Nervous Jester's page

Transcripts are indeed put up on the Beautiful Brains site. It's a drop down off the Chat button at the top. Might be a day or so, but it'll be up. Until it's up, the chat can still be read on the site. Old chats aren't cleared until the next week's chat.

Anyway, chat starts in a little under a half an hour for those interested (already over a dozen early arrivals as I see).

as far as I know its out of print permanently...

Not permanently; Pinnacle does plan a reprint in the Explorer's Edition format like they did with Necessary Evil, but it might be a while.

What the...

Okay, I know in the last round I praised you for taking on the kind of challenge the system is capable of, which I felt was in the true spirit of RPG Superstar, but man, I didn't figure that was possible this round.

Way to prove me wrong.

I have to admit I am now very intrigued by what you would provide in the adventure proposal. The challenge will be different there.

I've got to give major props to Neil for this round. It was said he took his foot off the gas, but in my view, he floored it.

As is repeatedly said, this is RPG Superstar, and this is the create a stat block part of the competition. I can't criticize the complexity of the stat block in a competition to determine if someone has the chops to deal with the system at the Superstar level. I would think by definition that includes handling that level of complication since the system supports it.

It just seems like this part of the competition is about proving you can take on any stat block the system can throw at you. Heck, I'd want an RPG Superstar to provide a stat block that is correct and I would have to put some effort into running. Otherwise, they are just putting together a stat block I probably could have made myself.

Doesn't mean I expect that level of complexity in every NPC they create, but I want to know I can trust those characters to be right when they do come up.

So kudos to Neil for not only doing that, but being able to tie those mechanics into a villain with a great story and tons of potential.

"Come on! All I said was, 'Our mage is asleep, and we're all naked and unarmed; what a perfect time for an ambush.' How was I to know Little Miss Gotta-Get-My-Daggers would freak out?"

Okay, so I noticed the latest flip-mat released was for a theater, but the reverse had wooden flooring, and I thought it would be cool for a city-based game. Thing is, I wondered how much use I would have for the theater, and then it struck me...

Change the Carowyn Manor adventure to a theater. It really seems to be a great fit. The Carowyns are patrons of the arts and instead of a party, they are having an advance viewing of a play they sponsor.

One of the musicians gets sick, and Ruan is hired to replace him at the last minute.

And then there is Jolistina, I mean, she is made for the stage. ;)

Plus, I think it helps in a way. A manor house of the well-known rich couple suddenly goes silent for days, and I think more than the sister of a musician would notice, and the Guard probably would react in some way. On the other hand, if the nobles just aren't at a second home for them and the servants maintain it as normal, then nothing is really out of the ordinary. And a theater can go closed for some time, easily a few days, before anyone would notice.

As far as the two inhabitants go, Jolistina could have survived on food for the reception that was part of the event until it got bad, and then she could sneak out at night if needed for more supplies.

Ausio, instead of the wine cellar, has hidden under the stage. As with the other version, he has survived on rats he has caught, but for water, I'm thinking there could be a pump connected to some barrels (or a well) to provide water effects on the stage, so he has been able to drink from that.

What do you think? Am I missing some component to the story tied to the manor house with this? Or is there some plot hole that needs patching?

Just want to make sure everything is covered before I commit money to the map.

There are 8 enemies of CR5 or more in 7 Days. 4 have ACs higher than 22 (25, 27, 23, 23) and 4 have lower (20, 21, 18, 21)...

Not to mention, the foes that have lower ACs have special abilities that play on a fighter's weak points (and one specifically says to use that ability against the "strongest-looking" character).

And really, there is a 25% less chance of hitting with the maxed out Power Attack. It's not too hard to do the math of the average damage multiplied by the odds of hitting. As I see it, the character has a +8 with Bull's Strength and without his +5 BAB (there is a +10 listed above, but I don't see where the +2 from "feat" comes from*). His average damage would be 18 and 28 with the Power Attack at level 5.

That means at AC 20, he does the same damage on average (a 70% chance of hitting for 18 versus a 45% chance of hitting for 28 both "averaging" to 12.6).

Anything above AC 20 and he loses damage by using Power Attack at level 5.

In fact, the maximum 5 levels of Power Attack only become most advantageous at AC 15 or less. Between those ACs, he would average more damage by using a lesser version of Power Attack as the damage lost is made up by the increased chance of hitting.

So really, if the player is contantly using his Power Attack at maximum, he's only reducing his total damage output against foes with an AC higher than 15 (which should be most of them at this level). It may be more impressive when he does hit and thus more memorable, but mathematically, it will be more than balanced out against the times he misses completely.

* If I did miss an extra +2, it just adjusts the AC accordingly. The damage would be the same at AC 22, and the level 5 PA would be the most advantageous tactic at AC 17 or less (still lower than the foes listed above).

Fifth level fighter, two handed weapon:

STR 20: +10
Power Attack 5: +10
Bull Strength: +4
+1 Weapon

So he starts damage at +25.

Unless there is some change to the system I'm unaware of, that's too much of a Strength bonus. Only Power Attack is doubled for a two-handed weapon; Strength bonuses are multiplied by 1.5, and since his base modifier is odd, he's losing a point there since the core rule is to always round down.

So I think it should be...

STR 20: +7
Power Attack 5: +10
Bull Strength: +3
+1 Weapon

So starting damage should be 4 points less at +21.

Again though, the disparity is due to the character's incredibly high Strength for 5th level, the specific feat he has taken, how both of those interact with using any two-handed weapon, and the fact that the cleric uses a power that could decrease the disparity between the characters to actually increase it instead (being ultimately responsible for 5 points worth of difference).

And then of course if the +4 extra damage thing is right, that made a difference as well.

