Albion - My recommendation would be updating the adventures to the system your table is currently most familiar with.
It will certainly put a work on the GM for game prep; but probably less than coming up with something from square one. .
Primarily, it will just be a matter of updating just those parts that have to do with game mechanics. Swap out data blocks for the same or compatible monsters etc.; Figure out CR appropriate traps, spells, etc.
All the the non-mechanic parts can be used pretty much as is. The locations, environment, NPCs, plots/sub-plots, puzzles, and narrative bits, can all still provide the group the ability to experience the classic adventure.
Plus, this will give the GM the ability to even edit parts to put their own style on the module. And even expand it. Quite a few of even the classic well-loved adventures were a bit thin by today's standards.
Lots of room the fill in the empty spaces. Most of us who ran those classics in the past did that anyway. That's why a player could go through a module multiple times (with different DMs), and have a very different experience each time.
Overall, I believe it will be easier to do that, than have everyone learn a rules set they are not familiar with.
My group has some experience with this. We changes systems periodically. And depending on who is running, we could be playing Pathfinder, D20 Modern/Future, Star Wars, Traveller, or a World of Darkness game.
Even with the advantage of the group all being long-in-the-tooth gamers, and knowing all these rules sets pretty well, it is STILL not uncommon for us to mix something up rules-wise from time to time.
However you choose to proceed, I wish you luck. Hope all involved have some great adventures you can still reminisce about years from now.
Those are always the best ones; whether from a classic module, or home brewed campaign.
When is it OK for a GM to declare an action impossible?
Actually, the answer to this is pretty simple:
*When the action is impossible*
Not trying to be snarky or anything. But nothing obligates a GM to allow a roll for an impossible attempt at something. If the GM knows that it is impossible - well then, it's impossible.
For the clearly futile, I would straight up tell the player, that the PC realizes the attempt could never succeed.
"No, you're heavily encumbered, level one character, with no magic and a 10 strength, knows that they can't broad jump over the 40 foot city wall."
And if there are reasons a PC might NOT know it's impossible, then maybe allow for an ability check, or maybe a relevant skill check, to realize it.
The task remains impossible - it's just to give them a chance to realize that, so they don't so something foolish or waste time.
Spell Compendium (3.5) had one. You or GM can edit/update for your use if desired. In particular, I would consider this a level 1 spell rather than 0.
Below, as written in 3.5 Spell Compendium:
AMANUENSIS
Transmutation
Level: Cleric 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: Object or objects with writing
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)
You point at the writing and then move your hand as though holding a stylus or quill. As you intone the spell, the script appears on a sheet of paper close at hand.
You cause writing from one source (such as a book) to be copied into a
book, paper, or parchment. This spell copies 250 words per minute and creates a perfect duplicate of the original.
The spell copies only nonmagical text, not illustrations or magical writings (such as the text of a spellbook, a spell scroll, or a sepia snake sigil).
If the target contains normal and magical writing (such as a letter with explosive runes), only the normal text is copied, leaving blank space in the copied text where the magical writing would be expected.
Likewise, if the target contains text and illustration, only the text is copied.
The spell triggers (but does not copy) writing-based magic traps in the material being copied.
Blank paper, parchment, or a book must be provided for the spell to write upon. If the target has multiple pages, the spell automatically turns to the next blank page whenever necessary. If more pages in the target exist than blank pages are available, the spell copies the
original until it runs out of blank pages.
At any time during the spell’s duration you can redirect the magic to copy from another target, copy onto a different blank source, or resume a duplication that was interrupted by a shortfall of blank pages.
The spell does not translate the copied writing. If you do not understand the original, you have no additional ability to understand the copy.
I give full hit points for low level (1st-2nd) beginning characters to start with.
After that, the player has the option of rolling the die, or taking 1/2HD+1 by default when they advance.
If they choose to roll, they have to accept the result.
Since people are also posting about stats, I usually use point-buy. Mainly just to keep the player characters on par with each other, and prevent big differences because of good/bad luck.
For rolling though, I've always liked 2d6+6 (arrange as desired). it gives a 8-18 range (13 average). Being the heroes, with many challenges ahead, I think it's OK for them to be a bit faster/smarter/stronger than the typical townsfolk.
I was thinking more belt of many pockets pocket which is a sort of belt based bag of holding system.
Do you mean putting a bag of holding inside of another extra-dimensional space like a belt of many pockets?
Most everything depends on GM rulings there.
It could work if:
GM considers bag of holding as some nice silk (thin) material, which (being a masterwork item) is do-able. Plus, that the bag always appears empty (is flat); plus that when folded up, it's small enough to pass into the mouth of the pocket.
But most importantly, what the GM thinks about stacking inter-dimensional spaces. Rules specify bags vs. portable holes, but I know many GMs (myself included) that have expanded and filled in the blank spots on how such things work in their worlds. Almost without exception, GMs that I've known, put dimension-stacking into the 'bad-idea' category. Be wary.
(For instance, my players found out that climbing up into a 'rope-trick' space, carrying extra-dimensional items is definitely a "bad idea".)
Biggest is using most of the changes involving the "Feat Tax Relief".
Highlights:
My Changes:
**I use most of the changes proposed by Michael Iantoro to reduce the cumbersome feat taxes in Pathfinder. http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/
Keep in mind the above changes are a huge buff for characters.
Most of my other changes nerf things a bit, but I think they make sense, and balance things out overall.
**On a confirmed critical hit, the base weapon damage is max by default. The extra dice from the critical, and any bonus damage, are still rolled as normal. This way you get at least full normal damage for your attack.
(Max total damage is a common house rule, but I think that's too much. I'm also a big supporter of confirming criticals - reasons available on request)
**Feats taken for specific weapons (like focus or specialization) apply to any weapon in it's weapon group (see Fighter's Advanced Weapon Training for groups), as long as character otherwise meets prerequisite for the weapon. (So just because an exotic weapon is in group you have focus for, you wouldn't gain benefit of weapon focus if you weren't proficient in it).
**From Unchained: I use Signature Skill unlocks and the unchained versions of those classes.
**Divine Casters: I always though it was overpowered that certain divine casters could prepare from their ENTIRE class list. So cleric, druid, etc., are treated like wizards for the number of spells they start with and can learn/have access to. Use Wisdom or whatever their spell-casting key ability is.
They don't have a physical 'spellbook' they need to use or prepare from, but player will keep track of the spell repertoire they can prepare from. They can add/learn to their list available the same way a wizard does by expending time, resources and making rolls. Spontaneous spells for the class (like cures or summon nature's ally) are automatically accessible and don't count against their number available.
**This only changes things for 'full list' casters. Divine casters that already have a limited list of "know spells" aren't effected by this.
Languages: Speaking and being literate in a language are gained separately. Character speaks the starting languages for their race, but are only literate in their primary racial tongue. INT bonus can be used to read/write starting languages or to add speaking OR literacy in another available to them. In the same way, each Linguistics rank allows either speaking OR literacy in a new language.
