Lyrax's page

I'm opposed to skill DC's scaling exactly with level (+1 per level). If you disagree, please at least hear me out before passing judgment.

When I put a rank into a skill, I want to get better at that skill. By 'better' I mean 'attaining success more reliably'. By this yardstick, it's easy to measure whether I'm really getting better at anything. If my chance of success goes up, I'm getting better. If my chance of success goes down, I'm getting worse.

So if we're talking about a set DC 15 skill check, I'm going to get better every time I put a rank into that skill. If my check is +5, then one more rank gives me +6, which makes me 5% more likely to succeed on that check. I like this. It gives me a sense that I'm making progress. Furthermore, it means I don't have to specialize in order to have a meaningful check; I can put a rank into this skill every other level or so and it'll improve just fine.

Contrast this with a skill check that is DC (14 + level). Every time I level up, I need to put a rank into this skill just to stay the same. If I don't put a rank into this skill for one level, then my chance of success decreases by 5% - I get worse every time. The only way to improve is if, in addition to specializing, I also get an additional modifier (such as skill-boosting gear, spells, etc.) This is less than ideal, because it shifts the focus away from the character and towards the toys they have.

Now, I need to make a concession here. Obviously, it doesn't go for every skill in the book - some are contested skills. As your opponents scale in HD, they will get better at defending against or defeating your skills (such as the Social Skills, Stealth, Acrobatics, Sense Motive, and maybe UMD), and you'll need to put skill ranks into them often in order to be effective at all. I understand that, and for some skills, especially those intended for specialists, it can work just fine.

But for the most part? If your difficulty goes up every time you level, your character gets worse at everything he does, except his specialties. And that is a depressing thought. Do not want.

Thoughts?

I like the idea of having a more complex social interaction system. So I'm going to start design one. It'll use stuff that you already have on your character sheet. Feel free to add, subtract, or critique.

So far, the system involves Argument and Rebuttal. Argument is like an attack and Rebuttal the defense, and they're opposed rolls. NPC's may (at DM's discretion) act as though their d20 roll was a natural 11, to reduce die-rolling. The higher roll succeeds, obviously.

I haven't figured out good mechanics yet for "critical hits" but I think that they should apply, just like in regular combat. Of course, if I put in critical hits, fumbles will also apply.

Authority is very important in social combat. It determines who wins by default. Characters in authority may get a circumstance bonus to all their social combat rolls, but I haven't made guidelines for this yet. A PC's henchmen, animal companions, familiars, followers, and even hirelings are considered to be under that PC's authority. Authority bonuses depend on how many followers each party has, and whose territory you're currently on. Creatures in their home, lair, territory, place of business, sanctum, or throne room always consider themselves to be in authority.

Social Combat is all about emotional manipulation, not mind control. Any magic that is effective vs. Compulsion or Mind-Affecting effects is not effective against Social Combat. Effects that improve saves vs. fear are effective against most forms of Intimidation.

Characters that do not have social skills may use a Standard Rebuttal, which is really just a Will Save. The Standard Rebuttal means you're being stubborn.

Success at social combat does NOT mean that the defender does whatever the aggressor wants, only that some concession must be made to the aggressor's wishes and will.

I give you... social combat maneuvers.

Intimidate
Browbeat - Argument only. You try to bully someone emotionally into doing what you want. This is not considered an attack, but it is cause for alarm. If you try to Browbeat someone with bodyguards, those bodyguards will attempt to intervene socially - they get a free rebuttal and usually respond with a Stare-Down or Confront. If a bodyguard and defender both roll, use the better of the two. A successfully browbeaten character treats the aggressor as having Authority.

Confront - Rebuttal only. Usually a response to intimidations, a confrontation may lead to conflict, though it doesn't have to. Confronting a character is cause for alarm, but it is not an attack.

Threaten - Argument only. Open threats are easy to do, but very risky. Bodyguards present may make a free rebuttal just as with Browbeat. Openly threatening an opponent is considered an attack, in most circumstances, and threatened characters may attack physically. The aggressor may accomplish a threat in a single round, however. Enemies already in combat are immune to threats (as they are obviously willing to fight you already), but may be demoralized as usual. A successfully threatened character is afraid of conflict seeks to get away from the source of trouble. Typically, this means they are very pliable, but likely to cause trouble later on.

