Stephen Klauk's page

Arise, thread!

After last night playing a Wrath of Ashadarlon game, I got thinking about how cool it would be if Paizo made a Pathfinder board game. Personally, I think it'd be doubly cool if they could team up with Fantasy Flight Games to produce it (I love FFG games - so many fiddly bits to play with).

As for content, I was thinking of a game that is a bit more story-driven than a dungeon delver. With the theme of the Rise of the Runelords arc, I was thinking of something along these lines:

-------------------------------

Main Board is a overland map of the area depicted in the Rise of the Runelords set, with some game arc locations pointed out (big enough to put a game marker on it) and some extra, new places not fleshed out in the original AP.

Player Game Tokens would be the Pathfinder Iconics.

Three game play decks - Challenge, Encounter, Treasure. The Challenge deck is broken into four subsets or "acts".

Two, maybe three player decks - Spells, Equipment, Feats/Abilities. Each character gets 2-3 cards from this deck based on how their character is specced out. They may grant bonuses to certain abilities or otherwise let you bend the rules (for ex., Magic Missile might grant a Fighting bonus for the Wizard character, Leadership might give the Fighter a bonus to Social, while Teleport or Riding Horse may give the character expedited movement.

Basic Play: Each round, a Challenge card is drawn; this is the objective for the turn. Usually this involves going some place on the board and performing some special action ("Go to X in Magimar and collect 3 Clues").

Each turn characters move their tokens towards the Challenge point; each space indicates on it how many encounter cards you draw in a given place (could even color-code the challenges as Easy, Medium, Hard). In the "wilderness", if you draw the encounter card, you have to deal with it. I'm torn whether you'd want to do individual movement or group movement; individual feels less like an adventuring party, but would be more interesting for play.

When you finally reach the Challenge location, you draw a number of encounter cards listed on the challenge card (which in turn, bases the # of encounter cards on the # of players). At the challenge location, characters can decide who will tackled which encounter, but all the encounters must be faced at once (so it's generally a good idea to have everyone at the Challenge location at the same time).

Encounters can be one of several types, that require the use of different character skills - Combat, which uses the character's Fighting; Interaction (negotiating with NPCs or perhaps named bad guys), which uses the character's Social; Hazard (traps, environment effects, haunts, etc.), which uses the character's Wits. Characters could have equipment/spell/feat cards that give them bonuses to overcome certain challenges. Succeeding at an encounter gives you a treasure card.

Treasure Cards would include several things such as Magic Items, Boons, Clues and Mementos. Magic items would grant you abilities, similar to the spells, equipment and feat character cards. Boons would allow rerolls or autosuccess or failure on a check. Clues would be story-based cards that you need to collect to advance from one challenge to the next, like "Albion's Secret"; they could also provide special bonuses or abilities in certain locations or against certain NPCs. Lastly, Mementos would be unique equipment that grant special abilities; Mementos might be only gained upon the defeat of a specific NPC (and may thus be in their own deck or sideboard), and also count as a clue.

The goal would be to complete so many Challenges in each Act and eventually face and overcome the Final Challenge.

You could make expansion packs with boards and/or components for each of the AP lines; the more you could mix and match, the better!

What do ya'll think?

Thanks for pointing those out! That's a great step towards what I was looking for :)

Having just acquired the Ultimate Combat PDF, I'm a bit stoked. Between the rules for firearms and vehicles, I'm hoping that Paizo can "look to the stars" in one of their upcoming Adventure Paths and give us a planet-hopping set of adventures reminiscent of Spelljammer, Tale of the Comet, The Illithiad series (primarily Dawn of the Overmind) and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

I mean, there's been mention of spaceship-like things falling to Golarion, and it would be fun to see an AP that sends the characters on a mission to investigate just where these artifacts came from. Not in spaceships, but in star-faring, magic-powered galleons and the like.

-----------------------

Personally, I'd like to see the AP start with the investigation of an ancient crash (ala Expedition to the Barrier Peaks), with the characters being transported to another world (ala Barsoom Mars).

At the end of that adventure, the characters acquire a starfaring vessel and learn that the crashed ship was a scout for an alien race of great power - and now the characters have the homeworld's co-ordinates.

However, when the group travels to the alien homeworld, they discover that the planet has been decimated in a distant and now ancient war and its inhabitants scattered. It's a graveyard replete with aged "technological" loot. While the world is virtually dead, the victors in the war have left behind slumbering guardians who await the defeated race's possible resurgence. Unfortunately, the characters awaken them and they begin the mobilization of an even deadlier race than the ones they were intending to face (a Cthulhu-like or zerg-like race would, of course, be a perfect foe).

Finally, the characters become embroiled in seeking out the remnants of the defeated race and those they conquered to assemble them into an alliance to face down the ancient terror they have awakened. The art of star travel has now been lost to these once-powerful ancients, and the characters will need to undertake a quest to a lost and hidden world to recover a mothballed fleet to oppose this new enemy. (This would be a good place for a traitor amid the character's ranks, or "dark lord" to pursue the characters seeking to prevent the characters from succeeding - or both!)

