Neil Phillips's page

I very much disliked this adventure. Pathfinder Society is a pick-up game- you never know what your players will enjoy. This is not a problem when there are things for everyone (combat, puzzle, social interaction). Everybody get what they like and enjoy as other claim the spotlight temporarily.

This adventure was almost all one mode. After a short fight at the start it became all about social and knowledge rolls. While interesting in itself, it contained almost nothing that I come to play Society games for. Frankly, I like the fights, I only make combat oriented characters, and am not interested in other types. This was fine... until this one.

The writer could have put some combat in... perhaps between events as a rival tries to stop us from completing our goal, such as assassins at night. This could have also been a good for the right players, just not me.

Anyway, after three hours of this and two more rounds of bids/influence to come, I left the game.

Thanks guys. I thought so, but the PFS GM disagreed.

Hi:

I have an ability called Destructive Smite. It says you need to announce it before making an attack. Does this waste a use of the power if you do not hit, or do you retain it to try again.

Thank you

Can you move diagonally when making a 5-foot step?

Sniggevert wrote:

You have to start new personal characters at level 1. However, you could also play a level 4 pre-gen in the game tomorrow and be right in the thick of things for levels. Unfortunately, there's only 8 choices for pre-gens at the moment though.

Important note, you do not get credit for playing a 4th or 7th level Pre-Gen

Also on the sheets missing, that just sucks.

I find it inexcusable for GMs/Organizer not to report sessions (Short of losing paper work or not being able to read sloppy player hand writing).

You have any means of contacting the GM for those sessions so he can write up new chronicle sheets?

Nope.

With out proof of playing those games you can not get credit for them.

I don't care about credit. I get a chance to play PFS every COUPLE of years. They are just out of my range. Like I said, no PFS for me tomorrow. I'll find some other game to play at the event.

You have to start new personal characters at level 1. However, you could also play a level 4 pre-gen in the game tomorrow and be right in the thick of things for levels. Unfortunately, there's only 8 choices for pre-gens at the moment though.

Pregens? Nah, forget that. Unless I can personalize them to the way like to play. In this case, I don't think I will play, as I rarely play PFS and basically the day will be me standing in back of the group as they get to defeat everything. I do play a lot of Pathfinder, but in personal campaigns.

I last played in 2009. I had been through three adventures. Only one was reported by my GM. I can't find the sheets at all. Do I need to restart as a 1st level character?

Actually, can we somehow start higher, because the group I am going to be playing with are all 3rd through 5th. Being first is going to suck.

Since i am doing this for fun, can I just play a higher character and not receive any rewards for it.

Rally, I just want to have some fun tomorrow, and bing level 1 with this group I would rather just not do it.

Thanks.

Last night I ran PFS 17- Peril of the Pirate Pact. Four players were in the party. Two were new, the two others had one PFS adventure under their belts. The party was Ranger/1, Bard/1, Fighter/1, and a Sorcerer/1. Not ideal, with no rogue or cleric, but that is what they brought to the table.

What Happened
Act I went well. They easily handled it, with the bard going down. They healed up (the Ranger had some potions of Cure Light Wounds she bought after her first PFS adventure) and they were ready for Act II.

Then it went down hill. I realized after Act III the group was in trouble. They were injured, potions gone.

I, as a GM, reminded them that they could turn back if they felt they had to. It would cost them their XP, but they would ensure survival.

Against the Ettercap some got webbed, the Fighter was almost dead, so he gave his Greatsword to the Ranger who then critted against the Ettercap and took it down on round three. But the Bard was heavily injured, with Dex damage. The sorcerer was out of spells for the day.

Then they go out to meet Riverbane. TPK. Total party kill.

Was it Fair?
Now, the party itself made some bad choices, however I can't help but think the adventure was way too hard for a group of 4 level ones without a Cleric. We were supposed to have 5 players, but one didn't show.

PFS does not require certain character classes to be present, so this is liable to happen. Face it, most people playing under the current rule set doesn't like playing Clerics (though in August that should change, as the Pathfinder Cleric is way cooler). Having no Cleric is such a negative on the group on terms of healing resources, it almost is unfair. However, there is no scaling for such an eventuality.

As a GM I think the last encounter was out of line, maybe not for an APL of 2-3, but at APL 1. As it is, 3.5 characters are so low on HP at level 1 (they were being taken down with one blow at times), that facing a Wand of Magic Missiles was certain death. She is guaranteed an average of 3.5 points of damage on any character, no chance to miss. Two missiles could be enough to take down everyone except the Fighter. Even at full HP I think this group would have had a chance at TPK there. Even with a Cleric. This adventure in the end seemed to be aimed more at a level 2-3 party, not 1.

One of the player's complained at the end that the power level of these later adventures seems to have risen (he has GM'ed several PFS adventures), he thinks it is because by now you would expect everyone to be at least level two or more from having played since the season began. However, we have been promoting it and had two new players. Not the best experience for them.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for the help. I'll give you a report after it rolls.

