Persis Strongfellow's page

The biggest advantage I can see that 5E offers anyone contemplating an update to the PFRPG is the realization that there can be simpler ways to resolve in-game events.

The D20+modifier v. DC established by the DM is a handy baseline but it need not be the only method. I would welcome PFRPG incorporating a mechanism involving bonus dice being rolled rather than a fixed modifier for the core mechanic of D20 rolling. 5e makes that clear to me as a DM as I read through the new challenge resolution methods.

Another realization that came to me is that we have reached the point with the PFRPG that is similar to where the AD&D needed 2nd edition: the core classes (Rogue most clearly) need to be reinvigorated and some of the new add-on classes need to be restyled as archetypes within the broad class category. I don't see this as requiring a new edition so much as a revision, in the same way that 3.5 was not a new edition but rather a revision of 3.0.

The final thing that is painfully abundant to me at my table is that the trained skill only restriction from 3.0/3.5 was a critical loss in the upgrade to PFRPG. Once traits and archetypes came into the PFRPG the challenge to the rogue as a trap-detecting and disarming class became terminal.

Broadly seen, I believe we have a strong roster of roles organized in clusters:

Warrior (High HD, High BAB): Fighter (low skills, high feats), Barbarian (moderate skills, low feats, combat-focused abilities, increased HD), Ranger (high skills, scenario specific combat abilities), Monk (moderate skills and spell-like abilities) etc.

Rogue (moderate HD, moderate BAB, high skills): (needed) Thief (trap-detecting and disarming, traditional thieving), Bard (social skills, performance skills), Acrobat (physical talents), Spy (social and deception skills), Assassin (infiltration, poison and sudden death)

Priest (moderate HD, moderate BAB, low skill, full caster): Cleric (high flexibility, high spell-like abilities), Oracle (spontaneous caster), Paladin/Sohei (increased combat skills, decreased casting)

Magic-User (low HD, low BAB, moderate skills, full caster): wizard (high flexibility, prepared caster), sorcerer (limited flexibility, spontaneous caster), and witch (moderate flexibility and spell-like abilities).

If we reorganized the Core into these four classes and then rebranded everything else as an archetype (similar to the way 2nd Ed had 'kits') we could upgrade easily as the game developed without rendering the core classes obsolete. Then, instead of griping about the rogue or the monk, you could simply note that you are playing a rogue with the 'Advanced Thief' archetype.

I have used the Magus as the 'default' elf class in my Golarion. I have needed, for years, a reason to explain why the elves would lose control over the world in favor of the humans. Many DM's simply hand-waive the issue or point towards increased fecundity by humans. I have found it much more elegant to contend that it was humans, and not elves, who focused totally on magical study and thus unlocked the mystery of the wizard class. Elves, on the other hand, with their longer lives and greater preference for balanced study and experience, never committed to the years of focused discipline required to make wizardry a core value. In the same way, I posited fighters as being a human development from the more general warrior and clerics as the result of more generalist adepts.

With this view, the magus becomes something special to the elves and the art of being a magus is hard to learn outside of the elven community. (Not impossible, but rare, similar to how monks ought to be in a Western European default setting, like the Inner Sea region of Golarion.)

In-game, the Magus plays very well. I disagree that you have to go 'dervish dance' to get the full benefit, although that is a nice synergistic build. The class tends to be best in a party where a Bard or a 'Combat Cleric' would be a good fit. It is a great back-up caster, especially as the mobility assets allow for the Magus to be a great Medevac for the party that gets in over its head.

As a player since 1985, my observation has been that the 'bloat' everyone complains about is the result of a shift in the game's focus.

In D&D and AD&D, every player knew that a PC death was likely in a dungeon crawl. PC 'wills' and 'families' of related characters were common then. Rolling up a character was a significant moment because if the dice didn't roll right, you couldn't have your paladin or elven fighter/mage. The game relied immensely on pencils with erasers, both for mapping dungeons out on graph paper and for replacing statistics swiftly in-game.

The challenge in that era was 'realism' not 'balance'. Everyone knew that a magic-user who survived to 15th level would be more powerful than any other similarly aged character; the problem was he wouldn't likely live that long, what with a single first-level spell to cast and only a dagger to wield. Weapon speed, encumbrance, spellbooks, racial level limits all collaborated to make the adventurer's life a series of trade-offs between survivability and ultimate power. The only archmage I ever saw rise up on the table had a gang of defending PCs that totaled nearly fifty casualties by the time he reached 9th level spells. When that wizard cast a 'wish', the first thing he did was wish back to life the party's first iteration of heroes, who died defending him from the first kobold attack they faced in the first dungeon.