Stare Down - Argument and Rebuttal. Not usually considered a cause for alarm. A stare down attempt takes a -2 penalty for being nonverbal, but it is less likely to lead to combat than other maneuvers. As a nonverbal maneuver, it may be used when no common language is shared.

Rally - Argument only. Your threats are all directed at someone who is not present. This maneuver does not always apply, but it allows a leader to persuade a group against a common foe.

Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff to come soon!

I ought to mention: I'm not really as good about balancing high-level play as I am about low- and mid-level play. So if something looks like it'll break down after level 11-15 or so, don't be surprised. Feel free to mention it, but don't be too surprised.

I'm making some rules for a simplified Pathfinder game. It's going to steal pages liberally from D&D games of ages past, and by the time I'm done it might not look much like Pathfinder per se. But the idea is to inherit a Pathfinder and D&D feel while being a good game and much simpler than what we have now.

The first change I'm making is to remove ability modifiers. You've got to admit that this will simplify a lot of things. In the absence of modifiers, everything will have fewer hit points, do less damage, and there will be no bonus spells. Many creatures and characters will have fewer skill points. Like I said, simplified Pathfinder.

The new (and also old) mechanic that will be used is the ability check. You roll a d20 and add your whole ability (value 3-18, usually). Standard difficulty is 21, so an 18-strength fellow can hardly fail while a 3-strength fellow is unlikely to ever succeed.

Leadership will be a recognized and prominent part of high-level play, though I imagine it will always be possible to ignore those. But I do want to recognize that high-level play often ends up being fundamentally different from low-level play. Companions (such as eidolons, animal companions, familiars, cohorts) will be equally possible for all classes.

Would you ever like to play a simplified Pathfinder? Is there demand for it outside of my personal circle? Do you have any suggestions or words of caution? Do you want to see more?

The magus, as written, works best when using a certain combination: sword and spell. I imagine his most popular weapons will be scimitar, rapier, longsword, and bastard sword. This is fine, but it puts the class in a sort of straitjacket that no other class has, but it's hard to get around that. Of his two signature abilities, one works only in melee, the other works only if you're using a melee weapon in one hand. We can do better. I suggest that the magus is probably the first class in a long time to be in a position to use a crossbow or thrown weapons to extreme effectiveness. Here's how.

Spellstrike should not stipulate 'melee' in any way. That way, a magus is capable of casting a touch spell and then loosing a crossbow bolt or thrown weapon at range, getting the benefits of both. This grants him the distinct advantage of casting 'touch' spells at range if he wants to - something no other class gets automatically. To balance this out, it takes two standard actions for him to do so: one to cast the spell and one to shoot the enemy. But why does it have to be a crossbow or thrown weapon? Why not a longbow?

See, the magus' other signature ability is an improvement in action economy. So if spell combat makes some allowance for missile weapons, then the magus should be able to use spell combat (forcing a
'cast defensively' check as normal because it's hard to aim and cast at the same time) with a one-handed missile weapon. This includes slings, crossbows, and thrown weapons, all of which are rather marginalized in the other classes.

Throw in a few magus arcana that improve missile attacks, and you're set! What do you guys think? Could this work?

These are rules that you may already use. I find that the idea of having a few 'handy' items is often house-ruled because it just makes plain sense. I just thought I'd codify them.

All characters now have three 'handy' item slots. Items in these slots are not equipped, but they are not stored, either. They are 'handy'. I'm going to stop using the quotes, but please know that handy is now a Term. It is supposed to represent a couple of items in your pockets, at your belt... in handy locations.

Retrieving a handy item is a free action. Replacing a handy item is also a free action. If your character is a haunted oracle, accessing and replacing a handy item is now a move action.

Only small items may be handy. This includes wands, rocks, thrown alchemy weapons, thieves' tools, daggers, mirrors, flint, and small musical instruments (such as a flute). Weapons larger than a dagger may not normally be handy.

Quick-draw now designates all weapons on your person as being handy.

