Spall's page

It isn't so much the existence of demons or the atonement spell that screws this up, it's the ability to detect alignment.

Well, the good news is that I don't hold detect alignment spells in very high regard, except in extreme cases (demons, devils, celestials, serial killers, etc). Its a mechanic we were forced to gut years ago when we stopped running prototypical good vs evil campaigns (on either side) as it simply doesn't work. As soon as you start dealing with alignment in realistic terms it's hard to even attempt to use:

Ok you get a vague feeling of evil about this target, like he sometimes kills housecats or maybe he robbed a few houses... or maybe he slit some guys throat in an alley, but felt bad about it and spent the next year volunteering in an orphanage... or maybe he's never done anything bad, but he's an angry guy who doesn't like anyone... or... or...

I've been watching documentaries and reading more about the real crusades for inspiration; I agree that the absolution angle needs to be reinforced. I actually lean pretty heavily on that in the introductory scene where the players get pressganged. The crusade recruiters are snatching people up, berating them about real or imagined affronts to god/humanity/whatever and offering salvation through service. Toss in a little enchantment/charm magic and the appearance of a vengeful, but forgiving gold dragon and you have a convincing recruitment channel.

I'm not too worried about having an absolutely evil enemy at the core of the conflict, as I think in some ways that works to my advantage. The crusaders can feel ever more assured that whatever they do, they are in the right because you know... demons man.

Genocide against the local population? The demons man, the demons were gonna get them anyways.

Fighting alongside a contingent of Barbazus from Cheliax? Well, at least they're lawful and they're helping us fight demons.

I actually got a few good ideas from the celestial thread a little below this one. The moral absolutism on the good end would allow for even more atrocities in the name of fighting demons.

I'll have to give avatar another go, I tried once and didn't make it past the first episode.

As long as no one tries to bring one of the current generation of functionally retarded 7int 7wis paladins to the table I'd love to have one in the group, simply to present all the same intricate challenges to a group with a clear moral compass. There would be no cause to 'trap' them, as doing the right thing will be almost completely subjective.

I do have an inquisitor in the party for sure, which got me thinking about the native tribesmen angle in much more detail. The Sarkoris people are largely subjugated by the demons, but many holdouts exist in scattered camps and tribes. The formal inquisition will have no official policy on these people (as it might amount to genocide), but simply rely on junior officers to carry out their implicit will. Investigate sources of demonic taint and enact summary judgement against entire groups who may be adjacent to this taint. Forcing a good player to sort through this convoluted mess should allow dozens of interesting encounters and could have a BBEG on both sides of the conflict. Maybe it's even a demon behind the scenes of the inquisition, subtly tipping them into a moral quagmire to corrupt more of their order.

I'd really love to have someone end up running a Holy Vindicator, as it would work really well in the setting and I just love the flavor of the class. Bleeding to death from stigmata wounds as a resource... it's something genuinely new and really interesting at the same time.

I've been drawn to the much more complex morality built into the pathfinder setting. I'm sure you could run it as a straight bad guys vs good guys game if you chose the right area, but we've done the archetypal good guys (and bad guys) thing to death. My favorite pieces of this setting are those where the 'good guys' depends on which side of the conflict you're on.

Some of this is subtext, like the utopia in Hermea where the outwardly good intentions of a clearly good creature like the gold dragon Mengkare have little holes poked in them to illustrate the complexity of the situation. Other complex situations are spelled out in clear detail, like the Eagle Knights of Andoran conquering other nations because it's for their own good (really amusing parallels to manifest destiny, imperialism, the paternalistic nature of this area of history, etc).

I am working on designing a game in Mendev, with the players participating in the Crusades. I'm trying to come up with as many situations that will force hard decisions from what will be a supposedly good group. There's the obvious stuff, like making them deal with soldiers who are fighting to keep back the hordes of the Abyss, but are clearly there for their own selfish goals. Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good act? Does commiting evil acts while you're attempting to do good tarnish someone irreparably?

There's the parallels with the christian crusades, which I think are very fertile ground to mine as they relate to morality. The humans vs demons angle is a little too straightforward, but throw in some native barbarian tribes that the Crusaders will wipe out or subjugate to keep from falling under the sway of demons and you've got a really complex scenario that could come close to paralleling real history.

I want to have a Chelaxian army arrive and want to assist with the Crusade effort. Their devils are the natural enemy of demons, but is this literal deal with devils worth it in the end? How far can you take 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

I want them to all be good-leaning, generally benevolent characters at the start at least. I'm actually having the campaign start by pressganging the players into the Crusades, but with a veneer of civility. They may have been interested in joining on their own in due time, but the decision was taken away from them. This should set the morally questionable tone I'm looking for (is being forced to serve the greater good a bad thing?).

