Tony Hooper's page

Chris Mortika wrote:

James, don't word puzzles, riddles, and the like have a deep heritage, both in earlier editions of the game and in the base-line literature of the genre?

It's not as exciting to hear: "The sphinx challenges you with a riddle. Make a DC 15 Int check to succeed."

They do. I'm not saying they don't have a place at all. I'm saying that in Pathfinder Scenarios, they don't really have a place and are not really good design.

And frankly, I'd rather hear "The sphinx has a riddle for you. You can answer it (and get a CR 2 award), or you can get a hint with a DC 20 Knowledge (history) check and get a CR 1 award, or you can answer it entirely with a DC 30 Knowledge (history) check and get no award but you can go on with the adventure."

Things like riddles, word puzzles, and the like should be used sparingly, and not in adventures intended to be run in time-limited environments like the Scenarios, is what I'm saying, I guess.

I agree completely.

As I play these games to have fun, the last thing I want to do is have to "think" (I am paid to do that). Heck, I even hate adding up numbers (I do that all day too).

Basically, if someone wants to solve a riddle, let them. I just want to kill stuff and take their loots. If the game grinds to a halt because noone wants to solve a puzzle, then that is not much fun.

There is plenty of fan material out in the internets.

Plus, I am certain there will be publishers in the future. OGL is far from dead.

Weekends almost here

Yawn

Sorcerers should use the same casting system as mages from Monty Cooks World of Darkness (just toned down a little bit).

The goal is to include more ecological information and "fun stuff" than what's in the 3.5 SRD, that's for sure.

Awesome, Kobolds in track suits running the minute mile

Look forward to seeing this.

Edit:

I seriously hope you guys consider some uiversally useful templates for inclusion in this book. Such as regional templates (egs - artic, arid) as well as cultural templates (egs - nomadic, cultured, educated), as well as "touched" (planes, outsiders, undead, cheese-biscuits).

Heck, these templates could be rolled into 3 core ones, with a table that the region/cultural/touched effect is selected from.

And substitution levels. Why not have one class racial subsitition levels as well.

And weapons....

Stopping before I start contemplating what a cheese-biscuit Kender would use in combat...

In 3.5, i allowed players to use Handle Animal to see if they could "draw agro".

Then there was Bluff for those higher intelligent things.

Or simply roleplaying. Its amazing how creative people can be.

OGL Revisited

You guys rock!

Well, its hardly a throughly-analyzed thing, but game-mechanic part of being a Paladin always seemed to be that they accepted a variety of special duties and restrictions on options that would otherwise be practical and useful - lying, breaking their word, betraying people when convenient, and so on - and, in exchange, were given some special options, such as acquiring a supernaturally-superior steed and other unusual abilities.

In 3.5 this can easily be represented by offering the option of something like the “Dedication” Feat:

Dedication [General]
You draw strength from your dedication to a particular code of behavior.
Benefit: When you take this Feat you must consult with your game master to develop a meaningful set of restrictions on your character’s behavior or a set of duties which you will be obligated to carry out from now on. You may also select two other Feats which you may use from now on as long as you adhere to the specified restrictions or duties.
Special: You may take this Feat more than once. Each time you do so you must either build upon your old restrictions or duties or create new ones. You cannot simply apply the same set.

There are plenty of OGL feats out there for improving saving throws, building up a modest spell progression, and gaining various other weird abilities, including duplicating the special abilities of most prestige classes. This way you can dump a lot of those classes. You want to be a dedicated fighter (or mage, or even cleric - although they might have a harder time finding restrictions that meant something) of Lawfulness? Add some appropriately-rigid duties and behavioral restraints, and take some appropriate powers and there you are. Want to be a dedicated warrior of Chaos? I doubt you’ll find many appropriate restrictions, so a heavy dose of special duties is going to be in order if you want much benefit. Of course, there also won’t be too heavy a penalty for wandering from the path of Chaos, which seems suitable.

Oh I like this.

On topic: I am all for Lawful (anything) Holy Warriors, with the Paladin being the LG one.

However, I am NOT for smite good or anything that tweeks abilities for inflicts or evil spells.

I would, however, strongly reccommend getting "un-rusty" using something you are already familiar with. With the focus on backward compatibility, it will be pretty easy to convert one way or the other.

