JoeJ's page

Absolutely not. Locking everybody in the universe into just a handful of classes in 3.x was one of the dumbest ideas ever.

JoeJ wrote:

Also, when there's no penalty for failure, per the rules, you can just take ten times as long and automatically succeed (assuming that it's possible for you to succeed at all, that is).

Wait, what?

Look at p. 237 in the DMG, near the bottom of the page, under the heading "Multiple Ability Checks".

It's not just simple trivia questions. It's anything modelled with a single attribute check (often quite complex tasks). Relativity-inventing is clearly more than that, but that wasn't my example.

By best in the world I meant stat of 20. By worst in the world I meant stat of 3.

Specifically, only for a single check that isn't repeated. If they're rolling multiple times, the chance of the weaker character beating the stronger one drops pretty fast.

Also, when there's no penalty for failure, per the rules, you can just take ten times as long and automatically succeed (assuming that it's possible for you to succeed at all, that is).

And yes, 3 to 20 is the ability score range for plausible adventuring characters. The rules don't cover characters with physical or mental handicaps sufficient to rule out being a successful adventurer.

However, my sole point was that the fact that 16.5% of the time, the worst in the world would beat the best in the world in a head-to-head contest is not what anyone would guess based on real-world intuitions ported over into the game.

Only on a single iteration direct contest. If you're considering Intelligence, that's not the chance of inventing relativity, it's the chance of being the first to answer a Jeopardy question.

And what's meant by "worst in the world" is the worst that is still good enough to be a successful professional adventurer.

If you read the descriptions in the MM, the kinds of undead that a necromancer can create all turn into murderbots if the creator loses control for any reason. That doesn't necessarily make creating undead an unambiguously evil act in every circumstance whatsoever, but in most cases it does indicate a severe lack of concern for the well being of others. Do it very often, and your alignment is going to be heading toward evil.

Finger of Death gives you a permanent zombie slave every time you use it to kill a humanoid. It's a 7th level spell, so you can start creating your army as soon as you reach 13th level. At 20th level, you can create 4 zombies a day, with no limit except your lifespan (and the number of humanoids you're willing to murder).

Keep in mind, however, that zombies are not the brightest of minions (or the best smelling ones, either). Caveat emptor.

JoeJ wrote:

If the tarrasque wins initiative, the fighter dies without landing a single blow. If the fighter wins initiative, the tarrasque's AC of 25 means the fighter still most likely dies without landing a single blow. Either way, it's a one round fight.

It's possible the fighter will land a hit as the tarrasque moves to within ten feet (he gets on opportunity attack at that point). He'll be dead shortly thereafter though. If the fighter wins initiative, he might get three hits in if he's very lucky.

IF the tarrasque moves to within ten feet the fighter can attempt an OA, which probably won't hit: with a 16 Strength and a +1 weapon, the fighter needs to roll a 19 or better. But there's no good reason for the tarrasque to get that close. It has a reach of 15 feet with its two claw attacks and 20 feet with its tail.

If the fighter wins initiative she has two chances to hit with polearm master, although she still needs a 19. Getting a third would require the tarrasque to do something on its turn that triggers an OA, which is unlikely.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Juda de Kerioth wrote:

Flaws: bugs, you can bug a tarrasque at lvl 1 with two feats.

You really can't. You're going to die at round one - just like you should (leaving aside the fact that you can't have two feats at level one).

sure, you can have 2 feats at lvl 4th your right.

So, tarrasque will get bugged in her first round with a single human fighter polearm, with centinel and polearm master.

LOL Nope. Even if the fighter has a magic weapon (which is necessary to even do damage at all), that combination of feats is useless against the tarrasque.

If the tarrasque wins initiative, the fighter dies without landing a single blow. If the fighter wins initiative, the tarrasque's AC of 25 means the fighter still most likely dies without landing a single blow. Either way, it's a one round fight.

That seems okay for those specific examples, but overall the more powerful monsters are going to be more rare than the less powerful ones, so you get weird situations where most people don't know what the heck an imp is but can explain the difference between a glabrezu, a balor, and a hezrou.

My recommendation is to just completely abandon the idea of mathematically connecting DCs to CRs. In fact, the foundational difference between 5E's math and 3.X's math is that the latter uses level as a key variable while the former divorces levels and d20 rolls completely. As soon as you try to turn levels back into d20-altering math in 5E, you've broken it.

