anthony Valente's page

I learned this weekend that no matter how many alternative ways you hint at how the PCs can take down the Stag Lord... some groups of players invariably just go and kick in the door anyway...

My advice would be to adhere to as close to an existing game's attributes as possible. If Pathfinder is your base, just stick to Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha.

You can design your own homebrew easier that way.

If you find Cha to be a constant dump stat to the point of being pointless, I'd recommend redefining it to make it a more relevant attribute in your games. That or just get rid of it completely and just have the other 5 stats. So:

Strength
Agility (Dex)
Health (Con)
Intelligence
Spirit (Wis)

You could also look at Myth & Magic. It's a 2e-based game you can download for free at newhavengames.com

Attributes are quite relevant in that system, because the bonus you have from them impacts your results moreso than the skill points you'd be putting into them.

That's not a problem of Paizo, it's a problem of your narrow vision of what fantasy is :)

Of course it's not Paizo's problem. They've merely lost me and my players as a buying customer since I've moved to other systems that better suit my style of play. :)

GravesScion wrote:

My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.

I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.

What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.

This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.

Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.

Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.

Mmmmkay.

Wait, am I with Cirno and Cartigan in one boat? ROW FASTER!

Well, all three of you have a very valid point. It is a fantasy game and realism doesn't apply.

ANY SENSE OF REALISM WHATSOEVER.

That's one of several little niggling aspects of Pathfinder that's driven me from playing it as is. The rules are written to play a very specific type of fantasy game. This is borne out more so with each new book of rules. It's really a lot of work to play a fantasy game with Pathfinder rules in any other way besides the default, especially if you as a GM, decide to include the splatbooks.

And that is disappointing.

...The hexes thing is pretty annoying, though, and overall wait I can make a male witch that punches people with his moustache oh my god.

I have to say, I haven't read the book. But when I saw this ability in one of the UM threads, I said to myself... Paizo has let the flood gates open in RP and character building silliness.

My only gripe about this book is that from the product description of it, not only do wizards and sorcerers get combat-oriented archetypes (Wut), but also combat-oriented spells (Aren't most of them?)

Didn't casters just get a nice boost from UM? Do they really need more help from UC? Let's work on helping the meattanks with the tiny metal sticks do more than just move and attack (And any combination of those two options) before we help the squishy casters more.

I agree here. If I see any significant caster stuff in a book about melee characters, I can't blame a lot of people claiming that this is a caster edition.

Theo Stern wrote:

I really did not intend for this to turn into a Piazo bashing session, rather a discussion of the feat. I like the game, I like the APG and I like a lot of the stuff in UM. I just don't like this feat. Hey know what? I don't have to use it as written *shrugs*.

I understand what you are saying, but I also would like to point out that several people that have concerns also like Paizo. I'm a fan of a lot of what they have done. However, when you become so big a fan that you excuse mistakes routinely, it doesn't help you, as a fan, or the company that you hope to support.

I couldn't have put this better myself KnightErrant JR. I like Paizo as a company, but currently, their Pathfinder line is heading down the same exact road as WOTC's 3rd edition IMO. Hence I stopped buying with confidence and assuming the product will be good after the APG and instead thoroughly look over the product to see if I feel it's quality and content is acceptable for my games.

I'm not upset. I just feel the weight of Ultimate Magic's release bearing down on my campaign, and I realize that I've hit my personal limit.

I'd like to see Paizo return to providing material that can be used after character creation. For me, the game is about more than building PCs and building NPCs to fight those PCs. Adventure content is what brought me to Pathfinder, and I think that "rule" books can be more than just character options.

I understand we're locked in for Ultimate Combat. After that, please, let's get back to more expansive, campaign-based material.

New player options are not intrinsically a bad thing, but I would rather get them spread out in smaller books so that I can process them into my campaign. With these huge player option tomes, it really amounts to having another 300 page pile of rules to familiarize.

I don't even have adversarial players (although pity those who do when a book like this comes out) ... it's a simple matter that my players WILL read this book, and want the things in it, so I more or less have to read it also to keep them happy.

