Sharen's page

For Chrome users having scrolling problems, try switching to the computer version of the page. For me it kept the same display as the mobile version while solving the issue. Haven't tested it for long but so far haven't seen any problems on my phone.

Well, if you really use full potential of the TSM (ie not using some of the tactics described), you would prtobably kill at least one PC.

I know my players. There is an 80% chance that once they get down to U1, they will progress to U2 and then will want to go to U10 and then U11. Ther reason for this is that whenever in a dungeon we "always go left." It's one of our group's habits (along with "always go up a level before you go up/down a level" and always "full power attack." No matter how difficult your chance of hitting the monster is, if you have power attack then you must always FULL power attack).

Well, I don't really see a problem here. If I correctly understood, and if your players take the front entrance, they should be lvl 3 by the time they reach U1, since they will have explored almost or all first floor, plus the second (go up a level first before going down)

So it's basically OK since they should be fighting TSM at this level.

and I really don't like the idea of a rule disallowing a virtual Hercules from wrestling with an elephant just to prevent cats from pinning dragons.

Still, I don't find man-vs.-elephant wrestling to be particularly absurd at the same power level as magic jar!

Then maybe base the possibility to attempt a grapple not on size but on Strength ? Or both ?

Well, let's drop the size category by one and see if it makes sense then. Imagine a man with literally superhuman strength and a lifetime of training, wrestling an elephant to the ground with the help of some very good luck. Reasonable for a fantasy hero of great power and experience? Doesn't seem too bad to me.

(Oh holy crap, I just googled it. Check this out. Not actually part of my argument, but awesome! Small elephant, tho.)

Hahaha good one ^___^

Well, your monk doesn't have superhuman strength. but I guess a God's avatar could do this kind of thing.

But if grapple doesn't have any size restriction, bull rush does as for overrun. So what makes it easier to grapple someone than to bull rush/overrrun him ? just doesn't seem very logical to me...

And dragons should watch out for cats as they have 5% chance of grappling them XD. I was considering to revert this point to 3.5 and state that you can't grapple an opponent that is more than one size larger than you. However, if multiple characters team up ( with aid rolls maybe ? ) to make a grapple, the one that makes the actual grapple check can consider himself one size category bigger, but only in regard of checking if the grapple check can be attempted ( so this won't add size bonus on the maneuver check ).

Okay... so I made a bit of a blunder with my previous spreadsheets. I'd initially thought of building the high-level characters at 16 and having a middle tier, then decided to save the work because I liked the Purple Worm as a match-up, and dropped them to 12. Fixed all the numbers... except BAB!

Here are the corrected match-ups for the -2x modifier at CR12. I've also removed the reduce effect from the 12th-level gnome, it was a hold-over from size affecting only attack.

Monk vs. Purple Worm: 15%/45% (5%/95%)
Cleric vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Sorcerer vs. Purple Worm: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Leonal: 60%/5% (35%/25%)
Cleric vs. Leonal: 5%/80% (5%/75%)
Sorcerer vs. Leonal: 5%/95% (5%/95%)
Monk vs. Kolaryut: 95%/5% (80%/5%)
Cleric vs. Kolaryut: 50%/35% (30%/30%)
Sorcerer vs. Kolaryut: 10%/55% (5%/70%)

So now, I'm thinking that the -2x modifier is plenty. Small characters are severely punished by a higher modifier, as it reduces the influence of their higher touch AC. (Even with -2x, every drop in size category makes you 5% easier to hit.)

Well actually is there a bug ? I don't mean in your figures, but in the situation ? Can an enlarged Monk ( size L ) really Grapple the worm ? ( size G ). I won't even mention the cleric and Sorcerer then...

In 3.5 Grapple would fail if used against an opponont more than one size larger than you are. This has now disappeared in PF. Is it intended ? The reason I can imagine if it's not a bug, is that multiple smaller creatures can team up to attempt a grapple. I like the idea but it's not handled properly. I could come up with a solution, but since it's not really the point of this thread, I'll just skip it here.

toyrobots wrote:

Yeah, I think combat maneuvers need to be a viable option, but not vs. every opponent. It should probably be one of the last options any PC would explore when fighting a purple worm... I should say a Medium PC should have to specialize heavily in maneuvers to even think about such a stunt. Anyone else agree?

I agree, and that SEEMS to be Jason's intent.

