Todd Johnson's page

Okay, I actually ended up stumped looking for the answer to this one:

Bleed damage: saps your PC of X or XdX of damage each round.

Dying: Reaching -1 hit points puts you at the Dying condition, and you lose 1 hit point per round until you reach -CON (Dead).

What if you reach negative hit points while suffering a bleed effect? Do you only bleed the 1 hit point per round once you fall unconscious, or... do you continue to bleed at the rate of your bleed damage? or... do you bleed both the bleed damage AND the 1 hit point per round until you croak?

Dabbler wrote:

Dazylar wrote:

I don't think Marilith or Dragons use the TWF feat tree.

They still have multiple attacks though, so why shouldn't they get them if the weapon-in-each-hand human fighter does?

Well, there's a number of ways to answer this:

1. So they don't turn into lawnmowers of death.
2. Because the poster who mentioned "change to TWF in my game to allow a single extra attack with the off hand weapon as a standard action" implied this should only apply when you spend a feat on TWF, which is logical (if a power up).
3. It might be easier for a creature attacking with only 2 limbs instead of 3, 4, 5+ to make a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.

Pick one or more of these answers, or make up your own!

Back in the day, when fighters got those 3/2 attacks, the above monsters WERE lawnmowers of death:

Mariliths got all 6 attacks - they just couldn't make them all against one opponent (and a smart one wouldn't anyway). Dragons got a bite and 2 claws, even if they were flying and swooping down onto your party; and if they were on the ground, they also got two kicks, 2 wing buffets and a tail sweep. Monsters of this power level were more of a challenge, and scarier, because they got WAY more attacks than your party with their one attack each.

Hydra even in 3e get one attack per head in a standard action, so why not let the dragon get in, at the least, a bite and two claws?

Maybe a further house rule that for creatures with natural attacks, they get one attack with each body part that is listed as a primary attack part for the creature as a standard action. (That would mean dragons get their claw/claw/bite, hydra still get their heads, and that Marilith... well, she would just be a lawnmower of death.) Yeah, it's even MORE house ruling, but eh.

I would consider the party fighting themselves to be too much, only if you are way better at playing their PCs than they are >.>

Enchanted robes, monk robes, etc have all been fairly common in D&D campaigns past in my recollection. Even in Neverwinter Nights persistent worlds online, there was clothing enchanted to add +'s to AC. I don't think this is a 4th edition addition. As I recall, clothing is always treated as "armor" (worn on the same slot) that grants no inherent AC bonus.

Another post to point out the proliferation of SMURFS in this forum.

We use 4d6, re-roll 1's, and drop the lowest. With the option of calling a mulligan on the stat block if you don't get an single 18.

+1

Randomness gives a bit of edge and challenge to the PC creation IMO

Second is a variant of an existing feat. It's actually a Duelist's ability, but I lean toward some of the more-accessible Prestige abilities also being feats for those who want to pure class and are willing to spend a feat point for it. So I've added prerequisites and turned it into a combat feat:

PARRY [Combat]

Prerequisites: Dex 13, BAB +6, Combat Expertise

Your quickness and martial skill is such that you can sometimes parry even a telling blow from your opponents.

Once per round, you may parry an opponent's successful melee attack with a successful REFL save against the opponent's attack roll. If you succeed, the attack is avoided, and you may not make another parry attempt in this round. In situations where you lose your dodge bonus to AC, you are also unable to parry.

You can only parry an attack from an opponent up to one size category larger than you. If you attempt to parry unarmed against an armed opponent, your roll is made at a -4 penalty. If your weapon is a smaller size category than your opponent's, you take a -1 penalty on your REFL save for each size difference. If your opponent's weapon is smaller, you make your roll at a +1 bonus for each size category yours is larger.

This is essentially turning the Parry ability into something more on the lines of Deflect Arrows for melee attacks.

I love the Improved Finesse feat. I'm adding it rightaway to my game, perfect for a finesse fighter to gain a damage bonus in the same way that a STR fighter would :)

Also, I like the concept of the helms and crit hit negation. It kind of harkens back to the old D&D days when you bought and wore helms to protect against head shots. Now I just have to figure out how to adapt it to my code :)

So, I'm working on coding a game server using the PFRPG and 3.5 rules, with some obvious variants to account for how a coded combat turn system would work vs. an open ended narrative tabletop. In the process, I'm coming up with some new feat thoughts as well. I'm putting it up to the DM community at large to give me feedback as to whether some of the variants and house rules balance and/or fit the spirit of an original rule.

