Zooroos's page

I think that the progression from the Book of 9 Swords would work fine for spellcasters. Basically, caster level equals caster level from main casting class, plus 1/2 all other classes. If you have multiple casting classes, they also count as only 1/2 towards each other.

So:

Wiz 4/Ftr 4 = casts at 6th level caster

Wiz 6/Clr 4/Ftr 4 = casts as 10th level wizard/9th level cleric

I find such a progression really simple and easy to implement. I'm stealing it! :P

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Thanks a lot Vic, for your quick response. You guys have the most sensitive customer service I've ever met. Keep your great work!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

3.5 fully, since the PF-RPG is due out in 2009. It will be easy to convert, however, or at least that's what Jason is trying really hard to achieve.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Then again, I have issues with Rangers and Paladins having divine spells, anyway.

Wow, we're on the same page, you and I...

But that's a subject for another thread, true. :P

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I don't understand, can I order a printed version of this book along for example with the AP #1 by international shipment, or it is a pdf exclusive product?

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Zooroos wrote:

"Cultural Feats"

Yes.

Zooroos wrote:

"Chelish Tieflings"

Mentioned? Yes. Statted up? No.

Super nice!!! :D

Thanks for the info!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

So...

Combat, Woodland Survival Skills, Performing Arts, Lore, and Priestly duties. So, my suggestion is to give them Survival as a class skill, beef their combat a little, make their magic divine instead of arcane, and grant them access to the same spell list as the ranger.

So yeah, Jack of all Trades really does sum it up. I'm by no means an expert, but I think I covered most of it.

I could also be completely wrong, and I'm sure someone will point out where I'm going astray.

I'm seconding you in everything here, except the divine spells part. While their 'de facto' priestly duties is completely true, divine powers just don't go well with the class' flavor. Also the bard's historical priestly duties where more secular than actually religious ones, they were more like magistrates, teachers and heralds than actual priests, so they wouldn't need a strong devotional aspect to match with divine spells. Celtic people also didn't put much of a disctinction between 'magic' and 'divine miracles' the way we judeochristian people do, so the line is blurry here. Folklore tales are rife with wizards, witches and druids, and the distinction were more institutional/organizational than metaphisical/religious.

All in all, great set of insights. :D

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hi,

I'd like to ask any of the individuals responsible for this book, whether there are going to be Cultural Feats like those seen in the FRCS or the first AP #1: RotR for the iconic characters. That would be great, really. :-)

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

P.S.: Also, are there going to be any Chelish Tieflings in Golarion?

Frank,

I think you have something big here, so don't let it go. I really like the concept, though I believe somehow it gets off somewhere, I still cannot pinpoint where... I'll be back once I get the chance to read it more thoroughly.

Great work!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Great feedback is going on here, nice! :D

See what do you think of this:

TAINT OF THE DARKLANDS [Racial : Elf]

You have a dark secret, a terrible power that runs through your veins: Drow blood. Be it a distant heritage or a strange mutation at birth, you can call some of the Drow loathsome powers your own.
Prerequisites: You must be an elf (obviously not a Drow)
Benefit: Your Low-light Vision gets replaced by Darkvision out to 60 feet, and you can use the following spell-like abilities once per day: dancing lights, darkness, faerie fire. Caster level equals the player's character levels.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hi,

Great feats Asgetrion!

My design-fu is almost nonexistant, so please fill in the gaps with your own imagination. I'm just brainstorming here:

ELVEN SORCERY: [Racial: Elves]
You have learned with the master elders a bit of natural magic, a benefit that let you cast a few spell-rhymes and words of power in moments of necessity.
Prerequisites: Charisma 11 or higher and you must be an Elf
Benefit: You gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day — dancing lights, detect magic, mending, prestidigitation. The caster level for these effects is equal to the elf’s level. The DC for these spells is equal to 10 + the spell’s level + the elf’s Intelligence modifier.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

In before "THATS 4E TALK WE DON'T WANT THAT" type of post.

I couldn't care less really.

Fair warning though :P

Lets hope we can keep things nice and civil. :D

Any of you know whether it has been released any official source of racial feats?