Once the fleet is recovered, re-outfitted and the many races made to put aside their ancient hatreds, the fight can be taken to the enemy. As always seems to happen, as the forces wage war in the heavens above (think of the battle over the 2nd Death Star in Return of the Jedi), the PCs are called upon to make a surgical strike against the leaders of the opposition.

Of course, in the end, the high technology of the ancient race must turn out to be toxic in some way, so that it cannot easily be taken back to Golarion and usurp the fantasy mileniu. However, magic-based space travel might still be possible, though difficult and somewhat rare - allowing those who want to continue their exploration of Golarion's heavens ripe for future storytelling.

For me, the test is "That ability used to be underpowered until splatbook X came along and fixed it". That's creep.

Dark_Mistress wrote:

Do all of those people come in the box?

You have to add a *lot* of water. Regularly.

Perhaps the theme for this set should be "Just Add Gamers"

...or Mountain Dew :)

I already have incorporated the use of Rapid Reload for slings back in my games, even before Pathfinder; hadn't considered the use of Multishot, but I'm not against it.

I'm also for the sling being a d4 weapon with stones and d6 with bullets. Isn't there a feat already that you can use to improve a ranged weapon's range? If not, there should be one, I think. Finally, I do feel slings should be bludgeoning weapons.

Finally, does anyone have a link to a video showing someone using a rapid reloading technique with a sling. I seem to remember somehow reaching one from the Wikipedia entry, but can't seem to find it anymore.

Also, I've seen slings used with knive-like projectiles and darts. What are people's thoughts on these - just change the damage type to piercing and/or slashing?

Is there any way of getting a "lite" version of the PDF made for use on ipads/e-readers (say something at 150 dpi)?

I just got an iPad and when I open the current PDF up on it, it about chokes my poor iPad's PDF reader.

Consider that a crossbow bolt reaches its target in 1/20th of a round (.3 seconds), that mean a D&D crossbow bolt from a Cragtop Archer is traveling approximately 12,600 feet a second, or 8,590 mph. :)

As you can probably guess, I'm not really used to high-level feats - part of the reason I'm asking, so I can get an idea of what would be reasonable.

I guess I made the mistake of thinking that the +3 bonus for class skills counted as ranks, so I was thinking the last feat would be obtainable about 11th level (well, actually 9th - bad math and all).

Any other feats folks would like to toss out for consideration.

Why on Harrow Depravity does the Wis damage switch to the target? Also, can the 3rd ability in the chain use the 3rd level spell-like ability 3 times or is it 1 use of the 1st level spell-like ability, one use of the 2nd-level ability and one level of the 3rd-level ability? Otherwise, that seems...overpowered if you can do the 3rd level spell-like ability 3 times a day (a wizard can only do 3 3rd level spells themselves!).

Stephen Klauk wrote:

As for the Whirlwind Feat, I think the feat is a bit too powerful to remove all restrictions - for example, allowing it to be used as any iterative attack (especially considering haste effects, which would be available to most groups by 5th level). I'd been thinking more along the lines of the Two-Weapon fighting, Improved Two-Weapon fighting and such where Whirlwind would start out with only one attack (as it currently is), then add more options at higher level - say extra damage, attacks or loosening the restrictions on what can be coupled into a whirlwind attack (the fighter's AoE effect). Whether it's additional feats to buy or options that only kick in at higher levels (say extra damage at BAB 11+ and again at 16+) or other effects (allowing certain feats to be used with whirlwind, such as Improved Trip, such as "at 11th level, you can add in one additional combat effect, such as Tripping, Stunning, Disarming, etc."), I think that would be a better avenue. *Some* of the restrictions on Whirlwind are there for good reasons, IMHO.

Not going to lie my feat is much more powerful than the origonal whirlwind attack, and has feats that fit the concept better, but to look at my houserules you have to understand I'm endeavoring to make non-casters equally effective to casters, and to do that non-caster class features need to be very strong, and combat feats need to be equally strong (it's a delicate balance, making sure that the feats are just right that the fighter is equally balanced to the other full BAB classes in his own way)

My whirlwind attack feat is designed for two-handers, two-weapon fighters have alot of valuable options and assets in my houserules, and they can use whirlwind attack but only 1 weapon at a time.

Here's what it would look like with... lets say an 11th level fighter surrounded by 4 Orks (I'm going to say that they are level 8 barbarian Orks, just to make this interesting.)

He's under the effect of Haste, so he has 4 attacks this round.

...

I've run into the same quandry - attempting to find a way to keep the fighter pertinent without throwing them out of balance. However, I'd be careful...fighters aren't the only ones who can get this...imagine a monk who takes this with Flurry of Blows. Rogues with this feat (+Sneak attack), could throw things out of whack as well.

Stephen Klauk wrote:

Also, though I didn't mention it earlier, one of the other beefs I had with the old 3.5 feats is that just about ANYONE could get the combat feats. To me, that stinks as bad as letting any old class be handed the wizard's spells

You mean it stinks as bad as the "potion" and "wondrous item" sections? =p

I firmly believe that feats should be open to anyone who qualifies for them; you're not going to see much class-protectionism in the stuff I write. Occorse, I've also written a Harrow Elf feat that lets a 14th level character (of any class) get a 3rd level spell-like ability, soo...