Anybody else having issues with the Earthbreaker? My STR 20 fighter, always power attacking, catching a Bull STR from the cleric - is doing 30 some points a round at 5th level. Makes the Paladin's 6 from a sword seem pretty worthless.

Well, how much damage would the paladin do if he had a 20 STR, Power Attack, Bull STR from the cleric, and a two-handed weapon?

Seriously, as referenced above, the fighter would do the same damage if he was using a Greatsword (and it would weigh less), so I don't see where the Earthbreaker enters into the equation at all.

Personally, as the paladin, I'd want to know why the cleric is buffing the fighter (who obviously doesn't need it with his 20 STR at 5th level) instead of himself (who apparently has at best a 10 STR).

I personally think that the real data that is going to sway 4e one way or another is the number of DDI subscribers. If that is hugely successful, the paper products won't matter anymore to Hasbro and WotC. And that is data that none of us outside of WotC will ever see unless there is a leak.

Well... you can go to Alexa.com and look at the web traffic information for Wizards.com.

Sure, the Alexa FAQ says they can be inaccurate... if a site is ranked at 100,000 or more (where #1 is the highest ranking site). Wizards is ranked around 3,000 right now, so within the top 3% of accuracy.

What does the site show? Since the release of 4E, specifically after a spike the very first week of June, traffic has been dropping fairly consistently. And for the past three months, traffic has averaged about half of what it averaged prior to the release of 4E, going all the way back to August 2007, when 4E was announced. And since at least the first week of August of this past year, traffic on the site has never been higher than the lowest point it reached when there was no edition of D&D supported by Wizards.

And if that one source isn't telling enough... then look at the traffic for Gleemax.com and EnWorld.org too because the traffic patterns are almost exactly a perfect match with Wizards. Consistent traffic levels, one last spike the first week of June, and then it drops until now where the post-4E average traffic is about 50-60% of the pre-4E traffic.

Alexa traffic for Wizards

Alexa traffic for Gleemax

Alexa traffic for EnWorld

(Click on the "max" button to see the traffic going back as far as possible.)

4E is the most successful RPG in existence currently, but it simply isn't the most successful one ever. Doesn't make it a "failure," but even a home run pales somewhat when it follows a grand slam.

Really leaning towards grabbing up some Savage Worlds for my next campaign, but I have to ask . . .has anyone used Mutants and Masterminds for their fantasy gaming?

Nope, but they do have a fantasy book in production for M&M called Warriors & Warlocks. I'm not aware of a release date though.

Course, being able to grab up Savage Worlds for $10 is pretty good, and there is an existing "dark steampunk fantasy" setting from a licensee called RunePunk. Might be worth looking into.

Oh, in the other picture. She's one of your big allies for the AP. You'll be hearing plenty more about her soon!

Kind of wondering, the left hand appears to be... well, disabled, I guess. Am I just reading into the art, or is that actually part of the character design? [The attractive woman with a single flaw being a kind of literary trope so to speak.]

Being a Jerk

In case it is unclear or there is a lack of knowing,
Here are examples of when your rear is showing.

Participating is a privilege and not a right,
And the privilege is not ours that you are at this site.

Mechanics and sociability are not the same,
But you do need both to play the game.

If someone disagrees with your perfect datum,
It’s not an excuse for you to hate ‘em.

And being derisive, snarky, and rude,
Just undermines your posts when they’re viewed.

It’s a clear sign of an ego that can’t take,
Criticism and opinions others might make.

Being the minority might make you feel like a martyr,
But it’s certainly no proof that you are any smarter.

Blind adherence to system, mechanics, and rules,
Means nothing without the people to use those tools.

Ignore them or treat them as if they aren’t there,
And you may as well be writing computer software.

But computer programs are boring, predictable, and stale,
And a game built like that is ultimately “made of fail.”

You see, the game isn’t the goal; it’s all about the players,
And in a game company, people come before any other layers.

So regardless of all the math, simulations, and everything you’ve done,
When you treat another gamer rudely, you’ve failed Game Board 101.

Gamers are the goal and no level of the most detailed probability work,
Is worth someone who gives them abuse, referred to henceforth… as a “jerk.”

Perhaps the character simply has "an abberation in the woodpile," and other abberations sense it and are reacting more as if another predator is in the area.

In which case, maybe with so much experience the PC starts to get a similar sense of them and can take a feat to allow for a +1 to attack rolls and spell save DCs when used against abberations, or something else of that nature.

It doesn't even have to be a literal "abberation in the woodpile;" perhaps the character was cursed as a toddler or younger with that "taint" and isn't aware of it for some reason.

Hit their website www.peginc.com and download the free testdrive rules and whatever free adventures and characters catch your fancy and play through one or two to get a feel for it.

Of the free material, I'd recommend looking at The Moscow Connection One-Sheet adventure. If looking for grit, it provides a free Setting Rule for gritty damage in the system.

Honestly, the system might provide the "grit" you seek without it as while characters can grow more effective, there's no real point where they can simply ignore any threat.

...but that also differs from the playtest stuff because the playtest input has generally had some value even when it's phrased indecorously.

Thing is, there is absolutely no reason for it to be phrased that way. The responsibility for what is written lies solely with the person who writes it. It is not the responsibility of the reader to ignore any insulting aspects because the other person's input is "worth it."

If the input were that good, the author of it should be capable of presenting it without resulting to anything that could even potentially be considered a borderline insult. The inability to do so inherently undermines the validity of the input since it reflects on the source of said input.

