John Weatherman's page

After some thought, I might suggest the following:

Use the small cat animal companion, but swap out (Speed: 50 ft.) for (Speed: 40 ft.) and, at 4th level, swap out (Special Qualities: sprint) for grab, pounce, and rake (1d3). This would simulate the lynx's lesser speed and different hunting style (compared to a cheetah or leopard).

What do you think?

EDIT: Perhaps remove the trip ability at 1st level and replace it with grab; everything else as I've suggested . . .

Been a long time since I have played with Animal Companions, but Iron Legion looks like a good chance to try out a Hunter. As Lynx is one of the recommended animals, I was looking around and found this old thread. Does anyone have any thoughts about adding Climb 20' at either 1st or 4th level? Would it be unbalancing? Most write-ups I have seen for a basic lynx include this, and as canopy or hills/mountains predators, it makes a lot of sense. As a DM, I tend towards wanting Animal Companions to not lack basic abilities of their base animal any more than necessary (they already lose racial skill adjustments as it is).

An encounter with a troll at a bridge, he approaches with a bow drawn, and decides to loose an arrow to give him a surprise round.

Unless he was taking pains to sneak up on the bridge and had been making Stealth checks, a drawn bow, or most any other weapon, pretty much throws surprise out the window. Beyond that, I agree with most of the other posters, when a party is approaching an encounter, you, as the DM, MUST know their relative positions, order of travel. This will or at least should, almost always impact what happens next. As both player and DM, held actions are often forced by positioning, to not know just causes problems. You don't have to use minis, over the years I have used Xs on a sheet of paper or spare dice. But basic positioning should be known.

Before allowing the attack it would have been appropriate to say "You do know that this is not a surprise attack, as the troll can clearly see you approaching with a weapon drawn...and looks like he sees his next meal".

Later on in the night, he wanted to pick up a woman friend at an event. I had him roll to decide the attractiveness, and he rolled a three, and then became upset when I said that there wasn't really anyone there that would be gorgeous, and that he gets to decide who he gets to be with."

Sounds like your friend needs to be reminded this is a group game. Not everything that comes to mind will always work out.

Lastly, there was a trap that triggered by a door, and in order to rescue his buddy the door had to be held open. He decided to wedge an arrow in the door, and I figured that the act of wedging an arrow in a heavy closing door would break the arrow. There ensued a 10 minute argument about how he gets to decide what happens to the arrow.

Having been on both sides of this I can appreciate that the player made an attempt at avoiding a clearly defined problem. I can also appreciate that the DM said, no, this attempt failed. What I can't understand is the 10 minute argument. I suspect that anyone who has played and/or DM'd for any real time has lots of examples of player/DM disagreements in terms of outcomes. Ultimately, it falls to both to be respectful, but especially to the player. You don't get to yell at the ref just because you dislike a call, not if you want to continue playing and certainly not if its a one player issue. If something causes a TPK and all the players disagree with a call, then the DM might well be out of line, but not always even then.

I've actually been in a situation where my interpretation of the situation and the DMs were different, leading to everyone in the party save me dying (and that was only because an animal companion had better than animal intelligence and drug my unconscious a$$ out of the room). Were any of us happy? H311 no! But the DM is the ref and we all accepted it.

As someone else mentioned, this overall situation sounds like a friend trying to take advantage of being your friend. That probably calls for a fairly firm hand until he gets over it. FWIW, I really didn't see anything on the DM side that I would not and have not done at some point.

In Carrior Crown I ran a LG Priest from Lastwall who had the Mark of Law of a citizen. My write up made clear that "stranger" was just that, an unknown quantity. The orcs in the region were AT WAR with Lastwall and the damage even one spy getting away could do to the general population was such they were not ever given the benifit of the doubt.

No one seemed to have a problem with this interpritation.

Of course I also thing that surrender is a 0-phase reaction, I win initiative and the orc drops to its knees begging for mercy, at which point quarter is given. The attack MIGHT be ruled neutral in a vacuum, but even Paladins only get in trouble for Evil acts, not neutral ones when they are reasonable. Otherwise the whole "paladin's can cooperate with undead" senerio in Ashes at Dawn can never work, which Piazo assures us can.

LilithsThrall wrote:

Ice Titan wrote:

Shalelu Andosana has a charisma of 8.

Shalelu Andosana has a charisma of 8.

So abstract.

She had a higher charisma before she went to the Land of Toys.

Str 12, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8

Hook Mountain Massacre.

I'm confused.

She is depected as a very one dimensional goblin killer in the first part of RotRL, so maybe it makes sense.

Her INT goes to 12 in Jade Regent but CHR is left at 8.