Touche on the potion/wondrous item comment, though conceivably, feat potions/wondrous items can likewise be made so that's sorta a wash.

The Harrow Elf feat is granting something 9 levels below "standard" abilities for that level, so that *might* not be so bad. Can you post the feat here?

Of course, if you're going to make "race feats" that are only available to members of a certain race, I see no reason why class-specific feats are so bad - I mean, how useful are the turning/channeling feats to a fighter or rogue - or for that matter, the metamagic feats? I do think each class should have a group of feats that really only benefits them - rogues could be tied to sneak attack or trapfinding, wizards would obviously be tied to spells, clerics can get channeling feats, druids could have shapeshifting specific feats. But how do you make feats only really useful to, say, fighters without somehow tying them to high BAB or Fort saves? In PF, I guess it'd be tied to Weapon/Armor Mastery?

It's an understandable concern Stephen, but my goal, is to flood the system with so many very good combat feats that all do different things, that sure rogues and barbarians can take the feats, but if there are 100 really really high quality feats and very few (hopefully none at all) crap ones, then the fighter is going to be so much better at the feat game because he gets so many.

Btw, Stephen, what's your oppinion on my revised whirlwind attack?

(If the wording wasn't clear, please tell me so, it's supposed to be usable any time you make an attack, and let you swing at that attack's bonus vs all targets within your reach)

Feats don't all have to be straight-up combat effects; I'd love to see plenty of feats that give the classes other than fighters some neat options - for example, some of the abilities presented as skill tricks on Complete Adventurer would make nice higher-level at-will feats.

As for the Whirlwind Feat, I think the feat is a bit too powerful to remove all restrictions - for example, allowing it to be used as any iterative attack (especially considering haste effects, which would be available to most groups by 5th level). I'd been thinking more along the lines of the Two-Weapon fighting, Improved Two-Weapon fighting and such where Whirlwind would start out with only one attack (as it currently is), then add more options at higher level - say extra damage, attacks or loosening the restrictions on what can be coupled into a whirlwind attack (the fighter's AoE effect). Whether it's additional feats to buy or options that only kick in at higher levels (say extra damage at BAB 11+ and again at 16+) or other effects (allowing certain feats to be used with whirlwind, such as Improved Trip, such as "at 11th level, you can add in one additional combat effect, such as Tripping, Stunning, Disarming, etc."), I think that would be a better avenue. *Some* of the restrictions on Whirlwind are there for good reasons, IMHO.

Personally, though, I think that "feats for high level people to take" is a worthier goal than "feats which ONLY high-level people can take". What I mean is that a "high-level" feat can be one with lots of other feats as prerequisites, not necessarily one with a hard level prerequisite; something a barbarian might not take until 15th but which a fighter might work his way to around 8th or 10th.

If you can work them up that way, I'd certainly like to see how you'd handle it.

An, example, if perhaps a bad one:

Improved Whirlwind Feat
Prerequisites: BAB 11+, Whirlwind Attack
Benefits: When you make a Whirlwind Attack, you deal an extra 1d6 damage on a hit (OR, you make two attack rolls against each target and take the better result).

Would you mind explaining exactly what that direction you don't want to go is? There are alot of different ways of interpretting and applying the Book of Nine Swords, it would be nice to understand what exactly your looking to avoid before trying to offer any advice.

Well, two-fold on the Book of Swords - definitely no new classes or mechanics to activate the feat, such as an action focus to use a feat or such. The feats should be either constant use (like Toughness, Spell Focus or Iron Will) or at-will (like Power Attack, Silent Spell or Improved Trip). Nothing like the "powers" within the ToB, where its essentially a new subsystem akin to an alternate version of a spell system.

Hey folks, just got my Pathfinder copy (hooray!) and while skimming over it, I was looking to see what was done for the fighter.

One of the things I had been somewhat disappointed about the 3.5 rules was that the majority of feats stopped having (worthy) requirements beyond about 8th level. Just glancing over PF, doesn't look like things have changed.

Have I missed feats that only really come into play (for any class/race) above 8th level or do none still exist?

Assuming the latter, I'd really like to see feats that are both reasonable and have requirements that can't be reached until 8th level or greater. Somewhat like the spell system, I personally believe there should be feats that scale upwards, available at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th & 18th level - preferably chains extending the existing feats into higher tiers. If you can suggest any - existing or homebrewed, I'd like to hear them.

And before someone suggests it, I want nothing to do with the psuedo 4E Tome of Battle. The content of that book takes my game in a direction I do not wish to go.

Somehow, I find the picture of the old man, sitting atop a d6 in the middle of the forest, smoking a pipe as he gazes at a AD&D book (from opening page of the 1E PHB) to somehow be very appropriate for a statue of Gary.

Yes, us greybeard wizard avatars are conservative intellectuals who only want you whippersnappers to get off our lawn.

Now bring me some lemonade, it's hot on this porch.

Divine/Infernal Judgement: When you cast a spell, designate a single opponent whose is targeted or included in the spell's area of effect. The target rolls two saves, and takes the lesser of the two.

