Phlebas's page

Its been fun

Actually it still is fun - my group is going to carry on playing using pathfinder beta until the full rules come out.

And thanks to all the posters who participated in generally constructive, animated but polite discussion on these boards. It has defintely added to the appeal of the rules ....

Theres only a couple of minor things that i'd tweak (out of a lot of things i like) but if I had to pick one its the Bard + Instrument thing

I like Bards,i think they're fun, flexible characters and i have no problems with the opening up of the perform skills to allow lots of options for a bard. In 3,5 i saw a bard played as a battle commander using orate to marshall his allies. Thought it was a brilliant variation on the stereotype.

but then i saw another singing bard,

and another, and then we worked it out

If a bard uses an instrument he is severely penalised in combat by

- only being able to perform or spell cast
- not having an attack of opportunity available,
- you have to stow instrument (std action)and then draw weapon to gain ability to attack (lose a round)
- and if you drop instrument & draw weapon to attack (same round), it means that it will take a standard action to pick up instrument (- lose a round) to regain the ability to perform
- vulnerability to Sunder attempts on the instrument
- vulnerability to silence

singing/orating/dancing bards on the other hand

- can perform, spell cast OR attack any round
- have attack of opportunity available
- do not lose an action switching between perform & attack
- Dancing bards can even perform in a silence spell!

the only plus for an instrument wielding bard is when you find a magical instrument..... but its not as if a singing bard will be short of skill points if he needs to up a perform skill overnight

this was brought home to me last week when the Bard in my game(a relative newcomer to D&D and definitely not a powergamer) said she wasn't even going to bring an instrument into the tomb "as it might get damaged and i'll never use it"

I'm all for allowing the use or not of instrument to be a decision of the player purely for role-playing purposes, but this is akin to a fighter deciding to restrict himself to a single light weapon - you can do it but you'll pay a heavy price compared to the ones that don't.....

so my proposed fix is to allow bards WITH INSTRUMENTS OR ANY OTHER TWO HANDED PROP to perform and spellcast in the same round.

(if all bards get perform plus spellcasting as was discussed in the classes forum then some other kind of bonus for instrument / prop use would be required - maybe utilising the perform skill check to boost or replace standard spell save DC?)

thanks for listening - for all the playtest

looking forward to the final product

Raw seems clear, not finessable.

I would like to see a change to allow both quarterstaff and spear (standard spear - not the long spear with reach) to be used as double weapons - but with specific rules that when used as double weapons to be 2 x light weapons and therefore finessable but including 1/2 damage

I'd also allow staffs and spears to break the rule for double weapons needing an enchantment each end - that IMHO should make the spear / staff become much more of an adventurers weapon than current as it becomes cheap to make versatile....

so either

2 handed weapon, damage bonus x 1.5 (traditonal brute force approach)

or

double weapon attacks x2, damage bonus x 0.5, both attacks finessable (martial arts style precison attacks)

seems a much better approach with the added benefit that you end up with simpler attack sequence / damage for the double weapon style

so keeps flavour options, follows standard rules, simplifies dice rolling..

i'm seriously tempted to adopt this as a house rule if no change is made between beta and final

I just thought of something rather elegant.

0-level spells are still exactly that. Spells. However, it is a special ability of the spellcasting classes that lets them cast them at-will as spell-like abilities.

So I propose the following: Set the caster level for those spell-like abilities to be 1, regardless of the actual caster level of the character. This fixes most of the scaling-with-level issues (not things like daze, though.) This would actually be shorter than the current text: 'at caster level 1st' instead of 'Cantrips are treated like any other spell cast by the wizard in terms of duration and other variables based on level.'

This is better because it allows higher-level casters to do more impressive things if they wish by preparing the spell in a higher level slot. So, for instance, if a High Priest wants to be able to cast Purify Food and Drink over a whole banquet at once for a ceremony, he can, by using a first level spell slot, modified by his high caster level, rather than being forced to bless a plate at a time like a 1st level cleric would.

simple solution. I like.

add a level to get your caster level bonuses also works well, but like most meta-magic much better for sorcerers / bards than for wizards / clerics

Phlebas wrote:

...

detect magic - possibly most abused spell. walk into room and automatically detect magic. finds treasure, many traps, lots of illusions etc. ...

My experience with this so far is that my players don't actualy abuse Detect Magic but sometime over-use it.

This has lead them to leave behind (so far) coins, gem, and masterwork items since they went "no-magic = no-treasure", also the time taken to analyse every magic aura they met has had them waste some buff-time to check on Everbunrning-Flames and other minor magics active in the dungeon. This even lead them to a few wierd conclusions based on the school identification rolls.

There's a few nice ideas there i might "borrow" for the next session.....

Currently still prefer the idea of at will, but low powered cantrips

@Mhagus

In 3.5 there were rules for Bull Rush that included a chance for hitting either the defender or the attacker as they had to move into the opponents square to push them: Special Attacks - Bull Rush.

Fatespinner wrote:

HaraldKlak wrote:

But isn't your logic regarding disarm the opposite of this case? You make the point that disarm doesn't occur until after you've made your action. But in case of tripping the attack occurs before, which makes a new trip impossible.

No, I was saying, in essence:

"I try to stand up from prone. You may hit me before I finish standing." and...

"I try to disarm you. You may hit me before I do so."

I was illustrating the AoO is completed before the intended action is completed, whether that be a spellcasting, a disarm attempt, or standing up.

PFRPG has "solved" this problem by not allowing Combat Maneuvers as part of an AoO (Digging for the post now...)

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

snip....

