Keldarth's page

I received the books this morning… a package full of awesome! Everything was in perfect conditions. Thank you very much, Steve.

I'm with Hama. Many of us, especially those who have been around for a long while, run homebrews or heavily-homebrewed versions of previously published game worlds. And even those GMs who use Golarion as a setting have the prerrogative to adjust or modify the content of the published material in order to create their own vision of Golarion. Nothing is set in stone, and players should not take it that way.

Besides, I also share the opinion of Hama and others regarding how a GM should run monsters. I for one consider basic fighting maneuvers such as 5-foot steps, flanking and the like more as preservation instincts and natural cautiousness than bona-fide tactics. Goblins and orcs are perfectly aware of the dangers of running stupidly across the battlefield. Even animals have certain innate awareness of danger, though their instincts often push them into fight or flight mode.

The real problem comes when GMs do the opposite, playing mindless or hopelessly dumb monsters as tactical geniuses that profit from advantageous terrain or gang up against the wizard before he can cast spells (i.e. metagaming).

When I run, I try to adjust to the intelligence level, tactical acumen or survival instincts of the creature, and select its actions fairly. Completely mindless monsters such as oozes or zombies attack the nearest target, or pick one randomly if they are similarly close. Ogres are dumb, but generally not enough to not concentrate fire on the most dangerous foe. More intelligent or tactical creatures use more advanced strategies and fight intelligently. And so on…

I'm sure the vast majority of GMs do something similar, and I've never met a player with the expectations of Hama's new players.

I have not yet had a chance to play DCC but I purchased the rules just on the strength of the cool magic system. However, I am not a fan of the 0-level funnel concept to character creation because you can end up with a beet farmer (named Dwight?) who is suddenly transformed into a wizard after just one short adventure. I prefer to think of PC's as having lengthy training periods in the profession they are going to pursue.

I also need to deal with the issue of the instant transformation from zeroes to heroes, and the easiest solution is to chalk it up to previous training. That is, if Dwight the beet farmer manages to graduate into Dwight the 1st-level wizard, it is assumed that Dwight had spent most of his previous life dabbling into forbidden tomes and trying to contact otherworldly patrons (the main source of magic in DCC), and only after the grueling experience of "the funnel", all the mental pieces click together. Also, I'm planning to leave a considerable downtime period between the funnel and the first full-fledged adventure, so as to further explain the change.

Frankly, I despise the character funnel concept enough that I can't get past it see if the system has any other strengths. It's everything I hate about "old school" gaming distilled and concentrated into one mechanic and I assume the same attitude infects the rest of the system.

This is said as someone with very fond memories of AD&D and in many ways a preference for it over 3.x.

But I prefer characters with personalities and actual life to them, not disposable tokens.

It is not a game for everybody, that's for sure. However, if your main beef is the funnel, bear in mind that it is entirely optional. The author recommends trying it at least once, but it is perfectly possible to play DCC in a more conventional manner, creating 1st level characters. The main idea behind the funnel is that you do not begin play as a hero: you have to earn it.

But as I said, it is optional. I thought my players would display a similar opinion than yours, but we had a lot of fun during the creation session, and all those disposable tokens began acquiring a life and a personality of their own in the process or rolling their stats. It was a pleasant surprise, and that's why I recommend anyone interested in DCC to give a fair, open-minded try to the funnel concept... you could be surprised as well. That said, I'm not planning to use the funnel in every new DCC campaign we start. I think it's a great introduction to the system, but I have the feeling it would grow old really fast.

All in all, it is a matter of tastes. I enjoy PF, and creating 1st level heroes with pages of detailed backstory and a pre-planned build as much as everyone else, but at the same time I have a lot of fun seeing how far can I get with my 9 Con (sorry, Sta), 13 Dex, 15 Luck gravedigger-turned-thief.

DCC!

DCC!
I've got my group playing Dungeon Crawl Classics on 'off' days, and like your group the loved the funnel (16 commoners went in: 6 adventurers came out). They're having a great time building up their characters - lousy stats and all.

Highly recommended; for a change of pace if nothing else.

I wholeheartedly agree. There's a lot to recommend in DCC beyond the character creation process. The cool and simple Mighty Deeds of Arms makes playing a fighter (or a dwarf) a blast, without burdensome and constraining feat mechanics. The magic is weird and not always reliable, clerics feel like they receive their power from their god and he/she/it may not always be happy with the cleric's abusing it. Caster-martial disparity is obliterated. Cool system, but I admit it's not for everyone (nor it tries to be).

Recently, I convinced my gaming buddies (currently very focused on Pathfinder and used to quite high stats as more or less the norm) to try Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. As most of you probably know, it is an old school-style that tries to emulate pre-D&D fantasy literature. In essence, it is a retroclone full of twists and cool mechanics. We rolled a bunch of 0-level characters (3 per player) with no class, only a commoner-style randomly-generated occupation, and stats rolled with the old merciless "3d6 in order". I thought that, used to characters with superhero stats, a developed background and the marks of heroism already at 1st level, they would hate DCC and their bunch of 0-level commoners. Quite the contrary! We had a blast rolling them and watching them unfold one roll at a time! Despite my advice to not get too attached to them, they began making plans for them and guessing which class would the survivors take when graduating to 1st level!!!

Next session, our horde of 18 commoners will face "the Funnel" and we'll see which of them have the luck, skill and guts to become a real adventurer! My players are eager...

