition character last year, and got something pretty close to the Howard version with a 4th level Rogue / 2nd level Barbarian / 1st level Fighter / 1st level Ranger. Howard must have rolled really well on his ability scores, though. :)

Digitalelf wrote:

Sandstorm lists a parasol as costing 3 gp, and weighing 2 lbs...

That works nicely :) Using the Kaiser's Bazaar Books, I figured out a bunch of variant types of parasols (lacquered paper or cloth) and how much they cost if the player wants 'em painted. Several of the varieties wound up at 3gp or less, with the fancier materials going up the scale. And now I have a weight thanks to you!

*SNIP*

That seems rather pricey at the low end, the cheaper non-folding parasols were just split bamboo with waterproof paper stuck on, yet it costs more than an Artisan's Outfit.

That gives me an idea ... how about making a parasol half the weight and price of a suit of clothing of the desired status (e.g. a Peasant's Parasol, bamboo & paper, 5 cp and 1 lb; an Artisan's Parasol, wood & waterproof cloth, 5 sp and 2 lbs; a Royal Parasol, silk and cloth of gold and fine woods, folding with metal hinges, 100gp and 7.5 lbs - price does not include the flunky to hold it over you).

Not a problem! Anytime there old-timer, I aim to please... ;-P

Is that sass talk ye young punk? Don't make me to fetch me cane and give you a whuppin'! >:[

Us old-timers have so many levels and character classes we can't even remember them all, so's you'd better watch yer lip!

Or is it that I'm just getting forgetful in my dotage? :P

I'm afraid I feel the same way...

I'm pushing 40 HARD, and I just cannot fathom the appeal that 4e holds...

Oh well...

-That One Very Old Digitalelf Fellow-

Yep, 10 more months before I hit that wall...

Wow; and I thought three years was looking grim. I'll have to remember to practice more respect for my elders on these boards. :D

Gee, thanks for making me feel like an antique. I passed the barrier that is causing you such trepidation a couple of years ago.

Don't worry though, the gaming can be just as good on The Other Side. ;)

I had this long ranty thing typed up, had to reboot and lost the cut/paste thingy, but it all boils down to this:

I'm getting too old, I guess. When I played soccer as a kid, there were winners and losers. Teachers gave "F"s. When you got sent to your room, it wasn't a suite of electronics that would make Mission Control at JSC envious.

We had to use our imaginations for everything. We didn't have an X-Box/computer doing it for us. (Yes, even then, we knew Atari sucked). Our game was based on childhood like that, not childhoods spent in front of CRTs and flat panels.

Well I won't agree with you there. Just because they take a different approach doesn't mean their imaginations are poorer. Some of the younger gamers I've met have had richer approach to fantasy than some of the more stuck-in-the-mud oldschool players.

I don't care much for the "My character can not lose" approach to play, but there's still a lot of good in the new blood.

I admire what Skip Williams was trying to do, and I think he was taking the game in the right direction. A good DM wants his decisions to make sense and be believable to players. *SNIP*

You're right, it's telling that Skip actually employs the analogy of nailing down loose boards (presumably to avoid tripping). So yes, I admit I prefer more of what you call nailing down the rules. However, I do count agreed-upon house rules as "nailed down". *SNIP*

I think the point was player empowerment, not legalistic slavishness to what is written. And I do think that player empowerment encourages better DM behavior. (Abuses still need to be prevented, but on the plus side, nothing exposes problems with the rules faster than players abusing them.) Most players are willing to sacrifice some of that power for the sake of immersion in the campaign world, but are less inclined to resent it if it's part of a negotiation with the DM.

We seem to be straying away from the topic of Gygaxian Naturalism here, but it's an interesting subject so I think it's worth a somewhat over-elaborate digression.

There are all kinds of issues tangled up with this, but I'll see if I can pull a few of them out.

The first should be the most obvious: it's all a matter of taste. Some groups are fine with a whimsical DM who just makes up whatever they like, others would go batty.

The second is that's it's a matter of degree. I find a little "appearance of DM fiat" is a good thing in a game, helping things run smoothly and enhancing the fun for all involved. Going over the line in any direction can mess up a game, although where said line is varies from person to person.

If you nail down the rules too much it denies much opportunity for spontaneity, if the boards are so loose the DM's whims may result in all the player characters falling through the holes.

As for helping the DM make believable decisions, that requires the rules to be believable. There are a elements of the rules in all versions of D&D that aren't terribly good for sustaining verisimilitude. In the case of 3E, some of the ways initiative and movement actions work can create situations I find a bit absurd.

I agree with you that house rules can be as good as "nailed down" core rules. It’s fairness and consistency that counts (or at least the appearance of it) more than whether its in the SRD.

Even player empowerment can be a bad thing if taken too far. In extreme cases the legendary CharOps munchkins loom over the horizon, threatening to wreck the DM's world with their answer to Pun-Pun, or you get "jerk players" with such an inflated sense of entitlement they'll throw a hissy fit if you disallow a particularly juicy exploit they've come up with.

Someone pointed out that 4e tries to make DM'ing easier and encourage more people to feel comfortable in the role of DM. I actually think that's a worthy goal, but what was traded in the effort to achieve it?

Oh yes, the much greater ease of DM set up is one of the things I like about fourth edition. I've gotten a bit disillusioned with the fiddlyness of 3rd edition's NPC and monster generation.

I also feel they cut too much off some of 4E beasties, although I can see why they did it. What's the point of 15 options for a creature that will only live for 4 rounds?

Your multi-optioned Monster Sample Tactics is a good solution. It would use up quite a lot of space though. Wizards gave detailed tactic-sequences for some of the more complicated foes in a few 3E Monster Manuals, but most went a bit linear, kind of "W in round 1, X in round 2, then alternate Y & Z" tactics.

Been a year sense I read it last but my point stands. In particular, if this actually happened in Gygax's campaign and it seems very possible that it did, then the implication is that Gygax nonchalantly stripped his players of every last magic item they had. He cleaned them out in return for allowing them to escape his island adventure.

Oh I agree with your principle point ("the adventurer was so tough a former party of adventuring stars fled from it naked rather than face it"), I was just indulging my somewhat regrettable tendency to niggle over details.

Speaking of niggling. If I remember correctly the leader or the party in question, Mordenkainen, was one of Gygax's own characters, so I suspect it'd have to be based on something that happened to him in another campaign (Arnerson's?), or a reclothing of something he did to a different party.

Was all of this said by Skip Williams?!? Or was this last part a quote from JRM? Just wondering?

Well said, regardless.