Leadership Feat is gone. Cohorts and followers are gained through game-play. Numbers and level are not dependent on character's level.
Endurance doesn't allow sleeping in armor without fatigue. Sleeping in any armor with a effective -3 armor check penalty or worse, will be fatigued/un-rested when they wake.
Armor training, masterwork/magic armor and other effects that bring armor check penalties down, will mitigate this.
Encumbrance: I apply an additional 5ft movement penalty for heavy armor/loads. (Otherwise there is little difference between medium & heavy encumbrance).
*Weapons:
Norm: A masterwork weapon provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.
House Rule Addition: Masterwork weapons also add a +1 equipment bonus to use, or defend against, relevant combat maneuvers.
*Armor:
Norm: Masterwork armor has its armor check penalty lessened by 1.
House Rule Addition: Masterwork armor also has its spell failure chance reduced by 5%.
Changes to Masterwork Weapon/Armor Costs:
It shouldn't cost exact same to masterwork a dagger and a greatsword.
Same thoughts for armor/shields, so:
*Weapon cost is cumulative: A one-handed, martial weapon will cost an additional 200gp.
*Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal amount.
Injury & Death:
**Wounded** status: If you have less than half of your total HP, you are 'wounded' and suffer a -2 penalty on all die rolls. Same for enemies.
*If you have a Con bonus, you are not "Dying" until your negative HP total exceeds you con bonus. You are 'dead-deceased-done for at negative HP equal to Con score.
example: 15 CON (+2 bonus) is disabled at 0 HP down to -2 HP; and are 'dying' at -3 HP or lower. Dead at -15 as normal.
** I also tweaked added or deleted some things for some feats and skills. Plus a few minor changes, and my own character generation method. But the above cover most of it. The Feat Tax thing changes a LOT.
Still with PF1, although the campaign I run is currently on hiatus, while we play-test one of our guys' steampunk D20 variant game.
I don't anticipate switching to PF2 though. There are changes I like, and some I don't. But, not enough of the former, to warrant investment in a another RPG game honestly.
I saw a good number of the newer PF2 rules first presented as optional ones in 'Unchained', and also in Starfinder.
While there were plenty of good ideas there, none grabbed me as essential to incorporate then. So, when it came time to consider picking up PF2, it just wasn't compelling enough for me.
I decided to stick with PF1, where I had already sunk a great deal of time, effort and treasure ($$).
Plus, part of the reason Pathfinder appealed to me initially (as a past hold-out in NOT buying D&D4E), was compatibility with 3.5 material, of which I own a ponderous amount.
A new system can be great for new players to the hobby, but for us long-in-the-tooth relics with mountains of previous materials, switching to a new mechanic is often trumped by "if it ain't broke....."
Plus, I run a home-brew campaign based in the Forgotten Realms, although on a separate (custom) continent than the main setting. But, given the setting I use, you can imagine I've also converted and incorporated a lot of 3.5 material already. So, that's another reason I'm reluctant to pull up anchor for a new game, seeing as how much I love and enjoy where I am already.
I'm hoping that Paizo will consider that, and be willing to continue supporting PF1. I suspect there will still be a good number of us for a while yet, and I'd certainly continue to be a loyal customer if they do.
The owner of the local games/comic shop (and long time friend) suggested it.
He knew I was a 3.5 player, and that I was not interested in 4th edition.
He let me know that Paizo re-vamped 3.5, and that the vast library of game materials I had for that, was essentially usable with a little editing.
That was a big draw for me, as I had spent a small fortune on 3.0/3.5 materials, and I quite liked the game system.
Been a PF player/GM ever since.
BTW
I think 4th Ed. was a well done game for a lot of reasons. But it didn't grab me for a role-playing game. I saw it as more of a successor to the miniatures battle-mat type rules than D&D.
It was streamlined, accessible, and great for that. But, seemed too much like a tabletop version of a computer MMORPG rules system for my tastes.
I like more of a blank canvas with endless possibilities, and 4th Ed. seemed like more of a modular paint-by-numbers exercise to me.
Not bad mind you, just not what I was looking for as a main RPG game.
That was a shame though. Been playing D&D since 1977 (yeah, I'm old, I know), and that was the only version I didn't buy up until then.
And even though I haven't gotten 5th edition for myself, my now college-age daughter has dived into that pretty heavily with her friends.
She has become quite the successful DM, so plenty of 5E stuff around the house as well.
Been lots of fun with her using me as a resource for decades of DM experience. My favorite, was when she was preparing to run 5E Strahd campaign, and asked if I had any old materials.
Quite the surprised face, when I pulled out stacks of everything 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition, plus the Ravenloft campaign settings. She had lots of material to convert and use.
I don't recall coming across RAW on the OP's question specifically.
Although honestly, I've never made a dedicated search.
Everything below is my own interpretation. I don't make any bold claims that it's the 'right' or 'legal' way to do it. Take it or leave it as you will.
As in a lot of things, the GM is probably going have to make the call on how it works.
The way I've always played/adjudicated it, is that the bag would generally appear as full as it normally would, based on how much of it's capacity was been used.
If half of the bag's (magic) capacity was being currently used, it would look and take up as much space, as a normal 2x4 ft. bag would if half-full, etc.
The 'putting it a my pocket' scenario, probably wouldn't work in any case. Even empty, a 2x4 ft. cloth sack would still take up more space than a typical pocket. Remember, it's cloth in a default fantasy/medieval setting. Not Mylar, nylon, or thin (modern) cotton cloth.
A sack, which needs to be strong enough not to tear under normal use, is probably as thick/strong as burlap or something similar.
Could a peasant fold up his burlap shirt and store it in his pocket? I'd say not likely.
As far as what could physically be put in a bag, I'd use common sense, and a little geometry.
Formed into a circle, the opening would have a diameter of slightly less than 16 inches. You could pull the mouth into more of an oval to get wider for one dimension of the object, but the maximum width would be 24 inches, for something thin like a framed painting or mirror to slip in.
So, for example, a shield at least 2 ft. wide on two sides, would not be able to be put in the bag.
Personally, I prefer the point buy system. If only to avoid crazy disparities between player characters. Level playing field to start and all that.
For strictly 3D6 stat rolling, I've had success with either of the following variants, which mitigate the largest player-fear for that method: 2 or more awful rolls that hamstring a character (at least in their eyes).
Variant #1
After the die results are recorded, a player can raise a stat 1 point (or more), by reducing a HIGHER value stat by the same amount.
It's important to take from a stat that is higher, which incrementally averages them out (rather than letting a player boost a high stat even higher, by dumping another).
Variant #2
One of the 3 dice is not rolled, and is assumed to be a 6. (Roll 2d6+6).
This give a range of 8-18, with a bell curve average of 13.
It's admittedly a buff from the 10-11 average on a straight 3d6 roll. But since player characters (usually) are to be the heroes of the campaign, I don't see harm if they start out a little smarter-faster-stronger than the average peasant.
