I have a Player interested in possibly developing a White Necromancer for our upcoming Campaign Arc.
I'd appreciate any suggestions for rule books, feats and spell list/descriptions that would be beneficial for someone interested in the non-Evil aspects of necromancy, research of undead and related topics other than just becoming a zombie-nuker.
The group currently has access to PH 3.5, PF-CR, Magic of Faerun and Spell Compendium. I think that MoF and SpC both really helped with Necromancers' specialized spell lists, but the focus on "White" necromancy still remains difficult. I haven't had a chance to look into Libris Mortis, but am inclined to believe it still leans to the dark side.
My Group in Burbank just celebrated the 8th Anniversary of our on-going campaign (granted, aside from me the longest-Playing member has just under 7 years) that has run through two iterations and is looking to recruit a couple more members.
Our Group style is character-focused and entirely Player-driven storylines that balance RP and combat. We're currently in a period of Extended Downtime from our 13th-15th level PCs and running a side-plot with 6th-7th level characters while we recruit through the summer. In the fall we anticipate launching a 3rd iteration with 1st level PCs.
Here's the Campaign Advertisement:
If Adventure calls …
If fighting monsters and bandits simply to earn enough copper for your next meal beats life back on the farm …
If at the end of the day you can be content with more scars and stories than you have silver …
If all you need are Faithful Companions and a Trusty Broadsword …
… then THIS is the campaign for you …
Set in the Grunge Fantasy realm of Edheldor, this is a continuing Role-Playing Campaign in "semi-Pathfinderized" 3.5 Edition D&D. Anyone interested in developing characters and role-playing stories as much as slaying monsters is invited to join.
This is a Player-driven campaign, going where the party wills and influenced by the actions of the Player Characters. There is no DM-forced plot, save only the need to survive another day.
Of course Edheldor is not without its share of Archmages, High Magic, Politics and Intrigue. This campaign is set against the backdrop of the political machinations of kingdoms and warlords. Perhaps one day you will even become part of it … a Famous Hero whose name is sung in ballads and whose exploits have become legend …
… perhaps one day. But for tonight there is no inn on the road and it has begun to rain as you pull your faded cloak tighter around your shoulders.
Right now Blog-related Posts Scatter seemingly randomly throughout several Forums. Often Blog-replies can consume more than half of the "headlines" list in the main forum view, at the expense of "content-related" threads.
With Paizo now having the Paizo Blog, Store Blog and Web-Fiction all supporting post replies, it would be nice to see these Blog-specific threads consolidated into a (set of) sub-forum(s) where they can be not only easily located but also kept out of the way of other content and/or minimized if desired.
While a Wizard can put enchantments into their Arcane Bonded Item, there really are not automatic Special Abilities the bonded-item gains as the Wizard increases in level, unlike the relationship between a Wizard and a Familiar.
I think this is a lacking bit of flavor for the bonded-item, and would like to propose a list of ideas for bonded-item properties.
For example:
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance on item
Call item
Teleport to item
Magic Jar / Phylactery
etc.
I appreciate all thematic and balanced ideas you can offer.
I'm surprised that, with the attention PFRPG paid to filling in PC Class "Dead Levels", the same cannot be said of Familiars.
Currently, Familiars (and/or their masters) gain no new abilities/powers at 9th, 15th, 17th or 19th levels. Furthermore, since I've House Ruled SR to be retroactive to the lower levels (true, it's basically negligible at the bottom) that really means that 11th level is Dead as well.
Our party Wizard is now at 10th level, and I'm looking to fill the holes with thematic and balanced powers, and would appreciate all suggestions you can offer.
Stuff that might work:
Share Senses Status Sending or Telepathy Calling Polymorph (into Master's race)
Supernatural or Spell-like Ability Themed by familiar's Species
I assume by now that someone out there somewhere has put together a list of the 3.5 -> PF changes. I'm not necessarily looking for an enumeration of every specific difference, but rather a list of "These Spells are now different" or "These Feats have changed".
Granted, a side-by-side comparison would be great, but given a list I could read the items of interest myself to figure out what's changed.
Just wondering if anyone knows where to find such a thing.
That said, I'm definitely not asking for a HC compilation of past APs, nor necessarily even a SC.
What I'd like to see is a division of the Adventure stuff from the Mechanics stuff, and then perhaps each made available as a compiled Per-AP volume.
I realize HC is not practical (wouldn't want it, anyway) and SC is probably unrealistic for the reasons Vic mentioned.
However, I don't see why the extant PDFs couldn't be re-worked slightly and then divided into 2 Compilation Volumes, one for adventure material and one for non-adventure material.
I'm one of the guys who subscribed long-term to Dungeon (#31-150) but otherwise ran a pretty Core game. In fact, I dropped my Dragon subscription (#61-114) after high school when my gaming tapered off and it was clear there would be no more adventures therein because I simply never used anything else, and it was too expensive just for the sake of the cover art. When PF-APs came out, I didn't roll over my subscription because the price was too high (I was happy with the magazine format, anyway), particularly considering that I only wanted the adventure material. I home-brew and rework adventures significantly, and paying a higher monthly price with an added premium for non-adventure material I'd never use wasn't at all worth while. Thus, I decided to live with my extensive backlog.
However, now that several APs are completed, some are of sufficient interest for re-working/adapting that I'd strongly consider an Adventure-material Only PDF compilation assuming it was priced appropriately. I also know others might be more interested in Non-Adventure/Mechanics-Only material. If you want, price them so that the 2 Volumes together equal the price of the individual volumes, or even include a small premium.
I don't think doing so would cannibalize sales of existing products. You're (most likely) selling PDF-only so you will not appeal to people who want physical print media (and honestly, I'm usually one of them). More importantly, you're selling to people who didn't buy the combined publications for price and/or content reasons. Maybe someone already has a Drow-based storyline planned but wants lots of expansion material, then they could grab the Non-Adventure Second Darkness compilation. Maybe someone (like me) prefers Core-only games or home-brews and just wants to plunder modules for maps and NPCs and plot-hooks but likes the cohesiveness an AP offers in this regard, then the Adventure compilations are a great option. So maybe I don't get full monster descriptions for the new stuff nor full Prestige-class info on NPCs, but so long as I have the complete Stat-Blocks in the write-up I'm fine one-offing them in an adventure.
Again, if you release PDF-only, then you've very little work to re-format them so the profit-margin will be exceptionally high.
Finally, if you decide to wait until the original materials are OOP or hit some anniversary, so be it. I can see the rationale for that, but again I don't feel that they really compete with nor cannibalize either New or Catalogue material, since I believe they target an audience that isn't currently buying, anyway. Furthermore, you may get some re-buy from people who have the cash to spend and would like the entire adventure or non-adventure material compiled and more readily search-able/accessible than being mixed together and split across multiple volumes.
Is there a penalty for attacking a mounted foe from the ground? Conversely, is there an AC bonus for being mounted?
I know that attacking from atop a mount is "high ground" and confers a +1 bonus.
It seems to me that either a -4 "non-proficient" attack penalty when using a non-reach weapon or else a +4 "soft-cover" AC bonus would be appropriate. I'm inclined to go with the attack penalty based upon weapon type (two-handed weapons, reach weapons or creatures with natural reach, or any creature the size category of the mount or larger are except) rather than an AC bonus that will fluctuate vs. different attackers.
