Sylvain Hamel's page

Did it ever occur to you that ninja's are just a flavored kind of rogue?

Want to build a ninja ? Take the special feats required for it and call it a ninja.

If you want to go further just replace the special abilities rogue get by equivalent ninja ones.

I also love the idea of traps as haunts.

Downloaded the new rules, and had a quick read.

Like the ideas on skills. Simplifies the system without negating DC. An option for (+ class level) would be (+ levels skill has been known) - would make skill choice earlier on count more than picking up at skill at 10th level and instantly becoming master. That could complicate what is supposed to simplify the system.

My big question is the healing during turning undead. What would stop players from "Turning Undead" when there is no undead around, just to heal the group?

Gene

I dont think it really matters. My guess is to let them do it. I find it very clunky though. Read my alternative solution in another comment and give your opinion if you are interested.

I use the "0 is disabled" rule, but you're dead at negative your Constitution score.

This doesnt work at higher levels. Lets say your fighter's const is 15. At mid-level you frequently encounter monsters that can take your fighter from alive and kicking to dead in one round. Crits just make it worse. And this behavior is even worse for "weak" classes.

There is only one solution in my mind to this problem and that is to have the negative hit points scale with your level.

In my opinion, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

If turning is broken fix it. In my mind there are multiple ways to do it with modification to either undead HD or turning mechanism.

Using turning with healing is counter intuitive to me and you create somekind of mongrel ability. Turning is for undeads, leave it that way.

I thought my method was way mot elegant and easy to apply. Same results, taste better.

I think that one of the reasons they did change turning however is that the turning system back in 3.5 is rather clunky on its own. Aside from having to memorize the set of numbers that you role for(and the corresponding level adjustment it gives you) it is mostly a useless ability very quickly.

For the first couple of levels you can turn things like skeletons or zombies, if you roll adequately. However beyond that, it quickly becomes less feasible because undead have to add hit dice much more quickly then characters do to maintain a challenge, because undead hitdice are weaker. That means that if you are going to be facing an undead that is a cr 8, meaning something you could face as early as level 5, its probably going to have in the neighborhood of 12HD+, well beyond what you could turn even with a maxed out turning check of level +3, and thats discounting turn resist.

Turning quickly becomes something that is a good way to add a bit of flavor by making the cleric waste an action(a 10th level party finding 30 skeletons in a room around the guy whose the actual boss) or if the DM comes up with something non-combat related that can be overcome by channeling positive energy, like an evil altar, but not for much else.

I thought the pathfinder modules did a good job of turning this around in some ways, giving undead ways of being tough without adding HD so they could still be within range of the cleric and also including haunts so that all those turns feel useful. But the PFRPG seems to go much further with that.

Now turning seems a viable alternative, a no brainer if you are fighting a swarm of undead(I hurt them and heal us? Awesome.), questionable tactics if you are fighting mixed enemies(I'll probably nuke their undead and heal us a bit, but I'm going to be healing their fighters a bit too, is it worth it?), and very cool for undead focused clerics(I can mass heal my minions and hurt the enemy while leaving msyelf out of the radius.

These rules also fix something thats often disliked in...

*typo

Here are the advantages I found about it :

1) No more disabled at 0 hp. How often have you seen that happen in a game anyway.

2) It adds excitement to the game especially for unconscious people. I had a few situation with people coming back from the dead and winning the day.

3) The problem with fixed negative hit points is that it doesnt scale. Ask a mid-level fighter if he would rather be alive at 1 hp or unconscious!

One of my players(who is also a DM) just implemented this in a campaign that he is running a few weeks ago. He was really pumped to try it out, but so far the response from us playing with the system has been less then positive. It seems to add a lot of complexity for relatively little real benefit.

The chance of stabilization and springing back to your feet is good, though its lower then a normal stabilization check, and if you are unconscious and bleeding its likely you have less rounds to make it in this system(having only three failures). Plus there is a lot more book-keeping involved, especially when spells that affect your hit points come into play(ok, so I'm 12th level and just got bears endurance. That means I gain 24hp, so my new 'death point' is 6 lower then it used to be...), and it adds a lot of other points up for interpretation(What about temp HP, ect).

If you want to make your characters have a better chance of surviving when they are down below zero, let them drop to their negative con instead. Unless they are a very low con build(in which case they probably don't have a lot of HP anyway) or you are in the upper levels where they have a lot of HP, thats probably going to put them to near the same level and its much easier to keep track of.

Here is a suggestion.

Instead of changing the way turning works. Introduce cleric spells/powers that channel healing so that it takes quite a while to heal someone (example 1hp/level per round). This would make healing during the encounter very impractical (though I can find a few exciting situations where the PCs would have to defend their cleric while he heals someone) but would enable after encounter healing. Hence reducing the need for resting after a few encounters. It solves the same problem as the turning rule but in a much more elegant way I think.

Here are the alternative death and dying rules that wizards had suggested on their web site. I found that they added a lot of excitement to the game without over complicating it. It would make a great "alternative rule".

From the dnd site :

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might
kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or
one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value. If it feels too small, increase it
to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times
before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter
your full normal hit points.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he
returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he'll wake up again with hit points equal to the
healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will
bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative
hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who's been stabilized (via the Heal skill)
doesn't roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.

Ok, thx. I'll check if I can still cancel the hitman I hired on the next batch of contracts I give out. ;-)

Sylvain Hamel wrote:

For the... refresh. I have received #6 today. But #4 is still AWOL. The dog 's not coming back honey!

Ok, We'll ship you a replacement PF#4 with your next sub shipment. Thanks for being so patient!

--Jeff

For the... refresh. I have received #6 today. But #4 is still AWOL. The dog 's not coming back honey!

For the record, I have received my #5 today but not #4 yet.

Sylvain Hamel wrote:

Hello. I was told to post if my #4 didnt arrive before #6 was ready. Do you think it would be possible to join a replacement copy with my #6 shipment? My order number for #4 is 853011.

For the record I live in Canada. Since I have a friend in the UK who got his #5 already I would think #4 is running very late.

I will see to it that a replacement is put in with your next subscription shipment. Unfortunately, your Pathfinder #6 has already shipped, so if your Pathfinder #4 shows up in the meantime, please let me know so I can cancel the replacement.

Thanks,
cos

Hello. I was told to post if my #4 didnt arrive before #6 was ready. Do you think it would be possible to join a replacement copy with my #6 shipment? My order number for #4 is 853011.

For the record I live in Canada. Since I have a friend in the UK who got his #5 already I would think #4 is running very late.

Same here. If you could place a replacement copy for #4 with my #6 I would appreciate it.

I am also missing Pathfinder #4 . Having received 2-3 much quicker I assume you guys have the right address. Having received notice for #6 I am a little worried. My order number is 853011 .