Wil Save

airwalkrr's page

435 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Want a Pathfinder Basic? Remove skills and all level-based abilities (meaning feats, ability score boosts, etc) from the game. Also get rid of prestige classes. Then simplify races to only ability modifiers. You heard me! Just a class and ability scores is all you need. Do the same for monsters. Ta da!

Of course there are still class bonus feats to choose from, but that's the only area where you need to think. And for that you don't have to think all that hard. Everything else can be fudged. If a player wants to do something that would normally require a skill check, just have them make a level check with the appropriate ability modifier.


Does anyone know if Paizo ever published a list of the common currency units in Sasserine and the surrounding region?


The Coy Nixie, Slippery Eel, and Tipped Tankard are all taverns. There is nothing in any of their respective descriptions that indicates they also accept boarders. The Cusp of Sunrise, Drunken Morkoth Inn, and Minuta's Board are essentially meant to serve as paradigms of luxury, standard, and poor living conditions. PCs can choose their lodgings accordingly. These three locales should serve fine unless the PCs have some sort of lasting disagreement with the owners. In the times I have run this campaign, the PCs have typically stayed at the Drunken Morkoth Inn until they become famous, at which point they begin staying at the Cusp of Sunrise. Either that or they stay at their Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion. I think you'll find those three lodgings serve quite suitably.


Fischkopp wrote:

OT: Bigger creatures are easier to spot, even to other bigger creatures. That's all there is to it.

The way it is handled, ruleswise, it works. No need to improve, imo.

If we travel to giant land where every thing is giant-sized, why would that make sense? Are you saying giants can't play hide and seek in a giant-sized house because they have arbitrarily been deemed to large to hide effectively?


Jadeite wrote:
To exagerate the proposed rule a bit, why should a colossal dragon have a problem to spot another somehow hidden colossal dragon?

Because relative to each other, the dragons are both medium sized. From a colossal dragon's perspective, he is medium sized, humans are fine, ogres are diminutive, storm giants are tiny, and purple worms are small.


Werecorpse wrote:

I disagree with your premise on this though I see it is linked to the to hit combat bonus that small things are given. IMO in the example you gave you effectively said that when an ogre tries to hide, whether it is from a human, or another ogre it does so at -4. Well that makes sense to me because the ogre is big. Why should an ogre be more able to hide from another ogre than from a human?

An ogre is big RELATIVE to a human. Relative to another ogre, it is medium-sized.

You misunderstand my system if you think an ogre is more able to hide from another ogre than a human.

Example: Under my system, an ogre with a Dex of 10 attempts to hide and rolls a 10. After his size modifier, his result is 8. Another ogre with a Wis of 10 comes along and makes a Perception check to see him. The new ogre must roll a 10 or higher to see the hiding ogre because, as a large creature, he takes a -2 on his Perception checks. Then a human with a Wis of 10 comes along and makes a Perception check to see the ogre. The human must roll an 8 or higher to see the ogre because, as a medium character, he takes no penalty on his Perception checks.

So you see, a human still has a better chance of spotting an ogre than another ogre. And a halfling has an even better chance. But a halfling doesn't hide better from another halfling than a human does from another human.


I guess technically, they aren't completely dead. But one bonus spell to me is like the cleric getting to turn undead as if he were one level higher. It's like a consolation prize and not that much of an incentive to stick with a class IMHO. Now there are few prestige classes you can enter before 6th, but giving that they don't even get a new spell level at 5th like wizards do, a lot of sorcerers might be tempted to multiclass. I have a sorcerer in my PRPG alpha 3 game and he isn't sure that 5th level is worth it. I don't know if he feels like ditching spellcasting, but he wishes there were something more, and I can see his point.


I don't believe it is that important. Paizo has already converted some of the most popular domains. I'm sure they will publish more as time goes on. In the meantime, substitute domains for similar PRPG counterparts or come up with your own domain powers.


