Iomedae

bk007dragon's page

35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Athaleon wrote:
Limiting the game to CRB only, and limiting magic item access, hurts martials more than it hurts casters.

On core rulebook access. Actually I find some of the most powerful caster builds use feats from non core-sources and they use traits.

On magic items. The ability to make items and not be restricted to what the DM will allow is a source of broken characters of all classes. Their is a reason why Pathfinder Society does not allow item crafting.


Malwing wrote:

So a lot of us have opinions about Martial/Caster disparity, the idea that martially inclined classes have less of an ability to contribute to many of the deadly situations that arise as you level or that casters have too unique of an ability to trivialize the same problems. Some of us believe that it doesn't exist or is exaggerated on the forums but for those of us that do think that it's around; What do you do about it?

We see thread upon thread about the martial/caster disparity, and why it exists and what the problem is but very often, at least to me nothing is outwardly done to make it better and when it is it's scattered throughout arguments branching on and off the topic at hand. So here is a thread for you guys that have done something about it, because if Pathfinder Unchained has told us anything its that this game is not one set in stone even if Paizo itself isn't quick to rock the boat. There are a ton of alternate rules and optional rules within the game and many of the developers spring all kinds of crazy things for the game through other companies.

What have you done in your games that mitigate or lessen martial/caster disparity?

This can be house rules, styles of GMing, implementing specific third party products or making good use of Paizo products. If you reference a specific product please linkify the name so others can view it. If there is no review for it and you have it, try to write one. If you have a laundry list of house rules using a document sharing program such as Google Drive would be helpful, especially if it can be directly commented on. Offer compliments and advice on other people's methods but be nice and constructive even with criticisms. Hopefully by the end of it we'll have very solid ways to bring balance to the game, and hopefully that can partially be achieved by throwing Combat Expertise down the reactor core.

Limit the game to the core rulebook only. Most of what makes casters potentially so powerful comes from feats from optional books, traits, and DM's not being careful enough with magic item access.


Lass wrote:

So I've just finished up the second book in the series and am considering tossing the epic AD&D 1E module Steading of the Hill Giant Chief into the campaign. It seems like a perfect fit somewhere in the 3rd book of the series but my question is, what is a good average party level in a Pathfinder Conversion to use this with my players?

Also how would you handle... ** spoiler omitted **

I know this is late but ... You need to keep a few things in mind when playing 1st edition modules.

1)In first edition they expected a party to be objective focused. Some encounters were not meant to be fought. They expected a party to know to bypass encounters like that or if necessary run away and fight again another day. This is something many modern groups tend to lack.

Bypassing encounters you did not need to fight conserved resources and in first edition the game was all about resource management. This is part of what it is to be Old School Gaming.

2)The adventures at that time were written for a 6 - 9 person party when it was first written for the RPGA. Or about 2 x the size of a modern pathfinder party.

3)Giants were weaker in first edition AD&D than in pathfinder.

4)In the original story you did not need to fight that fight to find clues pointing you to the glacial rift of the frost giant jarl. They expected you to bypass that room.

5)They also have a Hammer of Thunderbolts hidden behind a shield in the steading. It can 1 shot kill a giant in 1st edition.

If you want to actually fight it, they should wait till the giants pass out and are to drunk to stay awake. Take that time to search the rest of the steading and eliminate any available reinforcements. Get any loot you can to help in that fight.


I don't ban anything outright. I restrict access to classes, races, and equipment based on culture and region the character is starting in. If a player can explain in a detailed and reasonable background as to how it came to be without breaking the flavor of the campaign then all is good.

No Katana, Monk, or Kitsune in a Medieval France and England campaign based on King Richards Crusade and Robin Hood unless you can come up with a detailed and reasonable background that fits in the campaign background.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


On topic, this is a 6 level caster, not a 4 level caster. It is a 3/4 BaB class, not a full BaB class.

It won't be a full BaB class, the Devs said that ship has sailed. So looking at what we have we seem to generally agree it needs more offense.

Nor does it need to be a full BAB class, take a cue from the monks flurry of blows while keeping the flavor of the war priest and give the Full BAB with only their diety's weapon.


ciretose wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

The Inquisitor has Judgement and Bane.

The only time the Warpriest is doing better than the Inquisitor is level 4. Every other level (1-3 and 5-20) the Inquisitor has an easier time landing their hits.
(And it should be pointed out that at level 4, they both have the same chance to hit - The Warpriest just has the extra point of damage that the Inquisitor doesn't. That quickly changes at level 5 though.)
(Aaand that isn't even taking into account how much more versatile Judgement is than Sacred Weapon. It's a lot.)
Yes. Which is why I am advocating giving weapon training favored weapon.

I find sacred weapon to be inadiquite as a balancing mechanism myself also. The rounds per day are to low at all levels really but at low levels in particular. At high levels when PC's routinely have +5 items Sacred weapon becomes useless.

