MilesBeyond's page

As silly as this will sound, spell names. It's Melf's Acid Arrow, damn it! Mordenkainen's Sword! Come on, those are iconic!

So, what I'm hearing is that my decision to ban basically anything that's not CRB or APG continues to be a good one.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, it's a ridiculously overpowered feat, but 99% of DMs aren't going to allow it, and if someone does allow it, they're probably running some sort of hyper-magic game where every player is a caster. Plus, as far as I can tell, the source it's taken from seems to revolve around that sort of thing anyway.

So I don't really see how this is a bad decision on Paizo's part. It's a cool tool for silly or high-powered campaigns, and if a DM is letting people use it in normal games, you probably shouldn't be playing with them anyway.

I also heard stories from one gamer about Jebediah the Dirt Farmer. A guy who spent a mission at a mansion in its front yard farming dirt, only to be struck by lightning by the GM who finally got fed up with his existence(or lack there of...). This inspired a friend of mine's summoner, a dirt farmer with a gopher. A giant flying super gopher.

Hahaha incredible. I'm trying to picture that one.

"I cast Disintegrate on the dragon"

"While she's casting Disintegrate, I charge the dragon to draw its attention"

"I ready a healing spell"

"I continue to remain at the mansion and farm dirt"

"Damn it, Jebediah! You've been at that mansion for six sessions now!"

One of the joys of playing with people who are new to the system - or RPGs in general - is seeing what sort of fun and insane combinations they come up that no one with any experience with the game would ever dream of playing unless they were deliberately gimping themselves. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way - it's actually a lot of fun.

So what's the worst PC you've ever seen that wasn't deliberately trying to be bad?

Some good answers in here.

As a corollary, what two spell schools would you recommend someone bar if it's their first time playing? Personally I'm thinking Enchantment, since it tends to revolve around Save or Suck spells, and maybe Necromancy.

Clerics tend to have healing/support magic, and be better at physical combat, while wizards tend to have more direct attack magic and battlefield manipulation. Let them know there is crossover between roles but that's the gist.

You imply that they've played video game rpgs before. Cleric = white mage, wizard = black mage is not a bad simplification.

Honestly I go with "clerics use powers granted by gods while wizards use magic through study," and let them make their decision based on flavor.

Hmmm, I like this answer. I'm a huge proponent of choosing class based on flavor anyway, so I'm more than happy to go with this. If they want more info, I can just tell them to read through the class pages in the CRB when no one else is using it - or buy their own, heh.

Specifically, how would you sum up the differences between clerics and wizards in one sentence?

I'm starting a campaign and a couple of people there have never played before. Usually to simplify character creation I'll have them first pick from a category, then choose a class from within the category. So:

Warriors: Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers
Priests: Clerics, Druids
Rogues: Rogues (duh), Bards, Monks (arguably is better suited for Warrior, but whatever).

The problem is, if someone asks "What's the difference between a Cleric and a Wizard?" I have no idea how to answer that question concisely and in a way that makes sense to someone who's not super familiar with the game rules.

I mean, at first I thought of putting it in MMO terms and saying "Wizards are DPS-oriented while Clerics are more buffers and healbots," but that's a little misleading. Cleric spells still pack a punch, while Wizards have got some of the best buffs and debuffs around. In fact, it's entirely possible to build a Cleric that's mostly offensive in his magic, or a Wizard that hasn't got a single damage-dealing spell, and succeed.

Then I thought about the differences between where and how they get their spells, but is that really going to mean all that much to a first time player?

Really what it comes down to is that they're casters who draw from totally different spell lists. That's maybe the best answer I've got right now :/

Any suggestions?

Here's a system I've been thinking of implementing. I initially designed it to limit "Chaotic Stupid" parties, but I think it could also open up plenty of new RP opportunities and gameplay possibilities as well.

So, the idea is that the players have a Reputation, which is a numerical representation of how other people in the world see them. Let's say it's on a scale of 1-30. High reputation means someone known throughout the land as a valiant hero, low reputation means they are known as horrible people, and mid-range reputation means that they are either unknown, or that people aren't sure what to think about them. The extremes (28-30 and 1-3) are reached very rarely, and represent people of such great virtue or dastardly evil that they become legendary for their (mis)deeds. In particular, once someone reaches a very low reputation, they can expect to be constantly hounded by law enforcement, bounty hunters, agents of good, and adventurers.

Reputation could be for the group as a whole or on a player by player basis, and can be accessible to players or privy only to the GM, all at the GM's discretion. Different penalties and bonuses could be implemented: For example, perhaps once you've reached a Reputation of 25, shady and unlawful organizations will refuse to negotiate with you, and may even try to kill you on sight. If you've got a Reputation of 5, shop owners may bolt their doors as soon as they see you coming down the street, and temples devoted to non-evil deities may refuse you service outright. On the other hand, the criminal underworld might start to actively seek you out for your services.

