Search Posts
Hey all,
TWB
While I don't have a huge problem with it, the backstory, especially when connected to Pathfinder, was listed as a no-no by the judges. I also think it could do with being a bit more clear about "any task involving no more than 5 pounds" and what, if any, penalties the user takes while the hand is detatched, and it could specify the process for ordering the hand (though the "user must choose between taking actions and guiding the detached hand" part does seem to imply that the hand simply takes the users actions, standard for standard, move for move etc.") . The text stating that "If the hand is killed, the owner is considered one handed until enough hit points are recovered." seems to imply that the owner is able to act as though they still had 2 functional hands unless the detatched hand is slain. The text states that the hand lost regenerates on either regaining a set hit point total or being healed for a certain amount. This is unclear; if I detatch a hand and take 10 points of damage, leaving me on 18, and then take an axe blow for a further 12 points, leaving me on 2, does the hand regenerate after being healed to 12 damage, or back to 28? Also, while it feels like the intent is to be able to reattatch the hand after it scuttles back to you, there are no provisions for this in the rules. And seeing as the 5 lb limit on hand-carrying allows it to use flails, longswords and the like, you'd have to expect some opportunistic rogue to have his hand flank himself at some point, and it's unclear how the hand attacks (bonus/damage wise), let alone if it applies it's owner's bonuses like Sneak Attack. In short, I LOVE the concept and think it's an imaginative item, but you're hamstrung by the word limit. Good work anyways.
My experiences with PbP are mostly positive although I have to agree that it really depends on the commitment of the DM and players to post and see it through. My gaming group play mainly on a small site called d20 Universe, which I found when I was trying to organize my first PbP. Since then, our group (who often find it hard to meet up regularly) have shifted most of our gaming online, and while I still prefer face-to-face games, there have been definite improvements in play as a result of switching to PbP. As is often noticed, there is a big boost in roleplay online, especially from my more roleplay-shy, power-game happy players. The specialized forum software at d20 gives us a few simple tools like mapboards, private forums, and an inbuilt dice roller which make it really easy to DM and the looser time constraints of PbP has resulted in almost every member of our group trying their hand at running games, rather than our tabletop meetings where I wind up DMing 90% of the time. This variety of DMs has lead to an even wider variety of game ideas, with DMs running exactly what they want producing everything from the relatively mundane monster party to Mutants and Masterminds, homebrew post-apocalyptica d20, Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia. While the PbP games do have a roughly 60% failure rate (overall that is; it has been found that some people are chronically unable to get their games onto the third page...) the players are always ready to try the next crazy campaign idea and the games that do live haven't stopped rolling yet, even 2 1/2 years later. While we have met few players from outside our weekly gaming group and they usually only join a campaign or two, they are accepted well and help provide even more incentive to roleplay properly. Beyond this, I have used the accessible-from home/school/work and anonymously secure nature of the PbP games to lure in many new players, including several female friends who were somewhat reluctant to venture into the often-uncomfortable tabletop environment of pizza crumbs, manuals everywhere, and laughing gamers (because we can only maintain one regular game, our average party size is 8 characters, often with up to 10 players...). The majority of these "inductees" have graduated to our face-to-face games, and even those who haven't continue to enjoy their online roleplaying. Recently I've started experimenting with different types of PbP, especially the concept of Player-vs-Player or multi-party games, which our online group seems obsessed with, to the point where it is now widespread to have games where each player keeps to their own private forum, communicating with other players through the DM. Because the players are largely unaware of which characters are PCs or NPCs, there is an even higher level of roleplay and alot of individual character development as well as PC-NPC relationships (you can be alot more well-mannered with your fighter henchman when he could