Factually and historically, infantry were at a serious disadvantage against cavalry unless they were armed with pole arms, many of which were specifically designed to pull riders from their saddles and dismount them. Some great- and two-handed swords were anecdotally created for the purpose of reaching a rider on horse-back. Otherwise, you're just swing high and either not even reaching any vital targets or not bringing the weapon to bear in an ideal manner.
It just seems to me that there should be something in the rules that touches upon this fact. Maybe I overlooked it, but otherwise I feel the bonuses/penalties noted above are balanced and comparable to current rules.
So we all know the problem ... a character who started as a straight Wizard or Fighter becomes heavily involved with a story arc in-game and in-session that would logically see them multi-class into Rogue (for urban or dungeon scenarios) or Ranger (for wilderness arcs).
However, the Player looks at the fact that the high Skill Points offered by these classes, particularly at 1st Level, and their ability to function effectively in these areas is hamstrung by multi-classing into them after 1st Level by loss of the 4x modifier that they choose not to do so, even though it makes every bit of sense IC and the Player would be otherwise happy to do it if not for the mechanical "punishment" they receive for not meta-gaming and taking their highest Skill-Point-earning class at 1st level.
A solution ...
Offer a PC multi-classing into a higher-earning class the balance of Skill Points they would have gained if they had taken the level at 1st Level.
Actually, the Rule and math has to be a little more complicated than that. It should be:
The PC gains the full allotment of Skill Points for advancing in their new Class plus any normal Intelligence bonus points. Additionally, if the new Class earns more Points-per-Level than the previous Class, the PC gains bonus points equalling 3x the difference between the two.
Thus ...
Fred the Fighter leaves the king's army and starts adventuring. Over the next several months he joins a group and wanders the wilderness and comes to the aid of a tribe of wood elves who become close friends and allies after the party saves them from a terrible disease (that, coincidentally, only affects wood-elves). Having spent so much time among the elves Fred has learned much of their silvan ways and survival skills. It is logical for him to take his next Level in Ranger. Since he earned only 4 x 2 = 8 points as a Fighter (having 11 Intelligence) at 1st Level, compared to the 24 he would have earned as a Ranger, RAW would severely punish him. This House-Rule offers him the normal 6 Points for multi-classing in Ranger, plus a bonus of 12 points ( 3 x ( 6 - 2 ) ) ... since having capable Ranger Skills is so critical to his Class-role. Per RAW he would only have a total of 14 points as a Ftr1/Rgr1, while a Rgr1/Ftr1 (perhaps a wood-elf he taught his fighting-skills in exchange for wood-craft) would have a far-superior 26 points. But now, HR-Fred has 26 points as well ( 8 + 6 + 12 ).
... or ...
William the Wizard, living in the city and having a preference for rays and touch-attack spells, is a charismatic and dextrous fellow with a 17 Intelligence. He joins a group of adventurers to explore crypts under the city when they stumble upon the lair of a group of thieves and what they believe are plans to assassinate the king. Investigating these plans they both interact with scheming nobles and sneak through the tunnels, sewers and crypts in which thief's guild hides. The investigation takes years, but by the time he reaches 5th level, William has become something of a skilled negotiator and trap-finder ... or at least he should be. He desires to advance as a Wiz4/Rog1, but RAW only offers him a paltry 8+4 (since he bumped his Int. last level) Skill Points for a total of 48 total points = ( 4 x ( 2 + 3 ) ) + 5 + 5 + 6 + ( 8 + 4 ) ... far less than the 66 a Rog1/Wiz4 would have and nowhere near giving him the points needed in his now-classed Diplomacy, Search and Disable Device to match his actual abilities. Fortunately, HR-William gains a bonus of 18 points ( 3 x ( 8 - 2 ) ) to make up the difference, bringing him up to the same 66 total. Even though he has increased his Intelligence modifier, however, he does not gain an extra 3 bonus Int. points.
Note that, due to initial point-spends, neither Fred nor William will match the Skill Ranks in their new Skills of their compatriots who started in those higher-earning areas, but then they do have more ranks in other areas appropriate to their starting professions. Overall, they achieve a better balance.
Also, this House Rule provides no bonus points to characters who multi-class into lower-earning classes. They will simply need to live with what they have ... but then their new Classes are lower-earning for a reason and their Class Abilities (spells or martial feats) are much more important to their make-up and functionality anyway, so they should be less hampered.
"Split-Classing" is proposed as an option to traditional Multi-classing that overcomes many of the problems of declining relative power with increasing levels, while maintaining the flexibility of multi-classing Core Classes rather than developing custom Classes or PrCs for every character concept that does not readily lend itself to either single-classes or traditional multi-classes.
Disclaimer & Copyright:
First, let me point out that I am a fan of 3.x multi-classing as a solution to many character concepts. I prefer my games and Classes lean and flexible, and to that end have opened Rogue and Ranger abilities as "slots" similar to Fighter Bonus Feats and eliminated numerous other "Core" classes which are too "fixed". I have also eliminated PrCs as "clunky tack-ons" now that I allow increased flexibility in the spending of Core class "slots".
Nevertheless, even with this change, multiclassing still fails to solve many problems that I think Split-Classing can address.
FWIW, the ideas and concepts expressed herein are, to the best of my knowledge, mine alone and I retain all copyrights, despite presenting them in this public forum. You are free to incorporate them into your home game, but cannot re-publish them without my consent. I do not challenge any previously-held copyrights in published sources
The Fighter/Magic-User Problem:
One of the greatest failing of RAW multiclassing is the failure to produce a viable, archetypal Fighter/Magic-User (Wizard or Priest), particularly at higher levels. With low Fighter levels the multi-classed F/MU is slow to meet Feat prerequisites while with a low Caster Level the F/MU not only has weak spells but remains limited to lower level ones. At 20th level, an F/MU on the verge of being "epic" is, at best, a 15th level Fighter able to buff himself or a 10th level Wizard with a ton of extra HP and a fantastic BAB for Touch attacks.
Certainly RAW multi-classing fails to achieve the traditional F/MU archetype of a powerful warrior able to cast powerful, if limited, spells.
Split-classing directly addresses this, making it particularly suited to half-Wizard or half-Cleric builds, but theoretically suited to any Class.
Inspiration for the Concept of Split-Classing:
My inspiration for Split-Classing is drawn from two sources:
First is the traditional 1st/2nd Edition manner of multi-classing, in which the character progressed in level in each class but with stats such as HP cut in half with each HD. Frankly, in 2nd Edition there is no reason not to multiclass, because the effective penalty was merely 1 level against a single-class character (or less if a Fighter). Thus, it was in the benefit of every character to be a Fighter/Whatever simply for the benefit of the HP, except the straight-Fighter who gained access to Weapon Specialization damage and retained higher HP, but at a potential loss of Rogue abilities or spells.
Second are the 3.0 DMG rules for "apprentice-level characters". These rules suggested the idea of cutting the abilities of a Class in half to achieve a "0-level PC" or effectively "1/2 Level" character.
Because I removed some Classes I don't like (e.g. Bard), Players interested in PCs to fit these roles are encouraged to use multi-classing to make their PCs (e.g. Rogue/Wizard with a variable ratio). While this generally works at 2nd level and above, it fails to generate 1st Level PCs.
