Lane Coursey's page

ChibiNyan wrote:

Being a buffer/healer (thing that 100% work and hard to replicate) does work, but it's not what many people want out of their caster.

Well, apart from pure HP even "healing" does not work 100% anymore. All "cure/remove" spells that did work automatically in the past are now subject to a counteract check and I know already how much it will svck to lose the one neutralize poison you happen to have memorized to a bad roll.

Just to clarify, most of those cure/removes you are referring to, were not a sure thing in PF1. True, they were automatic success in D&D 3.5 and earlier, but they have not been a sure thing for 10 years.

There's now a no-armor white-mage cleric that seems new to the d20 tradition of games.

The true "white-mage" in PF2 is the Angelic bloodline sorcerer.

This is also ultimately a fantasy universe, and the world itself may have different terms for each of these things then the historically accurate names of our universe.

Right, and having said THIS, there is a 40 year continuum from at least AD&D, through 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5, Pathfinder, and now PF2, wherein the longsword is a one handed 3ish foot blade, the bastard sword is a hand-and-a-half sword with a 4ish foot blade, and the great sword is two-handed with a 5ish foot blade.

So, all of the other items in the special non-magical part of rulebook tell you that you can make this item magical and what that means. There is no such rider on the elven chain.

Is it really not possible to enchant elven chain? That seems like an oversight. I hope its an oversight.

Not only that, but the next entry for the Mithral chain shirt specifies it reduces check penalty. The Elven chain (also Mithral) is quiet, but does NOT have reduced ACP...????

Personally, I would love if the bestiary entries also had a chart/sidebar for knowledge checks. It'd make for a faster reference for the DM and serve to help establish how known different creatures are, without tying it in to CR. Because really, why are older dragons harder to ID than younger ones (And if you decide that they're less common in your setting, you can easily bump the DCs by a bit)

Oh gods yes! This should definitely be in the bestiaries, as well as a tactics bullet point.

*Please, please do something to standardize special material items. I have some character concepts that would just love mithral weapons but it's just cheaper to buy adamantine weapons.

I strongly second this. If a material can be made into a weapon or armor, we need sensible pricing for all possible items.

My personal preference is to have a more realistic cost increase that takes into account weapon category (light, one-handed, etc.) and size of the weapon or armor.

Spell/effect sub-school/sub-types for negative/positive energy.

CONSISTENT spell statblocks. Basically NOTHING should be cut/paste in the entire book. Look at and properly apply standards to EVERYTHING.

And do not ever truncate a spell stat block because it "works as x", I would prefer shorter, simpler spell descriptions; then repeat in similar spells.

Speaking of which: I will second in the strongest terms, BigNorseWolf's sentiment for less wall-o-text rules, and more bullet points.

Unified system of ranges for spells and weapons.

Bullet points. If a sentence runs on and has more clauses than a chelaxian labor contract, bullet points.

YAAASSSSSS!!!!

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Moonclanger wrote:

Its weakness is its complexity. Even when running a published adventure, as a GM I often spend more time preparing for a game than my group spends playing it. This is because there are so many different rules a GM needs to know in order to run the game smoothly.

For what it's worth, I regard that complexity as one of Pathfinder's core strengths. I've played a bit of 5e, and while it is definitely easier to pick up, the principal reason running it is not to my taste is that IME it feels like E6 stretched over 20 levels; it feels like it would quickly become boring for me personally to DM precisely because there is not that range of things to look up, and I have similar feelings about the OP's suggestions overall.

I would love to see a 3.5-derived variant that made the last quarter or so of the level range (and ideally on into epic) more fun and playable, but I am unconvinced that drastic simplification is the way to go, and for so long as there is a sizable (or at least vocal) contingent of players who both regard C/MD as a major problem and object to martial characters being powered up in ways they deem unrealistic/too anime-like, that seems fairly intractable.

I just want to say, I totally agree with that. I don't like how "complexity" became a curse in the last... Decade?

Everyone (ok, tha majority of RPG developers)want "more streamlined" and "easy to pick" games and that's fine and cool. To a point. After a point, it's just dumbing down and losing depth, plain and simple.

I get that everyone has little time nowadays and I get that more complex games are harder to pick up for newbies but... come on, we started with these games back in the days too. There's seriously something wrong with the people now, who are saying WoD, for example is rules-heavy...

You don't exactly need a doctorate to understand the more complex games, it's just a bit longer learning curve and in the meantime, it's rewarding, if...

For myself, it is not at all about new players and the learning curve. I want my games to have a healthy player base, but that is a secondary concern. A good basic game and good rule writing (or re-writing) can take care of that.

The problem with the complexity of the 3.x games is playing and running them. We recently finished Rise of the Runelords at 19th level, and we're in the last big fight of Way of the Wicked right now, at 20th. And let me tell you, if it wasn't for HeroLab, it would be almost unplayable. Even WITH HeroLab, we make mistakes constantly just trying to keep everything straight. Yesterday, we played for about 11 hours, with minimal sidelining, and we covered round 6 to round 13 of our struggle against the Mitrans. And we are experts, playing with the same group members since 1987 in 1st Ed., 2nd in 1989, 2.5 in '95, 3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in '03, and PF in '09.