I think the numbers for the Purple Worm & Monk bear that out, the chance was about 30% (for both), which is nothing you can depend on, and that was pretty much as specialized as you can get for Maneuvers. The Purple Worm has Imp. Grab so doesn't give up anything, while the Monk has to give up Melee Strikes (including special Monk Unarmed Debuffs) to attempt a Maneuver (at 30% chance).
I was actually feeling a +2* to Maneuver AC across the board was necessary, but at this point, just +1 or even nothing seems like it's fine. Low-level combatants will have a relatively easier time (vs. each other), but that doesn't really seem like the worst thing in the world.

Agree too. Maneuvers are intended to create favorable situation or turn the tides by taking risks. Like it was said on the other post, it's gambling on something : While taking a Maneuver, you are exposed to AoO, you don't deal dammage and it can expose you to some nasty situations... Maneuvers for a non specialized character should only be an option when they see other tactics fail ( or will fail )

The awesome example IMO is just that fight of a low level party with a quasit ( might be OldGM's party ). A quasit can fly, become invisible at will, has dammage reduction and fast healing. And this one had some stuff that could make him attack from a distance if I remember. How is the party supposed to handle this fight ? Grapple him ! no more fly, no more invisibility, no more ranged attacks. But what I liked the most was drowning him to bypass the DR and fast healing.

So lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 has 40% chance of success.

In 3.5 it's around 23% ( not counting the +2 on opposed STr check from charge )

Well... Now my opinion has to be different XD. But sorry I'll post that later as I need some urgent sleep ^__^'

Back on the horse now. Yup it's easier now at least for those creatures that have a crappy touch AC. But the difference between the two versions is just logical

When are trying to unify different maneuvers under the same kind of roll, whereas in 3.5, maneuvers were handled differently each having its specific method :

• Grappled needed a touch Attack then an opposed STR check, explaining we find approximatively the same figures.
  
• Bullrush only needed an opposed STR check and that's why the results are so different
  
• Disarm was an opposed attack roll
  ...
  

Using the current unified system, we make the choice that some maneuvers just won't be the same as before. If we want to balance some maneuvers, some others will just get unbalanced.

Unless someone comes up with some idea, We have to accept this fact for now

Well... size counts for +2 but Large creatures tend to have better strength and that counts in the calaculation

A standard Ogre per 3.5 has these stats
STR 21 DEX 8 BAB +3 Touch AC 8

This would make his ManAC 18 which doesn't seem too low. After all it's a CR 3 creature.

A lvl 5 human fighter with STR 16 would basically have 50% chance to succeed, but hey, he's 2 levels above the CR ( and could take the Ogre 1 on 1 fairly easily in a fight )

A lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 trying the same would have 40% chance to succeed. In 3.5 the success rate of such an attempt is around 66% ( yup I added the +4 for size ) and even higher if the attacker is charging ( +2 to the opposed STR check )

So my conclusion is ( at least for this case ) : ManSizeMod being double of SizeMod is enough ( and your bullrushing character might just have a tremendous strength ^__^ )

EDIT : Whoops made wrong calculations... Modifying them right now ^___^'

I'll just reply to myself because I messed up quite badly ( well I'll put it on the fact that it is past 2 am )

So lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 has 40% chance of success.
In 3.5 it's around 23% ( not counting the +2 on opposed STr check from charge )

Well... Now my opinion has to be different XD. But sorry I'll post that later as I need some urgent sleep ^__^'

Also, I think maybe Size should count for more. In my CMB playtests, I feel size is under valued (too easy to trip big monsters), and I see that being the same problem here. Big monsters tend to rely on natural armor, which rightly should not be counted against maneuvers... but I think an Ogre deserves more than a +2 vs a bullrush by a human. What if the formula was -3(Size)?

Cumulative Size mod to MAC (Size penalty plus special size mod)
Small -3
Medium +0
Large +3
Huge +6
Garg +12
Coloss +24

Less than 3.5 grapple, more than Pathfinder Beta CMB.

Well... size counts for +2 but Large creatures tend to have better strength and that counts in the calaculation

A standard Ogre per 3.5 has these stats
STR 21 DEX 8 BAB +3 Touch AC 8

This would make his ManAC 18 which doesn't seem too low. After all it's a CR 3 creature.