In the process, if you like a variant or house rule I come up with, feel free to use it. Open Source will drive the world into the future. :)

First, a new feat idea, with the question put to you - Does it Balance?

HAYMAKER [Combat]

You can funnel all your momentum into one mighty, reckless swing, aiming to make a crushing blow against an opponent.

Prerequisites: +11 BAB, Power Attack, Cleave

As a full attack action, forego all your iterative attacks to make a single melee attack against a single opponent at your maximum BAB, at a penalty of -4 on the attack roll. You also take a -4 penalty to your AC until your next turn. If you hit, multiply the damage roll by the number of attacks you would normally make. If you score a critical hit, add the critical multiplier to the number of times you multiply the original damage.

You do not get multiple damage for iterative attacks granted through spells (like Haste) or special abilities (like Flurry of Blows) or from multi-weapon fighting. This attack can not be used as a sneak attack or any other sort of precision strike.

If it looks familiar to anyone, yes, it's sort of adapted from the HERO system maneuver of the same name.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

2. Limitless progression. As much as I love the theoretical option to play a 100th level game, it just doesn't work in practice. Even with epic BAB and epic saves, PC/NPC/monster stats are already insanely wonky by 21st level. In many cases, rolling the d20 is merely a wrist exercise -- or a motion to avoid rolling a 1 or a desperate hope for a 20. D&D wasn't designed for limitless progression, and the only way to make it work would be to use something like the E6 variant.

This. D20 system was designed around a core assumption that a d20 roll plays a large role in your success/failure. This kind of works up in core rules, but it goes out of the window in epic play.

TY, my sentiment in a nutshell. D20 mechanics work, because there are 20 levels in the game. Even if you fudge it a little - older D&D versions had defacto limits of a little over 20th to account for ability bonuses, I suppose - The minute you make virtually all saves, attack rolls, or skill rolls with the d20 irrelevant, its no longer d20. At that point, you might as well be playing one of the myriad storytelling RPGs where you just SAY what you do, rather than actually taking a chance that you might not.

Committing thread necromancy to again rant about my statements on the numbers 6 and 7 in relation to another poster's claim about the significance of the number 42. And taking the opportunity to fume and flame about why the editorial staff at Paizo hasn't embraced my stance yet!

I just have to see if I still become a SMURF

... all the girls hitting on me were less than 1000 miles away.

This is great news to hear. Congrats for joining Paizo! And thanks to Paizo for pulling together the "I can't believe it's not my 'best-selling RPG'" dream team!

Now, if only the dream team could save my favorite campaign setting from WotC's butchering. What? Trademark? Copyright? Ah well.

Laithoron wrote:

Todd has failed his Discipline check. Lucky for me, I'm using a desktop. *whistles innocently*

See, now this is a perfect example of the "Catchall" part of the skill. And now Todd has to make a Dexterity check.

Nope... failed the Dexterity check to catch it too... took too long to recover from the distraction.

I think there's a character flaw for that over on the D&D Wiki. Ah, yes, here it is.

Well, at least I get an extra feat point? Maybe?

agreed (that Speak Language should be split out of Linguistics).

I also think of the character that has no "skill" per se with the mechanics of Language, he just grew up learning an extra one or two. This guy wouldn't know how to decipher something if the key hit him in the face - his family just always spoke (whatever) around the house.

If he grew up hearing them, as part of his backstory, then that's what the bonus languages at level 1 are for.

I do agree that the number of languages you know and learn as you gain ranks shouldn't be 1 for 1, as the other benefits of the combined skill now are far more beneficial. I would say a new language for every 5 points in the skill, and a feat to make it 2 for 5.

I personally house-ruled a Taunting treatment of Bluff as a way of distracting someone like a spellcaster, or someone performing a concentration task, forcing them to roll a concentration check against the bluff roll or spoil their action. A way for a less-combatant CHA adventurer to disrupt an opponent's task without landing an attack.

