Ndar's page

::Note:: This opinion is purely from someone who just loves RPGs in general. There aren't many systems out there that I dislike at all. From Warhammer (WFRP, 40kRP) and the wargame, Numenera and other sci-fi based system, to the fact I still play 2e, 3.5/PF, and anything else I feel like - there are things I enjoy about them all.

The biggest enjoyable factor for me was the -ideal- that skills and attacks were well balanced to one another - you could make an Acrobatics check to swing on a rope and kick someone off a pirate ship (while still actually doing damage) and not need any special rules. Acrobatics vs. AC or some Defense and you're done. It wasn't always perfect, but that's what they tried to achieve. That's the biggest draw that, with a bit of work on the DM's behalf to preserve that intended balance, has me playing 4e from time to time instead of our PF games.

This is the situation where I break out statistical information to determine the validity of any rule whining. As someone who actually fences and sword fights in reality (for fun, nothing serious or competitive) - realism often conflicts with rules systems - any rules systems. Since rules are designed around consistency and game balance, I look at the impact of the rules, rather than two people arguing day and night what they think 'is possible.'

In this example, lets analyze a few assumptions. At some point, your strength will become 20, and likely higher. Lets also assume you take Double Slice at some point. So eventually, the following points are valid, regardless of when:

Longsword (Main Hand, 1h) : 1d8+5 (6 - 13 Damage)
Spiked Gauntlet (Off Hand) : 1d4+5 (6 - 9 Damage)

This is the perfectly legal choice, by the 'rules' as they appear or the intent applied previously in this post. As questioned, the two-handed swapping approach:

Longsword (Main Hand, 2h) : 1d8+7 (8 - 15 Damage)
Spiked Gauntlet (Off Hand) : 1d4+5 (6 - 9 Damage)

Ultimately, what needs to matter here, is how it compares to what is otherwise possible, such as wielding a Longsword and Shortsword, a higher damaging off-hand weapon:

Longsword (Main Hand, 1h) : 1d8+5 (6 - 13 Damage)
Shortsword (Off Hand, 1h) : 1d6+5 (6 - 11 Damage)

At the indicated assumptions, the Longsword wielded 2h, and switching to Spiked Gauntlet as an off-hand has a better minimum damage and the same maximum damage as the legal Longsword + Shortsword. This implies the balance is broken.

As a DM, my solution is easy: I would say this is a certainly valid choice, since the immediate ramifications are only affecting minimum damage - but with a catch. Power Attack would only yield 1h version of its bonus damage when applied to the Longsword. In addition, I would count the off-hand weapon as far as TWF penalties go (-4/-4) instead of -2/-2. With a 10% drop in accuracy, the minimum damage increase is paid for. In addition, when your strength acclimates beyond 20, that extra damage will be paid for compared to dual-wielding two longswords via the normal rules.

Just my two cents. Then again, I play many, many different game systems, many of which the entirety of mechanics focus around bending the rules and putting flavor ahead of balance. In the case of wanting a spiked gauntlet offhand, with all its drawbacks, you are giving up (by the normal rules) extra damage for flavor. This slight rules infraction helps alleviate that penalty.

Well, the Ranger class as a whole is a racist by default - favored enemy and all. Or were you not referring to fantasy races? (clearly joking here)

Seriously however, its never been a recurring problem - just a case by case situation, and its typically always a fantasy twist. This barbarian doesn't like gnomes. That Shifter doesn't like Thranites; etc etc.

I do not have the time to read all the posts to what has and has not been said, so I'm just answering the original question - as a DM, you simply need to understand the situation as fluidly as you can and not take it personally. If the situation is the same person, or group of people, playing the same hatred scenario time after time - its clearly a problem. If it just occurs once with a person who just wants a twist on a character? Psychology isn't going to help you here. Its equal parts a person wanting to play what they truly feel inside, and equal parts of those players who want to play what they could never be. Me? I could never be a meticulous Wizard who studies a book day in and day out, at least an hour every morning, to memorize a bunch of formulae; I hated studying in High School however long ago that was. But boy I love playing the math-brained wizard who has the Intelligence to discover a way to torture a demon, but lacks the Wisdom to figure out why he shouldn't.