I think this has been updated since then

sorry, can't find the link but the cut and paste i made 13-jan from one of Jasons post shows

" Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun are standard actions that cannot be made as part of an attack action.
- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip are standard actions, but they can also be made in place of an attack, during an attack action.
- Disarm, Sunder, and Trip can be made as an AoO using these rules, but Bull Rush, Grapple, and Overrun cannot.
- You cannot take an AoO that provokes an AoO itself.!"

I assume this is the current design intent, unless I've missed another post on it!

Mhagus wrote:

Ah, I see. Am I to understand that unless explicitly stated in the PF Beta manual, I am to follow all of the 3.5 rules?

No, I think they got rid of the chance to hit the wrong person. It sort of makes sense, considering they also removed the requirement for the two grapplers to share one square.

The 3,5 rule of 50/50 miss for range, no miss chance for melee, made sense for me (with the house rule i used for moving Grapples & AoO's also having a miss chance to prevent abuse)

pathfinder now says no miss chance, but no AoO's for moving in a grapple if i understand it right? Nice and simple

(does this mean you can also 'take a hostage' and grapple a mook to push pass a line of defenders ignoring AoO's?

(apologies for straying off topic)

Fatespinner wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Note! The wording of the Pathfinder feat "Greater Bull Rush" implies that this is NOT the case in PFRPG:

Hmm. Interesting. I wonder what the logic behind this particular change is? Did Jason & Co. feel that the "bull rush your enemies through a group of allies" trick was too powerful? Does requiring a single feat really make it more balanced somehow?

Yes, there was a discussion on this in the Combat forum and Jason said he thought it was too much. I disagree.

I killed this one in my game by saying they had 50/50 chance of hitting the ally instead of the enemy (as per ranged missile attacks into a grapple - only in this case the grapple is moving rather than the missile)

funnily enough they still occasionally try it and seem to enjoy roleplaying the inevitable freindly fire argument

back to the topic, in my 3,5 we ruled that if 5'crawl is a move action, to tumble at half speed wasn't possible so you took the -10 penalty for tumbling at full speed....

i don't think theres too much wrong with crawl always provoking an aoO, but i'd be equally happy with a -10 penalty to Acrobatics for being prone and then treating crawl like any other move action.....

Phlebas wrote:

i'd think it would be simple enough to rename it 'candlelight' and have a reduced range/intensity.

that would prevent 100 stones with light wiping out a drow army

(I stil think thats the best solution to most 'at will' cantrip issues. Reduce the effect / range / duration down because you've reduced the cost of casting to zero)

I suggested that a given caster only be able to have a single Light active at a time. This means the party can only have one of those stones (per spellcaster), which is basically what they had before.

either would work

but one affects a spell description, one adds a mechanic

not a big mechanic, but ........

Ross Byers wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Light - I suggest this, and any other cantrip with a duration, be specified to only allow one to be active at a time, per caster. Otherwise no one if the party ever need carry a torch again, and any caster can light up a whole dungeon. Additionally, there is no reason for the duration to scale with level now that it can be re-cast so easily. I suggest a flat 10-minute time limit. That said, the world will not end if it isn't fixed.

When looking at this, it has a HUGE problem that has been discussed elsewhere.

The ability to create light at will is a HUGE nerf for creatures that rely on darkness like Drow or Tieflings.

Since an at will can easily counter a 2nd Level spell. :(

That's an issue with darkness, not light.

Disagree. It is an issue with both.

(But, it only became such a big problem when the light cantrip became "at will.")

i'd think it would be simple enough to rename it 'candlelight' and have a reduced range/intensity.

that would prevent 100 stones with light wiping out a drow army

(I stil think thats the best solution to most 'at will' cantrip issues. Reduce the effect / range / duration down because you've reduced the cost of casting to zero)

Majuba wrote:

Phlebas wrote:

works fine as is in my playtest, but has anyone else had problems with PC's stabilizing enemies 'just in case' they want to ask any questions later...

Why is that a problem? (My PCs have done it some, and I've done it playing).

Players in my game tend to stabilize the wounded enemies just because they don't usually kill unless they are actually intending to do so. They'll coldly slit someone's throat if killing a specific target is an objective, but generally the random thugs are bandaged and left unconscious (after being stripped of anything that could be sold for more than a silver piece...).

Fortunately, only one of them watches 24, and after the last time he tried to waterboard someone in my game, he's given up on that nonsense. (Cleric with the Death Domain. She death-touched herself, which was conveniently very in-character for her, stating that since the torture had already started, she'd save herself waiting around for the rape, but that her evil god would be proud of her tormentor.)

Nice idea - think i'll throw a few moral conundrums in and let the PC's work out how they want to handle prisoners after that....

Asgetrion wrote:

I'd like to see 'Detect Magic' and 'Detect Evil' both requiring a Spellcraft check every round to focus/maintain -- I think even the most energetic and persistent (i.e. problematic) players would eventually yield, if you're constantly calling for "concentration checks".

I have told my players, due to the change in how detect magic works, that there was going to be a slight reality shimmer, a change in the way a lot of people "hide" magical items. That lead lined chests were now common, that hidden recesses often had enough stone to block detect magic, magic aura is often used (often on trapped items), etc...