Personally, I just spitball my DCs somewhere around 11-15, or maybe in exceptional cases go as high as 18 or 20 (but only for really hard stuff).

For monster knowledge, I recommend the same, with the difficulty being based on rarity, not CR.

I meant only if you're going to have a roll related to DC. I agree that I wouldn't do it that way.

Basing knowledge on rarity is the best, but that's something that can only be a DM judgment call, because it's going to be completely dependent on the setting.

True. I'm still in a bit of a PF mindset for setting DCs.

On the other hand, I don't want to easily know the ins and outs of legendary beasties.

Maybe something like 10+ CR/2 would be more appropriate.

If you're going to create a roll, it might make more sense to have the DC something like 25 - CR. That way, everybody knows about dragons, but most people have never heard of an intellect devourer.

Things like goblins and orcs, that are constantly a danger, are the exception, of course.

It seems pretty straightforward. The phrase "once you gain a domain spell" applies to any and every domain spell you gain. It's always prepared and doesn't count against the number of spells you can have prepared at one time. It does, however, still use up a spell slot when you cast it.

I'm not very picky. If I see something I want and can afford I'll happily buy it at Paizo, or any reputable marketplace.

The problem I see is that a lot of players hand-wave things like lifestyle expenses and dislike the SIMS aspect of the game. Why does my character want retainers or a Keep? Most likely he's not going to be there long enough to do much and if he is, what does he do when he's there. "Today my character is going to lavish away in his keep, eat 3 meals, use the privy at least twice, talk to some of the peasantry, and call it a day...." That sounds like a rousing time of D&D....

What is your character's personality? Their ideal, bond, and flaw? Use those to help figure out what they do with their money. It's not the DM's job to decide what your character wants out of life.

Maybe, instead of building a stronghold, they just want to party it all away, or commission a statue, or donate it to the local orphanage, or make a campaign contribution to the mayor, or create a network of spies, or give it to a temple, or hire a bard to spread tales of their greatness, or just about anything else you can imagine.

So, I'm in the process of reading and trying to learn the ruleset for this game (it's harder for me now than it used to be, but that's not important here). My question is this; what's the point of using the Enhance effect for something like Strength when just increasing it w/out it will do just fine?

Enhanced Trait is a power effect, so you can use it for power stunts, or you can get it from a power stunt if you've got a plausible explanation (a magic spell, for example). And unless you buy it with the Permanent flaw, you can turn it on and off.

It's also what you should probably use if part of your Strength is due to a removable device, or if you could lose it due to a complication.

I'm looking at the DC Adventures game Hero's Handbook (2010 version of their game) and am looking for rules that cover something like knock back. If they exist I cannot find them. Are there no rules for allowing Superman (for example) to punch someone across several city blocks or into a brick wall?

Rules for knockback are in the Gamemasters Guide, pp. 192-193. Basically you subtract the target's toughness from the damage to get the knockback distance. If there's an object in the way, both the character and the object take damage from the impact, and if that damages the object enough to put a hole in it, the character keeps going for the remainder of the distance.

The biggest problem I see here is a metagame issue: what are the other players doing while your sorcerer is building a cult?

If the others are on board with doing this, I'd let it work, and start thinking up reasonable (but solvable) problems for your cult to face.

If everyone else at the table would rather head down into a dungeon and kill some orcs, I'd shut this down.

Oh I see, so it's divided then. But, if its used to adjust the difficulty, but not the XP. Wouldn't that mean you just made as challenging as a CR 6 but only rewarded CR 4? (random numbers).

Yes. The rationale is that the devs. want to reward playing smart and trying to divide and conquer, rather than bunching all the encounters up and taking them on all at once.

Those multipliers don't affect xp given out to the PCs. They're only used to balance the encounter.

JoeJ wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.

Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)

The Mayfair DC Heroes game handled scaling Superman's strength to, say, Batman's well. They used a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one, so Superman's 50 strength was magnitudes more powerful than Batman's 2.

Yes. That is still one of my favorite game systems. (They lowered Superman's strength to 25 in the 2nd edition, btw, to reflect the aftermath of the Crisis on Infinite Earths in the comics.)

DC Adventures does something similar, using the exact same rules as 3rd edition Mutants & Masterminds, so Superman can actually lift around 200,000 tons in the game. Not the Silver Age planet moving Superman, but probably stronger than the character was during much of the Golden Age.

