denaekall's page

While you are right about the "unique cookies" aspect, my meaning behind the DM "ruling on the fly" was meant in terms of player initiative rather than creativity.

ie: player comes up with something you really did not expect.

3.5/Pathfinder has a lot more ruling to it to make the DM's job easier in such cases while 4E was not as through. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy 4E greatly. I just admit that it is a strength of 3.5 over it.

I love being a DM. I love crafting stories that my players talk about for weeks (years in some cases, no over exaggeration) and I am glad that the game (both of them) encourages that greatly.

At the same time, I am also glad for any tools to make my job easier provided by the game itself. Thus, my asking if Pathfinder has done much to make our jobs easier.

My game group thanks you dearly for all the work you have put forward on this project.

I agree that a lot of the ease of DMing 4E was that many options were taken away and I cringe at the thought of it going that far in Pathfinder, but I was hoping for a little more than what 3.5 had going for it. Story is forever and always the most important thing to me as a DM, the story of the PCs. However, in both systems, the game itself has interfered with the story.

EX: 3.5 D&D, so much mostly irrelevant legwork that it could interfere with the story of your game. (choice of appropriate monster or creation of an NPC, determining treasure using their random system, various exceptions to rules, etc)

EX: 4E D&D, so simplistic that it requires the DM to do a lot more on the fly and thus detracts from the story. This and general lack of options, even when simply comparing Players Handbooks.

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I am hoping for something in between the two. I will honestly admit that I do not know entirely what I would want from it (specifics anyway). Really, all I am hoping for is that the developers of Pathfinder think of us while designing the game, not just the PCs. I have great faith that they are, but it is still a concern of mine.

And yes, the EXP charts are much easier. They are a great improvement. This lending proof that they are thinking of us, which makes me happy.

Another thing is monster design. If they are using the same setup as the example NPC in the Beta version, then I will be happy with that as well. This will alleviate another concern I had which was the overly complicated nature of some 3rd edition monsters. Again, 4E made them easier to run, but took so much away from them that it was not the same.

As is most likely clear by now, I am merely expressing concern for what might have been. Evidence thus far has been clearly non-confirming of my worries, which I am very glad for. As the product has yet to fully see the light of day, we can all hope that it turns out as good as we think that it will.

Well, I have now begun to use Pathfinder for my regular games and my players are in love with it. The new class options and the feel of increased effectiveness at lower levels (especially 1st) have them all practically giddy (even the ones who could not make the game and are still just reading up on the game and its changes from 3.5).

Well, I ran across a mild frustration with it as the Game Master. That being: it did not feel as though much had changed on our end. It had all of the complications of 3.5 edition.

What has changed?

The game is still very good and I did enjoy it, but I will give 4E D&D credit where it is due and say that it made my job a whole lot easier. I am just wondering where Pathfinder made any improvement on the Game Mastering side of the game. How has Pathfinder improved or hindered anyone else who runs the game.

Giving more options to the players is wonderful and I approve of Pathfinder as a whole and will continue to run the game, but I wish to know if any Pathfinder love is being sent in the direction of the Game Master.

Thoughts?

In the end, yes, it basically comes down to what each DM sees for their game and how they want to run it. If it comes to it, I will simply "houserule it and move on." I simply wished to get feedback from the gaming community.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

I also wish to make note that I do not ask this so that any of my players can play an evil Pally. Rather, it is for NPC villains.

Sorry nothing. I wholly enjoyed reading your post. You had some very good notions and ideas to why the Pally is Lawful Good and I respect them and hope to get some of my players to read them.

However, I must also admit that I disagree. I see Paladins in a different light. To me (and my understanding of the game) Paladins are the holy champions of the gods. They are the sword and the shield of the gods while the Clerics are the heart and mind. It is in this light that I ask why other gods cannot have Paladins in service to them.

While this is largely a question of flavor, it is also one of mechanics. Why can't someone who is playing Neutral Good (True Good) be a holy champion of goodness who swings a sword, heals the wounded, and summons a celestial companion on which to ride into battle against the forces of evil. Now, it is true that one can do this through the use of the Cleric, but I still see this as unfair.

