Search Posts
Kineticist - Wild talents confused for Aether - level 9 used as maximum (probably refers to spell level, but in other cases (Air, Water, Earth and Fire) class level is used) for Many Throw Spiritualist - Etheric Tether (Su) does not appear in the Spiritualist table of special abilities: p. 51
Quite a while back, I recall that Paizo mentioned that they like the concept of psionics/psychic powers, but dislike the power point implementation from 3.5E and its OGL successor for Pathfinder. An interesting discussion was raging on the topic at the time and we made suggestions - for example I recall suggesting using one of several ki-based/ki-related systems, or a power point system modified to be less prone to nova-ing or a number of other more exotic systems and other people made suggestions too. I think Paizo was, nevertheless, leaning towards a slot-based system with a Psionic/Psychic flavor. Whereas I am not attached to the power point system, I would prefer a new mechanic for Psionics/Psychic Powers to make them different from Divine and Arcane magic. Truth be told, I would prefer Arcane and Divine magic were different from each other too (and that Nature magic was separate, rather than part of Divine and also unique), but that ship has sailed, so at least Psychic Powers/Psionics could be different. However, even slot-based Psionics/Psychic Power would be interesting if the classes were made distinct enough mechanically from existing classes (I have no doubt they would have distinct enough flavor, but mechanics in my mind needs to support flavor. In any case, I have not been active on these boards for a while and just want to enquire about the current state of the debate and whether there is something in the works yet.
I am wondering, are there any non-English (especially French) Pathfinder PbP games going on or starting up? I am learning French (currently at about B1 level of the European classification system) and would love to practice it while doing something I love: roleplaying. So if anybody is running or planning to run a Pathfinder AP (or another adventure) in French, I would love to join. The only snag is that playing with B1 level might be challenging, but I would still love to try. :)
Planning a playtest where I would have and advance in mythic tiers, whereas the other characters would advance in class levels. This would help test the relative power of mythic tiers and normal levels. However, even before beginning the playtest, I can see a problem. Its name is Mythic Damage. Beyond tier eight, mythic characters are essentially immortal unless confronted by other mythic creatures. This is probably not a huge issue if all characters are mythic and they are meant to take on primarily mythic foes (which in itself is a bit of a predicament for the DM assuming he wants to keep mythic creatures rare) . In a group with a single mythic character, though, this makes it essentially impossible to endanger this character unless there is a surfeit of mythic opponents for the group to fight. Now, mythic rules might not be created with this kind of gameplay in mind – they do seem to assume that characters are either all mythic or none are – so a mix might not be supported. That’s fine I guess (though it does obviate the possibility of a number of interesting fantasy tropes) – not all styles of gameplay can be supported. As I have mentioned, though, even if all the characters are mythic yet low level, they essentially only have to fight mythic foes to be in mortal danger. With this in mind, I would advocate either removing or changing the concept of mythic damage. At the very least, some non-mythic creatures should be considered mythic for damage-dealing purposes. Dragons (at least of the more senior kind), Outsiders (again, at least from the higher ranks), higher-ranking undead and a bunch of other creatures/creature categories should dish out mythic damage. A less flavorful, but probably simpler solution might simply be to say that everything X% or X levels/HD/CR higher than the character deals mythic damage to the character.
Is Paizo planning to publish a book that would provide for character advancement and supporting material above level 20? I remember that we have discussed this several times in the past on this forum, but I have been out of the loop for a while, so I am wondering if there are any new indications either way. Personally, I would be interested in seeing such a book, but only if it were well-executed indeed. Should it turn into something like the Epic Level Handbook in 3e, I would probably pass.
How do you deal with knowledge skills in your campaign? For example, if a player has many ranks in knowledge religion and asks you what he knows about vampire vulnerabilities. Let's say he gets a high result (e.g. 30+) - how much do you tell him? Do you ad-hock it entirely or do you have some sort of system/guidelines that you use to decide what to tell him? How about if he asks you a more general question, such as... "What do I know about demons?" and rolls his 30+ on knowledge planes. So what do YOU do with knowledge skills?