However, I agree that 5E is too simple, or rather, too shallow. Which is why I keep hesitating to launch a 5E campaign. I agree with your last, that a middle ground would be preferable.

-Cheers

I've been slowly working on a Pathfinder conversion for the Deities & Demigods 3.5 rules. Taking a page out of impersonater's work on his 5th edition conversion Deities & Divinity, I've decided to submit what I've done so far.

This is still very much a work in progress and far from complete. I got tired of looking at a Word document so started playing around with design ideas before I get back to work.

Faiths & Avatars

Not bad, if you like statting up deities in this way. I definitely used to, but since have leaned more toward no stat deities with avatars limited to "mortal" power levels. But, to each his own.

[EDIT] My apologies. Upon re-reading your rules, I see that you have written them with this in mind. No hard stats for the god, just the avatar. Cool.

I will, however, point out that Deities & Demigods was not 3.5, but 3.0. I would keep that in mind when converting some things over. For example, DR is different in 3.5 and by extension, Pathfinder. It starts at 5 and generally stops at 15, with 20 reserved for really special toughs.

-Cheers

You know, I just did some math, exploring the possibilities of all those free metamagics. Although I would still be conservative in granting unlimited combinations of feat stacking, you really can't break elemental damage spells. Balancing DC against damage output, with the reality of Saving Throws of challenging encounters and resistance and protection from energy spells...have at it.

I worry though, that a super spell metamagic combo is hiding out there somewhere...Caution.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

I think one symptom of a straight, as it comes, run-through is the seeming disconnectedness of the various layers of Karzoug's minions. Some of that is natural and right, but you have to go out of your way to show the players the rhyme and reason to much of it. Saving it for a big exposition at the end, or indeed after the end, is not very satisfying. We spent four YEARS playing that AP. Realizing the connections after the fact, and largely out...

I feel the same way, or even worse: I have a bad habit of only prepping the next "book" once the previous book is complete, so sometimes I don't even realize the connections as we're playing through.

One of the things I'd put in my hypothetical "DMs Guide to RotRL" is a Foreshadowing Guide. For each book it'd clearly indicate opportunities to foreshadow elements that will pay off in later books.

Other wishlist items;
- A guide to "What the PCs Should Know About Thassilon, and When They Should Know It."
- A brief update for each book about how Sandpoint has changed since the last chapter, and how the PCs reputations evolve and spread.
- An Org Chart for Karzoug's forces, detailing the roles and connections between the Lamias, the Giants, the Goblins, the Skinsaw Cult, and various human forces
- A Dramatis Personae section detailing all the NPCs, including individual motivations/goals
- Notes on the themes of each chapter: When the chapters were first published serially, there were great notes from each author about their inspirations and intentions. Knowing that the Kreeg Homestead is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre homage, or that all of Book 4 is an escalating series of races-against-the-clock is something that could be spelled out for GMs.
- Restored cut content. I'd love to see the Lamia's riverboat gambling den from book three, and the notes on dealing with the individual Runeforge factions through roleplaying rather than combat.

That sounds fantastic, and should be included in APs from the start. Or at least released as addendum expanded content online.

Kudos to you if you create such a guide. I wish I had such for CoCT. I am cobbling together what I can from these boards and the old Guide to Korvosa.

Ok, thanks everyone! I've got a lot of great stuff to look at here, thanks to all who responded. I might revive this thread if there is something particular that I have further questions on. Cheers!

It's cute the way he imagines that he has any control at all over the UNCHAINED BEAST that is a house rules thread. ;)

Hellfire. It looks like fire, but it is not fire. Mephistopheles was supposed to be the inventor and maybe the only one who could use it apart from the Hellfire Dragon(Wyrm?) in Monster Manual 2 IIRC.

Have no fear, in the new Book of the Damned, Hellfire has a stand alone mechanical entry that standardizes it. It is half fire, half unholy power; the unholy half does not harm Evil creatures, and does double damage to Good creatures. Just to be sure, the updated Hellfire Ray description specifically references this passage, to explain how hellfire works. Squeeee

My group immediately house ruled that the Infernal Bloodline power was ACTUALLY hellfire...as it should, and must be.

StarMartyr365 wrote:

I love my Adobe subscription since I get _ALL_ of the programs without having to pay thousands of dollars for them up front and then thousands more every few years when "Creative Suite #whatever" is released. $50 a month does it for me. In all honestly, I'm just going to pay for a year at a time starting next year. One bill, once a year. Easy.

I know, right? It would be nice if LWD did something like that. Instead, they're going with the "pay for the software and pay a sub to use it" model. It would be like you paying thousands of dollars for Adobe AND paying $50/month to access it. Would that be as awesome?

-Skeld

Well it's a bit different than that. The current projection for the subscription cost is $2 a month. That is not like paying twice for a product, as the monthly fee wouldn't cover ANY content on any service.