A bard has a very clearly defined role: support. The PRPG bard is now more of a battlefield controller, but his previous abilities of support remain. Despite the diverse bard skill list, many 3.5 bards used their skill points primarily for Knowledge skills, being one of only two classes with all Knowledge skills on their list. It was natural for many players to want to take advantage of that. Their bardic music abilities are designed to support the party, protecting them and enhancing their existing abilities. Their spells were a mix of battlefield control and support spells, much like the cleric. Ultimately, the bard filled a support role similar to that of a cleric or druid with less emphasis on healing.


The fact that the VP/WP system has never survived in any d20 system that it was presented in should be a clue that it doesn't work out well. In concept it seems more realistic, but in play it means players die more easily, which is generally bad for the game. Not that I am in favor of the whole idea of removing all death effects from the game, but I don't believe we need to make the game deadlier.


graywulfe wrote:

Ok here's another idea to get away from the I'm smaller so I see better problem, which I don't personally think is a problem but I believe in compromise.

base the stealth bonus on difference in size.

1 size larger -4
same size +0
1 size smaller +4

extrapolate from there.

graywulfe

Though mechanically results would be identical, I would prefer a static system like the one I suggested because a variable system like the one you suggest because it requires fewer on-the-fly adjustments that slow down the game.


Diodric wrote:
Ok, then why have a clunkier mechanic for something that works the same?

I was responding to someone who raised an objection because they mistakenly believed my suggestion would let halflings be better at hiding from large creatures than before. I was pointing out that it does not. The rule I recommend is remarkable simply because it retains the same relative ability for a halfling to hide from an ogre while dispensing with the rather silly notion that it is more difficult for an ogre to hide from an ogre than it is for a human to hide from a human.

Example: An ogre with 10 Dex and no ranks in Stealth has a -4 to Stealth checks. A human with 10 Dex and no ranks in Stealth has a +0 to Stealth checks. This makes sense from a human's perspective. However, consider if the spotter is an ogre. An ogre with 10 Wis and no ranks in Perception has a greater chance of seeing his fellow ogre with 10 Dex and no ranks in Stealth than a human with 10 Wis and no ranks in Perception has of seeing his fellow human with 10 Dex and no ranks in Stealth. All other things being equal, creatures of the same size should have the same relative probability of seeing each other.


Pathos wrote:
Think of it this way... Did the students at Hogwarts automatically know the "ins and outs" of flight, the minute they jumped onto their brooms for the first time? Are the players of Quidditch chosen from those who are untrained and clumsy in the air? Or, are they chosen from those with real skill at flight?

My love of the books aside, analogies like this bug me. The magic of D&D and the magic of Harry Potter are not miscible. I doubt you would insist all mages be forced to use wands to cast spells. No? Then stop assuming magical flight works the same way.


BM wrote:
I seen first hand as a player tried to make her character able to fight on wing, and spend feats to try to make it work, while a jackass wizard could just blow a spell and be better at flying than her character who had focused on it. It just doesn't work.

And you don't think this is balanced by the fact that the player could fly AT WILL whereas the wizard was limited to casting a spell? The fly spell only has a 1 minute/level duration. It doesn't let a wizard fly anywhere all the time. Overland flight, which has a better duration, has a lower maneuverability rating, which seriously limits its utility in combat, though it is better than nothing. On a personal note, I never liked the overland flight spell and never supported its addition to 3.5.

BM wrote:
The system is much kinder to those who want to fly.

That's the point. Flying should be limited. It should require a major investment to do awesome maneuvers because flying is already awesome.


hogarth wrote:


Tasting a virus/bacteria is a bizarre ability.
:)

True, but you don't taste the virus/bacteria itself. You taste/smell the byproducts. Bacteria are known to produce some of most foul and distinctive odors in the world because of the gases they produce. Viruses don't have a taste themselves either, but the proteins that they are encoded for often radically alter a cell's biochemical environment, and this can sometimes cause an odor as an unusual byproduct like methane could be produced that the organism does not normally produce


Excellent point, Psychic_Robot, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. I felt the addition of rogue talents was a bit unnecessary, for example.