Agreed

If looking at 3P Eberron, and you wnt a temp campaign, well look no further then Cyre (pre disaster).

Any new stuff from Beta could be just how "education" has developed post disaster.

Wot tha?

I would like to see iconics from well and truely unusual sources.

Lizardmen, Orcs and Gobbos need their time in the sun.

And Vampires too, but maybe moon as opposed to sun. (After all only white human fighter guy needs to die).

Now make the Sorcerer use a magic mechanic similar to McWoD, and well yay.

(Say instead of spell slots, they get get points that they can spend on the spells level(s), one point per spell level & one point over the level to cast as a caster of a higher level).

Tony Hooper wrote:

Ahhh

Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.

On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.

I don't have a difinitive answer on this, Tony, just exploring a trajectory that might develope. In Rome, and to some extent in Greece, as well, it was more acceptable to be in a homosexual relationship if you were the top. That means you were control, you were power, you were the commander of your affair. If you were a bottom, it was strike against your masculinity... evidenced by the fact that there has been surviving graffitti implicating a citizen of standing with enjoying the submissive position. In a society that doesn't give a fig if you're doing it with someone, they might be scandalized to hear HOW you are doing it...

Didn't know that. Thanks.

Tony Hooper wrote:

Ahhh

Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.

On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.

I believe, by making references to NPC's orientation, the guys at Paizo are showing it does "mean a fig". By using these RL situations, it does add a new and different dimension to the RP experience. Especially, when that experience is something that players can relate to. Perhaps not all, but there certainly some to whom it does.

Back onto the pally thing, this really caught my attention in your quote... "So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you may be applying your personal views on this, where this holy man is concerned, and not taking into account what Paizo is indicating. That within the context of the game world, the religion does not have such a restriction towards it devout followers (such as paladins or clerics). Especially considering he continues to retain his status as a paladin of the order.

Now, of course, this is totally fluff material, which you can omit if you so choose.

What I want is consistancy.

I have an issue with a Pally acting in secrecy. If its due to keeping his affairs low key, fair enough. If its BECAUSE of the relationship, then I have an issue with a non-former-pally in it.

I would say the same if the Pally was gambling, smoking wolf hair, or smiting old people. If its against his code, its against his code.

I can accept a game world where gay relationships are accepted in any order other than fertility based orders. (As its difficult for same sex relationships to procreate, but in a fantasy world, Im sure this could be addressed too).

I guess its Paizo's world, and we will need to see their take on the churches codes. If the Pally is acting out of accord, I will voice my concern twice as much then.

Tony Hooper wrote:

Pathos wrote:

Tony Hooper wrote:

snipped

The problem with that is, when writing an adventure, you can never be sure whats going to be relevant to the plot, and what isn't, and for one simple reason:

No two groups of PCs are the same.

Maybe your group never needs to know who local NPC X spends his...

This I can relate to.

One session I was in, we decided to blackmail a local magistrate, and to prove we knew what he was up to, well, we sort of employed the horse head in the bed routine. But with geisha.

Sometimes ninja are too evil :)

Tony Hooper wrote:

Snipped

I see your reasoning here, Tony, but I think you are taking a narrow view of it (NOT narrow-minded)... Part of the goal of the Pathfinder APs is to provide adventure hooks for DMs to run with outside of what is explicitely printed on the page. That means introducing a stable of interesting characters with potentially compelling stories for side themes to be developed, not just side trecks, but role-playing opporutinites with a supporting cast the DM might not have though to explore.

As for the Paladin in question... He is a lawful character, true, but that does not necessarally mean that it is illicit under his religion, or illegal under the law of the land. IS he, in fact, living a lie? Not just because he's carrying on a low-key relationship with a guy. He might just not want the baggage that goes with a relationship that isn't seen as the public norm. He might just be a private individual in personal matters. The lie is one that you are choosing to attribute...

Ahhh

Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.

On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.

Tony Hooper wrote:

Actually I disagree.

Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?

I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".

This I'm not quite getting... How it is "in your face", unless of course you allow it to be, if there is a mention to an NPC's sexual orientation or racial appearance in a published AP? It's Paizo's business to produce living, well thought out adventures for us to make use of for our own campaigns. Just how is this a bad thing?

It's up to the individual DM to either make use of, or to ignore certain aspects of the story laid out for us.