I'm not suggesting that autistic people should have carte blanche to do everything they want without consequences, far from it, but blaming the parents without knowing the full picture strikes as really offensive to me.

Snorri, it would be great if you refrain from puttings words into my mouth. I never said that those parents are "angels" or anything of the sort. I never said that Tequila Sunrise should take that responsibility (in fact, I stated that I think he was well in his rights to get rid of that player). What I did say, and I adhere to it, is that no one can blame the parents of a person with a severe neural disorder without knowing more about the situation. I do not know if they were doing a good job or not, and neither do you nor Hama. In many cases of autism, it is not a matter of explaining that certain things are not right, or of teaching them. They may know that, and still be unable to do anything about their behavior. Autism is a disorder, which means that the afflicted person does not have control over it. Sometimes reasons and explanations, knowing right from wrong, is not enough.

Likewise, the fact that those parents became enraged and the sister left the game does not make them automatically guilty of bad parenthood/sisterhood. Some reactions from the outer world can become a huge problem for autistic people and send them into a regression or a deeper withdrawal into their inner world, so it is at the very least comprehensible that they reacted less than cheerfully.

That said, I do believe that the relatives of autistic people need to be very aware of where their limits lie and which activities are appropriate for them and which are not. That's why I don't think Tequila Sunrise is to blame for his reaction.

Again, I will repeat just in case there are other brains in the OFF position besides mine. I'm not defending those parents. I'm just saying that it is unfair to condemn them with just the information we have.

Oh, also, pointing at someone's ignorance about one specific issue is not an offense in my neck of the woods. You can point all day long at my ignorance of American football or quantum physics, you won't see me offended. Though I admit that my first post was too biting, I didn't insult Hama in any way in my last post(at least I'm not aware if I did, and if that is the case I apologize). I was just disagreeing with him about how, in my personal experience, autism works. Autism is a very serious problem with profound consequences in the lives of those affected and their relatives. Ignorance of its nature is commonplace and very detrimental to the relationship of autistic people with those more fortunate than themselves. I also would be blissfully ignorant of its realities if, unfortunately, I didn't had to learn much more than I ever wanted to know about it.

Edit: Tequila Sunrise's last post sheds some more light on the issue, and I thank him for not adding fuel into this fire.

Yes, I know very well the kind of job that parenting an autistic child is. My son will be 4 next august, and he's beginning to speak now. He's not an extreme autist, thankfully, but the way we as parents communicate and relate with him is perforce different. He's very intelligent, observant and perceptive, and he communicates through diverse methods he has developed, but he still does not feel the need to communicate verbally nor he really understands spoken language 100%. When he throws some tantrum in the street or at a store, which he often does due to a combination of not fully understanding our explanations and his development being akin to a child in the Terrible Twos, my wife and I have to put up on a daily basis with the judgmental stares of other parents or even people who don't have the faintest idea of what is like to have children of their own, stern looks that imply just the same bs you are spreading: spoiled brat... bad parents. This coming from self-absorbed people who don't know about the kid's plight and wouldn't care even if they knew.

So excuse me, and I really don't want to offend you, but you thinking that it's a matter of parents failing to explain that threatening people is not ok only shows me that you know nothing about autism, even if you know several people with this disorder.

I'm not suggesting that autistic people should have carte blanche to do everything they want without consequences, far from it, but blaming the parents without knowing the full picture strikes as really offensive to me. It's like if I blamed your parents for failing to instill in you a modicum of empathy and compassion towards individuals with a severe neural disorder. I'm not entitled to judge that, and neither are you.

On the other hand, maybe I am oversensitive to this topic.

Autism is an extremely variable condition (or rather, a very broad spectrum of similar disorders). There aren't identical cases; every afflicted person displays different traits and problems. An extreme form of autism may in fact allow the person to participate in a game but create huge difficulties in other areas. Not every deep autist is Rain Man.

In regards to the issue of threats, my gripe was not with Tequila Sunrise. I can understand that no one likes to be threatened, and it was his right to expell that player (even if I think that, being aware of the extreme autism of the individual, showing more patience and understanding would have been the right thing to do). No, what hit my nerve was Hama's remark.

Anyway, I don't want to keep threadjacking the thread. I merely wanted to express my feelings about the issue, and that's what I did. Now, back to lurking.

How is "booting him" exactly "helping him handle his problem"?

Look, if you really are so close to several autistic people, you of all people should know that things are not that easy, and that blaming parents (especially if you know nothing at all about the case) is exceedingly myopic. Unless you are incredibly unattached, of course.

Well, his parents are to blame. So what if he's autistic?

As the father of an autistic 3-year old boy, I find the sheer amount of ignorance and callousness in this statement overwhelming.

That certainly seems the best way to go. Thanks!

Some people play the game in different campaign settings.  Some people even play in worlds of their own creation.

This. Some of us play in homebrew worlds that existed 15+ years before the advent of Golarion. We use Pathfinder simply because it is in our opinion the best available ruleset for the game we love. That's why I prefer new core rules and classes being as setting-neutral as possible. 

I play a ninja that is not Asian in any way.

She is a 'shadow adept'. I told the players I was using the ninja class to represent a non-ninja concept, but it doesn't stick. They keep referring to her as a ninja regardless how hard I try to persuade them otherwise.  

