Kong's page

Aside from the extra bookkeeping this would require (which is a bad thing)... you haven't played the playtest. Magic is distinctly less awesome than it has ever been. They nerfed it so hard that casters feel weak and uninspired now.

Pile this on top of it, and why would anyone bother?

Nerfing magic, doesn't change how awesome it is.

Restricting its uses per day, doesn't mean players will stop using it... or decide to use other less effective solutions. They don't think that way. You restrict use, and all you do is shorten the adventure between breaks/sleeping. That's all you do.

Back to your suggestion (somewhere in there) that magic actually be bad for people, interesting thought for a certain campaign, but certainly not something that would be good for a default for Pathfinder.

Why not?

You lay the baseline down like any other mechanic. Then you adjust to meet your campaign setting, like any other mechanic.

You can adjust the levels of tolerance, to meet you campaign setting. Then you can adjust the level of severity you wish the consequences to have to match your setting.

Its rather easy to do once you have a baseline. And takes no more or less effort then say a arbitrary resonance mechanic that is basically no different the spell slot limits, and will work as equally well as that mechanic. Which is to say it wont work.

Restricting use, does not make it less advantageous to use.

Rysky is 100% right:

All of the things the OP said apply to a lot of things, and Rysky is right about the reply: Money.

---

I need a series of surgeries and medical treatments. Why don't I get them? Money. I can't afford them.

This applies to the peasants and wands, or potions.

According to the book a peasant makes like 1 SP in a day of downtime.

If a minor healing potion costs 3 GP that means 30 days of savings with no money going out.

If we assume the average peasant pays out 50% of their funds for housing and food that means they have 3 SP 5 CP per week for savings barring other needs.

Of that we can assume 2 SP in miscellaneous expenses.

Leaving 1 SP 5 CP per week.

Assuming nothing else comes up that means in 20 weeks (5 months) a peasant can afford 1 minor healing potion.

Magic is awesome and expensive.

Money isn't a control factor. It doesn't work now, nor has it every really worked.

They book says a peasant a makes 1sp, sure. But that is just an arbitrary number that has no real basis in reality at all.

In 3.5 your average peasant farmer can make 250gp to 300gp a year, with out much of a problem. And that is with giving half his production to lord of the land. Nor does that take into account livestock and things like butter, cheese, eggs, and milk production.

The idea that a peasant makes 1 sp a year, is just idiotic. It shows how little effort paizo actually puts into the foundations of various game mechanics. And why what they build on top of has little substance.

Please keep in mind as you read that I skimemd over... pretty much all of that, but sneaking these setting issues into talks about mechanics caught my eye.

Kong wrote:

Why doesn't every peasant in the land know a cantrip or a low level spell? There is no reason they shouldn't.

Why is everyone a peasant? Why aren't they all rich and live long happy healthy lives? Time. Opportunity. Cost. If you want to have a setting where everyone has easy and ample access to magic of all kinds then go for it, but it's not the default assumption for Pathfinder.

Kong wrote:

Why don't clerics walk through the cities blowing their whole load of spell slots, on healing magic, before bed every night?

Who says they don't? For Golarion I can easily see the Clerics of Good aligned Deities doing this.

Kong wrote:

Why isn't every king or queen layered with protective magic every moment of their lives?

They usually are. In fact pretty much every ruler and their surroundings I've seen statted up have magical protections full go.

Kong wrote:

Why are their mundane healers, if clerics have magic?

Time. Opportunity. Cost. Maybe all the Gods they know of are jerks, there could be lots of reasons for this. Lots of Clerics are also mundane healers as well.

Kong wrote:

Why doesn't everyone use wands?

Those cost a lot of money.

Kong wrote:

Or use potions,

Those also cost money.

Kong wrote:

for everything.

M O N E Y

What cost?

So why are clerics mundane healers at all. There is zero point to it. Unless you are out of spell slots, there is no purpose beyond say basic first aid, to know any mundane healing.