A lvl 5 human fighter with STR 16 would basically have 50% chance to succeed, but hey, he's 2 levels above the CR ( and could take the Ogre 1 on 1 fairly easily in a fight )

A lvl 3 human fighter with STR 16 trying the same would have 40% chance to succeed. In 3.5 the success rate of such an attempt is around 66% ( yup I added the +4 for size ) and even higher if the attacker is charging ( +2 to the opposed STR check )

So my conclusion is ( at least for this case ) : ManSizeMod being double of SizeMod is enough ( and your bullrushing character might just have a tremendous strength ^__^ )

EDIT : Whoops made wrong calculations... Modifying them right now ^___^'

Original thread HERE

Maybe it's time to clarify if Divine PrC CL add to the existing Divine spellcaster's level in order to to gain new domains powers.

I can understand that a wizard that takes a Arcane PrC doesn't gain new schools powers from the addition of the CL, since it's not specialization anymore ( unless some special PrC are created that would match the specialization itself ).

On the other hand, Divine Spellcaster's still worship their god, maybe even more for some PrC ( example of some PrC ( not included in the prC enhancement ) that have a perequisite of being cleric of some specific god ). Then why should they not progress in their access to domain powers ?

Now mechanically speaking, Domains are not as powerful as schools specialization. Schools powers abilities are more powerful in the overall, and the ability to cast any spell of the school of a given level makes it very flexible. Altough you have two domains for clerics, you are stuck to specific spell like abilities ( some of them won't ever be used, and they can't even be converted into healing )

Speaking of domains granting spell like abilities, I'll also ask the clarification about THIS matter.

As for any of these systems being incompatible with 3.5 Statblocks, well... CMB already isn't! I don't see how it could get much worse.

Well "tejón/your"'s method is very easy to apply so for me it's highly compatible with 3.5. You just need to add a Man AC in the block and... that's all !

tejón wrote:

Scrap the failure rule entirely. A lot of people seem to favor this, based on the idea that you're already trading a round of damage for a tactical gamble, especially if you're taking an AoO. It's a reasonable argument.

Oddly enough, I favor this one. And I agree with the statement that if you are even at risk of AoO damage here, you arent a "specialist" in CMs, so you are making tactical decisions that may turn the tide of an encounter. My group in RotRL did exactly that with the quasit (same encounter I wonder?) They couldnt hit her, with the high AC and her flying all over. The rogue hid on the dais level and waited. When she got too close, he jumped off of the dais and brought her down. Very heroic, and damn smart too. And all that before we even had this system going. Would have been a shame for him to do all of that, and lose his attack from 2 points of dagger damage.

Could be your party then ^___^ I heard it from a player who is running the pathfinder campaign, and he read this on this very same forum. Anyway, gg for this one

I agree that the second option would work just fine. Come to think of it, that's how I played Maneuvers in 3.5.

It would give more chances to those who don't have an improved maneuver feat. Fact is : I like to see players gamble on this. They know that it's dangerous, that they don't have the required feats, but they also know that if it works out, they can turn tables ( I was told of a fight where low level players did grapple a quasit and drowned it in a pool. That was a fresh and good tactic )

Original post HERE.
I will be debating about the AoO in the system we are currently testing.

To use a combat maneuver, you make an attack roll with an additional special size modifier against your target's Maneuver AC (CMAC). A creature's CMAC is equal to:

touch AC + base attack bonus + Str modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for combat maneuvers is: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...). As an exception to the normal stacking rules, this modifier stacks with (does not replace) any existing size modifier on AC and attack rolls.

Combat maneuvers provoke attacks of opportunity. Certain feats and abilities, as well as certain weapons, allow specific combat maneuvers to be used without provoking an attack of opportunity. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity (or are otherwise physically interrupted) while performing a combat maneuver, it fails and the action is lost.

If the Concentration skill hadn't been merged with Spellcraft (seriously, what? does nobody else force rogues and monks to make concentration checks all the g*~&#+n time?) I'd suggest a check to keep the action if struck by an AOO. Beta's method of adding damage to the hit roll, though... just say you lose the attack. It comes out the same. :P

EDIT: Still not 100% sure of how to handle the "when does it provoke" question. I really like IUS allowing certain maneuvers to be performed without provoking, but maybe that should be handled as the exception... either built into the IUS text or maybe just part of a monk's Maneuver Training...

IMHO, losing your maneuver because you get hit by a AoO isn't good. Taking a maneuver is already a risk, as the target gets a free AoO and success rate of a maneuver can vary greatly, not to mention that at higher levels Attack rolls will mostly hit ( BAB increases, but AC has a cap ).

Getting a penalty to maneuver attack roll seems more reasonnable. Would it be equal to dammage taken ? I'm not too sure about it but seems fair. This method also offer the 5% chance of success on the net 20 on dice roll.