It still does make it easier for players to find magical gear, it is by no means guaranteed.

i've had to do something similar to prevent total transparency

copied this from another thread to get all cantrip issues in one place

specific issues

detect poison - or how to avoid dangerous traps and detect nasty monsters.... druid now habitually scans for poison in any room, any dodgy path, even an unidentified monster. although not game breaking it does make traps especially much easier to find, especially combined with

detect magic - possibly most abused spell. walk into room and automatically detect magic. finds treasure, many traps, lots of illusions etc. combined with detect poison it will find most nasty surprises. although i'm aware you can block with magic aura, or lead it will be a little strange if every dungeon radiates magic, or is set in ye olde abandoned lead mine....

my suggestion is to restrict the range to short / touch for all 0-level detects (or 1' say) this would allow for finding stuff, but remove the scan first mentality thats developing in the party as you'd have to put yourself in harms way to detect effectively. so clearing the room and then searching would be as likely to set off traps as to find them, and also put secret compartments beyond the range of detections.

(I've tried this in game for a session and it did mean that the players waited until they were stuck and then used it in conjunction with thorough (take 20) searches rather than the previous "scan it - nick it" approach)

btw - I think the roleplaying restrictions on not casting spells in public are fine - but dont solve the dungeon spoiling elements of the spell

Phlebas wrote:

works fine as is in my playtest, but has anyone else had problems with PC's stabilizing enemies 'just in case' they want to ask any questions later...

Why is that a problem? (My PCs have done it some, and I've done it playing).

just time consuming and moves away from a classical feel. plus torture is not something i think good players should consider as a default...

Hi

apologies if this has been gone through before but i couldn't see anything on the spells forum

now i generally like the idea of at will cantrips so this is no criticism of the concept but i'm well into my second playtest and the players are starting to get the hang of the new rules and are generating new tactics thanks to 'at will' cantrips

specific issues

detect poison - or how to avoid dangerous traps and detect nasty monsters.... druid now habitually scans for poison in any room, any dodgy path, even an unidentified monster. although not game breaking it does make traps especially much easier to find, especially combined with

detect magic - possibly most abused spell. walk into room and automatically detect magic. finds treasure, many traps, lots of illusions etc. combined with detect poison it will find most nasty surprises. although i'm aware you can block with magic aura, or lead it will be a little strange if every dungeon radiates magic, or is set in ye olde abandoned lead mine....

my suggestion is to restrict the range to touch for all 0-level detects (or 1' say) this would allow for finding stuff, but remove the scan first mentality thats developing in the party as you'd have to put yourself in harms way to detect effectively. so clearing the room and then searching would be as likely to set off traps as to find them, and also put secret compartments beyond the range of detections.

thoughts?

also

Stabilize - if its at will you can cast it on enemies as they fall and hit the deck. this tends to keep alive most enemies. obvously this is a reasonable tactic for bar room brawls where you don't want a murder charge but my group is now habitually saving the most senior person and then interrogating them for all they know before killing them

I'm not sure how to stop this - making it Touch would probably reduce the opportunity, but would also make saving party members more dangerous. another idea would be that it only stabilised for 5 rounds (or a finite number), enough time to get a potion down a neck, but not enough to keep all and sundry alive in a fight.

works fine as is in my playtest, but has anyone else had problems with PC's stabilizing enemies 'just in case' they want to ask any questions later...

Many afflictions already have a "-" value for Cure. I was also thinking that some poisons might require repeated saves for the entire Frequency limit, regardless of past success. So just replace "Cure 1 save" with "Cure - " (I don't know why the Cure property isn't just omitted in that case. It would be easy to say that "Cure - " is the default behavior). I like how the Cure property lets you do something in between if you want to, like "Cure 2 saves" (although there should also be a way to specify whether or not saves must be consecutive - I would say non-consecutive is the default and "consecutive" has to be specified).

.........

I like the idea of cure (more than one save) being required for the deadlier poisons rather than the dc or the effect being made ott. that would mean that there would be a minimum of one rounds effect which could be very scary....

if you want multiple afflictions, why not make the cure different for each possible affliction if you want to make multiple effects

eg effects: Nauseous (cure-), d6 Str damage (cure 2 saves)

wouldn't want every poison like this but the idea of mixing a condition and a ability score with different cures does appeal......

Session 5

PC's
Human Rogue 3
1/2 Orc Druid 4
1/2 Elf monk 4
Gnome Bard 3
Gnome Sorcerer (Elemental - Air) 2

new player this session playing the sorcerer - only second ever RP session so good sanity check for the rules ease of understanding. The only criticism of the rules from a beginners perspective is an opening paragraph for classes and races to give a little flavour.....

1st encounter was clearing out a wasp swarm to introduce the characters. the monk and rogue were getting stung to bits until the sorcerer 'colour spray'd the area - the swarm failed its save and after a certain amount of hacking to get the nest off the rafter the rogue ran screaming through the streets and dropped it in a stream nearby.

the reinforced party now went back to the cellars - after spotting the lookout left after their last attempt they chased him into the ambush (which failed to make much of an impression). eventually the gnomes turned up and mopped up. the last survivor was the erstwhile lookout who ran on through the shrine and almost made it back outside before being clobbered and - once again - "Stop Bleeding" to keep him alive.

bit of investigation in the town - found gather information under diplomacy (eventually) and so managed to pass on the important plot clues

session ended with the crew back aboard ship, chasing down some orc pirates and then suffering the same sahuagin ambush. although there were npc's around I made them pretty ineffectual and 12 std sahuagin plus two warrior 1's lieutenants bit the desk fairly quickly

shipboard combat can be very cramped and theres a few narrow stairways etc. however the rogue and monk spent a lot of time leaping between levels and tumbling past opponents. at the moment its not too difficult to work out DC's and does make it more of a swashbuckling feel. high comedy when the gnome sorcerer (now ships cook) had a sahuagin open the door to her galley, elemental blast,missed attack, colour spray, elemental blast (critical) meant the sahuagin was blasted off the side of the ship having made just one attack....

on fast progression so leaping through the levels fairly quickly - quite interested in how long the monk can keep being the frontline with the rogue, bard & druids AC in support. hopefully the sorcs range support will help.

just a comment that normally the fastest way to get a group through a door in real life is for one person to hold the door open for everyone else....