I am wary of the idea that concerns about who is and isn't a customer might affect the moderation decisions. Of course, I understand the logic, but not everyone buys from Paizo direct (and, in any case, I bet that a lot of them bought Dragon and Dungeon when it was out, even if they didn't get it from Paizo). Also, it does feel a bit like 'pay-to-play' and although I am paying -- I'm only recently a subscriber/superscriber, but I am nearly up-to-date on all the stuff that I missed (hard copy, bought from Paizo but also FLGS and Amazon) -- I don't want my opinions to mean more as a result.

No one presented any such idea in this discussion, and it certainly wasn't even so much as hinted at in what Joshua said. I guess it's a misunderstanding, but presenting a "defense" against a non-existent issue paints it as a plausibility which really isn't fair.

Have you tried Savage Worlds? You can get a hardcopy of the full-color core rulebook for $10. Yep, I said $10 and that's brand new. Like the system itself, it's a bit of a paradigm shift in marketing.

You can try out the system with the free Test Drive download on their site and see some of the settings out from Pinnacle themselves.

Pinnacle's Download Page

Plus, Pinnacle has a free license for other publishers to print stuff for their system, and there are already different licensee products out there and more on their way, covering different kinds of settings.

On top of that, the fan support is awesome with a variety of conversions of different settings that can be found on the fan's Savage Heroes site and Sharkbytes, the online fanzine.

Don't know what kind of system appeals to you, but it's one to consider.

Jib wrote:

But I think the point that you are looking for is "If we had a common foe would all RPG players rally together instead of bicker and fight?" If our hobby came under attack again would all gamers unite?

This is exactly my core intent. Also, would 4e fans ban together with 3.X fans to unite long enough to ensure our right to argue as 4e & 3.X fans?

Hmm, but the original question was whether we need a return to that era.

So, I guess the real question is whether having unity is worth an attack on the community as a whole?

Remember, this isn't the early 80s; gamers are no longer a bunch of insecure teenagers in their parent's basement, and D&D is no longer run by a few wargamers from Wisconsin.

Gamers are parents now and part of mainstream society. There are church pastors who are gamers and even run RPGs for their youth groups. And D&D is owned by Hasbro, the second largest toy company on the planet.

So a "return" to that era would require a threat that has grown equally to match the opposition.

Is that what we need? A threat to RPGs so powerful it can infiltrate mainstream society and affect a multi-billion dollar company.

And then what? Do we have to keep the war going to maintain unity like Big Brother in 1984? Or does it end and individual differences once again assert themselves as they inevitably will?

Having a common foe isn't the answer; it's not going to fix the inherent problem. And that problem goes back to insecurity.

People bicker and argue and fight over the most inane things because of pure insecurity. Their egos can't handle that others can disagree with their personal opinions. They tie their own opinions up in their sense of self-worth, and so anyone who disagrees with those opinions is attacking them in their mind.

When a creature is attacked, it's fight or flight, and when you get two such insecure people on opposites sides of an opinion who have the fight response, well, nothing good is going to come of it (except maybe as an example to others).

But giving such people a common foe that is actually crazy enough to truly attack both their beliefs isn't going to remove their insecurity; in fact, it can possibly give them a martyr complex reinforcing said insecurity.

Meanwhile, the threat that binds the extreme fringe elements is still a threat to the central group of gamers who have grown out of (most) of their insecurities, at least about gaming, and had been quietly sitting back and watching them, shaking their heads.

In short, no, we don't need a return to that era; we need to keep moving toward a new era where all RPGs are simply accepted, not only by non-gamers but by gamers themselves.

I can give it a shot, try to put my own spin on her.

Thanks! I certainly appreciate that.

It just so happens that two odd-ball-styled works happen to depict a popular NPC.

Exactly! I expect Laori to be one of those characters that is remembered long after the campaign is over.

Hi all,

No offense to Paizo, but I'm not 100% thrilled with either depiction of Laori Vaus. The first one in Escape has already been discussed as not being entirely accurate to how she would actually look (I think it was even mentioned as how she might have herself drawn).

So I waited to get my issue of Scarfall since I knew she would be reappearing, and I'm not excited about the headshot either. The symmetry of her face seems off just enough to be... wrong, and it feels like it is a case of the art not the subject.

Now, not every piece can be perfect, and it's not like it's particularly "bad," but Laori is going to be a major NPC in at least two (maybe more) parts of the path, and with all the great art I'll have to depict other NPCs, I'd like something to do her justice as well.

So, my question is whether anyone of artistic talent may have been inspired to do a more "accurate" depiction of Laori or if anyone was aware of a source that might be close to her look that I might use when I run this AP?

Thanks for your time and any assistance you might be able to offer!

Again, how does M&M, True20 and CONAN (especially) which while they use a d20 are pretty much new games in of themselves.

Because the companies making them were successful and still putting out a significant amount of products that also supported D&D.

Let's turn it around. How does the GSL improve the situation?

Now, even their staunchest supporter among the 3PPs are pulling products that would have supported 4E to support other systems.

So instead of having "competitors" that are also supporting your own system with their time, effort, and creativity, it's somehow better to create a license where they put all that effort into truly competitive systems?

It's an old cliche, throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it's entirely appropriate. If their goal was to reduce competition with the GSL, they have achieved the opposite effect.

From looking at the website, it says that the DCC 53-55 are for 4E. Hmmm. Interesting.

Yep, noticed that. This looks like a potentially brilliant move on Joseph's part. The OGL and d20 license created brand association among the fans that can't be revoked like a license.

They were banking on the strength of the D&D brand without realizing they had already leveraged most of its usefulness to the major 3PPs.

The GSL is starting to look like a paper dragon.

I can see why a game store owner might be disappointed: now he has to stock a bunch of mutually incompatible products if he wants to serve the entire D&D demographic.

This is probably a pretty good explanation. His shop is about as big as my living room, if that, and my living room is not that big.