The solution was what I called "half-half" Level characters. Using the 3.0 "apprentice" concept, a would-be bardic character would be a 1/2 Level Rogue and 1/2 level Wizard multi-class ... effectively a "Split-Class". While achieving 2nd Level resulting in a "buy-off" of these half levels for a traditional 1:1 multiclass, it was not much more of a logical step to create higher level concepts that continued to "Split".
Rules of Split-Classing:
The "Rules" of Split-Classing are simple:
• Split-Class characters use the normal XP Advancement chart for Single Class characters;
• Split-Class characters are considered to be the full Level of their component Classes for the purposes of determining Spell Progression as well as meeting any Level-Dependent requirements (such as for Feats);
• Any time a Character gains an Ability, Stat or Bonus as a virtue of their Class Level, that gain is cut in half;
• All "half-point" gains are recorded and carried forward rather than "rounded down" level-by-level in order to avoid a progressive error and diminishment of strength in the Character;
• "Half-point" gains may be tracked and recorded via either the Shared Method or the Separate Method as detailed below;
• Any Ability, Stat or Bonus gained as a virtue of Character Level (e.g. Ability Stat increase, Bonus Character Feat, etc.) is gained according to the Level of the character as a normal function of Earned XP and is not split;
• Although these rules and examples will address only "half-half" split characters, triple and quadruple splits are possible by extrapolation.
Shared Method Recording
If the Character records any "half-point gain" via advancement in one of its component Classes, then the "Shared" method allows this gain to be combined with any current or carried-over half-point gain from its other component Class. Thus, if a Player rolls odd numbers on both HD when leveling, rather than losing the benefit of 0.5 HP x2 due to "round-down" until they have a balancing 0.5 HP in either component at a higher level to offset the carry-over, they gain 1 HP through the combination of the two.
This also impacts Feats and Class Abilities. The Shared Method says that if a Character gains a Feat or Special Ability in one component Class and either gains one in the other component or possesses a carry-over in that component, then the Character gains the benefit of a Feat or Special Ability by combining these two "halves".
The major consideration with the "Shared Method" is that the DM must be certain that the Player is balancing their Feat and Special Ability selection over time and Levels appropriately to the components from which the abilities were gained, rather than using gains in one component to overly benefit the abilities of another (such as a Fighter/Wizard taking undue numbers of meta-magic rather than martial feats).
The Shared Method results in a power-progression that is more even and balanced to that of Single-Class characters.
Separate Method Recording
If the Character records any "half-point gain" via advancement in one of its component Classes, then the "Separate" method does not allow this gain to be combined with any current or carried-over half-point gain from its other component Class. Thus, if a Player rolls odd numbers on both HD when leveling these 0.5 HP x2 are "round-down" at the current Level until the Character gains balancing 0.5 HP in either component at a higher level to offset the carry-over.
This also impacts Feats and Class Abilities. The Separate Method says that if a Character gains a Feat or Special Ability in one component Class they may only combine this with a carry-over earned in that component to gain a new Feat or Ability, but cannot combine it with any new or existing "half" from their other component.
The "Separate Method" removes the problem of tracking what Feat or Stat or Ability is gained as a result of what combination of Class benefits, since the gains from both components are tracked and awarded individually.
The Separate Method results in a power-progression that is stuttered, with periods of little increase punctuated by significant and possibly compounding power-advancement.
Split-Classing by Class:
I am using the Fighter, Rogue and Wizard as examples of how to Split a Class, and leave other Classes for you to extrapolate yourself.
Fighter
• 1/2 d10 HP per level;
• 0.5 BAB per level;
• Half of a Bonus Martial Feat at 1st and each even-numbered level;
• +1 Fortitude Save at 1st Level and +0.5 at each even-numbered level;
• +0.5 Reflex and Will Save at each third level.
Pathfinder Fighters gain:
• Armor Training +1/+2 at 7th/13th level respectively as well as Weapon Training at 9th/15th levels; or,
• Alternately, gain +0.5 "Armor or Weapon" Training at each odd-numbered level per the choice of the Player;
• Bravery +1/+2 at 6th/14th levels; or,
• Alternately, +0.5 in "Weapon or Armor or Bravery" training at each normal +1 upgrade per the PF-Core Rules, with the caveat that the total value of any of these may not exceed the bonus available to a Single-Classed Fighter (i.e. +0.5 Bravery at 2nd level and +0.5 Armor Training at 3rd cannot be swapped for +0.5 Weapon Training at both levels to achieve +1 Weapon Training at 3rd Level, as this is in advance of a Single-Class Fighter gaining the ability at 5th level).
Rogue
• Advancement of HP, BAB, and Saves calculated using the same "50%" method as the Fighter above;
• +d6 Sneak Attack damage at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th levels; or,
• Alternately, gain +d3 Sneak Attack damage at each odd-numbered level;
• +1 Trap Sense every 6 levels;
• Choice of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge at 4th Level; or
• Alternately, allow each +d6 of Sneak Attack and each Special Ability (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge) to count as a "half-Ability" that may be combined as-desired, such that a 4th level Rogue could have +2d6 Sneak Attack but no defensive Special Abilities or else gain both Evasion and Uncanny Dodge but lack Sneak Attacks or else even gain +1d6 Sneak Attack and either Evasion or Uncanny Dodge but not both by 4th Level so long as no ability is gained at a level lower than it would normally be gained by a Single-Class Rogue.
Pathfinder Rogues gain:
• A Rogue Talent at every fourth level.
Wizard
• Advancement of HP, BAB, and Saves calculated using the same "50%" method as the Fighter above;
• Half the number of daily spells allowed in the normal Spell Progression chart, thus a 20th level Split-Wizard gains 2/day spells of each level;
• At spell levels where the Wizard would normally gain 1/day the gain is instead 0/day, thus allowing the casting of Bonus Spells, if available;
• Any Bonus Spells due to high Intelligence or Specialization are halved, with each odd level combined with the next higher even level for the purposes of determining availability; thus, a 6th level Split-Wizard Specialist could cast an Intelligence Bonus spell of either 1st or 2nd level (but not both) per day, as well as a 1st or 2nd School Specialization Bonus Spell (but not both). According to the "Shared Method" the Split-Wizard Specialist would also cast a single 3rd Level Bonus spell each day (though probably restricted to their specialization and definitely not of their opposition school in PF Rules) while a "Separate Method" Wizard would need to reach 7th level and have access to 4th level spells in order to cast a bonus 3rd or 4th level spell each day;
• Wizards gain either Scribe Scroll or an Arcane Bond/Familiar at 1st level, but not both; they gain additional bonus feats at 10th and 20th levels (or 0.5 bonus feats at each fifth level).
Pathfinder Wizards gain:
• School Abilities must be adjudicated individually by the DM, generally giving the PC half the normal number of abilities, diminishing their power at the level gained and/or doubling the levels between "steps" of advancement.
Split-Classing Examples:
With the overview done, lets look at ...
The Archetypal Fighter/Magic-User
... using a Fighter/Wizard split in 3.5 rules for the sake of simplicity.
1st Level
• The F/MU is effectively a 1d7 HD character, though HP are rolled separately for each class and then halved before being combined. Any remaining fractions are carried over to future levels.
