Robert Hanson's page

Here is the rule that I use in my game, and it applies to doors as well as other situations just fine:

A character can take any move action in the middle of any other move action. That counts as their two actions for the turn.

So you can open a door in the middle of a move. Or you can close a door in the middle of a move. etc.

It helps remove the start-stop-start-stop feeling of the combat round.

Robert Hanson wrote:

Three years ago, on the WotC messageboards, there was a thread along the lines of "Con is vital for every character class, but especially wizards and sorcerers." That, if you played a wizard or a sorcerer with a low con, then you would have no fun at all.

In which Wizards forum was this thread posted? Was it character optimization? You have to consider the source. If you go to a Ford enthusiast website, you will see a lot of posts that say that if you drive a Chevy you will have no fun at all. In the same manner, if you go to a character optimization thread, you will see a lot of posts that say that if you do not have an optimized character you will have no fun at all.

*laughs*

Also, just so I'm clear about my original post, it was comments like the one below that really bothered me enough to post the link:

"People are able to be more in depth with their characters because in past you would to worry about your character's build and if you didn't have the perfect build for that character, then you would never have a fun time. Instead you don't have to worry about your character's build as much since even a warlock who wanted to be more of a tank and deal a lot of ranged damage and not worry about charisma would be able to do that."

Three years ago, on the WotC messageboards, there was a thread along the lines of "Con is vital for every character class, but especially wizards and sorcerers." That, if you played a wizard or a sorcerer with a low con, then you would have no fun at all.

So, the very next character I made was a halfling sorcerer with Con 8 (the lowest number I rolled was a 10, and I lowered it to 8). My favorite character ever! Because he didn't have the hp to survive a fight, he needed to be pretty cowardly. But boy was he effective. He actually managed to survive the first three levels without taking a single hit point of damage! Again, I want to stress, he was the most fun character I have ever played.

Later on the WotC boards, some of the same folks were saying that if you play a wizard or sorcerer then you can't multiclass because you won't have any fun.

So, I gave him three levels of rogue. It sure fit his character very well, because he was always sneaking and skulking trying to not get hit. Eventually I gave him the Arcane Trickster prestige class. It is true that he wasn't as powerful as the full-caster wizard in the party, but he was the most fun character I have ever played!

I would much rather see backward compatibility preserved, coupled with a collection of suggested variants to improve high-level play.

In the game I'm running, we used Max HD + Con score.

We are also using disabled at 25% of max hp, dying at 0 hp or less, and dead at -25% max hp.

We are also using a variant that gives PCs a minimum of 1/2 their hit die on each level (before adding Con modifier). So if a fighter rolls a 3, he gets 5 + Con modifier.

If we define the number of Effective Hit Points (ehp) to be the difference between max and disabled, then these combined variants yield expected values for the ehp's only slightly higher than standard 3.5 rules (and in fact the two converge at around 10th level).

However, in retrospect, the only thing I would change about the hp rules my group is using would be adding the Racial modifier to hp instead of adding the Con score.

A good chunk of the people that could answer this are away at the Origins gaming convention - might be a while until you get an official response.

Right...I forgot about that.

Paizo, please? See here?

Maybe there is already one around and I have just missed it, but a FAQ for Pathfinder RPG would probably be really handy. (The closest that I've found was this and that, both of which are incomplete, IMHO.)

I have seen posts on this and other messageboards which indicate some people are really confused about PFRPG.

For example, I saw a post over at the site operated by the owners of the trademark for the most popular roleplaying game which read:

"I was excited about Pathfinder until I saw that the skill system is basically the same as 4th edition." (paraphrased).

Obviously the poster read the Alpha 1 release and didn't bother sticking around to see the updates.

Others, here and elsewhere, are clearly under the impression that Pathfinder RPG is already a finished product and the rules as written in Alpha x are the rules henceforth.

So...

Q: Is Pathfinder RPG a finished product?
A: No. Pathfinder RPG is still in the developmental stage.

Paizo, please go from there.

Other questions that I think people are confused on include:
Q: What are the goals of Pathfinder RPG?

Q: Some of the ideas in the Alpha rules are way out there. How "out there" are the final rules going to be?

Q: Pathfinder RPG doesn't seem to be backwards compatible to 3.5 because you are making changes. Why don't you just print the SRD?

Q: Pathfinder RPG seems to be just the 3.5 SRD. Why don't you make changes?

(Somehow both criticisms come up quite frequently!)