I think giving them weapon training in place of the sacred weapons would be the way to go. Make the first one that can go to +4 be the group containing their sacred weapon, let the character pick the rest.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
Ok so the DM gives teh ranger an advantage (or using other words, the ranger advantage is a DM fiat thing), does the DM give the fighter an advantager (like never targeting his will save)?
Umm, no. Because a really good GM will give a hint as to a wise favored enemy for the ranger to take due to the campaign, so to give him the best possible advantage. The GM will still target the fighter's will save. And the ranger's will save. And the pretty much every other martial's will save. The solution? Aasimars and tieflings. Because outsider immunities.

A good player should make their character according to a concept. Optimization within said concept is ok and expected, but you should always place the concept as first priority.

A good DM(or GM) should not give hints during character creation as to what the PC's will be facing. A good DM merely tells the player that the character concept does not fit well with the campaign and makes suggestions on how it might fit in his campaign with minimal changes.

A good DM does not go out of his way to make sure a players choice of favored enemy be sated. A good GM sticks to their planned story and watches for moments where said choices can be used without disrupting his plans.


SlimGauge wrote:
bk007dragon wrote:

But if they do it regularly:

They have to announce they are readying the 5 foot step before the other combatants turn.

Exactly what do you have to announce when you ready an action ? And to whom ? Just the DM ? Can part of it be conditional ?

Example: I ready an action to attack enemies who enter my threatened area. If my readied attack fails to kill them, I will five-foot step away, otherwise I will hold my ground.

The 5 foot step can be readied as part of a standard action as per the text. So it has to be announced to the DM or its not readied. Passing a note to the DM specifying the actions to be taken as to keep it secret from another PC is valid if the DM allows it.(I would allow it as a DM)

But as a said in the revision of my previous post: As a DM I would allow it to work once or twice as a reward for cleverness. But if it gets abused I will develope counter tactics.


Renen wrote:

I have heard this thing about readying action cheese, and wanted to know what you think.

You ready an action to hit and 5ft step away as soon as enemy starts attack.
So enemy closes in, starts attacking, you interrupt, hit them and step away. You are now out of their reach, and they cannot move up again.

Is this real or not? I know its cheesy, but still... is it raw legal

As a DM I would let it work once or twice as a reward for being clever.

But if they do it regularly I see atleast 4 options on the top of my head:
1) They have to announce they are readying the 5 foot step before the other combatants turn. Just take out a crossbow or bow and hit him with that when they are classless enough to pull this tactic. Alternately give them spare weapons so they can throw the one they are holding using the rules for throwing 1 handed blades.

2) Give the enemies Max HP or Extra HP's instead of average to compensate.

3) Build encounters that flood them with ranged attack opponents so they have to be the one to close in and give them a taste of their own medicine.

4) Haste the enemies so they have an extra standard action to close with to counter the tactic.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
andreww wrote:
Why? if you are removing Baleful Polymorph then you best be ready to get rid of Flesh to Stone, Dominate Person(Monster), Charm Person, (Mass) Suggestion, Plane Shift, Dazing Spell Metamagic, Polymorph any Object and a whole host of other spells.
I have no problem with that. If a spell breaks the game or makes it less fun, get rid of it. Simple as that.

The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.

Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?

I would not ban the spell. Adjust the monster tactics. When it becomes known the wizard or sorcerer is using baleful polymorph then come up with ways to remove the wizard quickly and with extreme prejudice. When the Wizard is a higher threat than the DPS then enemies will act on that priority.

Spell casters should usually be target number 1 for immediate elimination if the party is being successful with save or suck spells.

Just as a tank who's AC makes them unhittable will be bypassed by mobs, a wizard who is to dangerous will be singled out by them for special treatment.


17 Int could cast 8th level spells in 1st edition.


MrSin wrote:


The game actually isn't that great for a low magic game. Casters tend to throw things around too much, and the classes require magic items to keep up with the magic item treadmill(expectations put in place, that happens to deny items from being cool bonuses and instead makes them expected to kill whatever your up against next to get the upgrade to fight what you kill next to get the upgrade...)

My game is not low magic. I just like magic items meaning something. I like how The Genius Guide to: Relics of the Godlings handles magic items. They scale by level.

That +1 sword you found at level 2, might eventually scale to be a +5 Shocking Burst Vorpal sword at level 20 with a few other powers added in. A character would not need to find 5 or 6 weapons during their career if they get 1 or 2 that are useful at all levels.

You can give someone 2 or 3 well designed scaling items during their career that provide 90% of what they need and replace a set of 12 to 15 items that most campaigns would give. Then you would only need a few minor items to fill in the gaps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a roleplaying game. The idea is to play a role that sounds fun and interesting and to have fun playing it.

Which is better or not is largely a factor of who is DMing and what their DM style is. Some DM's are more caster friendly some less so.

I tend to run a dark age style game. That means limited magic item availibality. Much harder to make them. And no magic item shops. For the most part you have to find items in my games.


In real life the Longbow was the king of the pre-firearms missile weapons. The regular longbow should actually be able to be made into a strength bow also, and probably was a strength bow by default. It hit harder than a composite bow but required more strength to use. The higher pull meant that it was little less accurate than a composite bow

Composite bows were designed to be springy. If you made them solid enough to use as a strength rated bow they would probably either fall apart when the bonding agent failed or would loose their springiness and effectively become a poorly made longbow.

Historically in the middle ages the appeal of a crossbow was due to a few reasons.