Having said that a 5' move penalty for an easily opened door makes perfect sense and is something i use already.

anything that would require a strength check (or has more than one latching system etc) I think should still require a move equivalent action....

Session 4 -

group was

human rogue 2
1/2 orc druid 3 (crocodile AC - revised rules)
gnome bard 3
1/2 elf monk 3

Basically played through the Freeport interlude I “Swagfest, Yarr”

Assassination attempt was unsuccessful though the rogue applauded the ‘act’ on the stage for three rounds before working out it was real…..

Since this took place on the dock side the croc AC patrolled the water and basically cut off the escape route. But since the party members took full advantage of the ‘free’ grog they didn’t question motives too closely

Games – jacks stand was just basic combat. Good fun for all

Fat rat chase was amusing, monk went off on own and tried grappling rules and then found spider, after escape artisting the web he ran away only for the low wis rogue to go “wow, a talking spider” and dive back in

Gave a good opportunity to use entangle, escape artist and lots of tumbling into position to try and flank a mobile magical opponent. Probably made easier by being in cramped quarters – if I’d been better prepared there might have been more house to retreat through and then some tightrope walking across the roofs….

Plot restarted with Freeport II, quick punch up with orcs and then another chase through the streets after the book thief. The session ended after they’d talked their way into the abandoned temple but fell victim to a cause fear spell and ran away (aided by obscuring mist)

Players getting into characters now. Starting to use CMB especially for tumbling and as a DM I do like the target being relative to opponents BAB to make it less of a cert at high levels….

Session 3 -

group was

1/2 orc druid 3 (crocodile AC - revised rules)
gnome bard 3
1/2 elf monk 3

game started with the investigation of the cult headquarters. again i did some conversion work on NPC clerics & Sorcerers

group worked there way through the monsters quite happily and ended up entering the temple from behind the waiting ambush.

final encounter with the cleric though was very tough - the two assistants died early (first one in surprise round, second one immolated by druid with burning sphere)

however the leader alternated spells / special abilities (bleeding touch was especialy effective on the monk) with channeling negative energy and that got most of the group crying out for the healer at some point in the combat.

I like channeling negative energy - it does make evil clerics scary without being OTT - but i'd have concerns about a PC abusing this power....not sure about solution tho'

one thing. AGAIN the druid used the orison to prevent the NPC from dying. this was to question the cult leader but the party decided to not risk waking him and ended up slitting his throat. since it was only a 6 hp attack that took the npc down i didn't think i could say it had died in 1 round but this is becoming an annoying habit of stabilising everything they come across 'just in case'

second half of game had the sailors out on the ocean trying to rescue some Halflings from a Selymul (MM3)

this was a CR7 in its natural environment against 3 x level 3 characters so it was always going to be a tough ask but it has a low intelligence so it decided to toy with the party and then leg it when below 1/3 hit points

early on the parties boat was turned over (DC 20 strength check) and when various members of the party stood on top shooting arrows at it, it charged in and rammed the hull (I ruled a balance check with a DC = strength check of the creature ramming). Much hilarity ensued as the party took it in turns to climb onto the hull, readying attacks for the charge and then hurtling off the boat into the water as the boat rocked.

The crocodile animal companion came into its own here though did suffer a little (I did modify the pain ability slightly to reduce the impact on the party but the crocodile did run on first contact until the druid managed to rally

By the end of the fight only the bard had not dropped below zero – interesting use of drowning / swimming rules as bodies sank and druid with wand had to dive to heal…and then bard dive in to heal druid…. And then monk dived in to rescue bard….

Once again at will orisons came into play as a default – ‘cant think of anything else’ action.

Phlebas wrote:

DM'ing as well for a level 3

summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible

Actually, depending on my focus, I'll sometimes cast spontaneous Extended Summon Nature's Ally I at 3rd level, getting myself 6 rounds of help instead of 3.

nice use of the feat - hadn't really considered that metamagics work well with divine spontaneous conversions......

I am DM'ing a Half-Orc druid. My only observations are the following.

- Summon <whatever> is utterly useless at low levels because the summoned thing only sticks around for 1 round per caster level. In most cases the druid has a better attack and damage and is better off just attacking himself. Occasionally it's a full round spell that grants a teammate a flank, but thats about it.

- Other 1st level spells pretty much blow worse then the arcane or divine list. Some of the splatty 3.x books address this with some swift utility spells and stuff like Snake's Swiftness.

So my observation is that (he's level 3 now) thus far he has basically been reduced to being a poor fighter with an occasional cure light wounds with a dire rat that runs around and occasionally obeys his orders.

DM'ing as well for a level 3

summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible

at the moment the 1/2 orc druid 3 is using flare and scimitar for mooks and then burning sphere as her main offensive spell. other party members are monk, bard and rogue so no-one is dominating combat

The party grouped together for a wand of cure light - prevents the druid becoming a poor mans cleric

............

Also, in the style of "backwards compatibility" it should probably be a feat rather than a standard rule.

I'd second the 'add a feat' to give some options to the sword 'n' board fighter rather than complicate shields in general.

