Previloc's page

Do you … (have players) bring in a level 1 character if their level 6 one dies?

Yes … (as per) old school D&D'ers

First off, level gain is entirely in the DM's hand except in organized play, or if you think D&D is a boardgame and you have to follow all the book rules. So, no matter what Paizo publishes, you can do whatever you want in your own campaign. I recommend story based leveling, and awareness of (and control of) character total equipment value.

As a player since the 70's, character death and campaign continuence have always been a big issue, and typically flavors the campaign. Inheritance, start over at 1, hoarders, and gimmicks emphasize rules over story, and ruined many a player experience. I quickly learned that I didn't enjoy playing games that rewarded CYA play, and kept risk takers or the creative as second class citizens. I enjoyed games that focused on all the players having fun and contributing together on somewhat balanced resources. I disliked playing in games that kept PCs of players that couldn't make all the games (work, life, school, illness) a level or two down - and in some cases, invented mechanics that kept them there.

RPGs can easily devolve into accounting, penalyzing characters that are generous, or players that realistically have thier characters spend money like sailors on shore leave. In concert with my players, I've developed mechanics to free players from thinking they'll be penalized if they don't personally utilize everything they run across (anyone heard of "Greyhawking the bodies"?) or if they fail to spend half thier time trying to find everything. The game feels grittier if PCs are kept lean, but miserly if they don't find wealth and then feel free to share it. It doesn't have to be a boardgame, nor a computer game.

Bottom line - run the game that strikes the best balance of fun for everyone in the group, and you're most likely to have the best group experience. The rules are guidelines.

Fighter - more than one AoO/r; one is insufficient to discourage most opponents and PC parties. Melee area control is a good job for a party member (Fighter, and option for Monk/Ranger/Paladin) and for some monsters (solos, in particular).

Suggestion? 1 AoO per level per round (okay, make that a feat if needed), eventually getting more than one AoO on a provocation - e.g. with 1 AoO per level, spending 5 AoOs (from that round) for another attack on a single provocation (2 attacks at 6th, 3 at 11th...)

I am a big fan of weapon features, but also of access restriction to those features, as it adds opportunities for growth.

A bit of a side comment: But as to the whip and it having so many abilities: IMHO a lot of these abilities should have some type of skill and or level requirements …

I would like a general rule to apply in this case - getting features depends on proficiency, and some features require a feat or class feature. For example, I'd rather everyone start with Nonlethal proficiency, that Simple Weapons not provide any other features, Martial provides 'n' (good place for Intelligence Modifier), and specific weapon proficiencies (e.g. Cleric Domain) provide proficiency in one feature (such as Glaive granting Reach, Deadly, or forceful). This would be an opportunity for Skill Feats (Disarm, Finesse, etc.) and a use for Intelligence.

Or in reality; there is a very valid reason why army's did not equip their troops with whips and go to war in the past as well as today.

Agree - some weapons should require certain ability level for use, Flail group weapons being notorious for being dangerous to use without a lot of study. The whip could use an actual range, but be unusable with any cover (not just a modifier). I could easily see weapon Group proficiencies being very cool in this game, with 'number of proficiencies spent' being important (use of a Bow should require several). Again, a great use of Skill Featsand Intelligence.

Often it is the exception example that seems to provide the community with the idea that everyone can do it. The best example of this I have seen in real life is the person who shoots arrows very fast and thus people think everyone should be able to do that or that it just takes a little time to learn the skill.

Hear Hear. In many cases, this is 'saw it in fiction (movie/video)', as very few people today have seen these weapons used in actual combat conditions, much less as a sporting event. It's okay to indulge fantasy (as that's the hobby we're playing), but the occasional nod to reality can improve the experience.

The PFPT approach retains the damage ratios of weapons throughout the magical enhancement of the weapon. This means that your relative damage expectation, in comparison to other weapons, stays stable.

Citing absolute difference growth as damage increases ignores the proportional increase of opponent damage capacity, i.e., the meaning of damage as a % of overcoming a creature. With +5 weapons, should a dagger do a larger proportion of damage against the dragon compared to a GreatAxe, than the two did ages ago to a cow when nonmagical? If you normalize enhancement damage, the weapon balance is substantially upset, and features that make advantage lower damage weapons make them the obvious choice for all characters.

The features of weapons are magnified by the enhancement, absolutely. A higher chance to hit generates greater proportional damage. Tripping or Shoving an opponent scales, as that tactical move affects equally powerful opponents. For example, Shove/Trip causing an opponent to lose thier 3rd attack or other action each round, due to a necessity to move - and the Trip may generate AoOs.