1) It requires a very low amount of training to become capable with a crossbow. Most rifle tactics originated as crossbow tactics. Bows required many years of training and practice to become good at it. It would take a crossbow wielder a month or 2 to develop the accuracy it would take a decade to develop with a bow.

2) Given that they did not want peasants to have the ability to kill their own lord easily, most nations decided the bow was right out in order to preserve the dominance of the Nobility over the commoners. Crossbows with the lower training time made training new troop a quick and easy process meaning you did not have to have thousands of peasants training for decades to kill knights.

3) Crossbows could penetrate the armor of a knight better than any bow Except maybe a longbow. Only a normal longbow could come close to matching the armor penetration ability of a crossbow. Short Bows and Composite bows were not as good as a long bow against heavily armored opponents. The longbow came close to a cross bow, what made it better is it could penetrate plate armor and had 2 to 5 times the rate of fire of a Crossbow.

The real life choice was, rate of fire(Bow)vs. better ability to kill or injure your target.(Crossbow). This choice did not change until the English longbow when you could have both in 1 weapon.

***********************************************************************

Bows were attractive to England because you can have the weathiest peasants train at their own expense for their entire lives. A yeoman is a wealthy peasant that has enough land to make him middle class and therefor trustworthy enough to trust as a soldier due to the fact that is it in his best interest to preserve the status quo. This is because he has it better in England than any other nation would give him.

Long and Short Bows are cheep enough in the Real life middle ages that they are affordable by peasants. Due to how they are manufactured, crossbows should actually be more expensive than a longbow or shortbow but far cheeper than a composite bow.

***********************************************************************

Non-composite bows if you translated them into pathfinder money from medieval prices would translate into 6sp for a Long Bow, maybe 1gp. A longbow took 1 day or less to make, then they had to cure for 1 week before being ready for sale. I never adjust the pathfinder prices for the longbow as it is a peasants weapon and the cost would better reflect that those without money were the ones buying them. Those with money equipped as Heavy Infantry or Knights. Another factor that pathfinder does not account for is your average longbow had more hitting power than a comparable composite bows. Any bow should be strength ratable if crafted right, not just a composite bow.

Composite bows took a week to make and had to sit for 1 year before they were sold so their prices might be reasonable. They also needed dry climates or they might not cure right due to how long it took to cure. So your custom made mighty compost bow should take over a year to make from the time you paid for it, and would probably have to be imported from the middle east. Europe was to wet for composite bow manufacture. The advantage of a composite bow was in accuracy. They were a little more accurate due to lower strength requirements to draw the bow. Their hitting power was roughly the same as a short bow and less than a long bow. They were made of multiple materials bonded together over a long time period.
A composite bow relies on the bow itself acting as flexable spring to multiply the force drawn on it. The makers of composite bows did not have the quality of materials to make a good longbow. The solution was to make a composite material and rely of springiness to generate enough power. The Ash and Yew that a long bow uses can generate and handle more power hitting power than a composite material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amatsucan_the_First wrote:


Ah yes, the days when your character had to use what you found . . . No magic emporiums where the players say "I buy X" and the GM says "ok, Y gold."

The days when the wizards of the world prized their spells and rarely just shared or wrote scrolls for absolutely no reason.

The days when leveling was done in a way that made a bit of senes instead of just happening when the party camped. Where there were no 18th level sixteen years olds.

Their are some things in pathfinder that are different from standard in the game I run.

I treat treasure differently in my games vs pathfinder standard. I never liked the Magic emporium concept. And I typically add rare ingredients to magic items in place of gold cost. That way you have to adventure to go locate the ingredients to make the item in question.

Wizards don't often share spells in my games either. They give their apprentice the first level spells then make them discover the rest on their own.

I also favor using the Starting ages from the old 1st edition DMG for wizards. I can see the 18th level 16 year old sorcerer, but not a wizard. Starting them at 26 - 40 solves the I went from 1st to 18th in 6 months and am still only 16 years old issue.

The big thing I like about 1st/2nd edition, which was tackled in pathfinder is rate of advancement. 3rd edition was way to fast after 4th level. Going with medium and slow tracks lets me have more story arcs over the life of a character. It also solves many relative power issues that develop after 12 - 14th level by being able to get more story in fewer levels. I think pathfinder, like its AD&D Anscesters was most balanced between 5th and 12 levels.


KaptainKrunch wrote:

Prepared with Spontaneous Casting feats (Preferred Spell and Greater Spell Specialization.)

2 feats that make it into my wizard builds most of the time. As you typically only need 1 or 2 spells to blast effectively on occasions you need to.

And I agree with the oracle vs cleric. The oracle sacrifices to many spells to be a true substitute for a cleric.


Undone wrote:


In the context of the following each is best.

1) PFS- Wizard is vastly superior. 3-4 encounters per day combined with largely predictable opponents as no home brew monsters really make it into adventures.

Home game 15 minute a day DM- Obviously this favors the wizard.

Home game 5 combats a day - Likely limited to 12-15 rounds of combat unless the group is losing hideously. It's largely even at even levels and way behind on odd levels. We'll give the sorcerer this at even levels only.