Thing is, this is better for him. Ask him how good were his D&D sales in the nearly 10 month period from the announcement of 4E to its release. Considering Wizards sales plummeted in that time, I'm sure his did as well. Now, what would that have been like if he had another system on the shelf that was current, supported, and appealed to the same customer base?

There's an old saying about all your eggs in one basket. ;)

And diversity is the key to a healthy RPG industry overall.

with a nice, free, can't-be-taken away OGL at its center :)

Thanks, I needed a good drink-snorting laugh. I did mention my weakness for irony you know. ;)

I find it rather ironic and humorous that an attempt to reduce competition has instead effectively increased it. I wonder how long it will take them to realize that (and react to it).

That said, I think the current GSL is one of the best things to happen to the RPG industry in a long time.

Why? Because it actually strengthens the system diversity the industry had been seeing in recent years by making it much more appealing to support other systems besides 4E.

And diversity is the key to a healthy RPG industry overall.

Wow. I have to say I think the GSL is the best thing to happen to the RPG industry in years.

Seriously.

Think about it. The OGL led to some top quality game publishers, but most of them supported only a single system. How many game stores (and publishers) have been struggling for nearly 10 months since that system was announced as defunct. With the GSL, 3PP will flock in droves away from 4E and move to other systems. With other game systems out there, not all the eggs are in one basket anymore.

More competitive game systems equals a stronger RPG industry overall.

Not to mention, Wizards isn't looking at "competition" that is still in some way supporting sales of their products. If players are willing to leave the entire system to play a better quality adventure (for instance), then Wizards sees some pressure in producing better quality adventures themselves.

So the GSL may end up being the best thing for the industry (and even Wizards), though doubtfully in the way it was intended to be.

At this point, it's just a question of how long it takes WotC to realize that in an effort to reduce competition, they have actually increased it.

Mary, thanks for the clarification on the situation and your opinion. As I said in a earlier post, it's interesting to see how people game in different ways, and I appreciate your sharing of that.

Nervous Jester wrote:

And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation. So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?

That was my impression; since blackmail doesn't have strict game mechanics, there were therefore none to violate, thus solving what she and I preceived to be the problem in the original scene. Mary has said elsewhere that there's no issue with situations that have no rules. I agree. It's ones that do have rules, and break them, that confuse me.

Okay, but then specifically saying it happened "all RAW" is what is confusing me as it isn't "rules as written" but instead what I would view as the opposite, "rules unwritten," no written rules involved at all.

And it would seem that having such a thing fail publicly would make her look more incompetent than "scary."

I don't know; it could be just a turn of a phrase, but I'm thinking maybe there is more there I'm just missing.

Okay, I don't want to start anything "antagonistic," but I'm honestly curious and this post isn't 100% clear to me.

Our game had an alternate "Ileosa is a lot more powerful than you might expect" scene which I thought worked well. (It doesn't foreshadow that she's the CR20 monster she is in the AP, though; I don't think my GM is doing that.) The PCs, having done something publically heroic, were invited to a ball by Eodred and Ileosa. At the ball, Ileosa made a public announcement about the founding of the Gray Maidens, and also announced that the Sable Marines and Korvosan Guard now reported to Sabina. Eodred unexpectedly, and in a disturbingly offhanded way, countermanded this. No one else seemed to dare to speak up. You could have cut the tension with a knife. The PCs felt, as observers, that Ileosa had some kind of unwholesome hold over Eodred which he had slipped for a moment, and that she was furious and plotting retaliation. It was damned scary; and all RAW.

Okay, here's my confusion; how exactly was it RAW?

I mean, it's not Charm Person or Dominate. If it were, it's a situation where the spell slips "for a moment" instead of working fully for its set duration. The rules don't allow for that to my knowledge, so that's basically the same issue of different rules for NPCs.

And if the "unwholesome hold" is some kind of blackmail or roleplaying aspect, then there aren't really any game mechanics to apply to the situation.

So since it seems to be clearly known that it was RAW, then what exactly were the rules that applied?

Again, I'm just curious and honestly confused because (based simply on the post above) it doesn't seem any more obvious to me what game mechanics would apply than any of the possible explanations of the other scene. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

No offense, but I don't think the issue has anything to do with Paizo's sales.

I think the OP just wants "Paizo-quality adventures" for 4E and realizes that Wizards simply isn't going to make them. Unfortunately, he's displacing his issue by blaming Paizo for this situation (and claiming they will lose sales due to that) when it's entirely caused by WOTC.

There are no more Paizo adventures in Dungeon becuase WOTC pulled the license. And Paizo did not go 4E because of what Wizards has done with the GSL.

Ultimately, it's blaming Paizo for choices Wizards made.

If anyone wants Paizo-quality from 4E, demand it from the makers of 4E. They're the ones responsible for its existence or lack thereof.

The problem is the people who are implying "There doesn't need to be an explanation that makes sense under the rules, and if you're looking for one, you're a cornsarned, four-flushing, two-bit metagamer." Maybe no one is trying to say that, but that's the gist I got from several posts -- not all, but several of them.

You know, after 125 posts, I'd have to define the ones remarking on "metagaming" in such a strongly negative way as "a few" and not "several."

And it may be a surprise, but by my reckoning, it's been like a week since any post of that nature has been made. A week is a long time.

I don't mean any offense, but at this point, it seems anyone reiterating these points is really just being emotionally defensive over prefering rules laid out in black and white. They've made their point on what they prefer and to continue to argue is only an attempt to validate their own opinion to themselves, which is pointless, because it's an opinion and doesn't need validation.

Which leads to...

Can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die?

It's the internet; what do you expect? ;)

Actually, to me it's not an "agree to disagree" situation; it's a "Wow, isn't it interesting how gamers are all different in some way" situation.