• The F/MU has a single feat as a 1st level PC and another if a Human. They have either a Familiar or the Scribe Scroll feat as a Wizard, but not both. The F/MU does not yet have a Martial Bonus Feat. Alternately, using the "Shared" method the DM could allow the F/MU to be considered to have +0.5 x 3 "bonus feats" and thus buy a single Martial Feat while holding an additional 0.5 in reserve, though in this case the DM must recall that two of the halves are "arcane" and only one "martial", requiring that the next 0.5 martial half must be used on an arcane feat.
• The character has 4 Skill Points that must be spent as a Fighter and 4 that must be spent as a Wizard, along with any Intelligence bonus that can be split between the classes (it is up to the DM to determine if this should be an even split or evenly split and then Cross-classed per normal multi-classing rules).
• The F/MU has +1 Fortitude, +1 Will and +0 Reflex before any Ability Modifiers.
• The F/MU has a BAB of +0.
• The F/MU may cast 1/day of 0-Level spells and 0/day of 1st Level Spells. A Specialist on the Shared Method may be able to cast a single Bonus 1st Level Spell by combining their 0.5-Intel. and 0.5-Specialist spells.
2nd Level
• HP are rolled separately for each class and then halved before being combined. Any carry-over fractions from previous levels are added while remaining fractions are carried over to future levels.
• A single Martial Bonus Feat is gained. If the alternate "expanded Shared" method rules were used and a Martial Feat was gained at 1st level then the F/MU must take either a Familiar or the Scribe Scroll feat at 2nd level.
• The character has 1 Skill Point that must be spent as a Fighter and 1 that must be spent as a Wizard, along with any Intelligence bonus that is split as before.
• The F/MU has +1 Fortitude, +1 Will and +0 Reflex before any Ability Modifiers.
• The F/MU has a BAB of +1.
• The F/MU may cast 2/day of 0-Level spells and 1/day of 1st Level Spells. A Specialist on the Shared Method may be able to cast a single Bonus 1st Level Spell by combining their 0.5-Intel. and 0.5-Specialist spells.
5th (and some 6th) Level
• A Character Bonus Feat was gained at 3rd level and an Ability Stat improved at 4th Level per normal progression rules.
• Spell progression is 2 / 1 / 1 / 0.
• One Arcane feat and one Martial Bonus Feat have been previously gained. The 4th Level Fighter half-feat and 5th Level Wizard half-feat may be combined for a single Martial or Arcane Feat at 5th Level on the Shared Method, though these are carried over to 6th and 10th levels respectively on the Separate Method.
• +3 BAB (+4 at 6th); +2 Fortitude, +1 Reflex, +2 Will (increasing at 6th level to +3/+2/+3)
20th Level
• Effectively 20d7 HP.
• +15/+10/+5/+2 BAB
• +9 Fortitude, +6 Reflex, +9 Will
• 5 Martial Bonus Feats
• 3 Bonus Arcane Feats
• 2/day spells of each level
• Half the normal allowed number of Intelligence and Specialist Bonus Spells, shared between every two Spell Levels.
The only remaining question is whether the Effective Caster Level of the Wizard should be equal to the Wizard Level or half-Level for the purpose of determining Level-dependent Effects as well as CL for opposed checks. For the purpose of creating magic items or anything else with a level-dependent prerequisite, the Wizard is considered to be of the same level as their Character Level.
Considering a Fighter/Rogue
I won't go into as much detail with this class. Generally, normal multi-classing should work fine with a Fighter/Rogue.
However, someone playing a "Charismatic Leader-type" might wish to Split-Class Fighter and Rogue using the "Expanded Shared Method" and trade off Sneak Attacks in order to gain Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge at the normal level progression, as well as gain Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus at-pace with the other Fighters in the party.
8th (Split) Level Fighter/Rogue
• Effective 8d8 HP
• +7/+2 BAB
• +4 Fort., +4 Ref., +2 Will
• Weapon Focus (via Base Character or Human Feat), Weapon Specialization at 4th level via Fighter Bonus Feat and Greater Weapon Focus at 8th with 0.5 Fighter Bonus feat carry-over as well as two (2) additional Character Feats from 3rd and 6th PC levels
• Evasion gained at 2nd Level (giving up first +d6 Sneak Attack), Uncanny Dodge gained at 4th Level (giving up 2nd +d6 SA damage) and Improved Uncanny Dodge at 8th (trade-out 3rd +d6 SA) with +0.5d6 Sneak Attack remaining from 7th level
•Trapfinding and +1 Trap Sense
It is up to the individual DM if they wish to allow an "Expanded Shared Method" Fighter/Rogue to combine their 0.5 Martial Bonus and 0.5 Sneak Attack for a single "weaker" feat (since the limitations of a Sneak Attack make it arguably not quite worth the value of some of the "stronger" feats).
Retiring a Component Class:
It is possible that at some point a Split-Class character may wish to retire one class and simply advance as a Single Class from that point forward. For example, the "Archetypal Fighter/Magic-User" might decide that at 6th level, having gained BAB and HP as well as 2 Bonus Martial Feats, she wishes to devote herself entirely to her arcane studies and so ceases to further progress as a Fighter, though she continues to remember and utilize all of her skills.
Although one class is retired, the character can never "un-Split", short of spending enough XP to make themselves a genuine multi-Class, which means 6 levels of minimal power advancement for our poor Magess.
Instead ...
Rules for "Retiring" a Component Class
• Any abilities, gains or bonuses for the "retired" class continue to exist, but do not increase;
• As the Character gains future Levels, these are applied only to the non-retired Component;
• The Character remains "Split-Classed" though now the split resides only within a single class;
• The Character's higher level continues to increase according to the "Split" method, though the other "half" of the Split "buys off" the balance of the Character's lowest "split" level of the non-Retired Class.
In other words, if our 6th level F/MU gains a 7th level, she remains split as a 7th level Wizard, but gains the benefits of a full 1st Level Wizard. For all intents and purposes, her levels are Wiz1(full) / Ftr1-6(split) / Wiz2-7(split).
This means she will always remain Split at her highest 6 levels of Wizard, but will be able to "buy off" her lower levels.
At 20th Level she will effectively be a Wizard 14 (full) / Fighter 1-6(split) / Wizard 15-20(split), with all stats and abilities computed accordingly.
Besides being logical, this "buying off of lower levels" prevents power-hungery Wizards from sacrificing a few low-level spell slots in order to gain significantly in HP and survivability only to "retire" their Fighter progression and have all of their powerful high-level spells later on.
At this point, the mechanic is entirely theoretical and untested. I look forward to comments or play tests.
So when I try to load my Bookmark for the Nodwick archive page I'm currently reading or the latest Full Frontal Nerdity comic, I get a Game Spy "wrapper" splash-page ad that is stuck in a recursive loop.
Any one else experienced this? Any thoughts or suggestions?
Protection From Arrows bugs me. Protection from non magical projectiles is more like it. Honestly if Resist Energy can scale I don't understand why Protection From Arrows doesn't. Simply adding that the DR scales to +1 at 5th level, +2 at 10th level, +3 at 15th level and +4 at 20th level would do lots to improve the spell. It's still low enough that like caliber foes will peg you through it, but low enough that the minions/mooks/etc won't get throw it with a simple first level spell (magic weapon)!
There's nothing that says you can't develop a 4th level Greater Protection from Arrows spell, a 6th level Superior Protection from Arrows and so forth.