I know that James Jacobs has voiced a similar opinion, and so I am content in the knowledge that I'm not out in the cold on this issue. Still, I think feedback about the product lines is really important, so I created this thread for people to express their opinions.

Who feels as I do?

Who feels differently and why?

It's all opinion, so please state yours and leave other people to theirs.

Haven't read throught the entire thread, so if I've missed some new developments, I appologize.

I suppose I feel slightly differently in that the rules for Pathfinder started out huge and relatively complex and have only grown moreso with each new book of rules, albiet prodominantly on the PC side of the screen. I wouldn't be so concerned if not for the feeling that a large percentage of the new material in the later books appears to be rules for the sake of rules or new classes for the sake of new classes. There are a few gems here and there, (like rules for chases for instance), but there's not enough "gold" in each new book to warrant me to buy it lately, and I stopped buying rulebooks after the APG, which was a sort of hit-and-miss product for me.

I like rules and am not shy at having lots of them in fact if they bring new ways of playing a fantasy campaign to the table. But I like the whole to mesh together; not be new sub-systems added on to the plethora of existing sub-systems. I don't consider having a slew of new classes or a new way to cast spells or a new way to make an attack to be ground-breaking territory that will propel my games to new heights of fun.

But, for instance, rules for chases... now there's something I don't have to ad hoc when that situation comes up anymore.

Thanks much for the reply James. I'll check that out.

I've been away for a while so I've not kept up on the goings on of Pathfinder's latest adventures and upcoming products.

But I'm wondering if a new Kingmaker-like (as in sandbox, land-based, exploration-like) campaign is in the works any time soon. Adventure campaigns like that really hit the spot.

Just a minor point here in comparing a melee attack to a spell cast, both of which take a "standard action."

The melee attack is not intended to be visualized as a single swing of a sword. This used to be well explained in the old DMG and PHB. A single melee attack represents a discrete chunk of an ongoing battle between two melee combatants in an abstract way. The actual attack should be visualized as a series of combat maneuvers where swords and shields clash back and forth, at some point during which a single opening presents itself which the attacker takes advantage of to attempt to deal some damage.

In that sense it's quite reasonable to compare it to quickly mumbling a few words and tossing a bit of arcane flotsam into the air to get a spell off.

That was the rationale back in those versions to explain why you only made 1 or 2 attack rolls over the course of a round... which was 1 minute long back then. Spells took a number of segments to cast typically anywhere from 1 to 9... a segment was 6 seconds long back then too. That's 6 to 54 seconds for most spells.

It doesn't translate well as an explanation when the round is now 6 seconds. Especially when you consider that dual wielders and archers easily get 5+ attacks in those 6 seconds. Or how a caster manages to pull out just the right components from a pouch and utter the right phrases and perform the right patterns... all while flipping through the air with an acrobatics check if he wants... while a guy with 3 feet of steel standing a mere 5 feet away is trying to cut him in half. 5-foot stepping to do this and denying the dude with the sword any opportunity to prevent such obviously hazardous behavior is quite unreasonable.

Cranewings:
Why not just make the Step Up feat a general rule of combat? That's how I've always felt it should be anyway. I'm not sure why it was ever introduced as a feat.

Then, when someone 5-foot steps, any opponent engaged may also decide if they want to "keep pace" and 5-foot step too.

So when a fighter is engaged with a barbarian and the barbarian 5-foot steps back, the fighter may not want to step up.

But when the wizard 5-foot steps back to gain some distance to cast a spell, the fighter steps up to threaten.

You might want to come up with a reasonable solution for reach weapons, but that isn't so hard. I'd personally just change reach weapons to threaten adjacent squares in addition to their normal reach (add in a penalty to attack rolls if you think that's too much of a benefit).

Invisibility does`t apply to object you drop.

Invisibility doesn`t apply to the hole you just busted charging thru that wooden wall.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to foot-steps you make. It applies to YOU and objects CARRIED by you.
Meepo`s QUITE on-topic quote of the Invisibility spell seems like it needs to be quoted AGAIN:

...and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).