Home game 10 combats a day - Sorcerer beats wizard but loses comically to the witch who's probably put 20-30 enemies to sleep with what amounts to a save or die SLA.

10 Combats a day on a regular basis that require buffs and actual crowd control spells is a bit much. Stuff like this is needed in big fights, not routine romps.

Undone wrote:


You mean overland flight, mage armor, blur, haste, darkvision, protection from arrows, stoneskin, heroism, and enlarge person? That's just a few but you get the point. The exclusive buffs are often the most powerful. (HASTE!)

Considering most of these would make it onto a sorcerers spell list, even a blasters spell list, I don't see the merits of a wiz over a sorc in this department. Blasting only works If you metamagic it up a significant amount. Once you are high enough level to be basting effectively, your low level spells are largely gonna be best used as buffs and come from this list anyhow.

A wizards only advantage here is they can afford to learn spells that wont be used often. They can take the spell that might be used 1 or 2 times in the campaign whereas a sorcerer can not afford to take it as a spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I started with First Edition AD&D also.

First Edition(And Second)was probably the best edition for a true role player. The less structured environment was nice for character ideas. Character creation was more about the character's concept and background and involved far less descision making with regards to actual mechanics. I think First and Second edition were far more new player friendly.

It also left a lot more open for a DM/GM to be inventive and improvise.

The only real things I would change about it are:
1) To make the casting system a Hybrid of Wizard and Sorcerer. Let a person spontaneous cast like a sorcerer but memorize what spells are available that day like a wizard. I would do this for all casters. No spell book means you can not reallocate what you have prepared.
2) Convert the basic mechanics to a d20 + bonus vs Target Number system like it is in pathfinder.
3) Maybe simplify the saving throws into 3 categories like 3.5/Pathfinder.

1st edition was all about making what you want using the existing materials. Weather you were making a witch, a Tolkien style Wizard, A monster summoner, or the next Elminster type. You used the magic user or illusionist.

Most new materials were meant to be campaign world supplements and adventures.

I don't see D&D/Pathfinder going back to this methodology completely ever. 3.5/Pathfinder are just to RPG developer friendly from the potential sales standpoint to make more options and rulebooks to sell.

*********************************************************************

Pathfinder was based on the 3rd edition model which is to sell more and more rulebooks and option book by making character creation more about mechanics. I don't think its better than 1st or 2nd edition, just different and not all in a good way. Some things are better in it though.

Having 3 saving throw catagories, Reflex, Fortitude, and Will is nicer.

D20 + bonus vs AC/Target Number is nice also.

But pathfinder/3rd edition also comes with a lot of baggage you just don't need. It also has many extra classes that don't really give that much extra to the game is one of them.

In all honesty, A barbarian could have been designed as a tree of feats that customize a fighter.

A sorcerer could have been designed as wizard that gives up the ability to memorize different spells to cast them more often. With bloodline powers being done as feats.

***********************************************************************
With Pathfinder Paizo is catering to moth mentalities by giving you both. Unfortunatly the Pathfinder, like 3rd edition, is not new player friendly due to character creation giving to many options for a new player to handle. This is mostly due to the feat system and a new player having no idea what feats are good and what ones are lemons.


Weather prepared or spontaneous casting is better can often depend on the DM and the Campaign.

Groups that are willing to spend time on recon and intelligence gathering will find a wizard to be the better option.

Groups that like to "wing it" will find a sorcerer better, but also put the group in a higher risk of Party Death due to sloppy and/or non-existent recon.

Undone wrote:


1a) Witch has free no SR sleep that it can spam all day. Neither the wizard or the sorc has this. Other than that the witch is a slightly more limited wizard.
1b) It's more expensive for the sorc to simply have all the buffs that the wizard will have by 3rd level. The wizard will be able to use the same gold to buy Pearls of power.
1c) Sorc only feats are abysmal. Wizard only feats are astonishingly powerful. Tangent wizards are better with metamagic thanks to more bonus feats and earlier spell progression.

You typically don't need the variety of a wizard if you plan the small selection you do have right. A number of your buffs are better handled by a cleric(Or Paladin) anyhow. And at 1st - 4th level you don't have spells to waste on buffs for either a wiz or sorc anyhow.

Undone wrote:


2a) First of all you agree at every odd level prepared casters are miles behind otherwise talking about this is pointless seeing as how they have MORE spells at odd levels and BETTER spells.
2b) This is only true of the base classes. The extra archetypes make up for it easily. Things like forgemaster, crusader, and so on give the cleric specialization too. If you wanted focus you can get more or less anything an oracle gets but have better casting.

At every odd level prepared spellcasters are 1 level ahead in the level spells they can cast. That gives prepared casters an edge at those levels. The only exceptions are 1st level and at 19 which most campaigns will never see.

Undone wrote:


3) Whu? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Example level 5 wizard vs level 5 sorc We'll use largely the same stat block swapping cha/int.

Human Wizard Conjuration specialist
STR: 7 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 21 WIS: 10 CHA: 10
Spells
1: 6 (3 + 2 bonus spells + 1 school)
2: 4 (2 + 1 bonus + 1 school)
3: 4 (1 + 1 bonus + 1 school + 1 bonded object)

Human Sorc
STR: 7 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 10 WIS: 10 CHA: 21
1: 8 (6 + 2 bonus spells)
2: 5 (4 + 1 bonus spell) Potentially 6 if you have a bonded object too.