… the question of this thread … is whether the damage gap between weapons gets too big when extra dice are applied when weapons are magical. Or should magic weapon dice be normalized to some extent?

My opinion is no, because the PFPT approach maintains stability in the damage growth ratios. In addition, there are many factors to consider.

If all characters have identical Strength/Dexterity, use the same weapon list, can't use formations, don't use stacking class abilities (Monk, Rogue) or tactics (Shove, Trip), and don't get to attack at range, and monster hit points don't increase as characters level, then yes, there's no reason for most of the weapons to exist (at least, in asymmetrically increasing damage with enchantment).

The point of these 'off topic' comments is that sometimes, d4 is better than a d12, when that d12 can't hit. The analysis would have to include hit probability, multiple attacks, and criticals at least, if not other factors.

If you need to roll a 16 to hit with a GreatAxe (25%x6.5x+), and a 12 to hit with a Rapier (45%x3.5x+) due to an 18 Dex and 10 Str, that's 1.625 expected from the GreatAxe, and 1.575 from the Rapier, multiplied by one more than the plus of the respective weapon. Using that statistic disparity, the expected damage unit value for the GreatAxe/Rapier when the GreatAxe needs a 6 through 19 to hit, goes from expected damage of 4.875/3.325 through .65/1.05. With +5 weapons, that's from 29.25/19.95 through 3.9/6.3. This doesn't account for multiple attacks or criticals (just flat %'s).

When accounting for multiple attacks in a round, the Rapier pulls forward a little because the to-hit increases. E.g. that GreatAxe needing 8, then 13, then 18 (and Rapier 4 less), for +5 weapons, is a sum of 46.8/37.8, a ratio of 123% in favor of the GreatAxe instead of 142% for the single hit at 8 to hit.

Eventually you have to start accounting for Criticals...which favors the Rapier from rolling 10+ the DC for the low to-hits when the GreatAxe is slightly outperforming the Rapier (for that 8 to hit, the GreatAxe has a 15% chance to crit for double damage (adding .15x6.5x+, +5.85 at +5), while the Rapier has a 40% chance (adding 8.4 at +5). Keeping the 5% for a 20, that adds 9.76 to the +5 sum for the Greataxe and 12.6 for the rapier, updating the ratios to 56.55/50.4, 112% in favor of the GreatAxe.

But, remember that with a Rapier, the character has a hand free for a shield, secondary weapon, class feats, climbing, or to cast spells.
With Reach, a character in the 2nd rank does damage, and none with a GreatAxe.

Paizo Forums pro life tip: Read the original post and thread title before posting. If you just want to shoot the sheet, post your own thread. z

LOL...sigh, as I've asserted, I believe that other factors are significant to the comparison of damage of weapons (magical or not). Some of the other contributors to this thread are, as well, not simply looking at the damage dice rolled, but the effectivness of those dice.

imo, PFPT is remarkably balanced in this respect (it's almost as if a spreadsheet spit this out). Weapon damage is absolutely decreased for weapons with less restrictions and/or greater utility/specials.

That dagger can be thrown (full Str bonus to damage), in melee with Str or Dex, has reduced multi-attack penalties, and is Piercing or Slashing. It's usable by almost anyone. it also does Bleed damage if you crit and you're really good at it (critical specialization).

That great axe requires 2 hands to use (no shield, no Arcane casting, no 'free hand' for feats and things), weighs as much as 20 daggers, is just Slashing, and is melee-only. Sweep is very situational (and clearly not as good as Agile), although the critical specialization effect is very good (on a 20, with training). It also requires Martial training. All this restriction for effectively +2 to damage (initial, and per plus).

The PFPT rule addresses one of the biggest problems pre-PFPT - that it didn't matter what base damage your weapon did, just the specials and modifier. The basic Magic Weapon bonus was also very weak for the expense, pretty much a tax to get a special effect...until you get to really high plusses for bypassing DR.

In my opinion.

I think it's less about making fewer stats required and more about making more stats valuable...

Bravo.

On the flip side, I think the Rogue ability to add DexMod to damage should be limited at least to being "precision", instead of negating the value of StrMod. I didn't like the Alchemist using Int instead of Cha for Resonnance, either.

Once all the stats are generally useful to any PC, then work on bringing value to each class from each ability (possibly something beyond the scope of a playtest). Archetypes are a wonderful idea for this.

Greater distinction is a great idea, I'm in favor of UTEML -4, 0, +2, +4, +6. This is close enough to work for skills, saves, armor, and weapons. Beefs up the fighter a little, but then...

While 5 proficiency ranks (UTEML) may seem small, it's a good start and I'd rather see it fleshed out better with broad capability for each level. Similarly, proficiency rank achievement needs to be spread out a bit over the level range of play - so I think current rules are a good start (I would like to see signature skills return and modify ranking rules, but as skills unrestrictedly chosen by the player).