It's only the section in the Quote that's from the Skip William interview (i.e. the greyed-out "Answer 5" "Answer 6" bit).

The rest of it's just my own current musings on the subject.

I'll throw out another example. Ever read Isle of the Ape? Another fantastic Gygaxian test of skill and mettle. The environment itself attacks your scrolls and your food supply - if your there long starving to death or biting it from tropical disease is a very real way your high level character might finally meet his end. This is a place were a party that has slain dragons might be reduced to eating their belts and, ultimately succumb, to some nasty tropical disease or simply hunger itself.

The set up for that adventure is pretty brilliant as it relates to the first group that ventured forth onto the island. It tells us a story about a group of adventurers who, while exploring Castle Greyhawk, ventured forth through a portal onto the island and there faced such challenges that they escaped only by using powerful magic. The price, however, was extremely high for they returned to the safety of their home base in Greyhawk city naked, stripped of all their treasure, all their magic, their spell books...everything.

I've got that module and re-read it last year, so ff my memory serves me right that's not quite how it worked out.

The group of adventurers you refer to did not return to their Greyhawk city base, but returned to the deep level beneath Castle Greyhawk they'd entered the Isle of the Ape's demi-plane from.

They then had to fight their way out of the Dungeon naked and unarmed.

Adventurers today get it easy, eh, compared to Mordenkainen and his crew. :P

Golly, this thread has had some great posts since the last time I checked in, I barely know were to reply, but I'll give it a shot by dividing it into what I see as the key issues.

Story Versus Play

Firstly, I don't think much old-school D&D was driven by plot. The play did not emerge from the story, but stories emerged from the play. Ye bolde adventurers ventured into a wilderness or dungeon and no-one, DM included, may have a clue what will happen. They might do a detailed map of the dungeon and rough out some goals for different bigwigs, such as "the evil wizard is trying to clear the SW corner of the dungeon of monsters so his goblin servants can mine the silver veins in rooms 17-21", but that'd be about as far as a "plot" goes.

Pick and Mix Versus Integrated Games

Some early editions of D&D are, in my humble opinion, rather messy, unfocused games. First edition AD&D, for example, is certainly a lot less clear on rules issues than 3rd and 4th edition. I've seen lots of people on various fora accuse 3rd edition of being too "simulationist" or 4E of being too "gamist" but I can't recall anyone laying any such charges against 1st or 2nd edition AD&D, and I suspect this may be because it was both. AD&D was a glorious gumbo, with lumps of detailed rules floating in a soup of loose abstract mechanics. How it ran in play was more about the tastes of the DM than the Rules As Written. An AD&D DM who liked a "realistic" and "low-fantasy" game could pick out the bits from the game-rule buffet that suited their tastes, and just make up the rest.

Which reminds me, didn't someone on this thread use rpg.net's Old Geezer to claim D&D had always been about killing things and taking their stuff? I think I'll disagree, Mr O. G.'s most important insight was original D&D was about "making up s**t we thought would be fun."

Trying To Legislate Against Bad DMs

Third edition, on the other hand, goes farther than I liked in nailing down the rules. After a year or so after 3E was released I was feeling it had more of a "this is how you should play" attitude than the "anything goes, pick the rules you like" vibe of older editions. There were bits of the rules that just rubbed me the wrong way, mostly those that appeared to needlessly curb the options of the DM. I won't bother going into details.

By a curious serendipity, there was an interview with Skip Williams on grognardia a week ago that gave me an insight into the cause of this feeling. Here's some relevant quotes:

Answer 5: "Whenever we came to a place in the rules where I knew DMs and players were going to clash, I'd tell a "campaign from hell" story, in which a character (mine or someone else's) was in peril and the DM made the most illogical and completely off the wall ruling you could imagine. I tied to be very careful that all the loose boards in the system were well nailed down. Of course, people still found ways to pry them loose again."

Answer 6: "The early designers were wrong. It comes down to this: If you want to be in control of your character, you have to have some idea how anything you might try is going to come out. and you can't know that unless you have some idea of how the rules are going to handle the situation. If the GM is making capricious decisions about what happens in the game, you're always shooting in the dark and you have no real control over your character at all. Think of how hard it would be to, say, learn to ride a bicycle if the laws of physics were constantly in flux. The game just works better if the DM and players have similar expectations about how the rules handle things."

So, basically he was trying to write 3rd edition so that the game was proof against bad DMs. I have some sympathy with the aims, but feel that writing a rule-set to prevent 'jerk DMs' is an impossible ambition. Writing a set of rules is unlikely to stop a person being a jerk, they'd just ignore them. Worse, it ignore the fact that there will be jerks on they other side of the screen too, and arguably the new rules can give "jerk players" a troubling sense of entitlement — you know the sort of thing, demanding access to goodies from obscure and unbalanced sourcebooks and the like. Of course, there were plenty of twats playing RPGs before 3rd edition came out, I just see how "anti-bad DM rules" would help the situation.

Rules Tinkering & Complexity

Some parts of 3E, such as grappling and high-level play, also had more detail in their rules than I felt was worth it. Now, I love tinkering with RPG rule systems and making up complicated mechanics, but when the crunch of actual play comes I prefer a combination of fairly simple rules and just making up something that seems appropriate.

A Word About 4E

Now, that leads me to have more sympathy for 4th edition. I do approve of its ease-of-use and clarity of design. If only it didn't throw away the baby with the bathwater by disposing of a lot of D&D legacies that worked perfectly well I would probably have brought it. In the end, Wizards' disregard for the game's continuity and the (too me) too "gamist" approach to mechanics just turned me off. Then they started nailing down a coffin over my interest in 4th edition with their advertising, and buried it by pulling the older edition pdfs.

Oh well, so long as there's the OGL, Pathfinder and the Old-School Renaissance I'll be all right.

For the record, I have my own alignment descriptions:

LE - Wants to overcome obstacles. Believes in honor and probably has a personal code of behavior. Most likely evil alignment to have good manners and a strong work ethic. Typically prefers harsh penalties and few mitigating circumstances for broken rules. Respects strength of character and despises unfocused or lazy behavior. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to create disorder.
Archetypes: hanging judge, hereditary nobility, head of crime family

NE - Wants to avoid obstacles. Believes in self-gratification, even to the detriment of others. Most likely evil alignment to do good, if only because it makes life easier. Probably a social outcast or drifter, NE takes a pessimistic view of life and assumes that others think the same way; making them distrustful of others. Respects determination and despises attempts to alter their personality or beliefs. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to make sacrifices.
Archetypes: bounty hunter, carouser, mercenary

CE - Wants to destroy obstacles. Believes in will to power, or that "might makes right". Most likely evil alignment to be identified outright as evil, making life difficult within society. Has no desire or respect for laws and institutions. Respects strength of arms and despises weakness. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to conform.
Archetypes: bandit, serial killer, rebellious servant

Interesting, your idea of Neutral Evil is quite different from mine.