I have just learnt about the Pathfinder Online MMO. After reading all the information about it I could get my hands on, I am sorry to say that this is likely to be a major financial flop. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a Pathfinder RPG computer game, but Paizo has chosen just about the least financially-viable way to go about it. There are many issues here - I will mention some below: 1) Creating a new startup company to create the game is the first big mistake. Game development is a complex process and requires expertise and experience to do well. Paizo is an excellent PnP RPG company - it should have licensed/outsourced game development to an experienced CRPG developer (e.g. Obsidian Entertainment). 2) Making the game an MMO is another huge mistake. MMOs are particularly difficult, lengthy and expensive to develop. Proving the market first with a single-player game would have been a far less risky and cheaper strategy. Besides, the difficulties compound themselves when tied in with point 1. 3) Designing the game to be a sand-box experience, rather than concentrating on a tight-story focused game. A sandbox game may be successful, but Paizo is known for its good storytelling and adventures. To abandon its main strength, especially when it has decided to create its own startup to develop the game, is almost beyond comprehension. Unless, of course, it is the result of point number 2 - it is difficult (almost impossible?) to make a story-driven MMO. 4) Abandoning the PnP ruleset is yet another considerable mistake. The 3.5E ruleset of which this is a derivation is familiar and attractive to and legions of CRPG players and could attract them to the game. Heck, I too am with Pathfinder RPG because of the ruleset, not because of Golarion with which I have no experience (not saying it is bad, but it is not what would attract me to Pathfinder). Some changes are inevitable in the adaptation of the PnP ruleset to electronic format, but this is wholesale 'reimagining' of the rules. Of course, this relates to the game being an MMO, where PnP rules would indeed not work well. I really hope the new startup company is as financially insulated as possible from Paizo proper, since I wouldn't want the highly likely financial failure of this project to kill or substantially damage Paizo.
The signs on the RPG scene these days are pointing to the rather likely possibility that design of the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons is already under way and possibly has been for some time. It is not the purpose of this post to delve into the details or discuss the likelihood in any great detail, so suffice it to say that the Legends & Lore series of articles seem to point that way, as does the rehiring of Monte Cook by Wizards of the Coast. Further evidence attesting to this comes from sales and the release schedule for 4e – the sales of the Pathfinder RPG are of the same magnitude as those of 4e and may even be outselling it, which is a major achievement, though it probably also owes a great deal to the weak release schedule for 4e that is somewhat reminiscent of the end of official support for 3.5E. In any case, even if you still don’t believe 5e is coming, just assume that it is anyway for the purposes of this thread. I would enjoy seeing a discussion of what Paizo will and/or can do to position itself, as well as the Pathfinder RPG, to prepare for and withstand the challenge that 5E will pose. It appears from the Legends & Lore series of articles that Wizards of the Coast is keen on designing a game that will reunite the splintered D&D fan-base. That may be beneficial for the players, but it could hurt PFRPG and Paizo. I must say that I really like what is being presented in the aforementioned articles, which is in complete contrast to the run up to 4e, where I was more and more repelled by each successive reveal. If this is the case for a substantial section of the Pathfinder RPG player base, than the game can be significantly undercut. I know that PFRPG has been going from strength to strength recently, but it could well be fatal for Paizo to underestimate WotC if the latter comes to the market with a new edition. As high quality as PFRPG products may be, business as usual may not be enough, and there might need to be a more specific response. That said, Paizo has managed to build up a lot of loyalty. It has done a lot of things right to ensure that. Apart from updating a popular edition of D&D with a fresh and flavorful twist, the company has managed to grow it in new directions, while maintaining a high level of quality and excellent production values. On top of that, it has embraced the Open Gaming License, which has further endeared it to the community; a fact further enhanced by the regular interaction of Paizo staff with the community. So, clearly, there will be a large number of players who trust Paizo and will stay with the Pathfinder RPG no matter what lures WotC may throw at them. Others will play both games. Still, not all players are like that and a significant portion of the Pathfinder RPG player base may be susceptible to switching to 5E if WotC does a good job with the game. So what should/will Paizo do to respond to and how will Pathfinder be impacted by 5e D&D? Should Paizo simply attempt to continue its plan for the PFRPG without change and stress stability and/or backward compatibility?
Obviously, this is by no means an exhaustive list of Paizo’s choices and PFRPG’s futures and each of the above can contain many sub-scenarios, but I hope the should be enough to get the discussion going!