The +x scale is so 3.0 and not really 3.5 DR standard, much less PF, so I wouldn't go that route.
GPfA = Ignore the nonmagical portion of damage from any projectile and only the magical portion counts.
SPfA = Ignore nonmagical and enhancement damage from arrows, but not energy or other effects (resist energy and other protections still apply).
That's the 3.5 / PF way to solve that problem, IMO.
Last session we had a major melee PC get hit by a dominate person from the BBEG and turn on the other PCs and their allies. One of said NPC allies (Player-controlled) threw out a kelpstrand (Spell Compendium) at CL 12 that hit the 3 nearby foes as well as the PC.
The question then arose, "Can you cut your way out of a grapple with a strand of kelp, an animated rope or similar item?" We were in the middle of a major fight and couldn't devote ourselves to scouring rule books or making things up on the fly, but were unable to quickly find anything definitive.
Would appreciate hearing from others what your call would be in this situation.
Thanks,
Rez
P.S. Ultimately, the BBEG was killed while grappled and the dominate person became irrelevant, then the PC shouted to be released. We discovered that kelpstrand doesn't list "(D)" in the Duration entry, so I ruled that it was a typo, misprint or oversight in the spell description and let the NPC drop the grapples on a strand-by-strand basis (he wasn't doing much else at the time but being on stand-by to heal).
I understand why Wizards are required to choose a specialization at 1st level from the standpoint of simplifying mechanics, discouraging min/maxing or "speciality-dipping" and so forth.
Realistically, however, it makes a lot of sense that a wizard would start their career as a generalist and then specialize somewhere between 3rd-5th level. I consider this not unlike the way most people go to college for a BA/BS, but then some continue to a Masters and others continue on to an PhD. I'm talking here about degrees of specialty, not necessarily "Levels" of education, so please don't take any counter-arguments that direction.
Currently, I have an NPC that for backstory reasons sensibly would have been a generalist at lower levels, and later become a specialist (more than just taking the Spell Focus feat).
So, here's the scenario:
NPC begins as a generalist Wizard at 1st Level and progresses through 4th, then at 5th level becomes a Specialist
I can envision the following DM rulings:
1) NPC at 5th level loses all Universalist abilities and gains those of the Specialty School as if they had been a Specialist their entire career;
2) NPC keeps any Universalist benefits/abilities gained from 1st-4th levels, and only gains Speciality benefits for higher levels (or perhaps gains all Specialist benefits, but at a level-offset); NPC casts 1st and 2nd level spells normally but gains no bonus spell of any school while 3rd+ spells gain a bonus spell and are cast using Opposition School rules;
3) NPC must restart their career, as if multi-classing, becoming a Wiz4 (Uni.) / Wiz1 (Spec.) rather than a Wiz5 (Spec. w/HR).
So my question is:
How would you rule ... ?
( ... and, would your ruling differ substantially between 3.5 and PFRPG )
For some reason, I always thought it was 2nd level. Never really used it, though.
Still, the DMG only wants you to pay a +1 bonus for Keen, which really isn't that great. It gives you only an additional 5-15% chance of maybe making a Critical hit that will only increase your Base damage. Assuming a 50% overall hit chance on a +1 longsword attack with a total of +6 bonus damage from some combination of Strength and Power Attack, you're looking at only a 0.525 hp per attack increase in damage.
Cast by a 5th level Wizard on a 5th level Fighter (who doesn't even gain iterative attacks) the spell lasts under an hour, which might be only 1-2 encounters. Even assuming a total of 4 encounters lasting 4 rounds each, that's still only an extra 8.4 hp damage from a 3rd level spell, compared to 13.125 hp (assuming a 50% chance of saving for half damage) per target for a 5d6 fireball.
So, what would be so game-breaking about making Keen Edge a 2nd or even 1st level spell.
I have to admit I was shocked PFRPG didn't even change it.
So last night I was thinking about the equipment for an NPC villain I'm currently statting up. He'll wear half-plate, so I thought:
Full plate plus a shield is AC 2, so full plate is AC 3, so half-plate would be AC 4. Is that right? Wait a minute, we're playing 3.5 and AC goes up, not down.
I'm not sure whether I felt old or nostalgic or just foolish.
I am starting this new thread since the heavy discussion of Meta-plot got OT from MrFish's previous OP thread.
If you want to catch up on the discussion from the previous thread, start HERE.
This thread can continue the discussion of General Meta-Plot Theory as well as perhaps help him develop and integrate a specific metaplot and various minion/pawn plotlines into his campaign.
Just a head's up that you should probably remove the picture on Thursday, 09 July's blog entry that features a d20 sitting upon what is clearly a Crown Royal bag.
Although such bags are traditionally used as dice bags by gamers, use of their bag and clearly evident logo by Paizo in the blog implies endorsement by Crown Royal of Pathfinder and Paizo's products. It is possibly Trademark Infringement, and certainly use without consent, unless you know something I don't about a Crown Royal-Paizo relationship.
Not that they're really going to do anything about it, but it's technically wrong, and I thought someone should mention it.
BTW ... not a Lawyer, either of the Rules or Tort variety, but I deal with a lot of intellectual and trade property issues in my profession. Just trying to help CYA for a company I like.
I just posted some in-progress House Rules for Shields and Helmets In This Thread and thought they were worth a link here. Please reply in the d20 thread.
Some discussion of Shields already took place In This Thread.
Here are my thoughts on both Shields and Helmets (feedback appreciated):
SHIELDS
Buckler - 5gp, +1 AC, -1 Check
Small Shield - +2 AC, -2 Check
Large Shield - +4 AC, -4 Check
Tower Shield - +6 AC, -6 Check, Special
SHIELD NOTES
Buckler - Approximately 12" diameter, worn either strapped to the arm or gripped in the hand, depending upon the design. Gripped bucklers may be dropped as a Free Action.
Small Shield - Made of wood or metal, often round with approximate 20-30" diameter. Light Cavalry, Vikings and others often used Small Shields.
Large Shield - Made of wood or metal, either round or "badge-shaped" with 36" or greater diameter. It is possible to two-handed shield bash with a Large Shield, so long as the "weapon hand" holds only a Light Weapon. A Large Shield provides a +2 bonus to Bull-Rush and Overrun actions so long as it is supported with two hands. Greek Phalanxes and Medieval Knights used Large Shields.
Tower Shield - Made of wood or metal, tower shields may be rectangular or elongated ovals of about 24-36" width and 48-60" height. It can be converted to use as Cover by expending a Move Action (a forthcoming Shield Chain feat should allow its use as cover with an Immediate Action, with appropriate Reflex Save bonuses). A Tower Shield provides a +2 bonus to Bull-Rush and Overrun actions, or +4 if it is supported with two hands. Roman Legionnaires and some modern Riot Police use Tower Shields.
HELMETS
There are too many variations of helmets to list them all here. A table of types will be forthcoming, but availability will be limited by culture/region.