Long-post short, make sure you know the root of the discrimination; is it truthfully just from the world's standpoint and a one-time thing? Or does the person really have a problem? Figure that out, and I'm sure the answer will come to you.

Meh - silly warring. Its been a long, long time since I've bought a brand-new video game for a console. Why? They try to charge 60 bucks for untested garbage. There are so low of standards for what constitutes a good game (for my personal expectations) that I'd rather play my SNES on infinite repetition of games than contend with most of the new rubbish. That being said, obviously the quality of games goes to the individual user in question. I will never support a console that tries, in any way, shape, or form, to hurt the used gaming industry. The only way I've found the handful of games I'm willing to pay full-price for in the past 3 years, is through Gamestop. That alone, is enough to make me not buy any new system right off the shelf until, in plain print, each describes what they're trying to do to destroy the used-gaming industry.

Now add in the creepy feeling of 'Big Brother,' and I'm really sad. I'm a huge fan of the 360 as a whole - Gears of War is one of my favorite franchises (although not impressed with Judgement) and I'm honestly heartbroken at Microsoft's approach to social-media my living room. I have a computer - clearly, I'm typing this forum post. My T.V. is for television, movies, and games and I need no further cross-integration.

Then again, I'm an old Grognard who still plays AD&D. My 2 cents, in a nutshell, is simple:

I won't buy any next gen at this rate; I haven't been a fan of the Nintendo since the 64/Cube era, honestly. Alas, perhaps cometh the dark-ages of gaming. Then again, maybe Sony is watching the Microsoft fallout and will drastically fix their rumours of anti-used gaming and such to snatch up the now unsatisfied portion of the market.

The following is a disclaimer: If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean you're an idiot, nor does it mean I am. Just opinions; respect them, agree or disagree, and move on.

Gotta side with OP here - losing 3 levels of casting only matters if you're losing a whole spell level, at least to me. 17th level Cleric has 9th level spells - the actual amount of them only comes second place.

I've never been a fan of Vancian casting, but nor does it make me not play a system. In fact, I consider magic the 'add-on' rules for any game system. Give me the core mathematical components and then you can limit your spellcasters however you see fit.

With that in mind, unless Pathfinder makes a completely new, original mechanic that does away with the 'level is an attribute' mechanic of 3e, I'm really not interested in any new material from them. As of the moment, my favorite games are purely XP-buy based with no level-based comparison of success. However, this to a recent comment, there is a spirit of classic Dungeons and Dragons that the level-based criteria must be met to achieve. Despite me preferring a bit more non-linear mechanics, sometimes I just get in that dungeon delving mood, and nothing does it for me like Six Attributes, Level-based accuracy and damage/HP, and fire and forget magic. There's just... a feel I keep coming back to every once in a while =)

Heck, we still use our AD&D materials. Ideas are ideas, regardless of mechanical stability. Specifically, however, the 3.0 and 3.5 material makes its way into every character into one way or another. I suppose 13 years of a system means you just never let it drop into nothingness; tack on another 7+ for the AD&D comment. Even now, I find myself telling my players to roll a Strength check - you're getting bullrushed. Then I just sigh, look at their CMD on my master sheet, and tell them if it hit or missed. Good times.

:: To the Original Post ::

Due to the impact of the full-attack action, it is hard to design some viable options for melee combatants who don't just want to stand around. We've recently taken a long hiatus from playing PF and did some Warhammer, Whitewolf, and Monte Cook's Numenera playtest just to take a break from the constant level-driven mathematics. We've recently decided to come back for some classic DnD like action, and are right in the middle of the same old debates of what to do about the full attack action.