If anything should be taken from this thread, I think it should be taking the blinders off we may be wearing that make any of us think we represent "the majority of gamers." That we've seen gamers equally on totally opposite ends of the spectrum here and at nearly every point in between from as close to a cross-section of the hobby as a whole (who would be interested in the product in the first place) should be an eye-opening experience.

So perhaps it is time to let the thread end with two goals achieved. The first, multiple explanations of reasonable ways the scene works within the rules for those that want to use them.

And the second unintended achievement, the realization that what looks like chocolate mousse to one person may look like a pile of crap for dessert to someone else.

If we appreciate the other point of view, we can learn from it. If we deride it, we continue in ignorance.

Will this thread end? Well, this is the internet. ;)

Yeah, is it any big revelation that not all gamers game the same way. It's a roleplaying game, which means it encompasses two different things, roleplaying and a game. Roleplaying is about the story, and the game is about the rules.

Some gamers are more story-driven and some are more rules-driven, and there are infinite places to sit along the line between the two.

Heck, I haven't seen one person say the assassination attempt wasn't a cool scene. If it was part of a fiction novel, I think most people would say that's exactly what it was (even a D&D novel, which are typically nothing like game play).

It's just an issue that the "cool scene" is in an adventure not a novel and doesn't explain how it works within the rules.

Me? I like a good story, but I want it to be supported by the rules as much as possible. Personally, if shooting someone in the head with a crossbow bolt doesn't even have a chance to kill them, then I'm going to change the basic rules, not the crossbow bolt or the character firing it, but that's just me.

Just to clarify, this wasn't the same paizo@bmcdaniel.fastmail.fm email address that was posted openly on the message boards here...?

Referenced post

I mean, even if it isn't exactly, it would provide the basis for spambots to apply to other extensions (like yahoo.com, gmail.com, etc. etc...). I'm actually be surprised it didn't happen earlier than this.

To make it simple :

HP < Negative Con modifier : Disabled
(ex: -5/Con 18)

HP < Negative Con score : Dead
(ex: -19/Con 18)

Problem is, that doesn't really fit the criteria of making all 1st level characters a bit tougher unless they all are guaranteed a Con of 10 or higher. Anyone with a 9 or lower Con is either the same or worse off as by the existing rules.

For example, the character with a 7 Constitution would be Disabled with still 1 positive HP and Dead at -8.

I considered the approach of adding additional negative hit points, but I personally decided against it for simplicity and compatibility issues.

Giving additional hit points, even if limited, is still adding extra hit points. In fact, it becomes a new way to add hit points that instead of being a positive values are a negative or "null" value.

By the original suggestion, hit points and all related effects (such as healing) work pretty much the same way. -10 is still d-e-d, dead, and positive hit points are still figured the same way.

The only difference is either a static or variable alteration of the point at which Disabled applies before a character is Dying or Dead.

In essence, it only grants more functionality to pre-existing hit points that every character has in the system already.

In that, I think it can easily handle two main listed desired features; to make 1st level characters "a bit more durable" and retaining compatibility with older products.

Thanks to everyone who commented on the idea. If nothing else, I can enjoy the feeling of proposing a change with little dissent against it (which feels a bit like saying, "At least it can't get any worse"). ;)

Way too many mechanics to replace the simple, effective option of a one-time addition of hit points at 1st-level.

Well, that kind of confuses me as it's an existing mechanic in the system. The only difference is changing when the pre-existing mechanic takes effect. If my own post was confusing, all the options listed for how to implement it were just that, options; just like the different options on how to determine adding more HPs to all the characters.

Whatever choice might be made would still be a one-time thing as much as adding hit points would be. Potentially less in fact if it's simply a change in the rule as opposed to a change to every character.

To me, it just seems simpler to implement in all uses of the game rather than for instance, having to change the listed HPs for every character used from a prior released product to account for hit point alteration.

I sometimes fudge the number when it comes to monster or NPC HP, especially if it's the BBEG; I often use HP to mark the end of the encounter, not necessarily the death of the enemy. For instance, in Nic Logue's 'Chimes at Midnight'...

** spoiler omitted **

That may not work for your group, but I enjoy the extra flexibility and my players never notice.

I apologize if it comes across as threadjack, but that story strikes a pretty strong chord given a post I made yesterday. That's a cool scene, and what if that was exactly how the rules worked? What if all characters had limited actions below 0 hit points?

It would have a similar effect to more starting HPs, creating a "buffer zone" for low level characters, but without altering hit point totals and with little impact on the threatening feel of low level opponents.

If interested in the details, the post is here...

Extending the Disabled status

As I said, the synchronicity of the story just struck me, and sorry again if too far out of field.

As an option instead of extra starting hit points, what if the Disabled track was extended?

As it stands, a character is only Disabled exactly at 0 Hit Points, but being disabled is really a cool status to have. It seems a shame to have it only come up so rarely.

Extending it would just make it come up a bit more often, with more effect at lower levels, where it would provide a similar "buffer zone" as adding additional HPs to starting characters, but it would do so without any effect on backwards compatibility. Hit Point totals would still be used exactly as is.

The rule could be implemented in different ways similar to the current HP ideas.

It could be a flat change; Disabled from 0 to -4 HPs, Dying at -5 to -9, and Dead at -10.

It could be based on Con. Use the same base as above, only adjust by the Con Modifier. A -2 Con modifier would be Disabled from 0 to -2, and Dying at -3 to -9. A +4 Con modifier would be Disabled from 0 to -8, Dying only at -9. -9 would have to be the limit with a character who would be Disabled up until the point they died.

It could be a Racial effect like, Disabled until: Frail (-2), Normal (-4), Tough (-6) or -3/-4/-5 if the 2 point spread is too much. This could replace Orc Ferocity, or if another implementation is used, Orc Ferocity could just extended their Disabled Track by a point or two.