The Powers & Options era of 2nd ed. AD&D represented a different kind of game, although the rules didn't fit the vision until we get to late 3.5/PFRPG. In this era, PCs DON'T DIE, at least not without a lot of drama. The shift to making each character an optimized expression of the player's vision makes the creativity of the game the core of the role-playing experience. In this era, options proliferate on the character creation side, sometimes so much that DMs like me worry we won't ever spend any time actually playing because we are so invested in building the PCs.

That worry has been mooted by the high quality APs of the PFRPG. It is great to dig into the roster of adventures and find modules (Conquest of the Bloodsworn Vale) that I can plug into AP adventures (Second Darkness/Curse of the Crimson Throne) to create a unique campaign that allows these customized characters (I hate guns in my FRPG, but one of my PCs is playing a goblin gunslinger that he just loves and I can make it work for the enjoyment of all.) to blossom and the game to be a delight.

The old balance didn't call for 'bloat'. It was all about party balance and collaboration just to survive.

The new balance calls for bloat. The PCs are told to open their imaginations and make real in a game what they envision.

The old balance called for a DM to be judicious in the application of arbitrary death.

The new balance calls for a DM to be judicious in the application of the new options presented by the books.

In both cases, the best tools a DM has are two ears to listen carefully before ruling and then good judgment to set the boundaries so that the game remains fun for all.

Don't blame the company for trying its hardest to make the imagined worlds of our players possible within the rules of our game. Blame your DMs for not being strong in their adjudication.

I have, for decades as a DM, left the 'physical attractiveness' question in the same bucket as the height/weight/age/hair color/eye color buckets: it is a player choice completely. I don't see why it needs to be tied to the stat at all.

The movie was a grand trip and well worth the price of admission. My wife brought up an interesting point given how earnestly the movie treats superheros and their heroic natures.

On the helicarrier Thor defends his brother Loki against the attacks of the other Avengers. He then concedes the point by saying, "He's adopted." My wife noted that this is not consistent with Thor's characterization in his movie (Norse god by way of Shakespeare in the Park, relishes battle and the comradeship of his brothers-in-arms, even Loki) and that it plays into the stereotype of Wicked Adopted kid/Wicked Stepmother. She worried that an adopted kid who idolizes Thor would be hurt by that statement. It was an unforced dig on being adopted since Thor could just as easily have said something about Loki being a Frost Giant or not playing well with others.

Overall this is the best version of Hulk since Bill Bixby (although Hulk did become remarkably sane and team-oriented once the fighting began, implying that Banner remains in control and just likes smashing things?), Cap was tremendously affecting as a patriot who makes everyone else better, and Iron Man and Thor both brought out their best points as well. I was pleased to see Black Widow be more than just Scarlett Johanssen's body and to have Hawkeye be more Daniel Craig James Bond than Green Arrow knockoff.

Finally, we may have achieved that state only dreamt about by generations of comic book readers: Movies that bring the comic books to life without compromising character and style for 'grit' and 'realism'.

Orcs of Golarion would have been more effective if it had drawn some of its inspiration from the old D&D Orcs of Thar. There are many more archetypes for the PC from a predominately evil race than Drizzt. It is a shame how limited a well we draw from.

Here are some alternatives:
*An amoral orc who believes that the gods, and the gods alone, are responsible for the oppression orcs face. After all, it was a god who drove the dwarves on their Quest for the Sky and thus forced the orcs from the Deep. It was a god who then banished the darkness from the sky, giving savage humanity the respite they needed to avoid permanent extinction on the surface. Now, this orc seeks always to undermine the gods to avenge himself upon them. He will work with any mortal race he just hates the devout and will not voluntarily go into a town with a temple. He thinks all the opposition orcs encounter is due to the gods and their lies.
*A racial chauvinist who is convinced that orcs are the future of Golarion and that the entire world is theirs to inherit, provided they are ultimately shown to be superior. A true Nietzschian, this orc will follow any he feels he can learn from and test himself against, showing even loyalty of a sort to those who have demonstrated themselves strong.
*An orc born with a civilized conscience to a tribe of savages, who seeks out the secret of his 'affliction'. He knows he is different and he conceals his true feelings beneath attempted levity, self-deprecation, and minimization. Despite this he cannot help but do the noble thing, the good thing, whenever it is squarely in front of him. With the support of a few humans/halfling friends he moves about in the world not expecting understanding, after all, he doesn't even understand himself, but not nursing a grudge against his people or any other. This gentle soul is out of place everywhere but kind to all nonetheless.
*A humorous orc who believes that the rest of the party serves him and doesn't notice them making fun of his delusions of grandeur. He defends the party and adventures with them because they are his and are serving his greater glory. Eventually the rest of his stupid tribe will recognize his brilliance and proclaim him king but in the meantime, he will make due with these lesser beings.

