Thomas Higgins's page

Not to derail the conversation, but what is it with Dwarves that so many people hate? I personally can't stand the elves, but they are so iconic that I would never want them gone. Some of the late-comer races, such as the dragon-born on the other hand....

Anyway, what is it with race baiting...I mean race hating around here anyway ;p

I guess I don't understand Pathfinder society. I thought it was supposed to be the equivalent of RPGA?

Also, why charge for scenarios? One of the biggest ways of attracting people to D&D (at least in the area where I live) were RPGA gamedays. Lots of players would come to play and if they didn't have a PHB it would interest them to purchase one. I was expecting Pathfinder Society to be freeplay where GM's who pass a test can just download scenarios.

Are there any GM/Player rewards?

Thanks.

Interesting.

I never took it that way. I always thought (and apparently correctly) that this was something that players/GMs picked up on from the original Pathfinder AP asking for more information. So Paizo concurred and created the Pathfinder Society to explain & provide additional adventure hooks within the same world. Kind of like a "...in other news today..." type of add on.

As for charging for scenarios, the reason is no one works for free. If it were just a single module or something - a marketing thing - then I can see it, but not an entire subscription for free. That just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.

I don't know the original intent of the Pathfinder Society modules, but I would guess my understanding is much closer than yours was. Just my thoughts though.

EDIT - Of course rereading the Pathfinder Society intro, I can definitely see where you thought differently - and how wrong my thoughts may be. Now I am interested in seeing responses from others...

So I made my first submission to PFS and it was rejected, which is OK, but I would like to ask you folks, what do you think about it? Also, please do not post your own submission to this thread, it is much better to have only one submission per thread. So, here it goes...

I can't say specifically why it was rejected other than the others were better, which is okay as you said. However, several little things that I noticed:

1) If you are trying to follow the synopsis format of the current pathfinder modules, you will want to completely remove the second half of the second paragraph. The top part is a full description from the player's point of view (more or less) as though they knew about it from either the pathfinders or another interested inside party (or parties). However, no one knows about the second paragraph but the DM. That goes in the synopsis section below as you did.

2) You bring in the Thieves guild, however, any decent party that would be looking at going through this would likely be a member of the same-said guild or be hunted for an being an unsanctioned thief. The only way I can see this being preserved is if the city was big enough for multiple thieves guilds, and only one learned of the situation (not the one the party thief is a member of, obviously). That provides another starting point possibility as the party member is sent to see what the other guild is up to that has them so busy lately.

3) I know this was meant to work towards a pathfinder AP specifically, but if you generalize the setting (for example instead of a pathfinder, you can say the local adventuring historian), it would be very portable to any campaign setting, which is always desireable. Then once the concept is completed, it can be localized.

4) Instead of starting them as a third party from Tork, leave the story line a bit open where the party could start from any of the 3 or 4 groups getting formed. Let the group/DM and party dynamics decide which party the party is and how they get assigned to the mission. If the concept is good enough, they will be following more or less the same path anyway, they just may have certain obstacles removed or placed in their way due to their affiliation. As the path gets more detailed you can ensure each group has approximately the same number and difficulty of obstacles such that the other groups don't have.

I don't know if any of this would help or hurt your writing for the PFS, but it may help for writing general setting/adventure ideas. Either way, these are just my observations and initial thoughts. Take them as such. :)

Allowing me to dabble in psionics, rather than dive head in. If someone wants to have their future told by a medium, or wants a minor psychic power, allow that either by a feat, a skill, or some other mechanic without requiring new classes, new rule sets, point systems, or the like.

I love this idea. What I loved about old versions of Psionics was that ANYONE could have it. I just didn't know how to impliment that until I read this post. If it were a General Feat with somewhat stiff entry requirements as the power "grew" (e.g. minimum level and feat tree), this would be a great start.

I always saw the powers as similar to spells however, due to the limiting power of the set. If they were feats, they still could not be "at will" or they would start to unbalance the game. Either that or so underpowered as to make the feat a waste (in my opinion).

Lastly, from my own concepts only, psionics are a primarily defensive feat. Maybe something like '+1 natural armor when concentrating' type of feat. The whole concept is mind over body in my vision, rather than mind over all. Again as stated in an earlier post, this fits in particularly well with the Monk idea. However, other classes could likewise benefit from certain mind over body enhancements without a doubt.