Oh, but that's right, we don't have concentration anymore in PRPG. :)

I guess I'm confused, as to why some people automatically label the act of stepping up your power attack with each round as "metagaming."

Let's look at it IC. I'm a fighter, 10th level, with Power Attack (the OLD way). I look over the creature I'm facing, (Let's say it's a giant space smurf) and think, hm, I need to put a little extra OOMPH into this one:

power attack -2/+2

My blows hit the creature alright, but it's still standing after round 1, okay, I'm gonna need to hit it harder

power attack -4/+4

Well, my blows are hitting it harder... WHEN I'm hitting the thing, but now I'm swinging so recklessly I'm missing my mark half the time, so, I need to pull back a little and focus on landing my blows

power attack -3/+3

Why, pray, is this metagaming, when it has a perfectly IC rationale and perspective?

We've been experimenting with a combined Athletics skill. So far everyone is very happy with it. Yes, it's not "realistic," but it makes the fighter viable with 2 skill points again.

It also leads to some weird situations on the monsters-end (housecats that swim, fish with climbing skill), but tack on a racial "antipathy to swimming" special quaility and you're OK again (and, for the bigger cats, jaguars swim and climb anyway). Fish have no hands, so they can't climb, and there are fish that jump, so I have no issue there. And it's a natural for snakes, which swim and climb.

Cats CAN swim, and are actually very good swimmers when they have to be. They just don't care to for the most part, though some actually do. It's a common misconception that housecats hate water and/or can't swim, just as it is that you should feed them milk, because in reality, they are lactose intolerant.

Fish don't have a land speed, or a climb speed, therefore them having a skill that WOULD allow them to climb is moot.

The only exception I could see for bundling swim and climb is the character concept that doesn't know how to swim, or doesn't like to. My thought on that is to just let the player take a flaw of "can't swim" or "fear of water" that forfeits their Athletics ranks to swim, and give them a feat point in trade for it. Then everybody's happy.

The 3.5 Barbarian are modeled on Viking Beserkers for the most part.

Indeed, and many tribes of vikings were, if one will recall, seaborne raiders that sailed around raiding on land and other sea vessels alike. What is that, if not swashbuckler/barbarian?

Todd Johnson wrote:

Indeed, nor are free combat feats of any kind. I'll go for allowing any kind of armor, in respect for D&D history, so long as we dump combat styles, also in respect for D&D history. Granted, I don't actually want to DO that, just making a point.

Cute. Of course, the point is rather blunted when you notice you can only make it by excising the history of the game from 1989-2003, when rangers both had the ability to use heavier armor and had a two-weapon combat style. Would you like to try to make another history argument, this time not ignoring 14 years of D&D?

Not ignoring it. Rangers were restricted to medium armor at 2nd edition, it was fixed.

Yes, now they are restricted to light armor, but also take into account there were no 4 single hand attacks per round for a ranger in 2nd edition. 4 attacks in a round would only be the privelege of a high level fighter with a master specialization in his weapon. All the warrior classes are brought on par with numattacks in 3E, so there's more balance needed for those free combat feats.

Here's a list of all the 0 level spells I know of in my Spell database:

The most interesting ones of those are:
Caltrops, Launch Bolt, and Launch Item.

The Caltrops spells creates caltrops in close range that last 1 round/level.

Launch bolt is a light crossbow that uses bolts. (Combo with a case of bolts and Magic Weapon.)

Launch Item lets you throw oils and the like out to medium range without range increments.

IMarv

As the Pathfinder development team has stated, they are focusing on the OGL rules, that they can publish under. They can't be held responsible for every third party and WotC splatbook in existence, and those will have to be converted and addressed on the part of a DM who chooses to use them.

However, to address your take on the above spells of interest:

The Caltrops spell is unbalanced as a cantrip, even under the original rules. That should either be a first level spell, or else only last 1 round to be consistent with the power level of core cantrips. That's the fault of the spell, its writer, and the editor who neglected to catch it, rather than a fault of the unlimited cantrip proposal.

Launch Bolt: Pray, how is this in any way different than said wizard whipping out a real light crossbow and shooting the bolts himself at the same once per round rate? At least with this cantrip he does it with more flair that befits a magic user.