Here is a review of the basic new rules for helmets:
Skull Cap - +1 AC
Kettle Hat - +1 AC, addl. +1 AC vs. elevated opponents and indirect attacks, -1 Check
Bascinet, Open-face - +2 AC, -1 Check, varying penalties to Spot and Listen Checks
Bascinet, Visor - +2 or +4 AC, -3 Check, varying penalties to Spot and Listen Checks
Kabuto - +2 AC, addl. +2 AC vs. elevated opponents and indirect attacks, -3 Check, -2 Listen
Full Helm - +3 AC, -2 Check, -6 Listen, -6 Spot, +4 Listen DC
Sallet - +3 AC, addl. +1 AC vs. elevated opponents and indirect attacks, -3 Check, -6 Listen, -10 Spot, +4 Listen DC
Great Helm - +4 AC, -4 Check, -10 Listen, -10 Spot, +6 Listen DC, +4 bonus to Flankers
HELMET NOTES
Enchanting Helmets - Helmets may be enchanted similarly to Shields and Body Armor as deemed appropriate by the DM.
Skull Cap - Made of various materials (bone, leather, metal, etc.) the Skull Cap protects the top of the head, but does not obstruct the eyes or ears and so has no negative impacts on any Skill Checks.
Kettle Hat - This is a wide-brimmed skull-cap that provides an additional +1 AC vs. any attack from above due to the opponent's height, size, elevation or use of indirect-fire weapons (e.g. arrow volleys). Although the brim does not obstruct vision or hearing, its width causes wearers to suffer a -1 Armor Check penalty. Examples of Kettle helmets include medieval Kettle Hats and WWI-era infantry helmets such as the Adrian and Brodie, the Spanish Morion conquistador helmet and the feudal Japanese Jingasa.
Bascinet, Open-face - The Bascinet is similar to a Skull Cap, except that it continues down to cover the sizes and back of the head while leaving the face open. There are numerous variations of the Bascinet design, from antiquity to the present. Generally having a raised peak or crest and with their longer sides they are minimally obtrusive and thus carry a -1 Skill Check penalty. Their open face barely impairs peripheral vision (-2 Spot) but depending upon the design may slightly or significantly cover the ears and reduce hearing (-2 to -6 Listen). Examples of the Bascinet include the Greek Illyrian, Roman Galea and Attic, Germanic Spangenhelm, as well as most modern military helmets.
Bascinet, Visor - This type of helmet has a visor on the front that can be raised or lowered as a Move Action (lowered as an Immediate Action for masterwork helmets if the wearer has a hand available holding no more than a Light Weapon). When open it functions as a Bascinet and when lowered as a Great Helm with regard to AC protection and Listen/Spot check penalties. It is much more unwieldy than a Bascinet whether the visor is up or down and so imposes a -3 Armor Check penalty regardless of position. The medieval Hounskull and Armet are examples of the visored Bascinet.
Kabuto - The Japanese Kabuto-style helm is a combination of a large Bascinet and wide Kettle Hat. It offers +2 AC with an additional +2 vs. larger or elevated opponents and indirect fire. Because the face of the helmet is broadly open (as opposed to the more form-fitting bascinet designs) it imbues no Spot penalty and only a -2 circumstance penalty to Listen Checks. However, its size makes it unwieldy and so it causes a -3 Armor Check penalty.
Full Helm - Shaped much like the Bascinet, this helmet covers the majority of the face as well as the sides of the head. It features smallish eye-holes or slits and occasionally small ear-holes as well, thus seriously impacting the wearer's vision and hearing, resulting in -6 penalties to Spot and Listen checks. Furthermore, because the wearer's mouth is largely covered, it applies a +4 DC penalty to the Listen Checks of those trying to hear and understand the speech of the wearer. The Greek Corinthian and medieval Barbute are examples.
Sallet - An intermediate stage between a Full Helm and a Great Helm, the Sallet also features the flaring design of a kettle hat or kabuto. It affords good protection and a bonus against elevated opponents and indirect attacks. Because the bottom of the helmet is open it has lower Listen penalties than a Great Helm but its narrow eye-slit affords the same -10 Spot penalty.
Great Helm - The large yet relatively inexpensive Great Helm offers excellent protection at the cost of most of the wearer's sight and vision. It deals harsh -10 penalties to Listen and Spot checks, impedes the wearer's attempts to communicate with a +6 DC penalty for the listener, and affords enemy Flankers a double bonus of +4 due to the complete lack of peripheral vision.
I'm not getting results any more from searches that include my user name as a search criteria.
As I've been on these boards for many years I've written about many topics. Frequently I will refer new posters to older threads that have already covered the issue they seek, or specific posts of mine rather than retyping everything (or if the matter goes a little off-topic).
It was simple to type my name and a few key words for the search, but now that no longer works.
Maybe we can just put Yellowdingo on probation until he can learn to use the Spoiler button?
Or how about just an option to Ignore certain posters? Please ... anything.
Heck, make me a Moderator and I'll even edit the Spoiler Tag into the post.
But it really makes the threads tedious and drives me away from the Paizo forums and thus the Paizo website and thus the Paizo Store and Paizo products.
Is there any single location that has copies of the artwork of the Pathfinder Iconics? I'm talking about the images like that of Harsk the Dwarf currently gracing the Paizo main page.
Until such time as all the iconics are available as Miniatures, I'd love to just use some of the artwork to make home-brew tokens, but didn't really think about grabbing them until recently.
Before someone tells me how to grab them from the Pathfinder PDFs, let me just say that I don't run the entire APs, but cherry-pick the print editions from my FLGS rather than subscribe, so that's not an option.
Please forgive me for jumping ahead, but this came up on another thread and I just thought I'd get it off my chest now.
I presume there will be some type of monster folio for the Pathfinder RPG previewed in the coming months, and when it is I hope you will allow (some) monsters as PC races. I also hope that you will correct what has been a glaring and obvious error in the rules that I've never seen discussed, much less fixed.
The LA + HD mechanic is just plain wrong. Here is a recent post that brought it up on another thread.
Majuba wrote:
The mind flayer for instance is +7 LA on top of 8 racial hit dice? That means one person should have a 15th level fighter, while the other has a plain old mind flayer, no class levels at all.
My reply was ...
This is just plain wrong, and I'm surprised no one has ever caught it. It is a horrible design error and should have been fixed long ago.
Since the relative PC Level strength of a monster is defined by its CR, then LA = CR, end of story. Hit Dice, Special Abilities and so forth are already factored into CR. CR is by definition the "Level" of the monster. Taking a monster as your race and using it as written in the MM is (or should be) no different than multi-classing any other combination.
It's so simple and obvious, really. I must presume the whole LA+HD thing was a cruel hoax in order to punish twinkie-gamers and keep the monsters from running amuck in adventuring parties.
Seriously, when you're balancing an encounter of monsters against PCs you use their CR, not LA+HD. So if you're balancing a party of PCs that includes monsters why would you use different math?
/End Quote
Sorry to jump ahead, but I'd hate for monsters to get the shaft again. I'm looking forward to seeing the Alpha PF-Monster Folio.
I really like the idea that dwarves do not suffer armor or encumbrance penalties to their movement rates.
On the same note, I wonder if perhaps the fantasy-culture-accepted dwarven ability to "force march" should allow them the same overland rate as if their tactical speed was 30' rather than 20'. After all, I've seen plenty of short and stocky guys in the Army hump right along with those of use tall, long-legged folks out in the field.
Again ... all else being equal. Basically now you could walk 14.4 miles/day along I-70 through the Rocky Mountains (Barren, Stone, Military Road, Low Mountains for path-of-least-resistance) rather than 24 miles across flat, open ground.
The steeper climb up Trail-Ridge Road on foot would get you 9.6 miles/day.