Q: High-level encounters (in 3.5) take too long because there is too much rolling going on. How are you going to speed things up?

Q: Save-or-die spells (in 3.5) make high-level encounters too short. How are you going to slow things down?

(Somehow both of these criticisms come up frequently from the same person).

etc.

For the record, I think that I'm pretty well tuned-in to the answers to many of these questions. The purpose here is not for people to tell ME the answers to these questions. Instead, I'd like to see Paizo build a FAQ for PFRPG, for OTHERS...especially those who are "on the fence."

Toward this, if anyone reading this thread has a question they think Paizo should address, this would be a good place to post it.

I like this idea, except for the loss of spells. If that is removed, the mechanic is nice and streamlined.

BTW, while I like the bloodied mechanic, I'm not sure I like the way 4th handles it.

That's why I said I'd change it to 25%. At 50%, this means the bloodied mechanic would come into play in the majority of fights for a fair period of time. I would rather it come into play with tough enemies, or maybe for a single round with enemies who have less HP...hence the reason I like the idea of 25% better. Also, I'm not sure how much I want it to effect the creature, or effect what the players do.

I think -5' movement and the fatigued condition are a good idea...or a better idea than giving the player too many special attacks because of a bloodied creature. One thing I'm considering going with also (or instead) is a +1 to the critical threat range and +2 to confirm.
...

I am using this in the PsuedoPFRPG game that I'm running right now. 2 sessions so far.

We use 25%, it works great.

Staggered is between 0% and 25%, Dying is between 0% and -25%.

We also use Second Wind. It costs one action point (the only other use for an action point is +1d6 to any d20 roll) to regain 25% of your hp. Resting 8 hours heals 25% of your hp.

I have been giving some of the important bad guys (like dragons) a couple of action points to spend on Second Wind as well, though it isn't a very good tactic if they are still in combat.

With this rule, they have been able to go through level 1 with no cleric, but they did have a wand of CLW with 20 charges.

I think this is a good alternative to the Mass Healing of Channel Positive Energy (we house-ruled that channeling either harms undead OR heals, and that the healing is only for one person, and it is touch).

Before I get trampled in here, I want to make it known that I am not an apologist for 4e. Our group tried some playtesting and we didn't really like it. I think that I liked it least among my group even. But I do like the Bloodied and Second Wind ideas.

Wyvern wrote:

I'd like to file a bug report please.

... Or, if it's must be connected to Linguistics, I recommend a free language for every two or three ranks in the skill.

Seconded.

I'm not sure what you mean about the penalties to the good guys. The good guys would have no save penalties versus the turn check of an evil cleric in a desecrated area. The turn would have a higher damage and DC, but I don't see where the penalties are coming from.

You're right. My mistake.

Even a page number as a cross-reference would be great!

Okay, I'm still on the fence. Here is my consideration.

Of the two spells, desecrate will benefit more often from the altar bonus than consecrate. After all, how often are you fighting undead in the Shining Temple of Pelor? So the two spells appear, on the surface, to be symmetric, hence equipotent. But they are not.

Under my proposed change, good clerics will receive +1d6 or +1 DC when they cast the spell, and evil clerics will often gain both benefits.

Under your proposed change, good clerics will receive both +1d6 and +1 DC when casting, and evil clerics will get +2d6 and +2 DC. This is on top of the -4 penalty that the players will take on their saves for a total of +6 increase in the difficulty in saving against this spell.

My point is simply that your version of these spells has a wider power gap between good guys and bad guys than my version. I haven't decided yet if this outweighs your valid concern about players only wanting to cast this spell if they are even level. Any suggestions? Maybe this power gap isn't even so bad?

I am thinking of doing this in my game, with the additional change that identifying druid and ranger spells requires Knowledge (nature).

lastknightleft wrote:

I actually agree I think as a revision on a non-working spell, this is a complete failure. At worst it's a move action for someone to get and strike a sunrod wasted, oh no. The fact that darkvision sees through it means that it has absolutely no effect on dwarves, whom if you've been following D&D for years hated the darkness spell and always had a cleric with them when they fought drow to cast light, now they don't do that because all of a sudden it has no effect on them. I gotta say making half of the monsters you face suddenly immune to the spell doesn't work well for backwards compatability.

Its worse than that - dwarves now get one of their teeth permanently enchanted with Darkness so they can open their mouths and blind opponents as necessary.

It only blinds the opponent until said opponent casts light (or lights a torch, or strikes a sunrod, or opens a window...)