well be your best friend). The PbP premise has even been shown to stand up well when used to run homebrew Turn-Based Strategy games and I have even started a "Living" campaign set in my homebrew world where players from about 10 different face-to-face, PbP and play-by-email games are involved in a single "instance" of the world, starting scattered across a large continent and gradually knocking sparks off/teaming up with each other as the game progresses, with some well-trusted players running higher-level solo games as adventurer-organizing Guildmasters (ala Gandalf) and "Evil Overlords". Having an imaginative and sadistic player organize your BBEG's plans for you takes away a bunch of work and makes sure he's a match for the many parties of players. That game, while it suffers more than most from the occasional case of critical-player-interest-collapse, is still going strong and being able to watch my formerly-united players scheming against each other is a reward all of itself. The bulk of PbP games though, are just traditional homebrew d20 fantasy games with 3-6 players, and while they do take a [u]long[/u] time to move through roleplay interactions, the policy seems to be that if you join enough games (I'm running about 7 PbPs in addition to playing in 5 or so) there will almost always be something to post on, even if 5 of them go dormant or dead. Recently I even managed to get into a game here at Paizo, Sharoth's Castle Whiterock, and that has provided me a (very) welcome break from my familiar group of players and let me hang out with a bunch of people who inspire me to improve my PC roleplaying, something which has sat dormant during long stretches as DM. Despite difficulty getting useful stuff like maps onto the boards, Sharoth has done an awesome job at scouting out the resources and I'm loving that game so far. So yeah, PbP is assuredly a different beast from traditional games, but it often enables fresh roleplay, Dming, or participation from those who normally wouldn't or couldn't do so, and it gives you and others the oppurtunity to explore fresh and wacky campaign ideas without being hampered by real-life logistics. TWB EDIT: *inspects post*... talk about tl;dr. Sorry folks.
Open to critique! (Short) flavour section, pretty much a Figurine item, what else? Pricing perhaps (not my strong point)? Should I have further clarified how to order the minnow and it's mechanics while in use? Should I have given it less spell-in-a-can powers?
Ah, crap. Guilty as charged. Along those lines though, what would you say would be a better way to write flavour for a wondrous item? EDIT: Reread the thread. Fair points from the judges. I can see the distinction between "ages old backstory of the doomed item creator" and "sentence long tagline of what the item's use is". Though knowing my luck, I probably forgot to give it a title or something else dumb...
*swiftly reads through thread at a roadside internet hotspot* "...whuh" I have never had a bard in a party that I have played in or ran. How weird is that? :) "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..." More seriously though, huge heaping thanks to Jester for resolving the situation, though I would've been fine with 2 monks, and my character should be posted up first thing when I return at the weekend.
2 monks eh? Do you think we should coordinate our backstories or are we better off just being similarly schooled strangers? Also, as much in bad form as it is I'm going away for Christmas with the family, and so I likely will be without internet access for the next week or so. I'll finish my character while I'm away and I'll be ready to jump straight in when I get back. You are welcome to start without me if you feel like it. Sorry about this.
Ah. I am sadly short a campaign setting, so I might have to pass on that feat until I pick up a copy. I'll definitely look into it though. Seeing as we already have a wizard, I think I might start with a monk level, despite 1st level spells being harder to use at later levels.
Thanks for the spot! Don't worry about the rage mage then, I'm more than happy with the Fist. As a quick question for my fellow players, would it be better for me to start with spellcaster or monk at 1st level? I'm a little shabby on the party composition, and I don't know anything about the Green Ronin classes. What roles do we need more?
Hey, if theres still room here, I think this'd be interesting. I usually DM my groups both on the tabletop and online, so it would be a refreshing change. Also I'm interested to see how this module plays out. I'm thinking of perhaps playing an Enlightened Fist (Monk/Sorc) or Rage Mage (Barb/Wiz). Are these classes a bit "out there" for the game or should it be ok?