We've decided upon using an Action Point system, in which you get 3 points per round - it costs 1 to make a movement larger than a 5-foot step, and 2 to make an attack. We've all but done away with iterative attacks and have instead used the Technique system designed by Mongoose Publishing in The Quintessential Fighter II. This lets you make custom attacks (at a cost) which make combat much more diverse and not so mind-bogglingly boring as the Monk makes his 7 fist attacks +1 from Ki.

Obviously, there are balance issues with fighter-whine about losing their biggest gimmick, but honestly with the bonus feats and higher accuracy, none of us particularly care about the lack of 'balance' in the core design. Since no one can do it, everyone rather enjoys it. If you like the idea, I suggest you grabbing the pdf off of rpgnow (5 bucks!) or even design your own method of doing this. If you think its a lousy idea... don't use it ^^

In 3.0, we used the creature's currently equipped form of attack (or natural attacks) as a passive; so 10 + attack bonus. That's the tumble DC. For Pathfinder, CMB +10, or using the same method, works brilliantly - we just never stopped this theory from 3.0, so I guess we never even noticed if the rulebooks said to do something different ^^;

The world is certainly all about perspective. :)

Of course when those perspectives pile up to great numbers... they could possibly be proving a valid point.

Oh I'm not saying anyone's complaints are invalid - if it breaks your fun, then it needs be fixed for you. Its all a game, afterall, and what is it if not fun? Was merely my observation and lack of needing it changed. If people wanted to make it yet stronger, in my perspective, I'm surely not going to complain, though others might haha.

To deny 4e brought us good things, is a blatant lie. I've never played a 'perfect' game mechanic, and likely never will. I typically play multiple different systems as the whim drives me, depending on how complicated I feel like having my games, or how quick, down, and dirty I want it to run. They all have ways of influencing the other games - from Warhammer and Whitewolf, to 2nd edition, 3.0, and Pathfinder - they all start to blend together eventually.

I don't 'hate' 4e, just don't like it as much as I like other things. My only real complaint with 4e was the 1/2 level to everything silliness. Skills were just so boring. You're either trained, so its a skill of 5, or you're not, and its a skill of 0, and it kinda stopped there. Really not fond of that at all.

That said, I'm not fond of the d20 level-based approach to every single mechanic in the game, either. I've never had a 3.0+ game not break around the level 12 mark. Doesn't mean i stopped playing, we just 'fought through the pain.' So the constant argument over balance really means nothing, so long as you're constantly having fun.

Me? I don't have fun when I'm hitting every single swing, so I never play characters with a fighter's base attack bonus - leaves some challenge in the game for me. (The exception being Paladin, so I usually just run a moderate strength one and focus on charisma/con and try to keep myself at a minimalist level).

All that being said, there will always be a mind greater than my own, thus a mind greater than them as well, and thus greater than even the original designers of anything ever designed. Why not try new things, even if others have tried them before? What does it harm? Don't like it - don't use it. The miracle of Rule 0.

Some interesting points; I'll contribute a few things here.

First and foremost, Monk and Paladin have been my favorite classes since AD&D, and I really couldn't care less about the mechanics or power within. I absolutely love the discipline approach - through faith or dedication. That being said, after playing all the previous editions of Monk, I find Pathfinder's actually incredibly overwhelming and powerful. I've never been happier. I mean, 2d10 damage, rogue's attack bonus, teleportation, elemental damage on your fists - or stunning... and that's not even including the strength of the dual-wielding flurry. I've never had complaints here, except that my CMD is always ridiculously high. Anyway, my point is - I don't feel its broken from my perspective, but thats all we're really talking about here isn't it? Perspective.

As far as Rogue, with the simple task of flanking, you're doing a Fireball on hit with no save - nuff said, tactically. In fact, more often than not, Rogues take the tactics out of a combat scene when its just a hack-n-slash fest. Flanking - death. But you're absolutely right in the skill department, they do need a way to hammer home their skill expertise. Then again, taking Skill Focus every even level instead of a nifty little perk can easily fix this, if that's your concern. Everything should be a trade of sacrifice and gain. Then again, lots of ways to be immune to sneak attack...