Climbing overland up and down and up and down the deep mountains (Steep Mountains, Broken Surface, Thin Forest or Minor Obstructions, Trackless) slows you down to a mere 2.7 miles/day.
Come on now ... this is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon there will be no distinction between classes any more as every class will have an option to swing a sword, pick a lock, cast a spell and pray to a deity just like every other.
If you want your Rogue to cast spells, then multi-class a level or two of Wizard or Sorcerer.
Rogues Should Not Cast Spells !!! Multi-Class Instead !!!
Classes are distinct and do what they do for a reason, and munchkin power-gamers who want it all-in-one be .. well ... I don't think it will let me post that word !!!
When 3rd Edition first came out I was dismayed at how 2nd Ed. Kits (which I never liked) evolved into Prestige Classes that seemed to offer almost every character access to magic spells.
Then all the Power Gamers started complaining about balance and dead levels and this class is weak compared to that.
It seems the solution is always to give more power to the guy who seems weakest rather to take from the guy who is most powerful.
Now we're loading every class at every level with tons of abilities and even Rogues are casting spells? Screw it ... just start playing Ars Magica then !!!
I won't be converting to the Pathfinder RPG. It is too much of a power-gamer arms race for me. I'll be sticking to 3.5 with my house rules and drawing inspiration from it, but no more.
While I actually agree with your concerns Frank (and like the way that Pathfinder has tried to make fighters tougher) you keep comparing monsters of a particular CR with characters of the same level. That is not how CR works. A dire bear is a CR 7 monster and so is a EL 7 threat. That's an even challenge for four 7th-level PCs, not a single character of the same level.
Now I know why EL and CR has been ditched by WotC. People still can't understand it properly.
Has anyone every attempted or seen rules to integrate Ars Magica-style magic-mechanics into D&D or the d20 system?
I've always liked the Ars Magica freeform Techniques & Forms system since I encountered it in the White Wolf (3rd Ed.?) era. I recently acquired 5th Ed., and noticed that it went from a 5-point to a 20-point scale.
It seems to me that there is a 10-point middle-ground that would fit very well and/or replace the 10-Level D&D spell system.
A buddy is starting a d20 Modern game, and we both feel the individual, spontaneous and free-form style of Ars Magica better fits the milieu than the more specified, scribed and formulaic D&D system. Frankly, it's a magic-rare world with very few "spells", and so learning Forms & Techniques the way other characters learn Skills suits the tone of the game better, anyway.
Any help, advice, suggestions or referrals would be appreciated.
Yes, I know you know longer publish the magazine, but I was hoping to wear it as an old-timer Badge of Honor.
I'd been noticing so many names on the boards recently without tags and thought "wow, Paizo is getting a lot of noob action on the Boards these days" and then noticed that I was tagless as well.
If you can't give me back my old Dungeon tag come on ... I've been a steady subscriber since #31 even through several editors I didn't care for can I at least get an Old-timer or Grandfather tag?
WARNING - If this Thread runs as intended it will contain SPOILERS and is meant for DMs ONLY.
So all accusations of trolling aside, I think Haldefast has a point in this thread that STAP gets pretty "on the rails" and I feel this only increases towards the later modules, particularly when the AP heads into the Abyss.
Therefore, I feel we should offer help to his group's DM by offering suggestions of alternate chains of modules drawn from Dungeon #82+ (i.e. 3rd Edition) that can be used for an alternate ending course to STAP that is a bit more non-linear, or simply just different.
For example, although the AP states that there is not enough time to go to every city and reclaim/destroy the shadow pearls, let's assume that after destroying the Crimson Fleet the PCs and some large organization with which they are affiliated (and now powerful enough to pull strings) decide to do just that.
#81 - Race Against Time - Search the city to find the shadow pearls, but do so discreetly to avoid panic, and so that potential guardians don't "self-destruct" them. Replace fire crystals with shadow pearls and insert level-appropriate guardians at each site, including pirate, kopru sorcerers, demons, etc.
#120 - Lost Temple of Demogorgon - Rather than sailing to the Abyss, Vanthus has gone to oversee affairs on the mainland from this impropmtu temple established in the mountainous jungles outside Sasserine. Replace the Death Knight in the module with Vanthus and Advance all monsters or give them +3 levels if classed (or some combination of both) until Level-appropriate for the PCs.
Yes, I know my first example breaks the rules but R.A.T. immediately jumped to mind, otherwise makes a great example and I think you now get the idea.
Let's see where this goes and what options we can provide.
Opinions sought. I don't own any splatbooks, so feel free to quote or make reference ...
Rather than multiple feats for Weapon Finesse with individual weapons, unarmed fighting styles, etc., what about a single Dextrous Combattant feat (or Armed/Unarmed pair) that would allow a trained combattant to substitute Dexterity bonuses for Strength Attack bonuses?
Note that a separate feat would be required to substitute Dex. for Strength in Damage bonuses, but again would cover all bases.
While considering my response in the Multi-limb grapple? thread I became increasingly frustrated with the Strength-over-Dexterity bias of D&D. Having trained in several armed and unarmed fighting styles I understand the natural bias and recognize that training is required to overcome this inclination.
However, once a person has been trained in one weapon or fighting-style to rely on dexterity and technique over brute strength it is much easier to apply that knowledge and experience to a new weapon or style.
It just seems that it should be easier in D&D terms to make a low-Strength high-Dex. Asian-inspired martial artist who is a master of jujutsu, swordfighting, quarter-staff, spiked-chain and so forth without burning every feat slot on Weapon Finesse.
Basically, I think a set of at-most 4 feats should be enough, one each to substitute weapon attacks, weapon damage, unarmed attacks (and grapples) and unarmed damage.
PH – SKILLS / COMBAT (Automatic Success / Failure) – +30 / -10 - There are no automatic successes nor failures. Rather, a natural 20 is treated as being a roll of 30 while a natural 1 is treated as being a roll of –10. All modifiers are applied and then success or failure is determined normally.
PH – COMBAT (Injury & Death) – Negative HP Size Modifier – A Size Modifier is applied to a creature's maximum negative hit points. Small creatures thus “bleed out” and die at –9 hp while Large creatures die at –11 hp. Colossal creatures could survive to –18 hp while Fine creatures perish at –2 hp.
PH – COMBAT (Injury & Death) – Stabilize % = Constitution – Rather than a flat 10% chance to stabilize, a dying character has a chance to stabilize equal to their Constitution score.
The other day I read in a thread here about on-line book sellers discounting 3.5 Edition books now that 4th is announced. Sounds a bit pre-mature, and now I can't find the reference.
Where do you shop for books? Has anyone found a better discount on 3.5 books than what Amazon, Overstock or Buy.com offer? My distinctly Un-FLGS is still stocked with 1st & 2nd Edition books that they are selling for cover price.
If FIGHTING MONSTERS and bandits simply to EARN ENOUGH COPPER for your next meal beats life back on the farm …
If at the END OF THE DAY you can be content with MORE SCARS AND STORIES than you have silver …
If all you need are FAITHFUL COMPANIONS and a TRUSTY BROADSWORD …
… then THIS is the campaign for you …
Set in the Grunge Fantasy realm of Edheldor, this is a continuing Role-Playing Campaign in 3.5 Edition D&D. Anyone interested in developing characters and role-playing stories as much as slaying monsters is invited to join.