To make me really want to buy a book on this, I would want it to be a feat extension book with magical items that can enhance the feats if found. Attacks, if existing at all, should be minor and enhance the class capabilities rather than overshadow them.

It seems not many use technology at the table. I for one, have used it for years. I keep a copy of all of my character sheets on the laptop. I have a copy of almost every rulebook I own on the laptop as a searchable PDF file. I have a copy of the original version of The Only Sheet where I paid for a lifetime license. The developer has since changed the name so he can change the license to a subscription model which I just can't support given the circumstances. I just thought it was shady, but that is another issue. He even is now supporting Pathfinder RPG in his current version.

Even without using technology for anything else, the use for players is invaluable to me. I can only conclude that it will prove even more so when I start DMing in two weeks. For me, however, I use it strictly for bookkeeping and note taking. I am faster at typing than I am writing, and I can usually use the most appropriate application to speed the bookkeeping even more so.

With all this said, I too find *MOST* technology assistance tools woefully lacking. Of the good ones, most are ridiculously and prohibitively expensive. Effective, without a doubt, but if I am paying $300 for a campaign creation suite (for example), it should include the rule books and unlimited distribution as well! It isn't like it is creating the campaign, it is just preventing me from having to write it out longhand after all!

Like yourself, we find our group uses the knowledge skills heavily, and while I can understand some of them being more useful than others, your combination of knowledge(warfare) and knowledge (cultures) seem a bit extreme to me. They combine far too much in my opinion. It is, indeed, easier to say "roll knowledge(cultures)" each time, and with a higher rank (since all the breakouts are reduced) it makes it significantly easier to succeed; but is simple successes like that all we are after? If so, it is trivial to reduce the DC. EDIT: Upon review, I have changed my mind on Knowledge(cultures). The particular combination you show should generally be very synergistic anyway, and combining them does make a good deal of sense. I would think it should be for anyone though, instead of just the classes you listed. Knowledge(warfare) in particular seems a bit egregious to me since it combines knowledge(cultures) and others - even though they are only related to marshal knowledge. These make these skills no brainers, even over something such as acrobatics, in many campaigns.

However, my real complaint is the opposite of yours - Craft/Profession/Perform. I understand your problem with Craft taking too long, and with the overlap of Profession/Perform; but in reality these are three different skills broken out in different ways. Would it be easier to understand if it broke out like this?:

• Profession(accountant)
• Profession(craft{barrels})
• Profession(perform{saxophon e})

Okay, so my particular skills are not necessarily useful, but this is the way to play these variations on perform. Great, you can't build that armor with craft(armor) for an entire month (or whatever). But I bet you could still make a week's salary by working on it for the week, or even fixing other people's armor. Likewise, why would you need perform(flute) yet not be able to make a few coppers on the street corner unless you had Profession(entertainer)? Doesn't the one automatically imply the other?

I know, I have played in campaigns too, where this was not the case. I can be a performer but unless I have a proven job record (profession) I am not allowed to make money at it. I agree with you that this is ludicrous; but then again the rules don't state this explicitly either way, it is up to interpretation. Well now I am rambling, but I think I made myself clear enough. I really do like most of your ideas, I just think some need tweaked a bit more.

But the wizard has more versatility than the sorcerer because he isn't limited to a number of spells known and with the new magic item creation rules the wizard can just make wands or staves of those spells that would need to be cast more often. The only reason my players ever choose a sorcerer over a wizard is that they are too lazy to prepare spells every day, otherwise they'd go wizard.

Well as I said, I haven't played the new ones yet, but if you follow 3.5, the item creation trick only works if you don't take into account the creation costs (both in gold and in XP). Granted, you can make several scrolls, but at some point you have to stop. Moreover, how many leafs of paper can you rifle through to find just the right spell in 3 seconds (estimated time of a move equivolent action). Granted, it may not be in the rules, but for sanity and some sense of realism, can you really believe that you have two or three books that you instantly find what you need? Oh, sure, two of those aren't even bound, but they have instant spells...Oh, they are indexed? But you only have 1 sheet of magic missle left, whereas you have 10 detect magic, and 7 ray of frost sheets on either side of that one. Roll to see if you can find it among them...30% chance since you know it is approximately middle of the pack...