Rynthief wrote:

It seems that every time I try and post to these message boards (hopefully not this time) the boards eat my message. I just spent an hour posting the highlights of last nights playtest on the Alpha 3 general board, and when I hit preview the Paizo homepage came up. This is not the first time this has happened. Is there any way that the admin's can save my post (Titled Rynthief's Playtest (Spoilers), or am I hosed?

Ryn, who likes contributing and doesn't type that fast.

Join the club. It is the most annoying things about the Paizo boards. It makes me wonder why I post here sometimes. I love Paizo and their print products, but let me be honest guys, your boards suck.


I'm glad somebody got that joke. It's good to know I'm not the only one with a sick sense of humor.


Michael Donovan wrote:

Perception is almost never affected by the size of the observer, only the observed - and yes, cats are quite good at hiding from each other.

I strongly disagree. The larger you are, the more likely you are to overlook details. My memory isn't so bad that I have forgotten my younger years when the world seemed so much bigger than I was and it took two hands just to hold a hamburger. I noticed a lot more details back then. Many things are simply "beneath me" now. Take a marble sometime and examine it under a magnifying glass. Though it appears round and smooth, up close there are a lot of imperfections which you would be more apt to notice if you were small.

And cats are quite good at hiding from each other because cats are good at hiding period. They are incredibly limber and agile which lets them get to places most creature their size cannot. An iguana is about the same size, but not nearly as nimble and no good at hiding without a jungle or a mud pile to conceal him. If you notice, even 3.5 rules reflect this by giving cats a racial bonus to both Hide and Move Silently. So a cat is not a good example.


Well said, Arknath.

Incidentally, if you do have trouble figuring out maneuverability for the dragon in your next session, just wing it (no pun intended). Have the creature move about based on what you consider reasonable relative to its maneuverability rating. Your players will never know the difference unless they are rules lawyers. If they are, just smile when they bring it up, as if you know something they don't know, then let them puzzle it out as they dig through books looking for ways a dragon could maneuver so much better than they thought. It's a dragon for gods' sake. It should strike them with wonder and amazement and be hard as f* to kill.


sciencephile wrote:
Actually, I don't think so. If this were the case, why would medical autopsies be needed? Wouldn't the medical examiner just be able to smell a person to determine that the person died of a particular disease?

You are right of course. I was playing devil's advocate because there is a legitimate ability to detect a disease by smell in a number of cases. However, you have done a very good job by pointing out it is not nearly so universal as to demand a mechanic in the rules.

Seriously, I side with those who opt for getting rid of it. It doesn't make much sense. We already have a Wisdom-based skill for determining if someone is diseased. It's called Heal.


Oni_NZ wrote:
On to a different subject, am I the only one who thinks that Favoured Enemy should add to Knowledge checks, if you've spent most of your adventuring life focusing on combating a certain category of creatures surely you'll have a better time of identifying members of that category.

A capital idea, and one that is easily backwards compatible!


Squirrelloid wrote:

Genesis...

Yes, its a high level tactic. Except you can seriously get it going at *11th level* with Planar Binding by making an Efreet wish for a scroll (or psionic equivalent) of Genesis for you.

Seriously? Is this your attempt at a rational argument? I could play Pun-Pun too; that would be an equally effective way of kicking monster ass. It doesn't make it legitimate at any given table. Sorry, but pointing out broken rules that aren't even allowed at most gaming tables doesn't make your point.


Spoiler Alert!

Seriously. Spoilers for Drakthar's Way follow.

If you don't want to know secrets I suggest you leave now.

Or you could stay and have all the secrets spoiled.

But that wouldn't be very sporting now would it.

Now be a good little player and run along (unless you are a DM or a player who has no intention of playing Drakthar's Way or simply doesn't care).

