Lokot's page

The only thing I see that is broken about the assassin's death attack is the wording "The death attack fails if the target notices the assassin or recognizes the assassin as an enemy." I would strike "notices the assassin or" from that, since a disguised assassin can still strike from plain sight - though he must still be flanking. Disguised as a bodyguard, the target would expect him to be near or even behind and would definitely not be expecting an attack from a bodyguard (thus flat footed and denied dex to AC).

Once an assassin is in combat it is highly unlikely that anyone will fail to recognize him as an enemy and therefore it is unlikely that he could get off another death attack in any given combat, even if the combat lasted more than three rounds. It is not a combat ability, it is an ambush ability - though theoretically if another character had an ability that caused the target to be flat-footed your DM might allow a death attack.

Actually - Rogue/Assassin/Shadowdancer would be nasty with Hide in Plain Sight....

Reading what you originally posted - "3 rounds of study without being identified as a foe." That's not real tough for a shopkeeper trying to sell the target something, or for almost anyone standing around in a crowded marketplace. Other situations might include attacking from concealment, assassin disguised as a guard, etc. Assassins are supposed to be clever.

The death attack is like a coup de gras but the target doesn't have to be helpless. That's pretty powerful. Additionally, the damage done even if the save is successful is significant. I have to agree with Elthbert, though you could add in Dex or Str to the DC if you feel that too many targets are making that save....

Yes! Leading Edge, and Phoenix Command! I have my books packed at the moment and can't look them up without digging through several boxes.

Anyway - I always laugh when people talk about D&D's "complex combat system." It's about as simple as I can stand....

Down with outdated socially-constructed models of sexuality!

Let's make homosexuality compulsory!

I'd rather not make any choice of that nature compulsory in either direction. I say "live and let live." I'm straight and I don't care if you're not. Just drop it when I say "no" and we'll be fine.

In your campaign you can make it compulsory if you like - but you'll have to have some way to maintain population levels or your coffers will suffer.

If you want the misery of a realistic system, check out Living Steel (or their Vietnam combat sim). Can't remember the publisher, but they went to great lengths to research injuries and survival rates and ballistics and what not. There are pages of tables. It is a very detailed and interesting system, but I'd rather see it on a computer - it takes too long to deal with at the table. And you do not under any circumstances want to be injured - you stand a good chance of dying.

Crane - that's very similar to how we handle things in our campaigns for recovery of hit points. Weird.

We stick with hit points as hit points, but using those rules all characters recover in about the same amount of time across the whole level range.

As far as death, we use -10 -(con modifier if positive). So, con of 20 gives -15 for death. Con of 5 results in -10 for death.

We use the regular massive damage rules.

All of the players in our campaigns (except my daughter and my friend's daughter) have been playing D&D in one incarnation or another for at least 15 years (I've been playing for 30) so we've long learned to ignore this question. As good as the question is, the answer does nothing for the game. More powerful healing spells are provided (as part of the reward for becoming a high level cleric) to take care of the greater need for healing at higher levels. "The Gods deem it is good, so who are we to question it?" LOL

To me, that is the heart of a lot of issues, and it is a huge double standard that is especially prevelant here in the US, but does show up worldwide, and that is: 2 Chicks Making Out = AW RITE! HAWT! but 2 Guys Making Out = Ewwww! Gross!!!

I'm in that school - but my daughter is exactly the opposite (she's also straight, for the record). She's like "Dad, those two cute guys are making out - that's totally hot!" So it seems like there are some permutations that appeal to some and not to others.

Genre-appropriate is really the key here. The series presents a more faithful representation of Roman society than most because people are more open-minded than in the last century. If the world of Golarion has societies that resemble ancient Rome, then so be it.

Check out 3e Unearthed Arcana -- and the same content is available on line through the 3.5 SRD. There are paladins of freedom (CG), tyranny (LE), and slaughter (CE).

Wow, don't know how I missed that - thanks!

Dragon #310 had variant paladin classes for other alignments.