My personal take is that this is a reflection of a limitation of point buy systems. Some characters really should be built above average in just about every way. Shalelu is one of these, in my mind. I'd go with a 20 point buy for her and bring CHR up to about 12 as well, simply because I don't think ANY elf should have less than that if CHR is force of personality, which is how I have always seen it.

95% of the time, the dice will stand as rolled.

But I'm not going to kill off the entire group just because my dice happen to be hot. The ultimate goal of the game is to have fun. Not for me to "win" by killing the party.

This pretty much is my feeling as well. Whether DMing or Playing I have a strong bias towards letting rolls stand. However, I also have a bias against well thought out efforts come crashing down, particularly in TPKs, though random dice rolls. This is, after all, a game and supposed to be fun, not frustraiting. As someone else pointed out, sometimes deciding "X is a success, the roll is for what kind of success" is appropriate.

It seems to me that deciding "the party is taking too many hits, better use 1 less monster this time" is functionally no different that saying "oops, that one monster just can't seem to hit anything today". I'm not sure I see the consistancy is saying "I'll change other stuff but not rolls". While I might prefer to change the other stuff, sometimes the problems start emerging mid-encounter making that impossible.

Blackdragon wrote:

Shop keeper: That will be 300,000 gold pieces.

Hero: *Counting out the cash from their Bag of Holding*

Shop keeper: You keep that kind of cash on you?

Hero: People rob banks. ;)

Hero: Now... you say this weapon makes me unstoppable?

Shop keeper: Yeah.
Hero: Right. This is a stick up! I know you have 300 grand here, maybe more, stand and deliver.

ROTFLMAO

I think it would help tremendously if:

1)magic items had reduced prices
2)gold pieces were also reduced in availability/quantity

That way, relative prices would be the same(or tweaked) but you wouldn't have to carry around so much coin. It would also increase the shock value of finding a large stash of coins.

This I would strongly support. When pricings were originally done, they were explained as "gold rush economy" and all the weapons, etc were more expensive because they were suposedly in such high demand. The problem is, most campaing worlds don't really reflect that. As a result, all the cash values are out of whack. The inflationary action of adventurers dropping thousands of gold for mundane equipment (and it has to be like that to explain the demand arguement) should also reasonably run up prices on everything else dramatically. Most towns, after a year or two, are going to take all that coin, build the ballista of hero slaying and post a keep out sign. Personally, I think down shifting 1 step every piece of mundane equipment, and building treasure hords similarly, fixes a lot of issues. This makes even low level magic so expensive it's special again.

This wouldn't severely impact compatability, and you just read everything one step down (sp for gp, cp for sp).

This also fall into the "I can see the sense of it, but am far more concerned about changes that really impact compatability" catagory.

I am gonna say Epic Meepo system isn't bad but I still had to do a lot more math then alphas system.I want a skill system where I DO NOT NEED A CALCULATOR.

Now this is geting a little silly. If the simple math of ((Class Level)x(skill points per level))+((Class Level)x(skill points per level))... requires a calculator, then (Character Level)+(2 or 4) on (variable number of skills) is at least as math intensive...plus it loses backward compatability.

trained 1 skill choice +3
skilled 2 skill choice +5
expert 3 skill choice +7
mastery 4 skill choice +9

Unless you plan on handing out a LOT more skills to somehome do this, the skaling bit doesn't work. The slow skill characters will never master anything and the high skill characters will not have nearly as many skills. Consider a Rogue 10...thats 11 skills, so 2 mastered skills (and that's +9, not +13) and 3 trained skills. When's the last time you saw a published Rogue 10 with 5 skills, 3 of which only had a +3?

I may be missing what you intend with this one. If so, please explain it better.

Well besides Munchkinism, why would you just take rogue for skills when you truly wanted to play a fighter? Are skills really that important? I mean, I like what Alpha has done to make skills simpler, but why does it have to be abused?

YES, skills are that important. In 2e they weren't, but 3e went to a skill based system. No matter what you play, skills are critical. If they weren't, you would be right that using Rogue 1 would be abusive, as it is, that particular min/max is a correction for a game artifact.

Why? Wouldn't you expect that if two people of equal intelligence started learning how to pick a lock, they would master the ability in almost equal time? I would.

But that isn't what cross class is about. I know managers who are every bit as intelligent as me. I'm a database admin, if we both start learning a new database, or even programming language, at the same time, in all likelihood I will master is considerably faster. Its in an area my pre-existing training predisposes me to. Similarly, if a new method for project planning comes out, I will have more difficulty mastering it, my focus is simply elsewhere. This is all that cross class skills do.