It may be that the negative backlash from the perception of double charging will either remove the monthly, or more likely affect the pricing and credit structure of the content. Let's see what happens.

Wei Ji is correct. Both Classic and Online will support Pathfinder, but not Starfinder. Additionally, Pathfinder support will not be part of the initial HLO roll-out. Initially, HLO will only support Starfinder.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was speaking in general about HLO working with HLC. I too wish there were an offline/Classic version of Starfinder. I am just happy to have support for Pathfinder.

According to the FAQ, they will support both formats simultaneously, purchases will count for both formats, and the estimated sub fee is TWO dollars.

If that is all true, count me in!

Our group took about 4'ish years to finish Savage Tide and another 4'ish years to finish Runelords. I like it that way personally. There is a feeling of significant accomplishment. We just started Crimson Throne now too and that will probably take another 4'ish years.

Playing, to me, is just getting together with my friends, hanging out, not worrying about work and bills and such and slaying monsters and solving mysteries. I don't care if we finish one AP in 4 years vs. 14 modules.

The idea that "you can now get on with your life" shows that playing full APs isn't really your thing. There is nothing wrong with that, as there are plenty of good modules and scenarios out there. You can even play single books of APs as modules or even single chapters of a book as short adventures.

If you really like the level progression, depth, and complexity of full APs, but not the time investment, then that will be rough. The depth and richness of an AP is tied to the time to play through it. You or your GM can work through more storytelling speed things up, though. It probably isn't as satisfying but you get some of the experience.

You can also get involved in more PbP or virtual games along with an AP with your core group. That may help satisfy some of your concerns and are less time intensive as you can just play from home.

Absolutely agree. I realize you aren't speaking directly to me, but regarding my earlier post: don't get me wrong. I am not complaining about the APs. They are the greatest innovation in adventure publishing and, I believe, have as much to do with the continued success of Pathfinder as anything.

Back in the day ('87 to 2000), we gamed often, with a sprawling cast of interconnected subgroups of characters, and nearly every adventure was at least half home brewed. It took me 13 years, of which probably 8 were regular for my main, to reach the vaunted 20th level. Our characters aged, hell we aged, and matured.

To me, the APs are just too long in the same adventure. It feels like you are trapped, and cannot do anything else. There is no end in sight for so long. It ain't over until the BBEG sings. And though taking 4 years to level from 1st to 18th takes some of the weird feeling out of fast leveling, in story it's like 6 months to 2 years of the PCs young lives. So, when you think about it, it still feels too fast.

But, obviously, that's just my personal feeling about my own gaming. I have long struggled with the power curve of D&D/Pathfinder, and have sought solution for as long. But my group plays PF, so...such is life.

-Cheers

Tinalles wrote:

In June of 2010, I started playing in a Kingmaker campaign. This past Saturday, September 2nd 2017, we finally finished. Elapsed time: seven years, two months, and an indeterminate number of days (I'm not sure of the precise date we began).

Around June of 2011, I started GM'ing Rise of the Runelords with a different group. That campaign is currently about a third of the way through Book 5, six years later.

I would like to say that I'm jazzed at finishing Kingmaker. My character Cara even got in the killing blow on the BBEG. But honestly, all I really feel is relief that that's finally over and done with, and I can get on with my life.

I'm going to finish GM'ing Runelords. We have invested so much time and effort in it at this point that none of us can bear the thought of not finishing.

But after that, I seriously doubt that I am ever going to play in or run another adventure path. As written they are just too long. I respect groups that have the commitment to run these things. But, at least with my current groups, it's just not realistically compatible with the demands of an adult life.

Thanks for making a thread about your AP preference. You are aware that you can just play one installment and be done with it? So you would like to deny those of us that have the option to continue a campaign with continuity the chance to do so? Play one installment if that's what works best for you. Start with part one or part six, it doesn't matter.

There were no demands made to 'stop making the long APs, ugh'. And your tone is rude, and very presumptive. Move along.

The key difference here is that it says "threatened space", not something like "threatened square". Any individual only has one "space" that they threaten--that space will include multiple squares (excluding weird layouts/situations) but is still one space.

Excellent catch. But infuriating. I see some great improvement in the Starfinder language over Pathfinder, but things like these need a line of explanation. I am an expert at parsing WotC/Paizo gamespeak, and that one had me flummoxed. I was reading it as check for each square as well. One shouldn't have to have a law degree in order to decipher these rules interactions.

"Jon Everyman

Level 20 Commoner
HP: 140 (20d6 + 80)
AC: 12 T: 12 FF: 10
Melee: Unarmed Strike +12/+7 (1d3 + 2)
or
Club +12/+7 (1d4 + 3)
Ranged: Sling +11/+6 (1d4 + 2)
FORT: +15 REF: +12 WILL: +11

Feats: (10 + 1(Human)) Toughness, Endurance, Diehard, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession), Great Fortitude, Alertness, Fleet, Deft Hands/Deceitful/anything that gives a flat +2 bonus to some skills, Survivor, Catch Off Guard."