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hi everybody,

I just wanted to ask Jason if there's any chance of seeing racial feats in PFRPG, taking into account racial traits get increasingly diluted along class progression, and some players may want to add more racial flavor to their characters.

Thanks in advance.

ZOOROOS

You know, I'd buy a book detailing ten monsters with depth and love like this one than a MM anytime. I'm no fan of the "monster of the day" approach though.

Excellent piece of work. I hope we'll be seeing a second Monsters Revisited soon, maybe with higher CR monsters this time, like giants, dragons and liches.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I'm planning to follow 4th Ed lead on the matter: Natural 20 provides with automatic max damage. And if you cannot possibly beat the AC save by a natural 20, then you cannot crit without expending action points or the like.

I liked their explanation about avoiding TPKs with monsters crittin' too many times.

Just my two cents anyway.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hi guys, I really like the suggestions you've made so far. I'm planning to acquire RotR #1 the following month, so I'm saving this thread for later analysis.

If you have any other suggestion, especially regarding event foreshadowing or some recommendation about the final chapters of the campaign, please post!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Regarding reviews, I'm ok with the order you've just put the books in the op.

I love reviews, there's always interesting to see another POV about rpg books.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Azzy wrote:

Forever Man wrote:

I VOTE "NO PSIONICS!"

Psychic powers are a Sci-Fi special effect that have NO PLACE in fantasy!

The D&D treatment of psionics in the XPH/SRD is NOT sci-fi. In fact, it is is better at representing meditative magical traditions than the vancan magic of the PHB.

Fine! Then use psionics in lieu of vancian magic, and drop either clerics & druids, or wizards & sorcerors - or all four!

I'm sorry, but your counterargument is not really countering what Azzy has posted. Psionics fans are not trying to get rid of any other source of supernatural powers, only to add another option well ingrained in fantasy myths and real-world cultures. So, I don't really see your point.

What is the internally consistent concept of magic? Or better yet, what is magic? At the very core of Pathfinder, where does magic come from and how does it work?

Well, that's something you should ask yourself, not anyone interested in playing or adding psionics to their games. The PHB does not explain arcane and divine magic in an exhaustive fashion either, so what'd be wrong with the classic "internal powers" amgle? As long as the DMs have a satisfying explanation about how psionics works in their settings, I don't think there's need for revamping the rest of the supernatural powers.

Rather than building classes and frameworks of powers and then rationalizing things from there, I'd rather start with a concept of what magic is & how it works AND THEN build classes, frameworks, or powers (or spells) afterwords.

Well, then what's your concept of magic, as used in your own settings? Do you need a solid conceptual framework in order to explain arcane magic and divine magic to your players? I'm a Mage: The Awakening, Ars Magica and Witchcraft fan, and let me tell you, d20 settings only provide shallow-deep explanations for the origins and causes of their supernatural powers. However no one's complaining about wizards and clerics, yet psionics are still viewed with startled suspicion. This I don't understand, really.

If psionics is magic of the mind, then what's magic?

See, that's where you get it wrong. Psionics are not 'magic of the mind', psionics are supernatural powers fueled by will and mental might. "Magic", as you use it, is a very vague concept. Do you also call 'magic' to divine prayers and the favors of the gods? What about miracles? Or the origins of supernatural creatures? Think first about those issues, and you're going to have a much more clear picture of psionics, arcane and divine powers in your games. But only if you need such explanations. The rest may live without worrying sick about it.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

So let's get back to talking about the system.

Ditto.

Please, cool your flames people. Lets keep it nice and civil.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I like this idea, Perhaps instead of allowing the caster to simply re-roll the check and keep adding the result, instead have something like Each round that the caster spends casting the lowers the dc by 5 or 10.

Souphin wrote:

The skill system I had in mind was that a 5th level spell had a dc of 60, and a 9th level wizard will have a spellcasting modifier of about +25 ( level + spellcraft ranks + ability mod) , this means the spellcaster will most likely fail the roll.

so the 9th level caster can spend 3 rounds casting the 5th level spell the bring the dc down to 30.

you could also introduce a spell failure chance where the roll is 10 below the dc of the spell being cast, something unexpected happens.