For an actual martial artist, especially with the current build, I'd just go with a Fighter. The Monk covers something specific (more of a taoist internal alchemist, really).

Along these lines, I would tend to make Flurry of Blows a feat requiring Improved Unarmed Combat and then just eliminate Monk entirely. For the more martial, Fighter works, for the more contempative a cleric, for the more sneaky, rogue. Basically, just make monk a role and let any class fit it.

I have to agree with the idea of changing Smite and Favored Enemy from the current 3.5 version to something closer to the Rogue's sneak attack. However, using d6 at the same progression may be a bit high. Perhaps either use d4 for the base or use a 1d6/4 levels instead?

-Weylin Stormcrowe

Personally, I like the d6 progression for Smite, especially if it keeps the times/day restriction. Big Bad Evil Dudes should be scared to death when a 10th level paladin comes at them with a gleam in his eye. This would do that. The number of times per day, especially with the other changes that mean there should be more encounters per day, keep things from becomming too obscene.

Favored Enemies might make more sense at d4, but that because of the OTHER bonuses that go along with favored enemy.

Regardless, both need overhauls when it comes to damage bonuses to be even remotely close to rogues. As it is, I almost prefer a rogue with Improved Feint to almost ANY fighter type. Of course, this prings into question whether Fighter shouldn't have some similar talent, but there there are a host of compatability issues.

Also from the sounds of things people are saying, I am the only one defending rogue to leave as is.

First off I agree with you. I think the Rogue is well balanced with regard to other classes and needs the skill variety to be a Rogue. I do recognize the "I need to start as a Rogue at level 1 before doing anything else" problem needs to be addressed as well. The 1.0.1 notes say that Paizo is rebuilding skills. I am kind of waiting to see what they have decided before getting worked up again.

As for the player who never plays trap finding rogues, in the groups I play in and/or run, the only way that flys is if there is another rogue that is a trapfinder. That is, the character must be extranious anyway or the party couldn't live with him...or the DM is doing a lot of work to avoid using traps. The game fundamentally assumes that the rogue is a stealthy trapfinder first and everything else second. The Trapfinding ability is the give-a-way. With that in mind, not frontloading makes for very generic rogues with little customization at low level.

The math is almost exactly the same. The only real difference is that a rank in any skill always costs only one skill point, and ranks are sometimes only worth a +1/2 bonus....

This is pretty much the house rule I have used for several years and it does many multi-classing builds a LOT easier. My only question is, how do we consider Feat ranks to work? I have consistantly maintained Feats grant exactl what they say +2 or +3 or +whatever. This doesn't get halved for cross-class. In 3.5 this is the most reasonable interpritation (IMHO). Using this varient for PF, what would be people's preference?

I don't claim to have solutions, but if Leadership is going to be reworked, I would love to see:

1) Basic leadership shouldn't be a feat at all. Reasonably, once someone reaches a certain level of noterity follows will come. Now a feat that gives bonuses I can see. So maybe a character can attact 3 x lvl followers of maimum of lvl - 2 levels. Leadership increases effective level by X and can be taken multiple times. Maybe it grants a moral bonus of some kind. But a 10th level anything, even without a feat, can reasonably expect to have a handful of followers running "home" while they are out adventuring.

2) I'd also really like to see an option for a Cohort of higher level than the character. Fiction is filled with this, particularly of the form Noble X has follower Y who is clearly more experienced than the noble. Currently there is simply no way to simulate this within in rules, so this is one area a fix would be nice.

The main problem I have had with leadership is that, as a feat, players feel like they need to get "their money's worth". Limiting the need for a feat to have any followers would allow for high level campaigns, which should have them, without players feeling like they need to field armies every time they leave home.

BLASPHEME

Feel better?

Seriously, I have played and enjoyed classless systems. Hero is my favorite in that class. However if I am playing D&D, then I want the classes. Getting rid of them means it isn't D&D anymore. Might as well play a well play-tested, tried and true universal system.

Obviously this would throw compatability right out the window.

So, even supressing cries of righteous indignation, I'd still have to say this is a very bad idea.

I have a suggestion for trapfinding that I have been using for a few years and find really improves the game:

I allow anyone to search for traps, if they actively search.

I allow rogues (and other characters with trapfinding) to spot traps they come within five feet of just like Elves spot secret doors.

I REALLY like this idea. A staple of the genre is spoting the trap before it's sprung...and not through active searching. Giving rogues this makes a LOT of sense. Of course with Search and Spot combined, I'm not sure how the mechanics will work anyway....

(and that's NOT a dig against combining skills. That's one thing I REALLY like).