Tokenism. Unless there is a relevant part of the plot, why mention it at all. IF a DM wants XZY to be straight, gay, bi, anything, or abstaining, so be it. This is true for creed too.

But unless the plot has a NEED for XYZ to be oriented a certain way (this includes creed for that matter), then its irrelevant. Take the movie V for Vendetta. In that, the persons orientation was a vital component of the story, it made sense. It wasn't "in your face" it was a necessary part of the plot.

Take the Paladin above. As a lawful character, why is his relationship a secret. Is it illegal. Is he still a Paladin. If so, THAT does not make sense as he is living a lie. If he was a former Paladin, cool. If he was a Paladin without a partner, cool. But as is, I disagree with. It may be me, but that smacks Tokenism.

Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.

Make sense?

Coridan wrote:

I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.

This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it. I tend to relate best to non-chaotic, non-evil characters, regardless of their sexuality. I see who you're willing to take up arms against as being more important than who you want to sleep with.

Edit: then again, I'm willing to accept that I might be the odd one...

My thoughs entirely.

In fact, sexual orientation has only ever come up in the McWoD campaign I am running, and even then its very very minor.

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

Is it really necesary to have everything on earth f%# friendly? Sexual orientation is something that has no business being incorporated into an rpg.... if you feel the need for such perversion you could add it yourself.

I don't hold anything personally against the gay community like some people do, but i for one am sick of it being shoved into the face of the world through the popular media.Nobody really cares to see that, and a certain level of decency that once seemed to exist is rapidly fading away.Keep it to yourselves.

Without getting too riled up by your post...

Yes. It is necessary. Just as it's necessary to move beyond having every PC and NPC in the game be white. And why it's important to show women in positions of power (be they bad like Queen Ileosa or good like Mayor Kendra or whatever.) It's called diversity, and it's a Good Thing. If diversity isn't something that you're interested in, Paizo products might not be for you.

Actually I disagree.

Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?

I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".

If I want a asain-black one eyed man who is gay and also a worshipper of all things not nice, I will go with it (and quite honestly I think I ay use that as a Vampire in my MCWoD campaign).

However, most characters are better used, in my view, to the logical structure of the setting. Using old school Forgotten Realms here. Waterdeep I see as a culturally diverse bunch. Within that area, minorities would certainly exist.

But would tolerance exist? I think they would find priests and followers of fertility gods as not so.

Are people from Thay welcomed or reviled?

I don't want to see tokenism. I want to see believable motives and logical principles. That includes diversity, but should carry the same challenges that ancient greece and merry old England had.

Mindless post skipping bulk of previous posts, and missing point entirely

choose two skills that are based off of the same stat for the +2/+2.

how does that sound for an ability

Love it

Going back to the original point of this thread

- Agreed on Charisma based casting

- I agree with NO detect evil, instead bonus to sense motive

- Paladins ARE LG. But allow sidebar Kits to tailor LN, LE, NG versions.

- The fixed paladin was a great concept (from Gleemax). Horsie is only one option.

The fixed Paladin had special abilities granted at the key "horsie" levels.

Mounted got the horse stuff. Defensive got defensive stuff, Aggressive got PH2. There was also the Inquistor, the Diplomat, the Spellbreaker and a slew of others. Basically it allowed for different orders (which would be nice given the Wizards schools).

Quick ideas:

1. Reflex save vs. successful disarm, DC equal to Disarm roll

2. Distracting prescence: Add fighters BAB to all spellcraft checks

3. Man at Arms: -2 penalty on improvised weapon use

4. Master of Arms: +2 bonus re leadership feat.

I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. You might as well come up with a new flavor of Skill Focus for every skill (Crafty Potter - Receive a +3 bonus to Craft: Pots; Frogger - Receive a +3 bonus to Jump).

The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped. There's nothing that irritates me more than receiving "20 new feats!" only to find out that 3 of those "new" feats are the same boring old stupid feats I've already seen a dozen times in the PHB.

You beat me to it!

I agree with you tony about the skills and hd of the cleric but you did not mention the bab, I also think they should get a armour proficiency or it means they have to use at least one spell or possibly two to make there ac reasonable so as not to get there butt kicked when they go in to make there melée touch attacks. I suppose at later levels the fact that they had to choose protection spells doesn't matter so much, but when you only get two spells at first level it makes a big difference.

Had not thought about BAB to be honest, but some sort of AC enhancement or armour is logical.