This is a Player-driven campaign, going where the party wills and influenced by the actions of the Player Characters. There is no DM-forced plot, save only the need to survive another day.
Of course Edheldor is not without its share of Archmages, High Magic, Politics and Intrigue. This campaign is set against the backdrop of the political machinations of kingdoms and warlords. Perhaps one day you will even become part of it … a Famous Hero whose name is sung in ballads and whose exploits have become legend …
… perhaps one day. But for tonight there is no inn on the road and it has begun to rain as you pull your faded cloak tighter around your shoulders.
NEVER MIND ... figured out the one place you can hit and how many blasts it takes ...silly game. Only gave up one sacrificial warlock ... those guys need a better AI or else it's friendly-fire-city.
I did not like this adventure at all. However, aside from any issues of personal preference, style and so forth, I find myself terribly bothered by the significant conceptual/plot/logic holes in the adventure:
First and most importantly, Exag could never support the Green Welcome trade. In the backdrop Location #2 the drug is described as "a single sample sells for 20-50gp" but the Exagites are "a relatively few rustic clan tribesmen" driven by "hunger and instability" who "are poor and desperate".
It is reasonable to assume that a fully employed average Exagite earns the day-laborer rate of 1sp per day, meaning that a single dose at the minimum price sells for 200-days worth of labor before paying any living expenses. Comparably, if a dirt-poor and near-starving Exagite earns akin to an illegal immigrant working 10hrs/day for $3/hour in a sweatshop that works out to $6000 per dose at the minimum rate.
Not exactly $10-a-hit street crack by any means. So only the most wealthy are trying this stuff, and not often at that.
Next, again at the minimum, the entire economy with assets of 20,000gp would be bankrupt after the sale of only 1,000 doses, and that only allows 1 dose per 4 citizens. Even if only 1% of the city became addicts and took only 1 dose per day, in a mere 25 days they would have stolen and traded every valuable in the city for this overpriced drug.
The only option is thus for the dealer to give it away for free to addicts who "find others to hook on the drug" as the backdrop says. Now drug addicts may not be the smartest people, but they're cunning enough to bring in their friends individually to get multiple samples and horde these doses until they can binge for days like any good drug addict.
However, given that an overdose occurs if "more than one hit is taken in a 24-hour period" (per the sidebar, which incidentally prices the drug at 50gp) and that a mere second overdose (is that in the same 24-hour period, or ever?) turns the user into a Child of Sehan it seems pretty clear that the city would be awash in plant creatures in no time.
BTW, I hate things that transform animals into plants. I can forgive the venerable Russet Mold and its resultant Vegepygmies (why didn't you make "Russet Welcome"?) for nostalgic reasons, but beyond that ... ok, end that rant.
Alright ... enough of the shoddy economics of Green Welcome. Let's look at distribution.
The main distributor is Pan'Phar Thrissek, actually a body-melded yak folk named Arghakot Annapuma. Again I say "gack" to the concept.
Body-melding has no benefits for Pan'Phar. He gives up his body and memories and goes unconscious while he is at the center of a criminal plot. Presumably he was either willing or else was charmed to accept the 20-minutes of uninterruped contact required to meld (or just tied down, but that offers him a Save).
So now he gives up his mind and body with no idea when he'll get them back. Maybe Arghakot promised to leave him a huge stash of wealth from sale of the drug. Who knows. I just wonder why Pan'Phar himself can't be the distributor.
I'd have preferred the yak-folk sorcerer had body-melded with Pan'Phar's idiot-son or half-brother and play the "fool in the corner" to keep an eye on his dealer-minion while running the business as the power-behind-the-throne so to speak.
Finally, the whole "Welcome to my inn, adventurers. Please help my city and solve this problem by going here and talking to this guy which sets you on an easy course to solve matters even though you don't know me and I offer no form of financial incentive" set-up of the adventure is just trite railroading.
Don't we even get to do a little bit of gritty street-level detective work and role-playing before we charge into the first combat with a weird monster.
If you're going to have an adventure about drugs, you might as well take advantage of the opportunities it offers to engage in Role Playing rather than just shuttling us from combat to combat with odd-ball monsters and gimmicky constructs.
Please, editorial staff and adventure writers, do better. I've been very disappointed over the last 18 months, and loathed AoW. STAP is going pretty well (though I hate kopru and the Far Realms).
I'm also tired of James's campaign stories in the Editorials. I don't care. I constantly hear references to the 5-to-6-to-7 games every member of the staff plays in over there. Please, cut them in half and go out and get a life so that you have some point of reference to how real people in the real world act so that you can design and edit adventures with intriguing plots and well-developed NPCs with logical motivations based in the psychology of real beings.
Sometimes I miss the old days of black & white bi-monthly Dungeon magazines when adventures had simple maps and artwork but really cool concepts for plots.
Just think a little before you geek out with your adventure design ... and remember that not everyone in the world is a successful dungeon-delving treasure magnet. Most NPCs are pretty poor, earning 1-3sp per day and just trying to get along.
While reviewing the PHB for my "Run-Fly" thread, I noted that a hustle allows "moving that {twice normal} speed in the same round that he or she performs a standard action or another move action" (PHB p.163).
This being the case, what are the negatives of hustling in a combat situation? Are there any, or did every character's tactical speed just double? Basically, it's like a free double-move.
Maybe you should always be flat-footed when hustling, provoke an attack of opportunity (even when entering a threatened square) or something similar.
A few facts from the web. All calculations assume that the bird is capable of a "running dive", meaning that its diving speed (DMG p.20 "Double") is in fact a doubling of its "run (x4)" speed. All calculations assume level speed is also a "run (x4)".
A peregrin falcon's ability to dive at 185 mph (wikipedia) should give it a D&D fly speed of 203.5' rather than the 60' of "animal, hawk" or even the 80' of an eagle.
A redhawk can dive at 120mph (nysite) for a fly of 132' or fly level at a maximum 40mph (normally ranging 20-40 in ordinary flight) for a move of 88'.
A bald eagle normally flies 35-44mph (kwic) for a move of 86.9' and "soar" around 50mph (percevia) for a fly of 110', while diving up to 75mph for a speed of 82.5'.
From all of this, it seems pretty clear to me that not only are the D&D fly speeds of hawks and eagles too low, but that the birds can "run-fly". Furthermore, hawks should have a bonus "Improved Dive" Feat.
My adventurers are about to enter the stronghold of a long-time nemesis that is heavily protected by unhallow. The question is:
Do spells such as aid or bane act on a caster level duration or are they constant while within the unhallowed area?
For example, an enemy minion enters the unhallowed region and gains the benefit of an aid spell. If he leaves the region does he retain the benefit of the aid attack and hit-point bonuses for the remaining duration of the unhallow caster or does it immediately fade?
Conversely, if the PCs are affected by bane within the unhallowed region and quickly defeat their enemies and leave, are they no longer baned or do they have to wait for the duration to expire.
Incidentally, this specific party is 12th-14th level and invading a cultist stronghold with lots of low-level cultists and witches. I took the liberty of stretching the rules to key a bestow curse to a witch-priestess's workshop so that the fighters don't splatter her during a surprise round. Should the curse be a permanent effect they have to remove or should it be a constant effect whenever they are within the unhallowed area but fades when they leave it?