Nearly all the protection magic, do not actually cost anything for the caster to cast except time. Yet we have this idea that only the rich can afford them. Which just isn't true. You just need a caster willing to cast them. There is no down side to casting them, for the caster. Even at 10 percent the "going rate" they are still pure profit and basically take no time out of day.

The GM is left with coming up with all these reason why Gods don't do this or that. Why isn't this this or that way. Hundreds of questions that each need their own answer. Yet, if you change magic to have some kind of real consequence if it is over used. That one answer fixes nearly all of them.

Sure wands cost a lot of money to make, but they are literally every where in the world. And their is a reason why the wand problem is a problem.

Money is not a controlling factor. It just isn't, it has no substance to it really. The economy system in pathfinder/3.5 has always been one of the most broken parts of the game anyway.

First, I feel its important to make it very clear that I have not play tested the new edition of pathfinder. So please keep that in mind as you read what I have to say. The details may not be complete, however this isn't about the details.

So, we begin with what everyone already knows. When it comes to magic, "Everything is Awesome". This is the most simple and basic truth when it comes to magic. It is fact. It can not be argued otherwise. When it comes to magic... everything is always awesome, all the time. I will elaborate more later.

I was inspired to write this after I read a thread about this "resonance" mechanic in the new edition. Now as I said earlier, I have not play tested the new edition. So the complete details escape me. However, they truly aren't important. What is important for this thread isn't the details, but the idea of resonance.

What is resonance at its most basic? Well that is simple, it is a control mechanic to balance magic. It doesn't matter how it works, or what problem it seeks to fix. It is a mechanic to control magic. But magic is, as we know, awesome. So it will fail. Doesn't matter how you work it or change it, it will always fail. Just like every control mechanic that has come before has failed.

What are spell slots? What are item body slot restrictions? These are simply put, attempts to control magic. Attempts to balance magic. Attempts that have all failed.

So why have they all failed.
They fail because it doesn't matter how many spell slots you have, or don't have. Magic is always awesome. It doesn't matter how many potions you can or cant drink in a day, because magic is always awesome.

All these "balancing" rules come at the end of the long road that is magic. You can not balance magic at the end of the road. Not when the foundation of all magic is... "everything is awesome".

You see, there is never not a reason to use magic. If you have magic, it is always a good idea to use that magic. Restricting access to magic doesn't change this. There are no situations where its not a good idea to use the magic you have. Magic is awesome. It doesn't matter how many spell slots I have for spells, if its always a good idea to use those slots. Players will always use them.

It doesn't matter how much resonance you have or don't have, you are always going to use what you have. And since magic is awesome, there is no reason to continue with out magic. Not when you can wait until you can use magic again, and then proceed. So restricting access to magic, will never balance magic. Restricting access to awesome, doesn't change how awesome it is.

Magic is pure advantage, and zero disadvantage. So players will always use any advantage they have, to its fullest. They will never not use advantages, and never not try to maximize advantage. That is just a logical fundamental of gamers.

How do you balance magic? You make it less awesome at its foundation. You make it have a disadvantage or consequence, at the foundation level that makes players have to consider alternate solutions for their problems. Or want to consider other solutions.

What is magic? How does it really work? How does it actually function in a realistic world that has magic?

Why doesn't every peasant in the land know a cantrip or a low level spell? There is no reason they shouldn't. Why don't clerics walk through the cities blowing their whole load of spell slots, on healing magic, before bed every night? Why isn't every king or queen layered with protective magic every moment of their lives? Why are their mundane healers, if clerics have magic? Why doesn't everyone use wands? Or use potions, for everything.

The questions go on and on. There are hundreds of questions like these, and never a reason to say no to magic.

You want to balance magic, then change the laws of magic. Make magic not be the end all be all perfect solution. Magic has to be a double edged sword. There has to be consequences to using magic all the time. There has to be a reason to just say No. There has to be a reason to respect magic, to say it isn't always the best solution. Players have to have a choice between wanting to use magic, or not wanting to risk it.