Launch Item: is a 1st level spell, From Magic of Faerun, not a cantrip. So it's inclusion doesn't apply here.

I will house rule this one anyway to reduce the overbalancing of this, my players will abuse it...

There's a well-coined phrase that applies to extremely difficult, high maintenance players that want to rules lawyer you around, and don't respect your final word as a DM to make a call on something:

"Rocks fall, everybody dies."

Needless to say, I've not had to deal with abusive players for very long in my time.

MisterSlanky wrote:

His group is uber-gung-ho over 4E to the point that they're switching ASAP and responded to my suggestion about Pathfinder with the comment (not kidding here) "I'm moving forward, not backwards, sometimes you just need to go with a Microsoft because the little guys will get crushed anyway."

This sucks on many levels.

I love how somebody can stick a pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple/Linux/etc argument into a debate on D&D.

Meanwhile the highest security server installations run on open source solutions, and I get to happily tick away at the keyboard of my MacBook while your acquaintance above gets to tear his hair out tracking down the latest take on the Melissa virus, or is it a rogue applogic.exe, or just a bad registry entry because the approach to software installation on a Windows based system is such a half a** hit and miss proposition.

Been using my Macs happily for the last 23 years. Oddly enough, I don't feel crushed.

</threadjack>

when I saw the title of this thread I imagined Seoni in black leather with whips... :(

Oh... my.... *drops laptop*

By itself, Power Attack is not broken. A lot of what makes it broken isn't core (wraithstrike, leap attack, frenzied berserkers...), but at least one of the key abuses of power attack is, two-handed lance attacks while charging. I'd like to see either power attack or spirited charge reigned in (heehee) in PF RPG.

IMO, charging attacks should even get the bonus for power attack anyway. They are a different sort of melee attack which relies on the charge, rather than any sort of weapon wielding strength on behalf of the attacker.

I'm sorry, I thought you were familiar with the trope. For example, when Luke Skywalker and Han Solo want to sneak around the Death Star, they don't try to hide/move silent. They put Chewbaca in cuffs, and walk around the place in full (face concealing) armor.

Yes, and when the fight breaks out in the control room, Han and Luke use the imperial blasters to kill everybody. I'd imagine it would have been pretty darn difficult for Luke to use his lightsaber then, and he surely wouldn't be getting all his Jedi Swordfighting bonuses.

Keeping it in that same vein. There's a reason that Jedi Knights, despite being knights, used monk garb even in the thick of combat.

In 1e, rangers could wear any armor, and all ranger functions (notably including the enhanced ability to surprise opponents) worked in any armor.

And in my day, most groups house ruled this in one way or another to penalize it, it was broken, it needed fixing. There was also none of the enhanced dual wielding and combat style stuff. In actuality, the whole reason dual wielding even became a signature for the ranger was because of Drizzt, because every ranger after him, wanted to BE him.

So, 3.5's light-only approach isn't exactly defining flavor for the class, historically.

Indeed, nor are free combat feats of any kind. I'll go for allowing any kind of armor, in respect for D&D history, so long as we dump combat styles, also in respect for D&D history. Granted, I don't actually want to DO that, just making a point.

Actually, the solution is they just need to get Jump (a STR-based skill) OUT of Acrobatics (a DEX-based skill)

Sorry, but it makes more sense to me for the rogue to have to burn some of his generous supply of skill points to be able to jump well, than to put the burden on the fighter. Several threads have beat this one silly, and I'm not the only one who thinks that jump was the odd-man out in this skill consolidation.

Wouldn't it be better to have the class working right rather than ignoring parts of it to use other parts? That seems like a jury-rigged way of playing.

BTW there was mention above about a different spell list from Wizards. Someone mentioned it being silly for a Sorcerer to cast Cleric or Druid spells. Well, they already do. A LOT of spells are usable by both arcane and divine. I have always thought the Sorcerer needed it's own spell list.

I agree with this, see, I think a sorcerer with his own spell list would be the way to go, and could really distinguish him further, than trying this whole "bloodline" thing, that, quite honestly, is a HUGE backward compatibility trap, far more so than revising an NPCs spells known list.