JoeJ wrote:

Picking encounters can also result in silliness or lack of variety, especially when the GM is starting to run out of good ideas. Rolling on a chart can be a great spur to creativity.

When I prep for my weekend games, I know that sometimes due to circumstance either one of the prepared encounters won't work due to some kind of circumstance, and that due to player ingenuity sometimes what was expected to take more time is over too quickly. So I always prepare twice as many encounters as I think the party will truly encounter... I never run out of good ideas.

JoeJ wrote:

Anytime I'm not 100% certain what encounter I want, I'll roll it. If the result seems meh, I'll roll again until either I get something I like or inspiration strikes. Very frequently, by the time I've looked up the stats for whatever I rolled and taken a moment to think about it, I'll have come up with an idea of how it fits into the adventure.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with rolling up a fresh encounter for a random aspect (if that's the style of game you run), however, I don't want to spend game prep time during a live game, looking up monster stats or other rules regarding terrain. So I avoid that by having more encounters that I plan on using and never need to do this.

I don't use game time for that; I roll for random encounters beforehand.

Kthulhu wrote:

Pathfinder is nerfed, the Megaversal system has much larger numbers. Puny Pathfinder characters don't even have a single point of SDC.

Gotta love Palladium. Making every other game system in existence seem weak and sickly since 1981.

Going the other direction would be DC Adventures, which nerfed everything so hard that Superman only has a Str of 19! (Although it's 23 for lifting and moving things.)

None of that has anything to do with random charts. There is no in game difference between a dm deciding the next random encounter will be an owl bear, and rolling for the next encounter to be an owl bear. The wacky hijinks are identical. The only difference is one is a choice by a dm trying to make a fun game, the other is probability. Choice, should give you a series of interesting encounters. Probability gives you the chance for a series of interesting encounters, or the same encounter 5 times in a row, or no encounter 20 times in a row, or 2 interesting encounters and 1 stupid encounter, or 5 nights of bad weather, roll your survival you cant fail again because reasons, or the 8th friggan time we are fighting a chimera on this same road...is there like a hatchery near by or something? Chance is just that, chance.

The gm PICKING encounters off that random list is almost certainly going to result in a better session then rolling a die. And by picking, he can actually look up ahead of time what sort of things he needs to know, like spells, special abilities, or where he might find stats for the 5 gnoll pirates that are on that random ship parked in the harbor.

Picking encounters can also result in silliness or lack of variety, especially when the GM is starting to run out of good ideas. Rolling on a chart can be a great spur to creativity.

Anytime I'm not 100% certain what encounter I want, I'll roll it. If the result seems meh, I'll roll again until either I get something I like or inspiration strikes. Very frequently, by the time I've looked up the stats for whatever I rolled and taken a moment to think about it, I'll have come up with an idea of how it fits into the adventure.

Oh, yeah, and Beholders are lurking around every corner, pfffft, sheesh, I name my beholders

"Jim Phiadt"

and

"Gota Kildem Sohmvay"

I guess you haven't encountered the fleets of beholder ships fighting their eternal civil wars throughout wildspace yet. There was even a published 2e adventure that involved trying to stop what was essentially a beholder Death Star.

There's also a beholder tending bar in a tavern on the Rock of Bral.

My problem with Swashbucklers is that they fail at Swashbuckling. They simply can't live up to their class description. Instead, they ended up being yet another stationary BSF. They aren't considerably more agile than, say, a Ranger or Slayer with Weapon Finesse.

That's a problem with the base combat mechanic. If you want high mobility in combat, you have to allow characters to move without losing much of their ability to attack.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

People expect the Rogue to be this martial master of combat, except I NEVER saw the Rogue like that.

I wonder if rogue are only outclassed in combat

Hard to Fool (Ex)
Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check.

What's the reason for making this useable only once per day? Is there some advantage to doing it that way that compensates for the damage it does to suspension of disbelief?

D&D is fairly unique in that psionics, ki, magic, rage, and alchemy are all different power sources, some of which interact, some of which do not.

That's been changed for 5e. Ki and those rage powers that are blatantly superhuman have all been redefined as magic. (Psionics doesn't exist in the system yet.)

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

What I do think is limiting is thinking that our societies 2 intelligible genders are the only possible ones.