Hi there Neil,

The way I see it, the webs in the shrine where made by both the ettercaps and their spider friends. They might have once been transparent, but time and dust have long since given these tangles a quite noticeable macabre look fitting a shrine of the Demon Lord of Vermin. Quoting the boxed text: "Thick layers of sagging webs choke the room from floor to ceiling" or "Beyond the mass of tangles..." or "Gruesome carcasses and human-sized cocoons dangle from ghastly strands."

So, to answer your question:
1. Yes and no.
2. No
3. No

Good luck with tonight's game. Looking how you prepared for it, I have no doubt you're going to grand slam that one :)
Also, if you find time, please let me know how it went. I'm very interested in hearing how that scenario plays out.

Cheers,

/Matthieu

Please help. Pathfinder Society Scenario 17: The Perils of the Pirate Pact.

I am running tomorrow night (Monday April 27). I have a question about a scene in the scenario. In Act 4, on page 11, it describes that "giant webbings obstruct some areas." It goes on to decsribe how they work mechanically.

However, I need to know if the Ettercap produced these using its Web ability to (from the SRD) "create sheets of sticky webbing from 5 to 60 feet square. They usually position these to snare flying creatures but can also try to trap prey on the ground. Approaching creatures must succeed on a DC 20 Spot check to notice a web, or they stumble into it and become trapped as though by a successful web attack."

1. Are the webs on the map a product of the web attack?

2. Are the webs on the map visible, or does it require a DC 20 spot to see them?

3. If question 1 is a "yes," are any of the daily uses of the web ability used up?

Thanks for the help!! I want to do a primo job tomorrow.

Unfortunately, no.

Think of it in the future then. I'd even be will to pay an extra buck for it! A PDF with map sections in 300 DPI, with 1/2" squares would be great. I know we would have to piece them together.

The maps in the adventure are nice, but all the players usually see is a hand drawn map scrawled from a wet erase marker on a battle mat by a guy who, frankly, has little drawing skill to begin with. I mean, you guys pay an artist to do the nice work, let's show it off.

BTW: I'm only talking the Pathfider Society Scenarios here. I know you sell printed material for other projects. I think showing off a Society Adventure with the best possible visual aides improves the player experience and thus improves the favorability of your entire brand.

Is there a way to get high res versions of a scenario's maps to print out for use with minis?

Thanks

What ever happened to making called shots? Where are the rules for shooting someone in the hand, leg, or eye? In previous Editions there were simple, functional, realistic rules for it that included penalties to hit and side effects.

But a more fundamental reason is that the combat system is built to be very generic. We don't know where hits land. There is no stats for howe much armor covers hands, feet, head, etc. Also, the attack roll system is not set up for it well, either.

I play GURPS as well, which has a great advanced combat system, which includes hit locations and all sort of realistic maneuvers. (It also has a basic system that runs much faster and is better for 95% of all the genres). It is set up for it. We have to roll parries or roll for dodging oponents attacks. You can aim for the arms, hands, neck, etc, and each area has a realistic effect when hit. To trip someone you have to perfrom a martial arts maneuver, which may take two or more rolls.

In dnd a trip is a simple contest. It isn't supposed to be realistic. We don't really know how the trip is performed. It does not have that level of detail. Sneak attacks also are generic, without detail as to how they work. To do a similar thing in GURPS we would have to attack a vital point, like the kidneys, to get more damage. In fact, I would have to say that if you add in Hit Locations, you have to do away with Sneak Attack and make new rules for how the Rogue interfaces with hit locations.

If you want to simulate called shots, take a feat that does something to hinder the opponent. For instance, the rogue's Sneak Attack and Crippling Strike abilities are DnD's called shots. Improved Critial is also such a thing, as a critical represents a hit to something vital.

We were discussing this on another thread, but I thought I'd put it here because this is a big peeve of mine.

I would change the number of class skills per level. The amount received would be the total number of class skills divided by three, rounded down..

Rogues have 21 class skills. That would round up to 7 + Int.
Wizards with 16 class skills this becomes 5 + Int.
Sorcerer with only 9 class skills, this becomes 3 + Int.
Clerics with 13 class skills, this would be 4 + Int.
Fighters with 10 class skills, this would be 3 + Int.

There you go. You got my vote!

No one with more 10 or more int should have less then 4 skills. PFRPG is worse and more crippling then 3.5 was and that was bad enough.

Also the 2 skills are so arbitrary and random.

Fighter, learned and well trained warrior 2 skills
Barbarian wild untrained savage= 4 skills?
Cleric, well educated and learned servant of the gods=2 skills
Druid, nature and lore based caster= 4 skills
Wizard, book learned, well educated, master of much arcane lore= 2 skills?
Sorcerer, self tault, master of the arcane, 2 skills

now how does any of that make a lick of seance?

There are more points for favored classes

You may be right!
But I do agree that the base is a little too small. I think the 2+ should be raised to 4+. And, in the case of Wizards, it may be way too few.

Another Idea
It really should be standardized, though, on the number of class skills. Perhaps total number of class skills divided by three, rounded down. This would accomplish each class not becoming a master of all their class skills, yet keep the average amount of ranks spent per class skill across different classes about the same.