So potentially if you're a specific type of sorc you can have the same amount of substantially worse magic. If you add 1 level the sorc gains 4 spells but the wizard STILL has more top level spell slots. A sorc has either equal or less magic and it's worse magic at odd levels. If you're at a PFS table prep is incredibly powerful as you can work with the table filling in holes like communal resist energy, fly, communal protection from evil without one person cluttering their list. If you play in a home game you'll get a feel for the type of monster your GM likes and can work around it.

Nice, the wizard fan picks the only level a wizard can exceed a sorcerer in the number of spells as his argument example. Try looking at all spell levels. At 1, 2, 5, and 7 a wiz can match or exceed by 1 the sorcerers spells if built right. At all other levels the sorcerers is ahead. Starting at 8th level the sorcerer pulls ahead and never falls behind again. At 20th level a sorcerer will have 8 additional spells per day over a bonded item wizard. By the time the sorcerer pulls appreciably ahead they both have 20+ spells a day its not a big factor as a result. And by the time it reaches its largest disparity at 20th level when you are talking 52 spells for wiz vs 60 spells for sorc per day its a down right non-issue.

Undone wrote:


4) I don't think wizards are blasters. I think they're worse wizards. Anything the sorc does the wizard does better, faster, and needs to do it less as a result. Metamagic? Wizard's better. Buffing? Wizard can have more and more diverse without cluttering his list. Have the right spell for the encounter? Oh wait the wizard has spont casting 1/day. Need to open a door trapped? Fill in a slot in 15 minutes. The problem with spamming a spell being good is that most spells should only need to be cast one time to radically alter or reshape a combat. Wall of stone. Why would you want to spam that? Or black tentacles or stinking cloud, or magic jar. The nature of spells is such that the first one has an immense impact. The second one is often redundant.

Both a wiz and sorc are best at different things, which is better depends largly on how you use them.

A sorcerer is a better blaster due to their spontaneous casting ability. Their greater spontious casting ability means that they can handle common situations that a wizard might not have forseen and planned for better. But they will never have the sheer variety of spells a wizard can have and therefor cant handle uncommon situations that call for nitch spells as well as a wizard.

A wizard is a better utility caster due to the much larger spell list they can maintain. They can also have situational spells in their spell book that can handle many situations that don't come up often that a sorcerer does not have the spell list to deal with.

Both can be very capable at any role if build right though.


Golarion in my opinion is most definitely a "Hyborianized" version Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Taldor = The Byzantine Empire
Cheliax and its other former component states. = The Collapsed western roman empire.

The rest of "Europe" consists of the Barbarian States, much like dark age Europe.

Some of the nations are a different.

A number of them are real world nation put in the "Ideal" time period for pathfinder adventures. Orisan and the Land if the Linoram Kings for example.

Some, like Irisen, are a real world based state put in a specific fantasy state. In Irisans case its what if Baba Yaga ruled Russia.


I agree with the Thassilonian idea. The tomb of a Thassilonian lich that had degenerated into a demilich over time would be a good link. Maybe Varisia or another nearby state that had anchient thessilonian influence.


Gorbacz wrote:

IIRC back in the Dragon & Dungeon era, Dungeon issues with high level adventures sold significantly worse than issues with lower-level ones, and that one issue with an Epic adventure was one of the worst sellers ever.

This may be part of it. Paizo did publish the magazine for a while and therefor have a good idea what will sell.

Another fact is that in order to challenge a group you have to have a good idea what a party is capable of. Most campaigns I see typically break up and reboot to a new party sometime in the early teens. Also look at the monster lists in the Bestiaries. The percentage of high level critters that would be a good threat to a level 20 party is pretty thin.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I dont think there'll be many more AD&D releases (although there are lots and lots of PDFs available again). They've basically spent this year releasing commemorative hardcovers of 0E, 1E, 2E and 3E books. Towards the end of the year, they're starting to release new adventures (showcases of D&D:Next, but possibly also with a 'system agnostic' approach if some of the internet discussion is to be believed).

I suspect these books were a gap-filler whilst D&D:Next was being playtested, not a new direction. Probably with a view to engage the old school crowd and get them to have a look at Next. As the new system gets ready for launch, I suspect the number of reprints will drop off.

They might not necessarily be just a gap-filler only. Against the Slave lords is playable with D&D Next according to the back sheet that is over its back cover in its packaging.

D&D next is supposed to be able to be played with older editions material. It would be a good way to get ready made material on the market that would be playable with D&D next when its released and still appeal to older edition fans in the meantime. And for many D&D next players, these classic adventures are new.


I would allow the PC's to think they are working with her all the while she is luring them into deathtrap after deathtrap until they are dead or they decide to get back to fighting for the intended side.

Either that or I would force all the PC's to allow her to charm them and put a Geas on them to garuntee their loyalty. If they allow it, I then tell them to make new characters as their old ones are now Evil NPC thralls to the queen who have lost all independent will and thought.


