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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
:)
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.
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.
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.
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"?
I think it's a very good idea.
I've used my own version for some time (different name).
I don't usually apply it to typical 'small-scale' adventure type battles. I figure knowledge about a particular monster/race and their tendencies would be more appropriate in that case.
But for large units and armies going at it, finding strategic terrain, siege warfare, placement of troops, as well as logistics (supply lines),it provides insight/bonus.
Another knowledge I felt was missing is 'Streetwise'.
The flip-side of 'Nobility', it applies to street smarts or "etiquette" in the slums or shady areas of urban settings. Knowledge of criminal organizations, guilds, and where might be the best person/place for a quick loan, fencing goods, etc.
That great and all...but the Paladin has a detiey already. ^.^;;
He following the one of the deities from the homebrewed setting I am running the campaign in. Her name is Maara. She is the goddess of heroes, the harvest, liquor and fertility. Think of her as a mix between Dionysus and Demeter....she is also known to be rather promiscuous. The Pali is not going to fall because he is playing Paladin of Maara acutely.
Oh one more think I will put in the opening post. I am not a fan of the Alignement system. I find the idea of good and evil to be completely dependent on an individual person's point as well as the cultural norms of the region. There for I tend not to enforce the system in my game.
First and foremost - put all in-game character concerns aside for a moment. Real Life reference only here.
You are playing a game where (although relatively minor), sexual assault is a defining trait of a character, and a repeating occurrence in your game.
Make absolutely SURE, that ALL of your PLAYERS are completely comfortable with that being part of the game experience. Speak privately with them individually, to make sure they aren't keeping quiet so as not to stand out.
If it's not OK with all of them, then it needs to be ceased immediately.
No excuses - No exceptions.
No player should EVER be asked to sit down to a game, where other players are offending them. Not under any circumstances. Not ever.
That said:
My next question, is if (as you state) the ideas of good or evil are passe' in your world, then why is there even a paladin class?
Paladins are supposed to be the gold-standard of good and honorable behavior. To have one being an unapologetic, repeat sex-offender, means you are having a class (with very strict requirements) be played completely at odds with RAW and RAI.
It's not a paladin, as the vast majority of people understand the class to be. You just have the "paladin" name slapped on it.
Call it something else, and drop the 'good' alignment. Or maybe go with a cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest variant.
I say this only because the moment you enter the public forums with anything about a paladin + offensive/dishonorable/illegal behavior, then few are going to let that premise pass and address your intended subject.
Now don't misunderstand me. Your game - your rules. And you can home-brew to your heart's content. But if you come to the general public with a corrupted paladin class, few are going to look past that, and move forward with your actual question.
As for your actual question; you can make your own archetype up.
You've already converted the paladin class to a fully home-brewed variant. So you might as well do so with an archetype.
I don't think you are going to find a (Pathfinder) paladin archetype, that fits a corrupted paladin home-brew, precisely because the game system assumptions on the class wouldn't think to go there.
-32767. When the party enters a room, each player finds themselves completely alone. The door frame randomly teleports each PC to a random place within the same dungeon.
Nice one Rycaut.
Back in the days when DM's were getting inspiration from Grimtooth's Traps, I had a nice set up too.
*Note: #102-B: Have one or more copies of Grimtooth's Traps, among your books on the table, when the players arrive.
Moving on:
The door you open reveals the 60 ft. long, 40 ft. wide room you are looking into. There are no other exits from it.
Dominating the center of the room, is a square, heavy steel cage, 30 feet on a side, filled with giant scorpions. There is a ring on the top attached to a chain extending into the ceiling. It appears the chain can lift the cage, freeing the scorpions.
Beyond the cage against the wall is a large chest with gold filigree, and decorations of precious stones.
The wall behind the chest, is pock-marked with many small holes 1-3 inches in diameter.
1 foot spikes extend from the walls on either side of the chest , and on the ceiling above it.
OK, so this screams trap, right?