I don't know how your games go, but there is a limit to the suspension of belief that my group goes with, and that is past that point.

I agree. I love the new wizard rules - both specialist and generalist. I usually play diviners, and I think this will work great. I loved the idea of necromancers, but I always thought they were WAY underpowered in 3.5. What kind of necromancer can not even control a significant number of undead? But I digress - My only complaint is as was mentioned earlier; why should a "universalist" be better than a necromancer on necromantic spell?

Indeed: but how do you validate taking a life...Sword or Poison is the same. Lawful Good must ultimately resort to non lethal outcomes first.

How did the Christian Crusades justify it? Heathenism, Amoralism, Demonism, you name it. As mentioned earlier, the Paladin adhears to his code (whatever code that is) to the exclusion of other codes of conduct. If it is deemed within the code to eradicate life to preserve it (not unlike removing a sore to save the limb idea), then it would be easily and hastily justified and executed according to the code.

BTW: Sword or Poison is NOT the same. By sword the "victim" knows who killed him and (presumably) why. Poison does not provide that luxury. Just because the end result is the same, does not mean the methods are the same nor does it mean the methods are equally acceptable.

I have never played nor liked the Paladin much as designed, so this is just thoughts from the comments, but here they go.

I love most of Frank's ideas, but one thing that always bothered me was why is a Paladin a spellcaster anyway? Shouldn't he just be a fanantical, well trained fighter for his religion? That is what I always thought anyway. I would suggest something along the lines of:

* A Good Will Save. - A must for a fanatic
* Lay on Hands from Level 1 (it's level dependent anyway, it won't break a thing). - Absolutely! They learned something from their clerics about healing didn't they?
* Full leveled Channeling when they get it at all. Getting an ability that behaves as if you were lower level is never appropriate at any level. Being bad at your own class features is a slap in the face. - Yes.
* A much faster Aura Progression. He doesn't need Diabloesque Auras, but seeing him cause Save penalties to enemies in his reach like a Blackguard would give much needed synergy with spellcasting characters and help justify his existence nicely. - Likewise agree.
* Some actual high level abilities that vaguely compete against a Cleric sitting back and dumping a few 6th level spells into self and party buffs. - Like what? Follow more like a fighter I say.
* Much better spellcasting. Caster level and spell effects should be level appropriate. - No. Make fighting stronger, and several spell-like abilities reflecting his god, but not actual spells. They are not necessary for a fighter unless you are trying to dual-class without paying for the dual class. It also frees up the Wisdom requirement that is on top of the Strength and Charisma ones just to attempt to play in the flavor.
* Example Spellcasting idea: since spell levels on Paladin Spells are so low, it would not be broken for the Save DCs to be 10 + Wisdom Modifier + Charisma Modifier. - No spells, no problem.
* Second Spellcasting idea: Character should have a reasonable number of spells per day. As is, keeping your Wisdom up to get a single 1st level spell at 5th level is a joke, and the most successful Paladins I've seen have used Wisdom as a dump stat. - No spells, no problem.

In addition, give more fighter capabilities to offset this lack of spells, e.g. Weapon and Armor Training. What Paladin wouldn't be extremely proficient in these, rivaling fighters with fanatical zeal that overcomes training deficiencies (the bonus feat). I wouldn't add the "Master's" at higher levels, given some of the other advantages the Paladin gets, but it certainly makes sense thematically as well as mechanically.

Lastly, I would remove detect evil completely. Why? Because it actually makes the Smite non-evil a possibility. In a typical encounter no Paladin is going to Smite without checking for evil first - why bother with the ruling. Alternatively, make smite automatic against ALL evil creatures. Just tell him automatically that these x creatures are evil and you get your smite bonus for them. It is mechanically equivalent to current practice and makes the rules easier and faster. (I vote for the first option personally; but if you do, fix smite as others have mentioned. Hey, if you are going to lose for beating up a non-evil, at least you should make him remember you ;D).

Apparently I am staunchly in the minority here, but I find the Sorcerer imminently more powerful than the Wizard in every campaign I have been in simply because you can choose your spells at the time of need. That flexibility is HUGE! I think most here are greatly undervaluing it. I usually play wizards, because I like their flavor better, but that whole versatility thing can not be understated.