Yeah, the idea has been played with for 25 years but I haven't seen one that I like yet and none of them have made it into core or even optionals like PHB2.

you need to create a lawful neutral variation of the paladin with smite Chaos, Detect Chaos, An Axiomatic Mount, and a special lay on hands that heals the lawful and harms the chaotic.

You know, I always wondered why there was not a variant for every alignment. Don't other deities have champions? I suppose that's what the Forgotten Realms (and others) tried to compensate for with prestige classes centered around certain deities' chosen ones, but that just seemed sort of tacked on.

Build one.

Hey - you could also look at the Warforged from Eberron. They can easily be modified into a golem that simply carries class levels. From the player side just talk to your GM. From the GM side, do your research and decide what fits your campaign.

Ok, to keep my opinion on topic then....

I agree with Ewan and Kevin - broad strokes work out great. Just because PF says they're homo don't mean it's so, or because it doesn't don't mean they ain't! The GM is the final authority in his or her campaign. And that authority is derived from the players. If the players aren't satisfied with the campaign, it's going in the trash.

In other settings we've decided that a particularly flamboyant noble was gay because of his described tastes, and his Captain-at-arms was his lover though he wasn't flamboyant at all.

<shrug> Whatever works for your group. To me it doesn't matter if it's mentioned in the source material or not - if it fits the setting and situation and it adds opportunity for role-play, if it makes the moment memorable and fun, use it.

I'm still not on board with the paladin in the original situation.

Paladins are always played as total asses under the excuse that they're holy warriors or some such. They're basically clerics with more focus on combat and less on spellcraft. If your campaign has some sort of Order that they must belong to, so be it - your Code should be clearly spelled out in black and white so that the paladin doesn't have the option to add personal caveats to it. Either he follows the dictates of his religion and code or he loses his status.

I'd just like to point out that being a champion of "justice" does not necessarily make one "good." True justice is usually unpleasant for all parties involved and can have consequences that would make a truly just society far from compassionate. Compassion is the noble portion of the "good" alignment - the desire to understand and help others.

Where the paladin in this situation loses me is his total and complete lack of concern for the well-being of others, beginning with his failure to handle the discontent of his elven allies. From the sound if it he left his archers without sufficient infantry support and they took a beating because of his poor judgment.

My douche-bag defense is that "my paladin would never slay a defenseless person unless directly commanded to in the role of executioner." I've never played a paladin who was rash and quick to anger - wisdom is a broader virtue than patience. What's funny is that my paladins are where I role-play most because my own personality is more hot-tempered and rash.

Definitely doesn't fit my idea of a paladin. Cutting a defenseless man down in anger is certainly an Evil act.

You know - that sums up what I've been trying so incoherently to say.

Actually, we could back up and ask who the paladin's deity was. That would give some real insight as to how the paladin should have proceeded. I have to say, though, that most LG deities are pretty big on the compassion and understanding thing.

I'd like to point out again that this incident didn't happen during a battle where the elves said "hey, too many of us are dying and we'd like to leave now." Which has been known to happen anyway in mixed/coalition forces. This was in camp where there was time to hold a trial and execute the traitor if need be. My point is that a paladin should be like a police officer (should be) - rarely should a person whose primary concern is for the greater good and welfare of others above his own personal feelings or situation simply stalk up to someone and summarily execute them.

And, because it was a coalition of allied forces technically the "deserters" are now their own government's problem. And they just happen to be at home. Where they can face the wrath of their rightful liege in person.

I do recall, however, that intelligence isn't a primary attribute of the paladin class. On the other hand, wisdom should be somewhere in the mix. The wise man does not slaughter his allies needlessly or in the heat of an emotional moment.

I also fail to see where throwing the "traitor" in chains is somehow less effective than summary execution amongst supposedly Good peoples. Especially if it leads to a public trial where all details are aired and everyone understands exactly what happened to cause the hub bub. And THEN you sentence him to death - and hold a public execution. Being seen as a hot-head after your poor judgment has caused the deaths of a significant number of your allies is just throwing gasoline on a fire.