How would I do it?
Well, first what is magic if not pure mystical energy. So why is it okay to just run pure mystical energy through your body all the time, at any quantities you want with out any thought to how it will effect your body in the long term.

So why shouldn't using magic, or having magic used on you, have a negative effect in the long term.
Don't use a resonance pool to artificially instill a restriction on magic usage, like a water tap with an artificial off switch when you use to much. This doesn't stop players from wanting to use magic, or waiting for their recharge.

However, what if magic accumulates in the body. Using some magic isn't a problem, and in fact can be used all day every day... in moderation. However, if you over use far to much magic over short periods of time. Well then there are consequences to your health.

What if you have gauge, a tolerance to how much magic you can be effected by over the course of an hour and be okay, instead of a pool. You stay under your tolerance and you are fine, no problems. During fights or challenges, the gauge fills up as magic is used on you or you are exposed to magic. The gauge empties every hour you go without magic being used on you or around you.

The gauge has no hard limit. Players get to choose when and how much magic they are exposed too. So if they choose, they can go over their limit... and accept the consequences.

You go over your limit, and small things start to happen. You get sick, you suffer ailments, or your tolerance lowers. You go way over your limit... you overdose. You suffer major side effects. Physical and mental side effects. Long term side effects, that are real and have substance. Consequences that aren't just hand waved away with the use of magic spells.

When magic isn't always awesome, players will balance themselves. Suddenly its not the best option to blow through all your spell slots in one fight. Suddenly, you don't have worry about balancing how many spell slots wizards have... but how fast they use them. You don't need to limit the number of consumables the use in one day... but just how fast they should use them.

You make players want to stretch out magical resources over the length of a long day... instead of short 30 minute bursts. The key words are want to. You don't force, you give players a choice. But you make it a real choice. If magic isn't always the awesome, if it costs you... then its now a tactical choice of how and when do you use it. This creates opportunities to want to use mundane solutions. And it creates situations for non magic users to step up.

All of a sudden you create a reason why magic isn't everywhere. Why everyone doesn't just use magic. Even why people might not want to ever use magic or have it used on them.

Why isn't magic "healing" the go to healing for everyone... because in the long term it might be worse for your health or mental stability then what ever you are suffering from.

Why aren't the rich always guarded by massive protection magic all the time? Because they do not have that kind of tolerance. It can be dangerous. Maybe to dangerous.

Its a staple of fantasy fiction, that some wizards go to far with magic...take it to far and go crazy by magic. Or are even destroyed by magic. However, currently that's not possible. So make it possible.

Make magic a double edged sword, that it should be. Real, applicable consequences. Do that, and you change the fundamental truths of magic and how it is used in game. Only then do you have a chance at bringing magic under any kind of control, or balance.

.

My group is about to start a long multi-session dwelve into the under dark, so I have decided to implement some resource record keeping to increase the immersion. I think it will add a nice "survival" aspect to the chapter of the campaign.

I am looking to make the players track things like ammo, food, water, and other key items. So in order to do this, I want to print out some player aid cards to add a visual element to keeping track of their dwindling resources.

Im not having much luck tracking down suitable artwork though. Its very hard to impossible to track down artwork of travelling rations that "fantasy" adventures would carry. I want to use artwork, over say real world pictures, which has made things harder.

I'm looking for a variety of artwork of different dried meats (beef, salted pork, or fish), fruits, and etc. So does anyone have some ideas on where I could find such artwork?

Also pictures of various edibles an adventurer might find in a fantasy under dark setting (such as mushrooms, lizards/animals, or other fauna) would also be really helpful.

Can't a player already make a Spellcraft check of DC 15 + spell level to recognize a spell as it is cast? Isn't this really the same thing as knowing the spell?

This kind of hand-waving has already been going on since 3.0. The new magic item rules don't make it worse.

This is quite true. But it also doesnt make anythinge better, which is what I thought PF was all about.