Then Rogues have 21 class skills. That would round up to 7 + Int.
For Wizards with 16 class skills this becomes 5 + Int.
For Sorcerer with only 9 class skills, this becomes 3 + Int.
For clerics with 13 class skills, this would be 4 + Int.
For fighters with 10 class skills, this would be 3 + Int.

This would be an ideal situation.

What Hp option are you useing? If you use max+con mod , then you have no issue. If you use one of the many kicker P options you may want to.

I have used racial 1 time, I find it to much for my game style at first level. YMMV

I meant to pt I am using the Max HD + Racial HP Mod + Con Mod, though that, giving double max HP at first level or your Con score greatly increases power. Against an OGL 3.5 creature I would guess that with the bonus HP, and the additional racial traits, each character is probably on level higher.

I am about to run a Greyhawk adventure. In order to keep the CR's in line, should I up the monsters HP as well? And do the NPC classes get it as well?

I never played D&D 3.5 or any other D&D, but I bought Pathfinder Beta Playtest some weeks ago and I ask myself a question : Why Half-Orc ?

I would replace Half-Orc with just Orcs. I would keep the same stats for the Orcs however (these stats seems to be just right to me).

Because:

1. Half-Orcs have been part of DnD for a long time.
2. In the World of Greyhawk and other settings, half-orcs are found in human lands bordering orc areas. Half-orcs are usually the offspring of (hate to use the word, but it is truth, read the Greyhawk setting) rape. In that world half-orcs are either found in human lands that grant them citizenship, or their own communities. If found among orcs, half-orcs are generally treated as slaves or worse.

Daztur wrote:

1. Hit some of the low level spells that can crush an entire encounter (sleep, color spray, etc.) with a big heavy nerf bat.

Yes, I think it has to be said that while Mage Armor and Summon Monster might be poor choices for a 1st level wizard, there are spells available (above) that are much better.

But why not make them better. At first level one or two hits will kill a Wizard. He needs a marge armor. And by the time the duration for Summon Monster improves, you can summon a much better monster.

at this point we have moved away from increasing bab. Right now we are looking at KI points, ki powers, and high level abilities.

My only reservation about both systems being added to classes like Ki or Rage points is that they add new systems that are not universal. It is the beginning of a slippery slope that could end up making each new prestige class having new systems that are only for them. Kind of like World of Warcraft, where each class has an entirely different way it works.

Your first point is the thing that will get Jason to not look at this, since he's been saying he WILL NOT change the BAB for Months!!!!

Here's the Monk I've come up with...it addresses many of the problems Xaaon's Monk

Not saying he should, but there are some other points being made. if he wishes to close himself off to debate that cannot be helped.

Well, I've always considered the paladin something of a specialty core-class. With that said, one of my favorite 1st Edition classes was the cavalier from Unearthed Arcana.

Of course it was awesome. It was WAY out of balance with the core classes. They were totally kick-butt with little negatives. At that point the Paladin became a subclass of Cavalier and gained not only all the Paladin powers but the Cavalier powers as well.

Talk about power creep. It was like +2 levels above the fighter.

That book caused so many problems in my games. Butthead players who like to cause problems (like playing a thief and robbing their own party or attacking fellow PCs) in game loved the Barbarian because it allowed them to act like idiots. They were cared of magic, at low levels wouldn't work with Clerics, tries to destroy scroll and stuff.

then you had the Cavalier, who was encouraged to act like an upper crust snot as well!

And then there was the thief acrobat. No one played that dung heap.

At 1st level knights would choose an Oath of Allegiance to either a Good Church, an Evil Church or a Monarchy. Those that follow the Church of Good gain paladin spells and abilities while the Evil Church gains blackguard spells and abilities. Those who follow the Monarchy are effectively neutral and gain a different selection of abilities and spells.

Or to a cause or ideal. In d20 the Paladins and Clerics do not have to be devoted to a god; it may be an ideal. Sort of like a Knight Errant, like Lancelot before he swore allegiance to King Arthur.

In Unearth Arcana (and on d20SRD.org) there are variant Paladins, for other alignments. Take a look. It might give you some ideas.

For years I have considered the basic assumption of a Paladin as a core class but what is always apparent is that the Paladin is just too much of a specialist class compared to the rest.

When 3.0 came out and I saw the mechanic for Prestige Classes (and later when d20 Modern used six-generic base classes and expected you to work into an advanced class later), I think they made a mistake and should have been more aggressive in limiting base classes and using prestige, well, in retrospect, better than they did.

I think their should have been these base classes:

Barbarian
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric
Druid

Then they could move into Prestige Classes that represent Range, Paladin, Bard, Monk and other specialists (Assassin, Knight, etc).

Also, this wold allow interesting combination. Anyone dedicated to their LG god might become a Paladin, not just a Fighter type. I could see a Cleric called to the next level by a god, or a barbarian.