Multiclassing in Pathfinder RPG does not allow the mixing and matching of alternate classes with the classes they are based on. I am left wondering, why is this the case? I can see the logic with respect to the Paladin/Antipaladin, but see no good reason why rogues and ninjas and perhaps the cavaliers and the samurai should not be allowed to multiclass into their respective alternate classes. For example, a party of characters sets of on a journey from the Western cultural area to an Eastern cultural area, where they eventually become acclimatized. The party wizard, sorcerer, fighter, cleric and even paladin can benefit from the specialized ninja training offered, but the rogue, who should find it the easiest to learn, cannot. Ugh. By contrast, I see nothing suggesting that Archetypes cannot be combined, provided that they are cued of of different abilities. So why the arbitrary restrictions against Alternate classes? Come to think of it, what's the point of having alternate classes at all? One could just as easily have them as base classes without any harm being done other than base class bloat. Such bloat might be undesirable, but alternate classes don't exactly help in stemming the tide, as they pretty much add to the same bloat just under different name. Failing that, these alternate classes could simply be turned into archetypes.
Any rules/suggestion/advice/guidance on what to reincarnate as after rolling 100 on the reincarnation table? It does say DM's choice, but some inspiration/guidelines would most certainly be useful.
Back in the days of the Alpha, I recall creating a thread about a potential Pathfinder CRPG, where some Paizo staff indicated it might be a possibility in the future. (I have found the thread buried deep in the Alpha forum: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/pathfind erRPGBeta/feedback/general/pathfinderRPGElectronicProductsCRPGs&page=1& amp;source=search#21) I remember that Obsidian staff have been fans of Pathfinder (http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=50118) and I would say they are one of the foremost CRPG experts. Anyway, more than two years have passed since, and I am wondering whether there has been some movement on the CRPG front. I would certainly like to see such a game!
I recall that I played in an OGL game some years ago (still in the 3.5E era), but I don't remember its name. The premise was that each of us was a high level wizard (IIRC we started at level 20), but also ran a bunch of low level characters (1st level, I believe). The wizards sent the low level characters on adventures and plotted on the grand scale (though there was still a GM present), while most of the adventuring was done at low levels. In any case, I am sure this would work in Pathfinder too. One wouldn't really need the game to run a campaign in that style, but still - Does anybody remember the name of that game?
I am wondering, how much is too much in terms of rules content? I know that this is pretty individual, but I am wondering about the opinions of people on these board and of Paizo staff on the matter. I am particularly interested in how much is too much (i.e. it starts becoming rules bloat) in terms of the following: 1) Races
I think the lowest threshold for bloat is in races. Thus far, the Pathfinder RPG has not added new player races. I really think the approach taken is very good, as no new player races are being added, but races that could serve as such are given the basic character treatment in the Bestiary. Anyway, I think base classes are approaching the point of saturation, but so far so good. As to feats and spells, I think the no-use threshold has already been passes - as in, I don't consider additional options here useful, but it isn't really bloat for me in the sense that it doesn't bother me. I welcome you thoughts on the matter.
I just found out that the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 exists and presume that Pathfinder Bestiary 3, 4 and so on are also going to arrive. Does anybody know when this is the case? What would people like to see in further bestiaries? For that matter, does anybody have the release schedule for profucts in the Pathfinder RPG line? I would love to see that!
I have downloaded the playtest document and although I have only managed to get a relatively brief look at it thus far I really like what I am seeing. Anyway, it has occured to me that the Words of Power would make for a wonderful mechanic for Psionics. Sure, it might require some mechanical tweaks (hence the playtest ahead of us) and perhaps a few flavor tweaks specific to Psionics, but ultimately it appears to solve many of the dilemnas posed by Psionics in Pathfinder. It allows for great flexibility at the cost of some power relative to standard arcane casters, which is what Psionics should be about mechanically-speaking. It also remains ultimately slot-based, so the stat block issues in Adventure Paths (the Psionic characters in stat blocks/APs could have pre-prepared spells with the words of power, so there would be no need to learn a new casting/manifesting system for those who don't want to do so), as well as the potential imbalances of nova-like effects compared to arcane casters that worried many about a point-based system would not be present. It strikes me as a superb compromise between those of us wanting a novel system for Psionics and those worried about how such a system would fit in with the existing rules/statblocks/etc. Sure, I like this as an alternate arcane system too, but it just seems like such an elegant solution to the Psionics dilemna!