Fighter... is fighter heh. Perspective strikes again here. From my perspective, if you're running a hack and slash game where swing sword :: kill monster techniques thrive in your campaign, fighter will reign supreme as they should. However, our campaigns tend to be much more story-driven with combat using very carefully designed fields of combat where turning over an oil barrel or a table is more important than 1d8+q damage. Fighters in my campaigns do tend to have little diversity and end up multi-classing habitually. Because of multi-classing, fighter has pretty much become the way to 'combatify' your character who otherwise wouldn't be =/

:: This post has been edited for clarification ::

Yes, Monte Cook had liquid Starlight and the likes. However, I'm referring to (specifically) the Mongoose Publishing Quintessential Series; Fighter II for their special combat maneuver techniques, which I believe should be OGC, and after much searching, it is the Quintessential Elf II that has rules for Elfin-craft objects (like Plum-crafted bags, which can keep food fresh infinitely) and using Starlight, Sunlight, Moonlight, and Darkness into solid and liquid forms through powerful magics. That, I'm not sure how much would be OGC.

As concise as I can make it:

I have no clue whether or not its OGC, but the Quintessential Fighter II (The technique creation mechanic) was used a lot for our group back in the day. Made combat oh so much less hack and slash. I believe Mongoose Publishing also had other quintessential things - like the elf? Can't quite remember after all this time, honestly. I just remember something to do with liquid starlight or something? Again, no clue if its OGC.

Seconding anything by Monte Cook, quite frankly.

First and foremost, clearly very different playstyles between groups then lol. Since our games tend to be much more oriented toward low-magic settings, healing is incredibly rare - 6 potions a day means the DM isn't doing their job (but again, just our groups, I understand not all groups flow this way).

Even in campaigns where the fantasy is just 'everyday', I drag my players through much harder encounters than they should; we're more of an exceptional challenge oriented people. When its not RP or solving this or that, we want the combat to be intense with a high chance of death. If we don't feel the fear of needing to make a new character, we're kinda bored with battle.

I've used the randomly generated negative effects thing before, but a bit more wild-magey than I really dig.

I'm well aware that most groups (I'll use most loosely) don't really see a use for potions very often; our groups very much do. Feel free to try out your own penalties, obviously, but the last time I drank less than 4 potions a -session- let alone rest was on a Hungry Ghost Monk... ridiculous power there. Then again, I can't remember the last battle with less than 5 equal level CRs in a party of 4 people.. and that's the low end. What can I say, we like the high xp chart XD

P.S. I think the biggest thing is, we use potions in combat a -lot-, kind of out of necessity, so the 1d10 rounds of nausea can pretty much leave you out of an entire battle and fodder. If potions were mostly chugged out of combat, I'd definitely consider as your suggestion indicates, a much longer nausea. Perhaps we're all too stuck in the 80s and Diablo XD

Sometimes you just want a campaign where every magic item has a story and is practically as rare as an artifact. In those same campaigns, its hard to rationalize magical classes as well (at least ones with overt spellcasters who can close wounds). Sometimes, even a normal or high magic campaign can benefit from more comprehensive alchemy rules, and that's what we've created (and have used for a couple of years) and I thought I'd share our basic premise:

First and foremost, this concept concludes that the world is so lush, rich, and diverse that there's a way to extract powerful ingredients from all walks of life.

A blue fern that grows only in swamps with swalloed grave yards can be used to brew an incense that can cleanse the body of wounds and infection; a rare bird whose feathers can protect you from the ravages of fire, but only so long as the bird they're from remains alive.

That being said, depending on the campaign, we have a much more detailed and verbose list of alchemy including what we call 'dirty' potions. These alchemical items can replicate nearly any magical potion, but at a cost. Cure Light Wounds, meet your counterpart, the 'dirty' Cure Light Wounds. Same healing, same basic rules, even the same price, but can be made without magic. Unlike normal potion rules, there is no level limit of spells that an alchemical potion can contain.