Wow, very passionate! You know, I agree with you Kong. Would there be a simplistic way of stating this in the rulebook without taking up much space, or at least, no more space than the current rules? I'd be all for it, but something like what you propose could potentially take up its own chapter entirely. Perhaps, instead of a -5 penalty for not having the prereq., make it mandatory to meet the prereq. in some way, with a modifier ranging from a -5 penalty to a +5 bonus, depending on the rarity of the 'thing' acting as a prereq.

Aside from that, i think the base DC should be 10, instead of 5 plus caster level..

This is very true, but you have to ask yourself. Why shouldn't it. Magical Items a huge huge part of the game. They are in every facet. You cant really remove them without restarting from the ground up.

So with that said.... why shouldnt they have thier own chapter for creation. Expecially if it adds so much to gameplay and enjoyment for the players. So many new areas to expand into, some many opportunities to excell and succeed, and so many stories and memories.

Everyone wants PF to be great, well so do I. Do something that makes people take notice, do something that says "hey, thats cool" and "Wow, they really did something thier" or better yet leaves them speechless. Do something different.

My grandfather always said, "If something is worth doing, its worth doing right."

They can still put "skill" roll in as an optional "faster play" rule, which is what it feels to me. If thats what they wish, but as a main rule... its just so blah... doesnt inspire for greatness.

Kong wrote:

Yet another "have to remove all things negative" move that only serves to make PF more Blah then ever.

Actually, this is the sort of catch that is the reason why we are doing this playtest. You should not be able to create spell trigger and completion items (such as scrolls, wands, and stafffs) without the appropriate spells... as that makes very little sense. The intent here, was to allow someone to create a gauntlet of rust without knowing rusting grasp.

That said, I am thinking more that there should be two types of penalty, a –5 for having someone else meet the prereq, and a significantly higher penalty for not meeting the prereq at all.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

PS: Kong, you really should try to work with the playtest here instead of against it. This is the first time anyone outside Paizo has seen these rules and we knew there were going to be some changes, but your tone is not very helpful.

I will be the first too admit... I can get quite passionate about things, expecailly things that burn my briches.

I dont think someone should be able to create a guantlet of rust, without first knowing about the rusting grasp spell. Hand waving this sort of thing with a simple skill roll, lessens it and removes the reward of something achieved.

Plus it puts more "mechanics" cogs into the machine, and having to balance them. Might work great for these magic items, but its over or under balanced for these magical items. It lessens the backwards compatibility even more... forcing the GM to rework all other non PF magic items yet again.

I can whole heartedly agree, if you see prerequisites as they are a bad thing, and you want a work around and other option. Thats awesome, Im all for that. But lets create something that puts something into the game, not take something out of the game.

An idea that puts something into the game, and lets players work around Prereq. is instead of replacing the need for the "Rusting Grasp Spell"... with a simple skill roll. Replace it with a reward, something from an actual rust monster or monsters. Get so many flasks of rust monster blood, and that specific Prereq. is met. Get creative, breath some life into magical item creation.

Create a list of "Things" that can be used to replace the prereq. of certain spells, greater the spell the more rare the "thing".

Give players reasons to go and look for things. Give them reasons to adventure. Create game hooks. Create adventure. Dont remove it, or lessen it. Playes always kill monsters, and then look around for the reward. Well now instead of hiding the gold and magic items... the monster itself is the reward. The "Thing" can even reduce the gold needed to create the item (it is the reward for beating that encounter).

Look, you just reduced the gold grind to create items, and met the prereqs for the item too. Lots of people have expressed concern with the gold grind, and wealth level dependancy in the game. The above is a perfect way of lessening that impact.

You already removed EXP penalty from magical item creation, but In my campaign "things" are regularly used to reduce or cancel that penalty too.

Just last week my group killed a Red Dragon and used its heart as the main ingredient for a +5 flaming greatsword. The sword has history, it has a name (the dragons)... and it value to players. It means something. Its a TREASURE.

I guess Im just getting sick of all the dice rolling. Not everything should simply be reduced to a dice roll.

Kong wrote:

Yet another "have to remove all things negative" move that only serves to make PF more Blah then ever.