In german we use the term (literally translated) "biological sex" and "social sex". For me, gender and sex was always the same term, but gender is more like the german "social sex", right?

Within my own field of anthropology, "sex" refers to the biology, both in terms of genetics and the physical configuration of the body. "Gender" refers to social roles defined by a particular culture. All known human cultures have at least masculine ("man") and feminine ("woman") genders. Many cultures define other categories as well, and often the names for these are not easily translated into English.

So wait, how many people here actually like magitek / blending magic and science together?

I enjoy it sometimes, but I also like fantasy where the two are completely incompatible: I enjoyed both Full Metal Alchemist and The Books of Magic. It all depends on how well written something is.

Even if magic follows consistent rules, that doesn't necessarily mean that it follows the same rules that science discovers. One very common idea in fiction is that the laws of magic are symbolic; they invoke the meanings of things in a way that objective natural laws simply can't explain. So while a scientist might, for example, come up with a theory involving magnetism or some such to explain how a dowser can find water with a forked stick, no such theory can explain how it can also find a piece of paper with the word "water" written on it. Or why dowsing over a map or aerial photo works just as well as walking across the ground.

Someone mentioned the idea that 5th edition monsters deal less damage than Pathfinder monsters and so 5th edition can support less healing resources while Pathfinder doesn't work in that metric.

However at least up to CR 10 this appears to be completely wrong. Going off Surf Archer's 5th edition Math the target damage is 61. Going with the average of the high damage and low damage from Pathfinder's monster creation guidelines the "target" damage is 39 damage for a CR 10 monster while in 5th ed it's 61.

To me this suggests that Pathfinder's base system should be able to handle hit dice healing PCs. Now the question is: Can the AP's?

Are those damage estimates adjusted for hit probability?

You did read past that first statement of mine in my reply, right? I was just stating how uncomforting that sounds. I did actually reply to the rest of your statement afterwards.

And I've also stated that it's more to provide more normalization to the idea of people who identify differently. My role as a GM isn't that of a teacher in social tolerance, but that doesn't mean I can't use the position for it. Nothing's saying a fun game of roleplaying or dungeon delving can't also include some issues that I want to touch on. I have garnered a few ideas of how to do it better though, which has been helpful.

I'd recommend being careful and going slowly. It would be very easy for something like this to be received as preachy or judgmental, even though that's not at all your aim. (A lot depends on the individual personalities and attitudes of your players, of course.)

JoeJ wrote:

Arcanic Drake wrote:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's Three Laws

But on the other hand:

"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." - Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic.

Honestly I don't see why they would be so incompatible. Linguistics is a thing after all.

It's the difference between the indicative and the imperative. A scientific law (if correct) describes how the universe behaves for all observers. A magical technique causes the universe to behave in the way that one particular magician desires.

In real world magic systems (not saying I believe they work) from various cultures, you typically don't see things like battle mages. There may be ways for a priest, shaman, sorcerer, etc. to affect the outcome of a battle or cause something bad to happen to someone, but they aren't running around with the warriors casting spells and hexes and such during the course of the fight. There are usually costs to learning how to use powerful magic, too, including very steep social ones in some places.

I prefer game magic systems that are more like that and come with a cost of some kind. That may mean that the spells are unpredictable and/or dangerous to cast, the caster is temporarily weakened after casting them, the preparation and/or casting time is very long, etc. I'm not saying all games that use magic should be that way - it's just my personal preference, probably due to all those years I spent in anthropology grad school.

Path Magic in GURPS Thaumatology works like that. It's based (loosely) on an amalgam of real world ritual magic practices.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's Three Laws

But on the other hand:

"Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to a common reality. Magic is a method of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible." - Neil Gaiman, The Books of Magic.

BBEG encounters shouldn't always be any one particular thing. Some can be short but deadly, others long, running battles of attrition. If you've got a good aligned party, you can even have the BBEG surrender so they can try to play mind games with the PCs before they either escape or get rescued by their minions (think Loki in The Avengers).

If you have players who won't freak out, maybe once in a while you can have the BBEG set up an ambush that's way too high a CR for the party, but designed to capture rather than kill. If it succeeds (and it probably will), they'll be taken inside the Fortress of Doom where they'll have a chance to take the BBEG by surprise and turn the tables - as soon as they escape from the clever deathtrap they're thrown into. If you do this, don't forget to have the BBEG reveal his entire evil plan to the "helpless" PCs. This kind of villain loves to monologue.