And this too. I've always been in favor of refluffing, as long as mechanics don't need to be reworked. In my campaign, ninjas are nightblades (inspired by the old Rolemaster class) and psionics are mystics (refluffed and renamed everything: classes, powers, disciplines, etc). The difficult part, as noted by Umbral Reaver, is making it stick. Gunslingers, however, are out. 

My world is heavily inspired in four sources: swords and sorcery fiction, epic tolkienesque high fantasy, north-western European pre-christian mythology and the history of Dark Age Europe (gradually entering the Middle Ages). In consequence, gunslingers are a big no-no, and oriental (non-refluffed) classes and equipment are not allowed.

 It's not a matter of racism, as it has been suggested. I'm as passionate about Japanese culture as I am about the Vikings, the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans and the Native Americans. I've purchased most oriental gaming material that has been published (from L5R to RQ's Land of the Ninja to the old Rolemaster oriental companion). So no racism here, it's just that these classes do not fit in this world just as they don't fit in Beowulf or the Norse Eddas, not without heavy refluffing. As is, they would disrupt the ambience, feel and continuity that I've been trying to establish for the last 20 years. If someday I build a world based in Asian mythology (and I've been wanting too for a long time) it will be the other way around. 

In short, I think that DM's approval should still mean something. I'm fairly lenient regarding players' options, and in the few occasions when I outright ban something, it's for good reasons. I still haven't met a player unwilling to listen to those reasons.

Long time reader of the forum, but never posted for lack in confidence in my English (Spanish player here... someone there from Barcelona- Catalonia area?).

Hola! Catalan here, living at about 30 km from Barcelona! What's with Catalans and dark elves in these forums? :p

Warning: Wall of Text ahead!

I'm currently running and designing a hex-crawl sandbox campaign, so I can share some of my experiences in case you find them useful.

In your case, I would begin by deciding if I want a true sandbox or if I could design it as a sort of megadungeon. While not really sandboxes, megadungeons share some of their characteristics (multiple avenues for exploration, clearly differentiated areas or "levels", living breathing societies often rivaling each other, etc...). I could see an underdark sandbox designed as a sort of megadungeon.

If you want a true sandbox, there are several things you need to bear in mind.

Scope: You need to decide the size of the campaign area and plan accordingly. Too small and they will have it explored in no time (especially if there are many parties adventuring simultaneously, like in my campaign). Too large and you will end up doing a lot of prep work for areas they will probably never visit. Also, you need to decide which range of levels do you want your campaign to support (even if you nerf teleportation and other similar magic, distance tends to change its meaning at higher levels).

Mapping: While I personally find hex-crawling the best system for a sandbox, you have to consider what suits better your needs, especially since you're doing an entirely subterranean "wilderness". The scale of the mapping is very important too, since it sets the amount of detail you're aiming to. A single hex (or square, if you prefer) usually contains a single entry/location, representing the most interesting thing in those X square miles. By deciding the size of the hexes you are deciding how far apart those interesting locales are.

Danger Level: A truly old-school sandbox would throw CR out of the window and would include the possibility of encountering creatures/challenges of wildly different danger levels. Personally, I prefer a “gradual” approach. When I created the regions in my campaign, I gave them an average EL, representing the EL of the most common encounters. Then I populated those regions with encounters within a range of one or two levels above or below that, and I designed encounter tables with those numbers in mind. I also created some locations considered “danger pockets” in every region. The region EL would increase the farther you get from the base town/city, so the players will get the feeling of ever-increasing danger, and it would allow them to explore without blindly stumbling into an unavoidable TPK. Note that it could still happen in my campaign, but only with a freak combination of rolls...

Give them reasons to explore: You really want to avoid the “where do we go now” feel you mentioned in your post, and you don’t want to force/persuade/railroad the players in any way. So they need incentives. Seed the campaign with all sorts of rumors, knowledge skill tables, legends, lost artifacts, things going on in the background, etc etc. An old trick is the “wanted posts”. It may sound trite, but I’ve used it in my campaign to great effect to get them started at 1st level, give them some quick and easy goals. Once they step out of the tavern and set foot on the wide world, they will find plenty of reasons to explore on their own. The thing is to avoid them wandering aimlessly, boringly filling hexes without rhyme or reason.

Random Tables: Your best friends. They are often frowned upon by the current generation of gamers, but I find them invaluable when running a sandbox. For me, they fill the details that you are not prepping but that solve the "empty hex" syndrome. Random tables not only dictate monster encounters, they will also generate hex content (lairs, geographic features, etc) and, if you feel comfortable winging it, your players will never know if it's a random encounter or a fixed one.

Keep the world dynamic. Don't let the players suppose that everything they have cleared will remain cleared. This not only adds verisimilitude and realism, it also creates opportunities for further adventures, for the same PCs or other newer parties that may arrive to the campaign. Also, try to link hex entries to other hex entries so they form a kind of “tapestry”. I do this to create some sort of “plots” without having an over-arching plot a la adventure path. The PCs may find them or not, and may realize the connections or not, but if/when they do, oh the looks on their faces!!!

Do not restrict yourself to underground types of terrain. This is highly subjective, and perhaps it is not what you want in your Underdark, but an interesting idea imo is to add some “hollow earth/pellucidar” areas that feature some natural terrain that shouldn’t be there. Jungles filled with dinosaurs and lost civilizations, and the like could give some variety to the usual caverns and corridors and surprise your players.