Some situations might make noticing footprints auto-pass. Some it might be more difficult, or impossible (i.e. it`s Dark and you don`t have DV). The rules don`t really give a clear-cut single DC reference for this, but you can make do based on normal Perception rules, not much different than noticing many other things in the game. GMs can be dicks about this, GMs can be munchkin-feeders about this, and all variations in between. What else is there to say? Not much...

This has been my take as well. The GM should have determined if the dust was "thick" enough in the 1st place to even warrant a check. If footprints or a dust trail are obviously being made and Player A's vision isn't impaired in any way, I'm not see why there is even a roll to be made. If there wasn't enough dust to make such determinations... or if the room was dark... then the GM simply should have told Player A so and the argument over requiring the Perception check likely wouldn't occur.

Imagine the following:

GM: Since you've made your Spellcraft check, you know the arcane trickster has turned invisible. You heard all him scuttling across the dusty floors so you know he isn't in his original position, but you don't know what direction he went. PC A, it's your turn.
PC A: Alright, I look for his footprints in the dusty floor so as to determine his exact "new" location. I then launch a crossbow bolt in that direction.
GM: Alright, make a spot check against his Stealth check + 20.
PC A: What? Why? That's to find him normally. I'm looking for his footprints, that should be pretty automatic, or at least have a hefty circumstance bonus.
GM: If it were automatic, then invisibility wouldn't really be invisibility, and would be greatly weakened.
PC A: The only thing weakening invisibility is this NPC's poor tactics, casting invisibility in a dusty room. *chortles*
GM: Just the same, please roll to see if your character thinks to look for footprints.
PC A: "Thinks to look?" I JUST TOLD YOU HE IS LOOKING FOR FOOTPRINTS!
GM: *Not appreciating the challenge to his authority* Roll. Anyways.
PC A: *grumbles* *rolls* 24.
GM: Your character looks around for the invisible trickster, but doesn't think to look for footprints in the dust.
PC B: *rolls* Oh look! Footprints! He's hiding in the corner you guys! *makes an attack and kills trickster*
PC A: *facepalm groan*

Who is "in the right" in the above theoretical scenario? Is Player A simply being a poor sport? Or does the GM have too much control over a PC's actions?

I personally side with Player A (if he says he's doing something, than he is doing it), but I've seen a LOT of people on these forums who would take the side of the GM (who thinks that the Perception check determines how and if you find an invisibly stealthed character). Which side would you be on and why?

This illustrates the problems with having every situation determined by die rolls. Given the scenario above, if the PC's vision weren't impaired by any means, I wouldn't consider even bothering to make a Perception roll as long as he can see where the footprints stop on his turn.

Propane wrote:

Well first of all there is the excellent and official Pathfinder Roleplaying Game GM Screen and I recommend that as a minimum.

In the back of the Core Rulebook, just before the glossary, are Appendices. They go over much of what the book just told you, but in short concise format.

Other than what, what are your specific needs? What references do you need quickly? You were vague.

Oh yes, I have the GM screen, it's awesome.

To be more specific; I would love to have a two-sided a4 with for example;

* conditions
* actions (what you can do, what kind of action it is (standard, move etc.), the effect of the action and if it provokes opportunity attacks etc.)
* combat maneuvers

Table 8-2: Actions in combat on p.183 of the core rulebook... I'd photocopy that... even several times and hand a copy to each player. That's what I've done. This takes care of actions and combat maneuvers pretty much.

As far as conditions... now that you mention it, it's tempting to go make myself a sheet to keep handy during play listing them all on one page.

This is a bastard sword:

...

You're getting way too caught up in terminolgy and RL.

You could just as easily say that a Pathfinder longsword is a real-life broadsword and a Pathfinder bastard sword is a real-life longsword. It's just not worth trying to quantify the games mechanics as exacting as possible to real life.

Wow. Despite my previous couple of doom & gloom posts in this thread, that announcement is a pleasantly nice surprise.
Looking forward to this.

Wow. All this talk of material components for spells... I've removed material component requirements (except for expensive ones) from spells in my games. It's silly watching casters play with bat guano, dead spiders, and literal bull crap to cast spells.