I am a little more than halfway through converting Drakthar's Way to Alpha 3 and I wanted to make some notes. My group is using the complete Alpha 3 rules. The only house rules we have affect combat, not statistics. With that in mind, I have noticed a few things about converting a dozen or so monsters that I would like to share. Some are surprising, others less so.

To begin with, the task of converting is a bit more difficult that I had envisioned. Because of my desire to try to stick to the letter of the rules as much as possible without violating the spirit, I have run into a number of conundrums, particularly with skills. First of all, there are a fair number of low intelligence monsters whose only skills previously were Listen and Spot and they split their limited skill points between the two. Now that the two are combined, I am left with two options: a) try to keep the new Perception modifier similar to the previous Listen/Spot modifier and find new uses for the skill points or b) simply combine those ranks into Perception, resulting in a higher modifier.

Additionally, it should be noted that MANY monsters have the Alertness feat, but after conversion have little use for the bonus to Appraise (as many of the monsters I am converting carry no treasure). For creatures like goblins, who value treasure, it is reasonable enough to leave the feat alone, but for animals, it is hard to justify (true story: my dog clearly failed his Appraise check to determine the difference in value between my cell phone and a chew toy). In some cases, I have been swapping the feat with Skill Focus (Perception) and trying to reduce the Perception bonus back to its 3.5 range by putting points into something else. This is easy for monsters with flight as I have simply been able to put any extra skill points into Fly. But not all monsters fly. I am hoping they will do away with the Fly skill anyway, so my optimism in this regards paves the way for fear that this will be but a temporary fix. In other cases, I am swapping Alertness for Weapon Focus, Toughness, or something similar that almost any monster can benefit from.

Next, for most monsters with class levels, I have been left with a preponderance of extra skill points. In the cases of rogues, I usually look to place the extra skill points into classic rogue skills like Stealth, Climb, Use Magic Device, etc., but the choice is not as easy for classes like the ranger.

I have also noticed quite a few creatures get more hit points. All humans do because of the Favored Class rule. And since many NPCs are written with iconic roles in mind (i.e. dwarf fighters, goblin rogues) a fair number of demi-human and humanoid NPCs are gaining bonus hit points as well. Not to mention where I figure Toughness is warranted as a replacement for Alertness.

In all, it seems the power curve is being boosted all around. My biggest concern is the rising bonuses in Perception making it harder for the PCs to sneak around. I have already heard enough complaints about the "fact" that "every monster in the MM has Listen and Spot as class skills." This was mitigated in 3.5 by the fact that monsters with low Intelligence scores could only max one or the other, but were usually written as having their points split between the two. Now it is a different game. I am left with the decision of whether to keep them split by putting points in a brand new skill (and potentially creating a new role for the monster) or making the monster more perceptive than before.

More to come as I continue working. This will be something of a blog-post for the time being. Thoughts are welcome.


No, there is not going to be an official conversion. Why? No, I don't have any insider knowledge. But I don't need one to know that such a labor of love would be exactly that. Paizo would get exactly 0 benefit from using their workforce to create a conversion for someone else's intellectual property. (Generating goodwill alone generally doesn't sell unrelated product.) Remember that as publishers, they were only licensed to publish dungeon and dragon magazine; they were never given any ownership in the affair, which WotC retained in toto.

As for a community effort, I have already begun converting SCAP, as my group is about to begin Drakthar's Way. I already have half the adventure converted to Alpha 3 and will post the entire document when I am done. I plan to continue posting my conversions as my group moves through the path. Where I will be hosting those conversions is another matter. I don't have my own site at the moment so I would probably host it through EN World or another site like that. But keep your eyes peeled on these boards for when I finish Drakthar's Way.

We were already halfway through Jzadirune when Alpha 1 was released so I didn't bother converting much of that adventure. I may go back and convert it for fun, but that remains to be seen.


Please, children, don't feed the troll.