Well, I think that’s it more or less... I don’t know if any of this will help you, but there we are. If you’re nothing like me, be prepared for insane amount of work, but it pays off in spades and could result in really amazing and memorable sessions! And the good thing about player-driven campaigns is that often you will be as surprised as they are! Have fun!

We don't use traits in this campaign (we have something similar called backgrounds that I had already concocted when I began working on it before traits were there).

Something outside the normal progression is definitely the way to go, mythic rules or otherwise.

After all, you don't want to have one PC lacking the bonus because there's no master that suits his style... or to actually have a perfectly suited master for every character.

You're quite right, that's a potential pitfall, and I'm also trying to figure out how to do it fairly. On the one hand, this is a sandbox, where "player agency" is of paramount importance. On the other hand, it is unfair to let only one character train with a master if the others are unable or unwilling to find one that suits them. So if the party decides to find a legendary swordsman so the fighter can train under his tutelage, the DM cannot and does not want to force/persuade/railroad them to do otherwise, but the rogue, the cleric and the wizard may find it unfair. What to do?

Maybe create fairly generic masters who could train the whole party? It takes away a lot of flavor but solves the root problem. The disparity between PC classes makes this hard to implement and quite implausible imo. Equally implausible would be to have one master especially tailored to each PC... I mean, I can devise backstories and in-world reasons for three or four of these so-called masters, but more than that and it becomes too cheesy. Dilemmas, dilemmas...

Great job! I really like it!

After reading the thread title, Joan of Arc immediately came to mind. Peasant girl, chosen by a deity to become a holy warrior and a charismatic heroine even against the deity's church. Didn't end well, though. Her story always screamed paladin to me. I would allow it in my game, and it could provide interesting RPing possibilities.

Edit: Ninja'ed by Bruunwald!

First of all, thank you people for your ideas and opinions!

Well you could just prohibit advancing past a certain level in any given class. say lv 12 unless you find a legendary teacher in that class.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it does not work for me. Limiting PCs goes against my intentions. I hated level caps back in 2E, and do not plan on bringing them back in any way. The rewards for training with a legendary master should be cool and feel like... well, like a reward.

things I mostly agree on.

Agreed. Fluff-wise, Prestige Classes seem the perfect solution... mechanically, not so much. If for the pains of digging up the whereabouts of a legendary master of the martial arts, preparing an expedition to get there and after surviving the hazards of wilderness travel and passing the arduous tests of the cranky old warrior, I tell my players: "congrats, you now will be able to take levels in this awesome PrC that is mechanically inferior to the highest levels of your base class and will prevent you from ever acquiring your capstone abilities"... well, I'm with you there, this option seems good but in practice it doesn't work either.

I have never considered training to level up, for pretty much the reasons you exposed. We never used those rules in 2E, either. However, this campaign is, in some way, "old-schoolish" in feel (but not in rules), a hexcrawl where the characters write their own stories and have absolute freedom to explore in any direction they want. The world has to offer incentives for the PCs to explore and wander, and that's what these "legendary masters" are. Finding one and persuading him/her to teach you is no mean feat, and I want some benefit that the player can enjoy mechanically and at the same time comes with a cool story behind, not something that looks like a bonus but comes with attached limitations.

This is how it was in 2nd edition, that you had to go train with people at a certain level in order to level up and gain that new knowledge. I know for druids, you had to go find and defeat a druid of the same level you are in combat in his own forest, all the way up to beating the head druid of the continent.

I like this way but having to quest every level (which is essentially what you're doing) kinda sucks. I would say once every 5 or 10 levels, that way you can say hey, here's something really cool, you get to fight with the headmaster of your region, gain xp and level at the same time and it would be a perfect time to introduce the next main quest, especially if one just finished..

hope this helped!

Yeah, I remember those druid duels of old! Cool concept, but really impractical in actual play imho... I doubt I implement something like this for several reasons, the main being that it doesn't fit with the main premise of this campaign. If I ever do something like that (in another kind of campaign), probably it would be a once-in-a-PC's-lifetime thing, but right now I don't see it happening. But you're right, handled properly it could be one of the coolest moments in a PC's career! I'm saving this one for the future...

How about granting a bonus combat feat (selected by the master) or a slotless magic item that is turned into an inherent ability of the character? In other words, training with a master gives you abilities beyond what you are entitled to from simple level advancement.

Another possibility is to use the playtest rules for Mythic Adventures that should be coming out very soon. Assume that each master is a mythic character, and that training with him gives a character his first mythic level in the master's mythic path. How well that would work can be determined once we get those playtest rules.

The bonus combat feat or the benefit of a slotless magic item are the kind of mechanics that resonate with my basic idea, something special that rewards the player in a unique way. If I take the feat route, I guess giving a bonus feat is probably a better idea than just saying "next time you gain a feat you'll be able to select the X feat". However, the Mythic Adventures idea may just be a bullseye. I didn't know much about it, but with the scarce info I had I was planning on using them to recreate the feel of the Silmarillion-like Dawn of Times of my campaign world. After your suggestion, though, I read more about them and man! those rules may be perfect as a training reward! This option seems very interesting to me and it fits neatly with the "legendary masters" concept. The bits about magic items that grow with the character is also of enormous interest to me, since I'm sure that the Pathfinder crew will implement it infinitely better than WotC and their Weapons of (Disappointing) Legacy. I guess Paizo just got one more playtester!