You have a CG character and a LG character at odds over how to handle a situation. This is to be expected.

Summary executions are reserved for "in the face of the enemy." Guy turns and runs "in the face of the enemy," he's shot for deserting. If there is no actual battle in progress a trial is the usual method for handling this. He might be sentenced to death, sure, but he should not be summarily executed. Especially by a Lawful Good character.

Yeah, Hrothgar - you'll see in my post about 5 up from here that I rescinded that thought based on the Monk and Druid class progression mechanics, and I agree with what you're saying about the racial level restrictions as well.

In fact, the racial level restrictions caused most of my campaigns at the time to be very "human-centric." Later we simply ignored them because we couldn't for the life of us figure out how a human with 60-90 years of useful lifespan could progress farther than an elf with hundreds of years to master their profession.

I also remember it taking us over a year of playing all weekend every week to get a party of characters into the 12-16th level range. We weren't big on the ad-hok xp idea so it was almost entirely combat xp. On the other hand, there was no sliding scale for xp - that 30xp was awarded whether you were level 1 or level 10 when you killed that orc....

The "sweep" rule... lol - remember that one?

On the other hand - the PC's are supposed to be the exception to the rule.

I do agree with e6 in the arena of balance. The classes are generally most balanced in power at this level. I also feel that it would be a very good way to run a role-play heavy campaign.

And, thinking about it you're probably right Cranewings - just look at the Monk class progression in AD&D. Basically, above 8th level you had to challenge your superiors to progress in your class. Druids had a similar mechanism if I recall.

Gary Gygax wrote:

"Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user prefession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)" -- Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, page 39.

I'm pretty sure that you're misinterpreting this. He's dead, so we can't ask, but since he wrote a huge pile of rules allowing very high level play it seems to me that this was a tongue-in-cheek statement - he probably rolled his eyes as he said it.

However, it does fit the e6 concept exactly so feel free to take it as you like.

Summary execution of a person for treason (or desertion) in a time of war is actually on the books in the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not that we're Lawful Good, just saying that it's there.

Most people play paladins as intolerable tools. They are self-righteous, pompous, demanding, obnoxious hypocrites most of the time. For some reason this is allowed.

My paladins are champions of justice. They are compassionate, kind, self-sacrificing, considerate and honorable. Lawful requires respect for the law, but Good requires compassion and forgiveness.

I would have made the offending paladin Lawful Neutral, removed his paladin status and had an emissary of his deity explain to him what would be required for atonement. In the paladin's place I would have at worst ordered my friend's imprisonment until I could ascertain the details and reason for this apparent betrayal. To err is human, to forgive is divine.

What's the big deal?

I had a friend who was openly gay who played with our group for probably 2 years. He decided to leave our campaign because another group of friends was starting a Masquerade: The Gathering game he wanted to be in. All of the rest of us are straight. Did we ostracize him? Why would we. We respect his choices, he respects ours, we're friends.

He played a homo-male mage and at another point a straight-fem fighter. Whatever. Basically, you play to your group as the DM. None of us "breeders" wanted to go into detail on the gay wizard's sex life, but he got around in the larger cities... let me tell you, John is hilarious! Total flamer and just a riot on that alone - nevermind that he's got a hell of a wit on top of it.

Anyway, my point is this - you're either a tolerant person or you're not. If you're not then you can just change details to fit your tastes. If you are, then you're fine as written. It's just detail, after all - no need for torches and pitchforks.

Actually, the weapon proficiency and non-weapon proficiency point system was in AD&D from the beginning. There was a non-weapon proficiency skill system presented as optional in the DMG. It was expanded in Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures - to the extent that Samurai were required to take Calligraphy proficiency, etc.

As far as the original question, many of the campaign settings out there have provided background feats that give bonuses in skills to reflect your early experiences. For my part, I use these whenever possible and I feel that they are sufficient for my campaign. Perhaps you can modify this system for your campaign, maybe increasing the bonuses or adding an extra skill to the feat. Or include a feat that makes a skill or two class skills because of your background.