In the end I'd like the larger conflict of the Crusades vs the Abyss to simply serve as the backdrop for what should be a much more interesting story about a handful of characters who develop unique personalities through the horrors of war.

I was hoping to get more examples of the morally complex situations that will force hard decisions on the players. I was also interested in hearing about how other official sources treat this scenario (The Crusades). I haven't read beyond the campaign setting; I am afraid if I read more official literature it might paint a different picture than I have in my head already, but if something is clearly going to be useful I'll read it. Any suggestions would be great, as I'm having a fun time getting this put together.

I've been trying to work through various issues with PF as my crew gets ready to run our first adventure using the core rules and PF campaign setting. We keep hitting roadblocks and it seems that the consistent theme to these is the fact that the rules are built for a very high magic game world (even though the campaign setting is written like it's only a mid-high world).

We're looking into adjusting rules to notch down the importance of magic a step or two. This group has about 20 years under our belts and have done everything, from gritty ultra-low magic to ultra-high magic and tend to get the best results for our gaming style when we hang closer to the middle. I have ideas for how this would be accomplished, but was hoping to get a peek at rules already in play elsewhere to avoid some of the trial and error inherent in the process.

The general goal of the adjustments would be to foster a story, RP and intrigue intensive game, where magic becomes simply another tool in the arsenal of a well rounded character instead of becoming the only thing that makes them interesting or useful. I don't want to institute massive changes, but had considered stuff like the following:

-Make magic items a little more special, interesting, less common and more powerful (as opposed to simply levelling up your equipment as you gain gold).
-Force casters to more frequently use their skills, wits and a backpack full of mundane items and weapons to help overcome challenges instead of worrying about their adventuring day being over after they fire off their spells (after say, oh, 15 minutes...)
-Limit the availability, utility or reliability of teleportation, long distance travel and flight spells/items/abilities so journeys continue to matter after the first few adventures.

I have a much longer list of possible ways to accomplish this, but wanted to focus on what other people are doing successfully instead. Any suggestions or outside reading would be great.

Thanks.

The only reason to wear other armors than breast/full plate would be to get a lower ACP or Max. Dex. bonus.

Except breastplate and full plate have a dex bonus and ACP that is as good or better than the lesser competition. If the choice actually worked like that (trading dex bonus and ACP for more AC) then at least it would be a choice.

I am starting to see some of the UC armors filtering into play as mechanically they are competitive to the breastplate/full plate.

For Medium:

Kikko Armor - via mithril gets down to 0 AC penalty, with +9
combined AC.

For Heavy

Both Tatmi-do and O-yoroi armor have a combined AC of +10 to match full plate and let the more dexterous character in heavy armor effectively trade touch AC for flat footed AC as they wish.

Well the kikko armor is similarly trading a point of flat footed AC for a point of touch AC as well (as compared to a breastplate). These three types are an example of armor that statistically are at least relevant after level 4. There's a niche, small though it may be, for a high dex, heavy armor character.

I think adding new features to the lacking sets is the only way to make them worthwhile. Simply tuning the dex bonus up/down might work, but I'd rather not use that as the tool as it will result in adding some very high dex bonuses to very heavy armor like splint mail and still limits the niche to very high dex users who want touch AC. I'd rather let them trade total AC for other benefits. Something like allowing the AGILE modifier from the APG only on some of the lesser armors, adding a +X AC to crit confirmation rolls, a little DR vs specific physical attacks, etc.

I've been trying to figure out what roles the majority of armor types fill and it's giving me a hard time. It was similar in 3.5, but I had a handful of ways to create at least a reason to use the off-sets of armor beyond the first levels. I was considering doing something similar as I start a PF game, but didn't want to bother if I was missing something.

For the most part, there's only really one type of each heavier armor (breastplate, full plate) and all the rest are simply taking up space. Theres a few niches in light armor where a chain shirt isn't always the obvious choice (it's close though) and hide is obviously useful when you can't wear metal and can't afford better alternatives.

For the medium and heavy armors the only niche I can think of (other than breastplate and full plate) is the tiny range where you can't afford what you want. At first level some of the crappy medium armor might get used and the lesser heavy armor might see some use till maybe 4th level, but after that I don't see them existing in the game world. Enchanters would never bother working with the lesser base armors, as they could always come up with superior results simply using a breastplate or full plate to start with.

Is this how the game plays out (ie everyone in medium armor uses breastplate and everyone in heavy uses full)? If so, it's not really a problem gameplay-wise, but it just seems boring to have everyone in the same armor.