I've always thought NE characters are the least likely to do good. I see them as the most purely malevolent of the alignments, motivated by jealousy, hatred and a desire to destroy. NE characters are the death-worshipers, serial killers and ruinous nihilists. People who loathe the world and want to tear it down, either to bring "blissful oblivion" or to rebuild a new world that caters to their tastes, or even one to create a "good" world in which they and other evil creatures never existed.

A Lawful Evil creature may empower Good by following the laws of the land or honouring its obligations, a Chaotic Evil creature may do good on a whim (since their actions are more likely to be impulsive, inconsistent or plain random - they are Chaotic, after all), or have a few 'good' friends/associates/enemies they treat with great love, respect and consideration, while being hell-fiends to everyone else.

Regarding personal experiences with evil PCs, I can recall GMing three campaigns were the players mostly ran evil characters. The earliest was my first ever D&D campaign, and the characters are still going to this day. Despite the majority of PCs being CE they looked out for each other, reserving their malignancy for some of the NPCs they met.

The problem with evil campaigns usually comes from the players, not the characters. Too many people just use it as an excuse for the old backstabbing. The other two campaigns with evil parties I've ran both collapsed due to that, the first one after almost everyone started killing each other over the loot, the second due to the action of one player who (for little in game reason) decided that his LE character should try murdering his adventuring companions.

I don't mind running evil PCs, but if they can't learn to co-operate for mutual survival as well as neutral or good PCs they shouldn't expect me to go easy on them.

The point is not that nobles buy crappy boots costing 1 cp with a gold piece. That would be absurd. Rather, he doesn't buy crappy boots, aiming instead for high-quality boots with rare fur for the 20 gp they cost. The poor farmer is the guy who buys the crappy boots, and has to do so every few months.

That reminds me of something I read in a book on 18th century England which I think is pertinent. This idea that everyone buys their possessions new is a rather modern concept. Before the industrial age there was a lot of 'trickle down' of clothing through the strata of society. The less well off members of society often brought the second hand clothes of their betters, sometimes recycling them into other garments.

Basically, as soon as a person's clothing become too shabby to be considered respectable for someone of their social standing they sell it off, either directly or through a second-hand shop.

It works something like this:

Say, a merchant buys a fine pair of boots for a half-guinea, when they go out of fashion he sells them to a lesser merchant for a half-dozen shillings. The lesser merchant wears them until they lose their shine, then passes them onto a clerk for a couple of shillings. The clerk wears them until the sole starts to wear, then sells them to a foreman for a shilling. The foreman wears them until the upper comes off, then has them repaired by a cobbler and sold to one of his labourers for sixpence. The labourer wears and repairs them until they split, then sells them to a beggar for a penny or two.

Live stock:

1 warhorse (non working) eats 2 acres worth of hay a year
1 Ox eats 2 acres worth of hay a year
6 dairy cows (the knight buys stud services)
27 rabbits (24 does, 3 bucks) (this is the breeding stock)
32 chickens 15 layers/15 rosters 2 rosters

I must raise a point of disagreement with you there, even a poor farmer-knight will need more horses than that to fulfil their feudal obligations, assuming we're basing this on real-world chivalry.

A "one warhorse knight" would not normally ride their warhorse while travelling, since this would tire the animal out. Instead, they'd have a separate riding horse, and their arms and armour would be carried by yet another animal. Furthermore, they'd need mounts for their attendants (even the poorest of knight should have a squire at least). I guess if they're really poor some of their retinue could be on foot, but all of the other knights would snigger at them.

Also, a warhorse needs more than grass to eat, he (it's usually a stallion) needs grain, and plenty of it, to keep him in fighting form.

To me, and this is only opinion, 4e no longer captures that feeling for me, it lacks the ability for me to run it as I have always ran D&D like 1e taught me to. While it may be a great game its doesnt have that Gygaxian feel to me anymore....

Glad to have you join us Eric.

Your feelings about 4E look pretty similar to mine, I think what I've seen of it's a good game, it just doesn't engage me the same way AD&D does. It's good that people are enjoying the new version, but my tastes lie elsewhere.

Check out this website for some stories you might like.

Gah! What is it with me and typos this week, I meant Ashton, not Duncan, it just didn't come out right. :(

Ta for the link. I've got print versions of most of the short stories set in assorted fantasy worlds (like Zothique et cetera) but am short on his SF titles and those set in the "real world" like The Beast of Averoigne or his modern-day works. Some of the fragments are interesting, too.

Anyhows, do you have any ideas on the question of how Gygaxian Naturalism relates to literature, considering such matters as the 1st edition DMG's appendix N or the fiction Gygax wrote?

Gotta love that Jame Malisewski! In addition to the article that I posted to start this thread, I've gotten a few laughs at his blog on High Gygaxian. This term wasn't the first time I'd heard it... we've joked a time or two about High Gygaxian over the years... but in any case, those terms Patrick Curtin suggested will do just fine:)

Hmm, I wonder to what extent the High Gygaxian style contributes to Gygaxian Naturalism. Does reading a text stuffed with baroque verbal flourishes and unusual vocabulary help the imagination of an alternative, fantastic world of mages & monsters?

It certainly did in my case! The evocative best of Gygax's prose helped me forge worlds with that strain of verisimilitude I think of as "Gygaxian Naturalism". While I may have conflicted feelings about some of his writing, which I found very variable in clarity and quality, my fondness for Great EGG's style has certainly influenced my taste in literature. Some of my favourite authors are one's whose lush style I feel has some resemblance to Gygax's ouvre - Clark Duncan Smith and A A Attanasio, for example.

Although that might just be me. :)

JRM wrote:

In 3E the Concentration check to complete the spell after taking damage is just too easy.

Actually, the Concentration check after taking damage is DC 10 + damage dealt (+ spell level in 3.0); continuing damage requires a DC 10 + half continuing damage last dealt (+ spell level in 3.0). That's not necessarily "easy" when the caster just took 30+, 40+, or 50+ (which also triggers a Massive Damage save) points of damage (not that hard to attain with a single attack at high level).

The DC 15 + spell level check for casting defensively (and not triggering an AoO) is the concern. If almost all spells are cast as standard actions, then casting defensively means the only way to disrupt most casting is with a readied action (which makes it the only action taken that round) or through some effect that deals continuing damage (which is usually not a large amount) or some other distraction.