Accurate, but he's awful. A 5th level PC could solo him (I only say 5th level as he takes a lot of HP to wear down, especially with Diehard). But he can't do anything. What's the earliest a caster can reliably beat that Will Save?

We have to include more items for the poor sod. He can't Fly or detect Invisibility.

Anyone want to do some mathematics on earliest level to solo? I'm guessing 5th for a Barbarian or an Enchanter Wizard with Fly.

This is an excellent illustration of my long-held assertion: "high" level Commoners don't threaten the world. In almost every discussion of NPCs, especially commoners, people push back at giving such folk levels. They contend that they don't need or deserve more hit points or BAB. I have always felt that this was narrow-minded, and that imagining the world (including ourselves) as almost all 1st level Commoners, is selling it and us short. And more to the point, missing out on more interesting NPCs who don't happen to be Experts, Aristocrats, or Warriors.

Now, I would only joke at the 20th level Commoner, only because with that much experience, you would just do more at some point...But 10th level Commoners, hell yeah.

Back in the early to mid 2000s, when SKR wrote his "thesis" about levelled NPCs, people lost it over these 8th and 9th level Commoners in their 70s. If you give them normal stats, and age penalties, those guys have like 20hp at best. I think we're safe.

insaneogeddon wrote:

As said above by poster that owned "Class is not role!"

Wealthy sons would be commoners, and as said 2nd n 3rd nobles sons who DON'T get to go to court and hobnob to become 'aristocrats'- histories a great teacher and things still haven't changed just look at Hollywood trust fund kids that are 2nd grade.

They can live without a skill set = 'commoner', REAL commoners need a skill set be it boosting cars or croppin weed - they are 'experts'.

Aristocrat is not a racial class you don't get it just because your inbred!

And yet being an aristocrat generally means an entire childhood of being taught basic knowledges, handle animal, ride, Linguistics, Sense motive, etiquette, survival, (Diplomacy), and several other skills. Nobles were trained in these skills from childhood.

As was said though, a commoner will know just a couple skills such as Profession (farmer) and then all of his ranks will be stuffed into those, so he won't know much outside of his area of expertise. Sounds like a medieval peasant to me.

I didn't necro the thread, but I find it very interesting, so..

I largely agree with insaneogeddon, however your point is taken. The Aristocrat class offers lots of social skills, as wells as some warrior skills. The problem is, it also grants proficiency with all armor and all simple and martial weapons, as well as a medium BAB. I think what is missing is a lesser expert.

What if the Commoner class had the same BAB, saves, HD, and skill points as now, but granted about 4 or 5 class skills of your choice? Then while most Commoners would have the basic "farming" skills they already have, one could build the simpler folk of other professions. Those 2nd and 3rd sons, the common smith, even a focused skilled profession like barrister, or physician.

I've machinated over adding NPC classes for many years. I have advocated for the adding of a "Diplomat" class (the name comes from one of the Star Wars d20 editions), that had all the "hardware" of a Commoner, but with many more skill points and skills. I just thought of this, and now it seems obvious; I think this would fill so many niches for specialist NPCs without giving undue combat ability, or a boatload of skills.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Hey Turelus, any chance you'd be able to 'open your entire folder of files' yet?

I am ramping up prep to start CoCT. Our group is convening this weekend for a two game blowout, to try finishing RotR. So, in about a month they will be chomping at the bit to launch.

I am gathering (stealing) all the advice and resources I can in advance of that.

Regardless, I much appreciate what you have posted so far, especially that spreadsheet. Thanks.

Yikes, I entirely forgot about doing this and it's already been like a month, sorry!

Hopefully this link works, Please excuse the mess it's kind of an organised chaos that works for me.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-qbRzsXbUqKYXN3TlZEd2FLLXc

There are some custom quest ideas being worked on at the moment, when the maps are done (will make them myself with Dungeon Painter Studio) I'll throw them in there as well.

No sweat man, and thanks again for all your work. I have enough to do to get this show rolling. Your foundation will help immensely.

Here it is Linkified!

Really good ideas. I will be running this campaign soon, and will utilize you material and ideas, gratefully. Thanks.

Actually, I think levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 have been design spaces that should have been exploited for a while now. I think they should be used for additional traits, racial abilities, and Action Point stuff, as well a way to show non-combat growth in characters. Basically relatively non-combat abilities, especially abilities enhancing exploration and social interactions, to represent character growth.

This is an excellent idea. I never really considered those as dead levels, but you are right!

Brother Fen wrote:

Just go play a different game. Trolls and Tunnels. Swords and Wizardry. D&D 5E. Take your pick. Pathfinder is not for you if you want it to be a different game.

Frankly, that's silly. Pathfinder is a different game every month than it was the month before. Having an idea about "what changes you would like to see" is only natural. I mean, this is literally the house rule forum and what is a "house rule" but "make the game different somehow because you like it better this way."

I mean, they literally published a hardback with the premise "here's a direction we could take the game in if we just forgot about back compatibility, so enjoy it as optional rules."

Not to mention, Pathfinder itself is the FIFTH iteration of "I prefer this way" since OD&D...1st Ed AD&D, 2nd Ed., 3rd Ed., 3.5, and finally Pathfinder Core Rulebook...but then every hardback has added more refinement and options since. So...