No matter the method; my opinion on whether the numbers are "in order", or "arranged", depends on the expected game/campaign.
**For shorter adventures or one-shots, it's fine to require "in-order". Players may be guided/forced to play race/class more suited to the rolls, and try something new they might not have otherwise.
**If a long term campaign is planned, then most players likely have an idea of the type of character they want to play. Given this will be a long-term investment, I would allow arranging as desired, to fit their preferred character concept
Actually, we had a pretty good run with an odd party, back in 3rd edition (Forgotten Realms).
The characters were all members of underdark races, who were cast out of their respective societies for various reasons. Mostly involving being more neutral than evil, and therefore insane by our communities' standards. They banded together to try their hand at adventuring on the surface.
A Duergar Fighter; a Svirfneblin Arcane Trickster (me); a Half-drow Caster (think she was a mind-mage); a Skulk Rogue; an Orog (great orc) Cleric; a Half-Ogre Barbarian; and a Stonechild Ranger.
Being more or less outcasts above or below the surface, overcoming the light of the sun, and often needing to disguise ourselves was pretty challenging. But we had a great time over a long campaign, and came away with lots of good times and stories.
They could travel the countryside, using such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to their deity, and nice red uniforms!!
Give them all high initiative and stealth, an nobody would see them them coming.
The two most popular, seem to be either Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.
I've looked into both, and suggest you do the same.
My group currently uses Roll 20, and it's worked fine for us overall. But I also like a lot of what I see in Fantasy Grounds, and want to use that eventually.
It seems to me, Roll20 is pretty accessible and quick to learn. Some complain about connectivity though (about 1 in 5 of our sessions are plagued with repeated drop-outs). But it has a few feature F-G doesn't, like the dynamic lighting.
However, F-G plans to incorporate those features pretty soon.
Fantasy Grounds seem much more detailed, and in-depth. The learning curve is higher, but it has some pretty amazing features, with a lot of expansion plans.
Roll20 has a chat feature currently, but again, the sometimes spotty connectivity screws that up. For either system, you might be better off using G hangouts, or some other means for communication.
They also have different pricing, both for service/subscription options, and for add-ones (like game system rules sets, tokens, etc). Check out both to learn the differences.
I think either of these would be a fine choice. Just look into both thoroughly to figure out which will suit your needs now, and in the future.
There are some long-time users on YouTube, most using both, that have done some useful comparison videos. And tutorials, once you've decided on one.
Nothing comes to mind off top of my head.
It would be easy enough to write up though. A helmet with a permanent Dominate Person effect.
A lot of possibilities also exist, just using the rules for intelligent magic items. A strong enough item could cause some battles for control with the wearer.
And it would probably be a surprise to the players, since for some reason, not many groups use intelligence for magic item, other than for weapons.
Valid points ShroudedInLight.
Which is why I said being close or on WBL for APs is recommended.
The encounter difficulties are set (barring GM edits) and ignoring certain assumptions as to what a party is bringing to the table can be a problem.
In original or homebrew campaigns however, it's all up to GM.
And the GM prep is (if done right) going to take in to account what the party has and can pull off.
I judge CR to ALSO be a very loose guideline, and select challenges based on the party's abilities & resources.
Building encounters/challenges, I start first with looking at the party.
I select the monsters or difficulty, based on the PCs' level/abilities/math and how difficult I want it to be for them.
Half of my encounter building is running the numbers.
If a monster's AC is 'x', how often will the PCs hit based on average die rolls. How many hits will it take to kill. How often will the monster hit them, and for how much damage.
If it has a poison bite or breath weapon, what's the PCs' saves look like. etc....
OK, that CR6 beast has a feature they can't overcome, so I'll use these CR4 monsters, and add difficulty by increasing numbers, or some environmental hazards. Or maybe the CR6 monster with the 'young' template is do-able. And so on.
As for treasure: What do I plan to throw at them next outing? Let's make sure they acquire enough wealth or items on this adventure, so that they (at a minimum) should be able to get together what's absolutely necessary for future obstacles.
I've never seen the Core7 as being indispensable. At least not with home-brew campaigns. If the characters don't have a chance without them, then the GM isn't crafting their adventures correctly.
Again, printed adventures skew towards higher power levels and assumptions, so the Core7 and WBL become more necessary in those cases.
One of my favorites (I have many), is a Svirfneblin Arcane Trickster by the name of Trevian.
Pretty much cast out of his home for being somewhat up-beat (deemed insane by Svirfneblin standards), he disguises himself as a gnome while adventuring on the surface.
His defining characteristic, is that he is a consummate schemer.
It's an obsession with him. The problem, is his ideas are (without fail), ridiculously complicated.
He forms 18 part, multidimensional plans, requiring days/weeks, using completely unnecessary levels of resources, and dozens of things to go right at exactly the right time.
What was awesome, was that for most of my adventuring with him, he had his comedic straight-man in the party (a player with a Duergar fighter).
The two of us played off each other hilariously.
(btw: the party members were all outcasts from underdark races, trying to make it on the surface)
Example: In tavern and see someone that we know has a bounty on their head.
In short order, Trevian has this convoluted plan, that includes breaking into a merchant guild house, stealing goods, planting it in a guardhouse, blackmailing a guard with being framed, hiring prostitutes, acquiring materials to disguise a donkey as a hellhound, bribing a town crier to report 3 different stories in 6 different city sectors, arranging for church bells and alarm bells to ring in a specific order at specific times, planning a fake wedding reception (including delivering all the invitations), getting a hold of the personal seal of a local noble, and cornering the market on apples for some reason.
***To which the fighter says, "......orrrrrrrrr... we could just wait outside and hit 'im over th' head, when he goes to use the loo."
At which Trevian lets out a heavy, disappointed sigh; Thoroughly demoralized at his friend's lack of vision.
I generally don't give as much as the WBL table expects.....
Boss fights are usually pretty much on 'standard' target.
Non-boss fights around 50% of standard.
Though I tend to throw in some extra consumables. Partially charged wands. Scrolls of odd spells. Equipment of special materials. Etc..
I'm pretty much with ElterAgo on this one. The WBL table assumes a 'high fantasy - magic rich' setting, and is pretty generous in my opinion.
I tend to run less-than-average magic levels, and slower character progression, than pathfinder rules assume.
I also typically GM long-running campaigns, not one-shots and short adventures. I've found that with high wealth levels, magic and progression, characters get too powerful, too fast. There's no time for them to really use and explore new abilities/spells/feats before they move on the the next.
And by reigning in the power levels to a slower pace, I don't lose the opportunity to throw interesting encounters/monsters their way, before the party's power level climbs out of range.
A hazard of having high wealth/magic, is it becomes a crutch to solve problems, instead of using ingenuity and good decision making.
I came to my current style of play, after seeing too many parties basically become just vehicles for their magic items to travel the world solving problems.