Enocelot wrote:

How can 250 population per lot be correct? (Page 212 of Ultimate Campaign)

I am using 18 to 20 population per lot (and even that is a stretch in small or new conurbations), in building my world, until one of you sages here explain to me what I am missing....and I certainly must be missing something.

Thanks in advance!

In the real middle ages a typical city had about 4 - 5 people per building. About 38000 people per square mile was the average medieval urban population.

250 meters x 250 meters is about the size of 2 - 3 city blocks. When compared to the RL population in a medieval city it should have a population closer to 950 people.


captain yesterday wrote:


my question is, is this a recurring problem with gamers as a whole or just in the midwest?
do gamers use their characters to act out their deep down racism and sexism, cause it kinda seems that way from my seat.

and thats really, really disappointing because in my youth it seemed that gamers were a more liberal forward thinking bunch then the general populace.

Most gamers come from the more intellectual side of society which is where your more of your liberal minded forward thinking people come from.

But now in the modern times of everyone being shoved through collage weather they should be their or not in order for the schools to make more money, you have the side effect of an increase presence of the evil side of humanity in the pool of people that gamers are attracted from.
Their has also been a dumbing down and attempted mainstreaming of RPG games by some companies. D&D/Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro comes to mind. This has been an effort to attract more players from other, less traditional gamer walks of life, to expand the customer base.


captain yesterday wrote:

it seems like it happens a lot in RPGs where people decide that their character should be a racist misogynistic d-bag, and then use the "but its in my backstory" card when i ask them about it

why does every Barbarian or other fringe type PC have to be like that?
i'm all for coming up with compelling backstories, it makes my job easier. racism and misogyny is not compelling, its just offensive and tends to put gamers in a bad mood when the Barbarian wont listen to the wizard PC because "she's a southern wench"

my question is, is this a recurring problem with gamers as a whole or just in the midwest?
do gamers use their characters to act out their deep down racism and sexism, cause it kinda seems that way from my seat.

and thats really, really disappointing because in my youth it seemed that gamers were a more liberal forward thinking bunch then the general populace.

do woman gamers run into this a lot, does it turn them off from gaming?
how as a GM do you deal with this?

Its could easily be a player who is getting very heavily into their character. Barbarians have a big distrust of magic and foreigners in most players minds. Its the stereotype of a barbarian and a lot of their rage powers reflect it. As a result the players have a vision of how a primitive culture and therefor their character should act. This combined with people making characters from widely different cultures encourages this behavior. This attitude was derived from Conan the Barbarian(Shwartzniger version), the father of the modern fantasy barbarian archtype.

Its also a side effect of allowing characters from widely different cultures. Its realistic and makes for interesting roleplaying. This is behavior that should mitigate over time.

Later in the campaign the barbarian may learn to trust the wizard and realize she is capable. Conversly it can also turn worse. It all depends of how both characters roleplay in relation to one another, and what the characters do to prove their worth. Thisis called character development. The characters from widely difference cultures should be a motly crew of 1st level misfits in the beginning who have personality clashes. Then later they become unlikely friends who learn to work flawlessly together once they learn what each other does and and respect for their capabilities.

If the wizard gets the barbarian in her spell areas, she may be dead meat. If she proves helpful without hindering him they may become good friends in the future.

*********************************************************************

If you want party harmony, don't allow such a cultural variety. Have everyone from 1 small area, likely 1 town or village. Have them all make their characters as having been fiends in the past.

As a Dungeon Master its your responsibility to work with the player to make an acceptable background and personality. If you don't like the character at any step of the process tell them the character is not acceptable. This process should include the history, personality, and general appearance of the character and should go deep enough to root out racist sentiments and other hatreds or fears a character might possess.


thejeff wrote:
bk007dragon wrote:
Trinite wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trinite wrote:

As several people have said, having productive farmland be incredibly expensive, far beyond the means of most farmers, is actually quite historically accurate. Owning significant amounts of farmland is pretty much what made you an aristocrat.

And if you *did* happen to be a small landowner who worked your own land, it was because your long-ago ancestors got it for free, or else you managed to acquire it through non-financial means (e.g. getting a land grant for serving in the army).

OTOH, having land be worth vastly more than can possibly be earned from it in a lifetime of farming is nonsensical. At least in an agricultural economy. If I have a choice between earning say 200 gp a year from my land (not counting living expenses and the like) and selling the land for ~10000gp, which would be enough to live on for 50 years?

Let's just set aside the question of whether you could find a buyer, or whether 10,000 gp really would be the sale price.

Even if you could get 10,000 gp for it, you're not just selling 50 years' worth of production. You're selling your children's and grandchildren's and great granchildren's livelihood, security, and social status.

So you've got 10,000 gp. If you can't find a way to ensure that your 10,000 gp will keep your family fed, clothed, and out of slavery for three generations, you've made a bad deal.

Trinite is right. 10,000 GP cant buy you food in a famine year when their is no food to be bought cause the farmers and noble lords don't have any surplus to sell at the market. To a farmer in premodern times the land was security, its a sure thing.

Are we still talking about PF? Cause food prices are fixed. Along with land prices. That's the root of the problem.