Hi guys,

I'm currently DMing a sandbox campaign in my homebrew world, with a huge emphasis on exploration and wilderness adventure. (Insane amounts of work, BTW, but immensely rewarding in my experience). One of the concepts that I want to implement is the idea that the setting is the home of some legendary masters of the arcane or martial arts, living in the wilderlands as hermits, wanderers or reclusive loners (such as a mythical, reputedly immortal shaman; a legendary elven archer; a lone and eccentric wizard in his remote tower; an old heroic swordsman; etc) and that upon finding them, they might train the PCs, passing their secrets unto a new generation of heroes. I think it's a cool concept, one that might interest my players and give them additional incentives for exploring the vast wilderness. The part that keeps me struggling is the rewards to be gained from such training. With casters, this is not difficult (access to rare spells, etc), but martials require extra thought. Some of the ideas that are bouncing in my head:

1) Restrict the access to some of the feats in Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, etc, adding as a prerequisite "being trained by master whatever". If so, would you keep these rewards within the normal feat progression, or would you find acceptable to give the new feat as a special reward above and beyond the normal class-and-level feats? I'm partial to the former, but perhaps this is seen as unsatisfactory after a long quest to find the reclusive master.

2) Make the training an essential requisite for Prestige Classes. With the rejection of PrC in favor of archetypes (at least in my group and at the current levels), and the added amount of work that designing or adapting the classes would mean, this is not an ideal option, but flavor-wise it makes a lot of sense.

3) Award optional mechanics that are not usually allowed in the campaign (hero points, for example) to those trained by a legendary master.

4) Additional combat maneuvers such as those found in The Secrets of Martial Mastery by Rite Publishing. The problem I find in this is that I see those maneuvers as tricks and stunts that everyone should be able to try, most of all veteran warriors and rogues. Too pedestrian for a "legendary" master, in a way.

That's mostly all the options I'm considering right now, and not a single one fully convinces me. What do you think, fellow Paizonians? Ideas? Suggestions?

I join the ranks of those who definitely like the idea of adding the fighter's weapon training to armed combat maneuvers!

It's... just perfect, rules-wise and flavor-wise.

It does have a cost. It costs a feat. The player has to decide they will be WS'd enough of the time to justify the expense of the feat.

I agree it was a problem in prior editions with how WS worked (and how those prestige classes worked and such) but in p3 I really don't see it being a big problem. They've already taken most of the bite out of Wildshape, especially prior to them getting elemental forms. I don't see the need to nerf them further by disallowing Natural Spell, or by making them expend greater spell slots to use it.

Yes, it does cost a feat, but if with that feat you gain a power that is inherently better than any other available option, I find it hard to really see it as a cost.

Anyway, you're probably right about it, and it's not such an issue in Pathfinder as it used to be. Wild Shape it's not what it used to be, that's for sure (and that's a good thing, IMHO: simple, straight-forward and easy to use). I'm waiting to have one of my druid PCs to be high enough level to playtest the new WS with Natural Spell.

As I said in previous posts, I have other concerns about it, such as the (powerful) ability to cast spell after spell in unassuming, nearly undetectable forms, or bomb away spells from high on (something that does not fit with my druid conceptions), or removing the need to be in human form, not to mention the somewhat disney-esque mental picture of an eagle waving its wings as if they were arms and squeaking magic words (it's rather odd, and most players I know find it rather funny and comic, no matter how much I try to describe the scene in frightening or menacing way.)

Well, either there's something wrong with it or it should be a class feature.

Yes, that's right, but with Natural Spell, I personally would not like to see it added to the druid class features. I don't know, perhaps it's just a pet peeve of mine, but it does not fit my mental picture of what a druid is like. I really think it should be some element of decision-making: should I stay in my base form and cast spells? Or should I become a beast and enter the fray (or scout, spy, whatever)?

With Natural Spell as currently written, this becomes less of an issue. If the feat would require some cost or have some limit (personal spells only, or a slot one lever higher, etc), I would find it less disrupting.

As a frequent player of rangers and other wilderness-related classes, I have found that the survival rules, and specially the tracking rules, while good and simple to use, are somewhat... lacking.

The rules for tracking describe the difficulty of finding and following a track, but what happens to one of the most important and useful aspects of tracking, the reading of the tracks and the information-gathering aspect. This is an aspect very used in fantasy and non-fantasy fiction and movies, but the game does not allow it.

I would like to see something that add to the current rules, not changing them. I use some house-rules in my own campaign that let the tracker to extract additional information the higher he rolls above the base DC for following the tracks... If you barely make the roll, you can only follow the track, but you only know the basics (boot, paw, hoof, etc). The higher you roll above the DC, the more info you discover (exact type or number of creatures, pace, etc etc).

This helps the ranger more than everyone else, and it gives a real meaning to the tracking bonus they get, since with the static and somewhat low current Tracking DCs, it's not really needed once you get to mid level.

This rules would crown the ranger again as the king of trackers, and the bonus to tracking would be a much more meaningful addition.

I would also like the adding of more situational modifiers for the survival rules (for the winter season, for example, or expanded visibility and situational modifiers with the different modes of vision in mind, rules on making camps on the spot, etc...)

Natural Spell seems (and in the campaigns I have played and run, is) THE feat that druids always take at level 6. When a feat is so good that is almost required, there's something wrong with it.