This is a bit vehement. If a caster fails their DC check, their materials and money are wasted. There is now an explained reason for how cursed items come into play. Some stuff here is great, in my opinion.

You are speaking like this is set in stone. If you find it too easy, make a constructive argument to Jason when the time to review this section comes up, like increasing the DC by 5, or increasing the DC by 10 for every prerequisite that they don't have ...

I think the entire idea that you can simply do away with prerequisites with a skill roll to be utter rubbish. It fixes nothing, and creates yet more problems.

All this does is create yet another way for Wizards to max out thier spellbook with every single known spell.

It gives no explanation on how someone can scribe a fireball scroll, and no nothing about being able to cast said fireball in the first place. Then it allows that same wizard to learn how to cast Fireballs, from reading the scroll he just now created.

It creates an entire world where any wizard can create any magic item, no specialists. No having to actually earn the knowledge, by learning prerequisites knowledge. No flavor... just another roll and a hand wave.

Where is the problem that this "change" is suspose to address? Thier are none, its just yet another "have to remove all things negative" move.

Its not even fun, it isnt remotely rewarding, and its hardly memorable. Yawn, (rolls a dice)... created another magical... Oh yah... next.

Rant over... need a breather.... and will try to learn to communicate better.

I really am curious now. Is it intentional that a Wizard could scribe a spell he didn't know for only a DC 10 + caster level?

At level 10, it seems fair to assume a wizard could have a Spellcraft of +18 (10 ranks, 3 class, 5 int). That means that, on a 1, he could scribe a scroll for a spell he didn't know up to the highest level spell he knows (5th level spells, 9th level caster).

Seems pretty awesome to me. Especially if he has a Blessed Book.

If this is true, then this simple reason right here means I wont be using the entire PF magic creation system at all.

Its completely worthless as far as I am concerned.

It removes all the very limited fluff that we have currently have, and reduces it to spending money and skill roles. Yah... what fun.

No research to find the spells you need to create magic item X.
No adventures to track down someone that could cast that spell.
No bargain hunting or haggling in the market to acquire scroll X.
No disadvantage for wizards what so ever.
No difficult choices for spellbooks aquisition.

No disadvantages what so ever at all.
No challenge what so ever at all.

Yet another "have to remove all things negative" move that only serves to make PF more Blah then ever.

Two Hand weapon warriors sacrifice defense for offense, gaining bonuses towards damage.

Sword and board warriors sacrifice offense for Defense, and should gain bonuses towards defense.

The only problem is you can only give so many bonuses to AC, before things fall apart. Make the bonus too high and combat breaks down, dont make AC bonuses high enough... and shields get ignored again.

Giving bonus DR to shields through feats rewords warriors that invest in skilled shield training. And it fits the idea of the sword and board warrior having better defense... as in taking longer to loss the same amount of HPs a two hand weapon warrior would.

Giving DR to Armors just benefits two hand weapon warriors, and reinforces the fact that sword and board sucks.

"Free for all Multiclassing and Prestige Classing" may be fine in some peoples campaigns and not in others.

But the real question isnt about experienced DMs makine House Rules, we have the knowledge already. Its about New Players and NEW DMs. Any rule that says "Up to DMs discreation" doesnt change the fact it forces New DMs to take something away from a Player that he or she might not like. And gives them NO guidelines on how to do this, why it should be down, and what to say to thier players.

Thier is no foundation for NEW DMs to make a logical discions, only thats its "up to the DM". Thats it. So NEW DMs are forced to find out on thier own whats right and wrong for thier play styles and thier group.... simply through trial and error.

This can and will lead to many destroyed campaigns, hard feelings from other non-optomized characters, and general chaos all around. Now that for me, isnt very fun or exciting. Its hard enough for NEW DMs to begin a career as a DM, so why go farther to stack even more against NEW DMs. This is a game after all and everyone should have fun, this means the DM too.

And inversly this isnt just for DMs, its for players too. Leaving everything up to a NEW DM can go just as wrong. He can restrict things backward to far, because of un educated fear. Restricting players to much is just as bad as letting the go un checked, at least in my book. Balance is the key.