Elimination of multiclassing and prestige classes. Instead, focus on archetypes that incorporate features from other classes, and take a cue from the VMC system and develop feat style options for working in new class features.

I would take the opposite approach. Have fewer, more adaptable, classes with many options to build your vision. Then, give multiclassing better support within this framework, so your diverse abilities scale properly with level.

[Edit]...but that is because I always wanted multiclassing, since 1st Ed, to WORK.

Your approach is just as viable, with a well revamped VMC.

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

I believe the answer to that is simple mechanics. With a 13 Wisdom, a Cleric (or Ranger) can only cast up to 3rd level spells. True, they can still get spell slots of higher level, but in a world with tangible miracles and arcane power I would argue that one would need the higher spell levels to advance in a typical hierarchy.

Quite. However, if you are seeking a quick and simple reference for combat by the rules, then I would point you to SORD for Pathfinder.

Combat encompasses three of four pages, and takes some getting used to. But, if you print off a couple sturdy copies to have at hand, it would become second nature.

@Valkyn Highwind

>Night Elves
> -2 cha

Try -2 str. Their starting strength is 4/5 that of humans. The Wis bonus is debatable.

-2 dex for dwarves is more appropriate than cha.

Trolls shouldn't really get a con boost.

Goblins should get a str penalty.

It's like you statted most of these based solely on pictures, not their actual stats.

I rather think he statted them from descriptions in lore. Plus common sense, which no one ever attributed to the MMO with a straight face.

Why are you granting a +6 bonus to touch attack rolls? A touch AC is already easier than normal AC, particularly as everyone goes up in level.

Because there is no Touch AC, Armor doesn't grant a bonus to AC, and you don't lose your level bonus to AC for touch.

I don't think of any Pathfinder class that wouldn't fit in the Realms . . . Gunslingers would be limited to Gondsmen, I believe, but would still work.

The Dreamscarred Press Psionics would also fit, as the Realms does have psionics.

The Realms has Psionics because D&D had Psionics. It's always been a funny fit. And now, Paizo to the rescue! With Occult Adventures, Pathfinder gets magic of the mind. It nicely fits where Psionics used to, and it fits even better with magic.

Something to keep in mind, Pathfinder went the archetype (basically alternate class features) route more than prestige classes. I remember that FR had many prestige classes, you might want to consider looking at the prestige classes and see if they even deserve to be converted as prestige classes or simply made into archetype.

From the top of my head:

-stormlord of Talos can safely be ignored as a prestige class, as between the storm druids, storm domain for clerics or stormborn sorcerer...you have a wide range of choices.

-Nightmask deathbringers: Just use Stygian Slayer (A slayer archetype).

Don't forget Oracles of Wave and Oracles of Wind....

But, yeah. Sorry, I'm so used to Pathfinderization, I take things for granted. Not very good for advising.

One of the key differences between D&D 3.5 and PF is that in PF you stay with your class more. It is not only beneficial to stick with a class as long as possible, but it actually decreases power (usually) to go Prestige. There are still some Prestige classes, and some are even worthwhile, but by and large there is a reason to finish a class progression.

When I think about converting something like FR, I don't mean take the Purple Dragon Knight and convert it to PF. (Btw, PF did away with all 5 level Prestige classes, as they are sort of like system condoned dipping, and they wanted to discourage that.) Instead, I look at what the class (or critter, or NPC, or whatever) does, and try to imagine it and reskin or build it in Pathfinder.

Totally.

Some adaptation is necessary with Domains; many FR domains were added in Pathfinder, but are a little different, and there are still a few FR domains missing. Though between all the PF books and the subdomain rules in Advanced Player's Guide, you have almost all of them.

The smoothest way to do it is to convert over to PF, it has lots of support, and is not that far from 3.5. Regarding running modules; converting main NPC's is probably worth your time, but you can run everything as is by just treating 3.5 CRs as one or two lower in PF. Or, just give all the critters +2 to everything, and adjust as needed.

I recently sat down to make notes on what I would need to adapt and write house rules for, to adapt FR to PF. All I came up with was the aforementioned Domain issue.

FR is great, and Pathfinder is good too. Good luck and good gaming.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.

Kirth Gersen explains it best:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qorx&page=2?small-things-to-errata-that-ar e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lje3&page=9?Does-anyone-else-think-the-gam e-is-just-fine#446
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2j2&page=4?Cha-and-why-its-a-dump-stat#17 9
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pief&page=42?The-Main-Problem-with-Fighter s#2090
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtv2&page=14?What-Do-You-Hope-to-See-in-PF -2e#674
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzd7&page=2?I-just-dont-understand-how-cas ters-are-better#89

If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"

You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the...

All true, although "magical storytime" is a very condescending term. That reasoned argument was not present in your previous statements. That is what I take issue with.

I do like the rules to be as clear as possible, however I also feel the advent of very detailed rules in D&D 3rd thru PF tends to trap GM's and takes away some of their ability to run a successful and fun game.