Apologies for time wasted if this is a dumb question, but after perusing both the original and amended versions of the PFRPG Magic Items rules, I've been unable to find a "proper" Wondrous Item. The only items detailed so far are artifacts and cursed items, neither of which bear complete "stat blocks" for wondrous items, particularly in the section for crafting requirements. I understand that there are obvious reasons for the omission of "standard" wondrous items, but with "PFRPG Formatting" present in the criterion for entries, I was really hoping for something to base my entry off. It would just answer a few questions I have about item presentation (where/how are the spellcraft DCs/spell prerequisites shown, how else does the format different from 3.5, etc.) If any of those people who have submitted their entries or are more perceptive than myself can help me out with an example or explanation so I can fix up my submission, it'd be much appreciated. TWB
My problem with this feat is not so much the game balance of the 2-weapon fighter now needing to buy only one magic weapon, but more that I find the idea of a fighter slowly working his way up the ranks until at high level, he wields his two swords as one epically enchanted kingslayer, and his rusty farm knife from first level which he never uses, but juggles from hand to hand to gain more attacks somehow. This is solveable through descriptive DMing, though.
Although I can see the utility of making Initiative a skill, it does make it a must have for a number of classes, some of which are a bit strapped for skill points (and increasing that number is not much of an option at this point). Absolutely agree with this sentiment. As an alternative to just more skill points, classes could have special bonuses that were assigned only to class skills, or just certain skills defined by the class. If a fighter can have Climb bonuses, he can have Initiative bonuses as well, without having to go to a higher skill points level. EDIT: Agree with the above poster though that an Initiative skill cannot possibly grant a full bonus to checks without all initiatives having to be rebalanced. Perhaps the Initiative skill grants you increasing levels of synergy bonus with the checks as you gain more ranks?
Black God's KissCouldn't get away with that cover. The guys would love it but look down on me for bringing it into the classroom. Could you have it laminated over or find another publishing?
what happened to the Blackguard? What are the plans for this class? Although I am loving the new PrCs to bits, and I'm glad the Blackguard isn't gone for good, I have a little regret about it becoming a base class. I agree that it needs more "space", but part of it's mystique in my mind was that any villain who could truly call themselves "Blackguard" was going to be a formidable opponent, and players knew this. Not only in the metagame sense of being high enough to take the PrC requirements, but also because of the rarity of blackguards in-game. The PrC also allowed for it to be more of a broad title than a defined skillset, as one blackguard could dabble in arcane magic, another could summon fiends or raise the dead, others could be assassins or barbarians or fallen paladins or clinical warlords, and the broad range of class features would emphasize aspects of any of them whilst offering distinctive abilities which tied them all together. As a balanced (for villains) base class by necessity these wide varieties of blackguard will have to be pared down. Yes, I can always just make an evil fighter/wizard and call him a blackguard, but it just isn't the same. My lack of faith in Paizo is - disturbing. And misplaced. Keep up the good work, Jason.
I am not really surprised to see the general rejection of straight-out taunts, and some of the ideas given in this thread are very good. It would obviously be much less of an issue for fighters if they were default damage dealers in a party, but mostly the "big guy standing in front of you with a scythe" is actually standing 20 ft away in the middle of a corridor, with his lightly armored friends behind him, and 10ft of corridor to either side. Granted an ogre or the like will just charge in, but a weaker, more cautious foe such as a kobold rogue or the like is more likely to just run or tumble past the slow-moving fighter and maul his allies, until they get off a flamestrike or something, leaving the fighter feeling to blame for a wounded wizard and pretty useless to boot. Obviously this is a worse case scenario but it stands that in the "core party" of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, the fighter's advantage is his large tally of hitpoints, which he (supposedly) uses to shield his more fragile allies from attack. I have simultaeneously created two different types of "defensive" fighter, one relying on attacks of oppurtunity and movement restriction effects (spiked chain trip fighter) and one with a Bluff-based taunt mechanic and the ability to draw a foe's attention by hammering on him, with higher levels allowing him to punish enemies whenever they miss his (hopefully high) AC and lay waste to ranged attackers threatening his allies (sword-and board shield bash fighter). I'm hoping to work out which one works better through upcoming playtests, but to make them effective their general damage-dealing capabilities have been increased, which isn't so bad, as they accomplish higher damage by defending their allies. In this case, the fighter who charges in with a scythe and demands his foe's attention would be the second type, while the guy who tries to ready actions and provide a "shield wall" would be the first type. P.S. Of course, any mechanic which forces targets to attack should be used sparingly against PC's to maintain fun, just as you would carefully consider before using creatures with charm or dominate effects.