IMHO: In the end, 3.0 became too filled with Prestige classes that were written to sell collections of prestige classes. And 3.5 became an overload of base classes. I wish it had been handled better.

BTW: A Paladin does not necessarily mean a Knight. The dictionary defines it as:

1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

Ok, after having a look at the Archive, I think you want "Can Seapoint Be Saved?" - Dragon #75, pg 45 - July 1983.

Do you have access to the issue? If not, let me know and you can come round and look at it.

Olaf the Stout

Yeah, that's the one. I don't have a copy of that issue. My big box of Dragon Magazines got thrown out by accident a couple of years ago.

"SA Neil?" I am? What does that mean?

Here are my suggested adjustments for 20+ (Epic) characters:

Basic Changes:

• Saves: Get rid of the Epic save bonus, just continue the Save progression as is.
• BAB: Get rid of the Epic bonus. Just continue the BAB progression as is.

These are nonchanges:

• Skill points continue to be accrued as normal.
• Feats are doled out at the same rate as before, but new Epic feats become available.
• Ability increase continue at the same rate as before.
• HP accrues as before.

These are big changes

• Create more Epic feats
• Create Epic class features, or improve existing features.
• Dump the whole Epic magic thing. It is awful. Instead let spellcaster keep adding additional spells (just continue the progrssions so they continue past the maximum, such as at 50th level a Wizard would have 10 first level spells instead of six. Also add more Epic metamagic feats so the spellcaster can really take advantage of extra slots.
• Adventures: 20-29 should be World Shattering adventures. Also, add a cool meta game where PCs in this range gain status in organizations so powerful they can direct their activities. I see this as similar to AD&D’s Birthright campaign. The PCs still adventure, but have another game they play around that.
• 30+ Adventures should basically ascend to the planes as these character are demigod like, running into Planar Dungeons. Then extend the metagame to the PCs controlling worshippers on the prime plane. Minor Gods would be the nobility of this level.
• 40+ continues this at a Minor God level, where other Minor Gods are allies or rivals. The Major Gods in this case act like the nobility.
• Make 50 the top level. Call it Major Deity and retire them if they hit 51, like they ascend beyond the planar level to an existence we cannot even match.
• Create Epic Prestige Classes

What I am trying to say is that the game itself needs to change scope at higher levels.

I used to love playing a Bard in 1AD&D, but not the one from the Players Handbook ... I'd like to see it again and see how it compares to the 3.5 Bard, and why I thought it was so cool to play when now I won't touch a Bard with a 10-foot pole.

Well, I did go back:

So, I went back, grabbed my AD&D Player’s Handbook and Best of Dragon Vol. III from back in 1983 (reprinting the article Singing a new tune from Dragon #53, Sept. 1981) and took a good look at the older bard I used to love to play, and try to figure out why I never play a third edition bard.

First off, so you know, the bard from Dragon #53 was a rewrite of the AD&D Player’s Handbook bard from the appendices, but rewritten so you could start off at character level 1 as a bard. It tried to keep the flavor of the PH bard as much as possible. And I loved it! I think I had two bard characters in a row that took up like three years of adventures. That was long ago, and I forgot everything about the class other than it was cool. So this is not just to find out why it was cool, but to try and figure out if it was as cool as I thought.
Below is my comparisons.

The result is that the 3.5 Bard is the best, winning or tying in six categories. The Dragon Bard won or tied four times. The PH bard won or tied twice.

My thoughts:

I guess that back then the Dragon Bard was cooler in comparison to the other classes in terms of all the cool things it can do. Even though the 3.5 version of the Bard is better in scope compared to its earlier versions, most other 3.5 classes now have a lot of cool things they can do as well, the bard being just another class and not the standout as it was in AD&D. So, the bard, to me, just isn’t as fun as in the old days.

Here is my list comparing the versions:

Levels

PH Bard: Starts as a fighter, then between 5th and 8th levels he must switch to thief. Again, between 5th and 9th level he must switch to bard under druidic instruction. Humans can advance to level 23 as a bard.

Dragon Bard: Starts at level 1 as a bard. Again he maxes out at level 23.

3.5 Bard: Starts at level 1, and can multiclass. The base class has 20-levels.

Result: Tie between Dragon and 3.5 bard.

Combat:

PH Bard: Attacks are on the fighter table, at the same level as he attained as fighter. So, even though a 1st level bard has anywhere between 11 and 19 character levels, he still attacks as a 5th to 8th level fighter and never improves as he goes up in bard. WTF?????

Dragon Bard: Attacks as a fighter equal to his bard level, but never gains multiple attacks.

3.5 Bard: Uses the medium BAB progression, like a rogue.

Result: Dragon Bard wins for power!!!

Weapons and armor:

PH Bard: Leather or magical chainmail armor only. No shield. Weapons: Club, dagger, darts, javelin, sing, scimitar, spear, staff, swords. Can use oil, and evil bards can use poison.

