World of Dusk's page

I realize that this module is only 3.99 but with Christmas coming up I don't feel I can buy it. And based on the reviews I really want it. I love to challenge my players with some really out of the dungeon thinking. And they are just as happy to overcome the challenges of the dungeon and win the day yet again. And if it Gygaxian in any way (even green demon instant die no save, God bless him) I'm even more on board.

The worst part is, this module is a three-parter. This part sounds great and the last part has two new monsters in it in addition to a continuation of this adventure.

Maybe I can sell some plasma and pick up all three parts....

I'm planning on two changes to the monk and one new rule.

Because the monk gets flurry of blows at full BAB, I think the class should have a d10 HD. Not a big change, but it puts the class in line with other melee types. I actually prefer the idea of a d12, but I'm not sure all of the players would appreciate such a big change.

Along with the HD, I think the CMB and CMD should be calculated using the full BAB from flurry of blows.

Finally, I'm also planning to add an optional rule that at 3rd level, monks can charge at normal speed (not double) and can do a flurry of blows instead of a single melee attack. This new rule would allow the monk to get the full use out of fast movement and be a mobile attacker.

Does anyone see any problems with these changes?

Charles Dunwoody wrote:

I'm not sure what spamming means

Used over and over again without thought, reason, or caution.

Thanks. I've never heard the term spamming applied to gaming before.

Zephyr Mourne wrote:

So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.

While your post may be a bit overdramatic, your sentiment in the part I quoted is quite correct. Over the last year or so I have seen numerous posts by brand new players who are quite unfamiliar with 3x and 4e D&D, they try to figure out the Pathfinder rules and are stymied by HP, BAB, saves, etc.

On page 11 is a list of Common Terms that includes HP (including starting hit points, BAB, saving throws, and a lot more). The character creation rules don't point to this page, but it is right in the front in Chapter 1.

ok now I am even more confused... most likely because I just don't see a need for it so it is conflicting with my brain...

Is it then a Change to the rules to make them easier and all future products will be based on these changes?

are they just Optional rule books for other ways to run the game depending on your need for complexity or ease of rules?

Would it not been easier to use different class names since the rules can mix as needed so there would be less confusion on which class you are playing from which book?

I am just not seeing a need for the books you are describing. As is the Game is easy as hell to learn and run, making it easier just seems to lessen the game to me... but we will see through the previews.

Just optional rulebooks according to Wizards. Each class in the PHB has at least two different builds (warlock has three). These new classes will introduce new builds just as the current splat books do.

Mike Mearls explains here:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706

that the new boxed format gives new players the tokens and maps they need. Rather than shelling out money for rulebooks and then needing to go buy dice, minis, and maps the player gets everything in one box.

So someone looking to check out D&D and is completely new to RPGs can shell out $20 only for the red box and get everything to play an adventure from 1st to 2nd level (rules as well as dice, mini die-cut tokens, and maps).

The price goes way up from there, but I can see how dropping $20 just to try the game is more entry-level than the $90 core books plus buying tokens/minis and maps and dice in addition to the books.

I am still confused... While we have you here... Is Essentials a separate rule system? Or is 4e Turning into Essentials? If it is separate how will we distinguish the difference? and will we be able to distinguish the difference and "turn off" essentials in the Character Builder and Monster Builder, and see the difference in the compendium online?

Right now I see essentials as being the old D&D Basic and a separate system all together, but I am starting to think I am wrong.

I'm not Rodney but I believe it works just like the current DDI. You pick what books to use in the Character Builder now. I would assume that the Essentials books will each get added in just like any other release.

So an Essentials only DM could allow just the books from the Essentials line. Another DM could mix and match. And some DMs would allow every book. Just like the current system works.

DDI would also update the Player's Handbook wizard spells and include the current errata. But again, Wizards already updates for errata anytime you update your Character Builder online so this wouldn't be a change either.

bugleyman wrote:

...which would be a replacement of the original line with the essentials line in everything but name.

If these future supplements can be used for both the essentials line and the original line, what makes it an essentials line? The fact that its a new format?

According to Wizards, the ten-product Essentials line will always stay in print ( I assume with the core books?). So the red box, DM box, monster vault, three tile sets, two player books, the Rule Compendium, and something else I can't remember will always be around for starting players. You'll get rules, maps, and tokens in the red box and can build up by buying other Essential line stuff.

The Essential line gets a version of support in 2011 with the Nentir Vale Gazateer. This location is in the DMG and I would think in the DM box as well. This setting works without the Essentials rulebooks also.