The 'dirty' rules: Consuming a dirty potion has no immediate effect on a creature, other than the taste can be described as less-than-appealing. However, a person can only consume a number of dirty potions between rests equal to twice their constitution modifier (for a low-magic campaign) or their constitution modifier (for a normal, or high magic campaign). Once they reach this point, every potion they consume requires a Fortitude save or they become sickened until they rest at least 6 hours. Each additional potion increases the DC by 1, with each DC based on the level of the potion currently being consumed.

Once a target is sickened, the fortitude save instead prevents nauseated for 1d10 rounds. Any creature that fails two saves against nauseated in a row, is instead knocked unconscious for 1 hour.

Dirty potions do not affect normal potions that are imbibed, or even standard magical healing, and only a running tally of the 'dirty' consumption needs be tracked.

In light of the Alchemist, we added a new 'Discovery' based on this new alchemy system: 'Filtration' A number of times per day equal to his Intellect modifier, the Alchemist can create alchemical potions that are 'clean;' very loosely meaning they do not apply the dirty penalty. These clean potions become dirty after 24 hours (preventing a stockpiling of clean potions).

The other step to the advanced alchemy is the rare material componant requirements to create some of these potions. We prefer a method of keeping track of our potion creating process through the individual materials involved in the creation of the alchemical items. In example, to make a dirty cure light wounds potion (which should cost roughly 25g in terms of game balance) you might require a blue fern (10g), a crystal vial (5g), and some powdered glass (10g). The materials are really unimportant so long as the theme is effective, the goal is to add yet a new unique set of items to find lying around dungeons, growing naturally, and even a sellable treasure.

Obviously, this is a complicated stage to setup for your games, and I fully understand not all people would be interested in keeping track of the fine nuances of the creation process like this, but just thought I'd share the entire idea we use. Typically it only comes into play in low-magic campaigns (which we do a lot of, kicking back to that OD&D feel we used to get every time a new magic item was introduced) and its really a blast to watch people drinking themselves nauseated in that extra long dungeon, heh.

I'd love comments, suggestions, anything constructive, and even just whether or not the system might be useful to you, or other peoples' testing of a similar nature, or even this idea itself.

Thanks in advance for reading =)

Ndar wrote:

bigkilla wrote:

The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

I am a huge anime fan don't get me wrong, but all of the stuff I have ran so far has been inner sea stuff and the thought of halfling and gnome ninjas running around makes me want to puke.

The problem I have seen is that the people I have seen who always like to play a oriental/Asian themes character in a setting other than one that is
oriental/Asian themed usually try to go over the top and make crazy stupid character concepts.Plus I don't think most of the oriental/Asian themed races would receive that great of a welcome in the inner sea.Fox people and other strange creatures in civilized areas would not go over well in my book.

Now I would have 0 issues if it was a pure oriental/Asian themed game.

Ahh, now I understand; I rarely run pre-organized campaign settings (though I occasionally pick up Eberron or Faerun games), so I don't keep up too well with how the oriental themes play out in Pfinder (though I did buy the Dragon Primer for the nifty game rules information, heh). Thanks for sharing; I completely agree on the awkward-syndrome, and the over-the-top appeals. Myself, I can't stand 90% of anime, or even wire-mechanic martial arts movies for that matter, so I much prefer the down to earth 'supernatural without supernatural' appeal.

The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

I take a slightly simpler solution to the rogue ordeal, heh. I have 'player' requirements for certain classes when I DM my campaigns. The person who I know for a -fact- would steal from the party, cheat them, swindle them, and otherwise create discontent, will never play a rogue, in example. With our groups its a matter of teamwork, community, and fun, so I really don't have to worry about that situation unless I'm joining some random group, or a friend's friend's friends' group or some such crap when I'm absolutely Jonesing to not DM.