I thought about making a reasoned and well-thought-out reply to the OP, but then I thought "meh." My time could be spent in so many more productive ways.


You know what I just realized? In my earlier write-up for the skill I had made it a Con-based skill which made a lot more sense. Especially since there are no longer any Con-based skills in the game.


Yea, a short sword is more of a foil-type weapon, or an epee. The OP is thinking of a broadsword. It wouldn't hurt to house rule a broadsword with identical statistics save it is a slashing weapon as opposed to a piercing weapon.


Aha! So that's what they changed! I must have read through blink a dozen times before giving up and thinking they must have made some minor change that doesn't matter. This change does matter, although I'm not sure it is for the good or not. Blink was admittedly far better for rogues than any other character, but I'm not sure it was overpowered. As written now though, I imagine it will be used even more infrequently than before however. Why let the rogue sneak attack stuff when you can just fireball the enemies or haste EVERYONE?


sciencephile wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Seriously, there's already a DC for tasting spoiled food. Does anyone really know what polio (say) tastes like? Where did that idea come from?

I hear Salmonella tastes like chicken, LOL.

I agree that there shouldn't be DCs for tasting or smelling diseases.

As a sciencephile, surely you jest. There is significant scientific precedent for such things. On a trip to Belize I spoke with a doctor who was able to recognize numerous diseases simply by smelling the patient.


Requiring feats to be good at flying is a much better balancing mechanic than skills. Skills are easier to spend, but on such a corner-case as flying, it will rarely, if ever happen in the case of PCs. This is sad for the game because it means flying will become the sole domain of monsters, much like grappling became in 3.5. It removes an interesting tactical element from player options. A fighter with his limited skill points is certainly never going to put ranks in it, especially with ACP applying. The only classes I can imagine doing it are the druid, sorcerer, and wizard. Even then, they will probably only take enough to hover reliably as fly typically only works as an improved levitate in combat.

Incidentally, there is a bug in the Fly skill (p. 58). Under "Being attacked while flying" it states "You are not considered flat-footed while flying." I am certain they didn't mean this as a blanket statement. Being able to take to the sky and give rogues the finger seems a bit like an unintended consequence.


I agree with the Professor.


Lord Tataraus wrote:
Well, I agree...except I am coming from the angle that Halflings are just better with Int rather than Cha, maybe its because I often have cannibalistic and bloodthirsty halflings in my games that aren't that charismatic, cute, or lovable.

I guess that depends on your paradigm for halflings. Tolkienesque halflings I would think are quite charming, although I don't think there is any justification for saying they are any more charming than men. If you think of Beltar every time you think of halflings, well, I can kind of see your point. Personally, I always saw Beltar as more of a parody of halfling PLAYERS, but that's just me.

For the record, I am not totally on board with the whole stat adjustment "fix." A lot of them seem forced, like the half-orc +2 to Wisdom (don't orcs have -2 to Wisdom?). I think there are other ways to balance a race than by simply offering stat mods.


Squirrelloid wrote:
You apparently have a far more unified idea of dungeon than i do. I think of things like RttToH which features monsters separated by fiendish traps whom, even if they could get past the traps to encounter each other, would sooner kill than talk. Not that you can't build a dungeon otherwise, but I'd consider those exceptions to the general rule. Most dungeons are forgotten ruins in remote areas you venture to for the promises of riches - retaliation isn't especially likely. (And who's going to care if they start killing the local orc tribe).

I will give you this. There are a lot of classic dungeons like the Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain that follow the paradigm you suggest. But there are just as many such as the Pits of the Slave Lords or the Temple of Elemental Evil that follow the paradigm I describe, if not more.

Spoiler:
Even the Tomb of Horrors was run by a demi-lich, and you had to know he had some idea of what was going on. Still, the Tomb of Horrors is not a very good example because the dungeon is not the kind of place where having a bunch of spells is necessarily as useful as having your wits about you. All the spells in the world won't help you control the sphere of annihilation.