I also have another idea:

What if those who use shields gain extra benefits when using the "Fight Defensively" and "Total Defence" actions? Perhaps a higher AC bonus? or maybe some degree of cover?

Just some thoughts.

I've played around with house-rules for this and it doesn't seem to be unbalanced. i'd suggest its kept to AC bonus though as although parry's and cover may make logical sense they might complicate the combat too much.

i thought about doubling the shield bonus when using total defense, maybe add 50% for fight defensively?

dm'ing a 1/2 orc PF druid - only just hit level 3. only comment is that the limitless orisons give you much more flex at low levels (and the player has gone for spellcasting not melee - we're describing her as an orc 'runt')

do like the new AC rules - make a lot more sense than before

and the half-orc flavour just feels right. the idea of the orc as a 'noble savage' is a neat twist on the orc as cannon-fodder

Regarding the racial thing.

I don't really see why, or what about the Arcane Archer makes it so they need to be an elf in some way. There's lots of races that have a wizard, sorcerer, bard slant to them that would "racially" lean towards this class concept.

Back in 3e, when PrCs were strictly a DM device to spice up his Campaign Setting, yeah.. I could agree. PrCs were strictly meant to give a variety of options that were more ingrained into the setting. Assassins needing to "kill someone just to get into the guild" thing.

But after years of homogenization, and a shift in intent behind Prestige Classes from "DM device to add flavour" to "New ways to add more character options without having to rewrite a base class every time"... I don't see the need.

Now, if the class was meant to work around a specific item or weapon or thing that was racially elven.. like an Elven Curve Blade or something... I could see the restriction.

But just a magical archer? That doesn't need the restriction. That's like taking the Weapon Master PrC and slapping a Halfling restriction on it for a campaign setting flavour.
That's fine and dandy in a specific setting, but useless as a generic gaming system player option.

I actually both agree and disagree with this

yes i can imagine lots of settings where restricting it to this, or any specific race / organsisation / theme does not make any sense.

however, i do prefer the 3e intent for prestige classes as a way of having setting specific themes rather than the just a mechanism for fun characters / broken builds

perhaps the simplest solution is to ensure that the rules clearly state which restrictions apply to Golarion only and which are core. That ensures that the Pathfinder world remains consistent but without unnecessarily restricting the core rules?

that might avoid this discussion getting mired in core vs flavour discussions....

first part of freeport (will keep spoilers to a min)

note. i deliberately kept conversion to a minimum - in fact the only changes i made were to NPC sorcerers & clerics as i wanted to highlight PF changes

group
Human Rogue 1
1/2 orc druid 2
gnome bard 2
1/2 elf monk 2

battle with the press gang was over quite quickly - but deliberately had crowded battleground with boxes and rogue especially had fun risking AoO's to get flank and sneaks. really like the fact that 'tumble' is no longer a flat dice roll which makes you more likely to tumble vs mooks and more nervous against anyone competent.

when bard cast grease and took an AoO I assumed it was non-lethal damage for the subsequent conc check but the table is a little confusing. dc is 10 + spell level + damage for normal damage, 10 + spell level + 1/2 damage for continuous damage. doesn't mention N-L so i ruled 1/2 dam as I thought it should be less than normal but not sure thats correct interpretation

rest of session was a lot of rp'ing - using diplomacy / gather information / linguistics / perception etc as and when required. all worked fairly well

ended up with the ambush. the npc sorcerer i converted to PFRP aberrant and so used has acid blast from a distance but got caught in the bards grease and so was out of combat for a few rounds. rest of the combat was over v quickly as rogue critical'd his flanking strike on the leader and took him down

the druid was keen on casting stabilise on the downed enemies to avoid unnecessary fatalities and to be able to question them afterwards. works well for investigations but became a bit of a pain in that she wanted to question everyone. could have done the same thing with heal checks but the at will orison 'seems' to make it easier.

tried a chase mechanic i've worked out based on distance between people and gaining / losing ground depending on results of skill checks to overcome obstacles (easier than big maps). finally caught target when monk jumped over cart to get in front of the cultist who crawled underneath it. dunno if dm tips like this should make it into rules but any sidebar space available......?

glad its going, going, gone....

some of the ideas for feinting, gaining advantage etc i'd like to see developed, not for twf (as i think they do fairly well already, especially finessed multi-class fighter rogues when flanking....) but more for the swf without a shield.

at the moment with a single weapon your off hand might as well be holding a pint of beer in combat if it hasn't got a shield. a feat which allowed you to take advantage of this free hand for CMB, skill checks or feint purpose would give some love to the swashbuckler / fencer style of fighting....

EDIT: Or a feat which allowed you not to spill your pint of beer while fighting.....

fighter / rogues made very good swashbucklers in 3,5e - never really seen the need for another base class for the light fighter

(did play around with urban ranger TWF but i think its eaier with the feats from the fighter)

second half of the session was another homebrew encounter designed to play around with the skills more than the combat. this time each player played a single 2nd level PC so group was

1/2 elf monk
gnome bard
1/2 orc druid

party investigated a dwarven barge that had beached on a sandbank, investigated the boat to find the clues as to what had happened to the crew and then followed the trail back to a lagoon full of bullywugs and their temple of gluttony to rescue the dwarves pre-sacrifice....

skills worked well, the monk had maxed perception and didn't have too many issues distinguishing between visual and listen type checks.