Furthermore, there are races whose favored class is sorcerer (thinking of for example, wild elves in Faerun) that don't attribute their being sorcerers to some long buried bloodline, they're just.... wild elves, and they are natural-born sorcerers. Do I then have to make up a bloodline of my own? and retrofit all my NPCs? Again, backward compatibility comes in, if PRPG wants to claim backward compatibility with people's libraries of 3.xE material, then I expect them to keep it compatible with my $100's Forgotten Realms library. Sorry, I'm being selfish, full confession.

Harkening back to one of PRPG's goals with the core class revisions: To make it more worth staying with a single class, as opposed to feeling like one "has" to multiclass. I think, having the sorcerer's spell list featuring a mix of certain divine (sanctuary, etc), arcane, and even druidic (elemental based and summoning spells) would make the class much more like the Mystic Theurge, without having to actually rely upon a prestige class to get most of the feel.

Now having said that, I'm not sure why Inflict Light Wounds and Bestow Curse don't have the [Evil] descriptor but Contagion and Eyebite do (for instance).

Likely simply for the fact of game designers deciding "clerics need some damage spells at lower levels, regardless of alignment." Honestly, it's still negative energy.

I will say though, looked at in the light of the current spell descriptions, most of the former save or die spells, still are save or die, so long as you aren't facing something considerably higher HD than yourself. Actually, most of them could be save and STILL die now, if used against a suitably low hit point foe (a wizard, a fey creature, or a lower level).

Also of note is that since the damage isn't typed, there's no sort of resistance for it, your only barrier is still the saving throw. And reworking Death Ward to be a save bonus instead of a total immunity is an interesting counter balance.

Forgottenprince wrote:

Argamae wrote:

@Blackgragon: just for the record: what is a BBEG?

Big Bad End Guy

I've also heard it as Big Bad Evil Guy.

But if you're running an evil aligned group, that take on the acronym could well become a misnomer ;)

We also can't forget to list the entire Smurf village roster :)

Elven ears should be long, and sweeping, gracefully piercing through the hair of the long haired specimens. The shorter, vulcan-esque ears are the mark of a half-elf.

Funky, WoW-style loppy donkey-ears are an abomination that should be eradicated like a cancer.

Or maybe he is a Fighter 4/Ranger X who is a scout for a Heavy Cavalry group. He wears say Chainmail and rides a Light Warhorse.

I've noted the fighter/ranger mention more than once, so I'll share my personal house rule:

You can't multiclass into two classes of the same "profession". Hence, if you start as a ranger, you can't pick up "a few levels of fighter" or vice versa. If you start out as a wizard, you can't become a sorcerer later, or vice versa, as they are both arcane casters with inherently incompatible styles of casting; same with cleric/druid as both being priests of different domains.

IMO, closely related multiclass combos like the above are usually for the purpose of metagaming, rather than a genuine sake of a character's backstory or IC development. A player picks up a few levels of fighter to beef up thier paladin/ranger's combat prowess and feat selection, or do the two-level dip into ranger for the free dual-wield; a player takes a level or so of sorcerer to get access to prohibilted schools via scrolls and devices and the like, thus removing the limitation. Cleric/druid aren't so much for metagame prevention, as they just have conflicting flavor in my worldview of the game.

Granted, this is a house rule. I am in no way saying it's the way the rules in pathfinder SHOULD be. But my point is this: You can houserule it anyway you want, if you're a DM, you have that right. If you want heavy armor wearing rangers, and you're the DM, then it's your world. Do what you want. You have dwarven deepwardens patrolling the underdark, make a DM's exception to the rule. Again, your right as the DM.

The only reason for changing it in PFRPG would be for the benefit of the player to try and stick it in the DMs face to argue it. No thank you, very much. This is not a broken component of the ranger class, this is to TRY and discourage the two-level dippers. This should be kept as is, and let the exception be a house rule.

Here is my list of things I like about 4th ed:

3. Simplified monster write ups.

By simplifying monster writeups, WotC has taken the monster concept in the exact *opposite* direction I would have liked to see it from 3.5. Yes, this is more toward the OD&D vein of a monster entry, but it was something I considered a shortcoming before 3E was even on the drawing board.