Squirrelloid wrote:
Also, planeshifting to your own private demi-plane is risk free, as its small enough you're a short walk from wherever you want to be and there aren't really any wandering monsters. (They'd have to deal with all those Symbol of X the cleric and wizard tiled the place in which triggers to 'not the party').

I don't know where you got the idea that PCs are capable of crafting their very own demiplane, but such a task is not a simple matter. First of all, in order to even use plane shift, you have to have a tuning fork keyed to the plane to which you desire to travel. Acquiring such a tuning fork might be an adventure in and of itself. Second of all, there is no spell in the PH that lets you craft your own demiplane. I believe there is an epic spell for that however. Third, even if you were to find a small, private demiplane, and even if you were to find a tuning fork for it, and even if it WERE to be uninhabited, unless all of your dungeons are inhabited by nothing but traps and mindless undead or similar creatures, chances are someone in that dungeon is eventually going to figure out where you keep plane shifting to and either find a way to follow you or find a way to keep you on the Prime next time you return (i.e. dimensional anchor). Monsters use magic too, and they are not fond of having their lairs disturbed.

I think we've belabored this point enough. Suffice it to say, the ability to escape from battle does not mean the job is done. Your DM is going easy on you if his dungeon are all static environments that let you rest whenever you feel like it. DMs like that are what make the 15 minute workday possible, not the other way around.


It is my personal belief, based mostly on nostalgia, that favored classes should be based on traditional D&D archetypes. The favored classes of dwarves should be fighter or rogue, since those were their multiclass options (not cleric, dwarves couldn't be clerics until 2nd edition). The favored classes of elves should be wizard or sorcerer (sorcerer being more a subclass of wizard IMHO). The favored classes of gnomes should be illusionist or sorcerer. The favored classes of half-orcs are probably fine as is (since we don't have an assassin base class anymore, which sucks). Halflings should have fighter and rogue.


Gnome Ninja wrote:
I personally feel that, since it is a parallel to channel energy, it should also be Rgr level - 3. I think that's all he's saying, and it's definitely all I'm saying. It also makes it mroe fun at high levels.

I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact I am the one who suggested the rgr level -3 thing. But he was suggesting adding new spells because the animal companion wasn't worth it without or otherwise inventing a new mechanic to replace it. As I said, I don't think such drastic measures are warranted when the mechanic isn't really broken to begin with so a slight adjustment would be quite preferable.


I don't mean any offense, but your opinion that the animal companion is not fun to play with does not mean the mechanic is broken. I have known plenty of players over the years who enjoy the ranger's animal companion, but we have never encountered any difficulty with the rules to make us think they are broken.


I like rolling Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) into one then making divine spells based on Knowledge (religion). This is one of the few things that I think 4e actually did right. I don't think WotC would mind us borrowing one eensy little idea from them. :)


Diseases do not have a smell, but by-products of bacterial infections as a result of disease usually do. When flesh decays, it isn't the flesh that smells bad, but rather the gases produced by the bacteria that begin eating the flesh after it has died that smells bad. Justifying the ability to taste disease (tasting actually being a subsidiary sense to smell) doesn't seem all that far-fetched.


Jadeite wrote:
I don't like the idea. It would make it even harder for large creatures to perceive smaller creatures.

Not at all, according to my chart. An ogre would get a -2 to notice a halfling who gets a +2 to hide, which is a net +4 bonus for the halfling, who under the current rules simply gets a +4 to hide. It is mechanically similar (in some cases identical) in the case of creatures of differing sizes hiding from each other while at the same time preventing the absurd notion that it is more difficult for a giant to hide from another giant than it is for a halfling to hide from another halfling simply because of their size.


Mmm, I love me a box of Chewties. Contagiously delicious!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In my campaign, it would be a blessed relief. Either way, there's got to be some way we can both be satisfied with it. It's a game rule, not world politics; the lack of a solution for both of us just means that our creativity is insufficient to the task, not that one can't be found.