eventually the party followed the trail in a small boat and after a succession of low perception checks paddled into an ambush. two bullywugs managed to successfully entangle the monk and the druid with thrown nets, the bard being ignored. two other bully wugs then started stabbing the party while the net throwers dragged the party into the water. the druid was hit a lot and then rescued by the croc AC, the bard killed two bullywugs while the monk (who failed to roll the 14 needed for an escape artist check 8 times in a row!) was dragged slowly off. after healing the druid, the bard and druid paddled off in a low speed chase until the croc was sent ahead to intercept

net rules worked fairly well - it was scary for the PC's, but more so because the monk didn't even have a knife blade to cut his way out of the net

at the temple the gnome got swallowed whole by a dire toad guard before being rescued by the group. they then had a stand up battle with 6 bullywugs before facing the dark cleric, a sahuagin cleric 2 who used negative energy to wound the party (and incidentally kill off the few bullywug survivors) before being rushed by the group and cut down

since the group didn't have a cleric they purchased a wand of cure lights and had a few potions. each pc went unconscious at least once but in the fight agaisnt the dark cleric the monk piled in, the bard sung, and the druid used the wand to keep the monk & croc active

negative channeling is a fun mechanic at low level, but a cleric 4 could have decimated the party very quickly - i'm going to keep using this mechanic for the NPC's so we'll see how balanced it is....

next session the party sail to Freeport and we begin the freeport trilogy!

Last Sunday kicked off my new campaign using Beta (as opposed to one off playtests)

Its a pirate based campaigns using bits of the Freeport Trilogy, and the rest is homebrew / various published adventures

number of players will vary week by week, so each player has two pc's and will play one per session. means we cover the maximum number of classes and races.

Prequel started with a raid on the players hometown (they were refugees fleeing a war). The party preceeding the execution of a war criminal was interrupted when the 'veil' covering orc and ogre mercenaries failed (due to a chair disintegrating under an ogre giving everyone saving throws). this session players played both characters. effectively it turned into a fighting retreat for the pc's, trying to save as many bystanders as they could, while the orcs cleared a path through the inn so they could rescue the war criminal. the party was completely overmatched here, but it was an ideal opportunity to have a smack down combat, and knowing that the enemy would retreat as soon as the rescue was complete.

anyhow. PC's were (all 1st level)

1/2 Elf Monk
Gnome Sorcerer (destined)
Gnome Bard
Dwarven Fighter
Dwarven Cleric
1/2 Orc druid with crocodile AC

(the player of the Human Rogue & Elven Wizard couldn't attend)

by the end of the combat the monk, bard, cleric and fighter were on the floor. the party managed to save a dozen non-combs by retreating to a corner and using entangle, grease, flare, acid splash and the croc to hold off the orcs

observations - none of the players were new to playing D&D, but most were playing classes they hadn't done before. did take a while to thrash out some of the class abilities / spells

the use of orisons / cantrips at will was a MAJOR factor in this combat. because of the sheer voume of attackers, spells were used up in first few rounds as the players tried to get themselves into a defensible position. however the use of Stabilise at range prevented any fatalities even if the pc couldn't be recovered / healed, and the continuous use of flare and acid splash meant that every character was contrbuting. the new AC rules seemed fairly balanced. the croc was capable of taking on a single orc, but wouldn't have lasted long against several so was retreating alongside the druid.

Players described the encounter as pretty scary but quite good fun. the burning down to the waterline of the boat containing the PC's families has set in motion the long term plot.

Frmo DM's perspective, virtualy enough XP earnt in that one encounter to take the group to 2nd level under the fast progression. do like the way we now have xp cost / CR as it makes calculating xp easy per encounter.

KaeYoss wrote:

The thing is that you can't get a masterwork singing voice, but you can get a masterwork lute. Or even a magical harp!

He pretty much hit it on the head right here. If your character knows how to play musical instruments, he/she can use magical instruments that he discovers on his adventures (or creates). It's probably best to take an instrument-based Perform skill and a voice-based Perform skill and swap out your performances as necessary.

or you wait until you next level up and sink skill points into the appropriate perform as i have seen happen....

I know that there are masterwork / magical instruments. But i don't think its unrealistic to lessen the penalty you get from using props/instruments - especially at lower levels when magical and masterwork items are few and far between

I've played bards with instruments, for fun, and that's OK. I've also used the bard class as a kind of core Marshall, taking perform (oratory) and using the bard class to model a military leader who inspires his companions with tactical urgings. Requiring an instrument would sure hurt the latter. So, yeah, giving bonuses as a way of throwing a bone to the instrument guys is OK, but just don't nix the military commander type!

thought about this again overnight

rather than think of instruments as a specific case lets look at the class again in terms of what benefits performance effects. and IMHO it comes down to props versus weapons

even a military leader/orator could have a benefit from a prop. wether its a ceremonial staff of office, swagger stick, flag or standard.

every dancer would benefit from castanets, ribbons, or even veils

comedians with a ladder or a jester with a balloon on a stick. singers with an instrument etc etc

so maybe the solution is to give a benefit from using any prop that prevents you from using a weapon. this means that any bard variant can choose between performing with sword or bow in hand OR using instrument / flag / custard piet etc to get a benefit to perform.

now the benefit could be as simple as +2 DC to the save against a performance effect - but now EVERY bard can make a valid choice between waving a weapon or concentrating on the performance

(I still like the idea of letting instrumentalists only get the spell-casting + perform but i can see some resistance to that idea so here's a compromise)

I've played bards with instruments, for fun, and that's OK. I've also used the bard class as a kind of core Marshall, taking perform (oratory) and using the bard class to model a military leader who inspires his companions with tactical urgings. Requiring an instrument would sure hurt the latter. So, yeah, giving bonuses as a way of throwing a bone to the instrument guys is OK, but just don't nix the military commander type!

pathfinder is all about giving options so i wouldn't like to nix the orators either. I do think that the ability to have weapons in hand counts for a lot in combat though. especially ranged weapons

all i ask for is a little love to the lute.....