I haven't played much with psionics, but one of the big turn-offs for me were the psionic powers that were disguised as feats.

Aligned Attack
Cloak Dance
Deep Impact
Fell Shot
Focused Sunder
Ghost Attack
Greater Psionic Fist
Greater Psionic Shot
Greater Psionic Weapon
Inquisitor
Mental Leap
Mental Resistance
Mind Over Body
Psionic Charge
Psionic Dodge
Psionic Fist
Psionic Hole
Psionic Shot
Psionic Weapon
Sidestep Charge
Speed of Thought
Unavoidable Strike
Up the Walls
Wounding Attack

I can't imagine any of these being allowed to Wizards or Priests and be considered balanced or fair, so I don't believe psionicists should be allowed them either.

Even if you did play from 1st to 20th, a houserule which causes them to suddenly stop progression (spell-wise) at level 15 wouldn't be much fun. No one likes to be powerful up to an arbitrary point and then suddenly start sucking.

If their spell progression has been slowed down over all their levels, though (or if they get something else in the last quarter of their advancement) that's different.

Bards have been dealing with same issue since 3E started. After 16th level, all they get is more spells. They don't even get 7th level spells.

Personally, for my own game, I stripped out 8th & 9th level spells for clerics as well as the heavy armor proficiency (with an option to take a hit to BAB to get back 8th & 9th level spells).

Of course, I don't normally play games past about 12-14th level, so I haven't really seen what effect this has in actual gameplay.

Went and saw it Friday. The good of it outweighed the bad, even though some of the bad made me cringe.

Like the first, the robot parts are great, but the parts with the humans suck. Makes you wonder why Optimus and gang put up with them.

If half the dumb potty joke crap had been taken out of the movie, I would have taken my kids to see this movie and they would have loved it. Its almost like the guys from Southpark wrote all the non-robot scenes.

Maybe tie sneak attack to Skills?

5 Ranks Disable Device - can sneak attack constructs
5 Ranks Knowledge (Religion) - can sneak attack undead
5 Ranks Knowledge (Dungeoneering) - can sneak attack oozes
5 Ranks Knowledge (The Planes) - can sneak attack elementals
5 Ranks Healing - bonus sneak attack die vs. humanoids
5 Ranks Knowledge (Arcana) - bonus sneak attack die vs. magical beasts/dragons

I'd also like to propose something completely out of the ordinary.

A background adventure book.

This little book would be somewhat like a "choose your own adventure" title that lets you build your player's background and initial stats to boot.

There can be multiple books, either themed to an AP, region, class or race. As you follow the story in the book, it acts both as a player's introduction to Golarion and/or the AP. There may be a section in the beginning that has some straight-up information - like a "Player's Guide to" manual, with the second section having a multiple-choice portion that helps you define your character's background and ends with a section containing some game stats/equipment/feats/spells/whatnot that can be used in the game. Perhaps the end of each background section might suggest game stats for you to represent your choices in the story section ("Based on your story selections, we suggest you start with a 16 Str and take Weapon Focus (Longsword) feat. You may also want to consider placing skill points in the Intimidate skll").

Piazo ate my original post...

I certainly won't turn down a manual of monsters, I'm always looking for new beasties to throw my players against.

I'm not so fond of books with a scattering of feats, spells, magic items and the likes in them; compendiums of stuff are fine, but lugging around or trying to remember what book feat "Peanut Butter Assault" is from is no fun.

Personally, I'd be more interested in rule subset books - things along the line of Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, Weapons of Legacy, Ghostwalk and the like. I'm talking about books that introduce a whole new system to the game, something creative and new, yet fun. Of course, the only problem with these books for a lot of people is that they tend to be one-shots that get no additional material for them down the road. For me, that's fine. What I want is a fleshed-out kernel of an idea I can expand on my own; it's the coming up with the off-the-wall stuff that's difficult, not expanding on it.

Also consider this a plea for a remake of Weapons of Legacy. The book had a great idea - unique items that grow in power over a character's career. However, the implementation of the idea was horrible. I'd love to see the idea revisited sometime, but not the exact mechanics - especially the stat/save minuses.

[EDIT]

Also, put me in for killing PrC's. I think that making alternate class features and feats with stiff requirements should replace PrC's. For example, if you want to make an assassin, create a rogue alternate class ability called Death Strike, that replaces, say Evasion, and perhaps a feature that would cost 2 skill points (per level) to grant the rogue the ability to cast a small group of "assassin" spells. The base Pathfinder rules have already done some of this, I think it should just be taken the next step and completely axe the PrC's.

Personally, I strongly dislike "at-will" cantrips; Complete Mage's Reserve Feats left a very sour taste and my mouth and "at-will" cantrips/orisons strike me as being too close to that system.

I would rather leave it with casters having slots for cantrips but not having to prepare them ahead of time; they simply can be used as needed but once the slots are used the character is out until they rest.

I'm not really bothered about a limit on the *number* of buffs an individual puts on, I'm more bothered about the totals that result from those buffs. I'd rather see the types of bonuses one can stack be reduced so. Personally, I'd like to see the max bonus an individual can put together be limited to maxxing out around +20 total.