Bottom line, is for Adventure Paths, you may have to stick relatively close to the WBL chart, as the challenges in the AP will assume a certain power/wealth level. You don't want the party to be too far off (high or low) than the AP's assumptions.
For home-brew, or original campaigns, you can throw out the WBL.
You'll have to figure out how much to hand out as rewards based on your plans for the campaign. Whether it's gritty/struggling, or high fantasy and rolling in coin, will be up to you and the style you're going for.
But I would suggest starting on the low side. It's always easier to become more generous later as needed, that be stuck with an over-powered party that can walk through your challenges unscathed.
As a GM:
Obviously can (and do) scale the challenges, so that a TPK is highly unlikely. At least for long running campaigns, where players are heavily invested in their character(s). A serious beat-down that stops short of a TPK can be just as dramatic and exciting, as permanent death-all-around.
Luckily, my group also consists of mostly old-timers (self included), with multiple decades of gaming each. So they are both unlikely to foolishly get themselves into such a scenario; and if it should happen, are mature enough to handle it, and move on with new characters/campaign, etc.
As a player:
One of my favorite games involved a TPK. No, really.
We had an excellent DM, famous for his creativity, and ability to spontaneously come up with things that should take weeks to prepare.
We had a moderate length campaign going (Forgotten Realms), with Chaotic Neutral/Chaotic Good party. Primarily humans and half-elves, who styled themselves as freedom-fighters. Many great adventures freeing slaves and the oppressed, and toppling tyrants. Real fanatics on the whole individual liberty and freedom thing.
Well, through some bad decisions, and worse die rolling, a TPK happened when we were around 12-13th level. Expecting to roll up new characters, Tony (DM), instead starts to describe in detail, the part of the plane of Arborea that we end up on.
Yes, he actually (on the fly) continued the campaign, with us as new petitioners in the after-life. It was very entertaining.
Well, at least until we got kicked out.
Yeah - funny story.
Turns out, that the afterlife had a lot of rules. Which didn't sit well with out freedom loving PCs. So eventually the powers-that-be (mostly servants of Tymora), got tired of our "rebelliousness" and they sent us back.
They true-res'ed the lot of us, and dumped us back on the material plane.
Then, spread out over the next few adventures, we kept getting enticed by other faiths to convert. Eventually noticed that even those of our faith (including priests and church leaders), didn't seem to be opposed to it.
Turns out, some of those beings in Arborea were pulling strings to try to have us change faiths, so that we wouldn't end up back there again.
Good times.
Moral of the story: If the GM is up to the challenge, a TPK doesn't have to be an end at all. Just move the campaign to the outer planes.
Or you could just roll 3D6, put the results where you want them, add or subtract racial modifiers, and not be a whiny little twerp because you didn't end up with nothing but 18's in every ability score.
Amen brother.
I sense another long-in-the-tooth gamer, who remembers when the game could be brutal.
I was talking D&D with a younger player a little while back, who went white as a sheet, when I informed them that vampires and some monsters used to take levels!
Yes-plural.
Yes-permanent.
No-not 'negative level' modifiers - Start erasing XP off your sheet there buddy.
**It was fun to watch the panic on his face at the thought.
But seriously. I tend towards point-buy. For no other reason than to avoid large disparities between players.
One of the alternatives a friend had that I liked, was 2d6+6 for each stat.
It gives a range of 8-18; with a bell-curve average of 13.
Like most of the responses, I also look more towards milestones, than a particular number of sessions.
I use both XP and milestones. I award XP for each session, including many awards for things other than combat encounters.
Gaining a level (as soon as the XP amount dictates) isn't automatic. I'll often wait for an appropriate time (milestone) in the adventure. Usually, it ends up being during 'down-time' back at the party's 'base' or back in a town/settlement.
For example, I have a game I run, where the party has more than enough XP to level up. The party is making their way back to a city to re-supply, unload some loot, and research clues they discovered during the mission. During that, is when the level will be added.
Having the characters spend time to visit the temple (cleric), do some research (arcane caster), visit armorer/weapon smith for new equipment and practice with it (martials), seems appropriate as part of gaining a level. (rather than it happening out in the wilderness/dungeon etc.)
Overall, I tend towards slower than average progression. I want players to learn and get used to using what their recent level added to the character (new abilities, spells, skills, feats, etc.) before jumping to the next one. Give them a chance to make it part of their character development and story.
"Well, my cohort just reached level six. Hey, he should take Leadership too, and get a cohort himself! Wait...." *begin breakage*
Don't plant those seeds man... nothing good will come of it.
Been there, done that.
Years ago, I was a player in a long-running game. The GM was a bit of a hard-ass (especially with his house-rules), and even though everyone but him agreed that I had earned (through role-playing) the devotion of several NPCs, the DM would not allow me to consider them followers. Leadership was mandatory to have ANY, in his opinion.
Having these followers would have in no way afforded me great power or anything. It was basically thematic, and would have been cool for the story. The character was a cleric, and they would have essentially been my 'flock'.
He explained how he ran the leadership feat, and (being an experienced/salty player at the time), I saw some pretty juicy exploitable opportunities.
Did I mention, we were 15th level?
So, in full compliance with his rules, I took the leadership feat and put together my now 'legal' followers.
Got myself a cohort (14th level)----with leadership, who had himself a cohort, and so on, and so on. And all the while, the followers were adding up as well.
Keep in mind, that at higher levels (in his rules), even some of the followers are high enough to take leadership too.
I spent a great deal of time compiling the 'holy army', and presented it to him at the next game.
I like the solution used by some of our local PFS GMs : initiative tracking cards which also include AC, saving throws, save modifiers, perception, sense motive, and other useful things. Then the GM can take a quick glance at your card.....
As a GM, this is the solution I've always used.
I keep a 'cheat sheet' of character info, including saves and often-used skill levels, and any conditional modifiers. This way, if it should be a 'secret roll' for character knowledge or story reasons, I can avoid the player getting info I'd rather they didn't have.
It's fairly common for me to ask a player for nothing more than a d20 roll, and I apply their relevant modifier; (Such as checking if they notice someone following them in town. Asking specifically for a perception roll, would kind of clue them in that something is around they could/should/want to notice.)
I believe GM's should also take such things into account during game prep. If I plan on having poison-using enemies or undead in an upcoming game, it's not all that hard to check the character sheets, so I know ahead of time what modifiers or special abilities might come into play.
For example, noting a player's rogue has 'trap spotter' when preparing for their assault on a location that will have traps in place.
It's extra work for the GM, but helps for atmosphere quite a bit.
The work load can be managed if you keep to only using it when it would make a worthwhile difference.
In the original example, I would probably go ahead and ask for a fortitude save vs. poison. I would expect there to be indicators of venom in the wound, or possibly someone failing and getting poisoned during the fight. So in that case, finding out about an enemies' poison attack wouldn't exactly be game-breaking
This pair of empty coconut shells, when banged together for a full round action, casts a mount spell. (6 hour duration)
They can be used twice per day.