Well, I rather like the idea of simply reducing the mobility class of fly spells since hitting the PCs with a nerf bat seems to the be the main idea behind implementing this skill in the first place. Of course, at that point I think we need to try to gauge whether the gamer community at large thinks such a change is necessary, then let everyone who doesn't like it house rule it. Either way, I will probably keep flying the way it was in 3.5. But I like Paizo products and will probably keep buying them so not only would I prefer to not have to house rule things, I think it would be in the community's best interest not to include the Fly skill in the core rules if there is not a significant demand for it. I don't think there is a significant demand for it. Maybe I am wrong, but this thread hasn't seemed to invite overwhelming support (although those that support it do tend to be arguing with me more, heh).

I would be happy if the skill were minimalized to the extent that I could ignore it in future Paizo publications without having to do significant conversion.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Requiring a feat to use potions of fly would be fine with me; a feat or a skill, either way is OK. It could be a bonus feat for natural flyers.

I know a lot of people advocate rolling it into acrobatics, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Realistically-speaking, I can tumble and jump, and have very good balance, but I also get airsick. Game mechanically, acrobatics is already verging on "too good," to my mind. I'd just like flying characters to somehow be an exception, rather than the default.

I agree with you completely. You know, this probably could be solved by simply reducing the maneuverability rating of spells then allowing PCs to take the Improved Flight feat (Draconomicon) that increases your maneuverability rating by 1. Good fix for those who think it is too easy for PCs to fly, easy to ignore for those who think 3.5 fly is fine.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Maybe if the mechanics could be streamlined, and the skill checks minimized, then both of our concerns would be addressed?

That would be ideal. I still wish it didn't need to be a skill though. Requiring players to have a skill just to use a spell seems draconian.

Doombunny wrote:
The Fly spell has been used to incredible effect in every single game of D&D my group has ever played. To say it isn't really more useful than fireball is grossly misrepresenting the usefulness of the ability to defy gravity.

So you are implying that fireball is not used to incredible effect in every single game of D&D your group has ever played? Fireball clears the battlefield of your enemies. I can't imagine a more incredible effect than that.


Monks should get ALL knowledge skills as class skills. It would make them a bit more interesting. What else are they gonna do while cooped up in a monastery all day. Surely martial training doesn't occupy all their time. If so they would have a good BAB and better HD. ;)


Kaisoku wrote:

Casters don't have dead levels, they get new spells and more spell slots per every level. It's not like a Fighter who literally gets hitpoints and skills and BAB on some levels.

Sorcerers especially get more every level as they gain more spells known constantly.

What you say about the fighter is true, but what you are missing is that caster level progression for a sorcerer is analogous to base attack and hit point progression for a fighter. If a fighter can get his base attack and hit points from another class PLUS get additional class features, what is to stop him from doing so?

Sorcerers can get that same stuff from a prestige class, so why not? Granted there is more to encourage sticking with the sorcerer class in Pathfinder, but I'm not sure that it is enough. Giving the class an exciting new ability each level (even if that ability isn't that effective in battle or solving problems) keeps the class interesting enough to hold a player's attention captive from level to level. I've never seen metamagic feats get much use, and when they do, they are rarely superior options to spells of their level anyway. Maximized magic missile is only better than ice storm if you are fighting one opponent, but that isn't always the case. Quickened fireball doesn't exactly trump delayed blast fireball either, especially considering that it contributes to rapidly depleting your spell repertoire for the day.

I don't think giving sorcerers a few more metamagic feats gives them a significant boost to the power curve, but it does give players something to Ooo and Ahh over when they would otherwise be making fairly mundane choices that they make every level anyway.


quest-master, I don't have a problem with your latest posting on the ranger. But it doesn't really FIX anything that was broken with the ranger write up to begin with. So I could take it or leave it. I'd need to see some more compelling arguments for why it was broken in the first place before I'll accept that it needs a re-write.