Rogues are AWESOME!

- It's not hard to get a sneak attack every round, then use Cunning Action to dash away before the target can retaliate.

- Add twice your proficiency bonus to your favorite skills with Expertise, then at level 11 you can't roll below a 10 with those skills, with the capstone auto-succeed at level 20.

- Use your reaction for reduce damage you take by half.

- Blindsense.

- Thief's Reflexes gives you two turns on the first round of combat.

- Assassinate gives you an auto-critical if you have surprise.

- Invisible Mage Hand.

- Stealing spells right out of the mind of a spellcaster.

It just get better and... wait. Are you guys talking about Pathfinder rogues? Yeah, I guess that is different. Never mind.

thejeff wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

Psionics is magic, though, just using a late 20th century word instead of an ancient one.

But somehow more respectable as an adjunct to science fiction.

I'd say it walks in both worlds with equal ease.

I agree with this. The words "psi" and "psionic" rub me wrong for any setting earlier than the 1940s, but the concept works fine.

Jaelithe wrote:

Referring to the original poster's question:

It's not necessarily "knee-jerk." Some prefer a clear delineation between magic and high technology because it allows for an easier acceptance of the "laws" that will govern a particular cosmology. In addition, if the convention is established from the get-go, it's far less objectionable (though not in the least something in which I'm interested). Springing one on the reader after beginning with the other is a classic bait-and-switch ... practically a betrayal.

** spoiler omitted **

It was actually a fairly common convention in the earlier days of sf/fantasy. Providing SF style explanations for the magic in your fantasy. Ancient alien tech, breeding with psychic alien races, whatever. Note that Pern didn't have any actual magic, or even anything presented as such, just the dragons and bits of psychic powers, basically only enough to communicate with the dragons.

Didn't bother me at all to learn that in Pern. There are other things that bother me about McCaffrey, reading her now.

Darkover could have presented the same difficulties, depending on where you started reading the series. The first written books were set after the planet was contacted by the Terrans, but some of the later ones were set earlier and would have read as pure fantasy if you didn't already know. Psionics instead of magic, but with all the trappings.

Psionics is magic, though, just using a late 20th century word instead of an ancient one.

Eberron is a stupid setting that violates everything we know about societal development. It is not alone in this, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Most game designers aren't even amateurs when it comes to history and it shows.

Can you be more specific about what we "know about societal development" that Eberron violates? I know next to nothing about the setting except that it treats magic like modern technology in some ways.

Lemmy wrote:

If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".

any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenade

I could also accept that grenades are better at damaging any kind of target, but harder to carry and much more expensive than bullets.

The OP asked about the art. I'd say the art for both games is quite well done, with a few exceptions (the halfling pictures in 5e being awful), although the art style is quite different. Stylistically, 5e is reminiscent of some of the best art of 2e, which I greatly prefer to the "dungeon punk" look of Pathfinder.

JoeJ wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Actually 40 yards being the same as point blank for purposes of aiming is pretty good. Military rifles have a 'max range' for aiming of about 300 yards, tops. It's nigh impossible for a human with unaided vision to hit something at that distance, however.

The range rules are for ease of hitting, not effectiveness. Just because a rifle bullet can go for a mile doesn't mean you're going to hit something that far away without at least a very, very good scope. Rifles that can do that have much, much higher range increments and maximum range, too.

==Aelryinth

When I was in the U.S. military we had to be able to reliably hit a human-sized target at 400 meters just to be considered minimally qualified. That wasn't using a scope; just the regular sights built into the rifle.

what is 'reliably hit?' And does that mean 'kill shot' or just 'hit anywhere?'

Because it's really hard to see someone clearly at 400 yards, and actually aiming and making a kill shot is nigh impossible. Sure, you might wing someone, but a kill shot would be almost completely luck.

To actually reliably land a kill shot you're going to be a good hunter and get a scope and actually be able to see and aim the thing at that distance. Which, in game terms, is decreasing the effective range, lowering the range modifiers, and allowing you to use Deadly Aim. A x5 scope might ignore five range increments, or effectively +10 to hit over someone just using iron sights. Maybe it ignores eight range increments, since it would cut range to 1/5th, 400 yards down to 80, so only two range penalties...with a scope, you can hit the target at 400 yards EVERY SHOT.