For the concentration skill, yeah, it's too bad. This would have come handy here ( and reverting to concentration also solves the casting defensively issue. sadly it makes onr more skill to invest in ).

Maybe we can think of something else to emulate a "concentration" check ? Something based on CON+BAB maybe ? ( just an idea I throw in without other thoughts )

Anyhow, I would still be interested to hear playtest feedback, preferably from a range of players/DMs, on how my original proposal (Situational NET Size Bonuses) plays out. It seems the simplest to understand and explain (as well as being a unified system rather than a "hack"), so I'd like to hear if many people DO actually find it hard to use, or not. I think Pathfinder's "Scale Change" (each Size Tier = +/-1) makes it simpler to manage (and only DMs really have to track it.)

Well I discussed this issue with a player/DM and he would tend not to use this method. Why ?

• He is too used to include size calculation in Attack and AC, so this gets him confused. SizeMod has always been handled correctly in 3.5 and it's simple. The issue here comes from Maneuvers, so we both think changing the whole system wouldn't be the best solution.
  
• This would make an extra calculation, which might slow down the game. That's what we think, but since this hasn't been tested, I can't say it for sure.
  
• This would need a recalculation in stats blocks, especially for MM.
  
• How would you explain your sizeMod system to players ? ( actually that's a question from me ). Can you just write it down as it would be in the rules ?
  

Pathfinder is based on D&D 3.5 and most of the players/DM used to play 3.5. Also, Pathfinder wants to be most compatible with 3.5. Though your size resolution system is clean and smart ( there's no doubt on it ), it tends to get a bit too far from the original way. This means more conversion work for DM, an extra editing work from Paizo guys, and we already have tons of things to do I guess...

Seems nice. I don't have time to play with spreadsheets but I made some quick statistics calculations for the party I run in Nightbelow.

Actually they did encounter trolls and defeated them. The little playtest I wrote can be read HERE. One of the reasons I advanced was that it seemed too difficult for the trolls to grapple the enlarged fighter.

For the calculations here I made everyone lvl 5. I'll give rate of success in 3.5, Pathefinder and the version metionned below

Special Size Mod = -2 * Size Mod to AC

Maneuver AC = Touch AC + BAB + Str + Special Size Mod.
Maneuver Roll = Standard Attack roll + Special Size Mod.[/b]

So here are the results of Troll vs PC

Troll : STR 23 BAB +4 Size L

Case 1 Troll vs Human Cleric 5

Case 2 Troll vs Elf Druid 5

Case 3 Troll vs Elf Wizard 5

Case 4 Troll vs Half Elf Rogue 4 / Monk 1

Case 5 Troll vs Dwarf Fighter 5

Case 6 Troll vs Human Fighter 5

The outcome is satisfying in the overall. Overall balanced characters ( between DEXT STR and BAB ) tend to match 3.5, whereas high dext str and bab tend to match PF. But it's now easier to provoke situations where you can gain a bonus to maneuvers.

The +2 difficulty doesn't seem necessary in this case. But I guess at higher level, with many bonuses stacking, it could be different. We'll definitely have to explore this further.

As for the mechanics itself, It's easy to handle and smooth ( as long as there aren't too much bonuses/penalties ), and the size bonus will not have to be calculated situationnaly, which makes it faster.

Now I'll have to test other maneuvers ( mostly those relying on a weapon bonus ), and get a look at the common bonuses that add to offense and defense to find out if these won't break the flow.

But congratulations, it seems we are getting something.

No Harm Quandary. Actually I missed your point and tejón just clarified it.

But because of what I read so far from you, I thought you were calulating a specific Maneuver Attack roll and not using the existing ones.

Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls (& all Modifiers)

That made me ask myself : What are those modifiers ? When I read you it seems that it would include feats ( including focus ), magic bonuses, situationnal bonuses... I then got to think that you were either calulating a general maneuver Attack roll and then adding bonuses in specific cases or either you were keeping track of every weapon/attack.

Another thing that got me wrong was the fact that in 3.5 there was a melee attack box and a range attack box. Those disapeared in PF but I stayed focused on them, thus thinking you were refering to those when you were speaking of Melee Attack.

Now that's all been cleared, I can see that yup it's much simplier. But concerning the size issue, I'm still in favor of some already calculated sizeMod. And I still think that the +2 in Maneuver AC should be removed, but I'll get a final conclusion after playtesting.