I made it, in response to some annoying players who (anytime asked) stated vehemently that they weren't anywhere near any potential danger. Sometimes, even if what they were just doing would clearly indicate otherwise. But, somehow always would also claim (vehemently again) being "right there" if treasure was found, or some other good result was at hand.
So, usually without fail, the hapless trap-finder would be sent in to dance his way past the cage (claws reaching through the bars) and try to get the chest. The chest does not appear/detect to be locked or trapped (raising paranoia).
More than once, I would ask where everyone else was, and invariably, they were outside the door watching the rogue/thief/trapster.
The trap:
When the chest is opened, anyone standing within 1o feet of the doorway is teleported inside the cage.
That's it. Everything else was window-dressing.
The chest, and it's valuable contents, are there for the taking by the one PC who had the nerve to go for it.
..... Always remember your basic items. Never leave home without Alchemist's Fire for swarms if you lack other AoE. 10 ft poles are a classic for a reason....
Addendum to PK's excellent advice:
A running gag for many characters I've played over the years, much to the frustration of some GMS.
Make it an 11 foot pole instead.
Lots of traps have a 10 ft radius area of effect. :)
Definitely a thread I wish had a continued following.
For my fellow late-to-the thread herbalism fans (Kmouse, Cyrad, Ciaran):
Mongoose also put out an 'Ultimate Equipment Guide' for D20.
It has a pretty large section on herbal remedies and substances, similar to what the OP had done, with rules for crafting the special effects.
It's a $6 (US Dollar) PDF download at DriveThruRPG.
With minimal tweaking to convert to Pathfinder, it's a pretty good resource. Same goes for the rest of the items in the book.
At over 250 pages, it's pretty beefy.
I recommend.
Cyrad called it.
It's an over-powered weapon, and throws away balance.
Obvious munchkin attempt to have something with the best (or better) stats, with none of the disadvantages.
It is a cool aesthetic however.
If one of my players wanted a wrist mounted gun like this, I would give it the stats of a buckler gun for range, damage, and apply the penalties of the double-barrel pistol (-4 to fire 2 barrels, -6 to fire all 3).
I still however, would treat it as a one handed weapon. So it could be reloaded with one hand. However, EACH barrel would require a standard action to reload, per normal rules.
The party entered the dragon's lair to find.... nothing!
The dragon explained how idiotic it would be to just have tons of treasure laying around.
His hoard was invested!
Had his money working FOR him.
In real estate and business ventures, growing at a large percentage annually.
Could be..in human form, he was highly regarded in the surrounding kingdoms and supported by monarchs and government as a beneficial entrepreneur, job creator and tax-payer. Maybe even with a noble title!
PCs could have a problem if such a highly placed, politically-connected dragon only need drop a request to some rulers to make the PCs lives' a nightmare.
I miss all of the great Bardic Instruments from 1st edition.
Me Too. And I suggest you do the same thing we did:
Use 'em!
Nothing wrong with updating older materials to fill a void.
As a GM, I start my games with just PF materials as a default.
I then recommend that for new magic items to craft, spells to research, or even prestige classes; they can look to 3.0/3.5 materials.
All but a few need minimal work to update for use, and it is a lot easier than starting out with a blank slate.
Between official products and an army of 3rd party publishers, there is certainly no lack of 3.0/3.5 materials to use. Older version stuff would just need more work to update/balance if you found something that really fits a need.
As GM or Player, the largest part of my fun just comes from having a good time with friends. (Corny, I know)
Whether major plot elements are fulfilled, or the party is stuck in a bind; or if most of the night passes with players telling jokes, stories, and generally off on non-game tangents....we all have fun getting together.
The social aspect of tabletop gaming is what always drew me. (I never understood what was appealing about a single-player RPG game on the computer, where you never interact with a fellow human being.)
Great victories, tragic defeats, hilarious scenes, or "OH CRAP!" moments...the shared experience of a good group of friends is ultimately the big prize in my book