But even in a more realistic world, 10,000gp buys you thugs who can take the food.:)

Would they be fixed?? Or would the GM have to make a descision about how it works in his game. Just because your GM does not have occasional fluxuations to account for famine or other adventure related events that might affect something does not mean all GM's do.

In one game I ran, for a while prices of food went up for a few months because bandits had prevented many of the farmers from selling their harvest to towns.

And 10,000 GP will buy you thugs who take the food and your money and if they get caught point to you as the person who hired them. In any event they don't give you the food as if you were strong enough to beat the thugs you would have done the jub yourself.


thejeff wrote:
bk007dragon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bk007dragon wrote:
Pagan priest wrote:


A yeoman farmer, a peasant just wealthy enough to own enough land to feed himself, his wife and a couple of kids, will need about 25 acres of farmland. One acre of farmland is about 43,560 square feet or 1742 squares of 5' x 5'.

But the yeoman cant sell the land, its not actually his own property.

The yeoman's lord owns the land not the yeoman. The yeoman holds a mini-fief from his lord in exchange for military service as an archer or infantry depending on culture and era.

Technically, in the Middle Ages, the only one who had actual ownership of the land was the King. Everyone else was a vassal to either the king, or one of the kings vassals.

This is a vast overgeneralization.

That's classic theoretical feudalism, true.

But it didn't work so purely everywhere, even in Europe, or over the whole period.

And it's only vaguely applicable to Golarion. Much of which is definitely not feudal.

A yeoman is a feudal rank denoting a middle class vassal holding 30 to 120 acres of land from a knight in exchange for military service. Enough to be an infantry soldier but not enough to support oneself as a knight. If you are a yeoman it is because you are in a feudal society. Therefore a Yeoman can not sell their land, it would revert to their lord.

In a non-feudal society they would not be a yeoman.

Fair enough. In a strictly technical sense.

Though the bit about everyone in the Middle Ages being vassals except for the King was what I really was talking about.

Not everyone, just landholders.

City Dwellers such as Merchants, Craftsmen and such were not vassals. But neither do they own any land to sell. It still technically all belongs to the king. They pay rent to the city. The city government is a vassal to the king though.

Now, as far as Golarion goes, non-feuldal societies are a different animal. A lower class farmer who owns 25 arces would be free to sell to whoever they desired in a nation like Andoran or Galt.


Trinite wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trinite wrote:

As several people have said, having productive farmland be incredibly expensive, far beyond the means of most farmers, is actually quite historically accurate. Owning significant amounts of farmland is pretty much what made you an aristocrat.

And if you *did* happen to be a small landowner who worked your own land, it was because your long-ago ancestors got it for free, or else you managed to acquire it through non-financial means (e.g. getting a land grant for serving in the army).

OTOH, having land be worth vastly more than can possibly be earned from it in a lifetime of farming is nonsensical. At least in an agricultural economy. If I have a choice between earning say 200 gp a year from my land (not counting living expenses and the like) and selling the land for ~10000gp, which would be enough to live on for 50 years?

Let's just set aside the question of whether you could find a buyer, or whether 10,000 gp really would be the sale price.

Even if you could get 10,000 gp for it, you're not just selling 50 years' worth of production. You're selling your children's and grandchildren's and great granchildren's livelihood, security, and social status.

So you've got 10,000 gp. If you can't find a way to ensure that your 10,000 gp will keep your family fed, clothed, and out of slavery for three generations, you've made a bad deal.

Trinite is right. 10,000 GP cant buy you food in a famine year when their is no food to be bought cause the farmers and noble lords don't have any surplus to sell at the market. To a farmer in premodern times the land was security, its a sure thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
bk007dragon wrote:
Pagan priest wrote:


A yeoman farmer, a peasant just wealthy enough to own enough land to feed himself, his wife and a couple of kids, will need about 25 acres of farmland. One acre of farmland is about 43,560 square feet or 1742 squares of 5' x 5'.

But the yeoman cant sell the land, its not actually his own property.

The yeoman's lord owns the land not the yeoman. The yeoman holds a mini-fief from his lord in exchange for military service as an archer or infantry depending on culture and era.

Technically, in the Middle Ages, the only one who had actual ownership of the land was the King. Everyone else was a vassal to either the king, or one of the kings vassals.

This is a vast overgeneralization.

That's classic theoretical feudalism, true.

But it didn't work so purely everywhere, even in Europe, or over the whole period.

And it's only vaguely applicable to Golarion. Much of which is definitely not feudal.

A yeoman is a feudal rank denoting a middle class vassal holding 30 to 120 acres of land from a knight in exchange for military service. Enough to be an infantry soldier but not enough to support oneself as a knight. If you are a yeoman it is because you are in a feudal society. Therefore a Yeoman can not sell their land, it would revert to their lord.

In a non-feudal society they would not be a yeoman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Hey, the wealth rules don't work in a 3.x variant. That's unbelievable! I mean, it's been true for 13 years, but still! Unbelievable!