Having read through the Sorcerer in Alpha 2, and well I like it, but given most books have a page count limit, I would prefer that bloodlines be condensed into feats [Bloodline] that concentrate on a handful of lines to begin with.

Say:

- Divine
- Daemonic
- Draconic

And in a future release (say connected to monster entries or realm entries):
- Demented (Aberrations)
- Destined
- Dreamed (Fey)
- Dusted (Undead)

Needless to say, modeled on Heritage feats, but with a common naming theme. I shall let you work that out ;)

These feats are (or could be) earned as bonuses at 1st level, and every 4 levels there after. The initial feat, could provide access to new class skills, and each feat could give the sorcerer the choice of 1 from three spells to add their spell list.

Common bloodline abilities like the claws or wings, could be treated as nonspecific bloodlines, just granting the power/ability only.

If this model was used, then the Sorcerer could be the most flexible class in the game. Even with the same bloodline, no two would need be exactly the same.

I'd also like to see the class gain the HD and skill points of a cleric, given the less than wizard casting ability.

I recommend two adjustments:

1. No bonus Domain spell slots.

2. Break up Domain Access.

By point 2 I mean, Domain Power and Spells Provided. Clerics choose Domain Power, or Domain Spells as a selection. They still have 2 selections to make, but if a cleric wants to be able to turn earth elementals and cast dirty spells, it will cost them both selections.

DMcCoy1693 wrote:

Question: Is this the Ravenloft-y thing you were talking about? Or is there still something more to come?

It is indeed the Ravenloft-y thang!

Since when did my WOW toon (Thang) go all undeady?

METAL ROCKER [Bardic Feat]

Prereq: 1+ levels of bard

Benefit: Any musical instrument you use gains the LIGHTNING subtype. You gain a +2 bonus to perform checks.

You gain weapon proficiency with musical instruments.

If a musical instrument is used as a weapon, it inflicts 2d6 electrical damage and is destroyed on a successful hit. A natural roll of 1 on an attack roll, will result in the item being destroyed.

Normal: Musical instruments are not electrical weapons of mass coolness.

undecided.

I like to have a few points in some background skills (cooking specifically). so 3.5 preferred.

But if 3P had a sort of heritage system, whereby you got a free +3 craft or profession bonus, I'd be cool with that.

Paladins being lawful good only is a pretty big sacred cow for me. I realize that it is in many ways irrational, but it turns out I don't always get to consciously decide which parts of the game I find important and which ones I'm flexible on.

And I agree that the blackguard should be the 20-level-class for LE "paladins."

Breaking it down by class means that you can do much more interesting powers that actually play to the alignment and the play style of people who tend to play that alignment. The chaotic neutral "paladin" doesn't need to have some boilerplate "version" of lay on hands, he can do something else more appropriate to his archetype.

I do wonder how spells would work for this, though. 9 different "paladin" spell lists strikes me as:

a) A lot of work.
B) A lot of space in the book for stuff I will never use.
C) Perhaps more trouble than it is worth.

Hmmmm.

I'd suggest 3 "kits", based of the Paladin, to start with. Concentrate on the lawful knights first, and each would have a basic spell list and skill list, with key "Domain Spells" of their diety. (Maybe have different HD as well, MCWoD does this with the demon class.)

There was work done on the old WOTC forums that differentiated Paladins based on if they got a Mount, or some other special features. This model is how I see making the knights different.

Dragon 106's Pallies, when it boils down to it, were very similar in functionality, with flavour tweaks here and there. Kits - the way of the future.

I'd like to see specialist mages get specialised familiars too.

(I am very fond of the idea of Summoners with Imps, Elementalists with well elementals, Illusionists with whatever they can imagine...)

I hope there are other things introduced to kill min/maxing.

Gnome - like the idea of Druid. But why not Druid or Illusionist?

Elves - Sorceror seems more fitting, esp. with +2 Cha instead of +2 Int

Hi all,

As a d20 publisher, I have a lot of decisions to make in the next 4-6 months. Will I be an exclusive 4E publisher? Or will I continue to publish 3.5E material alongside the new edition? It’s a tough question, and Paizo’s recent decision has certainly made the question more interesting. So, since Paizo probably has the largest group of people sticking with 3.5, I was wondering if some of you might answer a few general questions for me.