Oh, and I almost forgot...I wouldn't want you to take any of this post as an apology or retraction. Your rudeness does not make your argument stronger. It just makes you rude.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

1) I agree it is weird with incorporeal creatures. Hoenstly, I think a better fix is saying an incorporeal creature uses their Charisma in place of Strength when interacting with objects. It makes thematic sense.

2) I disagree with the notion of giving mindless creatures intelligence. In terms of game mechanics, it's good that there's a fundamental aspect of a creature that prevents them from reasoning. In terms of theme, your points are highly debatable. Whether or not insects can think is something even scientists debate about. A good analogy for how Pathfinder mindless creatures work is to imagine them as programs. A mindless creature completely follows their instincts, functioning only within pre-programming. A construct is programmed to understand and follow orders just as Google Search interprets what information you're looking for.

3) I don't understand the point of this change. Besides, an Intelligence of 3 also means the creature is sentient.

3a) Vermin are mindless. Animals are intelligent. That's actually a really big deal with game mechanics, which is why the creature type system exists in the first place.

4) By definition, a Constitution means the quality of a creature's internal biology. If the creature lacks one, there's no reason for them to have a Constitution score. There's already a system for construct quality in the game.

(*) Didn't unchained already do this? I know this is the case for Five Moons RPG.

So, basically your "arguments" for keeping all those things the same is...'there are already rules for that'? We know what the rules are, we're discussing how the change them.

(1) Charisma for Strength does make sense. This is kind of the opposite direction for how Shadowrun calculates your Astral attributes: Intellect = Dex, Will = Bod, and Charisma = Str.

(2) "Mindless creatures" and "Intelligence"...these are all game mechanical terms that only mean what they mean in the game. The term Intelligent itself is often reserved for so called sentient species. The very fact that there is debate about whether insects "think", kinda leaves the game mechanics open for...debate.

The problem with "mindless" creatures is that it is a fallacy. We are all "programmed", and most of our actions are not very "mindful". The degree to which we can operate within our programming is pretty much what the game ability Intelligence is measuring. It's recall accuracy, and mental control; it is not creativity. That Google engine you mentioned has a pretty good Knowledge bonus, and instant recall. One could certainly argue that the skill ranks do the work there, but what about the machines and their operating software? Where does one draw the line of "Intelligence".

Ironically, multiple d20 science fiction games give starships and other powerful computers Int scores to reflect their processing power. Why not Iron Golems?

(3) Well, once you stop classifying Intelligence by sentience, and equate it to learning, recall, and problem solving, you have to scale the smarter animals a little higher. Admittedly, the "dumbest" humans would perhaps have a higher score than 3 on this scale, and there may not really be room in the d20 design for this to be done.

(4) That pretty well fits the game definition. I believe that, like several things in d20 rules, the non-ability scores are products (victims) of the application of logic that has unintended results. Within the definition of Constitution and it's function for most creatures, equating a machine or animated corpse to a Con of -- makes perfect sense. Especially the "unaffected by things that require a Fort save...unless it also affects objects"...(and then it has it's drawers down.) But, Con's basic and most widely derived function is how "tough" a creature is, both for Fortitude and Hit Points. It worked pretty well for most things in 2000, but we fast forward to PF and now you can crit most undead and all constructs, now some undead get Charisma bonus to Hit Points. It makes more sense to give them immunities and resistances consistent with their physiology, and leave the "Constitution" alone.

Finally, I concede that this is all subjective, and that compromise may be needed. So, in place of simply doing away with the logic of non-abilities, we could give certain creatures "stand-in" abilities to reflect their natures. For instance, creatures of animal intelligence could have a "cunning" or "instinct" ability higher than Int that they use for functions of Int like skill points. (No, they aren't learning languages and basket weaving. If you've ever statted a bad ass big cat and found their "cat skills" lacking, you know they need more points.) Also, things with no Con score could be assigned "toughness" to base Hit Points and Fort saves off of.

Sorry for wall o text.

We have a ninja in our campaign and he is interested in making an Unchained Ninja. Are there any balance issues we should worry about in allowing such a transformation?

As discussed in this thread, the Ninja is already an improved Rogue. The ki powered Ninja tricks are pretty juicy, and compare favorably with the Unchained Rogue's new stuff. So, I wouldn't give the Unchained Ninja all the new gadgets. However, the Ninja as written is now behind the Unchained Rogue, so it needs some Unchaining.

For my money, the most obvious and important upgrade is the Finesse and Dex to damage. IMO that is enough; I've played a Ninja through 11th level, and she is pretty bad ass. She has Weapon Finesse, and I am desperate to get Slashing Grace. Giving the Unchained Finesse Rogue ability would just give her more room to maximize it.

Wrath wrote:

To prepare for that one fight, I often need to read and understand large numbers of stat blocks, reference feats and spells, work out how they synergise, work out what buffs will be up prior to or during combat then run all of those creatures as intelligent and powerful combatants that want to survive as well as destroy the players.

Given that my work involves large quantities of brain power as well, then high level game play quickly loses its lustre.