The issue I see with this is that the size bonus/penalty is also symmetrical (applies on both attack and defense); it's a total wash against the Strength factor, whereas in 3.5 the bonus on the opposed roll far outweighed the penalty on the attack for a large creature.

How about we just compensate with an inverse modifier, though? Double the one in the current PRPG rules and it'll cancel out the existing AC modifier to yield the intended "leverage" effect. So:

CM SizeMod = Tiny -4, Small -2, Medium 0, Large +2, Huge +4 (etc.)

CM Defense = Touch AC + BAB + Str + CM SizeMod.
CM Attack = Normal attack + CM SizeMod.

One easily-derived number on your character sheet, one simple static modifier to your attack roll. Everything changes the same way as normal AC and attacks.

Basically, whe share the same point of view for the size modifier issue. If I read you correctly we have the same formula in the end ( except for the added bonuses ), since I don't double the size modifier per se but add it again

As a reminder the formula I intend to test is
CM Attack = CMB ( which is BAB + STR mod + special size mod for CMB ) + other modifiers ( imp feat, weapon focus, magic weapon, higher ground, flank... )
CM AC = Touch AC + CMB + special size modifier for CMB + other modifiers

This way, you won't need to add a CM sizeMod, but just use the exisrting special SizeMod for CMB.

Yup, it seems I have a version of the ENWorld 3.5 conversion notes sleeping in one of my HD. The HD is a bit unstable but I should be able to fix it. I'll try to do this in the next few days.

The combination of the 2 spells works. But reduce person lasts 1 min/lvl so your mage will have to expend spells slots to learn more reduce person if he wants to "fly" longer. Those slots could be so useful for other spells, but well it's a choice. Now, I can see him making scrolls to go around this...

Now the speed of flight is up to 15 feet in horizontal, and if ascending 45° it's only 5 feet. while using this mean of fly you are denied your DEX bonus to AC. And it can't be used efficiently in combat situation ( I'll require at least a spellcraft check from the wizard to cast in this position, and a fly check from the unseen servant ( if possible ? ) to see if he drops what is he lifting. )

So now if it's just to cross pits once in a while, it should be okay

jreyst wrote:

hogarth wrote:

I agree it's vague. Would you be satisfied if they said it has a "land speed of 15 feet" instead of a "speed of 15 feet"?

That might be sufficient. Although if you say that then I guess you could never use the servant to open a window in your house that is up high? How tall is the force? How high can it jump? Can it climb walls?

From the spell:

"It can't perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 [or use skills] that can't be used untrained."

So it could potentially make a Jump or Climb check with a DC of 10.

The force is "shapeless", but you can imply that it's effectively Medium-sized since its 2 Str can lift 20 lbs.

Try Fly check DC 10

LazarX wrote:

When a character becomes known for being a one trick pony, the enemies he or she makes start to get clever about dealing with that one trick.

Adventures do not always involve recurring intelligent villains. I could see using that argument if the PC's repeatedly faced the same opponents, or were observed doing so, but often the exact specifics of encounters take place in lonely old dark rooms far underground and for a DM to just arbitrarily hand-wave and say the bad guys are aware of your tactics is too heavy handed for me. I'd rather have something built into the spell slightly reducing its effectiveness, like maybe eliminating the no Spell Resistance part?

Well sure. but your foes have experience ( or they wouldn't be that CR ). that means that they might have seen or heard about some spells and how to deal with it. Maybe some other party tried it and now they are a bit aware of how to deal with it. This is even more logical if they have a caster among them. And as I always say do not hesistate to use the same techniques on your party. I mean, foes are not that dumb. Starting from a certain point I play them like I would if I were a player.

hogarth wrote:

jreyst wrote:

Unseen servant could use a bit of clarification because as of now it is cast by casters in my campaign all day, every day, and it ends up being used as a cheap fly spell when the caster also reduces himself etc. It seems that the vast functionality of this spell could be reduced at least a little bit.

Where does it say that an unseen servant can fly?

After look in the Beta I found no reference that an Unseen Servant could fly.

True, but unseen servant is actually a better version of mage hand and mag hand can lift objects in the air up to the maximum range. So can unseeen servant I guess. Futhermore there is this passage that says the maximum range of unseen servant is mesurated from the caster's current position : if he's in the air, i would state this is possible.