I have always liked the idea of a spell caster magic being tied to there own health in some way, so a spell caster can keep casting spells as long as they have the will and the strength to do so, rather than oh well I have no more magic left for the day.

I like where the ideas are going, I really do. Maybe as a way for avoiding constant spellcasting rolls all day long, we could institute 'degrees of failure' and 'degrees of success':

DEGREES OF FAILURE:
Failing by 10 or more = The spell fails, you cannot keep building the energy.

Failing by 15 or more = The spell fails and cannot be used again for the rest of the encounter.

Failing by 20 or more = The spell fails and goes wild, you cannot use it for the rest of the day.

Failing by 30 or more = God help you kiddo...

DEGREES OF SUCCESS:
Succeeding by 10 or more = The spell goes pretty well, the next one you cast of the same type in the following turn gains a DC reduction of 5.

Succeeding by 15 or more = The spell goes exceedingly well, the next spell you cast in the following turn gains a DC reduction of 5.

Succeeding by 20 or more = The spell goes beyond what was initially thought of; the spell provides additional benefits to the caster (I'm lost here, any ideas?)

Succeeding by 30 or more = Earth-shaking spell; the caster creates a magical area around him that provide nearby spellcasters with a DC reduction of 5 for the rest of the encounter. The spell gains a +2 penetration bonus.

Well, what do you think?

Regards,

ZOOROOS

On the topic of the Monk class:

The monk IMHO is not overpowered. It just has too many invulnerabilities that doesn't relate well with the class' core ideas. I say let the monk fast-progress his BAB but ditch some of the uber-invulnerabilities, especially the less useful ones, or the less thematically related ones. In other words, pump his attack power but deflate a bit his invulnerabilities.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Souphin, I just love what you've done with the magic system. I realize it may be a bit too much for 3.5 veterans, maybe as an optional sidebar for faster book-keeping.

I'm stealing this for my own campaign one way or another. :P

Thanks!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hope that helps.

Your answer has been most informative.

Thanks a bunch! :D

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Edit: Where I can find the big gazetteer map you've mentioned above?

A N00b question: What is the Gamemastery modules default setting? Golarion? Somewhere else?

Thanks in advance. Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hi,

I think we're getting lost on minutae here. A social system shouldn't be about micromanaging every sentence spoken, every turn of phrase or every argument arising between PCs. Nor it shouldn't require a single roll or a single specialized character either. A social conflict system should provide a rules platform for rewarding storytelling experiences and an exciting set of challenges.

Say for example, a DM wants to portray a moral struggle in her story. She could do it by way of a physical conflict, like a deadly battle against a mind-controlled ally, or by way of a mental or social conflict, like a heated debate in court against an ill-justified war where the PCs must influence the crowd to vote against it. The former method is fully supported by the current rules, letting you describe turn by turn an exciting fight, whether the outcome is just or not, or reasonable or not. The latter, on the other hand, is just a matter of a single roll or simple interpretation.

Mind that the reasons provided for going to war or not don't matter in the end, just the idea of showing said moral struggle and the challenge provided to the PCs when their abilities to influence the outcome comes to the fore. A single roll is too light a way of deciding a matter of such grave importance. Interpretation only can provide interesting insights about the moral struggle at hand, but doesn't mean in the end whether the crowd witnessing the debate will in the end support the PCs' way of action, save as the DM's fiat.

Now you can have a really clever DM, but a system for social conflict resolution could be paired to the arguments and counter-arguments posed by PCs and NPCs alike, captivating their audience by way of eloquence, emphasis and good-timing. Every roll can show the players how good they're doing it so far while having at the same time a sense of immediacy and growing tension, and without resorting exclusively to the players' real capabilities. Now I don't know every of you, but I think such a system can provide optional challenges, room for interpretation and the PCs social traits' usage, a certain degree of randmomness in social situations, and a sensible tool for both timid DMs and overbearing ones.

I'm growing a bit tired of this constant arguing really. Without ill intentions, I'm beginning to feel that a social conflict system for this thread would be a nice addition to the present conundrum... :P

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Nice! I really like all the changes you've made, I plan to use it mytself.

Let us know how it follows!