• Has Paizo’s recent decision to continue to support the existing OGL affected your buying habits in regards to d20 products?
  
• Are you now more likely to continue to buy 3rd-party d20 material?
  
• With WoTC no longer supporting 3.5, will you be looking for different types of d20 supplements than you did previously? For example, are you now more interested in plug-and-play material (monsters, templates, prestige classes, etc.) rather than campaign settings, race books, and alternate rules.
  

Thanks for your input.

BD

No. I was going to continue with 3.5 as long as stuff was made.

Yes. As WOTC won't be making it.

Plug in cities. What I mean by this is fully fleshed cities that can be dropped into any campaign world. With Heraldry, traditions, prestige classes, unique gods and/or critters. And full of well developed NPCs.

The cities books could be done based on the alignments, and then on races. (I imagine a LE city would have a legal system that redefines "red tape").

Trying my [insert random word here] to get published. Not as a designer as such, just an author with a wee appendix at the end with some OGL for those interested.

Australia is just one tough nut to crack :)

Currently doing a treatment now, but not fantasy.

Also doing a Mecha OGL game, based off of lego's exo force. The idea is to create an easy to play game, that we can teach our kiddies the basics of Role Playing.

I also hate how Mecha have been handled in d20. I see them more as suits than vehicles (even if it is a vehicle), that becomes a fluid extention of the pilot (a second skin as such).

as far as 3P goes, looks good.

As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Take away the horsie as a core benefit. Instead having 4 levels of gains.

Paladin = Mounted, LG and Code of Conduct

Dreadknight = Smiter of Chaos, LE(N) Strict code of law is all

Sentinel = Cohort, L(N) G, Protector of the people

Just some thoughts.

Make the code of conduct far more important than alignment, and the "Paladin" still retains its flavour.

Please use the commoner class as a replacement to ECLs.

(or a specialist version of it).

Allow all humanoids a "free" commoner level at creation, concentrating on the background of the PC.

On ECL's, can we please use the commoner class to level up to the ECL requirement, then act as first level + characters from then on.

Say have 2 backgrounds, martial and academic, the first has d6 HD and 2 skill points, and acedemic has d4 HD and 4 skill points. In addition a feat and "craft/profession skills pack" would be nice.

If there could also be a 0 level ECL, to give players a background level with an extra bit of HD would be nice.

Note that when characters "go heroic" they should still get the 1st level benefits.

Also, just thought, this would be great for a commoners class, instead of what we currently have.

My suggestion:

Feats

Mana Tapper [General]

Drawing forth the energies trapped in your mind, you are able to cast effects at will.

Prerequisites: Ability to prepare arcane spells.

Benefit: You can memorise spells with the Mana Leak descriptor, and create minor spell like effects as per the spells description as a standard action.

All spell like effects created in this manner must have an energy type. Where none is specified, this type must be either the parent spells type, or sonic (where the parent spell has none).

Normal: Without this feat, you can only use Mana Leak spells like normal spells. Mana Leak spells are referred to as Parent Spells.

Mana Leak [Metamagic]

Memorising a spell, you are able to draw into it more arcane energies than it requires. These energies may then be leeched to power a spell like effect.

Prerequisites: Mana Tapper.

Benefit: Adding +2 levels to a spell without the [Mana Leak] descriptor, you are able to memorise a single spell with more arcane energy it needs. You can use the excess spell energy to create one of the following spells as a standard action.

-Magic Missile, caster level equal to the Parent Spell.
-Colour Spray, caster level equal to the Parent Spell.
-Unseen Servant.
-Read Magic.

The effect must be decided upon when the parent spell is memorised.

All spell like effects created in this manner must have an energy type. This type must be either the parent spells type, or sonic (where the parent spell has none).

After each time this is used, the caster must pass a Will save, DC equal to the spells level + 20, or destroy the memorized spell. Spells destroyed this way are lost, as if used.

Special: This feat may be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, a further spell may be memorized as a Mana Leak.

Too tired to create spells right now, so bear with me

Spells:

Imagine some SRD spells listed as one level higher than normal.

Add - Mana Leak descriptor

Add - An arcane caster with the Mana Tapper feat, may as a standard action, cast {some unique cantrip or level 1 like spell}. After each time this is used, the caster must pass a Will save, DC equal to the spells level + 20, or destroy the memorized spell. Spells destroyed this way are lost, as if used.