I'd been considering for my campaign:

Armor (natural armor, worn armor, shield)
Magic (from spells or magic items)
Equipment (mundane "masterwork" bonus from items, such as the +2 to Spot for a magnifying glass or the +1 to hit from a masterwork sword*)
Feature (class and race bonuses, such as the Elf's bonus to spot or the druid's bonus to Nature checks)
Feat (Feats, of course)

If each could have a +5 bonus max, this would top out +25. However, I'd expect Armor at least would go up to +8 or more, especially when you consider natural armor or armor + shield.

* I really think Masterwork should be overhauled, both in pricing and making masterwork items have bonuses that range from +1 to +5 in various areas.

The more dinosaurs the better.

However, if we're limiting dinos, I think some consideration should be given to axing either Tyrannos or Velociraptors; they are both biped carnivores and there's tons of dinos in the size range between the two (including smaller dinos such as campi's and bigger than Tyrannos).

If we limit to four, I'd like to go with one biped carnivore (Carnotaur), one saurapod (Brontosaurus), one flier (Pteradon) and one general herbivore (Triceratops).

While I'd like to see some variety in abilities, I'd rather they stay fairly close to a warrior-version of a dragon to the cleric-version of the dragon the chromatics and metallics are. Dinosaurs should be brutes with melee-based attacks that surprise, not gimmicky powers like poison spit and the like.

I think this is a real issue, and while plot and DM work can sometimes fix it, it would be nice to have something in the rule book to address this.

Rather then apply % adjustment, why not just alter the EL:

First encounter: EL -1
Second encounter EL -1
Third and all additional encounters that day: EL +1

Unfortunately, this would more likely encourage the "15-minute" workday. Why would I willingly continue when I know future encounters are going to be MORE deadly?

Awarding bonus XP and/or treasure for additional on the surface seems good, but is likely to lead to characters advancing too quickly or having too much treasure with which to face their opposition.

Some sort of momentum mechanic would be nice, something like action points (starting at 0, instead of 4E's "1"), something that goes away (completely) when you stop to take an extended rest - or perhaps you can exchange for a "safe rest" (say 4 points to "guarantee" the party an uninterrupted rest or reset of abilities as the characters take a moment to regain their composure.

One of the most frequently requested topics for Pathfinder RPG rules exploration once we've put the Core Rulebook to bed is Psionics.

It seems to me like a vocal and forthright minority of d20 players REALLY like psionics as written, and would like to see us publish something for which backwards compatibility is the primary design goal.

I would guess from my experience over the last two decades of playing the game that about half of the total audience does not like psionics. A lot of them REALLY don't like psionics for one reason or another.

The funny thing is that I think an overwhelming majority of d20 gamers are OK with the idea of telepaths, empaths, psychics, and the "concept" of psionics.

And yet a lot of them do not allow the current (or any previous, let's be honest) version of the psionics rules in their campaign.

I am convinced there is an audience for a Pathfinder RPG Psionics book.

I am uncertain how to proceed from that basic assumption.

So I'm asking you:

What does Psionics mean to you?

How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?

What is an absolute deal-breaker?

Thanks again for the give-and-take.

--Erik

The only time I ever felt that psionics fit a fantasy game was with Dark Sun. Perhaps it is the name put onto psionics, but it does not strike me as something that fits into a normal European fantasy-based campaign world. There is also, of course, a heavy negative stigmatism attached to psionics; if nothing else, I think a name change to move it away from something modern-sounding/scientific would go a long way to making it more acceptable in the game (might I suggest "mentalism"?).

I would not like to see it permeate a campaign world, though I would not mind an order, country or small area that could be ignored or altered that possesses metalism-type powers (an order of psionic monk assassins, similar to the Scarlett Brotherhood sounds too cool to pass up, really).

The current Epic Level rules are a mess.

The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.

So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.

What are you looking for conceptually?

What are you looking for mechanically?

If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?

Any deal breakers?

Personally, I've never been one of those folks who enjoys the game much past 10th-12th level. Epic has always striken me as cheesy, and I think any attempts to "uncheese" it are doomed to failure. Epic is for the folks who want to go wild with their game, become gods and the like.

However, I think it is mechanically wrong for 1st to 20th level to progress linearly and for "epic" levels to progress exponentially. At the very least, epic would be more appealing if it increased linearly.

Overall, I would say shy away from Epic. Make the 1st-20th level game work really well and that's all we really need.

Stephen Klauk wrote:

For example, I'd like to see characters spend a huge hunk of money on a party when they come back from a dungeon rather than save it for a magic item, or be impressed at 15th level when you hand them a masterwork suit of plate inscribed with a war in the heavens instead of going "It's just masterwork?"

Then you'd love the player of the Half Orc ranger in my first 3.x campaign. Whenever we came across an item that had no immediate use, he'd say "What are we going to do with this?"

My Elf sorcerer, in all innocence, would reply "Its going into party treasure."

"Cool," came the reply. Later, "What about this then?"

"That's party treasure as well."

When we'd finally cleaned out the dungeon and arrived back at the town tavern, the Half Orc slammed down all the party treasure onto the bar, and said "Now, we party!"