Natural Spell has a lot of advantages that are not readily apparent on paper but they do como into play in actual gaming. The ability to take unassuming shapes and bomb from above is just one of them.

And more important (at least to me) is it goes against the very flavor of the druid and the wild shape. Changing into beast form has always been (and should still be) for movement, stealth, combat and other such functions, and if you need to use your spell magic, then you revert to humanoid form. It must be some things that the base form is better suited in, and spellcasting should be one of them. I believe that polymorphing into a beast all day long, still being able to cast spells thanks to natural spell, is one of the things that lead to the myth of "As a druid, I don't care if I have Str, Dex and Con 3" and the CoD point of view. The new Wild Shape and Beast Shape spells go a long way to solve this, and Natural Spell has been somewhat nerfed by it, but still.

If Natural Spell had some sort of cost, a slot one level higher, for example, at least it would imply some sort of choice, but as is, the feat is completely broken both in crunch and fluff, and is one of the extremely few feats I currently disallow it in the campaigns I run as a DM.

Given how recently widespread literacy has appeared anywhere, the idea of automatic literacy for any class in a "medieval fantasy" game is problematic at best. Given that, barbarians should be no more inclined toward illiteracy than anyone else.

True. Illiteracy was the norm in medieval Europe, and only the priesthood and some nobles (not all of them) could read and write. So, if we stick to the "ridiculousness" of barbarians not being illiterate, by the same reasons only clerics and wizards should begin literate (since there's no noble class per sé), and I don't think that's going to happen anywhere soon.

Conan became a fighter (never a rouge). Just because you steal doesn't mean you have to be a rouge. Think of t in terms of why the assassin class was dumped.

And...if you guys remember, Conan was stupid. He didn't know what the hell was going on until some other barabrain jumped on him, and started eating him in the gladiator pit.

Conan didn't learn how to read and write until he became trained (aka a fighter). I see Conan more as a low level barbarian, eventually a high level fighter with a good climb/use rope skill.

Have you ever read a Conan story? The ones by Howard, the original author?

Conan was anything but stupid. In fact, he was pretty sly and witty, in his own barbaric way. And charismatic to boot. The fact that he was not used to "civilized" customs does not mean he's stupid. In one of the early stories (but one of the last in Conan's timeline), The Phoenix in the Sword, as a king he is seen promoting the arts and culture... The arts!

And I think the Pathfinder Barbarian is ideal to model Conan-like characters. How many times does Conan "panterish twists" and "cat-like leaps", dodging enemies and darting past files of enemies to confront the sorcerer, even when he's caught in the "red mist"? That's exactly what Guarded Stance does.

Having playtested the class recently, I can say that my half-orc barbarian is much more versatile, interesting and fun to play than any previous version, and is much more Conan-like if you wish to build your PC after that fashion.

And about Illiteracy, I like 1st level Barbarians Illiterate too, but this is a very minor point, if at all, and it does not bother me at all.

Am I the only one that thinks Acrobatic should give a +2 to Acrobatics and Fly checks, and Athletic should give a +2 to Climb and Swim checks?

It's a minor tweak, but it feels much more in synch with the feat's names...

In Spain too. For almost 30 years, we've been using "guerrero" (warrior) instead of "luchador" (fighter) as the translation of the class, since it sounds much more epic and iconic. But since I buy and use all of the books in english, I would be saddened to lose the good, old fighter even when warrior is indeed more appropiate.

I like almost everything of what has been done to skills until now, but I also think that Perception and Search should be two different skills, from a gamist and simulationist point of view.

Seems alright to me.

But it still doesn't adress the problem that the fighter might make a power attack with his battleaxe (Greatsword is out, because two-handed actions can't be done while grappling) at the monk, while the monk is strugling to get a hold to deal unarmed damage (which would work for a monk, but not other characters fighting unarmed. And the fighter could make a full attack, while the monk only gets one attempt to make a grapple check and deal unarmed damage.

Yes, but doing so he's risking a very probable pin in the next round (the monk would have a +5, so it's almost a "kill or be pinned" situation"). Perhaps it would make more sense to restrict it to a standard action, though, so full attacks could not be possible while grappled. Or even better, make it another option of what you can do with a succesfull grapple check (move, damage, pin or make a single attack with a light or one-handed weapon with the usual -2).

Does the penalty to Dexterity when grappling also apply if you have the agile maneuver feat, that allows you to use your dexterity modifier instead of the strength modifier?

The penalty to Dex while grappled does not have anything to do with you applying Dex instead of Str to your CMB, so it would apply equally.

Of course, it will be a pleasure... Be aware that this is just my interpretation of the rules, and while I think this is the way it works, others may have a different opinion!

Well, let's say a monk is facing a fighter. Seeing that he won't be able to defeat the heavily armored fighter in straight combat, he decides to resort to grapple.

Monk's Round #1: Monk attempts to grapple the fighter. He rolls his CMB vs. 15 + fighter's CMB. If the Monk has Improved Grapple, he doesn't provoke an AoO. If he doesn't have that feat, he provokes, and if hit by it, he adds the damage suffered to the grapple DC. Since the monk is trying to grapple with both hands free, he doesn't suffer a -4 penalty. If the grapple attempt succeed, he grabs the fighter, and now both have the grappled condition. They cannot move, and take a -4 to their Dexterity, and have a -2 to attack rolls and CMB checks except those made to grapple.