And 400 yards, if you have a weapon with a 40 yard increment, is -20 to hit against an AC 10 target, with maybe a +5 to +8 mod...you're going to hit it 2 in 5 to 1 in 4 times even then. But I doubt you're going to hit the heart or head more then 1 in 10 times, right?

The game system isn't perfect for these things, but it is still at...

You are completely incorrect about how tough it is to see or hit a target at that range. It is much easier than you think. With just a few hours of training most people in good enough health for military service can make an incapacitating shot 80%+ of the time at 400 meters, using the somewhat underpowered M-16 series rifle. With a top quality hunting rifle they'd do considerably better.

However, more than likely, the battery is a part of the unit and not separatable - you can't pull a dead battery and load a new one, you'd have to replace the entire PPU, and that is impractical - it probably costs your entire allotment of GP per 1st level just to buy one.

So we're assuming that all the tech was made by Apple?

Actually 40 yards being the same as point blank for purposes of aiming is pretty good. Military rifles have a 'max range' for aiming of about 300 yards, tops. It's nigh impossible for a human with unaided vision to hit something at that distance, however.

The range rules are for ease of hitting, not effectiveness. Just because a rifle bullet can go for a mile doesn't mean you're going to hit something that far away without at least a very, very good scope. Rifles that can do that have much, much higher range increments and maximum range, too.

==Aelryinth

When I was in the U.S. military we had to be able to reliably hit a human-sized target at 400 meters just to be considered minimally qualified. That wasn't using a scope; just the regular sights built into the rifle.

To expand, any limitation you put on magic is about as realistic as any other limitation. None of us have ever seen it in the real world, so any way that a writer wants it to work is fine.

We have seen and used computers, though. So a future, high-tech computer that doesn't have the basic functions of the laptop I'm typing this on creates a huge problem for suspension of disbelief. It would be like having a rifle in the game with an accurate range of only 40 yards. How can I believe something like that is the product of future advanced technology when even the poorest quality mass-produced rifles available right now are so much better?

Orfamay Quest wrote:

gamer-printer wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

How do they explain the limited uses per day (spell slots) going up per level? If it's technology, can't the characters just buy as many recharges as they can afford - and probably dirt cheap, too, given the ability to mass produce things?

Looking at the Programmer (wizard alternate class) that I am developing for use in a Santiago setting based sci-fi PF game requires a PPU (Procedural Processing Unit) that serves as a portable computer worn (in a body slot chosen by the programmer). Like all computers there is a limited amount of memory storage, and in this case holds storage space for a limited amount of spell slots.

I think Joe was asking why the programmer can't simply buy more memory, a faster CPU, or whatever.

And as I tried to explain the fix for lack of spell slots is not a hardware issue, rather it is programming knowledge issue attained with higher levels in that class. Having an infinite amount of money does not help when it takes knowledge and software coding to achieve the additional spell slots. The fastest possible CPU and memory storage already exists in the PPU, there's no way to make a hardware upgrade. All upgrades are programming solutions enabled by the programmer writing the code at the appropriate level.

But I only have to write the code once. Once it's written I can execute it over and over again, as often as I like. I can copy it onto other machines, that can all execute that program at the same time. And anybody else can download the code and execute it as often as they like too, even if they don't have the slightest idea how to write it themselves. (Just like I wouldn't be able to create a web browser, much less an operating system, yet I can still participate in this group.)

Dave Justus wrote:

Bayonets are a fine weapon. The point though is:

"You have my sword."
"And my axe!"
"And my bow."
"And my AR-15 with bayonet mount and IR laser sight"

Does kinda change the flavor a bit.

Well, yes, but the standard rules of PF that include gun technology isn't including modern assault rifles, rather something between an arquebus and cartridge ammo pistols and rifles. Including flint-lock guns and bow, axe, sword does fit in the same flavor - or at least it can be.

I mentioned previously, but I'm looking at using the Santiago setting player rules for a Sci-Fi based game where technology is a direct conversion of everything magic in PF. Instead of spells there are technical procedures cast be technical classes that replicate what spells do exactly the same, just that you look at the perception of what is going on in a different way. You cannot include both technology and magic, since technology is magic, but you needn't have to invent an entire replacement, you simply rename spells and concept to technological versions. A magic missile becomes a force projectile that works the same as magic missile, etc.