I have not played the PRPG version of either yet, but I think from what I have seen, if anything, this version of the Sorcerer widens that gap rather than narrowing it. However, the Wizard has some pretty powerful upgrades too, so I will keep that comment conditional until I play both.

Don't have it open at the moment but it should work like this. One adds your ability score and the other adds your ability bonus. Thus a CON of 12 would add +12 hp in one and +1 hp in the other.

Ah, you are right. What a difference one little word makes. :)

Maybe I am missing something, but I can not tell the difference between the Constitution variant and the Standard variant on the Designer's Notes. I can't believe that this needs space filler, so that either leaves that there was something left out, or it was accidentally duplicated. Can anyone enlighten me? BTW: I noticed this in Alpha 1.1, but didn't get to it till late last week. By the time I got around to the forums again, Alpha 2 came out. So sorry I am so slow, but I thought someone could help.

Thanks

From what limited things I have read about them, I would say they are very geographic oriented (i.e. laylines as you suggested). I would think it would be something that would be built in a specific way with exotic materials and infused with magic. Personally, I would think once the magic infused the well, it could not be moved without destroying the magic and hence the runewell itself. However, you did say imagine, so in this case I would say that the magic is actually contained withing the materials and would need to be dismantled in a VERY specific order to contain the magic without destroying it. Sort of like containing a matrix - it becomes less stable as you dismantle it, but if you do it just right, you can still maintain the structure. Once properly dismantled, you would have to reconstruct it in an equally specific, but completely different way. Wouldn't want it to be as easy as reverse order after all ;). However, much research would need to be done, because the matrix that is the runewell container can only be built in certain areas to maintain the magic and keep it from running out of the matrix like a sieve.

Further, I would probably make the process very dangerous and limited. What I mean by this is each time you move it, the magic drains as it moves from each location, and the well as the container can not hold all that power for unlimited time. Therefore, the move would need to be researched extensively to find where it is, where it will be moved to, how to move it safely and quickly, and how to move its structure over that distance. Lastly, if anything goes wrong anywhere in route, it can do anything from ruin the well permanently to blowing up creating that new crater 2 miles wide.

The key to me would be twofold. 1) How much is the "key" item worth? No noble worth the title would pay more than half that cost, because he could hire mages to make one at that price, 2) How much does the noble want it? Obviously the more he wants it and the more difficult it is to find someone to make it, the more he would be willing to pay.

When I DM'd things like this, I did a lot of character development on the noble in question. The purpose for this, besides adding good fluff, was to help determine a realistic price. For example, what does the noble want it for? How difficult is it to find someone to make it? How much would it cost, should he actually find someone? How rich is he? After all, if a town is poor, he can't really tax them much more - therefore he would not be very rich either. Regardless of how rich he is, how greedy is he? Most nobles are fairly greedy; the degree of greed dictates how little or much he would be willing to part with.

I guess what I am saying is there is no right or wrong answer, and to do so correctly within your world will not likely distill easily into a chart, regardless of what the DMG says. The DMG is a good starting point for a generic encounter where you don't have time to develop the noble correctly, but then you are shorting yourself and your players in my opinion. If this is the case, it may be worth more to "delay" the game by playing the interactions with the noble to develop the NPC in game. Just be warned that can cause issues if you are like me and not real good at improvisation.

Why does the God have to exist anyway? Perhaps I am missing something, but I can think of several interesting ways to tie in a "Missing God".

1) Perhaps there was a war where he died. In typical LE fashion, his failure doomed him to ignominy and the name has been stricken from the books of the faithful. This has an added benefit of allowing later introduction through a fringe group of warrior faithful.

2) How did the Gods get to that rank in the first place? They survived. Maybe they don't do the fighting, preferring to use intermediary pawns to carry the fight. Like modern-day generals, they direct the fight, but avoid the actual conflict - the better to live for another day. After all, strategy is strategy, be it in the battlefield or the political field. The only difference is the weapons and the terrain.

3) Have Asmodeus (or someone else already in the pantheon) have war (or an aspect of it) as a lesser power. He just doesn't focus on it, even though he is eminently capable. If you go with the aspect of War, it works for each within the pantheon to have an aspect which makes them work well together, but not very focused on it when apart.

These are just off the top of my head. I am sure with a little thought and some of the other sources mentioned here, you can come up with some others.