I'm looking to read some alternative rules that would foster more diversity in armor selections. I don't really want to revamp the whole system, but it would be cool if there was at least some reason to have chainmail, banded mail, etc in my game past the first few levels.

Absolutely -- I still advise some one shots and goof around time simply to get use to the rules but that's optional.

As to your second dash... well there's a lot of people on both sides of that. Enough to say, "Hey as long as you all are having fun you aren't doing it wrong."

I'll definitely be doing a night of screwing around before we start for real. Probably just combat scenarios to experiment with stuff and brush up on rules. A trip down the metagame highway is the official term...

I get that the whole powergaming thing is popular now and if it brings more people to pen and paper gaming, then that's great. I'm sure it shows my age, but I feel physically nauseous when I imagine trying to build a character like it's some kind of video game. Maybe I'd end up with a better game if I could somehow straddle both worlds...

We (the group and I) have agreed to some basic tenets that are making it much easier to proceed. They are to serve as the core principles that guide the campaign development. The two relevant items (for my original post) that we agreed on are as follows:

-Acquiring made to order items isn't nearly as satisfying as gaining items via adventuring. Making use of found equipment, while less optimized, can result in amusing and unexpected character development. Planned gear progression contributes little other than extra plusses.

-Defeating a superior force with good situational tactics and clever use of game mechanics is always more fun that beating them in a straight up fight because your character is carefully built to be powerful.

The net result of the crafting discussion is that we're adjusting crafting in a small way that will make it impossible to simply convert found items into perfectly matched items for each character. They will have the opportunity to acquire pieces occasionally, to fill slots left empty when random drops have been poor for long periods of time.

The game balance issue resulted in an agreement to use a lower point buy. I've put further adjustments in the hands of the players, since they're the ones who will be sitting there bored if one guy is overshadowing everyone else. It sounds like the alchemist will take a group-friendly first discovery and save feral mutagen for later, as he's still going to be a beast with his spear.

I'm really enjoying the discussion; I'm a business owner and a DM, so it's amusing to think about this sort of stuff.

So, yes, I'm saying the rules (as written) would eventually lead to a world filled with (low-power, sure) items that would end up costing little more than the cost to build them -- and, in fact, possibly even slightly less because of attempts at competition. I am also saying that the ease of making a magic items would then lead to things like a magical dishwasher (via Prestidigitation) or Fixit Box (via Mending) -- because at least one mage out there will remember his mother's birthday -- and that you're also walking the road to universal magiTech.

This is a very concise way to think about the problem (in fact your whole post summed up my concerns better than I have).

I think I have a simple solution to this. Take a look at an old first edition monster manual sometime and you'll be amazed at how many creatures have item disenchantment or destruction mechanics. They are not the merely inconvenient resource depletion mechanics that current rules allow for, but actual item destruction. If there are such forces in the world, then maybe they could stave off the inexorable march to universal magiTech.

Establish that there is a threat, minor that it may be, of a possible visit from a magic-devouring boogeyman that may stop and snack on mom's face while it's sucking the essence from her magical dishwasher. No one's going to risk careless use of items in that case. Maybe you also run a risk of attracting this kind of attention if you're churning out items like a one-man factory. No need to really enforce anything mechanics-wise, but the knowledge alone keeps the game world from going bonkers. Suddenly magic is being used in life or death situations or other rare, dire circumstances.

Wow, that's alot of material. First of all, thanks for the links and advice- I'm reading everything on all of them and working dilligently on digesting all of this.

Thanks for catching the power attack slip-up, I guess he has to wait until level 3. I usually build each of the characters submitted to me from level 1 to try to catch things like this, but I didn't even try when I saw 20 minutes with 3 full BAB full str attacks at level 2. It's situational and counterable, but when I have to construct encounters to work around 1 player it's usually the little warning bell signaling that something is off.

I think the biggest problem is that we've been playing with essentially the same rules for a decade or more and most content is home-made. By opening up the game I've introduced a flood of data that has already been chewed on for years and distilled in google searchable, munchkin friendly format. My players, who typically concentrate on making amusing, complex and versatile characters are suddenly copy and pasting power builds from the internet. In the end, all of the characters are balanced against each other and the encounters are tuned for the group. The min-maxing is simply going to result in across the board inflation, though I get that this has nothing to do with the rule set and everything to do with our gaming style; no need to hammer that home to me any further.

I'm not worried about my players deciding to stay home and craft magic items. The system works mechanically, selling for 50%, craft for 50%. Players crafting get more customization and double the value of liquid treasure assets as they are converted to items- no problem. It's not game breaking mechanically, but I don't think it works in the context of a real world. Unless there is some other source of resource depletion (like xp in 3.5) or a limitation on crafting supplies (like questing for material components) then items will devalue.