It could be based on starting class (similar to doubling starting HPs). Since all hit dice are by default even-numbered, the best best would probably be to use half their initial hit die as the negative value. So a wizard would be Disabled from 0 to -3, while a barbarian would be Disabled from 0 to -6. This makes the choice of starting class more important. A Fighter/Sorcerer who started as a Fighter is going to be slightly different from one that started as a Sorcerer (able to act until -5 HPs instead of -3).

Anyway, there are lots of ways to implement it, but I think the effect is worth considering. It's not addditional HPs or any change in HPs, but it has a similar effect of giving characters a bit more of a buffer zone especially at lower levels, where they can still do something even if knocked below 0 hit points.

Hmm, don't have my Guide to Korvosa handy, but it might be worth looking at when and what age Eodred II took the throne.

After all, the curse doesn't take effect until he takes the throne, and he is known for his "appreciation" of women.

Maybe the guy is his son from liason before he became king. He could still be part of House Zenderholm as his mother could have been a lady of that house seduced by the young prince (or the one who seduced him specifically for this reason; the Zenderholms strike me as longterm planners).

In fact, maybe he seems "crazy" because there is no proof of his parentage...

Presumptions ? ^^

Oh, well, poor me for actually looking up all this stuff in real life history - no big hassle since its been one of my hobbies for the last thirty years, but accidentaly this does mean I actually know what I am posting about. Things _were_ crowded and what we regard as...

before you mistakenly call something "presumptions", please take the care to broaden your horizons and be knowledable on the subject debated. Thank you.

Presumption: inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

By your own statements, the support for what Korvosa's harbor is like is inferred from "real life history," not referenced from any actual statements from the book.

That is a presumption, and it is not a mistake to call it such.

If the word was taken with the connotation that such an inference was "arrogant," then I apologize, as that was not the intent.

I was merely pointing out that there was no direct reference supporting some conclusions, that it was based off inference from "real life history" as you say.

Now, personally, I think an inference based off "real life history" has to take into consideration significant comparison issues when dealing with a fantasy world. The Thames (and any other terrestial body of water) didn't have reefclaws or devilfish waiting below the water hoping (consciously hoping) to filet a fisherman. Real world treasure seekers would think the "missing" bodies were just missing, and not that it is more likely that they became evil undead (just like those in the city's cemetary) waiting to kill the living. And a real world trebuchet is never going to be fired by a guy who can cast a 1st level True Strike for +20 to hit and ignoring concealment.

And as to why the bow doesn't float up? I would think because that's where the anchor or anchors are (and also most likely the reason it landed nose first).

Anyway, I'm just saying I can find logical reasons for these situations even if the specific reasons aren't detailed in the book. The reasons may not be based on "real world history," but I don't think that makes them any less valid since the discussion isn't about the "real world."

If such historical accuracy in a fantasy setting is important to a particular group, then I'd think such tweaks would be expected. After all, no amount of research on the internet is going to keep up with a thirty year devotion to the subject.

You know, I really don't find it ludicrous at all myself.

The ship had to have ballast to be seaworthy since it wasn't carrying any significant cargo to keep it from being top-heavy.

No one in their right mind would anchor their ships or be fishing in the middle of the river in the middle of the night.

The real "harbor" is past the north bridge, which they specifically fired on the ship before it passed, and by its location, they also waited until it was past the docks of Old Korvosa as well. In fact, the ship was in the middle of the deepest part of the river; really, the most logical place to fire on the ship.

The ship was fired at "again and again;" it wasn't like a single hit by itself took it out. The 10 foot hole at the waterline was just the final nail in the coffin.

And as far as actually hitting it, besides firing multiple shots, the ship was most likely again in the perfect position as it would have been backlit to anyone on the wall from the lights of Trail's End (which is an advantage an aerial attacker wouldn't have if someone was willing to fly hippogriffs at night while carrying explosives).

And in waters with jigsaw sharks and reefclaws, who again in their right mind (PCs excluded) is going to go to the effort to dive to the middle of the river to search a black-sailed "ghost ship" flying a quarantine lamp, keeping in mind that "ghost ship" isn't a superstition but a very real possibility in this world. And it's pretty clear what happened to the crazy people who may have tried.

I think the presumptions of a "dark crowded harbor" and other things might lead to such a conclusion, but without them, it seems very logical. At least to me.

Just some advice to be very careful on the pressure cutting the map out. I even used a heavier cardstock than the recommended file folder, and the blade was able to cut through that without much pressure behind it. And once through the protection, the paper beneath will get cut. I cut through 2-3 pages in the back and didn't even notice the blade was going through the cardstock (I used a new razor since I wanted a clean cut).

Just a head's up to be careful with those sharp blades and avoid my own mistakes.

Instead of your "pre-training", characters could be given a background bonus feat, which would include things like the feats presented in the RotRl players guide, as well as a feat similar to the rogues minor magic talent. This could also include a feat allowing for 2 extra skill points, and even Weapon Focus in a racial weapon, such as a longsword or rapier for an elf, or an axe for a dwarf. Many existing feats could also be allowed at this level, such as Acrobatics, Alertness, and Toughness, to name a few.

I considered that and decided against it myself. For one, I didn't want this "level" to require the same amount of dedication as making the 1st level choices (what feat do I want, do I meet the requirements, etc.). I also didn't want 0 level to have the depth of a full level, and the easiest way to achieve that is by limited options.

Also, there was the goal of backwards compatibility. A GM has to do nothing more than apply 3 set effects and 1 other from a list of 5 options. That's easy. If it was a choice of choosing a feat from these criteria or this specific list of allowed feats, that again seemed like getting into a bit too much complexity rather than quick, easy, and simple.