Maybe its just residual damage from 3.5, but my "bloat sense" is starting to go off.

This is one of my concerns as well.

Having high hopes at first when hearing this book was going to be done and seeing this preview now, my feelings are mixed as to whether or not I'll like the end product. Spells in this book are the biggest culprit. I was under the impression that was what Ultimate Magic was for. 60 new archetypes sounds a bit much as well as it's hard to make that many and have them all be of great quality.

Sorry for voicing the concern in an otherwise excited thread. I guess my biggest disappointment is reading the Ultimate Magic preview and seeing it is chock full of good stuff for all the spellcasting classes but nadda for the lowly fighter, rogue, or barbarian and then reading this and seeing a boatload of goodies in store for spellcasters in this book as well.

I think I lost a few brains cells reading the off-topic posts in this thread.

Can we put this thread out of it's misery?

You could re-flavor just about an permanent magic item into a potion. An amulet of natural armor could be turned into a potion of natural armor. Boots of speed could become a potion of speed with the same effect. I'd just be wary of handing out too many of these.

You could re-flavor just about an permanent magic item into a potion. An amulet of natural armor could be turned into a potion of natural armor. Boots of speed could become a potion of speed with the same effect. I'd just be wary of handing out too many of these.

I tend to play in a more 1e-2e mode so while there are Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings, etc they are not the result of taking a feat but are instead gained through roleplaying.

This pretty much sums it up for my games as well. When the group is low in number, it's not uncommon for the PCs to ask for extra muscle. I tend to find ways of mitigating extra help when 5+ people show up for a session though, just to help make the game run smoother.

It's probably why no one has thought of taking the feat in my games.

Silly additional request: Make them square. That way you aren't wasting material, and they fill the space they occupy etc.

...

Or better yet sell the slotta-bases separately and make square and round ones, just like Warhammer does. Then we could buy what we want.

Great idea suggesting an info section BTW. Even if it was just enough room to list a number, that'd be great. Dry/wet erasable?

Speaking of which, you may as well just throw in a monster key in every pack too. ;P

Given the choice, I think most people would choose an actual mini over a counter, me included.

But counters have several advantages over minis.

1) minis look best on an actual scaled field (aka: warhammer)
2) counters are more affordable
3) counters are more transportable
4) counters are more abstract

I'm definitely for providing lots of the same creature where it makes sense. Unless you had lots of the same mini, it's almost impossible to represent say 20 orcs with minis unless you had 20 orc minis (otherwise, your "stand-ins" makes the whole look hokey).

I think the number appearing line in the Bestiary for each monster could serve as a model. It kinda sucks if you roll 4 ogres and have only 1 ogre counter/mini.

I allow it, but only in groups with mature players. Even then, I only allow 6 characters total (whether they are cohorts or not).

I also build and control all cohorts with input from the respective players as to what they are trying to attract.

On at least one occasion, I explained these rules to a player who wanted to take the feat to which I was battered with:

"What do you mean I don't get to make and control my own cohort? And they have NPC stats? Who would ever take the feat then!? It's practically worthless with your house rules!"

That player did not get to take Leadership (not that he wanted to after our "discussion").

What I think is funny is that, except for my 6 character limitation, none of the above are really house rules.

I rather like that approach RD. I'll have to keep that in mind if I allow the feat.

To the OP: I've never had to decide really because no one has ever been interested in it. My group fluctuates between 2 and 8 players, so what happens is if the party is too small, like say 2 players, I just let them each run 2 PCs. If it's 3 players, they sometimes get the help of an outside NPC. 4 or more players, it's back to normal.

I prefer to start from a standpoint of "...but they can still be shot down," though, rather than Pathfinder's default of "...and magic trumps everything else, always, so there, nany-nany-booboo!"

And that difference in philosophy is my primary reason for rewriting the classes.