Excellent. A worthwhile and informed response. I must admit I am also against this sort of thing being put into D&D, but there aren't many more appealing alternatives. Just making the Fighter more powerful won't cut it. Probably the best way so far is to use move-impairing effects and reactive abilities (beyond simple AoOs) as the Knight, but that still has "Knight's Challenge" to force the enemy's assault, which implies that the playtesters didn't think the other class abilities good enough as a stand-alone measure. I've been creating an alternative fighter to playtest with my home group just to see what options can be given without invalidating the 3.5 fighter job of "that class you get levels in to qualify for PrCs", and I'm trying to see what options there are for a defensive fighter that actually involve tactics rather than a 4E-like "maneuver" that arbitrarily forces the foe to do stupid things. How do you think upping the damage potential of Fighters could be implemented so that it didn't just make "offensive" fighters more powerful at the same time? A damage bonus on AoOs? Perhaps a chance to halt a foe's movement if it deals enough damage? How do we make sword-and-board fighters as appealing as spiked-chain fighters if reach and AoOs are the major defensive measures? Just some general questions.
So, in rules discussions about class to class power balance, one of the greatest criticisms of the poor Fighter is his inability to do his "job". Bypassing debate over what this job really is, one of his greatest reasons for being in a party is to absorb the damage from foes to protect the "softer" spellcasting characters, but whenever this would be brought up in the fighter's support it is pointed out that he has no official rules way of doing this. Under 3.5 rules, barring the DM roleplaying the monsters as attacking the fighter over the other party members, the enemy is just as likely (moreso, if they're "smart") to simply walk past the fullplate-encrusted fighter types and punch the wizard. As long as they can handle a few attacks of oppurtunity, there are no penalties or restrictions in place to make the fighter a more effective meatshield. One of the solutions is to take some of the "tanking" mechanics from MMORPGS and implement them as Fighter bonus feats or class features, i.e. a Taunt that forces foes to attack the fighter or an ability that prevents foes struck by an AoO from moving past him. The Knight (PHB2) was an official trial of this, and was from reports I've heard fairly well recieved. 4E, from my (very) limited experience, has also gone somewhat along this route. So a general question here on what PFRPG players would like to see from Fighters and other defensively-minded classes; what do you think about MMO-style Taunts being incorporated into D&D? Does it cross the line into severe "gameism"? Has anyone played extensively with the Knight or other systems like this, and how were they recieved in your games? If you don't think this sort of system should be implemented in PFRPG, do you have any other ideas on how meatshields can serve their role better? Do you even think that the defensive classes are fine as they are? Discussion away!