The problem with giving out more skill points is that you might find players have too much esoteric knowledge. Adventuring heroes probably don't have piles of time to diversify much - which leads to multi-classing. The whole purpose of class vs. cross-class skills and limited skill points is to clarify a character's role and to a lesser extent enhance that role. It's also more challenging if you keep skill points in check and it requires teamwork.

Beyond the rules, I imagine that there are many of us that hold B2 - Keep on the Borderlands - as the best summary of what a D&D adventure was in the early years. Despite the generic quality, the Caves of Chaos still exude a certain mystery in my nostalgic brain.

Man, it was great at the time but looking back I guess we all realize that the Caves were like a cheap, run-down apartment complex in East LA. Sort of a mini-mall of evil. What were all of those guys doing living next door to each other anyway? Most of those groups are mortal enemies.

It was fun, though.

Isle of Dread, on the other hand... that place was dangerous. Lost half a party to a black dragon because the stupid fighter decided to charge it.

Ahh, that's right - Pools of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades and Pools of Darkness. Pretty darn good games....

Pools of Darkness, an old TSR Gold Box AD&D CRPG, used Moander as a significant part of the setting. I played it about 18 years ago so I don't remember much of it, but you can still run the old Gold Box games in DosBox. Might be able to pick it up somewhere on eBay. That's the only place I can think of that you might find more detailed information that would be even faintly "official." And you'll have a whole pile of beasties to use as well - I remember there being several contingents of Drow hanging about, but that was probably because Lolth was doing something uncool with Moander's body.

Well, for starters, put yourself in the Cleric's shoes. You know that, sooner or later, someone is going to try to stop your nefarious plans. So, how would I intelligently defend my lair?

Are your "undead minions" zombies and other mindless entities? Or are they smarter? Shadows and ghosts can do nasty things in cramped hallways. In fact, most of the time you can really hamper a group by making them fight in poor terrain, especially if the monster you're using is adapted for that terrain.

Spiders - in their lair? Roaming? In lair is nice - players have to carefully pick their way through the webs (Web "spell" but indefinite duration). If they decide to burn the webs, they're now in an enclosed area with a fire. Smoke inhalation, angry spiders, limited visibility (spiders have tremorsense) and other factors can make this miserable. The spiders could attack from camouflaged holes in the cave or corridor walls.

The undead t-rex, well, sounds scary at first, but it needs tons of room to fight. This means that the players have room to spread out and use their numbers to their advantage. Maybe throw this when they're weakened.

My main point is this - "you heroes are bringing this into MY HOUSE?!? I'm a powerful Priest of (insert evil deity here)! I will not stand around and wait for you to find me. I will organize the defense of my lair intelligently and aggressively." And don't forget to use traps - I see no rogue on your player character list. Pit traps are nasty - leaves fighters injured even if the wizards manage to get featherfall off.

The worst thing to face is an intelligent monster in its lair. Defend the lair as if it were yours. Look for ambush points. Place traps and architecture to funnel the players into killing grounds. Silence the spellcasters. Wand of Ray of Enfeeblement on melee. Enthrall while your undead minions surround the party. Stone Shape to cover your escape. Glyphs of Warding approaching your sanctuary. Turn the paladin.

I made a Mass Effect d20 game from the True20 System. It wasn't too difficult. Although it was based around E6 as well (because it's easier to build a game with just 6 levels in).

Did you happen to reference any of the d20 Modern/Future rules? I was thinking that biotics would probably fit right into the psionics rules from d20 Modern.

I think calling it "3.75" not only excludes unfairly the other companies that are working on or are publishing post 3.5 d20 game systems, it lessens Pathfinder itself from what it is... A new game system forging new frontiers. At this point, Pathfinder is to D+D what a modern Porsche is to a Model T.