Drow rogue (to drow cleric): "Boy it sure is bright in here; I thought you were going to cast darkness."
Drow cleric: "I did! And it would be really REALLY dark in here too...if someone would put out that torch...and if the curtains were closed....and if..."

:) Cheers.

Consecrate and Desecrate need updated spell descriptions, as they both affect the Turning Check (which does not exist in PFRPG).

Here are the old spell descriptions, with the text I propose to change emphasized.

This spell blesses an area with positive energy. Each Charisma check made to turn undead within this area gains a +3 sacred bonus. Every undead creature entering a consecrated area suffers minor disruption, giving it a -1 penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves. Undead cannot be created within or summoned into a consecrated area.

If the consecrated area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to your deity, pantheon, or aligned higher power, the modifiers given above are doubled (+6 sacred bonus on turning checks, -2 penalties for undead in the area). You cannot consecrate an area with a similar fixture of a deity other than your own patron.

If the area does contain an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture of a deity, pantheon, or higher power other than your patron, the consecrate spell instead curses the area, cutting off its connection with the associated deity or power. This secondary function, if used, does not also grant the bonuses and penalties relating to undead, as given above.

Consecrate counters and dispels desecrate.

Material Component: A vial of holy water and 25 gp worth (5 pounds) of silver dust, all of which must be sprinkled around the area.

This spell imbues an area with negative energy. Each Charisma check made to turn undead within this area takes a -3 profane penalty, and every undead creature entering a desecrated area gains a +1 profane bonus on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws. An undead creature created within or summoned into such an area gains +1 hit points per HD.

If the desecrated area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to your deity or aligned higher power, the modifiers given above are doubled (-6 profane penalty on turning checks, +2 profane bonus and +2 hit points per HD for undead in the area).

Furthermore, anyone who casts animate dead within this area may create as many as double the normal amount of undead (that is, 4 HD per caster level rather than 2 HD per caster level).

If the area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture of a deity, pantheon, or higher power other than your patron, the desecrate spell instead curses the area, cutting off its connection with the associated deity or power. This secondary function, if used, does not also grant the bonuses and penalties relating to undead, as given above.

Desecrate counters and dispels consecrate.

Material Component: A vial of unholy water and 25 gp worth (5 pounds) of silver dust, all of which must be sprinkled around the area.

Note that if you refer to the table for the Turning Check, you see that a +3 bonus effectively lets you turn as a cleric one level higher (at least for the purpose of the Turning Check); while a -3 penalty corresponds to turning as a cleric one level lower. Therefore, my proposed spell descriptions read:

This spell blesses an area with positive energy. Positive energy channeled by a character in the area of affect is done so as if her cleric level were one level higher, while negative energy is channeled at one cleric level lower. Every undead creature entering a consecrated area suffers minor disruption, giving it a -1 penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves. Undead cannot be created within or summoned into a consecrated area.

If the consecrated area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to your deity, pantheon, or aligned higher power, the modifiers given above are doubled (+2 cleric level for channeling positive energy, -2 cleric level for channeling negative energy, -2 penalties for undead in the area). You cannot consecrate an area with a similar fixture of a deity other than your own patron.

If the area does contain an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture of a deity, pantheon, or higher power other than your patron, the consecrate spell instead curses the area, cutting off its connection with the associated deity or power. This secondary function, if used, does not also grant the bonuses and penalties relating to undead, as given above.

Consecrate counters and dispels desecrate.

Material Component: A vial of holy water and 25 gp worth (5 pounds) of silver dust, all of which must be sprinkled around the area.

This spell imbues an area with negative energy. Negative energy channeled by a character in the area of affect is done so as if her cleric level were one level higher, while positive energy is channeled at one cleric level lower. Undead creatures entering a desecrated area gain a +1 profane bonus on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws. An undead creature created within or summoned into such an area gains +1 hit points per HD.

If the desecrated area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to your deity or aligned higher power, the modifiers given above are doubled (+2 cleric level for channeling negative energy, -2 cleric level for channeling positive energy, +2 profane bonus and +2 hit points per HD for undead in the area).

Furthermore, anyone who casts animate dead within this area may create as many as double the normal amount of undead (that is, 4 HD per caster level rather than 2 HD per caster level).

If the area contains an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture of a deity, pantheon, or higher power other than your patron, the desecrate spell instead curses the area, cutting off its connection with the associated deity or power. This secondary function, if used, does not also grant the bonuses and penalties relating to undead, as given above.