I have a mundane silly item, that has become a running joke in my group.
When out-fitting for an adventure, my character always goes out of his way to make sure to get an eleven foot pole.
"No, no no, good merchant. This selection will just not do. Not do at all." "I need an eleven foot pole. Not ten. E-l-e-v-e-n."
While it seems silly on the surface, the reasons for insisting on it (other than humorous role-playing), are sound ones.
A large number of traps (that the pole may trip) have a 10 ft. radius.
A large number of pits are 10 ft. across. (the pole can now span that, and not fall in).
Easier to use, when vaulting 10 ft. walls.
Ten feet, is a common distance in the game.
Having those extra inches comes in handy. (giggety)
I don't know if it qualifies as "silly", but I received a very 'quirky' weapon in a game a long-long time ago.
After a tough fight, my high level fighter found a magic sword.
A +4 sword of sharpness (game was 1st edition). Pretty awesome.
The sword turned out to also be intelligent and could speak (audibly).
It was also an abject coward.
Whenever I tried to use it, I had to win a test of wills against it's ego. If I didn't win, it refused to let me unsheathe it, or tried to twist itself from my grasp the whole fight.
Either way, it loudly protested any thought of being used in a fight.
"Aaagh!!! What are you doing?! Run away!! You're not sticking me in THAT thing! That's disgusting! Help! Anybody! This murderous thug is trying to get me killed!!!"
You get the picture.
So, our respective Ego/Will scores meant that on average, the sword would win about 20% of the time. But since (when I was in control) it was so dang useful, I couldn't bring myself to part with it.
The rest party wanted me to get rid of it, though. Mainly because, even if I had control, its protests and screams tended to attract more monsters.
I've never understood the whole 'poison = evil' maxim.
I know it's been around since the first days of D&D paladins, but I've never agreed with it.
So, (assuming the foe is evil and needs to die), killing someone by sticking a sword through it's chest is fine and dandy.
But if you use a plant extract to to the same thing, in the same situation, the paladin risks falling?
Doesn't make sense to me.
I believe it relies too much on the trope, that poison is the tool of assassins and murderers. My interpretation (usually the DM/GM), has always been that the circumstances of the act, not the means, are what determines if it is evil.
Use poison to more effectively take down evil humanoids that are murdering innocent villagers? No problem.
Use poison to assassinate the governor of a city-state, in order to rise to power and take the throne? Paladin has got problems.
But that would would be the case, whether they used melee weapons, spells, siege weapons or arrows.
IMO, it is the characters' ACTIONS and MOTIVES that are judged to be evil or not.
The tools they use to commit the act are of little importance.
That's how I've always judged it.
BTW: Fastest fall I did see, was result of a little bit of DM sneakiness on my part. It took 2 encounters.
The paladin & friends came upon a large, intimidating orc (home-brew 1st edition version of uruk-hai at the time) guarding a bridge. It was well equipped and wearing armor emblazoned with the holy symbol of the paladin's faith.
Assuming the uruk-hai had murdered a fellow warrior of the faith, he immediately attacked and killed the uruk-hai. No words,no quarter, no mercy. He dismembered the body, relieved himself on the remains, and adorned the tip of his lance with the head.
Crossing the bridge, the party arrived at a village not far down the road. A roar of outrage went up from the villagers at seeing his grisly trophy, and they advanced, all torch-and-pitchfork-style on the paladin.
Defending himself against the obviously evil minions of his foe, slaughter was doled out in abundance.
No. The paladin never bother to speak to anyone. Nor did he attempt at any point to detect evil.
The player basically ran a murder-hobo. Although he was up until then, keeping it aimed at monsters, and perceived enemies of his faith.
And as you might have guessed early on, the (redeemed and good-aligned) uruk-hai was indeed wearing his own armor, made for him in gratitude by the village, for his stalwart protection over the years.
Basically re-posting my own opinion from another thread on the same theme:
I have had this discussion with fellow players multiple times, and are strongly opposed to it.
The Critical confirmation roll is absolutely necessary IMO.
Normally, a natural 20 always counts as a hit.
Even if, mathematically, an attacker could not score a hit otherwise, such as having a total +3 attack bonus vs. an AC of 28.
The 20 being a hit allows for those "lucky shots" and general fog of war events, where anything is possible.
All good.
With the confirmation roll being required, an attackers chance of scoring a critical, (by being able to roll confirmation high enough for a regular hit) increases with their attack bonus. This makes very logical sense.
Now, if you make a natural 20, not ONLY a successful hit, but automatically a critical one as well, then all those less capable opponents who would not normally have a prayer of scoring a hit (other than the occasional lucky '20'), now get a critical hit EVERY time they roll that 20.
Only blind luck can give them a hit, but it's always a critical?
Under that system, the low CR, zero-level mook, and the 15th level highly trained/experienced fighter, both have EXACTLY the same chance of scoring a critical. Even against creatures that are waaaayyyyy out of the mook's league.
Mature Dragon? Well, the farmer with pitchfork has same chance of a critical hit, as does the mythic cavalier.
Another major effect having all 20's be critical, is you have just given every feat, spell, and ability that enhances critical hits, a MAJOR buff. (including any possessed by the party's enemies)
Weapons & feats that increase 'threat range' would also become OP.
If I were a player under that system, I would be stacking up on all those critical feats and better threat-range weapons, like there's no tomorrow.
While the example I state, uses combatants of very different power levels, the same principle applies to enemies closer in level. Confirming criticals, means an attacker has a higher chance of making a critical hit, the more skilled they are.
If you want to be generous, the only thing I would personally do, is give the mook a critical if they roll a 20 again on the confirmation (even if that attack roll still wouldn't hit). Hey, two 20's in a row is dang-near impossible, so why not?
Note:
I use the term mook for convenience, to represent a mathematically-challenged attacker, who has little or no chance to otherwise score a hit against an opponent.
No insult is intended for anyone who self-identifies as a mook.
For fumbles, I use the same system above, and for the same reasons.
A much higher skilled attacker should have less of a chance of fumbling an attack.
I play that, on a natural 1, it is definitely a miss. Even if a 1 on an attack roll would still mathematically be enough to score a hit.
I then have a fumble confirmation roll, and if that result would be a miss, then a fumble occurs.
I have my own list of fumble effects, roughly based on how 'much' they fall short on the fumble confirmation. At a minimum, it ends their turn, and goes up from there.
Honestly, I mostly wing it on effects, so that I can choose results that make sense, whether it be slipping prone (in difficult terrain), of losing a weapon (fighting in the rain), etc.
Again, the severity is based on how bad the fumble confirmation missed.
I don't believe these confirmation rolls are much of a burden, if at all. They only come up if a 1 or 20 is rolled; and you've just figured out all the attack bonuses and what's needed to hit, so how much effort is it to toss the die one more time?
I respectfully disagree with the OP's sentiment, that it kills the joy of rolling that nat-20. The potential excitement just moves to the confirmation roll.