I think that is why backwards compatability is such a big issue for PathfinderRPG. The theory is that you just keep playing 3.5 and plug in the Pathfinder rules when and if you wish too. So there isn't really a wait, you get to keep using that shelf full of 3.5 material, and rules changes are small enough to allow for character and campaign continuity while still improving the game and adding interesting new options.

Unfortunately based on the Alpha, things are not backward compatable. If you take a 3.5 character and run it in a Pathfinder RPG game, the character is WAY underpowered (under skilled, under-feated, under abilitied). Of course I take the postision about the only things needing fixing are: Wizards/Clerics need metamagic feats like fighters need combat feats, armor needs to be DR to make heavy armors a good reason not to fight someone in heavy armor if you aren't, skill points need to be uped at the low end (all 2+ to 4+) and then some of the combat crunch should be looked at. Basically add a few feats to the 3.5 character, fix the armor listing, and the RPG should work...if backward compatability is really a design issue.

After reading this in a dozen threads with the same arguements pro and con being made, I have come to a conclusion:

The only way to make the skill system backward compatable, and get rid of skill points, results in a system even MORE complex than skill points.

As for skill monkey, while there has been a lot of hand waving "oh its not a problem", "oh the DM should just disapprove it", the fact that the rules have it SO attactive is a problem with the rules. Either give everyone the same skill size and eliminate the problem or accept that no player in his right mind will ever want to start as anything other than a rogue and its not min-maxing, it's just recognizing a massive whole in the system. No matter what class you are, you need skills, rogue provides them, and they always stay maxed. Complaining that this is min-maxing is like complaining that someone who wants to cast spells takes wizard (after 1st level or course).

There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.

I will try very hard to be polite here. I have been playing D&D starting with no skills, moving to skills as feats and now using skill points. Never have I had that much of a problem with preping, not with weekly games and not with by-weekly games. Your examples are, frankly, straw men. It I am using an advanced anything, its not something meant to be killed in one session and taking a little extra time is only going to benefit me as I use the recurring villian. As for an anti party, I most certainly am not doing that on the fly and will spend at least as much time on it as the players do on the real party. Acting like these are on-the-fly activities is ridiculous. Acting like I don't want maximum flexibility for such major components of my stories is ignorent.

Changing the skill system, which is the fundamental mechanic of 3.5, means that the PFRPG is no longer using 3.5 at all. I will have to spend FAR more time rebuilding every creature in Pathfinder than I have ever spent in just using standard monsters with their default skills modified for special purposes if I expect to be able to use both new Pathfinder adventures and all the older 3.5 adventures I have with the same PCs, which gives the lie to the whole "it should be compatable" company line.

I know how harsh this sounds, and I apologize for that, but I find the explainations somewhat condescending (which I know you didn't intend) and feel bluntness is required in response.

They have a really cool thing going with the Forlorn Elves. Elves who are raised or orphaned in human lands and have to deal with the pain of all their friends constantly outgrowing them. I wouldn't want to see it done away with.

I'm not sure that "fixing" starting ages unduely effects this. To bring in a totally unrelated example, the Highlander TV Series repeatedly went back to the difficulties of watching people grow old and die while you stayed the same. So the Forlorn, even if maturing at 30, still will have to watch his friends be born, live and die while he hasn't changed at all. In some ways this is even more terrible, as an adult he would have a more developed sense of that loss. Children have far les of a sense of the finality of it all.

That said, I don't have a strong feeling one was or the other.

I think we need another thread for this specific discussion because this one seems to be whether people dislike or like the new skill system.

Fair enough. In that case, I will vote that I dislike the new system. As a player, I tend to keep 1 - 3 core skills truely maxed and then have a mix of 3/4, 1/2 and minimal skills representing other areas of reducing importance to the character. Frankly, I also take into account other skill modifiers as to how much I "invest" in a particular skill. Being well rounded is more important to me than being the "best" and at small number of things. As a DM, my players tend to take similar approaches. Given the shear number of odd situations adventurers face, by definition, this isn't about being able to do everything yourself, it's about not getting whacked upside the head because you have a huge whole in what you can attempt! For the same reason, I think there should be a core group of skills (Balance, Climb, Jump, Listen, Spot, Swim) that should be available to every class. I don't care what your class is, being able to perceive and move through your environment is of critical importance (and I always take and see taken these skills (well, except Swim), CC or not, because of it.

Simplicity and Fexibility are always, to an extent, opposed. IMHO, the exisiting 3.5 system does a good job of balancing them and the new system sacrifices too much flexibility in the name of simplicity.

I'll see if I can find the new thead now. :)

Changing AC to DR would not be backwards compatible, agreed.