Fighter's Round #1: Now it's the fighter's turn. Both enemies are struggling. The fighter may choose to try to free himself of the monk's hold (if he don't free one of his hands, dropping his weapon, etc... he has a -4 penalty to that check). He could also use his Escape Artist skill if it's worthwile for him to do so. If he's succesful at breaking free, the grappling attempt is over. But since both of them are grappling, he could also try to make a grapple check to pin the monk before he acts again (or move him, or damage him). And he could choose to not even try and just attack the monk or anyone else within reach with his weapon, suffering the -2 penalty for being grappled.

Monk's Round #2: If the fighter is not free by now (and has not pinned the monk!), the monk must make a CMB check (with a +5 bonus) to maintain the grapple. If he's succesful, in addition to maintaining the hold he can choose to move dragging the fighter behind, harm the figher applying his unarmed damage or pin the fighter so he's unable to attack again.

Fighter's Round #2: If the fighter is pinned, he cannot move and is flat-footed, and takes a further -4 to his AC. He can only try to escape the pin (by making a grapple check or with Escape Artist) and purely verbal and mental actions.

And this would go on until the end of the combat. If the monk had companions near, they could use rope to tie the immobilized fighter, or the monk could do it by himself, but doing so would require a CMB check with a -10 penalty.

Well, that's it. I think this is the way it works, hope it has been of some help.

Also, can you "perform one of the following actions" in the same round you initiated the grapple? That's not really clear and needs clearification.

I don't think so. The way I read the rules, it seems that the initial grapple check is an attempt to grab your opponent (by one arm, or leg, or whatever), and if you manage to keep the hold on him until your next action, you can pin him, move him or harm him with a +5 to the grapple check(like in the classical arm-twisting hold, this will hurt your enemy, but won't completely immobilize him). If your enemy, in his next action, is unable or not willing to free himself (deciding to attack you instead, or whatever) , he's not even struggling with you, merely bashing or slashing, probably trying to kill you before your next turn. Of course, since you're both grappling now, he can even try to pin you before you pin him! (risky, since you will gain a +5 if he fail to do so).

That's the way it works for me, and it feels pretty logical and balanced. In game, it feels much more similar to those scenes in movies or books with Tarzan struggling with the crocodile or Conan struggling with some beast with huge fangs that draw ever closer to his face.

I like psionics and I also like rage points and rage powers... And no, they don't feel like the same thing to me.

Saying that every class features that uses a point-based mechanic feels like psionics is like saying that everything that uses a feat-based mechanic feels like "fightery". Rage points are an abstract concept, a unit of measure, and caring about if they're called points or rounds or whatever is not doing any good to the playtesting process.

Does every class with prepared spells feels like a wizard? No way...

Let's keep the class mechanics and the class flavour apart.

For psions, I also would do something similar to what it's been done for specialist wizards, but with the psionic disciplines instead. Keep the list of exclusive powers of each discipline, and add a list of benefits, psi-like abilities and powers for each one, taking the wizard specializations as a kind of "template".

Wilders still don't know, they are not that bad as they are, but they would need some upgrade to be on pair with the rest of the PF classes. And I agree, soulknives need full BAB!

I like the new system for spellcraft/knowledge arcana, it makes more sense from a logical point of view (I like the "theory/technique" disparity). I still think that Combat Casting should do more than give a +4 to cast defensively and while grappling, perhaps giving the option to cast defensively only if you have the feat... That would make a huge difference between combat-trained casters (clerics, druids, fighter/mages, etc.) and purely "librarian", "academic" or non-melee wizards and sorcerers.

Only problem I see is that could make the Combat Casting a much more powerful feat than before, and it would be probably seen as an "must-have" feat, something I don't like at all.

I'm not Official, but I think that would work just fine.

Well, the kind opinions of my fellow posters is equally well received, oficial or not

Another confusing grappling situation that came up in our first Pathfinder playtesting, in the first Savage Tide adventure.

A creature with improved grab bite my character, a half-orc barbarian, and since it hit, it rolled for grappling me, and succeeded. Now we both were grappling, and in my next action, I dropped my greataxe and tried to pin the beastie.

My DM and a fellow player said that was wrong, since I didn't start the grapple, and that all I could do was trying to break free.

I told them that was not the way it worked, and asked them to re-read the grappling section, but after that they were still in doubt. The DM let me try (and succeed, going into rage and expending two additional rage points for the Strength Surge power!).

I think I was right, after all it was a great risk for me, since had I failed, the beastie would have had a +5 bonus on his next grapple check, and probably it would have pinned me and dealt automatic damage too. I really think we did things as they are meant by the rules, but I would like to have some official confirmation to show them,and to know if I was wrong or right.

I think that modifying the Two-Weapon Defense Feat to automatically upgrade when you gain further feats of the Two-Weapon tree (and so eliminating the need for the improved and greater feats) would also solve this...

I don't like it at all. We tried it in a past campaign that lasted up to about 8 level, and the DM insisted to use this, along some other tweaks to the system (spell points and so on), and it didn't work. Things got ugly pretty fast.

And another one, please....

aryon_de_sarland@yahoo.es

I think this must be an omission in the Spellcraft DC tables, if casting defensively is still in the game, or in the text for Combat Casting if it's out.