If the characters can differ via archetypes, then there are a lot of classes that could work.
The idea of a party of Inquisitors REALLY made me smile when I saw it above.
Think about it....They could travel the countryside, using fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, fanatical devotion to their deity, and nice red uniforms...
Your ideas are good, if my own suggestions need to be enforced, if those are indeed the issues (and aren't being worked on enough).
I would however disagree with rolling all attack dice at once. At least not always.
When you take multiple attacks ( i.e. full attack), great cleave, and threatening multiple opponents into a account, it can muck things up a bit.
Which rolls were for which target, etc? Before, during or after spring attack? If one is a fumble (I use them), and they lose further attack rolls, which roll in the series was the nat-1?
It's actually a pet peeve of mine, since it grates on me when a player rolls 3 or 4 attack dice, and only one hit was necessary for the first target to be killed, etc.;
then they want to spread things out or change the order of actions after the fact.
If they do roll all at once, I just apply all to the first target only, even if they go down on one die result. I take it as their intention to only swing/fire at that target and nothing else.
"Well, guess you hacked the body up just to make sure...who's next in initiative?"
For speeding up combat to eat up less time, I would ask first, what you believe is making those combats take so long?
The house rules you propose don't seem to me, to have the potential to shave off a lot of time by themselves.
Do you have some insight as to what is dragging out combat?
To figure out what to fix, properly identifying the major causes is needed.
The two major cause I've come across for such delays, (my experience, not necessarily your group) are:
* GM/Players not knowing enough about the rules/characters. Anyone having to look up things in the middle of combat (regular stuff, not uncommon ones), can grind things down pretty badly. A Gm can always familiar themselves better, to quicken things. And the players should absolutely know what their characters can do, and how their abilities, feat, spells work.
* The other big factor I've seen, is religiously using maps/minis. Certainly, they can be a major, positive addition to the game. But, setting up and moving all those pieces, maybe when it wasn't entirely necessary, slows things as well. If you can get away without them for certain encounters, or figure out ways to streamline, that can help too.
If neither of those apply in your case, what are your observations?
This is the most awesome thread that has ever existed on these boards.
I don't know Zhayne.
I think the 'grappling a succubus' thread that never goes away forever, is a hard-to-beat contender.
I'll be commenting on that thread, just to bring it up in the posts for you.
:)
For fumbles, I use the same system above, and for the same reasons.
A much higher skilled attacker should have less of a chance of fumbling an attack.
I play that, on a natural 1, it is definitely a miss. Even if a 1 on an attack roll would still mathematically be enough to score a hit.
I then have a fumble confirmation roll, and if that result would be a miss, then a fumble occurs.
I have my own list of fumble effects, roughly based on how 'much' they fall short on the fumble confirmation. At a minimum, it ends their turn, and goes up from there.
Honestly, I mostly wing it on effects, so that I can choose results that make sense, whether it be slipping prone (in difficult terrain), of losing a weapon (fighting in the rain), etc.
Again, the severity is based on how bad the fumble confirmation missed.
I have had this discussion with fellow players multiple times, and are strongly opposed to it.
The Critical confirmation roll is absolutely necessary IMO.
A natural 20 always counts as a hit.
Even if, mathematically, an attacker could not score a hit otherwise, such as having a total +3 attack bonus vs. an AC of 28.
The 20 being a hit allows for those "lucky shots" and general fog of war events, where anything is possible.
All good.
Now, if you make a natural 20, not ONLY a successful hit, but automatically a critical one as well, then all those less capable opponents who would not normally have a prayer of scoring a hit (other than the occasional lucky '20'), now get a critical hit EVERY time they roll that 20.
Only blind luck can give them a hit, but it's always a critical?
Under that system, the 1/4 CR zero level mook, and the 15th level highly trained/experienced fighter, both have EXACTLY the same chance of scoring a critical. Even against creatures that are waaaayyyyy out of the mook's league.
Mature Dragon? Well, the farmer with pitchfork has same chance of a critical hit, as does the mythic cavalier.
With the confirmation roll, an attackers chance of scoring a critical, (by being able to roll confirmation high enough for a regular hit) increases with their attack bonus. This makes very logical sense.
If you want to be generous, the only thing I would personally do, is give the mook a critical if they roll a 20 again on the confirmation (even if that attack roll still wouldn't hit). Hey, two 20's in a row is dang-near impossible, so why not?
Note:
I use the term mook for convenience, to represent a mathematically-challenged attacker, who has little or no chance to otherwise score a hit against an opponent.
No insult is intended for anyone who self-identifies as a mook.
Our D&D and Pathfinder games have always been home-brew. Usually, I ran the game, and the pace at which the party levels up has varied over the years.
General, I believe it is something that should be discussed at the beginning of a campaign, so it doesn't differ too much from everyone's expectations.
For a relatively short adventure, which will happen over a several game sessions, advancement might be fairly quick.
Since the campaign has a finite length, players and GM might want to see a character progress fast in order to get in as much playing with various class abilities, spells, etc.
For a long-running campaign (and we've had several that lasted years), you might be better off with a slower progression. In those types of games, we've found that character development, and working through various plots and stories were more important than the crunchy bits from leveling up.
In either case, it's certainly in the control of the GM how fast or slow the progression is. They could use the way-point method (no XP) to pace it properly; fast-med-slow XP charts, or just adjust the amount and difficulty of a sessions' challenges during preparation.
Since it's obvious player tastes can vary as far as speed for leveling up; I think it's most important to figure out everyone's expectations, both GM and player alike. Whether a one-sort, a multi-session adventure, or long-running campaign, the goal is to have everyone enjoy themselves. So, do what you can at the beginning, so no one gets disillusioned part way in, and ends up dissatisfied.
A good GM can set the pace using plenty of tools. As long as everyone understands what that pace is going in, you should be in good shape.
Thanks for your input I have asked him but he feels like he doesn't have to explain it to his players.....
Ummmm...I find that response VERY problematic.
My first thought followed other posters here.
Maybe it conflicts with the campaign he wants to run..
Maybe there are some things doesn't want to deal with..
Maybe he wants to keep the power level of the game low for flavor.
But when asked by his player(s)...you know, the people the he is SUPPOSED to be making sure are enjoying themselves...you get some pompous "I don't have to answer to YOU PEOPLE" type of answer?
That raises more flags to me, than fly outside the UN building.
Maybe I'm over-reacting. Does the GM otherwise provide an enjoyable and fun game?
Because, that's the kind of answer I would expect from the arrogant, dictatorial type of GM, that only cares about his own power-trip.
I've been a GM/DM for most of the 40 years I've been rolling funny dice on a table. And while I'm not above using a strong hand to keep a campaign from running off the cliff, player enjoyment is always the priority.
If I have house rules or restrictions, or want to run a different type of campaign, ABSOLUTELY I would freely discuss it with my players. I'd give reasons why (as opposed to arbitrary fiat), and be open to good ideas/alternatives or changes they propose; especially if it's going to make the game better for them.