Basically, the Essentials books are being advertised as more splat books aimed at new players. Said splat books are to stay in print so new players can get one red box and try the game out, solo or as a group.

I'm running 4e right now and I already have the problem of identifying what is core and not. A player that has an ongoing subscription to DDI will have a different character than a player who bought it one time in January 2010. For example, the player with an ongoing subscription may have a better racial power for his tiefling avenger but that same avenger can no longer get his armor bonus in leather armor.

I know what is going on and it still confuses me. Essentials won't be any more confusing it will be more of the same just with more pages.

As far as changes, Wizards is putting out the Rules Compendium which is both an Essentials book and 320 pages. If all the recent 32+ pages of errata PLUS the wizard changes to powers are in there, then I'll have three problems as DM.

1.) How recently has each player updated their DDI Character Builder? 2.) Is anyone using an Essential class? 3.) Is everyone using the Rule Compendium?

I'm basically preparing my own doc to explain the options in my game. But I can guarantee it won't work perfectly.

And it is more difficult to play D&D without the Character Builder. I watched two players try this with only 1st level PCs and it didn't work (too much math).

Add to this confusion that skill challenges have never worked. The DMG has two different versions of DCs for skill challenges. The DMG 2 has another set. And two recent modules (the H1 and the free Dark Sun) both have another different set of DCs.

So even Wizards doesn't know all the rules and they get paid to write this stuff.

And yet, everyone around here loves D&D. So I just wing it. Kind of like playing AD&D 1E again actually. The DM just makes stuff up when the core rules don't work and everyone just rolls with it.

It's actually a little crazy seeming, now that I've written it down.

I met Dio after a concert years ago. Even though it was 2 in the morning he greeted everyone with a friendly smile, signed autographs, and even made small talk. He was a true gentleman and I will miss knowing he is out there doing what he loved best for his fans.

I also feel bad for his wife, Wendy, as well. They were together for decades and losing a spouse has got to be rough.

Another update has been done to Ironborn to get it more in line with Pathfinder. The product is worth checking out.

E-mail sent.

I entered. I didn't enter the last two years but the new Pathfinder rules have me hooked so I'm in. I read several of the threads about what to avoid and what I might want to concentrate on, so thanks to everyone who posted advice. It was helpful. Very helpful, I hope!

For the witch, I’d like to see them be able to completely replace the cleric in a party. Maybe have a midwife power that gives their familiar all the cure spells, restore/regenerate spells, and rez spells. Maybe have a power similar to the paladin’s lay on hands as well.

As for the rest of the spells, I think the witch should focus on curses, changing shape, poison/sickening spells, enchantment, divination, and illusion. I don’t think the witch needs summon monster at all or blast spells.

As for spells granted by familiars, I think a general list for a type of animal might be helpful (so the list can be expanded). For example, one list for mammals, one for reptiles/amphibians, one for flying creatures, one for marine creatures, etc. So an owl, bat, or hawk would get the flying list and the octopus the marine list.

I quickly looked over the updated PDF. Divine Mark still has a small error (+2 to turn checks which instead now uses a Will save instead), but many of the others were updated. I'll read it over and redo my review.

Steve and Vic, thanks for the quick fix.

World of Dusk wrote:

This PDF is a mix of 3.5 rules and PF rules, but the description states it is updated for Pathfinder. I'd suggest updating the description to indicate that it is a mix of 3.5 rules and PF rules so that buyers don't feel tricked when they find the amount of conversion they will have to do.

The publisher, Rite Publishing, issued an update for this PDF today. Anyone with access to the original version may download the corrected version for free at http://paizo.com/paizo/account/assets. (If the file shows that it has already been personalized, you'll need to repersonalize it before you can download the new version.)

Thanks for the quick fix. Divine Mark still has a small error, but many of the others were updated.

Quote:

Steve,

I've updated the file and notified purchasers.

-Vic.

A big thank you to Vic for helping me correct the issue and Charles Dunwoody for making me aware of the issue.

Steve Russell
Rite Publishing

Steve, thank you for your honesty and great customer service. I'll look over the updated PDF and rewrite my review accordingly.

This PDF is a mix of 3.5 rules and PF rules, but the description states it is updated for Pathfinder. I'd suggest updating the description to indicate that it is a mix of 3.5 rules and PF rules so that buyers don't feel tricked when they find the amount of conversion they will have to do.

As my review notes, this product has not been completely updated to the Pathfinder RPG. Buyer beware.

aboleth-like.

I do think that trying to switch directly from 3.5 to Pathfinder would be tough just as going from 3.0 to 3.5 was. I stopped playing 3.5 over a year ago, however, and tried some other D20 games and 4E.