Thier needs to be rules and guidelings, written in black and white in the book for all to see. This not only provides NEW DMs with guidance and reasoning, for which to draw apon. It also gives NEW Players a firm balance to begin learning the rules, and a place to start from. Both Players and DMs can always come together later, after much experience, and make the changes (through House Rules)to the game based on thier play style.

These rules dont have to be hard rules, it doesnt even have to be a single rule. They can have different rules for different levels of playing, as done with the Experience Points to Level system. Anythng is better then nothing that the vacuum of "Its up to the DM" brings your campaign. Thier needs to be a foundation, something strong that helps show the way. If thier is no foundation, then how can any NEW DM come up with a logical "House Rule" for his players.

Pathfinder isnt just for we few who have played for years, after all. Its for the future generations of gamers, and needs to built for them also.

This is sorta personal for me, I know a girl who wanted to DM... very much so. Now shes only player, and refuses to take up the screen ever again. All because of a single player turning a great time amongst friends into a nightmare.

I look at it this way, its always easier to say "Yes, you can" then it is to say "No, you can't".

By having No rules in place DMs have to House Rule in changes that have no basis for the players to draw apon. No rule thier before, now thier is one. This forces DMs to take something away from players, that players think is thier due. Causing bad feelings, expecially in new players.

But if thier are Limitations and Restrictions in place, then Players know they are thier and accept them. Expecially New players. So if the DM wishes to house rule in a change, he/she can. And instead of taking something away from the players, hes giving something too the players. And Happy feelings all around.

Its agreed all around that every group is going to play the way they want when it concerns PrCs. So why not think about future New players, and expecially future New DMs. Put the rule in for them, nothing worse the friction amongst friends caused by a game.

Paizo doesn't lock most of the pictures in the pdfs. So you can easily copy the pictures, maps (without text), etc. out of Paizo's products into your image program of choice and print them out.

I have exactly zero experience in working with PDFs, I will look into this though. Any tips...

The blog is almost what you want.

Awesome, took me a few moments to track the blog down. Never new it existed. Its great, thanks for the tip.

Im still hoping for more Online Content though... lol. As a DM thiers nothing that makes me happier then quality "free" online content. Have to pinch those pennies after all.

While I must admit I love the flavor and boost to the sorcerer, bloodlines is not the way to go.

Bloodlines should be tied to race, not class.

For example, when my dwarven fighter takes a level of Sorcerer suddenly I get a Bloodline that has never materialized before now. Ok, possible but stretches all credibility. The bloodlines ONLY manifest for the sorcerer class.

Bloodlines can be limited to only manifesting at Character level 1, but then so much of the new sorcerer is tied to the bloodline that multiclassing is hosed.

Dont look at it that way, look at it this way. You've been a fighter for years, but this power has been dormant... building... until it finally over flows out and manifests itself. You're not becoming a Sorceror and all of a sudden gaining a bloodline ability.

More like your fighter has manifested something thats been in him and his family bloodline for ages. And now he is pursueing that innate ability by becoming a Sorceror (the only way to explore and strenghten bloodline abilities).

Bloodlines have nothing to do with races, I see them as family heritage... or genetic anomolies. Either way, they are passed down through the family tree. And just like lots of other things passed down through a family tree, it can skip generations. Someone can even have it, and never know it... or never have it manifest. Kinda like wild magic, its unperdictable.

Of course this means that Sorcerors are born the way they are, with bloodline abilities inside them. But they still have to choose to use that power, even after it manifests. If you dont choose too use it, you never learn how to use it to its full potential. Your born a sorceror, but you have to choose (pick the class)to pursue that path with your life to get the fullest out of it.

I've always had this out look about Players taking a Prestige Class, and thats that it is in fact a Prestige Class. Its a Prestigous Class, treat it as one. Its ment to be an honor, something different. Not something everyone is dabbling in like a fad.