I've changed direction (willingly), when it was obvious that some aspect would be problematic for player enjoyment.
Examples: Planning on a very low-magic game, but finding out 2 players (who usually play martials) were really looking forward to trying out spellcasters.
Or wanting to run the old Ravenloft campaign setting, and while explaining the fear/horror rules, seeing those rules personified in the faces across from me.
IF your GM has solid reasons for that ponderous (and somewhat inconsistent) banned-list of his. I am very disappointing in his reaction to legitimate questions.
Hey, maybe he's a great guy, and the group has a riotous good time together. If that's so, then game-on and enjoy yourselves.
But, if my gut reaction to his non-answer is correct, you may want to consider moving on. That would be the kind of toxic GM that ruins a great hobby for people.
First, I appreciate your positive comments on it. Whether you find merit in my changes, or it just inspires your own ideas, I'm happy you found it useful.
Both of you kinda of touched on my "divine spell book" relating to some sort of spontaneous casting. My intent was a little different.
But, if the spontaneous angles are a tangent you go to from there, that's great if it works for you.
For other readers who may get confused between our directions:
The divine caster in my rule, only changes the 'available' spells he has to prepare from. Nothing else changes. He still has to pray and prepare as normal.
Essentially, I just nerfed the AMOUNT of spells he can choose from.
Through various methods (mirroring the wizard), the caster can expand that list to be pretty large, but it's going to take good playing, and time/resources for his character.
Clerics, Druids and other divine spell casters who can prepare spells taken from their entire class spell list, do not have automatic access to all spells from their list.
*They will have a list of spells indicating the divine spells they have access to.
* Starting spells, and spells gained at new levels, are determined the same way as for a wizard, except using the appropriate ability modifier for the divine caster.
*Additional spells may be learned/accessed in the same fashion/cost as a wizard adds to a spell book. The divine caster does not record the spells in any book, but they are added to the divine spells available to prepare as normal.
Curious what your actual numbers here are? Like, how many spells does a 1st-level WIS 16 Cleric "know"?
[Wizard:..a wizard begins play with a spell-book containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spell-book.]
So, a 1st level cleric (Wis 16) would start with access to all orisons, and would select 6 first level cleric spells that he would have access to (3 plus 3 more for Wis modifier).
The player maintains a spell list, much as an arcane caster uses a spell book to record the spells he knows. There isn't actually a book for the cleric character. He just has a list to designate which divine spells he has access to.
Domain spells are not affected and are gain/used as normal.
At each new level, the cleric automatically adds 2 spells (of a level that he can cast) to what's available to him, in the same fashion that a wizard gains new spells upon leveling.
Also like a wizard, the divine caster can add additional spells to his repertoire anytime, through study, learning from a scroll, or being taught by his church. He will just have to spend time, money, and make checks to successfully learn them like a wizard does.
Serious efforts in that area can grow the list to pretty impressive numbers over time.
Separately, as a plot/story device, divine forces could 'gift' the cleric with access to a new spell under certain circumstances too. I've rewarded players for good play and service to their church, with them discovering there are surprise additions to their list one morning.
Or maybe a great service to a temple earns an invite to be taught something new in compensation (no GP cost). Nice incentive for the divine caster to live up to his vows in game-play, rather than 'choose a god for their domain powers' and forget about it.
Historically, to get a large list of a available spells, arcane casters with spell-books, have always had to put in a lot to time, energy and GP into their craft. I though it unfair that a divine caster can select from EVERYTHING on their spell list right out of the gate.
Can you imagine a wizard being able to prepare ANY spell from the wizard list he wants to, every morning (no spell book necessary)?
Well, with this house-rule, that guy who gets a decent BAB, can wear armor and use a laundry list of weapons (compared to wizard), will have to put in a little extra time & money towards his spell-casting now, like the fella in the pointy hat has always had to do.
***Note: I forgot to put in earlier post.
In addition, the divine caster automatically has access to the spells they get for the class' spontaneous casting ability.
(Cure spells for cleric, summon nature's ally for druids, etc.)
So our first level cleric above, would have cure light wounds available, in addition to the 6 first level spells he starts with.
I really like the Protagonist class you've put together. Pretty much covers any trope I can think of. Very nice.
As a GM however, I hope you are committing completely to the shonen style anime theme.
NO gaming session (however long) can contain more than 3 rounds of actual combat.
Each combat round, must be separated by a minimum of 45 minutes of dialoguing, explanations, and lectures about how their opponent is mistaken/weak/doomed-to-failure.
By default, any combat should take a minimum of 12 entire game sessions to resolve. Preferably 24.
Also, the campaign should regularly take breaks for meaningless side adventures, that have absolutely nothing to do with the main plot. (filler episodes)
TAX RELIEF
Biggest house rule I have, is to use the excellent changes proposed by Michael Iantoro to reduce the cumbersome feat taxes in Pathfinder.
http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/
Additional House Rules:
DIVINE SPELL LISTS
Clerics, Druids and other divine spell casters who can prepare spells taken from their entire class spell list, do not have automatic access to all spells from their list.
*They will have a list of spells indicating the divine spells they have access to.
* Starting spells, and spells gained at new levels, are determined the same way as for a wizard, except using the appropriate ability modifier for the divine caster.
*Additional spells may be learned/accessed in the same fashion/cost as a wizard adds to a spell book. The divine caster does not record the spells in any book, but they are added to the divine spells available to prepare as normal.
-----With more and more material published, the spells available to a class that can access ALL of them during preparation, has become ponderous. Rather than severely limit the number or sources to draw spells from (some of them are really useful), I believe a good compromise is to put the number of spells in their repertoire, on par with arcane full casters.
With the ability to add to their available list with a little effort, the selection choices can still become impressive, but it will require time and resources for the divine character, same as for an arcane caster.
BONUS SPELLS
For all casters with a list of ‘known’ spells:
Bonus spells gained from high ability scores, apply to both number cast per day (normal), and known spells.
-----Despite the versatility of the spontaneous caster classes, the number of spells per day and known, is a little low in my opinion. A slight bonus to known spells for characters with a good ability score is a relatively minor gift.
LINGUISTICS & LANGUAGES:
Being able to speak, and being literate in a language, are acquired separately; either with bonuses from a high Intelligence, or through gaining ranks in the Linguistics skill.
• Beginning characters are able to speak the starting languages according to their race, but are only literate in their primary racial tongue. Bonuses from high intelligence, can be spent on speaking, or being literate in, any starting languages available to them.
• Each rank taken in the Linguistics skill, allows the ability to speak, OR be literate in an additional language. So to to have both for a language, will use 2 skill ranks.
----this allows for spoken languages that don't have a written form. Or the ability to be literate in a 'dead' language that no one knows what it sounded like; or non-humanoid languages that a character may not physically be able to speak/reproduce.