Dragon bard: Can only wear leather armor and may use a wooden shield (though he cannot use the shield while playing an instrument). The weapons usable by a bard are: hand or throwing axe, club, dagger, darts, hammer, javelin, horseman's mace, scimitar, sling, broadsword, longsword, and short sword. A bard may use flaming oil, but not poison.
3.5 Bard: A bard is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip. Bards are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields). A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance.

Result: PH Bard. The magical chain mail is the deal maker.

Alignment restrictions:

PH Bard: Any neutral.

Dragon Bard: Any neutral except neutral evil, or chaotic good.

3.5 Bard: Any non-lawful.

Result: Tie between PH Bard and 3.5 Bard.

Spells:

PH Bard: Can cast druid spells up to 5th level. Does not require him to perform, he prepares and casts just like a druid, memorizing in the morning.

Dragon Bard: At 2nd level the bard gains spells. He casts a mix of illusionist and druid spells (with restrictions), up to 4th level for illusions and 7th level for druid (Druids at this time maxed out at 7th level, not 9th). Again, does not require him to perform, he prepares and casts just like a druid or illusionist, memorizing in the morning.

3.5 Bard: Gets spells right at first level chosen from the bard spell list. It is a similar selection as the Dragon bard but more refined. Tops out at 6th level. All spells require a vocal performance, whether singing or poetry to cast. He does not have to prepare spells, instead he cast spontaneously like a sorcerer.

Result: 3.5 bard wins. Spell selection is well picked for the bard and it integrates performing which the others don’t.

Hit dice:

PH Bard: Starts with all the HP gained as a fighter and thief at 1st level, then uses a d6 up to 10d6, then gains 1 point/level after that up to a total of 10d6+12 HP.

Dragon Bard: Rolls 1d6 per level up to a total of 11d6, then gains 1 HP per level to a total of 11d6+12 HP at level 23.
3.5 bard: Gains 1d6/level.

Result: Tie between 3.5 and Dragon.

Race Limits:

PH Bard: Human or half-elf

Dragon Bard: Human, Elf and Half Elf can proceed to level 23 as a bard. Halfling and dwarfs can be a bard, but are limited to level 5. (Here’s a great idea, you wanted to be a Dwarf bard, well bring your level 5 butt with us to the Tomb of Horrors. Not our problem you are only 5th level!!!)

3.5 Bard: No race restriction. Humans and half-elves can choose bard as a favored class; Gnomes favored class is bard. (Odd since Gnome bards were forbidden in the other two versions).

Result: 3.5 bard has the best choices.

Bardic Abilites:

PH Bards: Gains additional languages known as he rises in level, gaining 15 at 23 level, in addition to any he might have known before. Can cast charm person or charm monster by playing his instrument. Legend Lore allows the bard to about legendary people, places and things, and has a chance to determine the properties of magic items. Can inspire confidence granting a +1 to hit to companions and a 10% boost in morale; the bard must sing or use poetics for 2 rounds for the effect to happen, the effect lasts for one turn; the bard does not have to continue singing for the effect to continue. Bard song negates the song of harpies; instrument playing soothes shriekers.

Dragon Bard: Has a “read languages” percent roll instead of added languages. Legend Lore lets him know legends about famous people, places and things, but cannot be used to identify magical properties of items. By singing and playing he can charm people and creatures (loud noise can negate), and may attempt to plant a suggestion on charmed subjects. His singing and playing inspires companions, granting a 10% bonus to morale, +2 on saves vs. fear, and +1 to hit; this takes 1 round to activate and lasts for one full turn, during which the bard must continue singing or using poetics (even while fighting) or the effect negates. Negates harpies songs, and adds +1 to saves vs. sound effects for him and his friends. When two bards face off, the highest level bard wins and can charm people; if they are tied neither can use his charm effects if playing at the same time. Singing makes a trip easier (“1000 bottles of ale on the wall…”), adding 20% to walking distance or 10% to riding movement per day. At 11th level he can change form like a druid.

3.5 Bard: Bardic Knowledge reveals legends about people, places and things, but does not identify magical properties of items (though he may get a hint from the legends). Bard music can be used to fascinate people; inspire courage (+1 to hit, damage, and saves vs. fear or charm. This bonus increases up to a +4 at 20th level); inspire confidence (+2 to a skill roll); Cast suggestion; Inspire greatness (+2d20 hit points, +2 to hit and damage, +2 to fort saves on limited allies; it can Break enchantments (takes a minute); Inspire heroics (+4 to saves and AC) to limited number of allies; and at high level can cast mass suggestion; He need only play for a standard action, though some effects require concentration, and whenever these special bard powers are used he cannot cast spells or use magical things that require triggers.

Result: The 3.5 bard has a the broadest range of effects.

Skills:

PH Bard: Has thief skills at the level he was last a theif.

Dragon Bard: Loses the theif skills. This version is NOT AT ALL a jack of all trades or part theif as it is usually described.

3.5 Bard: Has Rougue skills and a good variety of others.

Result: I know this will be controversial, but I prefer the Dragon version. In a way, the rougeish abilites seem out of place to me.

... and spends a 'ki' point at the same bonus a fighter...