Playing a Magus, if I wish to multiclass to another caster class, how does it mesh with Spellstrike, Spell Combat and Broad Study? The wording of Spellstrike indicates that it applies only when I cast Magus spells. Meanwhile the wording of Spell Combat has no such limitations, but the wording of Broad Study implies that the limitation should be there. Furthermore, the wording of Broad Study (nor does that of Spell Combat) does not limit the application of Spellstrike/Spell Combat to arcane spells only, which would indicate that a magus multiclassed with for example a divine/other caster could also make use of them, although it does seem to be against the spirit of the class, which is arcane-based. Is it possible to clarify these issues (both now for my purposes and in the final product for the benefit of all players)? Thanks!
I think it would be be good approach to give the Magus appropriate spells/buffs to deal with his BAB and general power issues. That would also fit in spirit with the class. We can let ourselves be inspired by the Clerical buffs that make him (possibly) better than a fighter at combat when prepared: Divine Favor, Divine Power and Divine/Righteous Might. Converting to arcane versions: Arcane Favor, Arcane Power and Arcane Might might be a bit too overpowered, but they can at least serve as inspirations. Heck, why not have BAB raising spells? Example: Lesser Arcane Warrior: Raises BAB of the caster by 1 point for 1 round per level. (Could be a 1st level spell.)
These spells would not stack, but would provide everything that a higher BAB provides while they last - including extra iterative attacks if applicable. Alternatively we could have Arcane Warrior I to Arcane Warrior V with corresponding BAB increases, but that might be too strong, since the class might then outshine the fighter at higher levels.
There is a discussion on whether the Psionic system in the Pathfinder RPG should be based on power points or on a slot-based system. Other options seem to be off the table at the moment. Rather than discussing other options here, for the purposes of this thread, let us assume that the power point system will remain and work with it on that basis. Discussion of other systems and their relative merits, including slot-based psionics, can take place elsewhere. It seems that the chief concern of Paizo with the power point system is the ability of Psionic characters to "go nova". Once they have burned through their power points by spending them on high-level abilities thus outclassing the rest of the party while their points last, they are henceforth useless until they rest. Arcane and divine spellcasters actually also have a "nova" potential, though it is theoretically less pronounced than that of psionic characters. To put this slightly in perspective, maybe it is worth mentioning that the above is a game style-specific problem. It is problematic only in some game styles, mainly those that are based on static dungeon crawls. Hence, I must say that this problem rarely arises in my games. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean the issue should be ignored, of course, as the aforementioned play style is fairly common and certainly a valid way to play the game. Still, it appears to be Paizo's primary concern with Psionics, so let's address it in this thread and think of solutions to the issue, but remaining within the general confines of the power point system. Any ideas and suggestions on the topic would be welcome!
I am in Slovakia and likely to remain here for at least two more months until the summer holidays end (that's assuming money is there to return to the U.S. for the next university year). Will the PFRPG be available in Slovakia (outside the U.S.) too and if so, will it be here on release date?
The Monk preview is available: Link
Check the blog - the first preview is up: Link
Jason is interviewed at Kobold Quarterly: Interview I believe this contains the first concrete snippets of information about the final version of the Pathfinder RPG. Brief summary: Paladins can continue to smite a designated evil opponent until he drops
Beyond that there are also the usual more general comments, such as that the final version will be more compatible with 3.5E than the Beta was and so on.
The Pathfinder RPG has now gone to the printers, so there will be no more changes. It is also May already, so the release of the book is just a few months away. Can we now have some previews of the final product? If I remember correctly, it was said that these would start to appear in May.