The Handy Haversack creates two new handy slots, one on each side. After all, it is very handy, is it not? Similar items may also grant additional handy slots.

Archers must designate a quiver as being handy. If they do not, retrieving a stored arrow takes a move action.

Thoughts?

While the "traditional" D&D armors are fun, and Paizo's armor art is LEAGUES ahead of WoTC's 3rd edition armor art, the lineup does lack some consistency, insofar as armor is compared to our historical versions. Yes, I get that it's supposed to be fantasy art, but I like to put more earth history in my games. So, for those who are of a similar mind, I recommend the following armor lineup:

Gambeson (Padded)
Leather
Studded Leather
Byrnie (Chain Shirt)

Hide
Coat of Plates (Scale Mail)
Brigandine (Chainmail)
Full Chain (Breastplate)

Plated Mail (Splint Mail)
Banded Mail
Plate and Chain (Half-Plate)
Full Plate

Descriptions:
Gambeson: Also called an arming doublet, a gambeson is a thick quilted coat made to fit underneath any armor. While it does provide some protection alone, it is much more effective when worn with leather or steel over it. Any character who owns a suit of armor also owns a gambeson. The cost of the gambeson is included in the total armor cost. A character already wearing a gambeson may don the rest of his armor more quickly than usual, taking five rounds off the total time. If the time is reduced to zero, then it still requires a move action.

Leather: [no change]

Studded Leather: [no change]

Byrnie: [same as Chain Shirt]

Hide: [no change]

Coat of plates: A coat of plates is a thick cloth coat with metal (usually steel) plates sewn into it. It is effective protection, does not have to be fitted to the wearer, and is less labor-intensive than chain.

Brigandine: The superior version of a coat of plates. It is typically worn over some chain (for the legs and arms) and with a helmet, but protects the torso very well.

Full Chain: A full suit of chain hangs better on the wearer than mismatched chain, and provides superior protection. Naturally, it is harder to make and is therefore more expensive.

Plated Mail: A full suit of chain armor, with plates placed over the most vital areas, plated mail is very protective and very heavy.

Banded Mail: No more than a refinement of plated mail, banded armor takes more skill to make.

Plate and Chain: A full suit of chain with a breastplate, full helm, gauntlets, and greaves. Armor does not get heavier than this, but a mix of plate and chain does not have to be fitted to the wearer. If a suit of full plate is looted from an enemy, it may be turned into plate and chain very easily, without the need for refitting. This does, however, require a full suit of chain armor.

Full Plate: [no change]

While this is of course not perfect, and it still contains some fairly common misconceptions about armor in general, there's no way to really fix all of those without a complete overhaul of the system.

I like the idea of "full chain" being the best of the medium armors and "full plate" being the best of the heavy armors. Were it not for this, I think I would have had brigandine replace the breastplate, and have full chain stand in for the "chainmail".

Plated and banded mail weren't terribly popular in history, but neither are they popular in the game. So I think that actually works out pretty well.

I like giving out experience points. Sometimes, I don't do it because of the hassle of keeping track, but it is something I enjoy doing as a DM. I like telling the players WHY their characters are getting the rewards they are getting.

And that way, if Awesome should happen, I can reward it appropriately.

Of course, I don't always use the XP reward scheme set forth in the core rules. In fact, I very rarely do that. I find that if characters are rewarded for killing things, then that becomes their goal. And the goal of most pulp fiction heroes is not to kill things. Defend their towns, sure. Get back the long-lost artifact of Trumbala or whatever, yeah. Restore their family's honor, find out what happened to their cousins... but just plain "killing things" is not on the list.

Even if they do have the goal of killing something, it's "kill the dragon that's been terrorizing us" and not "kill something we don't care about". The goal isn't to make stuff dead. At least, not when I'm the GM.

So what is the goal? The goal is for characters to advance their character goals. This might include finding treasure, completing goals... sometimes monsters will stand in the way of this. Sometimes, fighting the monsters will be completely unnecessary. Or even detrimental to the heroes' efforts.

This is why I never give rewards for killing things, unless they're related to the plot or they have stuff that the PC's want. And even then, they can be 'defeated' without being killed, more often than not.

What do you give XP for? Do you give standard XP rewards for killing things?