Now, ways to limit the use of unseen servant as flying spell can be found. Unseen servant can't do what requires a skill check of 10 or more. So actually if we look under the flyning skill, we can see the limits. And lifting an object and lifting a person isn't really the same. If the person tries to take some kind of action, it could make the situation unstable and require a fly check. In case of failure it's AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH... And yup no feather fall effect XD

I liked the complete darkness spell, because it meant blindness for everyone. It's a good distraction and was a good way to enjoy the benefit of the Blind Fighting feat.

Just a bit concealment is nothing like that.

Blindfighting stills works with 20% concealment. Otherwise there is a spell that was in Magic of Faerun under the Darkness Domain that allows you to cast a complete darkness zone but gives you the ability too see through it.

Perhaps this belongs on the Clerics thread, but I only thought of it now and its remotely magical so I'll post it here:

Please add verbiage that states that the 1st level Travel Domain power "Dimensional Hop" requires Line of Sight.

This has already been discussed in the clerci section I guess, but I'm not sure. We all agree that this domain needs some changes.

Yup instead of telling us what you added, why don't you just tell us why you find it too strong and see if we can find a solution to your problem ?

Unseen servant could use a bit of clarification because as of now it is cast by casters in my campaign all day, every day, and it ends up being used as a cheap fly spell when the caster also reduces himself etc. It seems that the vast functionality of this spell could be reduced at least a little bit.

This spell just does about everything ( including coffee ! :D ). It's up to you to state what are the limits, because there would be too much to say otherwise.

The latest move of my party was to Silence a sneak using Invisibility Sphere, followed by a barrage of xbow bolts at poor Barl Breakbones - one of the bolts was Silenced (and the shooter True Striked to make sure no misses will be involved).

Barl got hit thrice, and I was faced with a "which thing is making me silent ?" problem. If he could cast detect magic ... but no, V component.

Solutions:

a) Make it an Illusion and allow Will saves regardless of casting method.

and/or

b) The "unattended object" variant should go, simply. If it's cast on area the victim can easily move away, and if it's cast on creature it gets a Will save (which most casters pass easily).

I guess the true striker had the silent spell feat ? In which case sure, I'm okay with all this. We also have been using this technique, or personnal favorite is casting silence on a something small and have it wielded by an unseen servant.

Well not too much counters to silence techniques. Put some silent alarms to warn from intruders, have a silent spell ready to protect yourself, and do not hesitate to abuse of the same techniques on your party...

Well, Dispel Magic sure cause a lot of troubles. But once you get the idea and have played it a few times it's no so hard to apply. This spell is a key to winning battles with casters and shouldn't be changed slightly. I've seen many times a Dispel magic turning the tide of a battle...

Now just a clarification : The aera dispel states that magical items are not affected. But what if the magical item is the target of a magical effect such as a sword affected by a keen edge spell ? My opinion is to test the effect only if the magical item is not somehow in contact with someone ( eg : lying on the ground ) but I might be wrong ?

The spell sure is a little underpowered.

It's an efficient spell because there is no save ( poor rogues ) and it lasts a full round, making it sweet if used with other Area control effects. But sure, I see few players using it because it doesn't sound attractive enough.

I kinda like the difficult ground effect and the increased duration ( +1 round every 2 or 3 level therafter ), but not both since I think it might be a bit too much then.

Increased dammage or AoE aren't necessary. To me it's more an area controlling effet than just another blaster you can throw at foes.

Well IMO 3.5 Darkness was quite deadly, especially used by creatures with darkvision. Why so ? Because these creatures ( eg : Drows ) tend not to fight in brightlight. Basically, cast a darkness in an already dark area : Seems stupid ? Maybe not

Those who don't have darkvision are now considered blind if they don't have a magical mean to counter the darkness effect. Those who have a darkvision only suffer a 20% miss chance. I shall remind that blind creatures loses their DEX bonus to AC thus making them easy prey for rogues.

This darkness spell in 3.5 just works fine if used in correct conditions. I don't really see the point to changing this.

Now, there is a spell that could be changed ( or not ) and that is faerie fire. Why ? I haven't read the drow saga by Salvatore, but my players tell me that drow fighting techniques use darkness spell in conjunction with faerie fire, the latter being able to overcome the darkness. I admit it makes this level 1 spell something new, quite powerful, and an exception to the rule of Light/darkness overcoming each other. Now, I guess it's up to everyone to see they want to play this

It would be great to have the conversion notes for the entire adventure. I understand there was a full conversion posted on ENWorld some time ago and thought you might be using that. It sounds like you're doing the conversion yourself as you go.

Night Below is a great adventure that I would love to run in 3.5.