Sorry for the (very late) reply, I've been busy with work & other RPG threads.

Yes, I was probably conflating the DC15+level 'casting defensively' AoO DC with the 10+hp 'taking damage' DC when I typed that, would have been better off saying something like "the Concentration check to complete a spell during combat", I guess.

In any case, in 3E it's a lot easier for a spellcaster to avoid spellus interruptus.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

This does make things a bit more interesting tactically, since the most powerful spells a character can cast require a full round action (and can be disrupted without requiring a readied action). It also makes sense, IMO, "organically." Higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively.

Totally agree. I wish you had suggested this during the beta playtest (maybe you did and I missed it). I think you have a great idea that makes an especially good house rule for those wanting to recapture something special about the 1e feel of magic.

Good ideas there. Although I think a most significant difference between AD&D and 3E is how much easier it was to interrupt the actual spellcasting. All you had to do was inflict damage on the wizard before they finished and the spell was automatically ruined. It made low level spells a lot more valuable in 1E, since they had lower casting times you could usually chuck a magic missile at that archmage before they finished their chain lightning plus giving your fighter-types a change of beating the enemy wizard's initiative and getting them with an arrow or two.

In 3E the Concentration check to complete the spell after taking damage is just too easy.

Oh this brings back so many memories, and there's a lot here I agree with.

I haven't had a chance to more than glance through my copies of C&C and OSRIC (so many games, so little time) but my initial impression was C&C gave me more of a Basic / Expert / Original D&D vibe than Advanced D&D, unlike OSRIC which reminded me far more strongly 1E AD&D.

C&C seemed far more freeform, with fewer details and mechanisms.

Has anyone mentioned Mazes and Minotaurs yet, the 'What if OD&D had become a game based on Greek myth' RPG?

Oh, and I definitely agree with:

The beauty of it is.... they don't have to!!! The less they know about the mechanics, the more they're into their characters and the better the flow of the game. Part of the paradigm shift will be listening to players ask you about their surroundings, as they test/explore them intuitively and in-character. Challenge yourself to leave many things to chance. If you think there's a 50% chance that there would be a monster, a trap, a treasure.... just roll some dice. Let the game surprise even you as-you-play! Have fun.

It makes it so much easier to get into a game when you're thinking about your character and their situation than fooling around with mechanics. Stopping to look up a rule can ruin the game's flow.

These days I prefer a more 'winging it' approach to RPGs, I wouldn't even DM 3rd edition or pathfinder by religiously following the rules. It's just too much trouble. While I love to tinker with game mechanics for my own amusement why follow them slavishly when they get in the way? If the game needs a mid level 3E sorcerer why not just slap together a few appropriate numbers and have at them. What would it matter if the NPC has too many skill ranks and is missing a 3rd level spell?

I quite like the idea behind it, and it fits with the bardic traditions. There are plenty of Celtic legends of bards who could insult someone so viciously it would raise weals on their faces - just imagine doing that a lot of times until the poor sod is wealed to death.

That said, I don't much care for the name. Why not just retitle it Word of Wounding or something?

Vicious Mockery sounds more appropriate for an ability that applies a negative condition to the target (i.e. they're so infuriated they can't fight properly) or compels them in some way (i.e. they move towards the bard to wreak their revenge).

Or how about both? The insulted party must either suffer condition X or be pulled Y squares towards the bard.

I feel I should add a word of explanation to my previous post. This has been one of the best 3E/4E threads I've come across as far as tone of discourse & content goes, so kudos to those involved in making it so, so when I said 'constructive' I wasn't referring to this particular thread in a negative way.

What I meant is I'd much prefer it if these 3-4 comparison threads had more proposals by posters they think would make (insert game of your choice) better, especially as to how to give game X some of the good stuff they like from game Y, such as the earlier posts as to how to emulate some 3E characters in 4E.

For example, when I read the posts about the "pre-4E 1st level characters are too fragile vs 4E 1st level characters lack that 'Sword of the Damocles' thrill" issue, while personally I liked to play beginning level characters, a lot of the guys I gamed with didn't, so we just started out at a higher level (3rd, 5th, 12th or whatever) if the party/DM liked it that way.

Man, I don't care whether James says "PFRGP is better than 4th Edition" or "I feel PFRPG is better than 4th Edition". That's neither here nor there. Inserting the word "feel" (even though he didn't) doesn't suddenly make it more of an opinion and less of a fact - it was always his opinion, just like it would be WotC's opinion to say the opposite. And I'm not getting on James' case, he has every right (as does WotC!) to believe his game of choice - or game he designed - is best. But saying "If WotC started claiming that 4th Edition was better than PFRPG people would have a right to get upset," but doing nothing when the same happens with a company that the individual happens to be particularly infatuated with strikes me as a double-standard. To be honest, nothing should happen in either case, but it seems like people are prescribing unnecessarily heinous standards to WotC that they're unwilling to hold Paizo to.

I don't often post on these threads because, well, they're so very rarely constructive. 4E isn't quite my thing there are quite a few bits of it I quite like.

However, heinous standards. That sounds like a great name for a magical item! I'm thinking a gnoll warband whose commander has a heinous standard of savagery armed hero beside him, which provides warlord or clerical-style inspiration/boosts to his troops. The heroes fight their way to the standard bearer to cut him down and deny the enemy their magical adds, only to face a whirlwind of death when the standard bearer defends himself with an enchanter polearm tipped with a spear and axe head upon opposite ends. It's only then they realize the true might they face...

It's a +3/+3 heinous double standard. ;)

For me, I am fine with that being the level of realism set by the GM. My comfort level with any level of realism is largely dependent on my mood at the time. Although, consistently, too much realism would disrupt my immersion. In my opinion, too much detail interrupts the game/story. I doubt I could succinctly explain exactly what level is ‘too much’.

I vaguely recall us discussing this at the start of this thread, that part of the 'Gygaxian Naturalism' approach was including just enough detail to take the edge off PC/DM disbelief. (i.e. a tribe of orcs may have a storeroom full of stolen food, or 'hunting parties' in the local Encounter Tables, to explain how they get enough food to survive, without bothering with working out the details of how plausible this actually is.)

Medium sized greatbows deal 1d10 damage.

Thanks, I thought it was 1d10 but wasn't sure.

Another idea I've been playing with is having different Strength bonuses for grades of bow, something like:

A light bow does 1d6+half strength bonus (i.e. same as an off-handed weapon) but gets an attack bonus.