Inititial Note: This might not be the right board for this threa, but I think it is the closest one. Up until very recently, I have thought that the largest flying creatures on Earth don't exceed a mass of around 10kg (~18lb). Albatrosses apparently have a mass somewhere in that ballpark. I knew about the prehistoric flying reptiles called Pterosaurs and their huge wing spans, but I always recalled some, as it turns out erroneous, information that although heavier than Albatrosses, the Pterosaurs too were not as heavy as humans and might range from say 20-40kg (36-72lb). This seemed to be the biomechanical limit on the weight of flying creatures. Apparently, however, Pterosaurs were much heavier than that. The article I link states that Quetzalcoatlus could have weighted between 250lb and 550lb and had a wingspan of 36 feet! This is obviously much heavier, not to mention larger, than the average human. Going by mass, this would indicate that a category "Large" creature might be able to fly. Going by size (wingspan), it would indicate that category "Gargantuan" creature might be able to fly. I remember some that the High Level Campaigns book in back in 2E AD&D stated that on a non-magical world creatures larger than a certain size cannot fly. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think the size category in question was "Small" or in that ballpark. Sometimes reality is more amazing than fantasy! So, what does this say about Dragons? Well, 3.5E D&D Draconomicon does provide their sizes and masses and these are much, much larger than those of the Pterosaurs. That means we are most likely back to ' it's fantasy' or 'it's magic' as an explanation for dragon-flight, but the biomechanics of realistic flight of massive creatures is still something that is interesting to think about! And although the dragons may be too big, the range of fantasy creatures that could 'realistically' fly without magic or suspension of disbelief has just grown much bigger! Final Note: Obviously, airplanes can fly and some of them have a mass in excess of 150 metric tonnes. Here, however, we are talking about biological systems and biomechanical limits of flight, which are likely to differ substantially from actual physical limits of flight of machines.
From Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-pterosaurs-first-took-flight
Paizo is asking for volunteers for GenCon in the blog: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog Anybody here volunteering? I will probably go back home to my country for the holidays, otherwise I might well have volunteered.
I am wondering what the logic lies behind the Pathfinder XP system. In 3.5E, for example, the system was designed for the characters to level every 13.3333... encounters, assuming they encountered level-appropriate challenges. There was also a simple XP formula of how much XP is needed to attain a new level. Pathfinder obviously needed to change this, since the 3.5E XP system is not OGL. Different (much higher) XP requirements for advancing levels were also needed due to the switch to level-independed XP gains. What I am wondering about, though, is why the specific number were chosen... other than simply, 'well, we need a bigger number so let's arbitrarily choose this kind of progression'. Also, I am wondering why some sort of simpler formula was not chosen for XP requirements to attain a given level.
An easy way to prevent single-level multiclassing dips would be to simply not allow them. A character could be required to take at least two consecutive levels of any class he enters into. A strict DM/GM/PM could, of course, require even more than two levels - three, four or five or more, but since most front-loading of bonuses and features happens at first level, even a two-level requirement would be relatively significant. Technically, the 'consecutive' provision could be dropped, but it does prevent abuse in case the campaign does not run until level 20 or in case it ends prematurely.
Knowledge: Local is a strange at best, because it is the only non-universal Knowledge skill in that it relates only to a specific area. It also makes it problematic in the regard that it is highly locale-dependent, yet PCs tend to travel. Furthermore, it is also conceptually problematic because it overlaps with almost every other Knowledge: Skill, but especially Knowledge: Geography, Knowledge: History and Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty. Because it is a skill that nobody would take, in my campaigns I have been giving 5 ranks (well, bonus of +5 and the ability to use the skill untrained) in this skill for free to all characters, related to the region they come from (or spread over multiple regions if they have travelled in the past). I am thinking of even giving them a free maximum progression in this skill instead of my +5 bonus. The initial bonus would go to their home region and they would gain subsequent ranks for any region where they spent significant time as they advance in levels. Now onto the workings of this skill. Because of the overlap this skill has with other Knowledge skills, I have been thinking about converting it into a bonus that would be applied to rolling the appropriate knowledge skill (say Knowledge: History) when dealing with the local area/region the "Knowledge: Local" (the term should probably just be replaced with the name of the region/area and the bonus, something like - Region: Asur Surdak + 5 [to take an example from my own world]). A character inquiring about the history of Asur Surdak would then roll a regular Knowledge: History check, but would apply his regional bonus for Asur Surdak, if he has it!