I created a campaign world back in the 1st edition days, that featured Orcs and their other goblinoid kin as a dominant race, on equal par with other humanoid races as far as their ability to class, level, and etc. Doing this meant retrofitting the monster entries with a lot more effort than 3E would have allowed, and even more than what I would think a monster should be.

I want monster entries that mirror a character entry. I believe every creature should be held to the same rules, whether it's NPC, PC, or monster. I want the ability to take a race's entry from the Monster Manual and easily adapt it to a NPC, or even a PC if I approve such an app from a player. It should use Base Attack at the same penalties, progression of number of attacks, etc as a character, so there's less bookkeeping in combat. The monster's racial "levels", or hit dice, should determine how big, and how many its special abilities are, so that you don't end up with players dumpster diving for their next polymorph or summon monster spell for something that packs the most oomph for the hit dice. In the end, a "monster" is a race. Races should be bound to the same ruleset that the protagonists of the adventure are.

I don't feel abaondoned; I feel like a casualty.

I enjoyed gnomes, which are now gone, in favor of tieflings and dragon-like-things that give more K3WL-factor to a character.

I've been a longtime fan of the Forgotten Realms, which WOTC has totally, unremorsefully, butchered for 4E. There is no better word for the Spellplague, for Tyr killing Helm over a love tryst, for countless other total disregards of the dogmas and natures of the deities of Faerun for the sake of making a contrived explanation for the changes in 4e. Nothing that happened in the Time of Troubles made the earth shattering or illogical changes of the post-4e Faerun.

You want to know the people who feel like a casualty, who are vocally bitter? Ask about 3/4 of the longtime Forgotten Realms players. And no, I'm not basing that statement on a gaming group of 5 or 6. I'm a member of a forum of fans from multiple countries.

But then, I, as a FR player, have sort of felt like second citizen for a few years in the making now. It's no big secret that Eberron is the new golden child campaign setting for WotC; it's the basis for DNDOnline, it's the "points of light in darkness" model that WotC has now tried to shoehorn Faerun into. Eberron will be the litmus test for what is good and playable for D&D, and the other campaign settings will be brought along in contrived ways for many years to come.

Even ruling that slashing with a shortsword, or stabbing with a longsword, would be considered non-standard usage at -4, would make a huge difference in say, fighting a Raksasha with your blessed longsword :)

Really, the problem is that D+D 3e didn't design their weapons table with simulationists in mind. They designed it to force trade-offs at particular 'levels' of weapons, without regard to any real-world equivalents. So short swords are piercing because they are simple - if they were martial they could be P + S. There's a reason 3.x gets accused of being a gamist system, and its certainly more of one than its predecessors.

True this, comparing to 1st and 2nd edition where you had a complete table of armor vs. weapon types where you had to calculate each hit you made with any weapon against the type of armor that the opponent wore. We just went from one extreme to the other. I don't think I'd like to go back to the other extreme either though. :)

Snoring Rock wrote:

That is correct, conjurations in mid-air are kind of bending the rules. The water over goblins problem is solved there.

Actually, having just looked up the spell, those saying that creating the water in mid air is a rules breaker should read the spell text.

SRD: This spell generates wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean rain water. Water can be created in an area as small as will actually contain the liquid, or in an area three times as large—possibly creating a downpour or filling many small receptacles.

They are saying it's rules-breaking because the rules for conjuration cover ALL conjuration school spells, regardless of what the spell description says, to wit: conjuration spells cannot conjure things in mid-air, period, just like you can't use minor creation to conjure up a crude iron spike 50 feet above BBEG's head so it will fall and kill him at terminal velocity.

Limitations of a spell school should be assumed to cover all spells of that school without having to take up unnecessary space in each spell's description.

As far as the druid hanging out in the desert continually casting create water to make the land fertile, said druid would lose his ability to cast spells before he succeeded, because he's disrupting the balance of nature by doing so - there has to be desert to balance the rainforest, etc.

I personally see no problem with the blanket statement that Spell Resist, is Spell Resist, period.