Perform:Comedy natural 20

*******

Phlebas: On a related note, the splatbook Complete Adventurer had various bonuses for using different masterwork instruments with different bardic music effects. If you have access to a copy, it might be what you are looking for.

I think one of my freinds has this one so i'll mine it for ideas.

thanks for the tip!

(i just had a thought - would a mastercrafted custard pie give a +2 circumstantial modifier.....)

Not everything needs to give you a solid in-game benefit for making a choice. Using an instrument simply because it fits your character's personality is a good enough reason, I think.

i'll be using bards with instruments for that reason - flavour - but it does feel like there's a harsh penalty for it

Hi there all,

It should be known that I am currently thinking about the possibility of allowing bards to cast bard spells while using bardic performance, regardless of the type. This does not seem too overpowering to me, especially for a class like the bard.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

if everyone can cast spells, then the advantage goes back to the singer who has a sword and can take aoo's etc

i'd just like to see some benefit to the bard with an instrument that matches what the singing performer gets.....

Mattastrophic wrote:

Also, since your perform check doesn't actually matter for using Bardic Music, a +2 is meaningless.

You know, not everything is about combat. Something's not meaningless just because it can't increase the damage total.

quite agree - but thats why i want to give something to PC's who play a bard with an instrument something back.

the last 2 players of bards i've seen are NOT powergamers by any stretch of the imagination, but they just saw too many penalties for having their hands full with an instrument in combat.

actually this was all brought about by a pub discussion on favoured instruments for the races (fwiw brass for dwarves, percussion orcs, something complex with lots of levers & bellows for gnomes, strings for elves, woodwinds for halflings. bagpipes would be considered a crime against humanity). we started talking about wind instruments penalising spell casters before we double checked rules and worked out that no instrument allowed spell casting.. and then we asked why not?

I guess this is more based on 3,5 than PF, but its not something that i believe the PF rules cover (don't think its been mentioned in the other bard threads - apologies if i missed

in all i've seen 3 bards played in 3,5. none of them have used a musical instrument, all have taken singing or oratory as their perform skill

the logic goes like this

if i sing, then i can swing a sword and attack / defend while using my perform skill

if i play an instrument i can perform and move

if i sing then i can never be disarmed

if i play an instrument the first ogre music critic i meet will reduce it to a pile of matchwood

so no-one plays instruments

so my proposal is -

a bard playing an instrument that requires both hands should be able to cast spells simultaneously with his perform ability (i'd say the somatic components are perfromed with the instrument)

a bard using only his voice cannot cast spells and perform

i'm going to trial this in my game but thoughts? comments? pitfalls?

I don't want to go back to 3.5e either, but please note that a TWF fighter / rogue is now an awesome combatant if there's any opportunity to flank.

although lighter in ac (normally, but not necessarily) and hp than a standard fighter they still are more robust than a standard rogue

we haven't seem any monster write up yets - i wonder if the solution would be to make specific monsters (as opposed to entire groups) immune to crits / sneak attack to prevent sneak attack becoming a 'must have' ability.

(I haven't had much opportunity to playtest this with PF, but i did have a F4/R4/Shadowdancer in my 3,5e campaign who used to pincushion anything who allowed a full attack. the only thing that stopped her massacring entire encounters was the occasional crit / sneak attack immune enemy)

clerics already radiate evil / good as per their deity until they get to cast undetectable alignment

i do like this suggestion - especially if it applies to paladins / anti-paladins as well (could make for spectacular if quick combats..)

only concern is if this is used as a evil cleric detector.

"Alright men, line up the suspects and let the trainee knights take a swing at them. we'll heal and apologise to the cut ones and we'll burn at the stake any that go kaboom on the smite evil..."

the thrown weapon and horsemanship styles are options i've been after for some time

although the others seem balanced, i'm not sure that arcane or two-handed works for a ranger (though i could see arcane working for an urbanised variant)

the bounty-hunter option i really like as a concept!

..........

I like favored enemy because it is a class feature that leans on role playing. My halfling ranger has favored enemy (human) because he was caught up in the slave trade.

Agreed - I always liked the roleplay element of favoured enemy as it is one of the few concrete benefits for flavour choices

(my Cyran Scout had undead as favoured enemy because of his time fighting Karnathi!)

Having said that it can give encounter design issues so allowing some kind of retraining (eg when you change your favoured enemy bonus)wouldn't be too game breaking - i was thinking of shuffling bonus between the enemies you'd picked more than choosing completely new enemies

+ 1 vote from me based on 3,5E playtesting

(would also go to druid level-3 rather than 50% of druid level but don't want to derail this thread)

.....

While I'm completely for making the fighter NOT outclassed by another class's class feature, the poor ranger gets the shaft with this. I'd recommend giving the ranger a pet that progresses at the same rate as the druid's.

I've seen the same problem with my ranger in a 3,5e campaign that my jaguar can't do more than dive in and out without getting smashed. I like the idea of synching the progression with the druid. at low levels the druid is not that far behind the ranger combatwise anyway and we know that the druid is one of the 'better' high-level options anyway.

one thing we need to be careful about though is that the animal companion is supposed to be an assistant, not a meat shield or sacrifical decoy...

...elemental rage...

For some reason this ability really annoys me (after the barbarian player read it and went wtf?). It, and darkvision, are the two supernatural abilities the barbarian gets that cannot be explained away by inner fury.