Reputation gains/losses would slow depending on where you are. For example, for an average citizen to charge into a ruined temple to defeat the undead lurking there might give a substantial reputation bonus, but for someone already known for their heroics, they might get a negligible one, or possibly not even one at all - they are already expected to save the day, so doing so isn't really going to attract anyone's attention, unless they do something truly spectacular.

Similarly, a Rogue who gets a reputation as a cutpurse probably isn't going to become more infamous by picking more pockets. For their reputation to decrease, they'd need to go after a bigger target, or start injuring or even killing marks.

So what's the point of all this?

First, it allows the GM to increase the sense of living in a breathing world that is actually impacted by the player's actions.

Second, it allows for a more nuanced approach to alignment. Players can be "villains with good publicity" - set up a public image to make them look like heroes, while secretly plotting evil; or perhaps a Chaotic Good character may find his reputation dropping because what he considers to be good differs greatly from the society around him.

Third, it provides a sort of warning system for Chaotic Stupid PCs. GMs can warn them that if their reputation drops much lower, they're going to start being pursued by forces of good that they're not able to handle. If the PCs persist, and continue to go around burning down villages and murdering children because "lolol evulz!" then the GM has got a justifiable reason to drop a bridge on them.

Finally, it provides inspiration for new story opportunities. A party of PCs confront and kill an evil tyrant - but without proof of the tyrant's misdeeds, they're seen as regicides and their reputation plummets. The PCs must now deal with being seen as villains by the society around them, and have a choice of trying to clear their name, looking to redeem themselves in other ways, or embracing their fate and seeing what sort of new possibilities a life of crime opens up.

So... What are your thoughts?

MilesBeyond wrote:

Thanks a ton for the replies everyone, especially gnrrrg. It's helped a lot.

I don't really have an issue with music being able to shape reality or have magical effects, as that's a pretty common trope in fantasy. However, the notion of any Joe Blow who picks up an instrument being able to do it, and the notion of the magic caused by the instrument being suspiciously identical to Mage spells, was a bit much for me.

A Bard isn't any "Joe Blow". He's a person of magical talent who's probably as rare as a Sorcerer. If you still have a problem with this, simply don't allow them in your campaigns.

Is he? Where are you getting that from? I've never gotten that impression from, well, anything.

Thanks a ton for the replies everyone, especially gnrrrg. It's helped a lot.

I don't really have an issue with music being able to shape reality or have magical effects, as that's a pretty common trope in fantasy. However, the notion of any Joe Blow who picks up an instrument being able to do it, and the notion of the magic caused by the instrument being suspiciously identical to Mage spells, was a bit much for me.

I'm beginning to formulate a way to see it that makes sense to me:

Bards, being devoted to many different skills, choose to learn magic, as well. However, most Bards have neither the temperament nor the opportunity to learn spells as Wizards do, and lack the mystical empowerment that grants Sorcerers their abilities. As a result, seeing magic as a sort of performance, Bards choose a few select spells that they permanently commit to memory, which they are then able to cast on a whim. The challenge in doing so means that Bards rarely have the opportunity to learn new spells (spells only gained at level up), and also that particularly complex or involved spells that would be too arduous to memorize will be forever beyond their reach without more rigorous study (Bards only being able to cast certain spells; Bards not being able to cast level 7+ spells).

While the Bard always has spells at his disposal, they are nonetheless draining to cast (limited spells/day), and once his energy has been depleted, he must rest before he can summon the strength to wield magic again.

I dunno, to me this makes more sense and seems more plausible than "played his flute to summon a dimensional portal to teleport short distances." I mean, yeah, okay, I guess when magic is involved, talking plausibility seems a little silly.

In any case, this makes it much easier to visualize the Bard in my head.

I also prefer to think of Bardic Performances as mundane rather than magical. Pumping up your allies or intimidating your enemies through pounding on war drums or reciting a general's pre-battle speech from a famous play makes sense to me, and is easier to visualize than having them magically influence people.

Not like the rules. I know that part. I mean in the game universe. How do they actually work? Why do Bards have their own spell tree? Why do Bards use Charisma to cast spells? How do Bards cast spells at all, and why do they cast like Sorcerers instead of Wizards? Is their performance magical in nature? I mean, the CRB says that their performance creates magical effects.

Sorry for all the questions like this. I haven't really played a Bard since 2e. I love a lot of the changes that have been made, but I don't understand them from a lore perspective, and that makes it difficult to RP. Specifically, Bardic magic. I'm used to Bards just being like Wizards, only advancing far more slowly. Now I have no idea how it looks. I mean, it seems like they draw on innate power, like Sorcerers? But they don't have the whole "special bloodline" thing going on that Sorcerers do. But they're also not memorizing spells the way Wizards do. So where is their magic coming from? Why?

Actually, I came up with an idea that I think would be both way simpler and a lot more fun than anything else I've proposed:

Every x levels, the Rogue's HD when calculating class skills increases by 1.