And so on. I agree with Set that more could be done to make these lines speak to players. Give us, in 32 pages, a snapshot of how to role-play and not just the details of history/culture/etc. Intersperse character sketches with motivations for atypical Golarion-only personalities and tie it to a great picture. That is what lights a player's mind on fire.

*And re-read the old D&D Gazeteer series if you need examples. They inspire my PC generation to this day.

I would love to see the PFRPG designers impose a PC-class HD maximum on those races that have racial HD. To justify a humanoid-dominated world there has to be some reason. The reason I like is that the reproductive rates for the humanoids exceeds that of the non-humanoids AND that the humanoids are able to access more class level benefits, making their mightiest champions more adaptable than the non-humanoids. A minotaur Fighter 8, for example, shouldn't be able to have as many Fighter HP as a Human Fighter 14. That way, the Human Fighter has a biological reason to conquer the minotaur.

Applying that, and reproductive speed, makes the dominance of man plausible.

A question of Monks and Monasteries

I am curious which faiths and religions in the Inner Sea region are likely to have monasteries and monks who are keepers and illuminators of divine texts and other lore, knowledge, history, music, law, magic spells, etc. While I might imagine followers of Abadar to keep codices of law, followers of Sheylin to keep plays poems paintings plays and opera, Nethys to keep magical spells and theory etc.

What do you all think?

Are their published examples of monasteries and monastic orders and monks who are the custodians of lore?

I am not interested in martial artists who live monastically.

Thank you

I believe that there are several faiths of Golarion that would have monasteries and treat ascetism as a value worth promoting. Here are the ones I use most often:

Aroden--A dead god of humanity at the zenith, one whose monasteries truly do work to isolate themselves from the loss of faith in the broader world. These human-only enclaves would definitely pursue the monk/sage path.

Abadar--The lawkeepers of Abadar have monasteries in the deepest delves far from prying eyes where they carve the greatest secrets into stone.

Asmodeus--The Lord of the Nine would have to have monasteries all over Cheliax, focused on churning out torturers and masters of infernal arts. It might also be that Asmodeus turns over any aspiring diabolists to these monasteries for their initiation and possible transportation to Hell.

Nethys--His monasteries, especially prominent in Garund, would double as magical academies but seek always to uncover deeper unions between magic and mortal.

Irori--of course, but they would be concentrated in the East and likely only travelling monks would be found in Avistan and Garund.

Sarenrae--Mystic fakirs and faith healers, the monasteries of Sarenrae pursue healing in the brightness of life with focus and flair. Music and healthful wines emanate from the monasteries of Sarenrae in Qadira and Garund.

Lissala--the last of the gods to have a strong monastic tradition in my Golarion, this long-lost god of Thassilon exalted service above all and so the three remaining monasteries of Lissala work tirelessly to perform the labors necessary to see their communities survive in the harsh desert of northern Garund.

In short, being a big fan of monks and the flavor they give Pathfinder games (Name of the Rose not Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), I have found as much use for them as I have for the gods they serve.
Zon-Kuthon--sponsoring monasteries of nightmarish evil, Zon-Kuthon welcomes those grieving their lost loves and twists them into cruel hard things of inhuman brutality.

