Joseph Le May's page

Go ahead and ask away. Not sure how frequent the author makes his rounds. I know I own it, but I haven't done much with it beyond skimming it (at the moment). Not as convenient to read from a PDF as it is with a good book and a couch. :D

I agree. I'll get a copy when it comes out in print.

Here's what I'd do:

You remember those three level advancement schedules in PRPG? Use the fast one. Okay, now anyone who wants to multiclass at first level may use the 3.0 apprentice rules for the first 1300 xp, at which time they become a gestalt. From then on, they level up using the medium schedule. The end.

Wolfthulhu wrote:

I never really cared for 0-level characters in 2ed. Never saw these apprentice rules, but if they are the same idea, I'd rather not see them again.

I don't recall the apprentice rules from 2e, but the rules we're discussing are primarily intended to permit multiclassed 1st-level characters. That these same rules can also be applied to permit an apprentice-level (0-level) single-classed character is an optional application of them that may be suitable for some types of campaigns.

Even if you'd never use them, Wolfthulhu, I'm sure you can appreciate that many would find them useful?

I certainly would. I started just as 3.5 came out, and when someone told me about the 3.0 apprentice rules, I bought a 3.0 DMG just to have them!

So are there any plans to put out Hardback versions of the collected Pathfinder adventure paths a la Shackled City?

Well, Erik, I really like what I've read of my copy of PFRPG, and I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to see a modern Pathfinder. "Trailblazer!" :P

I would have to say A, because I really like the idea of Talent trees (though not necessarily the particular talents implemented by every class), and I would hate to see them go. I also enjoy the notion of the action points (though not necessarily how they are implemented), and I really dig the rules on Massive Damage and cover/concealment. There is a LOT Paizo could do for this aging, much-maligned rule set without starting from scratch at all.

Another option to consider if you want to use this alternate rule is to not limit the number of times per day, but increase the DC by 3 for each previous use of metamagic you've made that day. Once you fail a roll, you can't use any more metamagic that day.

I like this, but what if it also fatigued/exhausted you as well? Say, fatigued you the first time round, then you become exhausted the second time in a 24-hour period that you fail the check. You can't use metamagic while fatigued or exhausted.

On another note entirely, I think that if you are going to be setting DCs, it's better to set them nearer the average check of the maxed-out guy than the "average" guy, because let's face it: Who's going to be trying to use metamagic the most? The guy who focuses on it.

I'm going to take an educated guess, Logos, and say that you have never been a DM. Anyone who felt like you were being more than a bit rant-y in your responses will understand that you are not actually insane and/or selfish, you just have no idea how much harder it is to run a game and have fun doing it than it is to just run a game. Please, DM for several months straight and then tell me that the DMs fun is less important than the players. Oh wait, that's right, you won't have any players, because unless you were having fun, you will have quit DMing. Needless to say, I was pretty disgusted by your comment about the DMs fun being less important than the players. The DM IS one of the players. He deserves as much fun as any of them does.

Ok, I looked at the first few rules proposals you introduced there, and I was thinking, What is this guy, nuts? No one's going to want to play using those kinds of tight restrictions. Then, in good faith, I finished the lot of it, and, frankly, this could work. It's never going to make it into the PFRPG, unfortunately, as it is far too different from the D20 norm. Messing around with the PrCs is one thing, but changing the very way they work is another. That having been said, I would love to see some homebrewed examples of this. This idea has me excited! In fact, I started a thread in the Giant in the Playground forums' homebrewing board to see if anyone would be willing to work up some PrCs in this vein!

Sheesh, you guys think you have it bad...my girlfriend of only a few days is on a cruise with family until Saturday - ON TOP of drooling over PFRPG Beta! *mumblegrumble*

That's what I thought, too, for some years. But you only need to take a little deeper look to see that this cute idea of all levels being equal simply doesn't work in 3E, and never really did, and more so if you are have a caster class in the mix. A fighter/wizard 5/5 simply isn't comparable to a 10th level single class character in power, and hence will get sacked by monsters of adequate CRs even easier.

And yes, astute observation about the source of the inspiration for the idea, although I said something about 2nd Edition in my post, since I never played AD&D 1E.

Yes, the inspiration was that 2nd edition method, though it was the seperate XP tracks which put it all together for me. I feel like a 2-class Gestalt fits about evenly with a single-classer that way. For example, let's say you allot your players 20,000 XP to start with. They could be a Fighter6, A Fighter//Wizard5, or a Fighter//Wizard//Rogue4. That just "feels" right to me. It is also simple and, IMHO, is a good idea.

Um, not for me. Have you taken a look at outsider hitdice lately? +2 to all saves, for one thing, plus 8+Int skill points, plus +1 BAB; I mean, if you add it to caster level, why wouldn't an player want one of those?

sorry man I said some poster but forgot to come back and say who it was.

From the way you said "I've been thinking," it is heavily implied that it was your idea. It doesn't mention any other poster at all, in fact. Nonetheless, like I said, you're forgiven, mate.

No worries. Anyway, you bring up a good point- how to make a Gestalter even with a single-classer at 1st. What if we were to utilize a sort of compromise to those two ideas?

At first level, you'd use the 3.0 "Apprentice-Level" rules, then when you've gotten enough xp to reach 2nd ON THE FAST CHART, you become a true 1st/1st gestalt. Then, when you gain enough to be 2nd level on THE MEDIUM/SLOW CHART, you become a 2nd/2nd Gestalt. From then on, ignore the Fast chart, and look only to the medium/slow chart to determine when you gain levels. And there you have it. Clean. Simple. Efficient. You likey?

Ouch, seeker. If you are going to think tank my idea, at least give me credit. You're forgiven, but I am a bit hurt.

One of my players has a bonded staff that he chose at first level. During game last night everyone made 2nd level and had some extra coin to spend. He was looking into enchanting the staff. We ran into the problem that his staff isn't masterwork as he couldn't afford one at 1st level.

My question is this: as the rules are written, is it intended that he should have to rebond with a new masterwork staff in order to enchant it? OR is there a way to spend gp (300 gp) to make the staff masterwork in this specific instance? OR is the staff made masterwork in the process of becoming his Arcane bonded object?

It is unclear. I would personally rule that an object which is the subject of an Arcane Bond is treated as Masterwork for the purposes of enchanting it via the Bond. So you wouldn't get the MW +1 to hit, but you could enchant the staff to a +1 for half cost. Jason, I'm looking at you...

It's ironic that you asked, "Is it True D20?", because it actually sounds a lot like True20, from Green Ronin. Just thought I'd point that out. I like it. Maybe you should give True20 a shot if streamlining to that extent is your bag of tea.

Yeah, it's pretty much a simple, if inelegant, variant inspired by the comparatively complicated 2E multiclassing mechanic. I just thought that those three XP tables were begging for it.

Assuming that for normal characters (including ones using the standard multiclassing rules), one would use the quickest XP table, would it work out if you used the SRD gestalt rules, and allowed a 2-class gestalt at the middle table, and a 3-class gestalt at the far slowest table? I think this could work, maybe. Anyone?

The lazy guy in me freaked out that there was no Druid in Alpha Release 2...until I scrolled down and realized there was, but there was just no bookmark for it. Just a nitpick.

Urban Arcana? I do believe you are referring to Unearthed Arcana, Unless the D20 Modern Campaign Model sourcebook is what you had in mind.