But if say DR 1/- was added for banded mail, DR 2/- for half-plate and DR 3/- for full plate, it would make them more attractive and mostly stay backwards compatible.

Unearthed Arcana already provides an option for this, so it isn't totally outside existing rules. Up until about the last 6 months, AC entries usually included a breakout of what made up the AC, so conversions wouldn't be that bad.

As for the large chart on effects of armor, DR's v particular types aren't a bad idea, but should look more like:

Organic Armor: X/Slashing or Ballistic*
Flexible Inorganics: X/Piercing or Ballistic*
Rigids: X/Bludgening or Ballistic*

* Mideval Armors do not protect against even D&D primitive firearms, which of course gave rise to the DEX fighter in the first place.

The comment on "if AC is DR, then the person with the most HP wins" is interesting. This means that fighters in heavy armor tend to become combat machines, while lighter armored types become skirmishers and non-fighters shouldn't really try to get in straight up fights with fighters. Yep, that sounds like a terrible idea. :)

Like msot of you seem to have been, I've been around for all the additions too and am not going to be totally bummed by not changing AC, but I do think the Optional Rules for it in Unearthed Arcana tend to be 1) More realistic and 2) help eliminate best of breed armors both of which I consider good things. At a minimum, including a DR Option/Sidebar and then writting adventures so that AC is broken down to make it easy to use would b great, IMHO.

All the suggestions made so far still do not address my primary concern, and I am not sure that any "keep the new way and allow the old" can.

This turns Rogue into the default level 1 class and means that every other class thereafter gets 8+INT skill points per level.

If this is the case, then all classes should simply be given 8+INT skill points. Then both systems can work perfectly well side by side. Otherwise the old system is simply not compatable.

PFRPG permanently sets skill points at each level at whatever they were at 1st level. They are no longer truely based on class.

As long as the subject of armor has come up, I, for one, would really like to see Armor converted to a DR modifier. First off, its more realistic. Secondly, it tends to make "best of breed" a much less clearcut issue.

AC becomes based of DEX, limited by Armor Worn, and enhanced by feats and some magic. So, heavier armor, you are more likely to get hit, but also more likely to shrug off most of the damage. Light armor you are less likely to get hit, but take more of the damage when you do. Armor also helps against magic this way, which tends to help moderate some of the power disparities at mid to high levels. Figureing out what works best will be highly dependent of exactly which feats are taken and your actual DEX, meaning "best in breed" is no longer a fixed issue.

Add in a fixed modifer by class (yes, I like the Bab5 System) and this cleans up a lot of the problems with armor, IMHO.

I would like to see 4 skill points at first for all classes that now have 2 really . love the combined classes.

I agree with this. The classes that have only 2+INT, in MHO, also tend to suffer from class lists that are too small. Fighters need to be able to Fient, Clerics should be able to study widely and have "noble" skills, etc. Giving 4+INT at least makes more CCS more possible. Also, I have enought trouble now with "I have to take Rogue at 1st level for the skill bonus" syndrome. In the Alpha, this is made even worse, as all those skills continue to advance even after switching classes. The skill point system is central to 3.X, gutting it this way esentially makes this as much a new game as 4.X, maybe more.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is elitively easy to reverse engineer the skill points to let players spread things out, but giving the Fighter 8+INT skill points per level, because he took Rogue 1 at 1st but has been strictly a fighter ever since, seems just wrong.

Of course, with the PFRGP skill rules as they are, you take 1 level of rogue, then progress as a sorcerer. You're now a spellcaster with max ranks in all of your rogue skills. So if you can live without sneak attack, the rogue past 1st or 2nd level is now completely obsolete!

This is a MAJOR problem. Of all the classes in 3.5, I have the hardest time seeing the Rogue needing the rejiggering. Giving Spells on top of all the other nifty to abilities just seems wrong. I'll say more in the Keep Skill Points thread about that.

I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

Now this I could live with. A feat that amounts too "I learned this one trick", and which everyone could use, has promise. Of course Wizards and Sorcerers should also be able to use it, maybe even to greater effect (taking any known spell and using at as a 1/day SLA). It does blur classes quite a bit though.

In other words: stick with the existing advancement charts, and handle how the XP are awarded in a way that allows the game to be set up for the pace desired. See my next post on my thoughts on how t award XP in a way that makes it easy for the Game Master to tailor.

I would 3rd this. In fact the changes to the way XP are handled is the only thing I see in the Alpha that I will flat not use. Someone mentioned that the XP charts are closed content. If this is the case, and XP HAS to be handled differently, then there still needs to be 1 chart and the awards chart needs to be made simpler.