If you are resistant to spells, you should just be resistant to spells, I seem to recall that was the case in pre-3E D&D, and never thought it was broken. When you face a monster with SR, it's time to break out the buffer spells and pump up the combatants to hack away. Way I see it, so many are griping about the power of the casters vs. the combatants... make SR the equalizer it's supposed to be

The enounter was supposed to make the paladin feel awesome, but with the P3 rules, the whole party would have been dealing full damage.

I'm of the school of thought, that when you DM a group, your goal is to make the PARTY feel awesome and accomplished, not make a single character shine out above the rest. This isn't a movie where the paladin is the star, and the rest of the party is supporting characters, unless, of course, that's how you run it. Back in the day, if you did this, (and some DMs did) you would get slapped with the label of <BIASED>. Biased DM was as bad, or worse term than Monty Haul, so I took the school of thought that you make everyone in the party feel important, and indispensable. If the paladin gets to snicker snak on the bad guy, and the fighter feels like he could have just been sitting on the sidelines counting his toes, then you miss the primary goal in making the group around your table a party.

Quick question for the crowd,

Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.

Thoughts

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I would go for that, something similar to Kirth's house rule, where GMW is considered a temporary bonus, and therefore wouldn't punch through DR, whereas a permanent enhancement on a weapon would.

It actually compliments the rules on temporary vs. permanent enhancement of abilities as well. Temporary ability enhancement doesn't give any benefit besides the stat bonus, thus temporary weapon enhancement doesn't give any benefit but the +hit/dam.

I *do* believe, however, that reduction vs a damage type (blunt, pierce, slash) should not be bypassed with magic of any extent. These reductions reflect physical limitations of the weapon types, not supernatural resistances.

<soapbox>

As a person who's been playing since OD&D, this ruling harkens back to the old school. I remember when you had to have a +3 or better weapon to hit an iron golem, or a +5 to hit a pit fiend. I never thought a +5 sword was "just" a +5 sword; it was a sword that meant I could hit almost anything. There were still resistances to damage types, with skeletons, oozes, and the like, but most warriors carried a trio of blunt/slash/pierce. And that's not a golf bag, compared to the motley mix of damage reductions there are in 3.5 now.

The paladin's +5 Holy Avenger in OD&D meant something; yet in 3.5 it wouldn't even get through a pit fiend's DR unless it *also* happens to be silver, and then it wouldn't get through the DR of a Balor because it can't be *both* silver and cold iron. (??) Sorry, that whole principal is hosed, IMO. Awesome weapons are supposed to be just that, awesome.

The spells weren't an issue, because until 3E, we didn't *have* spells like Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon. THAT is where the power creep came from, not the magic plus of weapons. Frankly, I would much sooner see the spells go away, or be seriously nerfed in regards to effect vs. DR, as opposed to seeing magic plusses on weapons being worthless as they are in 3.5. It's one of the things I've NEVER liked about 3.5. Pathfinder's revision finally fixes what I've thought broke in 3.5 all along.

</soapbox>

Actually, WotC's Rules Compendium clarified something (don't have the book at my side to cite the page number, but it's there) for any sort of precision damage (this includes sneak attack, a scout's skirmish, a duelist's precise strike, etc: That it can only apply if the conditions for delivering the strike are *optimal*, and any attack that has a miss chance or a penalty to the attack roll disqualifies the damage.

So, if blinking yields a miss chance for both the attacker and defender, then sneak attack damage does not apply, because the attack is not "optimal". Likewise with conditions like Darkness, where both combatants have miss chances, or using Combat Expertise, which gives the rogue a penalty to his attack roll, etc.

So the wand of blink would be junk for a rogue, if you bring the rulings up to the Rules Compendium clarifications.

How about balance and tumble being their own skill under acrobatics, and jump and climb being their own (STR based) skill. It makes more sense. The height and distance you jump has NOTHING to do with how agile you are, it has everything to do with how strong you are.

... He implants the words to the song "The Song that Never Ends" into the minds of sentient creatures walking by...

. . . .

D#&$ you!

*tries to get it out of his head*

Now, about munchkins...

They're called gnomes :D

I would rule in the case of a multi-armed grab attempt against multiple victims (like said squid) that it would be separate roll vs. each victim's DC. Since combat maneuvers substitute for melee attacks, then a squid should get as many attempts as they have attacks per round, and each attempt has it's own roll, just like each attack would. That of course, is simply a DM call, I see nothing in documentation to even clarify it.