Five years later, I can just about see the funny side.

However, the party then ventured into the Temple of Elemental Evil and found it a slow, tedious, dangerous, impossible struggle because (admittedly, among other things) we were way behind the expected wealth for a party of our level.

:grin: Great story about the barbarian.

I'd love it if in some way a group could get away with the above without gimping themselves in the process. Unfortunately, nothing comes to mind short of having the "partying" grant some sort of off-screen magic item-like bonuses at a later date. But that doesn't really sound like much a good answer; it'd probably be better and easier if the party just went ahead and bought the items in the first place...

Stephen Klauk wrote:

Can we cut the Ravid?

*sniff* I like the Ravid. And I might also be the only person who like's the Rast.

Actually, I like the Rast. I'd like to see more elemental versions, like a frost, acid or whatnot version of the little devil. I had done a little write-up for my own campaign world where the little critters exist at the edges of the given elemental planes, attempting to break down one plane's material and turn into matter for another plane. For example, the fire rast (the default one in the MM) can be found at the edges of the plane of water, air and earth (and the prime material) consuming material or creatures, converting them into elemental fire and mystically transporting it to the plane of fire. The same would be occurring with other elemental rasts, trying to convert planar bits to their associated plane. Might make for an interesting mephits vs. rast hordes adventure - with elementals caught in the middle, assuming the mephits to be the "leaders" of the rast horde.

The Ravid though, I just haven't been able to find a decent thing to do anything with - though the Ravid-in-a-magic-shop adventure sounds interesting.

What about the old energons - Xag-Yi and Xeg-Yi (?spelling?) are those usable or are they copyrighted?

I think setting Escape Artist DCs is the number one problem. The Beta "grapple" treatment was not robust, if it had been more thorough we wouldn't be seeing complaints in this thread. It seems very combat-centric, and I've seen many situations where someone was bound or shackled without being in a position to be grappled.

There are many situations where binding someone is not a combat action. There is a skill dedicated to escaping bonds, and the current system for setting DCs is not as appealing as the 3.5 system. If you can bridge the gap, losing Use Rope is fine.

I think that Escape Artist should set DCs for Escape Artist. And I'd like to see the name change, but that's personal preference.

Color me confused. Can you give me some examples what your are thinking for the Escape Artist DCs? Shouldn't also burst DCs be set (for example, for the Troll who wants to just break a pair of manacles rather than squeeze out of them [er, assuming he doesn't just gnaw his hands off to escape, that is])

Stephen Klauk wrote:

One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.

Did you play Rolemaster?

That's effectively what they did; the attack and damage were combined into one roll. The better your attack, the more damage you did.

Actually, more MERP than Rolemaster.

Another thing that's changed between 1E/2E and 3E that somewhat gets my goat is character wealth - and using it to buy magic items. You see the capstone of the absurdity in 4E with Astral Diamonds and characters handing over millions of GP for "level appropriate" items. And ultimately, characters turning in wish lists of magic items.

Prior to 3E, I don't remember characters planning magic items purchases like it is done in 3E (and certainly not in 4E). In previous editions, you couldn't foresee what magic items you would end up with so you didn't talk in terms of builds based on having certain combinations of magic items. Sure, you could set on a quest for a particular item or two, but it was both dependent on whether your DM was willing to let you get the item, and the acquisition of the item was the capstone to the whole adventure - a whole lot more dangerous than simply plunking down some GP in some NPC's store.

That mindset changed significantly in 3E, and several of 3E's problems stem from the assumption "I can buy this and this and create this annoying combo".

I don't think much can be done about this, and I doubt there's many who care; it is partly the nature the times as much as having Wealth by Level tables and prices for magic items. However, to me, I dislike the feelings of entitlement many players have come to have over magic items and their acquisition, not to mention the absurd amounts of monetary treasure that accumulates in adventures. I really wish there were both better way to do things with "common" items and reduce the dependence on watching treasure hoards spiral out of control. For example, I'd like to see characters spend a huge hunk of money on a party when they come back from a dungeon rather than save it for a magic item, or be impressed at 15th level when you hand them a masterwork suit of plate inscribed with a war in the heavens instead of going "It's just masterwork?"

Why not just use Craft (Knots), or something similar to replicate Use Rope?

I'd personally rather leave tying someone up under the grapple rules; it is basically a grappling pin that "keeps on giving". If you don't always want the high-grapple person tying folks up, you could use a caveat to allow someone to use Craft (Knots) instead of the grapple check. Or a feat that lets you use Craft (Knots) in place of a grapple check. However, tying someone up whose struggling does sound, to me, like the job for someone with a high grapple who can keep the person still.

[EDIT] Hogtying someone might be considered "taking 20" - that's 20 combat rounds...

To me, much of the other uses for Use Rope that have been brought up are corner-cases. I've never seen someone attempt to reattach a grappling hook in my game, and a lariat to me is a variant of a whip, net or bola which use base attack and weapon proficiency to use, not a skill check. For profession use, I don't see a need for Use Rope any more than a Cooking skill, Mining Skill or the like; just assume its part of the profession or set it up as some craft skill.