I agree ... clerics needs heavy armour ... differently from wizards, they have to enter the battlefield, in the worst places of the fight, at least to cure dying allies ... they shoudn't have any chance if they were just weak and unprotected like wizards ... if you really want then weak and unprotected, then all the cure spell must become ranged spell .... Sure. This is a perfectly reasonable change, especially if a "cloistered cleric" approach is being adopted. The idea of the medic being at the back and supporting the frontline combatants becomes that much more of a reality in-game. I do like the idea of the cleric's frontline offensive power being reduced by removing armor proficiency (though this is easily reacquired with feats) and I don't think this a significant break with the "backwards compatibility" goal. For something to be backwards compatible with something else, it doesn't have to be the same (it wouldn't be new), just able to be run on the same "system". For example, if Pathfinder were to make the cleric a cloistered spellcaster type, supporting and buffing the melee classes and supporting the arcane casters with the odd attack spell (with powerful effects against enemies of the faith such as undead and outsiders), then even were they to remove armor proficiency and reduce HD and BAB, even change the spell list and spells-per-day number and class features, then this would still be backwards compatible. As in, a DM would be able to run a party containing a new cleric using the new rules through an adventure where the villain is an evil cleric using the old rules, and both clerics would function fine. Even if the old cleric is buffing himself and charging into melee while the new cleric stays behind the fighter and flame strikes and buffs the rogue, both of the rulesets are still functioning compatibly, and are therefore backwards compatible. Sadly two very strong changes that would help implement the cloistered cleric variant, making healing spells ranged and making the powerful divine stat-buffs such as Divine Power unable to target the caster (thus making fighters etc. more important) are examples of something that would if not quite break, strain backwards compatibility, as changing those spells would affect "old" clerics written with those spells in their spell selections. At worst, those edited spells could be written in as new cleric spells, rendering the old versions redundant, but still functional and identical for those unwilling to swap to the new versions. The main upcry against such a change is those who wish to play the current type of strong, crusading armored cleric. Although in some cases it could be said that those who complain about spending all their actions healing and buffing shouldn't play a (primarily) support class like a bard or cleric, the issue is more the flavour of being attatched to the divine and still being able to dice up heretics in full plate. Fortunately for these people, the old cleric class is still available, as is the new (possibly upgraded) paladin and at last glance more than a few prestige classes from 3.5 that are - thank Pathfinder - backwards compatible. No character concept goes truly wanting, and the "fighter" class concept gets a little more room to breathe.
After reading through the thread, I'm feeling a little demoralized. The problem has never come up in my game (my players aren't really into that sort of thing) but I enjoy rules discussions and character building, and the problems are obviously there. That said, the hardest part of any "casters are broken" argument is how to fix the problem. Pathfinder is in a way rendered toothless here by it's need to stay backwards compatible (though my definition of that seems different to others). IMHO, the best solution besides taking time out with good designers and rewriting the magic system (ala Arcana Unearthed/Evolved) is what was already suggested earlier in the thread - noncasters with better saves and versatile standard-action attack options. I'm in the middle of a Fighter revision along these lines right now, and I hope that in playtesting it will solve at least some of the problems here. The other solutions I've tried are classes from Tome of Battle/Magic or builds like the full-UMD rogue that effectively turn noncasters into caster-types, nerfing casters so that they have less spells per day, or nerfing the spells and giving the wizard more options. The first fix is 4E: the noncasters are self-healing and have powerful spell-type effects themed to their classes flavor, putting their usefulness right up their with casters. The beef with this approach is the people wanting to play fighters don't necessarily want to play anything called a "fighter", they want to play a character based on attack rolls and Power/Sneak attack or similar, rather than just being a caster with martial-themed flavor. This is hard to balance. The other fix, nerfing casters, whilst making it less fun for the players, also does not work in my experience. The "less spells, more power" option results in the "taking turns at uselessness" situation where the casters dominate the first few encounters, and then either rest or sit back and feel useless, and the "less power more spells" route, while a more viable option, is so labour and time intensive that you may as well rewrite the whole spell system (as that's effectively what you would have to do anyway). Does anyone have or has anyone seen any other fixes proposed that do better than these? I'm hoping superior experience will provide some help here. Also, The Authority = Troll (Forum Subtype). It actually regenerates from flame attacks. Ignore it instead for double damage. TWB
Nice rewrite. Personally I've been blessed enough that players of both the core fighter and the variants I've tried have never felt "underpowered" as such, but I know the problem exists and applaud your attempts to fix it. Immediate actions are exactly what the doctor ordered to help the supposedly "tactically oriented" classes.
As I've always understood it (it pops up quite alot on some other boards I frequent): Fanboy = Big fan
I've seen it used exclusive of gender, but "fangirl" is sometimes used too. "This PDA brought to you..."
Wow. My post got eaten. Well enough, as it would probably pass for one of those essays. In short, a young gamer here (finishing up high shool), saying that the rules of a pen and paper RPG should be used as props to ensure that the scenario your playing acts out as you want it to, rather than an exercise in character optimization. Because if I want that, I'll go play Final Fantasy or WoW.