Maybe it would be worthwhile, but that's just the reason I went the way I did.

I proposed this for Alpha 1, but with the changes, I felt an update and reevaluation was in order.

First, based off the subject line, the proposal is to provide additional starting HPs and skill options, two (apparently) big issues of the current system. But to handle these issues in a way that is both backwards compatible and befitting the originality of the Pathfinder RPG.

The key is adding a "0 level" to the system, or if another nomenclature is prefered, a "Background" or "Early Youth" stage to character creation.

The choices would be simple, and thus backwards compatibility is simple. Any previous character with a core class can simply add the "0 level template" to their abilities.

Or even easier, the 0 level option could be solely the province of Player Characters, and thus wouldn't even apply to NPCs. It would represent a slight and minor edge that a PC might have over an NPC designed exactly the same way, a heroic destiny since youth as it were.

The following is the Alpha 2 version of the rules proposal...

A “0 Level” character is one who is simply at an apprentice level of training. 0 level represents knowledge learned before the character committed to training in a true class, thus 0 level characters all have the same abilities and choices since they do not actually have a class yet. 0 level does provide options based on the character’s training, but these options are not required to be linked to their first class level. A warrior may have had arcane training before taking up the fighting profession, and a cleric may have had a roguish upbringing before finding religion.

A character has maximum hit points for 0 level, and since they have no “class,” all skills are considered to be Cross-Class for them.

Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d6.
BAB: 0
Saves: The character may choose one Save (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will) and gains a +1 bonus to it.
Skill Points: 2.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Proficient with one simple weapon of choice or a light shield.

Pre-Training: The character has some additional training but not the measure of a full class yet; choose one option from the list below:

Arcane: Can choose 1 Cantrip to be able cast. This adds one to the number of Cantrips prepared per day if gained through a class later.
Combat: Proficient with one additional weapon (Simple or Martial). Gains a +1 to hit with it if gains proficiency through a class later.
Religious: Can choose 1 Orison to be able cast. This adds one to the number of Orisons prepared per day if gained through a class later.
Skilled: Gains 2 additional Skill Points, and may choose two Skills as Class Skills.
Toughness: Gain +4 Hit Points.

Typically 0 level would just be a precursor to taking your 1st level abilities, but rules could be included for actually playing 0 level characters until they get to take their 1st level. Perhaps a negative experience total that has to be "bought off" to reach 1st level.

Experience Point Total
Slow: -900
Medium: -600
Fast: -400

Now, to show how this would be applied as a "template," the GM could simply add 6 HPs to any character, a +1 to one Save, and 2 Skill Points (depending on skill "conversion" to begin with). Then they just add one option from the "Pre-Training" list, which typically will fit the whatever character class or classes they have.

PCs meanwhile have a few more starting HPs, a couple of more skill points (balancing out the reduced variance from removing the 4x starting skill points), and a +1 to a single Save as a baseline. They then have a choice to add flavor to the character as they wish.

For instance, consider Valeros as the farmer's son turned fighter. He could take Toughness to reflect the hardworking life on the farm, or perhaps he hunted small game to supplement the family's food and takes Skilled to pick up more points and Knowledge (Nature) and Perception as Class Skills. Or maybe he retains a faith in Erastil though he never felt called to the priesthood and didn't like the strictures of being a paladin (Neutral Good instead of Lawful).

Mechanically, it's a minor thing, but adding a lot of potential flavor to the characters and providing a certain "compromise" for other system issues. Just my opinion of course.

As for lavender, i am unsure how the 700 came along, but snake oil of her quality is not easy to come by. Sure, i would probably have made it lower (100 or so), but maybe taking down someone so prominent instills a modicum of good sense into the people.

Considering the adventure says if the PCs come in during the day the line stretches nearly 4 blocks and at night they still find about 50 people in line, it's obvious the fake cure affects much more than 100 people directly.

The key though is to remember indirect effects. Once stopped, there will also not be any new people who fall prey to her con job. But more important, each of the people who thought they were cured are going to be careful about not passing on the disease and others will be more careful around them than they would have if they were thinking they weren't infected anymore.

It really doesn't take much. If 100 people infect 2 people each, and each of those people infects 2 people, that's all it takes for to have 700 infected people. Obviously, very generalized, but it's just an example of the concept.

What's causing this bad luck?

The NPC is a simple baker, and he has been cursed by a priest of Asmodeus in the city.

Why?

The priest is a cleric/wizard with an imp familiar. One day his imp got caught in one of the rare imp/pseudodragon battles, and was actually killed. The priest had never really worried about or even considered these "battles" a nuisance as he didn't believe a pseudodragon could actually harm an imp. Now, he paid more attention and when it happened again, he realized the pseudodragons in Korvosa had no difficulities harming the imps in town. He found the body of one such creature killed by the imps and discovered that its teeth, claws, and stinger all had a faint silvery sheen to them.

It took spells, money, and influence to track down the answer, and his pride and anger were inflamed even more to discover it was all due to nothing more than a simple common... baker?

Yes, Daviro is a baker, and he loves his craft. His desserts bely a plain appearance with an amazing taste. A friend once told him that if could just spice up the appearance a bit, it would attract more people to his bakery. One night Daviro had a dream about some bakers gilding their products with gold foil; he wanted to do the same, but when he searched his pouch, he had only silver and not enough money to buy the gold foil. The next day, Daviro asked an alchemist if something similar to gold foil could be done with silver. He came up with a glimmering edible silver foil based off the formula for... alchemical silver.

That's where the pseudodragons come in. Daviro has one that visits regularly. In exchange for a cookie, tart, or muffin from each batch, the little dragon insures that Daviro's shop is free from any vermin such as rats.