I have to say I am not in favor of the Ki and Rage points. It is a new mechanic that other classes don't have and is the start of "custom class mechanics" in the future. I don't want a situation like World of Warcraft on my game table, where each class has a different set of rules. AD&D was a set of rules with many many exceptions; D&D 3 is a system of unified rules with few exceptions.

Most of the rest of your argument deals with Monks at high level. I agree. Changing the BAB to the Fighter's would mean changes to the class overall... but it really does need an overhaul, IMO.

He would also be the only character in the game with d10 hit dice and best saves in all three save throws, and evasion plus spell resistance.

Maybe tying BAB and HD together isn't the best idea. Perhaps HD should be based on BAB and how good the saves are.

How did the monk have powers before anyone heard of star wars again?

Episode IV a New Hope was in theatres in 1977, PHB AD&D is copyrighted 1978. Seems to be same time period. No?

No.

The Monk existed for D&D for a few years before 1978. Gygax did not create the Monk in 1978; he was working on AD&D for a couple of years. Don't forget, the Monk first appeared in the Supplement II: Blackmoor for Original D&D released in 1975, and was probably developed for a while before that. I would think maybe as far back as 1974.

As I think of it, the Jedi mind trick may have come from a similar interest of Gygax and George Lucas. They both liked Kurosawa films (The Hidden Fortress is a major influence on Star Wars), and I bet there are scenes or legends of Akashic monks affecting the weak will of people.

I mentioned Star Wars because so many people think Lucas invented the Jedi archetype, lightsabers, greenscreen, stc. I don't think Gygax invented the archetype of a Monk either, but was influenced by what he liked. He has even said as much in writing about the development of D&D.

Opinions can be wrong, I am free to have an opinion of people of a different race that states they are less than me becuase of their race and are not as capible as me simply becuase of their race, but that doesn't make my opinion right

I just put this becuase I am tired of getting hammered as if people assume I think I am right and they have to take me down a notch. The Internets can be so cruel. I can see the Wis argument as well.

your race argument is interesting. I've always thought those Elves are not a good as us humans (if you are a human! LOL)

Thoughts on the Monk Class
I’ve been looking at the Monk class. I guess since I saw an episode of Doctor Who with some Akashic type monks in it (and an awesome werewolf), and I got to think about why I’ve been cold on the 3E Monk. Not simply from "how good a combatant is he," but also "what makes this archetype better in flavor?"

First, the less radical ideas:

1. A monk is a close combat fighter and should have the Fighter’s Base Attack Bonus. I justify this by pointing out that a fighter can have a better damage at level 1 than a monk, which unarmed strikes can only match by 12th level (Buy a Greatsword at 1st level and your damage is 2d6 with a better critical range. One adventure and you can get armor at 2nd level that offers protection equal to or better than a Monk the same level. But even longswords are slightly better than hands at low levels, and you rarely find a +1 Hand to give the Monk [LOL]).
To match the higher damage available to other fighters you could argue they have Flurry of Blows, but I would say “blows” is the right term. You are already have a poorer BAB, now lets give a -2 to that! At 1st level a Fighter is +3 to hit better than a Monk doing Flurry of Blows with each having equal strength. By 10th level the different becomes a difference of five.

2. I think the Monk should have some more supernatural talents. Look at other classes in Pathfinder, with Sorcerers growing wings and so on. A monk is honing his sprit and philosophy as well as combat skills, and that should be reflected. This could be things like a Danger Sense that allows a Monk to make a (hidden by DM) Perception Check. If successful his “spider sense” tingles: imminent danger is near. I just dug out old Player’s Handbook, and lo and behold Gary Gygax presented a Monk for AD&D-1 with the same idea, but lost in subsequent editions. The Monk actually gets Psionic powers, including Mind Blast at 11th level. In addition they were kind of Jedi like, with Charm as an ability to do the old “Jedi Mind Trick (a few years before anyone heard of Star Wars), and the ability to heal himself, kind of a psychic healing. What he was doing was showing how the mind develops in a Monk as well as combat. However, I do not think the Monk should become psionic or need a psionics book to run. But psi-like powers would be in line with the class.

3. Here is a suggestion for making the movement bonus be more fun. Change it to +5’/2 levels starting at level 2. This doesn’t change it much, but gives the player the joy of going up in something when he levels up. In addition, I propose a power that when he hits level 12 (+30 ft), he gains the ability to take an Extended Step: He can step 10’ instead of 5’.

Now- here is a more radical idea:

4. In 3e Charisma has become more than just personality, it has become the force of ego. It powers Sorcerers. I contend that Sorcerers inner power that drives their spells is the same as the Ki power of Monks, making them kind of kin. Rewrite the Monk to use Cha as his prime power ability, for mental powers, etc. (Not combat or perception, though I’d contend AC should add Cha instead of Wis).
Remember: This is all IMHO, it is an opinion and is neither right or wrong, just something to think about.

Somatic components only require one hand available. A two-hand weapon needs two hands to wield it, but only one to just hold it. Wizards cast cast spells while holding a staff all the time. So it is okay to cast while holding a two-hand weapon.