A strong bow does 1d8+full strength bonus (i.e. same as a one-handed weapon)

A great bow does 1d10+one-and-a-half strength bonus (i.e. same as a two-handed melee weapon) but suffers an attack penalty.

That's assuming the archer's using a bow with a "mighty" bonus that's appropriate to their strength, of course.

Such a scheme would be closer to my limited practical experience of archery and my somewhat wider reading on the subject, although I suspect it's too big a kick for the Greatbow.

Here we go again! haven't we had the shortbow vs longbow debate at least twice on these fora already?

A lot of the argument seems to be over different definitions of what a shortbow and longbow are, in D&D terms.

In real life, the length of a bow does not significantly restrict its drawstrength - a 4' bow can be made with the same drawstrength as a 7' bow, it's possible to make a composite shortbow with a 150 pound drawstrength (although if I remember correctly most 'Mongol type' war bows average about 70 lbs).

I'd prefer it if D&D divided bows into three categories:

Light Bows (Use the D&D stats for shortbows although not necessarily literally short) these are of low enough strength that they're easy to draw and aim for a relatively unskilled archer. Say, 30-50 lb draw, does less damage but can be easily aimed (say +1 attack for a standard attack after spending a Move action to aim?), since it's not a strain to hold at 'full draw'.

Strong Bows (Using the D&D stats for longbows although not necessarily literally long) powerful enough they are harder to aim, but not so powerful an average healthy human can't handle one with some practice, say 60-90 pounds draw?

Great Bows (Using the D&D stats for greatbows) extraordinarily powerful, requiring constant practice to draw and fire quickly & accurately, i.e. an exotic weapon proficiency, say 100-150+ pounds draw.

Could someone remind me how much damage the 3E greatbow does, is it 1d10 or 1d12? I don't have the relevant source book.

Hence my earlier referral to these things as "toy bows" a 50 lb pull bow would never be used in war or even hunting (unless it was for up land birds or bunnies) any more than 20 grains of black powder would have been used in a kentucky rifle for anything more than teahing your boy how to point and shoot.

With the obvious exception of cultures who didn't have much in the way of armour. E.g. the ancient Egyptians, most of whose armies only had wicker shields and loincloths to protect them, fought each other with ~50-60 pound longbows.

Many bows used by native Americans were seldom much more powerful than 50 pounds, and they used them in warfare as well as hunting. A 50 lb bow is easily powerful enough to kill an unarmoured human, or a man-sized creature like a small deer. Of course, they do suffer from having a shorter accurate/effective range when compared to a more powerful bow.

Corrosive Rabbit wrote:

Maybe early "modifications" could be focused on behaviour, with more unusual abilities being given to future dinosaurs?

The phrase "future dinosaurs" is making me drool.

We are still talking about what dinosaurs should go into the core Pathfinder bestiary aren't we? While I like the idea of "future dinosaurs" I think they'd be better for a book of dinosaurs (hint hint).

That said, what sort of future/speculative dinosaurs are we talking about here? Velociraptors with chimpanzee intelligence? Huge carnivores with chameleon skin? Huge chameleon skinned Velociraptors with chimpanzee intelligence?

One of my favourite ideas for speculative dinosaurs are dinosaurs with a lifestyle resembling communal insects. Imagine several hundred horned or armoured dinosaurs living in a huge nest resembling a cross between a titanic beaver's dam on dryland and a wood ant's nest. They could be divided into castes - Small workers, Medium-Large worker/warriors and Large-Huge queens.

Or for the predatory version, imagine a thousand Tiny tyrannosaurs swarming through the jungle like army ants, devouring every animal in their path.

Reguardless if you CAN become a HUGE animal, doesnt mean a HUGE raptor actually exists. So I would have to argue that if you haven't actually SEEN one existing on its own (not just an enlarged one or magically modified one) then you can't become one, because it doesn't exist in its natural state.

Well I certainly wouldn't allow a druid to learn an larger form from an animal enlarged by Animal Growth, since (a) it's not a natural form, and (b) the spell doesn't give extra HD, so it's questionable that a druid can learn how to become an a Megaraptor Advanced to 17+ Hit Dice by examining a 8-16 HD 'raptor that's been inflated.

As for casting Animal Growth on yourself, I'm afraid it's usually impossible according to the rules as written, since a wild shaping druid retains their type. So, unless somebody plays an Awakened animal, they can't use the spell on themselves while in animal-form.

However, a literal interpretation of the SRD indicates a druid can turn into a Megaraptor and receive an Enlarge Person to increase a size step, since technically they're still humanoid. That's just a 1st level spell, although it isn't on the Druid list!

Anyhows, I fear this debate will just go round in circles. Wouldn't we be better off either leaving it to each DM's choice or calling for the Pathfinder rules to include some statements about how wild shape familiarity is achieved?

Rules of wildshape require the Druid be familiar with the animal he turns into, Unless there was an active ecology of 17hd Megaraptors for the druid to become "familiar" with he couldn't take the form of a huge megaraptor simply because he's seen and has been familar with the regular sized raptor.

So it depends if the DM supplies the 17HD megaraptor as an animal or not.
Also "familiar" doesnt mean "I saw one once". So casting enlarge or animal growth on a 12hd raptor doesn't make you "familiar with 17hd megaraptors.
Presumably from what I can see (mechanics wise) and what i could imagine, a huge megaraptor would be far more viscious of an opponent than a T-rex.

Right, so you agree a 17th+ level druid can wildshape into a Huge megaraptor.

As for your familiarity objections, the SRD gives no explanation of how a Druid becomes "familiar" with a wild shape form is obtained. There's nothing in the rules to say familiarity with a regular-sized animal doesn't extend to Advanced forms, or that you must study more than one specimen of an animal to learn its form. Then again, there is nothing that says it does. That leaves it up to the individual DM. I suspect there are more games where a druid does only need to have one close encounter with a Huge megaraptor to learn how to become one than ones when they have to spend two years tracking them around the Lost World studying their habits.

If forced to choose, I'd probably require the same familiarity time as the teleport spell requires to become "very familiar" with a place - so, the druid either needs to briefly encounter Huge megaraptors "often" (say, twenty times?) or study one for at least an hour (e.g. closely examining a live specimen or dissecting a well-preserved carcass). A smart druid would no doubt take steps to ensure their safety during the close examination - Hide From Animals is the obvious choice, or scrying from a distance.

As i have come to understand the T-rex there were more of a scavenger/bully of smaller dinos, where as the raptor was ever the hunter/predator. So if a mega raptor is simply a giant raptor, itd be ridiculously scary.