"i foam at the mouth charge my enemy and start chewing arms" - standard beserker

"I scream banzai, run throught the darkness unerringly, my sword glows with fire and i leap to the attack" - is not a beserker type barbarian but a magic using creature.

ok, maybe i'm biased by the old school barbarian who used to get xp for destroying magical items (or in one case, my 9th level wizard (mutter, mutter)) but i just don't see what in the concept of barbarians gives you a 'flame on' ability?

I'm guessing part of the reason for this was to give some method of bypassing DR. if thats the case, why not just give them an ability to bypass DR?
eg
penetrating blow. ignore 5 points of DR.
advanced penetrating blow, ignore up to 10 points of DR
[/rant]

the only problem with feats / abilities instead of points is what i found with my shifter pc in 3,5 that you never use the ability until final encounter (low levels) or final encounter + one other (mid levels). points really give you more flexibility in this so from a PC perspective its much more freindly

DM tracking rage points. the one NPC barbarian i used was never going to get through their points meaning I didn't bother tracking them. at higher levels, yes it could be an issue if you're not willing to handwave.

maybe the solution is for DM's to have a 'std' battle spend for NPC barb's and so turn it into a 'total rounds spent raging' stat to track. the odd point or two lost or gained as abilities are used / not used will probably not make a huge difference in the end

interesting stuff

just to say the playtest we had with a very tired father playing the barbarian did not give any book-keeping problems and actually 'felt' easier to control than the on-off 3,5 version...

can't comment on the ability analysis without talking to the player though we did wonder if darkvision would be better replaced with blindsense for more of a super senses than supernatural sense feel. and zero point cost for some of the minor ones (while beserking and paying the 1 point a round) would make sense

Oh, and wanted to add: instead of rage points, or rages per day, simply have rage trigger at a certain HP threshold. If the barbarian is down, say, 25% of his HP, he enters rage immediately and stays there until all enemies are dead, he hits 3.5's CON mod + 3 rounds limit, or he's healed.

BBEG -- "Yes, I said, 'Cast your healing spell on the berserker!'"

lol

i like this idea in principle, but i'd hate for the barbarian to get hit by a trap in encounter 1 and burn up all his rage points reducing the front door to matchsticks...... maybe a save to voluntarily stop or a shorter timescale (maybe 3 rounds unless he takes more damage..)

we have a vampire cursed player in a 3,5 game who has to make a will save (DC damage taken) to not shift into vampire form when in combat. works quite well as a mechanic, but the penalty is social rather than burning up points...

I'd rather see a list of selectable racial traits provided in the description of each race (like the way rogue talents are part of the rogue instead of 'rogue feats'). That keeps the Feats chapter from getting bogged down in long lists of new feats. Just add one new feat that lets a character select an additional racial trait.

this sounds good in theory, i just wonder how easy it will be too balance them for feat purposes. i'd hate to see great flavour lost to efficiency choices. but definitely worth exploring.

fwiw i'd keep the halfling thown bonus (played a halfling wizard who definitely remembered it at low levels) and change the hatreds to a favoured enemy type bonus allowing backwards compatability AND customisation....

Interesting discussion everybody.

Right now, I am pretty firm on the Gnomes +2 to Cha and Con. The bonus to Cha was done specifically to match up with their fey background and obsessive nature. I think the trouble might be in the Halfling's +2 to Cha, but changing that to Int (Wis just does not fit) makes them too much like elves. This is a discussion we have had around the office more than once.

Keep the debate going however, as nothing is set in stone quite yet.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Intelligent halflings work for me - fits better than wis or cha for the roguish stereotype. although wis works for tolkeinish stay at homes hobbits, i just don't see this working for most D&D settings....

I really don't have a problem with both elves and halflings having the same stat bonus, they have different penalties and being small gives another difference.

I would be tempted to make halflings favoured classes Ranger and Rogue so that although you can have halfling wizards with the +2 stat, they're encouraged into the skill heavy classes and thats a more traditional halfling (IMO).
Halfling monks (as favoured class) does sound very interesting and the more you think about their traditional / underdog background .....

Didn't have too many issues with active and passive perception in the play-test, but the players did say they would spend points differently now they've got the hang of the skill changes and perception is always likely to be maxed out regardless of class!

because of that, and also to solve the look or touch debate (which i never really put into the alpha playtest) I would be very tempted to go for passive perception and an active investigate which would combine old fashioned search (ie find traps or secret compartments) and appraise. Keeps the number of skills down to the same level but clearly lets you decide when your going to start picking things up and shaking them! theres a recentish thread on ENworld where someone posted his houserule mods including this, and it seemed to strike a chord with many gamers

keen senses could apply to both skills as well

I'm all in favour of the +2 Cha to gnomes

we had a fey-touched gnome sorcerer in the alpha playtest and it worked really well. Sorc feels much better as a natural magic user, and you can always pick illusionist spells for the retro-feel. It also ties into the Eberron Zilargo Gnome write up which i always thought made gnomes much more interesting / scary as a race.
Personally any NPC gnome I use always has several levels of Expert for the craft skills, so that gives you the tinker feel instead of wizard levels (IMHO)

the +2 con is a little more problematic, if you are going to have a phys stat bonus you can either have dex or con, and dex means little differentiation with the halfling. which may not be a big problem and increased dex for small PC's does 'feel' right.

some of the fey based abilities mentioned above I think would work really well as Racial Feats (eg DR/cold iron, additonal SLA's / day) possibly combined with a Fey-blood PrC?
But then i like the idea of racial specific options....