So for me,that means you can only ever have one Prestige Class.... thats it. No exceptions, and to date I've had no complaints. Level dipping into a dozen prestige classes and core classes is just plain lame in my book.

Thats why I still enforce Favored Classes and the EXP Penatilies for Multi-Classing. Allows for Multi-Classing just fine, retaining a solid foundation which prevents alot of headaches that come with level dipping. And with out inhibiting creativity in the least.

And no complaints from either of my game groups, in fact most like it that way. Of course we started back in 2nd edition, so our mentality is abit different. Multi-Classing in 2nd was really insane.

Are there any plans for free online content or upgrades? Articles on different Pathfinder classes? Articles dealing with the specific changes in the system, and how both DMs and Players can work them into there games? The options are limitless, and would go a long way to promoting the Pathfinder RPG with a bit of extra umph. Even if access was restricted to subscribes of the Pathfinder magazine, still great value.

How about an art gallery? Pathfinder has some very exquisite artwork that I would love to be able to use as handouts in my games. One of WoTC website features for 3.5 that I truelly loved was the Free Art Gallery. Very nice and easy access too artwork that I used extensively in my campaigns. With the very unique feel of Pathfinders artwork style, it would be a boon to actually have access pieces of artwork that reflect that style.

One thing you could do is rule that magical ammunition follow the same rules as creating wands.

Crazy? Hear me out.

Magical ammunition: 50 items which, when used, become mundane.
Wand: 50 charges which, when used, become lost.

So, you could create a set of 50 arrows of some generic 1st level fire spell to create fire arrows, or maybe shocking grasp to create lightning arrows, or whatever. Or, you could just the magic weapon spell to create generic +1 arrows if you want.

Thats a very interesting idea. To late for my campaign as it already started, but its defently something worth looking into. I never would have looked at arrows as wand charges.

I've looked through the new pathfinder PDF and am pretty impressed. Only I noticed that magical item section has not reference to magical ammo specifically. Im Not sure if this has been talked about already, pretty new to the whole Pathfinder thing.

Its widely accepted that enchanting the ranged weapon itself is superior to enchanting the ammo. Which has always bugged me a little, although not sure why... just one of those things that nag at you. It was something I always ment to house rule in a change for, just never got around to doing it until this weekend. I just started a new campaign and it came up will characters where getting rolled up.

One of my long term players is a huge fan of a PSP game "Jeanne D'arc", and one of her favorite characters is an elven archer who uses different magical arrow attacks. So she put together a rather interesting Ranger, and took the Craft Magical Arms and Armor. So im changing some rules for her, and using her character to test them out in game.

Requiring that magical ammo must be first enchanted to be +1 before they can have any other special ability placed on them just seems to raise thier cost beyond functionality. To get flaming arrows, you have to make +1 Arrows of Flaming. Which is just redundant considering most enchant thier bows with Attack Bonuses, and these don't stack with the magical arrow bonus.

Im going to be housing ruling Magical Ammo of all shapes are the exception when enchanting weapons, and they dont require a +1 bonus before other special abilities can be added. And I would think that this would be something Pathfinder could look into fixing or altering. Perhaps even coming up with something better, then my idea.

Im also removing the mandatory "destroyed on successful hit" rule, but still keeping the 50% break chance. Again, to increase the functionality of magical ammo.

I use the conformation role in my games, and nearly everyone loves using it as is.

For the two players that have complained in the past, I house ruled in a new feat that basically gives you a bonus to hit when rolling for confirmation (+4 bonus). Its situational, but well liked amongest my players.

We use a house rule in our games, to increase the use of these feats. We added a stipulation that changed both of those skills from Cross Class Skills into Class Skills, along with the +2 Bonus.

The get more use now, and thier useful through out a characters career. Although Im not sure how this change would effect the New Skills system in the Pathfinder Rules.

Another alternate house rule we use in our 3.5 games is that Cross Class Skills only take 1 skill point per rank, but the max levels still remain as normal. It always worked for us, increasing the amount of custimization for characters... while still keepin class skills intact (something my players like).