When I got PFRPG in August of this year I didn't have problems with a switch because it seemed like a whole new game after a year. I have converted several 3.5 items with no problems.

I don't believe PF is meant to play easily backwards for 3.5. Paizo doesn't have the license for 3.5 stuff out of the OGL, so I wouldn't think trying to keep the 3.5 core rulebook market in supplements would make a lot of sense for them anymore. 3.5 has been gone for over a year now.

I do think 3.5 converts fairly well into PF but I'm not an exact mechanics GM. My players don't check my math and they trust me and I'm as careful as I have time for.

For me, it all comes down to the fact that PFRPG works really well. It works better than 3.5 ever did for me. Since Paizo is having a lot of success with the game, it appears they are meeting a large percentage of the needs of their audience.

I like the idea of Int for the summoner and Wisdom for the witch. The witch could be a wise women drawing on folklore and common sense for her magic.

World of Dusk wrote:

If Paizo tackled the planes of Golarion next...

You know about this, right? Sure, it's only 64 pages and information on the Great Beyond could fill thousands of such volumes, but it's a start ;-)

Yes, it is a good start. I okay with what we have so far.

Hmmm, maybe we just need something like an outerplanar "city-state/island/space station" built on a multiplanar crossroads. New races would wonder through all the time and most would never bother pop down to Golarion.

And maybe Zeb Cook could co-develop it... :)

That's actually a very good idea. No, really.

If Paizo tackled the planes of Golarion next they could literally open doors to other worlds as needed. Heck, they could make their next campaign the planes of Golarion and connect the two campaigns of Golarion and the planes of Golarion together.

As with MDT I'm also making a homebrew. I started another thread so as not to threadjack my own race thread, but now I'm threadjacking anyway.

I believe I understand what Paizo is doing. They have only released two core rulebooks while they've written tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?!) of words about adventures and Golarion. So us newbies have to be patient.

However, I did switch my subscriptions to the Pathfinder adventure path but turned away after the ogre incest rape issue. I came back because of the core rules (and the adventure paths coming up seem more my style).

So I'm hoping for variety. Ogre love for those who want it, catfolk for others, and psionic aliens barely surviving on a blasted world cratered by asteroids and overrun by dinosaurs, ninjas, and pirate ships for me.

mdt wrote:

Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.

So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).

Eventually we'll branch out into other types of campaign settings, I suspect.

But Golarion is doing VERY well for us. And also, we like it. We're proud of it. We're not in this industry to get rich, but because we love what we do. And right now, Golarion is what we love.

Three years from now, that might be different. And that might mean that'd be a great time to release a big book of new races. Or a book about psionic aliens. Or a book about gunslingers and gun magic. Or whatever.

And if in three years it turns out that Golarion is more popular than ever, then that's cool too.

Scooped by Mr. James Jacobs. I wrote my previous post before I read his new post. Sounds fair to me. I'd love to see some new campaign settings and rule supplements. As long as Pathfinder and Paizo isn't going anywhere, count me in for the long haul.

And sign me up for the psionic aliens. Can I preorder yet?

The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.

But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.

I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?

None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.

So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"

To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."

But I can understand that supporting Golarion, which makes them money, and not supporting Dusk, which doesn't make either one of us money, makes more sense to them.

And I appreciate both the honesty and quick response.

Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)

James Jacobs wrote:

The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.

But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.

Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.

So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).

Right, I believe that is what he is saying. We'll see an occasional race like the suli but not many and only if it fits Golarion. Which may bum me out a little, but at least we know the current plan Paizo is using. And many third party publishers are making new races (and for very low cost).

The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.

But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.

Okay, that makes sense. Just want to know what to expect. Thanks for the very quick response.

And you can still put me down for a map tile of the tarrasque's stomach.

In the thread on new races, I found out why adding new races isn't a popular design choice for Paizo (and if you want Comeliness to make a comeback, good luck:)).

Which lead me to this question, is the APG fairly Golarion specific? When I read the core rules and bestiary I got the impression that the rules were for home brews and that Golarion was one option.

If, however, things that don't fit well in Golarion won't be created in the rules area of Pathfinder (which the race discussion seems to point out) then I'm a little bummed. Because that will somewhat limit the options for future rule expansions (for the core rules not the other lines which all are part of Golarion).

I'm wondering how tied I'm going to be to Golarion for my fix of Pathfinder rules. In other words, are the Pathfinder rules just be another support line for the Golarion world or will we possibly see rules for things that exist outside of Golarion? Not right away, of course, but maybe in the future?