Rest is only discussed in 3.5E and PFRPG in the context of recovering spells or recuperating from injuries. By the rules, characters have no intrinsic need for sleep, though, of course, no DM worth his salt would actually play it that way when it becomes relevant. It's not that this is relevant all the time or even very often, but it does come up with similar frequency as hunger or thirst or other such phenomena that do have official rules. I would prefer that official rules be made for skipping sleep, rather than me coming up with ad hoc rules every time the situation arises - PCs guarding something all night long, PCs deciding to continue travelling day and night and so on. Sample sleep rules: Staying awake all night requires a saving throw* to overcome DC 20 + number of nights already awake. Failure indicates that the character is tired and gets a cumulative -1 penalty** to all checks until he catches up on his sleep. Failure by 10 or more indicates that the character falls asleep despite trying to stay awake. If we wanted, we could also introduce situational modifiers that would be up to the DM to impose. *I am undecided among three options: 1) Fortitude save
**An alternative would be to use the fatiguesd and exhausted conditions, but that would be less extendable
In my experience, Level Adjustments as they currently stand in both 3.5E and Pathfinder RPG are not a terribly good way of balancing power, as characters advance in levels, because the penalty stays the same, yet the relevance of the abilities/powers leading to the Level Adjustment decreases. This has manifested in my games several times. For example, one of my players wanted to play a Djinn (the party was at an appropriate level for that) and I allowed it, but some levels later, the character was inevitably grossly underpowered. I would like to see this issue addressed in Pathfinder if possible. I have three suggestions: 1) Make LA into a permanent negative level (or levels) This would soften the blow of LA, but would not really solve the underlying problem of the abilities provided getting less useful with levels 2) Make LA into XP penalty This would solve the problem, I think, but might be too radical a solution. 3) Implement a mechanism to enable the character to buy-off LA - perhaps something like in Unearthed Arcana
I had an idea. How about setting up a gamer classifieds forum, where people could advertise and look for online or local Pathfinder RPG (or even other) games? Many sites have such fora - it could be useful for the community to have one here too.
The Magic Item Creation system is suitable to campaigns with high levels of magic, but less so to campaigns with lower prevalence of magic. Since Pathfinder is going to include guidelines on lower magic campaigns, I thought it would be a good idea if such guidelines (perhaps in the form of sidebar optional rules) included the magic item creation system. The current system is decidedly industrial and it would be nice if some guidelines were provided for making it both more restricted and less like a question of economics/production efficiency. For example, I currently use a system where the players must retrieve specific rare components that I deliberately do not put a price-tag on, but I am open to other ideas and would certainly welcome some official guidelines if not rules on the matter.
This is a continuation of the thread: Magic Item Dependence on High Levels I think the issue is relevant to both high level play and to magic items...
We all know about the issue of high level characters being able to jump from infinite heights without fear of dying. There have been many solutions proposed, some more complex and some less so. I believe, however, that there is a very simple solution to falling damage... increase the size of the damage dice. Increasing falling damage die size from d6 to d12 will go a long way towards making falling more dangerous. It is even possible to increase damage dice to d20, though that would be a bit non-standard and in any case the d12 does not get enough use! On another note, we could either remove the damage cap of 20 dice or make characters take double damage from falls if they fail their Jump/Tumble/Acrobatics (however the skills end up in the final version of PFRPG) checks (or even do both). We could make the DC for the check something like: 0 + 1 for 10 feet fallen.
I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.
Erm, wrong forum - can you please move the topic? Thanks!
I just had an interesting thought. Just as long-term villains are might be better represented by ECL than Challenge Rating, Fighters and other martial classes might be better represented by a Challenge Rating than by ECL if they have no special out-of-combat tricks. This is a converse of the long-term villain situation.
This is not really applicable to the Pathfinder RPG, at least not as far as the first edition is concerned, because it is far too radical, but I would still like to get some comments on this. Suppose that instead of bonuses being a flat number, they would be rolled as extra dice. There are two basic ways of doing this: the average method and the maximum method. Average Method: (two options, lower or higher bonus) Original Bonus:...New Bonus (Lower):...New Bonus (Higher):
If chosing the average method, I would chose the lower bonuses (middle column) and yes, I know that +2 could be perfectly averaged by d3, but I am making it a d2 or d4 for the sake of consistency with the other numbers. The advantages of using the average method are that static numbers don't need to be recalculated to get the same average results. Maximum Method: Original Bonus:...New Bonus:
The disadvantage of using the maximum method is that in order to get the same average results in terms of difficulty, static numbers would need to be recalculated (all deviadions from the base number of 10(.5)would have to be halved). Both the average method and the maximum method suffer from the same problem that the types of dice we have are limited - we don't have a commonly available d7 for example, nor can we easily simulate it. Computers can deal with this, of course, but reliance on computers is not desirable. As such, it may be necessary to stop at a certain number and start adding dice anew. A good number to stop at would be the original +5 bonus, since it is a nice and neat quarter of 20, the maximum attainable with an unmodified d20 roll, but any other number for which we have dice available would be reasonable (stopping at d4, d6, d8, d10, d12...). Beyond the stop point, new dice would be added, so starting from +1 again, while keeping the previously gained dice too. The purpose of this system would be to ensure that even when the spread of bonuses between characters is very high, there is still a chance of failure for the characters with higher bonuses and a chance of success for those with lower bonuses. So somebody (e.g. Fighter) with a Reflex saving throw bonus of +5 would instead add an extra d8 to his roll, whereas another character (e.g. Rogue) with a Reflex saving throw of +13 would instead add an extra 2d8 and an extra d4 to the roll (this example assumes the use of the average method (low bonus) and assumes that the stopping point for increasing dice size is set at the d8).