Now, two one-hand weapons may be an entirely different matter.

Thanks. That clears it up!

The Creation spells like water bug me too cause I've got a priest using it as a water boarding effect right now.

ROTFL!!!! I'd like to play in your game.

Long long ago in Dragon there was a contest for readers to submit an AD&D adventure. I'd love to find out what issue it was in. However, all i remember is:

* It was in the Mid-80s, before Dungeon ever appeared.
* It was the contest winner.
* It involved a lot of water. I think it might have been around islands.

I know it ain't a lot to go on. Any ideas?

Here is my question:

If I have a Wizard/Fighter using a Greatsword, can I stll cast spells with Somatic components in a round I don't do combat? Logically I think you can let go an hold a two-hand sword in one hand, then grasp it the next round to fight (these rounds are six-seconds).

In GURPS (one-second round) I would have to let go of the sword with one hand (free action), cast (1-second), ready my sword (1 second) then i can fight. But d20 don't go into that detail, so how do I handle it?

In old 1e DnD, the monk and Bard were optional classes not all DMs allowed.

You couldnt even BE a 1st level bard.

I used to love playing a Bard in 1AD&D, but not the one from the Players Handbook. I got it out of Best of Dragon #3. It was awesome, at least I remember the feeling of its awesomeness. The issue and any idea of what the class was technically like is gone. It was a full class, playable from first level. I'd like to see it again and see how it compares to the 3.5 Bard, and why I thought it was so cool to play when now I won't touch a Bard with a 10-foot pole.

Back then I was surprised the Bard didn't make the 1Ad&D Unearthed Arcana when that ridiculous Theif-Acrobat (the first Prestige Class now that I think of it) made the book. And that horrible Barbarian class that had a disadvantage of wanting to destroy all magic items it encounters, which made it hard to have in a party with "Rings of This" and "Swords of That." Oh, and that Cavalier Class that was about 2-levels stronger than the base classes. Memories... ah the days when no one cared about balance...<sigh>

It looks like the Pathfinder Monk is no longer has the special restriction that if you multiclass from Monk to another class you can never take Monk again.

Is this correct. Because I see some serious Monk/Sorcerer multi-class action on the way for me!

Love how the new edition is coming. Keep it up guys!

Just want to chime in that I don't think Fly should be a skill. Here is my thought:

* You don't need a Walk skill to walk. If you have wings to fly, it should be like nature, and rolls should be standard Reflex rolls for maneuverability.

* Ride represents commanding a mount, not yourself, and fly is kind of like buying Ride to move yourself. Again, we don't have a skill for walking. It is Reflex.

Thanks for listening.

Just want to say i am very happy with the new Half Elf. Seems on par with the rest of the races. My wife loves Half Elfs, and we redid her Pathfinder Society Ranger as a Pathfinder RPG Ranger. Seems to be a lot of fun. I don't mind the rise in power of the classes, it just make them more fun if the rest is balanced.

Keep it up guys! Seems to be the 3.5 successor we wanted!

Please also note that it heals EVERYONE in its area, including opponents. :)

I know, but you can heal after fights when it is not a problem, probably choosing to expend some Spontaneously Cast Heal Spells during combat, until you get Selective Channeling.

Another thing is how it compares to Mass Cure spells. I mean, Mass Cure Light Wounds is a 5th level spell, you don't get it until you are a 7th level Cleric. So, in a way Channel Energy is kind of like a gimped Cure Light Wounds, Mass.

At 7th level Cure Light Wounds, Mass heals 1d8+7 points (11.5 points average to each character), while CE does 4d6+3 (in case of Wis 16, avg. 17 points per person).

Well, I am just getting into this, so I missed the Alpha, but I am seeing some people saying it is too much and making things too easy.

As I am about to run a Pathfinder game I am trying to gauge how it will affect the feel of combat. This plus beefier core classes will change the feel a lot, and i want the game to have a dangerous feel, not a cakewalk. So, I am trying to think of empirical methods to judge this, as opposed to anecdotal stories.

Here is some food for thought:

Just for comparison, I wanted to see how Channel Energy affects overall healing, comparing a 3.5 SRD 10th level Cleric vs. a 10th level Pathfinder Cleric.

Assumptions: The Clerics have a Wis 16 (+3); and no feats or anything that adjusts healing or Channel Energy are used.

Here are the results. All are expressed as points healed per character, assuming a 4-member party, with Cure ____ Wounds spells split evenly between the four party members, and Mass Cure Light Wounds and Channel Energy always performed on all four characters simultaneously. Average dice means we assume each die roll is the median roll for the die. For d8 this is 4.5 points, for d6 it is 3.5 points.

3.5 Cleric (all spell slots traded for healing): 103 points healed per character.

3.5 Cleric (half of the spell slots traded for healing): 52 points healed per character.

Pathfinder Cleric (all spell slots traded for healing and all CE's used): 208 points healed per character.

Pathfinder Cleric (half of the spell slots traded for healing and all CE's used): 157 points healed per character.