In a real ecology however, a critter that big would have a harder time surviving and hunting than it's smaller cousins (thus why the raptor at its true size was a better survivor than the T-rex at its true size)
The raptor was made for running at high speed and cornering (similar to cheetahs and leopards) where as the t-rex trying to run at full speed and turn would fall over because of his center of gravity.
The megaraptor would effectively have the same problem with size, and therefor the creature would be unlikely to naturally exist. Meaning the advanced forms of megaraptor are likely "pets" to some mad mage or evil druid master.

If such was the case, there wouldnt be enough of them for the druid character to become "familiar" with.

Actually, a Megaraptor was not shaped like a Dromeosaur at all. A fossil hand proved that the big claws are on the animal's fingers like a Baryonyx or Spinosaurus, not on their toes. (See recent article & picture here or picture here) They probably had regular theropod feet instead of the sickle-toe of a Deinonychus or Utahraptor), but its unclear what they looked like - here are some pictures of what they may have looked like: here and here and here.

The SRD "giant raptor" version we're discussing is thus scientifically inaccurate, so Pathfinder may have to rename it Utahraptor or give it a made-up name.

I'm sad that:

A) Megaraptor got nerfed down to large
B) They're still better than a T-Rex

For a while, my half orc druid was the only hitter and healer in my group of four. People initially thought he was a barbarian; it worked ok. I'm sad, though, at the way the new wild shape rules work. T-Rexes are huge. They should be better than Megaraptors because T-Rexes are Awesome and Megaraptors are lame. When I was able to turn into a Huge creature, I should have been able to switch from Megaraptor to T-Rex and do more damage. But I can't. T-Rexes aren't really very good compared to Megaraptors.

Please fix.

(My Merciful, Vicious Amulet of Mighty Fists +0 probably isn't helping.)

But surely you could turn into a Huge Megaraptor provided your druid was 17th+ level? I don't remember anything in the wild shape rules forbidding you turning into an Advanced form of an animal, and the Megaraptor becomes Huge when it hits 17HD (Per the SRD a Megaraptor has Advancement: 9-16 HD (Large); 17-24 HD (Huge)).

That would boost your Megaraptor-form's talon damage to 3d6+Str, foreclaws to 1d6+1/2Str and bite to 2d6+Str AND give you the extra physical abilities, reach and natural armour of a Huge creature.

I don't think it is that bad, but it is a fair arugement. Besides, the T. Rex likely could not chew, so it did swallow prey whole.

Having it as some kind of feat is fine, since not all theropods (especially the smaller ones) should have that ability. I also think there is a need to redefine how that ability functions a bit.

Instead of cutting ones way out of the gizzard, perhaps a character causes enough damage to be spit out by a gag reflex from the creature. This would avoid the resealing of open wounds. The creature that just expelled the swallowed individual might even be dazed for a round if this happened.

Good idea, it's much more realistic than the whole hole resealing bit, animals cough up things they ate that disagree with them all the time.

A really big theropod like a Carcharodontosaurus or Tyrannosaurus was certainly capable of swallowing a Medium sized creature whole, they had hinges in their lower jaws (and skulls, in some cases) that permitted them to gulp down huge chunks of meat. Although if such man-sized prey regularly damaged a Huge theropods' insides after being swallowed alive, I'd have thought they'd have developed a habit of giving them a few chomps with their jaws before gulping them down, just to make sure it's dead.

Also, a good halfway point between these two is nonstandard "magic shops". In my current campaign, Candles of Truth are sold to the public by the local LG deity's temple. Or, for example, if the players wanted some Dimensional Shackles, they could probably buy them outright from the Bounty Hunter's Guild if they know the right people, but might not find them in the public marketplace.

I think the key point is to make "magic shops" specialized, with carefully limited inventories.

Yes, I do specialist magic shops to, indeed I mentioned a couple in my previous post (weapons-crafter and construct-crafter), both of which have featured in my homebrew game, together with other stranger ones such as a couple of enchanted beast suppliers and a (black market, needless to say) necromancy shop.

1) All of them! As many as will fit in the book? Okay, I guess 6-8 or so will do as a bare minimum.

2) Just to play devil's advocate, I'd like dinosaurs that haven't been statted up in the SRD - say, Allosaurus (my favourite theropod), either Baryonyx (which can be scaled up and frilled to become a Spinosaurus), or a small lightweight like Coelophysis (which can be scaled down to a Compsognathus), Stegosaurus and Therizinosaurus.

3) Just leave one Dromeosaurid, say Deinonychus, then it can be rescaled to become a Velociraptor or Utahraptor.

4) I'd prefer having a fully statted out Medium sized Deinonychus, since it'd likely see more play than an accurately sized (Small?) Velociraptor.

5) Definitely, I applaud most of the suggestions that have already appeared on these threads, especially Intimidate as a skill for some of these terrible lizards.

6) The SRD Tyrannosaurus looks like it needs some work. I'd replace the Swallow Whole with the ability to chew victims held in its jaws, add a kick attack which can pin small opponents under a foot, increase its Strength (Str 28 is too low, Str 32-36 would suit me better), give it a useful bonus in the Intimidate and Survival skills and reassign its feats - Three Toughness feats? What where they thinking! It would be better (i.e. nastier) replacing those 9 extra hit points with combat-enhancing feats such as Improved Critical, Weapon Focus (bite) and Power Attack.

Finally, could I put in a good word for having some inaccurate prehistoric reptiles, for example:

An implausibly oversized and powerful Pterosaur - I like to call the version in my homebrew game the Phobodactyl. A big toothy thing like a Rhamphorhynchus the size of a small aircraft that carries away horses or can land and fight almost as well as a Large theropod.

A dire-sized monitor lizard, to represent both a giant varanid like Megalania and such fantasy "dinosaurs" as the Rhedosaurus in The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms.

A pulp fiction version of a Carnosaur which looks like a horrible cross between a shark-toothed toad and a kangaroo, with a large Jump bonus and the special qualities Too Primitive Too Die Easy (the beast's nervous system is so primitive it will fight on for N rounds after death, since most of its body has not realized it's been killed), Festering Jaws (its bite carries a stew of toxic bacteria, like a komodo dragon) and Too Dim Too Obey (It's rudimentary brain has only three modes, "Kill", "Eat" and "Fornicate". Mind-affecting spells do not affect it unless they stimulate one of these instincts. I added this just because I can imagine the look on the players' faces when the DM says "The good news is the charm monster spell worked, the dinosaur is now favourably inclined towards you. The bad news is it now wants to mate with you.")

JoelF847 wrote:

I'd suggest DC 30 or 35 strength check.

At least 35. An iron door is DC 28 to bust in, and shoving yourself bodily through a Wall of Force should be way harder than that.