Most of the posts have covered the mechanics of the monk in combat and skill-test situations. On the other hand, the monk as a member of the party has gotten the short-shrift. I have played monks in AD&D, D&D 3.5, and PFRPG and have always had a blast with the monk as a character class. Here's why:

1. The monk gets to be wise without having to proselytize. While the cleric, role-played properly, has obligations to his church and god that often require him to grandstand and preach, the monk doesn't have to take that on. If you make him a Western style monk (I know, the martial arts don't suit that but this is fantasy), then William of Baskerville from the Name of the Rose is a fantastic template and points out that the monk can be detective, wise councillor, diplomat, and sage in a package that doesn't attract attention (like bards), law enforcement (like rogues) or spell-hating assassins (like wizards and sorcerers). The monk can lead the party with a quiet word or a sharp observation and never worry about how the treasure gets divided since wealth is not his objective. Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (Ep IV by Alec Guiness) has this kind of impact on the party of Han, Luke, Chewbacca, R2D2, and C3PO. In RPG groups, this monk is easy to appreciate and hard to hate.

2. The monk gets to have moments of acrobatic/martial artist daring like no one else, including the Rogue. While the Rogue has to position to sneak attack and spend valuable time searching for traps, the monk can roam the battlefield with superhuman speed and agility. If you enjoy talking up your character's moves and maneuvers, there is no class like the monk for role-playing joy. Who cares how many points of damage he delivers, he can go anywhere, strike anyone, and survive to get back to the party. In MANY MANY game sessions against the final menace, it is the monk whose mobility and high STS, special abilities, and defenses, who cracked the DM's toughest opponent's skulls. More than a mage-killer, a monk can also be a dragon-slayer, drow-buster, and mind flayer-destroyer. When the rest of the party is fully engaged in melee, the DM drops a delayed ambush on the wizard at the rear of the party, it is the monk who can adjust, leap to the mage's aid and insure the survival of the party.

3. When things go badly wrong, and they often do, the party is often caught unawares and improperly equipped. The fighter is asleep without armor and weapons, the mage out of spells for the day, and the cleric caught with only a cure light wounds to hand, who is still ready to react effectively? The monk. The monk's abilities work as well underwater as in the air and on the ground, when he is rested or fatigued, and against all kinds of opponents. The monk exemplifies the boy scout motto, 'be prepared', by keeping all his preparations inside himself. As a role-player, this kind of readiness is very appealing and insures that you always have something to contribute to the situation.

I know there are, and always have been, arguments about this mechanic or that. But take it from a guy who started with a 2d4 1st level Novice in AD&D and took him all the way to Grand Master of Flowers:

When you are ready to put aside the simplicity of the CORE FOUR (Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard) and take up the mantle of a class that reveals character, roll up a MONK!

I would highly commend the Immortals boxed set from Basic D+D as a template for level 20+ adventures in Pathfinder. I also strongly suggest a flat HP progression for additional levels, such as +1 for Wizards, +2 for Sorcerers, Bards, Rogues, +3 for Clerics, Druids, Monks, +4 for Rangers, Fighters, and Paladins, and +5 for Barbarians (+ Con Mod, of course). Capping BAB also makes a lot of sense to me for playability, allowing advancement in combat ability to flow from an inherent attribute bonus of +1 for each 3 epic levels seems a much more customizable and manageable way to control BAB enhancement. The endless addition of HD, attacks, STs, etc. is what made Epic Level play an exercise is head-scratching computation.

"Lets see, my BAB is +20, my STR adds in another +14, my Epic Bonus is +10, my weapon adds +9, Smiting makes that another +12, spells applied gives me another +13, so my total before I roll is +78. I rolled a 2, so I have a result of 80. Now I need to do that five more times knocking off 5 for each roll."

Nope, not fun at the table.

I love the 'Cinematic Combat' mini-rules in Legacy of Fire for most epic combat situations, and have run all my 20+ campaigns (4 now over the years since I started in AD&D in 1988) using the High Level Adventures guidance from TSR. It has to be about affecting the world, not a battlefield. You are Gandalf or Saruman or Sauron, not Gimli or Legolas.

With regards to magic, yes there has to be a cap on magical advancement. The spell seed idea was a good guide for designing new spells but limiting the scope of a spell to the 9th level is an absolute imperative if you want to avoid world-breaking mortal spellcasters. Even the gods are assumed to be more limited in their scope than the spells a 40th level wizard could assemble using spell seeds. In epic level games, the rules have to be really clear that the power of a single spell cannot exceed that of a Wish spell. To accomplish more, artifacts must be forged and the Gods must be involved. That's where I have leaned most strongly on the Immortals set from Basic D&D. The guidance there has kept my games manageable.