Pathfinder Cleric (no spell slots traded for healing and all CE's used): 105 points healed per character.

So, as you can see, expending all the Channel Energy towards healing the party, a Pathfinder Cleric on average, can heal 2 points more damage than trading all the spell slots for healing without CE.

Is this good or bad, I dunno. Certainly your mileage will vary, as you may use less or more spells to trade, or not fully use CE to heal (until you get selective channeling which makes it way easier). However, it does seem like overall, there will be more points healed in a game day than in 3.5, and this may have an effect on Challenge Ratings.

Because most of the 3.5 books summed up all knowledge skills into Kow (Arcane) and Know (Rogue only). . .

From the 3.5 SRD:

* Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
* Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
* History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
* Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
* Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
* Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
* Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
* The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes)

How about a puzzle that relies on Knowledge (Religion), or (Archetecture/Engineering). I can see it now, "Save your spell, Cleric, I know the answer: My engineering knowledge tells me that symbol is as an old symbol for "bridgemaker." Press it. it is the answer!"

As with any adventure, premade or home brew, I make sure to add in things that will highlight each character's individual talent, even if it means altering a module a little, so things like the above will happen. In a way, I try and make successfully rolling a skill as dramatic as successfully rolling to hit against an enemy!

One added issue: Synergy bonuses cause about 65% of all 3.5 stat block errors, and are Not Worth The Effort. ... But they are a mess, and they're out of the game.

Amen! As you can see in the discussion in this thread there is a lot of different ideas on how the rule is implemented. Is the game really improved with it: NO!!!

My players sometimes sqeeze 2-abreast down 5' halls. They do this sometimes to each get an attack against an opponent. What are the consequences during combat? AC-4? Can a PC take a 5' step forward through a friendly occupied square to co-attack a beast, even though it requires her to sqeeze next to another PC? At the end of her round, is she forced back to her own square or must she continue to occupy the shared one?

At the end of a turn you can only have one character in a square. You can't 5'-step into an occupied square. You can move through an occupied square, as long as you end on an empty square. You never have two characters in the same square after moving or 5'-stepping.

The rule is on page 144 of the Pathfinder Beta PDF:

Ending Your Movement: You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

1) The only healing the party used was channel energy, which was 11d6 (phylactery) for Kyra, who could do it 10/day. The healing available via channeling scales extremely well with level.

Wow. An average of 385 points of healing per day per character without expending even one spell slot. I can see why some people think this is too much healing, making encounters less difficult. Especially with Selective Channeling, you can do this with enemies in the area. WOW!!!

the problem with that thought process is that Full Plate armor was actually EASIER to wear than bulkier less protective predecessors.

The problem with armor in d20 (besides it doesn't actually reduce damage but that is another argument) is that there is no system of Fatigue. In real life no one would walk around in heavy armor. You'd be a sweating mass. Walking miles in armor is exhausting. GURPS handles it well, with Fatigue being assessed after combat and physical exertion. A guy in plate in that game needs to rest after combat, cool off, but a guy in leather might be good to go right away. More realistic.

In movies this can be seen. How about Lord of the Rings. Aragorn keeps it light when he is running across country, but before the battle at Helm's Deep is when he armors up and adds Chain Mail to his outfit.

d20 is more like Excalibur (a film I love BTW), where Knights wear their Plate Mail all the time. At dinner, getting married, heck, there is even a scene where Arthur has sex IN FULL PLATE MAIL <lol>.

So, I find it hard to argue what is realistic about armor when d20 armor is inherently unrealistic by eschewing a whole part of reality.

Of course, I've had players who get upset when I restrict armor and weapons in situations, such as a city where they limit what you can wear, carry (a guy walking around in Plate must be looking for trouble, the authorities reason; anyway, why should citizens be better equipped for battle than the city guard). They think I am going to kill them (I am not an unfair DM, so I don't throw fully equipped enemies at them in an alleyway to kill them).

But that is the expectation, that we can mosey around in full Plate day and night.

what about rogues having slightly bumped sneak attack (+2d6 at first level and +1d6 per every other level) and remove the least logical part of 3.5 rogues, flanking sneak attack. I have to admit that im a bit retro and still like the idea of "backstab", but i still think it will get more at the hide-and-stab combat style that a Rogue should be operating with.

Without that the Rouge takes a back seat in combat behind the fighter's. It is one trick to try and even him out.

but, as my argument of overuse of undead and Drow as cliche's,

Just a note, I accidentally posted this under my wife's ID. Forgot to log her out an me in.

I had to read the thread again, but I see no example of "undead overkill". I think you're trying to say that the existence of Channel Positive Energy requires writers to put undead in all of their adventures, and that's patently false.

Turn Undead, the thing they are tryng t9o fix, has been the cause of too much undead. As I said, almost every adventure has a little undead to the point where undead has become ho hum, like the overuse of Drow, or Star trek's overkill of the Borg.

You want to keep it a class feature, i want to demote it and maybe fix it a different way. If you cannot see my point then maybe I am presenting it wrong.