Okay, there's probably like a thousand better ways to phrase that. But here's an example:

Say it were every three levels. Starting at level 3, the Rogue would now have 3+1 HD to put into skills. If I'm really into sneaking, and put a point in Stealth at levels 1 and 2, I would now be able to put two points in Stealth, bringing me up to 4. The next couple of levels my limit would be 4+1 and 5+1, but once I hit level 6, it would increase to +2. Now I could have 8 points in stealth. This would go up to 12 points at level 9, 16 points at level 12, etc.

The idea here is that Rogues would become "the skill class" again, and will now have the potential to be far more capable at its class skills than anyone else. This would also add a lot more interest to playing the Rogue, IMHO - with the option to pour extra points into skills, Rogues now face more of a dilemma - do they specialize and spend most of their points ramping up a few particular skills? Or do they generalize and spread things out more evenly?

The way I see it, this will make the Rogue more interesting to play, allow for more variety in builds, create more RP opportunities based on those builds, and hopefully give a slight performance boost as well (in particular, the ability to put a lot of points into Acrobatics will hopefully help to overcome the increased challenge of Tumbling).

What do people think? The "x" is for a reason - if this is too strong, it can be moved to every 5 levels. Too weak, it can be moved to every other level.

Miles, your rogue solution is different from the others I've seen proposed here as it focuses on trapfinding, something most rogue upgrades seem to gloss over, so giving it its own thread is not a waste of space.

First, I agree Disable Device should be able to spot traps, but I'd not remove the capability from perception. Just giving rogues a new way to do it is a boon, especially considering Trapfinding.

Yeah, that's a good point. I like the idea of having Perception find traps, because it does away with the old "every party must have a Rogue" mentality. However, I do think that Rogues should still be the best at it. Perhaps have Disable Device count towards detecting, while Perception counts but is halved? Or bonuses don't get added, just the raw skill? Those seem too complicated. Maybe just allow the Rogue to combine Disable Device with Perception when it comes to detecting?

In any case, trapfinding is my main focus because my first introduction to D&D was 2nd ed, where, IMHO, they were far more of a utility class than anything else. The notion of Rogues being the weakest class in combat doesn't bother me a bit (in fact, the petty side of me likes it - I take a rather perverse pleasure in being able to answer the question "Is this class DPS, tank, healer, or crowd control?" with "None of the above"), but when they're of questionable value both in and out of combat - then you've got a problem.

Expanding Disable Device in general might be cool. The golem thing mentioned above could be interesting. Maybe also allow the Rogue to apply his Disable Device bonus to his CMB when attempting to disarm or sunder (his knowledge allows him to know a weapon's weak point, allowing him to disable it more easily).

Maybe a Rogue talent that allows him the opportunity when attacking with a thrown weapon to take a -4 to hit and check Disable Device. If his skill check is higher than the opponents CMD, the opponent is disarmed.

Anyway, I know I said this wasn't about combat, and here I am going on about combat things. I don't really care about balance, and to me whether the Rogue is powerful or not doesn't really make a difference. I just want it to be more fun to play.

"First off - we get threads about the Rogue Problem roughly once per day. Over the years some people have come up with pretty interesting solutions. To the point that it's getting hard to see the forest for the trees; my eyes start to glaze over when I see yet another variation on making the rogue better."

Gah! I can't believe I forgot to search for this before posting. Bad etiquette on my part. Do you know of any good sources for the best solution for Rogues?

Hey everyone, I'm looking for some ways to beef up the Rogue. Bear in mind that right now I'm only using CRB, so let me know if this is covered elsewhere.

Basically, while I love the changes PF made in consolidating skills and adjusting the way class skills work, I can't help but feel as though these changes left the Rogue out to dry. I have no issue with classes being at different levels of power, but the Rogue lost most of its utility as well, and as a result, IMHO, isn't nearly as fun to play. There are two adjustments I think would be a good way to address this:

1) Move trap detection away from Perception.

This is a big one. Trap detection being on Perception not only means that Rogues are no longer necessary for finding traps, but the fact that Per relies on WIS means that Rogues are often going to be worse at finding traps than, say, a Cleric or Druid, or even a Paladin. Two possible solutions for this are to make Perception a DEX skill, or to add a new Find Traps skill, but neither of those seem like very good solutions. Instead, I would suggest that detecting traps should check a different skill altogether. Possibilities would be Craft Trap, Knowledge - Dungeoneering, and Disable Device. My preference is DD, but its a little up in the air. The notion here is that merely being able to see inconsistencies in the surrounding area isn't enough - the character would need a certain degree of familiarity with the nature of traps in order to pick them out. Possibly still have Perception able to detect traps that are <CR5, just for realism's sake (you don't need a genius to figure out what a trip-wire rigged to a net means).

More importantly, this would also mean that traps are now the primary territory of Rogues once again.

2) More skill points.

What I'm envisioning here is that, say, every five levels (Starting at level 5), the Rogue gets +3 points to any class skill. This would be a bonus and so would not count towards the skill cap. The idea here is to remove the whole Rogue 1/whatever 19 dynamic caused by PF's class skill system, where the initial +3 bonus means that a character with a couple of levels in Rogue isn't going to be much worse off in skills than a Rogue with significantly more levels.

Thoughts?