NPC Blacksmith having problems? An Expert class could easily bypass such a restriction (can anybody say "class feature"?).

I like flavor, such as the incompetent idea, but in practice, I've seen it powergamed too often (perk/flaw analysis). The problem with such tradeoffs is that it assumes all skills are equal. Also, incompetent (as a flaw) shouldn't include level.

You forgot to list that you also pay Bulk, and (uniquely in the game) limit the utility of a Stat (even if the Armor isn't Clumsy). The price/item level penalty of Heavy armor has resulted in some interesting choices in our game as we've played different levels.

I'm okay with Dex Mod Cap, even if you make all armor Clumsy (it's just easier that way) - if you adjust the Cap with armor quality. That's a better limit than the hefty ACP cost, which isn't accounted for in all the Skill/Hazard table math. Despite the legacy heritage, having any ACP ruins the skill system they are trying to have.

I would prefer a -5' speed penalty for shields and 1 more bulk, if, when raised, they provide ranged cover...and reduce the speed penaty stat for armors by 5'. "Take Cover" is much of what a shield is about. Then, we'd understand the "come back with your shield, or on it" admonition. Shield Block can make the shield a valid melee target, and on the hit, can allow the weilder a choice to just have it absorb its hardness in damage (no dent by taking a glancing blow), or up to double (until dented, by taking it in full).

The reaction to Aid Another is one of the subtle things that I like best about PFPT. However, I would suggest Paizo listen, hard, to this...

The worst thing to hear at a table of players is "don't help me!".

Occasionally and with the right combination of personalities and history, an aiding another fail is funny. With Paizo's "Gaming is for All" on page 5, critical failure on a DC-10 result causing distrust is a Critical Fail of intent.

Having Aid Another as a reaction is a great PFPT idea, but all that potential good will is ruined by too-frequent penalties.

Elsewhere, it's been suggested to move Critical Fail to DC-15. That's a pretty easy houserule, particularly if you add DC+15 as the Critical Success threshold - letting hazards and boss monsters that are supposed to be 'a little tough' have a substantially greater chance of a critical hit, discourages heroic roleplay even if it doesn't kill characters. Hazards start out far too damaging to ever crit (the level 1 Average of 9 with a +10 to hit, is 75% of a responsible but low hit point 6+6 build).

Tuning monsters and characters to succeed a little more often than half the time, and taking a step back on Skills for some standardization would be a good idea.

Moving the goal posts to between a 60% and 75% success rate for a level-appropriate challenge would work … highly specialized should be able to succeed at such a task 3/4 of the time.

… critical failures … need(s) to be lowered to DC-15. And a natural 1 needs to stop being an auto-failure. The idea that someone who is skilled at their job outright fails 5% of the time on easy tasks is absolutely ludicrous …

Agree. Some seem to have forgotten that the balance in an encounter is how often each side succeeds and to what effect, not just how often the characters succeed. In skills, sometimes there are severe consequences of failing, or a whole series of rolls that must succeed. It's a d20 - it's very random. If actions fail ~half the time, and when they succeed, do incremental damage, the game drags. A look at hazards and many monsters is all it takes to realize they are geared to succeed more than half the time. As one of my friends is fond of saying - just one of the monsters needs to defeat a character once, while the PCs have to defeat all of them, every day.

I believe that the problem with skills is that they just haven't been thoroughly rung out the way combat has over the past nearly 40 years. They need a lot more paper and text, because it's not just a damage result against hit points. d20 skills are a relatively recent addition, particularly, when the goal is to get each player participating (not simply the rogue). That's why I agree with the suggestions to double or triple the proficiency bonus, and cut the level bonus substantially (quarter or one-fifth) - so that the game can gain some bulk to support skill challenges. There were some really good ones in 4th edition (and some really bad ones)...and I prefer the PFPT skill distribution to classes even better, and the focus on chosen expertise.

The "Adjusting the Chance for Success" descriptions of challenge levels in the 1.3 update is significantly lacking in two respects:
1) It ignores Armor Check Penalty - Drop ACP
2) Table 10-2's math doesn't reflect the words - Try New Math

Is any other table filled with penalties as 6-3(Armor)? Remove ACP, and everything would still work fine. Make all armor Clumsy - and allow higher quality (and materials) to increase the cap. Then, a single 10-2 will work for all skills. ACP would make a great ANP (armor non-proficiency penalty), though -4 AC is pretty good by itself.