Desecrate counters and dispels consecrate.

Material Component: A vial of unholy water and 25 gp worth (5 pounds) of silver dust, all of which must be sprinkled around the area.

These spells are slightly more powerful than the 3.5 version (they both affect both good and evil clerics, whereas the old spells affected only good clerics). Also note that if you a cleric of odd level when you cast these spells the effect is on the Will save DC for half damage (either +1 or -1); if you are even level, it increases the number of dice by one.

First of all, I want to say that I really like the new rules for afflictions, especially poisons. As a DM, I often forgot to ask for a saving throw 1 minute later.

That said, I also noticed that you have changed both the effect and the DC for many monsters' poisons. In particular, the monstrous scorpion now deals Str damage instead of Con damage, and the Small monstrous centipede's DC is higher. Moreover, the Medium monstrous spider formerly dealt 1d4 Str damage, and now deals 1 Str damage for up to 3 rounds (why not 4 rounds?). I have no problem with any of these, but wonder if you have a systematic approach to these changes?

For example, I want to use a Medium monstrous centipede. The frequency and the total number of saves don't really seem to be much of a problem. I'll just require one save per round up to the maximum damage that the poison formerly was capable of inflicting. But what exactly is happening with the saving throw DCs? The only general pattern that I could discern was that they are increasing.

Please help. Thanks.

KnightErrantJR wrote:

As a DM, I hated "combat maneuver" abilities before, and now I have no problem using them, as I used to hate keeping track of so many opposed rolls and what they did. Now all I need to know is the CMB of the target.

However if you look up a monster in source material, it has a Grapple modifier, you have to stop and calculate its CMB.

It really isn't that hard. Most monsters will be Small, Medium, or Large. Medium-sized monsters are trivial: CMB = Grp. Small and Large are just +/-3, respectively. Here is the complete conversion, by size.

Colossal
CMB = Grp - 8

Gargantuan
CMB = Grp - 8

Huge
CMB = Grp - 6

Large
CMB = Grp - 3

Medium
CMB = Grp

Small
CMB = Grp + 3

Tiny
CMB = Grp + 6

Diminutive
CMB = Grp + 8

Fine
CMB = Grp + 8

If Pathfinder Beta goes this route, the roll should be
1d20 + Caster Level + Int bonus
(or Cha bonus for a Sorcerer). I think this is a fine alternative to the spell.

Light (the 0 level cantrip) will never counter a darkness spell.

Pathfinder Alpha 3 Page 110 wrote:

Light can be used to counter or dispel any darkness spell of equal or lower spell level.

Overall it's a big improvement on the 3.5 darkness which really was only shadows.

I didn't say counter. If you bring a rock with light cast on it inside the area of magical darkness, it is no longer dark there. Just like if you bring a light into a mundane darkness. In fact, a torch works too. So, what exactly is the darkness spell doing? Not much.

My suggestion is to have darkness worsen all illumination by one step. I might even go so far as to suggest a fourth step of illumination: pitch black. In pitch black, even darkvision fails to function. Mundane darkness affected by darkness would become pitch black. This might be a good solution for KnightErrantJr.

I agree that the 3.5 version of darkness is wonky and needs some work. However, the Pathfinder version essentially does nothing. I will explain, and then I will offer the alternative that I use. First, let's restate the spell description, from page 101:

This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. Creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded in this area. Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) and light spells brought inside the area of darkness can brighten the area, allowing a creature to see normally in the light’s radius.

If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Our first case will be the best-case-scenario (from the point of view of the spell). A battle is being fought in a brightly lit room when someone casts darkness. Although not explicit in the spell, it could be inferred that this should cause the light sources (torches, say) to no longer shed light. After all, there is the phrase "brought inside the area" which implies that those already in the area don't work. Okay, so now it is dark. A wizard casts light and it is bright again. Evil cleric down a 2nd-level spell, wizard down a cantrip.

Second case: Same battle being fought outside at high noon. Evil cleric casts darkness. Does this cause the sun to stop shedding light? We probably all agree that it doesn't. Most would say that this spell would cause the area of magical darkness to block out the sun. Okay, but big deal. Wizard casts light again. Now the cantrip is more powerful than the sun (which is a god in some campaigns).

Of course, if there were no light sources to begin with, then the spell does nothing. For instance, what does an area of permanent darkness look like? Just like any other area: it is dark until you bring light into it.