Now that you mention it, I might have this ENWorld version somewhere. I'll just have to scan through my old HD to see if it's still here. I haven't been using it because I like generating stat blocks myself, but I guess it sure could prove useful for some conversion notes ( especially for some items and spells because I haven't played AD&D )

I've been following a couple of discussions about how to make medium armor more attractive and one of the ideas was to get rid of the speed penalties for medium armor. But as I read the section on max speeds due to heavy and medium loads (Table 8-5, p125), it occurred to me, why not simplify things and just drop the speeds based on armor and go strictly with speeds based encumbrance? Heavy armor = more encumbrance = lower speeds anyway. But if you're strong enough to carry a lot of weight and can still move quickly in heavy armor, good for you!

Any merit to the idea?

Too me it is not only a problem of encumbrance, but also flexibility. You can't just move alike. That's what the stats describe actually.

This is cool. Would it be possible for you to make the Night Below 3.5 conversion available for download or email it to me?

Thanks.

Well I will have to type this once fot good someday. Are you only looking for stats of NPC/monsters or would you also like something like a conversion of traps, poison ( which are quite exotic but can be used as they are ), skills check...

Hi Sharen,

it looks like you got the basic gist of things, but there a few more details:
(Maneuver Attack Rolls = Melee Attack Rolls)
Maneuver AC is best described as: Touch AC + 2?* + BAB + STR
(* To represent difficulty, but <15CMB since we're allowing new Defense bonuses (DEX/Dodge)

You noticed the Size Modifier issue, though it's slightly more complicated than that:
Because Maneuver Size Bonus/Penalties are "reversed" from Melee
(Small: +melee hit/ac, -maneuver hit/ac/ Large: -melee hit/ac, +maneuver hit/ac),
we have a problem if we want to use normal Attack Rolls, not to mention linking the ACs.

The solution I came up with is:
NOT calculating Size Modifiers into Attack/AC stats, but applying them situationally, based on the net size difference between opponents (+/-1 per Size Tier difference), and applying them to whoever they favor depending on the type of attack (melee/maneuver) being attempted. This isn't mechanically different than the current set-up (still net zero modiifier both melee & maneuver w/ same-size opponents), but facilitates using the EXACT same attack rolls, instead of needing a separate "Maneuver Attack Bonus" just for this one issue:

halfling attempting grapple vs. knoll: benefit gnoll +2 Maneuver AC (OR penalty halfing -2 Attack)

halfling attempting melee hit vs. knoll: benefit halfling +2 Attack

knoll attempting grapple vs. halfling: benefit gnoll +2 Attack

knoll attempting melee hit vs. halfling: benefit halfling +2 AC (OR penalty knoll -2 Attack)

Sure, I see that the formula Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB + size modifier has a flaw in the way that in the case of 2 characters of similar size, similar CMB and dex bonus of 0, the Target would be 10...

Now let's see the case of one of the Fighters in my campaign. He has DEX bonus of +2, STR bonus +5, BAB +5, dodge feat and a ring of protection +1

If we keep to current Pathfinder rules, the CMT would be 25
If we keep to Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB + size, his maneuver AC would be 24
If we keep to your formula his maneuver AC would be 26

Another fighter with 20 STR and BAB +5 would have 25%/30%/20% of success depending on the formula used
Add in a +1 weapon would get 25%/35%/25%
Add in an improved maneuver feat and it would build up to 35%/45%/35%

Now I see in you case that The fighter attempting to maneuver spent 2 feats and only gets 35% of success with a +1 weapon, which is roughly what we get with the Pathfinder rules. Seems a bit unfair to me. Sure, maneuver are powerful because they can disable an ennemy, adding a +2 in the formula just kills the chances in my opinion.

Now, for the size matter, I don't see a real problem. Don't make maneuver attack rolls to be melee attack rolls because the size bonus would mess up. Just keep it the CMB way ( BAB + STR mod + size mod ) and add in the melee bonus you could get such as flanking, higher ground...

The modifiers in Touch AC and CMB are reversed so they negate ( a small size bonus to AC negates the small size penalty in CMB ). Put in a size modifier again and you'll get what you want I guess ? Or is it because more than 1 tier in différence could make it different ?

I just thought the Touch AC + CMB + size modifier was easy enough to calculate ( because you have both score already calculated ). Now I'll have to test this further to see if it goes well...

I would suggest that, for simplicities' sake, to just make every monster vulnerable to criticals and sneak attacks by default. For the few that aren't, include a single line with the immunities that says:

Immune to precision damage.