Perhaps a reverse of the Gentle Repose spell called Rot Corpse added to the assassin's spell list? It could be a low-level spell that causes an inanimate corpse to turn into a festering pile of goo or some other substance in a short bit of time (perhaps the process is faster as the assassin levels - hours at 1st level, less than a minute at 10th?).

Added on top of that, a class ability at some level that that counters spells like Speak with Dead and another ability that prevents ressurection?

They don't have to be spelled out explicitly, but could use any number of methods, simply assuming the assassin has the expertise and equipment on hand to prevent reviving the dead. It could represent dumping a canister of flesh-devouring beetles on the body to pouring black dragon acid on the corpse to beheading it to using an ancient ritual known only to assassins that captures a portion of the victim's soul to prevent bringing the victim back to life. Leave the fluff details of how it works up the imagination of the players and DM, and just give us the mechanics of how it works.

Can we cut the Ravid? That thing is very difficult to put into an adventure because of the Animate Objects power, mostly due to having to stat up the objects it can animate separately.

I'd like to see the Peryton, Catoblepas and Leucrotta show back up in the MM, or one of the Pathfinder bestiaries down the road. While strange creatures of folklore, these were just among some of my favorite beasties to slip into a campaign at some point. Maybe the Peryton can be used instead of the arrowhawk, if need be.

------------------------

On monster changes, I'd like to see the ghoul go to a template; that was talked about way back in 3.0, but seems nothing ever came of it. Mummy as a template would be nice as well (Especially for running C1 - Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan).

I'd also like to see vampires have some of their weaknesses culled. "Can't cross running water" and "Can't enter a building uninvited" probably ought to be nixed, just regarded as superstitions associated with them*. Same probably for not reflecting in mirrors. And for pete's sake, I don't want to see a chain-wielding vampire picture (*cringes*).

Also, someone mentioned spicing up elementals, and I'd really like to see that. Maybe a table/list of special features you can add to an elemental to give it some unique features. Perhaps, say things like earth elementals that can "jump" through the ground, or utilize fist of stone as a spell-like ability or stuff like that. If need be, I'm sure we could get folks to contribute to a list of stuff for each elemental here that could be culled to add to the elementals.

* If I were a vampire who couldn't enter a building uninvited, I'd just burn the thing down and get the people inside when they come running out...seriously, what kind of lame weakness is an invitation for a Chaotic Evil creature?

I wouldn't so much like a cap as a recommendation, much like the charts for monster CR recommendations. Something such as, "here's your level, this is the AC you should be hovering around. If it's (say) 2 points higher, consider bumping the monster's CR up by one to match the party/character. The reverse is also true."

Knowing the player side of the math equation helps as much as knowing the monster math to building CR, thinks I.

Overall, attack bonus is capped - you can't get better than +1/level. However, like skills, items, feats and whatnot can help you far exceed the base numbers. A problem in 3E is that you can stack too much on the bonus side; that's where the limit needs to be made, on the number of bonuses you can stack and how high those bonuses can go (opinion: spells or items that grant more than a +5 constant bonus are a big part of the problem).

I've always been disappointed in 3E that AC didn't grow with level except through the use of items & feats. At the same time though, it seems silly that a 1st level commoner can't hit a 20th level naked fighter, just because of a level difference (and it's an issue for me in 4E).

In my game, I had helmets, greaves, bracers and other bits of specialized armor increase AC against critical strike confirmation rolls, instead of AC. This gives the helmet some benefit while not just becoming another AC buff. You could also just have them grant fortification-like bonuses against criticals (say a 20% chance to negate criticals) if you don't use confirmation rolls.

Another alternative is to reduce the AC of armor by 1 on medium armors and maybe by 2 on heavy armors if your not wearing a helmet. The good? Grant a similar bonus to Perception checks without the helmet.

The problem with allowing helmets or other armor bits to add to AC is that they can be enchanted, which can screw with the balance of the AC system. If you don't mind someone toting around a +5 helmet, +5 shield, +5 full plate, +5 vambraces, +5 greaves, +5 bracers, +5 paldrons, and the like, go ahead.

I say keep the AoO, but make it like grapple's 50%/50% chance to hit the wrong person (the two are likely entangled anyways). You won't want to try and bullrush a friend, because either way one of you two is likely to get smacked. You can *try* to bullrush an enemy through your friends, but it might be painful to yourself. You can bullrush enemies through their own ranks and the enemy's gotta decide if hitting their own guy is worth trying to take you out.

One of the things I have been considered is removing the need for the fighter to claim before he strikes the penalty he is taking to his attack roll with Power Attack. He simply makes the attack and whatever his attack roll exceeds the target AC by rolls over to damage. This also stops penalizing the fighter's successive attacks - he can let his successive attacks concentrate on hitting.

For example, a fighter with a +20/+15/+10 attack routine makes his first attack against an AC 25 target. With a roll of 13, the first attack hits with a grand total of 33. So, 8 points of that attack rolls over to damage. On the next attack, the fighter rolls a 12, grand total 27. he hits, and 2 points roll over to damage. On the final attack, he rolls an 11, grand total 21. A miss. However, the fighter didn't have to declare his power attack, it just worked automatically.