I am wondering why we need to bother with NPC classes at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to have templates and build NPCs by applying a template to the race to create the desired NPC and giving racial hit dice if higher than first level NPCs were desired? Or at most, we could have one NPC class - Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever. The class would have the lowest progressions in everything and no special abilities and skills and the level in the class would determine the level of the NPC. A template would then be applied if a more capable character were desired thus giving the non-player character appropriate abilities and skills. Example: We want to create a 7th level blacksmith: Step 1 has two options: Option 1: Give the character 7 racial hit dice Option 2: Give the character 7 levels in the Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever class which grants no abilities nor skills Step 2: Apply the blacksmith template to grant the NPC skills and perhaps special abilities.
I also don't use the magic item industry, erm, creation rules of D&D 3.5E. The Pathfinder RPG magic item creation rules have wisely done away with XP costs, but their replacement with GP costs smacks even more of industrial magic - just pay the gold to create the item. Perhaps this is necessary for the balance of the game given its design, but my groups have had great fun playing the game with less industrial magic, so I doubt the necessity-by-design argument. Given the above, I would like to see some less industrial magic item creation rules. For magic item creation in my game, the character must have the appropriate feat and pay the given gold-piece costs, but I also add another part to magic item creation. Each magic item requires at least one hard-to-get exotic component that the PCs must obtain in order to create it. I decide on the component required arbitrarily, so I can ration magic item creation pretty much how I wish. That said, I would prefer a magic item creation system that is not industrial, but that would rely on less arbitrary judgement on my part. Perhaps this could be achieved by pre-assigning every magic item in the 3.5E DMG/Pathfinder RPG rulebook an exotic component (or several of them), but for me it would be too much work to do this for the hundreds of existing magic items - I have better things to do with my time. If these were already preset in the main book, though, I would welcome it. Those who want industrial magic would be welcome to ignore the exotic components (they could even be an optional rule). There could even be some flexibility as to what components are needed. For example, rather than 'Boots of Feather Fall' requiring all feathers of a newborn Roc, they the exotic component could be written as: All feathers of a newborn powerful avian (minimum CR 12 in adult form) Thoughts?
Whereas previously death effects meant instant death on saving throw failure before, now they merely do straight hit point damage - this makes them effectively evocation spells in all but name and simply adding more normal damage spells is well... boring. I understand the balance reasons why this was done, but there must be other solutions to the problem. Indeed, there was an excellent thread on this matter back during the Alpha 3 playtest stage. It can be found here: Link The near-consensus of the thread was that death effects should do Constitution drain or damage. Much of the rest of the thread was discussion about how much Constitution drain/damage they should cause and there were several viable proposals. One of my proposals was for: 3d6 + 1/2 Caster level Constitution Drain on a failed save
There was also some discussion about whether to apply the same logic to other save or die and save or suck spells that are not strictly speaking death effects. These would drain other ability scores and reach full effect once the ability score reached 0. So, for example, Petrification would drain Dexterity (perhaps also to the tune of 3d6 +1/2 Caster level) on a failed save and the creature would turn to stone upon reaching 0 Dexterity. There was no consensus on this part though. I really dislike the ordinary hit point damage caused by death effects, so the above system would work great for me. Alternatively, though, we could simply revert back to the 3.5E way of doing things and temper them with an additional rule. Save or die and perhaps even save or suck spells could have a hit point limit and the creature would have to have fewer hit points than this limit to be affected. That would mean that a powerful dragon would first have to be brought down to say 200hp (or whatever the limit would be), before it could be affected by the spell and thus couldn't be off'ed in the first round due to an unlucky save making the final battle very anticlimatic. Thoughts? |