Edit: How about DC 25 + Caster Level? That way it scales.

Also, the Wall of Force description says that if it is somehow broken, it fails, so it really does become a break DC.

This is my thinking too. I'd have a Wall of Force be an all-or-nothing effect, as if it had a very high hardness / break DC but only 1 hp. It either bounces your attack back completely or vanishes due to being broken when you apply force to it. That said, it may be acceptable to slip through a Wall of Force without applying force to it, which is possibly how the previous mentioned epic use of Escape Artist to penetrate a WoF works. Since the Wall was circumvented rather than broken, I'd say this type of penetration would not cause the wall to vanish.

here's how I do it in my game.

I have magic shops, but they mainly sell services and consumables, with a few standard permanent magic items of very minor sort such as the classiccontinual flame rod. The consumable items are things like spell components, alchemical items, potions or (minor) wands and scrolls. The services are basically spell-casting, with most shops only selling low-level spells that can be cast in safety - the least such shops would have trouble doing much more than killing all the cockroaches in your kitchen with cantrips, the best may offer 4th-5th level spells.

The better/more specialized magic shops may have a few permanent items in stock, but these are mostly lesser items that match the area of expertise of the proprietor - so an weapon crafting mage may have a few +1 or +2 weapons, while a Construct specialist could have a few permanent Animated Objects for sale.

My assumption is people with magic items they no longer want to possess are most likely to either give them to a friend/ally/person-they-want-to butter-up or trade them with someone for favours/goods/other magic. Why would they sell them at a loss to a shop?

If they just want to raise as much money as possible, they sell the magic item at auction. Most major cities should have wizard's guild or major magic houses that will help auction off magic items.

Most of the magical items my PCs have used they acquired the traditional way, by killing creatures and taking them, but they have got a few items via trade with acquaintances, purchased or hired items/creatures from magic shops and commissioned the crafting of a couple of items.

So I figure, "Cool. At least I kill the druid off."

Then the darn Cleric says, "Good thing I prepared Resurrection today."

I start cussing. "Wait," I say. "The Druid's body is entombed beneath tons of rubble. You can't get to him."

Cleric says, "Spell says some part of the body must still exist. Not that you have to have access to it."

I decide not to be a jerk and have the Druid resurrect in the rubble and be crushed to death.

Now, AFTER the game I read Earthquake and learn it only does 8d6 damage from falling rubble. Dang PCs slid it past me... but I made them pay... Oh, I made them pay.

Resurrection says "This spell functions like raise dead", and raise dead is a touch range spell. So you were right, they needed access to the remains.

I hope you really made them pay.

What are the chances of stirring the grognards from their deep slumbers?

I read this article, and immediately one line jumped out at me as being on one of my absolute refusals. It reminded me of this thread:

"The role of mechanics in suggesting flavor to the class has been diminished across editions, and I have accepted that, but diminished to nothing?"

Well if I'm understanding the complaint correctly, with the preview of the 4E druid it makes no difference what form they shapechange into, they have identical stats whether they're shifted into a ravenous razor-bear or a spurless platypus, and both form can use the same attack powers.

That does seem contrary to a Gygaxian approach, were presumably different assumed forms could offer different abilities - say, lots of natural weaponry as a ravenous razor-bear and, erm, a swim speed and an electrosensitive bill as a platypus? Both have their uses, but in very different circumstances.

Heroes of Battle has the Heavy Cavalry teamwork benefit (p. 118). The team leader must have: Handle Animal 4 ranks, Ride 8 ranks, Mounted Combat feat, Trample feat. Team members must have: Ride 1 rank (members' mounts need not be members of the team). It takes two weeks of practice before the team works properly (and another two weeks every time a new member joins).

In effect, the team squeezes to present a line which is 5'-wide per member. They delay to act on the slowest members' initiative count. So long as they remain in a cohesive set of squares and move at least their speed each round, they don't take squeezing penalties to AC and attack rolls, their foes cannot avoid overruns but must attempt to block, and the mounts count as one size category larger for purposes of resolving overruning (e.g., a horse counts as Huge, with +8 to overrun instead of +4).

With regard to area effect spells, each Medium creature on a Large...

Unless my memory deceives me there were also teamwork manoeuvres for fighting while "packed in like sardines", like many armies did for a substantial portion of military history (e.g. Greek hoplites, Roman legions, Saxons etc).

Of course, shield-walls and fighting shoulder-to-shoulder is far less effective on the D&D battlefield, were you have to deal with the equivalent of artillery (Fireball!) and tanks (high-level combat monsters, humanoid and otherwise), to whom a shield-wall is just a target rich environment.

P.S. I like the "electron cloud" theory of the ten-by-ten horse.

Please consider putting fire immunity back on succubi. (I think in 2nd edition they had it because it made sense with their associating with Balors.) Also, when assessing the CR of succubi please keep in mind how difficult it is to employ the 'drain' attack (and accompanying 'suggestion') in the middle of combat, when a lot of big nasty melee artistes are beating a poor hapless succubus with nasty sharp pieces of metal.

Wasn't resistance to heat & flame a default power of AD&D Demons? I don't remember anything in the Monstrous Manual saying succubi had fire immunity so they could go on hot dates. :)

Anyhows you're right that many of a succubus's powers are pretty useless in a straight-up fight. They only really come into their own with skads of Cha-dependent class levels or playing the old "hidden manipulating menace" game.

Would love to see a reprint.

Count me in too. I would jump at the chance to buy a reprint of Arcana Evolved. I've got a copy of Ptolus, and it's feeling lonely... :(

JRM wrote:

There are many hues of brown which would offer a more stylish name - Umber Dragon, Ocher Dragon, Sepia Dragon et cetera.

Mmmm...chocolate dragon.

Sadly, the chocolate dragon was hunted to extinction by adventurers to satisfy the sweet-tooth of the wealthy. I understand the Burgundy Dragon is doing very well, since it now lives all over the world, although only those from its original homeland can get the Appellation d'origine contrôlées to prove they're True Burgundy Dragons. :`

Yes, there's just something unromantic about the ring of "brown dragon" which sounds wrong. There are many hues of brown which would offer a more stylish name - Umber Dragon, Ocher Dragon, Sepia Dragon et cetera.

Then again, we wouldn't want them to get carried away and start creating subraces of brown dragons for each shade. I shudder to think what personality trait they'd pick to define a Maroon Dragon or a Buff Dragon. ;)

Susan Draconis wrote:

I know this only loosely fits the thread and only if you squint but it is a thread on monsters and books...

