Wuffy's page

I think the main reason is cost. I would love to have access to miniature-scaled maps for every encounter in the APs, but I doubt Paizo would be able to do it for less than a hundred bucks. Personally, I'd be a fan of them experimenting with just one or two of the 'main combats' being included in the map folios - I'd also be happy for them to be non-erasable, if that is a significant driver of the cost.

At least there's been an increase in 'theming' the map-packs and flipmats to the current AP of late. That's a good halway step.

My Issue with the first map packs were the maps were small sized, so could not be used with miniatures and also had interesting locations numbered, so you could not hand them out and you couldn't use them for actual figures since they required reproduction onto the gaming mat anyway. I prefer the fluffier mats since I end up drawing from the AP directly onto the "Battle Map" anyway.

You are missing the point of What the extra 2000 gp cost entails.

It does not actually increase the value of the item when selling it.

That extra 200 gp cost was the simple fact that Mythos wise, Cold Iron was magic repellent.

It was the weakness of Fae etc..

The 200 gp does not actually increase the item value it reflects the cost of effort required for a spell caster in components to really embed magic into it.

it would be like Failing your craft DC's and having to repurchase the components to make the item.

You can't sell the item for extra just because you unsuccessfully spoiled the components while crafting it.

So yes when going back to increase magic on a Cold Iron Item, it does indeed cost another 2000 again. It is a property of the material that it is difficult to enchant.

The other half of Favored class people seem to be missing out is Incentive to Keep following the main class and not multi-classing.

To make interesting to be pure single character type.
Instead of what happened in 3.5 where people looked at sorcerer and went. "Oh crap.. I need to get out of this Class ASAP."
And such things where a character went I want 3 levels of this 2 of that 4 of this.

There is no problem here. But the fact you stick to one class all the way and you get a bonus for it, for being a Paragon of that class effectively.

No more "Ha ha, You are not optmimized without multi classing noob."

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Truth be told, I am trying to avoid 1/battle mechanics... for a number of reasons.

Thank you, thank you, thank you - I loathe explicit "per battle" or "per encounter" mechanics for a number of reasons, not least among which is the fact that an "encounter" is a purely metagame construction that should have no place in determining frequency or duration of abilities. There are other ways to achieve implicit "per encounter" effects if desired, such as to have abilities have recharge times that are impractical in combat and so on.

Quote:

I also prefer this to be a rule that is primarily one used to help explain natural healing for NPCs as opposed to any sort of replacement or competition with magical healing.

I understand your position and indeed agree with it, but it does make the Heal skill a somewhat dubious choice power-wise for PCs. I have partially offset this in my campaign by effectively making Heal act as Knowledge: Anatomy to give it extra uses.

As to the topic of healing itself, some amount of healing per day per person would be OK if applied within X rounds or minutes of the wound being received. Perhaps we could even have it set at something like this:

First Aid/Patch-up: 1d4 (or 1d6) hit points healed per each 5 points of DC above 15 (inclusive), but capped at half-hit points for each character per day. In order to be effective, first aid must be applied no later than 1 minute after the wound is received.

Recharge times actually sound very interesting to me.

Limiting the number of times something can receive such things while very interesting. Are a bit detailed heavy. Having many more lines of superfluous text.

But discussing things as being too Meta is a bit silly when the game itself holds so many Meta components.

Another thought-

Why not use synergies?

That whole idea of "aid self" synergies that has been floating around since the Alphas is simple to use and puts the burden on the player, not the DM. Allow the player to justify why his ranks of Knowledge (nobility) should benefit his Diplomacy check, let him roll a Knowledge (nobility) check, and give her a +2 on her Diplomacy check. This makes skills like Craft, Profession and Knowledge MUCH more useful.

My Issue with Synergies.

They never scaled. A character with 5 ranks of this or that suddenly got a plus 2 here... But even with 15 ranks, no more then a +2

I LIKE big broad lists of skills.

I just want them to be more useful.. And by that I don't mean IN combat I just mean In general.
Not so specific and not so combat centric but able to do all kinds of interesting things. Like track not being a feat but skill.

Knowledge skills are fine as they are, the DM just needs to slip in uses for them.

Wizard and Clerics ARE the most powerfull classes in 3.5
Followed by Druids.
And somewhere Bards, and sorcerers come along.
In that tree Fits various classes if you build them just right.

For the first few combats anyway.

THAT is my issue with those classes.
after they cast their spells. Bam done for the DAY the Whole Entire Day.
One thing I do like about 4th edition was the Idea of Encounter based abilities.

While Giving them to everyone was silly and over the top.
I think maybe the Idea of giving Spellcasters less overall spells.
IE daily spells. But giving them more spells that can be cast a few times per 'Encounter' Would bring their useability back up.

I am really sick of having to say. "Ok we stop adventuring for today I'm out of spells."

Or even worse. "I'm not casting my spell who knows how much more fights we have today I'm doing nothing."

Sure you can scribe scrolls and make wands, But no first level character will have the gold for a mountain of scrolls.