My proposed alteration depends on the three levels of illumination we have in the game: bright light, shadowy illumination, and darkness.

Darkness[/i]]

This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. Creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded in this area. Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) and light spells (edit: delete "brought") inside the area of darkness can brighten the area; however, the level of illumination is worsened by one step (bright light becomes shadowy illumination, and shadowy illumination becomes darkness).

If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell’s effect is blocked until the covering is removed.

Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

With this change on the board, I would leave deeper darkness as is, except possibly considering natural sunlight to be magical light (thus deeper darkness cast outside at high noon would cause a 60-foot radius of shadowy illumination). My argument for this is that natural sunlight is more powerful than the daylight spell, as evidenced by its effect on vampires (and that, in some campaigns, it originates directly from a god).

Perhaps other changes could be added to further improve on these suggestions.

I had the Alpha2 printed at FedEx Kinkos. I used the print friendly version. The cover page was printed in color, the inside pages in black and white. They said .pdfs are their drug of choice. The document was printed double-sided, and was spiral bound, all for just over $16 including tax. I showed this to my players and they all wanted one, so I went back and made six more copies. The spiral binding added $4.99 to the cost, but was well worth it.

Pax, how did you get Kinkos to print yours? They won't print it for me, saying it infringes on copyrights.

10 minutes after Sorcerer was revealed Jason corrected himself on the forums when people started asking about it. Search the forums if you don't believe me.

Sorcerer at level 1 knows 4 cantraps and can cast them all day long.

That's fine, I believe you. Do Clerics and Wizards get to cast ALL of their cantrips all day long?

It's an error.

Sorcerers can cast all the level 0 spells he knows unlimited times per day like everyone else.

I don't think that's the case. Read the Clerics' Orisons and the Wizards' Cantrips again. My understanding is that Sorcerers do not get cantrips at will like Wizards.

As an alternative for XP costs (for crafting items as well as spells such as wish), consider aging. A character crafting a magic item ages a number of days equal to 1/25 of the base price of a magic item; a character casting a spell with XP cost ages a number of days equal to the XP cost of the spell.

1st Level Scroll: age 1 day.
Cast wish: age 5,000 days (about 13.7 years).
Craft some 1,000,000 gp item: age 40,000 days (about 110 years).

Why I like it (YMMV):
o It provides a mechanic that would limit the amount of crafting, but not eliminate it altogether.
o It doesn't really penalize characters for crafting, the way XP costs do (for the most part, aging actually improves casters).
o It provides a means to explain why some (if not most) high-level wizards are elderly (whereas high-level PC wizards in 3.5 are almost always 20-something).
o It actually makes the longevity of elves and dwarves worthwhile.
o Flavorwise, it is a better representation of putting your essence into the magic item.
o Okay, I admit: it also reminds me of some of the things I really liked about 1st-Edition AD&D.

With Pathfinder's encounter-building table, XP isn't even needed:

Regular Progression: level up every 15 encounters. Most of these encounters should be at or near APL.

Fast Progression: every 10 encounters.

Slow Progression: every 20 encounters.

Really Slow Progression: every 30 encounters.

The only changes that needs to be made are for crafting items and powerful spells. Just remove the XP cost for items. For spells, one possibility is to change it to some other cost...or just drop it.

Ad Hoc or Story awards? Just count as one encounter.

This system is super simple for DMs when designing adventures. Just plan roughly 15 encounters between milestones. When a milestone is reached, the characters gain a level.

Designers: I love the new Combat Maneuvers rules, much simpler. However, one thing that bugs me is that a rogue with Str 8, Dex 18 is going to be easier to Trip than a cleric with Str 10, Dex 10 (all else being equal).

My suggestion:
Add one more defense score, the Combat Maneuvers Defense Class (CMDC).

CMDC = 15 + base attack bonus + (Str modifier OR Dex modifier) + special size bonus.

The target gets to use her Str modifier OR her Dex modifier, whichever is better.

Pros:
It is clear what it adds, Dex-based characters can also avoid combat maneuvers performed on them. It is still just one step (as opposed to the 3.5 rules) that now covers both the difficulty of getting to the target, and the difficulty of overpowering him.

Cons:
This is another stat to keep track of. However, it isn't really any more difficult than AC, because you calculate it once and then write it next to AC. The stat block might look like:

BAB +2, CMB +3, CMDC 21
(a human fighter 2 with Str 13, Dex 18, for example)

Thanks.