Over time, when eaten, Daviro's silvery foil becomes absorbed by the body, and is especially concentrated in the bones and teeth... and stingers of pseudodragons. His psuedodragon friend discovered this when ambushed by an imp escaped from the Acadamae. He made the connection and began sharing Daviro's treats with all the other dragons in the city.

Daviros is now in his early forties and came up with his new style of treat 20 years ago. Every pseudodragon in Korvosa has a bit of silver in them now, and any new arrivals stay out of the fights until they have been "treated" as they call it.

Daviro's Shimmering Treats and Breads is a successful bakery in Korvosa, and the owner is liked by many and hated by none... apparently. When the bad luck hits, he takes what occurs to him in stride, but when it starts affecting those around him. He leaves until he can find the answer. Perhaps he seeks the PC for help himself or maybe one of his friends (or family if desired to work that in).

To fix it requires finding the cause.

The priest of Asmodeus didn't want anything directly traceable back to him, so he got a cursed item of Calistria (the vengence of misfortune) which he left as an unlabeled birthday gift for the baker. The curse is already done, but the item's origin can be traced (perhaps the symbol of Calistria on it). Depending on how hard you want to make it perhaps the priest insulted (or tricked by a contract) the purchaser who now wants revenge of their own, or maybe getting the information is harder.

Either way, perhaps the way to break the curse is to get the person who wished it (the priest) to take the item back (which perhaps reverses the curse onto him... Calistria's revenge as it were).

Tricking him is one way to get him to take it back. Hide the item in something; perhaps Daviro can be asked to bake it into a loaf of bread or a cake (with the PC helping to counter the various unlucky things that will occur while baking).

Thing is, the PC may never find out why the priest did it, or how Daviro has had such a big impact on Korvosa. Lucky thing for the city and the pseudodragons that he came up with the idea he did after that dream he had. Hmm, lucky dream that; I wonder if... nah! ;)

Heck, you could even add a feat like "Daviro's Devotee" for residents of Korvosa that makes their unarmed attacks count as silver. No wonder the imps are cautious in this city.

What about just combining the two ideas presented: Feats and BCB?

Have a feat that allows a caster to consider levels in a non-spellcasting class (or a spellcasting class of a different tradition: arcane vs. divine) to add 1 spellcaster level for every 3 levels gained. And if the class is of the same tradition, then it adds 1 spellcaster level for every 2 levels in the other class.

Then the feat could be taken a second time (or as an improved version) to change it to 1 for every 2 for non-spellcasting/different style, and 1 for 1 for spellcasting of the same kind.

Something like Magical Cross-Training. So a fighter/sorcerer with the basic feat would count every 3 levels of Fighter as a spellcasting level for sorcerer, or every 2 levels with the improved version.

And a wizard/cleric with the improved version would have half their cleric levels as spellcasting levels as a wizard, and half their wizard levels as spellcasting levels as a cleric.

In neither our world or any nearby alternate universes would WotC sue Paizo over anything of this nature. Never.

You've got to understand that most of the people in the upper levels of the industry know each other and are typically at the very least friendly if not outright friends (a few exceptions allowed for the rule). Yes, even those soulless devils at WotC. ;)

At cons, they hang out, have a drink at the bar, and share stories, and most importantly, there is a camaraderie that is worth much much more than any frivolous lawsuit.

Not going to happen.

And as I've said elsewhere, Paizo has given the fans a voice, but they still make the final choice. Based on their track record, I personally am willing to trust them with that choice fully.

Proposal:

1. Limit Detect Evil to the same number of uses per day as Smite Evil.
2. Remove the Mount and make it a feat requiring Paladin Level 5 (oh, look, all characters gain a feat at that level).
3. Add, "Domain Powers (Su): Each paladin must choose a Lawful Good deity. Each deity has a number of domains associated with its faith, and its paladins must choose two of these domains to focus on (at least one of which must be either Law or Good). Each domain grants a number of domain powers dependent upon the level of the paladin (paladin levels count as caster levels for the purposes of domain powers. See the Spells and Magic Chapter for more information. A paladin gains both of the listed powers granted by his domains."

Now, there's something to look forward to beyond 6th level.

I see where you're coming from. OK. Allow me to rephrase, then: I would prefer options; that's my opinion. I would prefer that so many people not attempt to dictate the "One True Way" to play the game. That's my opinion as well. It's not that I don't remember they may not agree; it's that I'm not sure they even realize that not everyone has to play in the exact same way.

But does having one rule signify a "One True Way," or simply an acceptance of "If this doesn't work for you, we think you're smart enough to change it yourself."

The question becomes where do options stop? No one already plays the exact same way, and that same individuality dictates that no amount of options could conceivably cover everyone. And if a limited number of options are given, aren't they just as susceptible to the idea of "One True Way" where cries of playing differently are met with "didn't you get enough options in the book?"

Supporting "One True Way" isn't an issue of the system, but of the individual who believes in such an inane idea.

However, having a core set of baseline rules supports cross gameplay. While any individual is going to have house rules for their own game, when they step into another game (at a con or with any other group of gamers), they already know the baseline system. If other house rules are in effect, they only have to learn those, not the choice the GM has made for every option offered throughout the book. Shoot, it makes discussing the game on a messageboard such as this much simpler. Imagine if every game question had to be preluded with, "I am using alternative hitpoint option #4, the alternative bard #2, and the skill-based casting option. Here's my question..."

I think only one major "option" needs to be offered...

"If you are smart enough to play this game, we think you are smart enough to change it so it's more fun for you and your friends. Please do so; the whole point is to have fun!"

Sure, people are going to do that anyway... but this way, it's clear other people are doing it too and most likely, differently from them.