MarkusTay wrote:
And lastly, and this should be obvious, the spell a wizard can cast through his bonded item should ONLY be from the spells granted him by his Wizard levels - meaning that if he decides to PrC out at 5, he's only going to get a 3rd level spell from his bonded item, FOREVER (unless he later takes more levels of Wizard).

That might be a good way to balance this ability. Although I still think the fact that specialists lose the bonus spell per level already more than balances this aspect.


Squirrelloid wrote:

Ropetrick

Teleport
Planeshift

Wandering Monsters?

I should think it should go without saying that these spells do not solve the problem quite so elegantly. With ropetrick you are still in the dungeon, and likely the inhabitants have noticed that a large number of bodies have begun to mysteriously pile up. Most dungeons also have informants of some kind to tell them there are adventurers around. Meaning when you pop out of the rope trick the next morning, you will find the dungeon's defenses quite improved. Dungeon inhabitants might even be on the offensive, on high alert, and moving throughout the dungeon in search of the party. The added danger counterbalances the benefit of being able to rest.

With teleport you can exit the dungeon, but you either have to travel back, giving the denizens even more time than they would have had before to prepare for your return, or you have to teleport back, expending resources for the trip back but still giving them warning.

Planeshift is just dangerous. I almost always roll a random encounter from the planar tables when players planeshift. Planeshift is a means of travel, not escape. Even Elysium can be dangerous depending on the circumstances.

Additionally, just because there are ways to make it to a safe place to rest doesn't mean the job is done. Many dungeons are sources of attacks on villagers which are likely to be performed in an act of retaliation if the PCs suddenly vamoose. There are countless consequences for leaving a job unfinished to rest. I shouldn't have to explain them all to you if you are an experienced player or DM. These consequences are what make the 15-minute workday unfeasible and foolhardy for wizards. Spellcasters have to judiciously plan their spell usage to avoid them.

Squirrelloid wrote:
The wizard still needed no help. Just accept its a 5 level class that's moving into a prestige class. Because it is.

Then apparently the wizard did need help if it is so inevitable that the wizard will move into a prestige class. Thank you for proving my point.

Squirrelloid wrote:
As to requiring DM approval - the magic item ability cost table is the standard rules and players should be able to assume them.

It is explicitly stated that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. As such, the DM always retains veto power. The game is not a player's world.


One of the things that always seems to vary in the groups where I play is how obvious things like conditions and amount of damage taken are. Now I normally inform my players when a monster appears to be resisting energy damage, or if an unconscious character is still alive or not, however I have seen it done differently, and have even done it differently myself in the past. For example, I used to abstain from differentiating between and unconscious or dead character. I made my players of fallen characters remain mum about their condition forcing other players to guess at their condition. I also played with a group that required a DC 15 Heal check to see if someone was still alive (a pointless rule IMHO, as such a check could simply accomplish stabilizing the character). I, for one, would like these things spelled out for Pathfinder, if for nothing else than the sake of uniformity. Then groups using differing interpretations would simply need to use house rules. I believe it would prevent a lot of variance at games since these kinds of things are clearly open to DM interpretation.

1) We need a rule regarding whether a character who can clearly see a fallen character can determine if that character is alive or merely unconscious. Perhaps a DC 10 Perception check as a move action with modifiers to the DC if the character is obscured by cover, concealment or the like.

2) There should also be a rule regarding whether a character striking a creature with damage reduction recognizes that his weapon is dealing less damage than it should. Similarly, we need a rule for energy resistance. A DC 10 Perception check as a free action each time damage is dealt might be a sufficient way to deal with this, though the Perception check should probably be made in secret so as not to tip off the player.

3) Rules regarding other conditions would be helpful as well, such as determining whether a character is paralyzed as opposed to stunned, dazed, or held (as the hold person spell). Again, I think a DC 10 Perception check as a move action would be a good way for this to work.


Which d20 game was it, and do you recall the specifics of the ability?

1 to 50 of 435 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>