The "casters" are engineers fitting together mechanical components to achieve "spell effects". I'm also working on an alternate wizard that programs code into a tech device that enables "spell effects" using nanobots and hacking into larger computer systems aboard ship or within a building structure.

If you really need something "magical" in the mix, just ad-hoc include Psionics to serve that purpose, and everything else is technology.

How do they explain the limited uses per day (spell slots) going up per level? If it's technology, can't the characters just buy as many recharges as they can afford - and probably dirt cheap, too, given the ability to mass produce things?

JoeJ wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

This again? The 'average is not 3sp a day

CRB pp. 159 & 163

3sp per day is "the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, cooks, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings. This value represents a minimum wage; many such hirelings require significantly higher pay."

1sp per day is "the typical daily wage for laborers, maids, and other menial workers."

Argue the math in the thread with the math in it alright? (don't want to thread jack) Just both to read the damn thing first -- I don't want to rehash old points (hint: Your current point is one already covered).

I don't see the need to argue anything, and certainly not in a thread that's several years old. I was just quoting what the rules say about the wages of certain skilled and unskilled professions.

This again? The 'average is not 3sp a day

CRB pp. 159 & 163

3sp per day is "the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, cooks, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings. This value represents a minimum wage; many such hirelings require significantly higher pay."

1sp per day is "the typical daily wage for laborers, maids, and other menial workers."

I have always felt that the prevailing attitude with regard to the "magic vs. tech" dichotomy (that is, that "Ne'er the twain shall meet") points to an almost debilitating lack of insight.

Why do wizards throw fireballs? (Or cast any other spell in their repertoire?) They do it for the same reason that a gunslinger hauls out his pistol, and the same reason that Spaceman Spiff reaches for his trusty atomizer: TO EFFECT CHANGE IN THE WORLD AROUND THEM.

That is to say: Wizards and scientists are trying to do exactly the same thing, they are simply taking different paths to get there

With this insight in mind, it becomes extremely difficult to imagine any fantasy milieu where magic is a major factor NOT becoming extremely technologically advanced in a very short period of time.

Think about it: Wizards (especially those who reach the vaunted level of "Arch-Mage") are by definition extremely intelligent...and intelligence, by its very nature necessitates an innate curiosity about the world around them. It is utterly inconceivable that in a milieu like Forgotten Realms, which has more "Arch-Mages" in it than I have fingers; that there wouldn't be at least ONE of those mages who didn't have that insight.

Consider, for just a moment, how much easier scientific exploration would be with the aid of magic (for those of you who need a guide to your imaginations, just think about what Einstein could have figured out had he been a Diviner...). Once you roll that thought around in your head for awhile, it (logically speaking) becomes very difficult to accept a milieu that includes magic WITHOUT highly advanced technology, barring the interference of some CONTRIVED obstacle (like a coalition of divine magic users banding together, or some such). Treated organically, the dove-tailing of arcane magic into super-advanced hyper-tech is absolutely inevitable, and something that would happen in a matter of decades (yes, DECADES...NOT "centuries").

...and just because I don't care enough to read the whole thread...

While it's certainly possible to conceive of magic working that way, it's equally possible that, of all people, spellcasters are the least able to do anything resembling scientific investigation. Perhaps doing magic requires learning to think impossibly: like find the coordinates of the spot where parallel lines intersect and divide that by zero, then raise the result to the power of blue. If that's how magic works, then perhaps magicians and scientists are literally incapable of understanding each other's specialty.

Reaper Weapon Familiarity: It's almost better on martial people dipping into Necromancer, unlocking advanced axes. But my main gripe is that these weapon proficiencies don't have much reason to be locked behind a feat - namely, what is preventing Necromancers from just knowing how to swing Scythes at level 1? (I know the comparisons don't necessarily work 1-to-1, but all Clerics get a special weapon for free and all Bards get every martial weapon for free. It's not unprecedented.)

Draining Strike: You've touched upon a common trend here. Muscle Barrier and Body Shield are also forms of early-game survivability feats, all of which require Thralls. Presumably, you're playing a melee build to perform melee attacks instead of casting Summon Thrall. Doing those melee attacks leaves you without the Thralls which allow you to perform well in melee. That's a heavy mismatch between the melee options and the basic ability to use those melee options (related to my rant on Bind Heroic Spirit later on).