I would like to chime in on behalf of the current Journal. As a few have already said, the early journals weren't as engrossing but I've warmed to Eando as his story has progressed. Even when my players aren't reading them, they give a great feel for concepts that are easily used in games, or even just as a mention (shop gossip about the stone dragon or war mammoths in Korvosa, for example). I must, however, speak out against plans to have less connected short stories by different writers each issue. Other posters have mentioned that they "didn't like the short fiction in Dragon" and that "they really like the way the serial nature of the journal fits in Pathfinder". I support this idea; it took a while for many of us to warm to Eando and the Journal, and the ongoing story gives readers an easy hook into each month, as well as allowing larger themes of Golarion to play out over several issues. Replacing this with individual stories mean that precious space in each issue has to be filled with introduction and setting, and would not really be long enough to show much or allow any real involvement in the story. It's hard to care about fiction without a chance to care for the settings/characters. I understand the need to use different writers and that stand-alone stories would allow you to explore a wider area of Golarion, but please at least hire on authors for multi-issue runs or have a revolving cast of interlinked writers and characters, similar to the way the 3.5 D&D novels used the various iconics. Finally, I argue against restricting the Journal only to material about the current AP. Although background setting is important, so far the other pages of Pathfinder and the accompanying products released through the Chronicles line (Guide to Korvoa for example) do plenty on the subject, and the Guide is an important source of information on Golarion at large. Casually dropped rumours and factoids about far-off locales give the players the feel that their PC's exist in a massive living world rather than a perspex box around the city or region with no interaction with the outside world. Also, it's a good read. TWB
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to (Edit: PARTICIPATE IN ADVENTURES), because they (EDIT:performed badly at something), and also like to (EDIT: Get excited about their new character while swapping war stories about their last character which I'm sure you haven't experienced because you coddle your players) power to you.Why thank you for your input. I do consider myself to tell a rather good tale, and my players seem to have quite a bit of fun. Nice trolling there sir. Do your posts regenerate too? Seriously though, I am fully in favour of the "bloodied" bonus to save DC's, though I agree with the OP that time delays would often make the spell much less likely to be used. These changes are generally excellent though. Death Ward on every high-level villain balances SoDs, but it balances them in a far more repetitive and less fun way.
Spelljammer had its cheezy aspects, but I always liked some of the concepts. I actually thought the Scro were great, it was the first time anyone had portrayed an orcish race as more than a bunch of killable mooks. The fact that they had gone all organized and smart tickled my creative bone. I always wanted to run a game that was fairly normal, but with the local orcs suddenly organizing well and raiding the human lands systematically. When the characters investigate they find a shadowy group of uber orcs in control. The big fight at the end would feature a Scro warship and transition into a Spelljammer campaign. Never did it though ...pity Ah! I once ran such a game, and it was excellent. I had drow instead of orcs, and it transitioned to Planescape instead, but it was great fun for the characters to fulfill the "mystified visitors" role. On PS and Spelljammer, I think both are great, but I would hesitate before integrating them into mainstream Golarion. Whilst good, they are very different beasts, and ruined spaceships can only turn up so often in high fantasy before the paint begins to run...
The problem with mold-breakers like Drizz't and Jarlaxle is that they only work once. Even a second similar character turns it from an exception into a core element. Drizz't moreso since he turns "drow are evil" from an openly-accepted law into a matter of preference, also opening a door for any of the "always evil" races to have a "Drizz't" exception as a PC. The idea of a male renegade drow who flaunts the system but is so well connected (even with forces outside matriarchal control, like duergar or mind flayers) that all the rulers can do is seethe, is excellent and throws a touch of spice into the situation. The first time. After that there may as well be as many rival male-led guilds as female-led houses. So stepping really carefully around mold-breakers like these is the key. Maybe just one, certainly not as a PC, but be sure to change some stuff from the norm, or there's no reason not to just use standard FR-Drow or your own homebrew-Drow.