I know I can simply wave my hand and say "This doesn't happen!" but every time I do that it erodes the verisimilitude that takes so much effort to establish. I won't even attempt to list more examples as I don't want to spark more debate, but suffice to say that many well functioning game mechanics work like this. I'm just trying to find better ways to present them in-game so my world feels more alive. I'll address them one at a time in the future after taking plenty of time to search similar discussions.

Thanks for the replies so far, I didn't know this placed moved so fast. I'm going to spend a few days lurking around here when I finish with this thread so I can avoid bringing up issues that may have been beaten to death already.

To create 1000gp per day (correct me if I'm missing something) it seemed like a character could simply choose to make any item at their caster level, take a -5 penalty to double the speed, then... that's it. You're creating 2k per day and only spending half that in costs for a net gain of 1k per day. I know you need resources to start with, but you are still doubling whatever wealth you may have. The crafting DCs seem trivially low even after tacking on the -5. I think masterwork tools and a decent int bonus is all you need to have no failure chance (other than a natural 1). You could add skill focus if it was really necessary, but I doubt it would be.

I understand that resources are limited in some areas and players can't necessarily find markets for things they make, but if it is this easy to craft items it still breaks NPC crafting in any city. If a normal profession check nets you half your check in gold per week then a crafter could be selling his wares at 1% over cost and still be making 5-10x more than his skilled peers. My concept of "breaking" the world is that I would have to unmake and then remake the world to accommodate the one particular mechanic I'm looking at. These rules certainly pass that test, as it would turn the mid-magic world I want to run into a very high magic world.

If I ignore the effects on the free market and just let players craft then I'll be forced to hand out less treasure or have them blowing way past the recommended wealth. We use a substantial amount of downtime in our campaigns. When the story is moving quickly there may be close to none, but it's not uncommon for 2-3 months to pass between story arcs. This forces the players to think about their characters in a way other than paper-thin monster slayers and allows time for the game world to realistically change, possibly reflecting the player's achievements. I don't want to change that to keep wealth in check.

The alchemist in question was enlarging himself and using power attack (d8+10 x2, 2d6+10 all at 10ft reach); I saw +10 damage per swing and rounded it to 30str, which is wrong. He will soon have an infinite supply of bulls strength potions and was planning on doing a level of barb, so soon it'll be in excess of that number. I can't just allow it, but the whole Mr Hyde thing is cool and I don't want to just ban it from the campaign. We decided to just eliminate the bite attack until 8th level, when he's gain his normal iterative attack, but I'm still worried.

We run a RP/intrigue heavy campaign, so it's not uncommon to go a whole night with only around 2 combats. The fact that this whole buff chain is limited won't make much of a difference due to that. I don't want to have to design encounters specifically to counter this one player (Haha, now that you're all buffed those were illusionary monsters and the real ones are twiddling their thumbs in safety for the next 10 minutes) as it will feel heavy handed.

First time with these rules, I haven't even started the game yet and I already have a list of house rules a mile long again...

There's so many things that seem to just flat out break the game world. The worst example was the item creation. Even a low level crafter with a single item creation feat can easily generate 1000gp in resources per day... I couldn't imagine a world with a single adventurer within this paradigm, as you could become much better equipped and wealthier without ever leaving home and risking your neck. There would be a flood of crafters, a glut of top quality goods, prices would fall, eventually all magic items would be available at the drop of a hat at just over cost, all game worlds would become ultra-high magic by default with these rules...

Even if I was willing to sacrifice the verisimilitude of my game world and impose that somehow these item creation rules didn't apply to NPCs (again, the game world would be broken if it did), one character spending one feat could still generate 1000gp in resources per day. Now I suddenly have to pace my adventures so the crafter doesn't have enough time to earn his way into resources way beyond his level instead of letting the game unfold as the story dictates.

The first player to send me his new character forced me to put the brakes on that whole process as well. I know things are supposed to be a little more potent than 3.5 and I don't mind at all, as it seems to give players more flexibility and options in the process, but this first character (a high-str alchemist with feral mutagen) was capable of getting something like 30str with 3 full BAB attacks at full strength... at level 2. WTF am I supposed to do with this? If I throw creatures his way that are tough enough to possibly live more than 1 round then they will be strong enough to outright kill a single character per round. Its rocket tag and it's stupid. Is this just an extreme example of a douchebag powergamer or does the combat generally devolve into instantly wiping out the enemy or having the player group fully wipe (or just having trivial encounters be the norm)?

I don't really understand how I'm supposed to run this game. Do people generally house rule the heck out of this or did I just nail the worst examples in an otherwise balanced system?