Regards,

ZOOROOS

A lot of good ideas here. Sadly, I don't know the D&D system that well to comment on these ideas, but I agree with Baique in that racial benefits do not need to be empowering, just interesting. All I knew before now was the racial level system from the World of Warcraft rpg, but since I generally dislike multiclassing, it didn't totally pleased me.

Still I think something is missing. Maybe racial exclusive feats, or social benefits like those found in the PHB II's Affiliations...

Any thoughts?

Regards,

ZOOROOS

P.S.: I've realized Racial feats have already been discussed upthread, so my apologies. I'm going to read it more closely.

Please lets not get lost in rhetorics here. I think the point of contention, as it was already presented, is if a new social combat system would improve or hinder the game as present. I know such a system wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but saying that said system would only promote ROLL playing instead of roleplaying, or that would steal the thunder of an otherwise immersive social encounter is simply not true. By looking out of the d20 box by just a minute anyone could find dozens of social conflict systems, many of them from 'narrativist' or 'ROLEplaying' kind of games that bring both an adjucating social system and an immersive style of play while keeping faithful to their core design goals.

Previous posters have said Exalted 2nd' social combat system may be a bit too much crunch-heavy, but it's been highly popular nevertheless. The FATE system is another example, very flexible yet precise in bringing a certain degree of challenge to social encounters. And what about Requiem for Rome's debate rules? A roaring success, that one.

So all I am saying is that a social encounter system is not recent breakthru in the RPG community, it has proven succesful in several other games AND the current rules have been found lacking at best in providing exciting challenges and a fair rules adjudicating system.

Official or optional, I don't really care, as long as the interested parties can get nice system for their games. Options never hurts, after all.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Social Encounter as Conflict: This is what I prefer. With a more complex social conflict system, every member of the party gets to participate in a meaningful way without stepping on one another's toes. It allows you to distinguish the sort of social strengths your character has (negotiator, information gatherer,...

I heartily agree with all you just wrote, wrecan. The system must encourage play. That's the pure and simple truth. A system for social encounters or social combats that let everybody share the spotlight while keeping some room for diplomatic-focused characters would be a significant improvement for social-focused play. We'd have more intrigue adventures, swashbuckling scenes and more exciting investigative stories for all to enjoy, since it would be supported by the rules. Optional or otherwise, a social conflict system could really add a new dimension to good old d20 games.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I think that people are missing the point of skills like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate. You can still have your character say whatever you want, the training in the skills represents how your character handles themselves socially. Whether they make the correct gestures or facial expressions.

------
Well, I guess I wasn't very succinct, but my point is: Saying the right thing means squat if you say it the wrong way.

The skills are not the problem, IMO, but the resolution system. Under the current system, trying to portray an exciting debate through rules and roleplaying takes only a couple of rolls, a lot of talking and nothing more. D&D is a gamist type of rpg, so that means that mechanics matters, especially if they serve to improve the fun at the gaming table. I don't see why social encounters and specially social combats shouldn't be portrayed with more detail and exciting twists and rolls.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

Hello all,

I was wondering if this new iteration of the D&D rules could fix a particular system problem: Races only really matter at the first levels. The more powerful the characters get, the less racial benefits matter in said characters' background.

Can it be fixed?

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I second Lord Welkerfan. Wrekan, We'd really like to see what you've come up with.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

So, how about it Design Team? A Soulknife crumb for the psionics fans?

Yeah, I too vote for it. Give psionic characters a chance, please! I think many will be surprised about how many gamers didn't play psionic characters just because they weren't in the PHB and were felt as not integrated enough into the system and 'feel' of the game. If WotC could stuck an oriental monk in the PHB, I don't see how a Soulknife could be any problem.

Regards,

ZOOROOS

I'd really like to see a new Social Combat subsystem for social encounter resolutions. I'm thinking something in the vein of Exalted 2nd, with a specific focus on debates (theological, mystical, political, etc.), verbal justs (swearing contest, wits-related pranks, etc.) and non-verbal contest, like staredowns or the like.

I think the game will be greatly improved with an easy and simple subsystem for these classes of tasks. Games of political intrigues, swashbuckling adventure and even investigation stories could all gain a lot of flavor from such a system.

Regards,

ZOOROOS