New races are the most difficult things to fit into a game world. New spells, new classes, new feats... ALL of those things are elements you can add to a character during game play as you level up, but you only get to pick a new race once, at the start of a campaign. A proliferation of new race options doesn't really work unless you're in a situation where your players get to build new characters all the time, either because you build new characters each session or because your campaigns only last for a few sessions.

The cornerstone of our gameplay experience is the Adventure Path. This mode of play is not enhanced by adding new races to the mix often.

Furthermore, we've already established what races exist in Golarion, and while we could always add new core races like goblin or orc to the mix, BRAND new races don't have a pre-built presence in the world and it's awkward having to fit them into established world continuity.

In fact, the only thing that I can think of that'd be HARDER to fit into an established game world or campaign than a new race is probably a new ability score. As a result, you'll see us do rules for new races before you see us do new ability scores.

Thanks for the quick reply. Since I'm not looking for new ability scores (but I do miss my Comeliness so I guess I'm not completely against the idea) I'm glad races come first.:)

World of Dusk wrote:

It just felt somewhat like an omission, with extra feats, spells, classes, magic items etc. all making it in.

While players could play a PC of a non-core race, that seems more like an addition to put in a GM book, as it's ultimately up to the GM if a race exists in their setting or not. A GM certainly has final say over whether a class, feat, or spell exists as well, but these seem like smaller potatoes compared to a new race. I think it was actually an error on WotC's part to release so many new races in player-oriented books and I'm glad to see Paizo holding back when it comes to race glut. (Though I would still like to see a Rakasta/Litorian/Catfolk for PFRPG and specifically in Golarion, but I know that's almost guaranteed not to happen.)

I agree but then we have prestige classes in the base book and those seem just as world specific.

Do you know why we aren't likely to see those races? I may have missed posts about it, so please forgive me if it should be glaringly obvious. I'm just curious why Paizo wouldn't want to add races when they seem so popular and if they have officially commented.

Thanks.

As of this time, there will be no new races in the APG.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Bummer, but since I didn't see it advertised not really surprising. It just felt somewhat like an omission, with extra feats, spells, classes, magic items etc. all making it in.

World of Dusk wrote:

But an ironborn cavalier, serving a Machine God and programmed to serve basically as a sentient slave unable to flee, is chilling. Very interesting interaction with the PCs and their larger world.

Sounds kind of cool! I have the Book of Iron Might and it would be nice to be able to mix and match between the Ironborn and the Warforged as some type of Pathfinder amaglam and run with it.

One of the things I like about the ironborn is that they may or may not be under the control of their master. The PCs can never be sure if they can trust an ironborn or if has been ordered to lie to them to achieve another end.

Of course, if they want to free an ironborn, cutting off the head of his master might work.

I'd enjoy seeing a lizardfolk-like race as well as the elemental races. The design book mentioned above sounds worth checking out as well.

I'd say the following seem of interest as possible races:
1. elemental race for each element
2. half-giant or half-dwarf or half-troll type of race (or all three)
3. lizardman race (or the grippli!)
4. living construct race
5. beastman race.

I'd also throw in the idea of an insect race. The thri-kreen were alien and creepy and the dolmites (spelling?) from psionics srd were interesting as well. different castes with different elemental attachments with colored carapaces to match.

I would politely like to advocate some new races. While I like the idea of statting up aasimar and tieflings I would enjoy seeing some new races as well. Living constructs, like the ironborn from Malhavoc Press, interest me as do a beast race like the litorian or sibeccai for Unearthed Arcana/Ptolus. I'm even okay with a humanoid, dragonman race like the dracha from UA.

Also, for some reason I've always liked gripplis (small tree frogmen). They lurked in Greyhawk and I've always like them.

If we do see new races I'd appreciate the same design idea that went into decisions about then new class. A new race should have both a new mechanical approach and a new roleplaying niche.

For instance, making dragonmen honorable would bump up against what dwarves already do. On the other hand, making them greedy merchants with huge egos that can sniff out treasure and make back room depicts a brand new and unique race.

As to why I think we need new races, I'd say the cultures that could spring from them could be better for my campaigns than even new classes. While I like the oracle, having my players meet one doesn't shake up their world.

But an ironborn cavalier, serving a Machine God and programmed to serve basically as a sentient slave unable to flee, is chilling. Very interesting interaction with the PCs and their larger world.

I haven't heard of any new races in the APG.Just curious if there are any new races.

The ironborn are living constructs and are immune to mind-affecting spells. The oaths don't fit them very well as two provide resistance to enchantment and one to curses, diseases, and poisons. I also rejected Oath of Protection as nearly impossible to ever use.