I actually don't have many problems with money in 3E/Pathfinder. Most "complaints" I see run along the lines of:

  • If you spend 8 hours a day doing something, people will pay you for it and you can make money FOREVER!!! (In modern terms, we call that "having a job".)
  • Some things in D&D are incredibly expensive and poor people would never be able to afford them!!! (I feel the same way when I pass a Bentley or Lamborghini dealership...)
    However, I agree with the original poster that prices for land and buildings have always been on the high side in D&D. I imagine that's supposed to make it challenging for adventurers to buy real estate, but that makes no sense when you consider that by level 5 (or whatever), most adventurers are the equivalent of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.
  • Not even close. At level 5 your WLB is 10.500 gp. My group dis some math, a gp is worth about 50 €, so we are speaking of about 50.000€ or about 65.000 $, nice but nothing more.

    Even the WBL of a 20th level character isn't much. 880.000 gp. Less than 6.000.000 $.

    I did some math my self. I compared known medieval costs of grain and alcohol from the actual middle ages to pathfinders costs and it comes out to about 1.7 silver pieces = 1 Pence.

    1 quarter of grain costs 2 shillings and 2 pence in London.( A real medieval price) 1 Quarter = 8 Bushels = about 448 pounds weight = 448 copper pieces in pathfinder(1# grain = 1cp). 26 pence = 448 Copper Pieces.

    17.230769230769 Coppers per pence.

    10,500 GP at lvl 5 would make a character worth just under 254 Medieval Pounds.

    A 20th level character would be worth about 21,280 medieval English pounds.

    For Comparison the crown revenues of England in the reign of Edward I was about 30,000 pounds per year.

    That would place a value of about 24 - 48 gold pieces to 1 Real Life Medieval Pound.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pagan priest wrote:


    A yeoman farmer, a peasant just wealthy enough to own enough land to feed himself, his wife and a couple of kids, will need about 25 acres of farmland. One acre of farmland is about 43,560 square feet or 1742 squares of 5' x 5'.
    /QUOTE]

    But the yeoman cant sell the land, its not actually his own property.

    The yeoman's lord owns the land not the yeoman. The yeoman holds a mini-fief from his lord in exchange for military service as an archer or infantry depending on culture and era.

    Technically, in the Middle Ages, the only one who had actual ownership of the land was the King. Everyone else was a vassal to either the king, or one of the kings vassals.

    Pagan priest wrote:


    Historical notes:
    It takes about 11 bushels of wheat to make the grain for a person to have their daily bread for a year. Wheat returns about 4 bushels of grain per acre, after you pull out next year's seed grain. Assuming 2 adults and several kids that eating like 2 more adults means that the family needs about 11 acres of wheat. Using the price given in the Core Rulebook, wheat costs 240cp per acre, or 26 gold and 4 silver for the family's initial seed grain.

    Not a complaint, just an observation...

    A yeoman in medieval England would hold between 30 and 120 acres.

    A bushel is about 56 pounds. Yields of 4 bushels per bushel of seed were actually pretty low. But yields could vary considerably by the land used and some yields of as high as 8+:1 were reported on some church lands. Also some sources indicate they planted 2 Bushels seed per acre and got 8 per acre yield. Yield also varied considerably by the amount of land owned. They typically planted 2/3 of the fields each year. Also wheat was a cash crop. The Yeoman would eat Rye, barley, and/or oats.

    Using your statistics:
    56 pounds(the weight of a bushel of grain) x (4 - 1 bushels) x 30 acres x 2/3 = 3360 pounds of grain. That does not include the yeomans garden or his animals.

    That means 33.6 gold pieces produced after setting aside next years seed. The cost of living of a Peasant is about 3 GP/month or 36 GP a year. Not really far off.

    And once you account for the:
    1) The Fact that smaller populations mean more land for the peasants
    2) Yields would be higher in a fantasy words where gods blessing the crops of god-faring peasants has a measurable impact. (Church lands were getting yields closer to 8:1 or 10:1 historically.) The church tended to use state of the art techniques but the peasants were often not taught these new techniques.
    3) Their is some indication that 2 Bushels were planted per acre for a yield of 8 Bushels making it 6 profit.

    So that would make cash value of crops closer to 67.2 to 100.8 GP on 30 acres.

    This would make the cost of living costs given by Paizo in the Core Book accuracy with regards to peasant income.

    On a side note, 1 Pathfinder Silver Piece would be about the value of 1 real life Pence in medieval England. 1 medieval English pound would be roughly 24 Gold Pieces in pathfinder.


    As a GM. I recommend wrighting as much background as you desire, but give the GM a 1 or 2 page type written background touching the key points. If the GM likes the idea of a 10 + page novel then you can give him the larger version. The longer background is not wasted. Wrighting it has revealed a lot of your characters personality and how they typically react in situations. Such information is invaluable to making a strong, consistant, and well roleplayed character.

    One player wrote me a 3 page background and he is going to be rewarded by stories revolving around his background as it gave me ideas that work well in my campaign environment.

    The rest I made roll on the Ultimate Campaign charts last night as they provided nothing in the way of background.


    In real life polearmsman and LongSpearmen tended to carry a backupweapon such as a sword, mace, battleaxe, Warhammer, etc.

    Hold your polarm in your off hand and use a short sword or dagger for close in work, armor spikes can work also, but shord blades like a dagger or shord sword have more out of combat utility uses also.

    Even the mightyest of knights carried a dagger for emergencies.