Hey Kirth, just letting you know I enjoy popping in from time-to-time to check out your house-rule stuff. Admittedly, they're a bit too numbers-heavy for my personal tastes, but I really like the philosophical positions you draw them from (like the great one above) and they give me great ideas for my own campaigns. I may have to implement a rule which gives a nod to shooting things out of the sky when my campaign gets to that level again (we're back in level 2-3 range at the moment).

Really cool stuff!

I've heard that analogy before (or similar ones), but I can't say I necessarily agree. Winning initiative with an optimized wizard isn't necessarily instant win, even at high levels, though some of the forum chatter may suggest otherwise.

To be honest, I have little experience in optimization theory and and zero experience seeing or participating in that style of game. Nevertheless, I'm enjoying following this thread and trying to draw some basic conclusions from the point of view of an optimizer and/or power gamer or whatever term people call want to call it.

Which is the opposite of his point.

Optimized means optimized for a specific task, generally by minimizing the ability to perform other tasks. This is fine within a group if others fill in where you lack.

Powergaming is trying to game the system, find loopholes and exploits to "break" the game. One famous suggestion on here being "Since it says you can take any feat, you can take an epic feat"

Well he did say this earlier:

If you get into the forums where the theoretical powergaming min/maxers hang out, you'll find them suggesting that eventually it all comes down to initiative, for which dumping Dex isn't just a bad idea, it's the [i]worst[i] idea.

Optimizers aren't necessarily power gamers, but power gamers are optimizers. At least that's what I'm seeing. So despite distinctions between the two terms, I tend to lump them together.

@Treantmonk, I do enjoy hearing your insights.

anthony Valente wrote:

Treantmonk wrote:

the long of it

The short of it:

When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.

Is that about right TM?

I don't think that's what he was saying at all. An optimized game doesn't necessarily have a logical conclusion of rocket tag. That would be a power gaming game. At least that's how I read it.

I guess I lump "optimized game" and "powergame" into the same category then.

the long of it

The short of it:

When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.

Is that about right TM?

I'll add my voice to the chorus... I'd like to see monster counters, affordable and lots of them. Slotta-base standee style preferably.

Throw in condition tokens and area of effect templates too!

Great Thread KnightErrantJR.

I pronounce drow "drow".

Same here.

DR's not really there for level appropriate PC's. It's there to make the monsters and NPCs with it highly resistant and hence scarier to mass quantities of mooks.

I find that the high ACs and HP of those monsters with DR keep the mooks in their place well enough.

EDIT: For example, I just cracked open my copy of the Bestiary randomly and got: p.102-3: Adult Brass Dragon – DR 5/magic, AC 28, 161 HP. What are mooks doing to that? ;)

You'd probably want to include some sort of feats that allow characters to bypass certain types of DR specifically the alignment, magic and epic DR. Silver, Cold Iron and Adamantite could probably stay as is. I'm okay with monk natural weapons simulating other materials but I like having to have a silver dagger as back-up. DR/Weapon type should also remain.

You could probably get rid of DR completely on the majority of monsters with it as many of them seem arbitrary and many are bypassed by the time PCs are of an appropriate level to fight said creatures anyway.

Note I really didn't screw with armor, shields and weapons because I feel most people accept the need for magical arms and armor but the other components of the big 6 have less justification.

A little off-topic but: Vuron, have you ever considered making the enhancement bonuses from weapons and armor inherent based on level or BAB? Magical weapons and armor just provide the cool stuff in that case.

Certainly it is a lot easier to say I need X items to be able to defeat Y threat, so let me go into the basement for a few weeks or run down to Magic Items 'R Us and Presto! Change-O! I've got them!

Don't you just love what 3.x did to D&D?

Anyone think it would cause any problems to just replace the Ranger's Favored Enemy class abilities (including quarry and improved quarry) with Ranger's Focus and Inspired Moment from the Guide archetype without using the other substitutions?

I like the replacement to favored enemy but I like haveing an animal companion. Think this would be imbalancing at all?

I don't see any problems with it. You might want to allow acquiring a new favored enemy each time you take a Knowledge appropriate rank for the monster type chosen, and keep the bonus consistent with ranger level.

anthony Valente wrote:

Fighters, rangers, and monks have relatively quick access to this feat because they all get bonus feats built into their class as features. The barbarian has no such ability, and must rely on his feats gained normally to invest in getting access to these feats.