What are your rules going to be for were-creatures? Say hypothetically I had a NG cleric of a LG god, say Iomedae. And say hypothetically this NG cleric got bit by a were-creature, say a wererat. Are you going to keep the WotC rules that demand I screw over this poor cleric who just happened to roll badly on her save by making her suddenly CE? Or will we be able to work something out such that this poor cleric doesn't suddenly lose her motivation, backstory, faith, will to live, etc?

Let me second this; were creatures should be able to be of any alignment so that you could have a LG werewolf paladin or some other combination that by the WotC lycanthrope alignment rules would be possible; that is no fixed alignment for particular types of lycanthropes.

I like the notion of lycanthropy victims having a dual nature: Lawful Good healer by day, Chaotic Evil beast by moonlight. "Even the man who's pure of heart and says his prayers at night / May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" and all that.

Maybe after enough moons as a were their lycanthropic nature starts to overwhelm their human one, and they become CE all the time but it feels wrong for it to be a sudden process.

Now as for HPs, let's see. If we use my idea of Str as the HP bonus stat and drop the bonus HP for being a Construct.

Clay Golem (Str 25=+7, HD 11d10+77, 137 hp)
Flesh Golem (Str 21=+5, HD 9d10+45, 94 hp)
Iron Golem (Str 33=+11, HD 18d10+198, 297 hp)
Stone Golem (Str 29=+9, 14d10+126, 203 hp)
Greater Stone Golem (Str 37=+13, 42d10+546, 777 hp)

Ouch, that's a lot of hit points for the Greater Stone Golem.

As for using the hp/inch of substances, what I was thinking of as an alternative to the bonus HP by Str was multiplying the material hp/inch by a size factor, say equal to the SRD Construct Bonus Hit Points divided by 5. That's 2 for Small, 4 for Medium, 6 for Large, 8 for Huge, 12 for Gargantuan and 16 for Colossal Constructs.

Using seekerofshadowlight Iron = 10, Stone = 8, Clay = 5, Flesh = 2 that would give HPs of:

Clay Golem (Bonus HP 6 [Large] ×5 [Clay]) HD 11d10+30, 107 hp
Flesh Golem (Bonus HP 6 [Large] ×2 [Flesh]) HD 9d10+12, 61 hp
Iron Golem (Bonus HP 6 [Large] ×10 [Iron]) HD 18d10+60, 159 hp
Stone Golem (Bonus HP 6 [Large] ×8 [Stone]) HD 14d10+48, 125 hp
Greater Stone Golem (Bonus HP 8 [Huge] ×8 [Stone]) HD 42d10+64, 292 hp

Hmm, the Flesh Golem is now weaker than the SRD version. That's easy to fix by saying its alchemically treated flesh is as tough as wood, so its bonus HPs go back to 30:

Revised Flesh Golem (Bonus HP 6 [Large] ×5 [toughened Flesh]) HD 9d10+30, 79 hp

That's pretty close to the SRD versions of Golems. The Stone and Iron have a few more HPs, but not enough for it to make much of a difference. The change will be more significant with Animated Objects, since they have fewer HD so the bonus HP will be proportionally larger:

Small Animated Object
HD 1d10(5hp), Bonus HP = Size[2]×Material = 2×2 [Leather +4hp], 2×5 [Wood/Clay +10hp], 2×8[Stone+16hp] or 2×10 [Iron +20hp]
Total HP => hp 9 (Leather), hp 15 (Wood/Clay), hp 21 (Stone), hp 25 (Iron)
Medium Animated Object
HD 2d10(11hp), Bonus HP = Size[4] ×Material = 4×2 [Leather +8hp], 4×5 [Wood/Clay +20hp], 4×8 [Stone +32hp] or 4×10 [Iron +40hp]
Total HP => hp 19 (Leather), hp 31 (Wood/Clay), hp 43 (Stone), hp 51 (Iron)
Large Animated Object
HD 4d10(22hp), Bonus HP = Size[6] × Material = 6×2 [Leather +12hp], 6×5 [Wood/Clay +30hp], 6×8[Stone +48hp] or 6×10 [Iron +60hp]
Total HP => hp 34 (Leather), hp 52 (Wood/Clay), hp 70 (Stone), hp 82 (Iron)
Huge Animated Object
HD 8d10(44hp), Bonus HP = Size [8] × Material = 8×2 [Leather +16hp], 8×5 [Wood/Clay +40hp], 8×8 [Stone +64hp] or 8×10 [Iron +80hp]
Total HP => hp 60 (Leather), hp 84 (Wood/Clay), hp 108 (Stone), hp 124 (Iron)
Gargantuan Animated Object
HD 16d10(88hp), Bonus HP = Size [12] × Material = 12×2 [Leather +24hp], 12×5 [Wood/Clay +60hp], 12×8 [Stone +96hp] or 12×10 [Iron +120hp]
Total HP => hp 112 (Leather), 148 (Wood/Clay), hp 184 (Stone), hp 208 (Iron)
Colossal Animated Object
HD 32d10(176hp), Bonus HP = Size [16] × Material = 16×2 [Leather 32hp], 16×5 [Wood/Clay +80hp], 16×8 [Stone +128hp] or 16×10 [Iron +160hp]
Total HP => hp 208 (Leather), hp 256 (Wood/Clay), hp 304 (Stone), hp 336 (Iron)

My proposed alternative Strength gives Constructs bonus HP/die would provide all Animated Objects of a given size the same bonus HP, since they all have the same Str score.

Small (Str 10=+0, HD 1d10+0, hp 5)
Medium (Str 12=+1, HD 2d10+2, hp 13)
Large (Str 16=+3, HD 4d10+12, hp 34)
Huge (Str 20=+5, HD 8d10+40, hp 84)
Gargantuan (Str 24=+7, HD 16d10+112, hp 200)
Colossal (Str 28=+9, HD 32d10+288, hp 464)

That's a lot steeper, and doesn't differentiate between objects of different materials.

Of the two, I'm now leaning towards the Size×Material approach for bonus Construct HP.

JRM wrote:

Consider two Large 8 HD constructs, one made of tissue paper, the other of wrought iron. Just going by the rules, both should have the same average Hit Points, as they both have the same hit dice and size bonus.

How the heck did you get a tissue paper golem with 8HD?

Forget that question. How the heck did you get a tissue paper golem??

It was easy, I just ordered a hundred gross boxes of kleenex, loosely stuck them together into a Huge vaguely humanoid shape, a quick Animate Object to make an 8 HD Construct, then Reduce the resulting monster to Large size and Permanency. Of course it helps if you're the DM, since you don't have to bribe yourself to get away with it. :)