Again, DM ruling, for the case of char B deciding he wants to maintain said grapple with char A, B would reply to A's grapple failure with a maintain grapple check of his own vs. A's DC.

In the end, these should be documented, and likely are simply awaiting to see what playtesting DMs decide is best.

I think it really depends on what race is being chosen. Those like the Planetouched (Aasimars & Tieflings) are alot closer now to the power level of the core PHB races under the Pathfinder Alpha 2 rules. I would almost say they didn't need a level adjustment at all to be player races now. If a DM felt they were still just a bit too powerful, they could always change their type from Outsiders to Native Outsiders, which I believe is an option given in one of the Forgotten Realms books, to make them an LA 0 race.

The LA on a tiefling/aasimar/genasi is moot, whether LA is in game or not. Despite the advantages of the race, there's a HUGE limitation that I think WotC didn't think about in considering it being a PC race.

If your planetouched dies, as an outsider, there is NOTHING short of a wish or True Resurrection that will bring them back. In fact, as it stands now in the PRPG spell list, there isn't even an option for them. As wish's effect conforms now to a standard Resurrection, and there IS no 9th level True Resurrection on the spell list.

<mixing of observation and conjecture>

Consider that when 3.0, and the concept of OGL and the SRD came out, the RPG market was waning, TSR was in NOT good financial shape, and had gotten the reputation of being sue-happy, and ANYthing even approaching the realm of "fantasy roleplaying game" was sent a cease and desist letter if it was even remotely close to D&D.

In the past 15 years, I've seen everything from character generator programs, to a full computer game go belly up from TSR's intervention (the latter, simply because they used a 3-18 scale for their abilities, quote from the developer's website back then). Some former vendors simply dropped off of TSR's map, this was not a good thing for their bottom line, I'm sure.

WotC got control of the D&D game and branding, and 3.0 was their first major overhaul of the game system. With it, I would imagine the OGL was their idea of a shot in the arm for a brand that COULD have just died. Such a concept, paired with the SRD, meant that there would be other developers that would feel free to make their compatible products without fear of legality. The OGL meant other developers could even make game systems, whose concepts and ideas could in turn be raided for their open content to embellish WotC's own product, and would yield compatible products for the D&D/D20modern/etc brand that would effectively grow its market share back again. It was genuinely, and obviously, quite effective in this end.

Now it's become clear that WotC feels secure in its own laurels, so the possibility of competing games build on 4e mechanics is being axed. I could even draw the conclusion and argue that the overhaul of D&D into "4e" has nothing to do with the playability of the game and genuine care for the welfare of the player base as the PR spin tries to make it, but rather to divorce itself from the OGL entirely, and set themselves apart from the competition once more. On this, I would also draw the prediction that WotC will soon also revert to TSR's sue-happy stance to protect said brand, with the resources of a MUCH bigger company (Hasbro) and staff of lawyers to work it.

What this shift in paradigm, back to TSR's mentality of proprietary property means for WotC will remain to be seen. My prediction, is that it will end ultimately placing the D&D brand back in the same mire as TSR had it before they sold to Wizards. The resources of Hasbro will keep it alive, of course, perhaps it will even become the DML (corporate speak for Designated Money Loser... deliberately retained for tax purposes) product line if enough people jump ship. It's certain that some of the seemingly hair-brain things they are doing to support the product line (including the illogical, random mutilation of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting that has, from my observation, alienated as many or more fans of the brand than it's intrigued) have the markings of strategies I've seen other companies do wittingly to create a DML.

</mixing of observation and conjecture>

In the end, I'll take a 3.75 product, and house rule things back in that I don't like about it, before I'll even touch a 4e product. Or perhaps I'll just get really retro and go OSRIC :)

Oh God! not five Orcs squeezed into a 10'x10' room...

That's nothing.... I can flash back to middle school, watching a "dungeon master" (NOT mine). Letting his group open up a 10x10 room to 5 (?!) platinum dragons.

Worse... the party of three fighters somehow managed to kill them all. We won't even go into the size of the hoard they picked up and carried away.