Well, I gave them bonus feats, too, but I'm aware not everyone else does!

On that note, EL, I suggest giving monks full BAB instead. It's becoming a more popular house rule I think.

One thing that I notice is that it illustrates how limited in scope the barbarian class is in comparison to other martial classes.

Fighters, rangers, and monks have relatively quick access to this feat because they all get bonus feats built into their class as features. The barbarian has no such ability, and must rely on his feats gained normally to invest in getting access to these feats.

Not saying that anything should or should not be done about that. Just making an observation.

On the monk front, I'd at least reduce the Greater Battle Adaptation BAB prereq to BAB +15 so it at least can get access to it.

Does the long list of conditions bother anyone else?

Does anyone else think you could just drop the conditions clause altogether and let PrC/Feat eligibility be the sole drawback?

It bothers me. Why? There is enough stuff to track in this game. Why track yet another thing?

Drop the conditions altogether. Why do we feel the need to give a feat a cool ability only to curtail it somewhat with a drawback? We don't do that with the vast majority of spells do we? The main drawback of any feat (well, maybe not these particular ones) is that you didn't choose something else.

Besides, why make your game harder to play?

Oh, and this really needs serious consideration for Ultimate Combat.

I think this is a brilliant idea EL. You've just found a good way to make the cleric feature from the war domain available to all non-casters.

I am interested to hear from people who have a negative reaction to the feat as presented. Specifically, I would like detailed answers to the following questions:

What does it matter if a feat is clearly the superior choice for most characters if it doesn't eliminate options? If Battle Adaptation is better than combat feat X, and yet you can use battle adaptation to access feat x — why not take it, and is it actually better than feat x with respect to encounter balance?

...

I don't have a negative reaction, but as far as "problems" go, one of very few drawbacks I can see with this feat tree is that it essentially becomes a "feat tax" because it's a no-brainer for the vast majority of combat-oriented characters.

As far as drawbacks go, I'm not sure you need to add any to these feats. It's pretty annoying that several existing feats give you a drawback in the first place. And it's one more thing to track in-game.

BTW, I'm yoinking this idea for my games!

GM: "You see a red dragon*…"

Player: who cut's off the GM mid-sentence "I charge!"

*(Insert name of any monster the party can't handle.)

"Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry."

My latest session needed some random encounter generation. I'm running a (not quite complete) conversion of the old Keep on the Borderlands module. After getting ready for the night's session to be yet another romp through the caves, my players, out of the blue decided to pursue one of the wilderness leads (spoilered for players who may be playing it):

And that was the encounter.

I find it most enjoyable if a whole range of encounters is possible (from really weak ones to impossible ones). The key to make it work is that the GM should always present the players with a choice to act upon any given encounter (whether that is immediate or well in advance of the encounter).

The "Part two" of the question for me is, what's the best way to stack up armor class without magic, both for regular armored fighters and armored clerics as well as classes like barbarian and ranger which typically go for lighter armors? What about characters like bards and wizards?

Shields and feats are really your only recourse outside of magic. They'll only go so far though. Bards and wizards have plenty of defensive spells that will keep them safe.

Other than that, your party might have to develop different tactics in later levels (like denying the enemy the ability to hit in the first place) if defensive magic boosts are scarce.

I second Hogarth's recommendation. That table in the back of the Bestiary is a handy tool to use.

I second the idea of making it as close to E6 as possible. That's enough so that druids can wild shape into a large animal, sorcerers get level 3 spells and fighters get an extra attack as their "capstone" abilities, for instance.

I the basic version of Pathfinder is meant to be an introductory game, then I don't think that is necessary. Giving the fighter an extra attack doesn't demonstrate anything to new players on how to play the game, nor does giving them access to 3rd level spells. But those are fine additions if the basic set proves popular enough to make it a variant game in its own right. (ala basic D&D).

I like levels 1-5 as the level range, but 1-3 serve to teach new gamers all the fundamentals they need to know.