By the way, one of the basic rules for spellcasters in D&D has been "stay out of melee!" since day 1, so I have another idea:

What if casting defensively is only an option if you have the Combat Casting feat?

In this way, combat casting means literally Combat Casting even more, and it widen the gap between this feat and Skill Focus: Spellcraft. As it stands now, a difference of only +1 makes the latest feat a clearly better option.

What do you think?

Fighting feats like this are about the only feats that don't get more powerful as one levels, with the exception of power attack feats. A caster get meta-magic feats that as they get access to better, higher level spells they can do more powerful things. While the mechanic is never spoken out loud to improved as they level, it already exists.

Agreed. Empower Spell (for example) is vastly more useful to a wizard/sorcerer when he's 12 level than when he's 6 level...

I'd go a different route and completely change the concept of traps altogether.

As portrayed now, traps have a very low, or absolutely no dramatic value. They are very simple - you either detect it (trap bypassed) or you don't (trap suddenly appears and causes damage). Both solutions are ultimately unsatisfying to the players.

Compare it to how the traps are done in adventure movies - a trap is triggered, the characters find themselves in a tough situation, and then they pull out of it through their own individual skills/luck/whatever.

D&D traps should follow this pattern as well - walls that are moving closer to each other, only to be held by the Barbarian's superhuman strength long enough for everyone to escape; Monk that jumps through a series of wall-blades; Rogue that disables the mechanism while the rest of the party is counting their last seconds; a Fighter that shoots an arrow, disabling the trap; a Wizard that dispels a magical trap or a Sorcerer that blows the wall and creates an exit for the party.

I'm with you. The most fun we've had with traps in my gaming group has always been when they required some action by the players, like some of the old-school traps in Mud Sorcerer's Tomb. When the players are frantically trying to stop that impending doom, and the relief that comes if they manage to do it, are priceless moments, the ones you keep talking about for a long a time. I'm all for seeing more traps being designed that way.

So far what I see with the Sorcerer bloodlines is a massive improvement, I'm seeing more emphasis on magic as it should be then melee combat. (Save for the draconic feats where I feel the emphasis is appropriate.)

I agree 100%... Gotta love the new sorcerer!

I do think however that giving the Arcane bloodline the Arcane bond with the arcane utility spells that line gets as free spells may overall considerably tip that bloodline in balance over the others. I'd like to see that ability replaced with something more in line and perahaps Arcane bond rolled into a feat that sorcerers can take.

This I do not fully share... I see those things you mention are some of the reasons for the arcane bloodline to be the default. Also, I do not see such imbalance in the bonus spells: if you want those spells, I do not see the difference between gaining them as bonus spells or selecting on your own. The spells, feats and powers of every bloodline seem designed to make each bloodline unique. The arcane bloodline makes for the most "wizardly" sorcerer, and thus it's appropiate to gain the arcane bond and the rest of its features. Giving arcane bond to every sorcerer would substract to the flavor of the arcane bloodline IMHO.

It could be that, even when Wisdom is perhaps better suited to halflings than charisma to some people (including me), perhaps it is too much of a bonus given that it would add to the +2 bonus to saves against fear, and the stacking +1 halfling luck save bonus...

I don't know if it is so, but perhaps Jason tried to find a suitable ability score appropiate for halflings that at the same time didn't bolster those racial features even more, and charisma was the chosen one.

Prince Gwydion of the Prydain Chronicles, specially in the first book, seems pretty rangerish to me...

Also, in some older books are given historical and legendary ranger examples such as Robin Hood, Orion the Hunter, Jack the Giant-Killer, and the huntresses of Diana.

Well, I'm currently DMing Age of Worms, having played the first two modules, and I'm planning on converting the campaign to Pathfinder rules... and while I can add new class abilities to all NPCs relatively fast, and condensing their skills is easy too, but adding more skills points to spend to every single major NPC in the campaign would be a much greater and time-consuming task, so I understand Jason's reasoning for keeping the skill ranks as they are. Also, with the condensing of skills I have been creating some characters and it's not as a big of an issue as it used to be.

In Alpha 2, I was in favor of changing halflings to +2 wis/druid favored class (and I still am, by the way), because to me giving them +2 to Intelligence makes them a race more intelligent than humans... I can see that in the case of elves, but I don't see it in halflings.

Then came Alpha 3 and changed the +2 Int/wizard favored class to +2 Cha/bard favored class, and even if it's not my ideal solution, it was a change for better.

All of this made me think about... This boards prove the sheer impossibility of pleasing everyone. We all like the game, and speaking for myself, I admire the brave effort and the great job the Paizo folks are doing, but since every one of us have his own ideas about how certain things should be, and his pet peeves about the game, it's truly impossible to fully please everyone.

Oops, I just entered in rant mode...

As the player of a half-elf ranger character made in 2E, ported to 3.0, 3.5 and now Pathfinder, I must say that now in Pathfinder my half-elf finally is himself again... The 3.0/3.5 version was close, but not quite there... The Pathfinder version gives him back everything he used to have, and then some!

So all I have to say is I like to have half-elves back... I think no one I know has made one in all the 3.x years, and now people is talking about rolling a half-elf this or half-orc that... and that's a nice change.

Sure, only problems is that they must multi-class to get Improved Vital Strike (pre-requisite BAB +16, as of now). As it is a great feat for a monk, my suggestion to put it in the bonus feat section - as they don't need to meet the pre-requisites.

Oops, missed that little bit!