The same can be said of Paladin - since AD&D, I take Lawful Good to the absolute most I can. It may seem harsh outside of the group or circle with which we play, but all my players absolutely love the attention to detail when the Paladins are true romantic notions of Chivalry, Good, Charity, and Law, instead of overpowered demon-slayers.

If you have issues with rogues being more rogue than adventurer in your group, you may consider similar actions provided your players don't cry too much about it. And if they do, perhaps just design campaigns that require certain alignment/personality restrictions. I suppose it depends on your majority; afterall, everyone wants to have fun =)

Melee 'character' vs. melee 'class' I suppose is the argument here; either way, the intention of the post is all that matters, so let's move on to that:

I would have to be at a draw between Ninja/Monk (Either or, or multiclass, doesn't matter) or Inquisitor. I like the ranger meets paladin feel of Inquisitor. It gives me that nice 3.5 classic feel of the holy liberator.

Monk and Ninja I appreciate for the supernatural feel without the blatant explosion of magic fire, healing touches, and the like. Of course, the post being about preference over power, this is my answer.

Assuming raw power, I gotta go Barbarian. I love playing Elf-variant Barbarians; high strength with moderate dex turned high racially... just kinda fun. The Con, obviously, suffers greatly but it really feels meaty I guess. *shrugs* Opinions abound!

WhipShire wrote:

Well I think we all have them... The class that one of your players LOVES to play! You've seen a similar variation of the same character over and over again. I love my group and all my players but sometimes you just want to Scream... TRY SOMETHING NEW, play something (anything) different! lol

Here mine:

- The Player is awesome in RP but man oh man he Loves Rogues. halfing Rogues / human male rogue / human female rogues / Orc / Gnome / Elf and on and on and on... To top it off he does not even use archetypes most of the time. Either a 2 sticker or a bow rogue straight core class.

So Whats your Ugh class?

Quite frankly, what's your problem? Does he play his rogues well? Does he roleplay them decently? Did we like John Wayne, or Tommy Lee Jones any less despite the fact that through his entire career, he essentially only played one character?

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, why not just chill and let him have his fun?

I don't think its so much as a gripe quite as you're indicating, as just voicing a situation where you'd like to see an amazing Role-Player broaden their horizons, at least that's what I got from it ^_^

As far as the Monkies go... *picks up the good ol AD&D Flame Tongue-wielding human warrior and meanders into the sunset... in the opposite direction*

Heh, its funny how tastes change in this respect over the years of playing. When I first started, some 20+ years ago, I couldn't really grasp the flow of anything aside from Human. Wouldn't play any other race but Human, and for a smaller degree of time, nothing but Human Fighter. After some influencing, I enjoyed Ranger as well, then came to love the combination of Elf + Nature + Ranger = overkill.

Now, I can't even play the same generic 'theme' of character twice in a row. If I play Melee in one campaign, I must be ranged, or magic, or -something- else for the next heh heh.

My 'ugh' class would likely be any of the classes that allow players to focus more on a secondary creature than their actual character. Our group has a bad habit of Cavalier's having more charismatic horses than riders, rangers and druids minmaxing their pets over their warriors, and summoners just... 'UGH!'. I have nothing wrong with any of those classes, but when the player spends 20 minutes on the actual character, and two hours on the pet... Just give me my human fighters back...

Alas, I'm sad I will not get to play the Pathfinder game, as I absolutely cannot stand MMOs. The infinite gear-grind to kill harder things for another gear-grind has just caught up to me after the intensity of FFXI (pre-chains garbage), followed by the death of intelligent thought (WOW) I just have no MMO left in me. I would have much preferred a Neverwinter Nights, but I wish the game great success.

Though perhaps I will give this a try; the free to play portion at least begs to see how it lives up to the sandbox feel -- controlled inflation/capitalism, dynamic quest environments, the lack of dependance upon others; there's a lot of things an MMO would have to pull off and correct from its previous incarnations to keep my attention, but I'm just one person =) I sincerely hope they can 'blow my mind' and I may say "I was wrong." I just don't see it happening.