As mentioned in other threads, the backwards compatibility means that you don't have to update NPCs (so I don't see what the worry is there) but I've had similar thoughts in my conversion process. Classed NPCs definitely need a boost to compete with PFRPG parties, but at what point does this become necessary? Also, it may help address the concerns of those adopting PFRPG if there are "quick adaption" rules. Something like guidelines for enhancing 3.5 characters and NPCs to compete with the updated PFRPG versions, perhaps by granting a few extra feats or gear allowance. Simply having it there in a sidebar would help get across the message that Pathfinder is catering to 3.5 rather than leaving it behind as 4E has done. Even a short conversion guide as a free PDF would be not only useful for those looking for help, but also those interested in the direction Pathfinder is taking with their favourite ruleset. How would such a product be presented, and what are peoples ideas so far on raising the power level of 3.5 characters to compete with PFRPG counterparts without actually using Pathfinder rules?
Having borrowed the game from a friend and played it through a bit, my opinion is that it's a well-made Sci-Fi RPG that runs a bit like a shooter. The combat is shoot-'em-up, but their are enough character-and-stat building elements that it belongs in the RPG camp. The game world is a pretty well done generic sci-fi setting, lots of aliens, ancient technology, killer robots. It has Bioware's signature dialogue options and theres a whole lot of time that can be spent just talking to everyone. In this manner it's remarkably similar to the KotOR games with a different combat system. The combat sections themselves aren't necessarily stellar, but their fun to play through and don't qualify as a real down point - they're just average. There's a fair amount of customization both mechanically and visually for your character, as well as socially in which NPC's you befriend or irritate. Probably worth more than one playthrough just to try and see everything in the games peripheral story (which is a lot). Generally a good solid title, and I'd buy it if of course I hadn't played it already. Hope that helped,
Just like to say that I'm enjoying the suddenly far more civilized and useful discussion on 4e/3.5/PFRPG in these latest threads. The osts have been (with the exception of a few Razz-like anomalies) civil and intelligible, and people have been able to come out and back up their arguments with the thoughts behind them, rather than just yelling something without any reson or context. It's a pleasure to read. That said, I don't think that there's much issue with a new player going to d20srd.com and making a character, bringing to a PFRPG game and playing. Of course, the first time he goes to make a Listen check the DM is going to lean over and put it right to him (you just need to write this down here), but that isn't any more than deleting Wilderness Lore and Scry from my 3.0 products. Most all of the other changes (new classes, races, etc.) are entirely different, and I can understand how it would be a foreboding task to go through an adventure and completely restat every classed NPC - but you don't have to. What some people seem to be forgetting (and this without malice, perhaps I just read different things into the alpha ruleset) is that the goal of compatibility is not achieved by having the new be exactly the same as the old(otherwise it's a reprint), but by being able to use the old alongside the new with minimum fuss. I think this is eminently achievable with 3.5 and PFRPG. If at the start of a new campaign a long-time player turns up with a PFRPG wizard and a new guy turns up with a 3.5 wizard, they will both be able to play. Even if some of the 3.5 spells have been revised, you can still use the old versions. Granted, the 3.5 player's character might seems a little "underpowered" as compared to the PFRPG player's, but the same comparison can be made with characters from the later 3.5 books (Tome of Battle anyone?). If the game balance truly becomes an issue, it is a simple matter to rule in some of the pathfinder changes or simply give the 3.5 player an extra feat to compensate. Similarly, if I wanted to I could run a 3.5 adventure for a PFRPG party with few problems. Again, I may want to give the "end villain" an extra magic item or two, especially if it's a classed NPC, but that takes less than 5 minutes and should hardly detract from your enjoyment of a good module. Most excellently is that, as stated above, the PFRPG classes in many cases offer ranger-like "path" or psionics-type "points" systems. 