So, APG is a stand-alone product? Does not use 3-18 stat base? Does not use the D20 system at all? No feats, skills, or any other system that originated with D&D? Completely unrelated and unrecognizable as having originated from the D20 system? I haven't read it so I honestly don't know, but the Pathfinder RPG (the system) is obviously descended from the D20 system. I own that one, and D&D (and have owned D&D since it's printing as such - the D20 system is obviously descended from the AD&D rules as well) and the relation is clear and unmistakable. Standing on the shoulders of others does not lessen anything that one accomplishes - to say that it does is to say that electronics is not a valid achievement because it's based upon mathematics.

That said, I'll point you back to what I said earlier. I love what they've done with it - streamlined and clean. More cool options within the classes and races without adding crazy complexity. It's Good Stuff - superior to D&D 3.5 in almost every way.

I don't have the campaign setting, but some friends of mine and I played through 3 of the early Pathfinder modules. If the setting incorporates any of that material then it is probably fantastic. The "3.75" thing originated around the time that the Pathfinder material was first released but I can't say for sure who coined it. It originally referred to the rules tweaks that were presented in the modules - that were eventually incorporated into the Pathfinder RPG. Not my term, not my idea, just used it.

Still not sure why you're so offended by this....

Lokot wrote:

This would be awesome. At the moment I'm having to make modifications to Wizards' d20 Modern/Future systems for a homebrew campaign to bring them in line with the 3.75 rules,

Pathfinder is not D+D 3.75.... it's Pathfinder and no less for being that.

As you wish - just using a term that's been in use for quite some time to describe the cleanup Paizo has done on the 3.5 rules, not the campaign setting. My point was that I would like to bring the d20 Modern rules up to snuff - many clarifications and simplifications have come along since they were written. Paizo has done a great job of cleaning up the d20 3.5 rules.

Sure, nothing in it is horribly difficult. But, like the DDO adaptation of spells to real-time gaming from D&D, converting ability levels and power usage from real-time to paper is a matter of careful balance. I'm more interested in a complete campaign sourcebook because I'm too lazy to transcribe all of the journal and codex entries myself. And perhaps a collection of the Cerberus Network news items as side-bar filler....

Tech is easy - equipment is what it is. Require a class feat that is given to the infiltrator, engineer and sentinel for specialized uses of the Omni-tool and you're set. Use some sort of power source or other limiting factor to prevent over-powering the tech classes.

The Biotics aren't too far out either - just as you said, they're essentially Psionics and can be fit into the system. I'm not very familiar with the system though - my players prefer a more Star Trek feel campaign and not so much of a Star Wars feel so we almost never see anything even as simple as telepathy.

And to see d20 Modern/Future brought up to date would be nice as well. I'd like to point out that I'm not a fan of their space travel rules in general - too vague and fluffy. I like to know when my players' fuel tank hits Empty because it's just plain mean.

I've been playing D&D since I was 11, with a pre-print copy of the AD&D core rules from a friend whose father worked at TSR. I'm pretty familiar with gaming, the system, etc. but I always worry that my solutions aren't properly balanced. I like to get my hands on the Official Rules before I start tweaking things to fit my campaign style. That way I can take advantage of the playtesting resources of the Big Boys before I start ticking off my players....

I wasn't aware of the Dragon Age system already in place - it's good? Might have to look into it.

I guess where I'm going is this: I think Paizo has done right by the d20 system where Wizards dropped the ball and I'd like to see more cool stuff from them. Any cool IP tie-ins that they can acquire will only help them to grow and prosper (I hope).

This would be awesome. At the moment I'm having to make modifications to Wizards' d20 Modern/Future systems for a homebrew campaign to bring them in line with the 3.75 rules, but I'm seriously considering building a Mass Effect-based campaign in the near future. The idea of transcribing all of the Codex entries for a player guide is rather daunting though, and converting the classes might be a little odd.

Perhaps this is a good time for someone at Paizo to see if Bioware might be interested in tabletop versions of Mass Effect and Dragon Age campaign settings.

Speaking of which - I'm tweaking a conversion of the Wheel of Time RPG to 3.75 as well. This has been a little awkward because of some of the mechanics changes made for the Wheel of Time's low magic setting but has gone fairly smoothly. What are the odds that Paizo could pick this up as well?