Osteo Armaments: It got better when someone informed me that the summoned weapons don't have a max duration, but in 90% of scenarios you're better off simply purchasing an actual weapon and spending your feat elsewhere. That said, I would never wish for this feat to be removed - its core thematic is extremely strong.

Bind Heroic Spirit: I'm glad that other people also see this as a build-defining feat which arrives far too late. I am personally of the opinion that this could be a rank 1 single-action focus spell which only summons Thralls (no Heroism), and that alone would be a MASSIVE improvement to the Necromancer's gish viability. (I'm even theorizing whether such an ability could just be a passive effect on the class itself - they're still heavily incentivized to stay at range going all-in on INT with Summon Thrall, but basic melee support wouldn't detract from that basic playstyle at all)

I'd even settle for a rank 3 focus spell which mirrors the heightening of Heroism, and even that feels like a really late implementation of what I'd call a playstyle-defining ability.

I'm fine with the notion that the Melee Necromancer gets less Thrall generation. I'm less fine with the thought that a level 18 Necromancer summons 3 Thralls per action, about to be 4 per action at level 19, and ONLY JUST NOW can their melee attacks summon a singular Thrall. (I know right now it also affects their ranged strikes, but if the concept of an gun Necromancer is what's choking out the melee benefits... that's just a supremely weird reason to kneecap the gishes)

---

Warpriest-Style subclass: I'd go a step further and say Battle Harbinger. If you aren't aware - it's a new Cleric subclass which replaces their spellcasting with Magus-style spell slots and proficiency growths. Partially because I don't think we're ever going to see another full caster gain an option like Warpriest, partially because I already view Necromancer as a class where I'm fully okay giving up my old spell slots.

That said, Necromancer is interesting to me as a light class because their feats DO allow them to become hugely resilient. In theory, anyway (see my argument on Draining Strike). It only sucks because their iconic gish uses a scythe in light armor, which is kind of bad at level 1. Level 10+, your ability boosts allow studded leather to cap out your AC without foregoing INT or STR at all, but actually making it to that point is rough. I don't think there's a perfect answer here, because medium armor would solve the mechanical problems in the early game whereas I don't think the class even makes thematic sense with medium armor. (And I kind of which PF2 were more lenient with people not instantly capping out their AC for this precise reason - the mechanical incentive is massive)

ugh idk, I agree with your thesis that they'd do better with medium armor. I just wish that weren't so true for thematic reasons.

The thread was essentially "I prefer 1E, 2E is just not to my tastes". That's a valid opinion, but on a feedback board based around improving explicit aspects of 2E, it didn't really provoke any critical discussion.

I'm not a big fan of Heightening Spells, no one I've gamed with has found it very pleasant to manage and track.

I'd rather spells gain the benefit of heightened effects based on your casting skill proficiency, although this would require a massive change to the games balance.

Massive change to the balance is an understatement. The system specifically removed auto-heightening spells because it feeds into the "quadratic caster" paradigm.

Incidentally, I'm curious how your group finds the current system unpleasant to track. Spells have very set functions, which is only improved by spell slots. To me, that's way less bookkeeping than determining "fireball does this much damage at my level, my buffs can target this many people, and that changes every time I level up"

I don't particularly think casters need lower level spells at-will. To me, that feels like a buff aimed at blasters which would send utility-focused casters into the stratosphere.

I feel that partially because we already have upgrades at higher levels. Fireball is Burning Hands with a higher radius, cast range, and is a sphere instead of a cone. I think Burning Hands SHOULD fall off in the presence of better spells.

Meanwhile, I don't think spells with massive utility should have no cost. Utility wins wars.

To Syndrous, I do like your suggestion to a point. It looks to me like a 5e Warlock, which I and my groups have had great fun with. That said, you can also see their limits, namely 2 spell slots. Yes, they can cast Mage Armor at no cost, but if they had much more power, I honestly think they'd outright break the game.

Either way, I think it would be an interesting dynamic if 2e casters had FEWER big spells per combat, but the ability to regenerate them more easily. People love powerful spells, but they are only special with some limit on there. If someone were able to rain destruction many times per day, but only once per combat, would they feel as though they had a better impact in each combat rather than 2 combats of 2-3 large spells?