3.5 players already had ome experience in the second with Wild, Rage, and Divine feats in 1st party books alone (along with Jutsu feats in Dragon), but the greatest asset to a new player is that these systems can all be used to duplicate the 3.5 classes abilitie, a "core" build if you like (arcane sorcerer was used as an example). In summary, a new player coming to my PFRPG game with a 3.5 character would perhaps learn a few changes in his first session or two (perception checks etc.), and as he progressed up he might perhaps be slipped a feat or a magic item should he feel that he was falling behind the PFRPG characters in power. Some of these feats or magic items could even be PFRPG material (which you can apply to a 3.5 character; see compatibility) which would give him a taste of the new rules. Finally, if he's interested (perhaps after reading through the manuals) he could convert his whole character to PFRPG. He can even take the "arcane sorcerer" option for his class, to keep things as similar as possible to his existing 3.5 PC. But all in all, it's not a huge leap, and he should be able to settle into PFRPG for his future characters quickly and easily. Hopefully this will provoke some kind of response from the "not-compatible" folks; otherwise, I had fun writing it. TWB
So far I have been squarely in the anti-4E camp, and while I might not approve of the methods Razz and co. have been using to announce their opinions, I can certainly appreciate it. I won't pretend I know heaps about the rules - I'm just nowhere near finished with 3.5. I really like the ease of customization 3rd edit. gives me, and have found that no matter how much my players powergame or use Book of Nine Swords, I can match it with equally powerful encounters and smart play. Not to say that 4E couldn't provide such an experience - I have no idea. I was just anxious that it might not. I would hate to be isolated from some great communities simply because I wasn't ready to plonk down the cash for another set of books when I hadn't finished my old ones. Now, reading both side's reviews and reconciling my natural fear of change to what I love with the reality that 4E may well be awesome, I have decided that it's different. Not necessarily worse for it, but different from 3E. The ideas and campaigns I run for 3.5 probably won't work in 4E. But that isn't to say that the new game won't inspire a whole new set of adventure plots. In the end, 4E is NOT going to make me drop my 3.5 material in the bin and toss it off a cliff. But from the positive, reasoning voices and honest feedback here and elsewhere, I'll have to give it a try. Some like it, some hate, so I'm going to try it for myself. Fair enough, the game may well have turned into World of Miniaturecraft, and I'd be honestly disappointed if it has. On the other hand, the only campaign I'm still playing in rather than DMing is being run by a friend's father. He started D&D with the very first box, and his friends switch every week between 1st, 2nd, and 3.5. They're 3 completely different experiences, but they're all D&D, and I'm now convinced that 4E deserves a chance to join them. I'll probably just play both. So there you go. I've been swayed. H1 is in my mail... TWB
But all in all I would let common sense prevail and say that you can't sneak attack with e.g. Alchemists fire. Hear, hear. I'd never thought of this as a tactic before reading Frank's playtests on the boards, because it just doesn't seem possible. How do you apply precision-based damage to an exploding grenade? My fire burns hotter when you don't know it's there? That way lies madness. Still, I agree that the monk needs more status-inflicting abilities. An interesting mechanic I've seen was in a PDF called the Devil's Players Guide, which had "hellish" variants of each class (amoung other things). The Devil Monk class had a variety of styles to pick from, each with a series of maneuvers. These were similar to the combat maneuver feats, but rather than being directly linked to each other, many required the target to be suffering from a certain status ailment to be targeted, or would have a greater effect if the target was blinded etc. Of course, the earliest attacks in each style inflicted these ailments on the target. This led to players coordinating the party, the wizard preparing status-spells he would normally have passed over so he could set up the more advanced monk attacks. The monk would delay 'til after the wizard's turn, and the wizard would cast "ray of nausea" or some such, allowing the monk to Great Leap or Dim Door (which I houseruled to a move action) over the combat to the status-ed target and pound him with a high-tier special attack. Of course, in a protracted combat the monk would often go through entire attack routines, especially when the casters were busy defending themselves or throwing Fireballs, but it made for some great pre-battle planning and really felt like an equal team, with the monk making a noticeable contribution. I'd love for a similar system to be available in PFRPG, but I'll houserule it in as an option anyway, and I eagerly await any revision by the team. TWB
|