Table 10-2 Math could be fixed easily, by focusing on the words. Decide what 'significant' means. If it means +3 (15%), okay, Easy to Medium to Hard, etc. should start at +3 differences - because +1 (5%) is not what anyone thinks differentiates "most common in the game...attempt frequently" from "requiring exceptional effort and luck...don't encounter that often". Then, the +3 can be expanded at higher levels (I suggest +5 at 20th). I sent in a version of this, that also made Assurance a useful feat (lower Medium difficulty DCs).

I like the idea of making weapons more distinctive to martial characters. To me, the Simple Weapon Table should be very simple - streamline out most of the special traits, particularly Trip and Shove, and put inexpensive weapons on the Martial table. Does the Simple table need much more than base types? Knife, Club, Spear, Brawling? Should it really have Versatile and Reach? (I don't mean Daggers aren't accessible, but perhaps Simple weapons doesn't teach effective piercing versatility - it's all slash and jab).

If everybody gets Ag/Finesse, Trip, Shove, and Reach - it takes some of the distinction out of the martial classes (it's not all about +1 to +2 damage - melee control is supposed to be thier thing). Now, the Deity's weapon (that has such traits) may be a stronger option. The Rogue's list has more meat...

A healing ritual (or other non-spell healing) could save Resonance Points - for one RP, you heal equal to your class HP.

Like Bulk, Resonance Points are presented as capacities that only create bookkeeping, impose limits, and when unused, the spare doesn't do anything for you. With just a simple twist, both could be viewed more favorably. With Resonance Points for self healing, adventuring doesn't stop if the healer couldn't make the game (and it would be nice if both Bulk and Resonance Points were 4+Stat+Level, or something like that to have spare capacity). What could you do with spare Bulk? Move faster, hit harder, whatever. Then, both have similar mechanics (you use them for capacity, or for something else...).

For armwrestling, you can still used opposed strength checks. For busting down a door, you could use hardness/dents (body slam damage + strength modifier - anyone can probably jury rig how much more blunt damage a solid shoulder would do than a fist). Skills are for abstractly achieving a goal in which expertise plays a big part.

If you've ever sparred with a really old martial arts instructor, you can appreciate what practice and experience can do.

I like the magnitudes of proficiency stacked with level. We always had Feats, Features, and Gear to modify skills, and this system is just different - a high level adventuring character is gaining very wide-spread experience that applies to many tasks. Sometime though, specific knowledge is irreplaceable, so specific Lore, Feat, or Feature is required. I think that the system will work best if NPCs are not locked to follow PC rules for advancement, that a every-day-job life is different, focusing skills in only certain areas.

However, these aren't answering the post's question - what is the goal? The goal appears to be to emphasize character level, and in special circumstances, use character choice (proficiency magnitude or feats). Having specific Skill Feats is a great idea - every character picks some things to get better at, and doesn't do so at the loss of a class feat (or general feat). The goal, in streamlining, appears to be to avoid the book-keeping of skill points, and add another dimension - proficiency magnitude.

Signature skills are a good thing, if the player picks them at character generation (identifies which skills, of all the skills, are Signature for them - perhaps space for a bigger role for Intelligence?). That helps keep a consistent character theme and preserves identity. I never did like the "I picked 'this' this level, and went from untrained to a genius at this skill".

Going the way of the Dodo? You mean eliminated due to irresponsible newcomers? (different view on the dodo thing - they were fine until people happened by and imposed new environmental 'rules')...

I'll take a slightly different tack:

Like the best:
1) Paizo decided to have a playtest, put together pretty solid rules and a module, and posted them online for free.
2) The playtest is remarkably broad (races, classes, roles, etc.) for a playtest, attempts to go deeper into the RPG experience, and goes out on a couple limbs.
3) The rules appear to be going in a direction to ease the GM's job, not just pander to the player.

Like the least:
a) online experience: it is difficult to filter through unproductive slants and get to constructive playtest input - and I'm having some difficulty giving input (I would like to attach files and/or pictures of tables)
b) not a cut, but I really needed a filterable, hyperlinked, set of rules to create a Cleric (and I heard specialist spellcasters had a similar difficulty)
c) only base mechanic gripe is Ability balance: Dexterity, which is still more useful to more characters - and Intelligence which is the least useful to the most characters

(along those lines: love Initiative via Wisdom (if not Intelligence), Perception "not-a-skill" skill (also an Intelligence possibility), and ResPnts from Charisma(that just needs polish and constructive advice); and then dislike weapon finesse for free(Rogue Class Feat?), ranged only via Dexterity(Strength throw point blank, Int/Wis for direct fire?), and the way races play out due to the ability imbalances I think are there (no Dex flaws - I think Dwarves should have that; and I think non-human "free" should be an either this or that).

Thanks for the elevated Playtest Experience...