Finally, with regards to feel, I hope that Paizo will use their cosmos for the setting of their 20+ games. Spelljammer and Planescape are the most fertile resources for the kinds of adventures that a character of this level should enjoy. The concerns of nations and dragons are piddling things to wonderworkers beyond level 20 and they should transcend to that level rather than continuing to play in the sandbox of Golarion and thereby wrecking havoc upon the world. Perhaps that is part of what makes the Test of the Starstone: the realization that with divine (or epic) power, the use of such power is inevitably apocalyptic for the mortal world. Thus only those who are prepared to tightly bind their power (Iomedae, Norgorber, Caydean Cailean) to the limits prescribed are able to continue interacting with the mortal world. For all others, there is the Void and the Planes.

Just my 2 electrum pieces. :)

Druid is the class to play in Kingmaker. The skill points are essential, the class skills a perfect fit for the setting and the spells are very well tailored for the 4x theme of the campaign. Focus on summoning and building up an army of friendly/charmed/awakened critters and watch as challenge after challenge falls neatly into your druidic clutches.

As for race, I played an elf which worked great. I also think a centaur would be a great one. The gnome fans are right, that would work well.

YMMV but I had a blast.

If we want to be old-school, lets consider the roots of the Gish concept:
1. Elric
2. Tolkien Elves

From Elric we get the following possibilities:
Stormbringer
Eternal Champion (Prestige Class title perhaps, since we want a one word base class name)

From Tolkien we get the following:
Sirdar
Maethor
From both we get the following:
Aelfric

Of the lot, I must say Stormbringer is the most evocative, and I think the one most free from baggage while still being iconic.

Tying weapon damage to class is a remarkably powerful idea for the melee classes, and might, on its own harden up the melee classes enough for the balance-centered.

It would also go a huge way towards making role-playing the center of attention.

What do we lose if we do that, aside from roll-playing min/maxing and perhaps some verisimiluted in the simulation aspects (although I think the explanation that a Conan with a dagger is deadlier than Harry Potter with a broadsword is pretty compelling)?

I am an AD&D player and would like to apply the PFRPG ethos and the d20 mechanic to a game with an AD&D core conception. I think it could be fun to have your help in so doing.

Core Principles:
I. Classes are truly framework-only and a new class is needed ONLY if an existing class cannot be role-played into the role intended. (Example: The Magic-User class is necessary because no conception of the Fighter can be role-played into a wizard; the barbarian/illusionist classes, on the other hand may not be necessary since a barbarian reflects a culture's view on being a fighter while an illusionist is a kind of magic-user.)

II. Each Die size has an association with a class and only the D20 is universal to all classes.

III. Character class 'balance' exists over the whole course of a character's career, not at any given level, per se, and the game exists to foment role-playing, not roll-playing.

IV. The D20 objective of 'roll a d20, add some modifier you have developed over your PCs career' should be followed as much as possible; side games should be minimized.

First, races. I don't see how the PFRPG mangled anything in the races section and so don't see much work to do here. I do think that there should some slight development of a PC's talents through the game on the basis of race; perhaps something on the order of a racial talent every five levels amounting to the benefit of a feat? Weapon Focus, for example, seems like a good one to throw out there: warhammer/hand axe (dwarf), longbow, longsword (elf), sling, short sword (halfling) etc.

Second, classes. Here is where a lot can change.
Magic-User: d4 for HD, d4 spell damage, d4 damage for daggers and staves, remove damage cap for levels (fireballs are 1d4/level, no limit, for example); Sorcerer becomes a sub-class of Magic-User by surrendering school benefits and ability to learn any spell in exchange for bonus spells/day and spontaneous casting.

Rogue: d6 for HD, d6 for Sneak Attack, d6 for spell damge, d6 for damage for short swords and short bows; Bard and Thief become sub-classes by essentially allowing each to pick up spells/skill points/rogue talents as they advance.

Priest: d8 for HD, d8 for healing spells, d8 for spell damage, d8 for damage for maces, hammers, and crossbows; Cleric, Paladin, Monk, and Druid become sub-classes swapping in spells, animal companions, martial artist skills, and holy warrior abilities as they advance with those abilities showing up at each level.

Fighter: d10 for HD, d10 for damage for two handed swords, great axes, etc.; BAB +1/level, Warrior, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier as sub-classes all with special abilities every odd level to offset low skill points, combat feat every even level and balance high hit points.

If it went forward with those four archetypes, or classes, is there a major role I am missing?