This is precisely why I stopped my Pathfinder campaign at Level 12.

Up to Level 9, I found myself spending maybe 4 hours out of game to prepare for 4 hours of gaming.
After that, the time required grows significantly because of the combinatorial nature of powers.

And the power level itself ramps up pretty quickly as well. Poor planning leads to one of two destinations:

- The group steamrolls over the enemy like nothing, because I forgot Player X has Ability Y.

- TPK, because I forgot that none of the players had an effective counter to Big Bad's Ability Z.

Neither outcome is fun, for the players or myself. So, I get to spend 8-10 hours planning around it.
And even after all of it, there's still the element of player surprise that is crazy-difficult to plan for.

So, now I'm running a Shadowrun 5th game for the group. It remains to be seen how much planning will be necessary at Prime Runner levels.

This is an obscure reference, but as I read about your travails I laughed out loud when it occurred to me:

Anyone ever seen Tora, Tora, Tora? The Japanese naval officer who is their strategic planning guru is assigned the task of planning the attack on Pearl.

You see him 'sweat-lodging' it with a towel on his head, rocking like he's autistic, staring at the plans like Gandalf into the hearth at Bag End....

That's what it's like to prepare for high level GMing....(puff, puff....precious...)

Wu Nakitu wrote:

djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

I'm willing to bet that's not a mistake.

The Unchained Rogue already full-out replaces the original Rogue.

Give it a Ki Pool like the Ninja, and there may have been concern that it ALSO would obsolete the Ninja.

I'm fine with the Ki Pool thing being a Ninja-Only trick - it helps further differentiate the class and keep it a legitimate option.

You may be right, but for my money, I'll take the Unchained Ninja!!!

TOZ wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.

Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?

You attacked the position "I can't play Pathfinder anymore if Pathfinder 2.0 comes out".

A position that neither I nor anyone in this thread has held.

I said, "Paizo has to decide whether PF 2.0 will bring more income than continuing to support PF 1.0 by factoring in the new customers and the ones they will keep versus the ones, like myself, who they will lose"

That's all. I didn't say "If PF 2.0 comes out, my books spontaneously combust", simply that I am not going to be investing money in PF 2.0, so people like me represent the risk of the new edition.

It seems you may have completely missed TOZ's point. That is that if everyone else (as in available players and GMs) is playing 2.0, then you will either play solo games, or adapt.

He has had this experience with D&D3.5. Now, if you have a table of reliable players who wish to continue with PF, like many do, no worries!

/translation

Yup, commenting that everybody is worse off under the new system = complaining about casters getting nerfed.

I'll ask again: who benefits?

See, that's the thing. You're looking for a boost, a benefit to your characters.

While I happen to think it does give an overall boost to mobility of melee types and a slight, and well deserved, control on some aspects of casters, that is arguable.

But, what if it benefits no character over any other? It is a total reworking of the action economy.

It can benefit an entire group's gameplay.

If it makes your game better.

This system is not "better for everyone" in regards of getting off all their favorite power combos as before...but better!

It is a reassessment, that tries to value things on their own as much as possible. It breaks the chains (pun intended) of the action economy, and opens up new options to all, while narrowing down some others.

But, a lot of the action power combos are the way they are simply because they are workarounds for the stiff action type structure.

I love the fact that a first level Rogue can take up to three attacks. Yes, he'll likely miss, but with the swing of the d20 and low level numbers, he might get the extra hit that takes down his opponent. And warrior types nearly always getting at least two attacks is great, even with the -5. There are other bennies as well, like three moves, for example.

Some subtle re-balancing is part of the system. There are a few foibles, such as the spontaneous metamagic issue, I am certain others will arise. You can make adjustments if you feel it necessary, as this is totally optional, and extremely intrusive as options go.

If it doesn't suit your style, that does not mean it is crap, or a failure.

Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round."

Still applies?

I don't see why it wouldn't apply, since nothing in the new action economy contradicts or makes an exception to that rule.

I haven't received my shipping notice yet so I still don't have the pdf so I was wondering how the new action economy system works since this is of particular interest to me and my players.

Well I think it's incredible, and I hope I can get my group to try it out.

Basically, you get 3 "acts" on your turn. A Simple action requires 1 Act, and this includes things like Attack and Move, but also Swift actions. I know, stick with it.

Advanced actions include things like Cast 1 action spell, as well as things like Charge.

So, on average, you get the same amount of action, but it subtly re-balances certain combinations. Like, if you cast a 1 action spell and a swift action spell, you cannot also move. But if you make 2 attacks, you can also move. Or you can take 3 swift actions. Or you can move and then charge.

It favors martial mobility over casters, and I don't think that is bad. Also, note you can take two or three attack actions, regardless of BAB. The first attack on your turn is at full bonus, the second at -5, and the third at -10. Opens up massive combat options for low level and non warriors, while very subtly limiting iteratives to two additional attacks (normally).

I don't tend to do the same thing for saves - for one I think saves get a bit more complicated (how do you track the Monk's save progression vs other classes?) and I tend to think of the boost to saves as one of the features of multiclassing (and yes for the saves that get boosted others may get a bit weaker - so I can see the arguments both ways - but for me I like fractional BAB but not save progression.