The current oaths don't support an NPC who will in combat against damage-dealing PCs. I'm not sure if this design choice is deliberate. A bonus +1 to Reflex checks against spells would be useful (Oath of Hope--avoid some type of failure like a failed save) or initiative (Oath of Honor--draw first blood to activate and show honor). Just throwing some more useful options out for oaths.

Also, the mount is a great idea but any cavalier inside a structure at 3rd-level loses a huge class benefit. While the text says the cavalier is powerful without a mount, a 3rd-level cavalier loses two class abilities while inside a small structure that doesn't allow mounts.

If the charge ability worked for the cavalier (while mounted or not) it would be useful but perhaps overpowered. Perhaps a reduced charge bonus while on foot for all the charge class abilities?

Wrinkled

brass

one

Thanks for the quick responses.

I'd debating on getting the Campaign Setting (or Gazateer). Is an updated PFRPG version expected any time soon?

1st level under the normal rules is extremely dangerous. One option is to up starting HP.

I just started a new Pathfinder game and I used a suggestion from a player to adjust starting HP (I think he got the idea from Monte Cook). Each PC added his Constitution score instead of his Con bonus to HP at 1st level.

This boost helped the 1st level game run better. I had a vicious axe beak in the game that champed two of them negative and under the normal rules they would have died.

With the adjusted HP the fight was dangerous, could have been deadly, but they could win with careful fighting.

I don't know how Channel Energy plays out at high levels yet, so I'll have to see if it seems balanced or not after 1st level. But adjusted HP might have made the combat more surviable but still dangerous.

MDT and World of Dusk. You've sold me.

$10 PDF rulebook?! You can't beat that.
Thanks guys!
Reebo

Having just joined the collective myself, let me say that we are now one. Embrace the glory that is Pathfinder.

And pass a cookie, would ya?

Hey all.

I've recently decided to come back to 3.5 D&D and was wondering what the new Pathfinder Rules were all about? I've seen the hefty tome in the stores and it looks impressive but do I need it? Has much changed from the WotC version of 3.5?

Also are the rules still OGL? Can anyone produce adventures for Pathfinder?

Basically I'm looking to be sold on the new Pathfinder rules and I would love you guys to help me decide on it.

Thanks in advance.
Reebo

Pathfinder has a slightly less rulebook feel and a slightly more story feel. Short vignettes lead off each chapter for example.

I played my first Pathfinder game last Friday and I found several improvements. DCs for traps (Perception and Disable Device) seemed more accurate for 1st level PCs. The monsters also seemed balanced. If you had no trouble with these things in 3.5 then this may not be a selling point. For me, knowing Paizo crunched some numbers to determine DCs and average damage based on CR was a big selling point.

Rules are still OGL. I believe you have to register here before publishing adventures, but I'm not a game company owner so you'd have to search around on the Paizo site for the requirements.

Here are 10 reasons I bought PF:
1.) Many, many players will play Pathfinder if they enjoyed 3.5 and they can get the rules for it as a PDF for only $10. Big selling point for the money strapped.
2.) Paizo crunched damage numbers to tweak the CRs of monsters.
3.) Classes that had less bang in 3.5 become more robust and some get more class abilities.
4.) The Bestiary describes monsters well. For example, the ogre is a freakish deviant monster while orcs are violent and cruel. Bugbears like to hurt people to cause suffering to those who care about those people. Each monster gets a good description which sets them apart.
5.) Some OGL monsters went into the Bestiary from Tome of Horrors.
6.) Lots of product support: less pure rules and more roleplaying/idea options. A good mix of both.
7.) Feats are tweaked and there are many new ones.
8.) Skill list is shorter and skills are easier to crunch.
9.) NPCs are easier to crunch.
10.) I like the artwork and layout better than 3.5. Not a big selling point for me, but I like it.

for trouble while riding on an ugly

said, "Have her knit me some wool

I too am very happy with Pathfinder. Best $50 I've spent in a long while and the Bestiary is a good buy too. Doesn't work well for everyone, but it works well for my group and myself.

World of Dusk wrote:

One thing 4e gave us...

was the screaming runs and bleeding eyeballs.

But your mileage may vary.

Reply that would get me banned.

4E did hurt my mind, but I have friends who play it and more importantly they are teaching it to some younger players (some who now also want to check out Pathfinder).

That being said, I spent over $100 on D&D 4E nd gave away a few months of my life to it that I can't get back. So I may have to make fun of 4E every once in a while.

One thing 4e gave us...

was the screaming runs and bleeding eyeballs.

But your mileage may vary.