Conceivably, something similar could be done with Wizard attack spells - however much he exceeds the target's save would roll over to damage dealt to the target. However, it would work a lot better if more spells dealt damage rather than have pass/fail save or suck mechanics.

-----------------

In the arena of increasing disparity of bonuses, I think one thing that needs to be done is to dramatically decrease the type of bonuses that stack. Reduce it to something like Magic bonuses, Item bonuses, Feat bonuses and maybe Class bonuses. If each is still capped to a +5 bonus, that can still generate a disparity of +20 right there, more than enough not counting skill ranks, base saves, BAB and the like. While it doesn't directly address the disparity of d20+X, it does help to decrease the upper limits of the variance. Likewise, since a great many bonuses step on each other toes, it becomes much harder to get the high disparity and the hunt for taking everything to optimize bonuses is somewhat lessened. Instead, spells, feats and class abilities that let you do entirely new things (like skill tricks), may become more desirable than seeking out stuff that grants you a flat bonus.

I'm also in agreement with increasing the casting time for spells, at least the higher level ones. Having spellcasters being staggered after casting, say 4th level or higher spells with the duration depending on spell level might help some. However, it would be more beneficial if the character has to build up the actions to cast the spell in the first place, since many are encounter enders once they go off.

On a tangent, however, one thing I would really like to see go away is instant iterative attacks for all the classes. Giving all the classes iterative attacks was, I think a bad idea - similar in thought to giving all classes access to spells at some level, regardless of class. Only fighter-types should be able to get iterative attacks, just as only clerics/druids get divine spells, wizards/bards/sorcerers get arcane spells and rogues get sneak attack.

My thoughts:

I would love to see a system where non-casters can create magic items; I've been thinking about how to implement it in my own games.

One of the things I would say is that those who are not familiar with a spell (i.e., not having it on their list/known spells) should not be able to create spell completion or spell trigger items - they can't encode the precepts of the spell into the item. This prevents the oddity of a wizard scribing his own fireball spell to add it to his spellbook, or creating a wand of cure light wounds or other such strangeness. It still allows a fighter to make a magical flaming sword or a rogue making a ring of invisibility.

--------------

I've also always loved the idea of "power components" - blood of dragon, a bit of alicorn, perhaps the eye of a catoblepas - this gives PCs something to quest for to make special magic items, and could be the basis for NPCs to send PCs on quests for rare and strange things. There are two problems - how do you make it adventure appropriate and keep the characters from skinning and processing every monster they run across for future use as magic components?

I believe the answer to the first problem is to use the CR system. If you need to make, say a gauntlet of rust, and let's say it has a minimum caster level of 7 (not sure the real requirements), then you need to defeat 7 CR's worth of creatures with a rusting ability (say, 4 rust monsters by the current CR system - a 7th level encounter) and collect parts from it - perhaps an antennae, blood or even scales. Or the DM could make it a single rust monster and apply enough requirements/complications to the task to up it to the challenge of the appropriate caster level, though that would take a bit more inventiveness on the DM's part.

The second part is keeping the item viable for use. A limitation on how long such collected articles "retain" their magic viability. Perhaps the viability only lasts an hour before the item's enchantment must be finished, or perhaps 4 or 8 hours. If characters can't simply bag or otherwise store such items (and don't forget about the possible use of gentle repose or similar magics - perhaps such magic "taints" the item), they are much less likely to become trophy hunters and only use "power components" when they specifically set out on such quests. Either characters will need to bring the item to be enchanted to the site and work on it there, or find some way to bring the creature of their quest back with them - perhaps even a greater challenge in the making.

Rules of marketing #1... if you are going to say I self published a monster book on RPGNow... lets have a link. You can never have too many monsters...

Well, I guess I should have linked that...

Bestiary Malfearous

The pictures aren't up to Paizo standards, but hopefully the monsters themselves are usable.

Hey James, I've got two "monster manuals" that I've made with over 200 creatures apiece in them, one I self-published through RPGnow, the other I didn't get to artwork & playtesting before 4E was rolled out - and plans for a 3rd, but nothing beyond a list of creature names & ideas.

Would you be interested in either? I can send you copies of what I have, if need be, though they probably wouldn't fit in an e-mail...

Perhaps a combo effect:

SoD removes 1/4 to 1/3 hp each round (or perhaps a fixed amount so weak creatures die quick, stronger creatures may linger a while). You get a save each round, if you make it the damage stops.

This still can make them quite deadly, but overcomes a single bad roll and/or allows others to intervene in a meaningful way to attempt to stop the spell (spells, items, abilities or whatnot).

The biggest problem with SoD's is that they simply bypass the hit point system, allowing an instawin regardless how tough the opponent may be. If the SoD's could be routed back through the hit point system, they become no more attractive or abusable than damage-dealing spells or attacks.

For example, Flesh to Stone could be reworded that it deals direct HP damage (say 1d6/level). If the target is reduced to 0 hp or less, then the spell turns them to stone, otherwise it just sends them closer to death.

You could add in minor effect to differentiate them from straight attack spells; perhaps someone who fails the save vs. Flesh to Stone is slowed as well as taking damage.