WEAPON GROUPS & FEATS:
*Feats that normally applied to a specific chosen weapon (such as weapon focus, improved critical or weapon specialization) now apply to all of the weapons of a particular weapon group by default (see fighter class weapon training). Character must still have proficiency in the weapon (or other requirements necessary) for the feat to apply.
Example; if a character has simple and martial weapon proficiency, and takes weapon focus for a group, it only applies to the simple and martial weapons in the group, not the exotic weapons, unless they already are proficient in the weapon(s) as well.
MASTERWORK WEAPONS AND ARMOR: Cost
Never liked that additional cost for a masterwork dagger or great-sword was the same. Or that the same cost is added for a buckler or full plate armor. So I scaled the cost on items:
*Weapon cost is cumulative: A one-handed, martial weapon will cost an additional 200gp.
*Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal amount.
That's it for the home-brew stuff.
Other changes fall under Pathfinder optional rules. Currently, I'm using Hero Points, and the Unchained Rules on skill unlocks (with the Signature Skill Feat).
More often than not, I'm also a 'fill-pick' player, who makes sure there isn't an obvious hole that needs filling. <giggety>
Otherwise, I've still been pretty varied as far as character choices go, and don't gravitate towards a particular type.
If there is a theme to my choices, I tend to go for a concept when building a character, and not worry too much about maximizing everything.
Some of my fellow players over the years (like many in this forum), fully optimize their race/class builds, and look at me sideways when I would make choices to "fit" my concept. Like spread skills/feats/abilities around, rather than focus on the cost/benefits and get the most out of game-system mathematics.
Friend: "Why the heck do you have 2 ranks in profession-sailor?!!! You should put those ranks in (_____) to max out that skill!"
Me: "Because he grew up on the coast, and his father was a fisherman. He would know something about sailing."
Friend: .......
Not saying anything is wrong with optimized builds.
My style has just leaned towards flexibility over specialization.
As far as spells specifically, I allow players to introduce spells either from the 3.5 Spell Compendium or the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
Most spells in the Player's Handbook have a PF version, so not too much comes from there.
The Spell Compendium did a good job of balancing & streamlining the vast amount of 3.5 spells, so that's a main source.
Spells from those sources are not freely available though. Typically, a player will use one of them as a template for researching a new spell. We'll run it through the conversion process and check it against PF rules for creating new spells, to scale it properly.
As GM, I'll also occasionally bring in a (PF converted) 3.5 spell as 'lost lore' or maybe a custom spell in a spell-book or scroll recovered from a foe.
In either case, it's important to make them comparable with PF benchmarks, so you don't over/under power something being added.
So, some of those "more powerful" older versions of spells can be used, but they will likely be higher level (with an edited name), and/or have some other aspect that keeps balance.
It's certainly worthwhile to have the option. There are a lot of 3.5 spells, that fit a niche not currently filled by PF spells.
You'd think some irritated relatives would leave a barrel of caustic lye for the cube to pick up.
I think the most out there I've got was a giant owl, and that was in AD&D.
That would have been a serious offense there. Assaulting city workers.
City was run by a LE "paladin" (Dragon magazine published variants for each of the alignments).
It wasn't an oppressive place per se. Very strict, sure; and the list of capital offenses was ponderous. But if you followed the rules (all of them), you were fine.
And the city WAS efficient and prosperous. Public drunkenness (enough to pass out), or being indigent, were illegal too - so not much fuss was raised if a few of those miscreants went missing.
Rigged a metal "saddle" that rode on top.
Enchanted the saddle to increase the mount's speed.
Stole the idea from my DM (many years ago AD&D 1E), who had a city where the sanitation department used them as street sweepers.
Kept the city clear of refuse, night-soil, and even the odd drunk/homeless peasant.
My PC immediately said "gotta have that."
Many a marginally-perceptive enemy was surprised when closing into melee with my "floating" character.
Alright so this is really starting to get out of hand. I did not ask if the nature of the actions was fall worthy or evil. I did not ask if I should do anything about him. (I have been playing with this group long enough tri know everyone conferblity levels.)
All I asked was if there was a funny or interesting Archtype I could suggest to a sex crazed Pali.
D4rtagnan. I tried to address your question specifically, after responding to all the people bringing in side-issues.
The short answer, is I can't think of one. The paladin you describe is outside the box of what is expected the class (as I pointed out), so I don't think you will have much luck in published materials specifically for a paladin.
If you are sticking with paladin as a base, I would maybe search for an archetype or feat (?) that would grant a Domain and its powers. With that, you could use the Charm Domain abilities/spells (or sub-domain: lust?).
If you end up putting something together on your own, you can look to the domain powers, or possibly look to something like the Enchantment school to lift from.
People are way over reacting, and adding in their own hot buttonness to this. Groping IS a synonym for fondling, (but also feeling, searching, and touching). There is no implication of groping indicating it is unwelcome, or equating sexual assault.
Groping just means grasping or feeling for without looking. If it has any assumned extra meaning, it is only that it is specifically intimate or sexual in nature, but not consentual or not consentual.
Beckett: I don't think this is a question of language interpretation
(like the definition of "is" for those old enough to remember).
D4rtagnan's description makes it pretty obvious that the "groping" is of a sexual nature, and even undertaken during actions where it wouldn't otherwise wouldn't be warranted or expected it (without consent).
Technically, I admit it's an interpretation, but the posts describing the "paladin's' actions and how they relate to his faith, would make no sense unless that was exactly what he is talking about.
It's pretty obvious we have a sex-crazed paladin, that engages in what (our modern sensibilities), would constitute sexual harassment and uninvited sexual contact.
Now. You can argue the fantasy vs. real-life applications of behavioral expectations. But, what behavior is expected of a paladin (over 40 years of RPG usage) has been made clear USING real-life definitions.
Where I think things are getting muddled, is in delineating between the game/players (real life), and the character interactions and rules interpretations (in-game).
The real-life players need to all be OK with this component of the game, or it shouldn't continue.
If everything is acceptable on that front, then we run in to the behavior for a paladin character. The game system, and I believe the vast majority of players, would see this as being counter to the class's code of conduct.
That doesn't mean a group can't play it how they want. Their game.
They just need to know they are playing it outside of the game system's expectations. It home-brewed, and as long as they understand that, they can do whatever they want with it. It just won't be seen by most as within the rules/intent.
My own interpretation has always been, that if the subject is making their best effort to accomplish the mission, then no penalty would be incurred.
Is the delaying action undertaken for the precise purpose of having the best chance of accomplishing the task as quickly as possible? Is it reasonably necessary? Then no problem.
I once had a player spend a couple days in town equipping and recruiting allies for the quest, and didn't see problem. The task was doomed had he NOT done so. And, as soon as he was in a position to have a reasonable chance of success, they headed out with due speed.
If the delay/action (or time spent) is not reasonable or directly related to the quest's success, then the penalty would apply.
It will likely be a judgement call for the GM.
My rule of thumb, given a particular character's personality/history, is "would this be something they would do, if the quest was their own idea, and of paramount importance to them"?