Then define somewhere in the back of the main book that Precision damage is Critical Hits, Sneak Attacks, etc. Then make sure to reference the word when defining certain future class abilities (the Scout's Skirmish comes to mind as an example, despite that it will not be ported for copyright reasons).

Basically this is 3.5 rules.

Yes other ways to compensate as explained above would be a DR which seems quite logical and challenging, or a partial immunity to sneak/criticals ( a bit like when we test for miss chance ? )

Hi

I've been running the Nightbelow campaign in 3.5 (conversion from AD&D ) for about a year and a half now and decided to get it to pathfinder.

My actual party is formed by
- A lvl 6 Human Cleric of Pelor ( sun and healing domains ) who intends to do the prestige class of his deity
- A lvl 6 Human Fighter, Spiked Chain Disarmer
- A lvl 6 Elf Druid with animal companion
- A lvl 3 Lizardfolk Half Green Dragon Ranger( House rule modified for a total lvl adjustement of 2 )
- A lvl 5 Elf Wizard ( Evocation with bonded item )
- A lvl 5 Half elf Rogue 4 Monk 1
- A NPC lvl 4 Dwarf Fighter

So far in 3.5, they have been managing quite well. The fights are far more accessible and easy than in AD&D. While they had encountered serious difficulties, they never really had to retreat.

During the first book, they did all the hard fights

So, from the second book starting, we did the conversion to Pathfinder.

The cleric whinned quite a lot about his class being nerfed ( for the domains in particular ), the fighter decided to replan the level of cleric he was going to take in a few levels and continue in the fighter path ( why really do otherwise ? XD ), all the others were fine especially the Druid who at last could make efficient use of the wild shape ( since she was no contact fighter, and changing into some other form like a bat wouldn't give her the Darkvison ability ).

For the skill points, we decided to rebuild their points entirely, but taking in account some skills they had used.
They all were quite satisfied with the new skill system and tended to put 1 rank in every class skill. But also, some of them had the opportunity to put ranks in skills they had interest in ( eg : the cleric did put ranks in appraise and history beacause he was a noble ). This part is far less restrictive in my point of view and while most players will try to optimise, it gives more versality.
One skill thought was problematic but it already have been discussed and that is the Spellcraft check for concentration. So far I have made the choice of using the Spellcaster Ability for those concentration checks.

Feats were not problematic to handle and the Fighter did welcome the expertise modification with ease, saying that the abilities he gained from being a fighter now compensate this.

Magic items were not too hard too handle either beacause they didn't have lots of stat boosting items.

Now for the second book itself. The 6th levels wer only 5th at that time.

So here's my analysis of the situation, rules speaking.
- In spite of a certain ground advantage and the patterns of the attacks, they couldn't have survived in 3.5 but did in Pathfinder
- The Wizard extra fireball from his bonded item did come very handy
- The druid Ability to cast spells while in animal shape is very powerful as it can stay away from reach, and not every ennemy would be trying to attack what seems a mere bat ( She mainly used spells that couldn't reveal her identity : nothing came directly from her ).
- The Cleric ability to channel energy is tremendous. It heals 3D6 and he could choose 2 targets not affected ( he did take the feat ). Actually this healing ability overcame the dammage output of the foes.
- The foes sure could have tried to concentrate on a target but the Fighter was bloking the path quite well and before they could reach him they had already taken about 25% of their HP.
- in this situation, when you can't handle a foe, I tend to use the Grapple method. But after a few tries, I found that it was just too difficult. The Fighter's CMBT was 27 while the foes only had a CMB of 11.
- 2 characters were taken down but the augmented HD and the new CON rule for dying saved their day.

So the final constatation for now : 2 ennemies managed to flee, the others were slain

I think I didn't go soft on them and played correctly. I don't know if I should be amazed of their fighting skills but Pathfinder sure did add a Boost. But APL 5 vs CR 13 seems just Aberrant. Did something really went wrong ?

We'll see next fight...

Very interesting thread, I'll be following this closely and I intend to test these rules and see how it goes

Basically if I have followed so far the formula can be simplified to this

Maneuver AC = Touch AC + CMB

So the modifiers that affect touch attack just affect Maneuver AC. Then, it seems fair to allow modifers on CM rolls

Since we still have the problem of size because the modifiers negate themselsves in maneuver AC, why not just throw in a size modifier again ? This would make the formula

Maneuver Ac = Touch AC + CMB + size modifier