Really looking forward to getting my copy - hopefully soon (I'm a subscriber)

The Monk's save progressions in each save category are exactly the same as any other class. 1/3 level round down in Poor progression (Will), and 1/2 level +2 in Good progressions (Fort, Ref).

kestral287 wrote:

Jucassaba wrote:

What is this fractional BAB?

Assuming it works like 3.5's (as I don't have Unchained yet), it's a system where instead of adding +1 BAB at certain levels, you instead gain either +1/2, +3/4, or +1 BAB per level depending on class. Ultimately it makes multiclassing easier.

For example-- a Monk 2/Warpriest 18 is twenty levels of a 3/4ths BAB class, but comes out with +14 BAB instead of +15. But if you do 20*3/4, you'd get the full +15 BAB.

A Wizard 2/Warpriest 18 would have (18*3/4) + (2*1/2) = 14.5 BAB. Always round down, so +14.

Comes out identical for single-class builds, so much of PF won't care, but like I said-- easier multiclassing.

You can do the same thing for saves too.

Awesome! That's a house rule I have been using for some time - though haven't run my game in a little while, I really like the simplicity and small boost it gives to a LOT of concepts while still keeping scaling working quite well (IMHO) - it makes it a lot easier for non-full BAB classes to multiclass without feeling like they are really really far behind.

Yeah, the first thing we said when 3.0 hit 15 years ago was, "multiclassing xp penalties?....that's dumb", the second was, "hey, how come my multiclass character has a +0 BAB?!??". We never looked back. Most of our earliest and most used house rules relate to making it fair for multies (xp, Monk/Paladin, and BAB/Save progression.), this is the rule that I was surprised was not addressed in the PF CRB. I expected at least an option. I am glad that others might benefit from it now.

Mark, I am making a new armor enchantment called Quickness this enchantment simply removes the slows function from heavier armors.

How much would you charge for this I was thinking in the range between 2500gp and 5000gp?

I am glad you escaped from the vile clutches of Cosmo last week. He was planing on charging us $50 a post of yours for his Gencon vacation fund.

I also have a few weapons questions for you. What would the stats be for sword breaker the iconic swashbuckler is using?

Have you heard of a weapon called a Nagamaki? I am tying to stat it up as I think it is a very cool weapon. It is like a nodachi but it has a thicker longer blade and a longer handle. I was thinking of 1d10 or 1d12 18-20x2, what do you think? The weapon was used in the edo period by foot troops against mounted samurai. Sometime it was used by mount troops that wanted a reach weapon.

Yes, I noticed that the illustration of the Nodachi in both UC and UE is sort of half way between a proper Nodachi and a proper Nagamaki. The description, however, is spot on for a Nagamaki and matches yours very closely. I would think it pretty safe to use the Nodachi stats for both. They are about the same length in illustrations I have seen, just Nodachi has a longer blade and Nagamaki has a longer grip.

Incidentally, the nagamaki is totes the inspiration for the weapons used by the elven infantry in the prologue of Fellowship of the Ring.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

That being said, using Shift to swift action teleport is pretty damn sweet on its own. You're getting 25 feet of movement as a swift action at tenth level, which in many cases is going to be as good as pounce.

Also worth mentioning that DDoor has no restrictions on having to teleport to a safe location. There's no reason why you can't Shift into the air, grab that flying wizard and seismic toss a m+$!%!@$+#!~.

That's true, if shift is a swift action then you don't really even need dimensional dervish.

...I think I need to make a teleporting ninja/unchained rogue now.

Yup, save yourself a feat and just grab Dimensional Agility to allow actions after using shift, and you should be set!

Ick, that's right. And since Dimensional Ability requires the ability to cast dimension door, techically people won't be able to qualify for it anyway....

Noooooo, my dreams of teleporting ninjas have been squashed! D:

Then again this may explain why they only ever seem to do a good job of using their quick movement to run away, and never to attack, lol.

Since the feat requires Abundant step class feature OR ability to cast dimension door, it is only logical to allow it with Shift.

I do note that the Shift ability existed when the Dimensional Agility feat was written, but I am inclined to see it's exclusion as an oversight, rather than a considered choice.

Oh man the multiclassing and stamina rules in PU might actually get me to take my unplayed fighter 20 build out of mothballs and give it a go!

Emphasis mine.

Lol, I hadn't considered the Paizo standard book code for Pathfinder: Unchained until now....that is unfortunate.

I wonder how or if tools like Hero Lab will deal with the variant rules in Unchained. I don't use Hero Lab myself, but since a lot of folks I play with do I suppose that there might be some unexpected resistance to Unchained if people can't incorporate the variants into Hero Lab. I'm guessing this is something which will likely be addressed though.

I imagine there will be room for most of the options in Hero Lab. It already lets you enable things like the Ultimate Combat armor DR system, and hero points.

I just hope they are already working on the integration. Can't wait to use this stuff, and I am spoiled by HL.