In all, my true question is why are there no Lawful Evil Paladins who share the same conviction that Lawful Good Paladins do, only bent towards evil? The Blackguard turned into a base class, in essence. A Lawful Evil Paladin.

I envision an epic battle waged against two holy warriors, one good and one evil. Each calling on the power of their faith and conviction to smite down the other. This could be a battle between Clerics, but I see the Paladins when I think of this.

I must also make note that I have never really been able to see the "no need for a god" for Clerics or Paladins. To me, divine magic flows from the gods, not from one's own believe in a higher calling. I do rule that players in my games who call on divine magic must choose a god (yes, even Druids). This may be a little harsh and I know that there are many who disagree with me, but please look that this matter from this perspective as well, for I know I am not the only GM to enforce such a ruling.

Personally, I have always hated the fact that Paladins are restricted to Lawful Good. I have found it strange that only gods of the Lawful Good alignment can have such faithful servants.

I would like so see a ruling where the Paladin must be of the same alignment of their chosen god or goddess and their channeling/lay on hands power is derived the same way as a Clerics (ie: evil paladin's can sear the flesh from your bones with a touch or steal the life from their foes by calling out to their god).

Am I alone on this one?

Why do good guys get Paladins and bad guys just get evil clerics and fighters (or multiclass there-of for an "evil pally" feel).

My roommate (and most dedicated player) has just reminded me of something that may work well to solve this problem for Pathfinder.

The Racial Class levels introduced in Savage Species and used later for such races as the drow in the Drow of the Underdark book.

This system gives players the option of playing their more powerful races from the get-go without taking away from other players who just want to play something a bit more standard.

Personally, I think this would solve the problem of Racial Hit Dice and Level Adjustment altogether. Although it would require a separate book, as all of that info would not fit into the PFRPG Monster book. This would give them another way to imbibe on more of our money and thus let Pathfinder grow.

No, we have the same Beta version. I did not have the book in front of me at the time and was going off of memory and apparently was not remembering Pathfinder.

Thanks for the help. Personally, I do not think it breaks the balance yet, but I have yet to see this (house) ruling used for Clerics, Sorcerers, or Wizards. Only with Bards and Druids. We shall see (I hope) in a few hours when my normal game is held.

Thanks again.

PATHFINDER RULES!!!!

A question I have run into involves low level spellcasters and the bonus spells they gain for having a high score in their magic related stat.

At first level, Bards gain no level 1 spells but can still cast some if they have bonus level 1 spells for having a high charisma.

Can this be done with the higher level spell slots?

EX: that same Bard has a Charisma score of 20, giving him 2 bonus first level spells and a single bonus spell of levels 2-5. Could they use these bonus spells (the ones of level 2-5) to cast his level 1 spells (as players can use higher level slots to cast lower level spells as per the rules)?

In 3.5 this was a negative and was marked as so by having a "-" in the levels of spells you could not access and a "0" in spell levels you could access if you had bonus spells. Pathfinder does not mark it as such.

Just looking for confirmation. Thanks.

On a playtesting note, my group has gone ahead and allowed the use of more spells (thus the Cha 20 Bard can cast 6 level 1 spells per day rather than 2) and it has not caused any problems so far. In fact it has made the spellcasting classes more enticing for low level games.

Going epic was the worst thing to ever happen to my group. Once they hit 20th level they began casting there eyes towards the dust covered Epic Handbook that was put out in 3.0 for more ideas than the 3.5 DMG gave them. All was well for a while, they leveled once or twice more (the highest we ever got was 24th level) and then they began to fight more epic creatures.

Well, there were not enough epic creatures of appropriate CR for them and they quickly grew tired of those that already existed. They loved the leveled up monsters I threw at them (a 22nd level Goblin was a fun bit, no explanation for him, he was just fun) and they adored the epic magical items.

However, the game very quickly fell apart as they ran out of material. Nothing was a challenge anymore except for creatures that would wipe them out in a single round (the Phane). Eventually we all agreed that it was just time to let those characters retire and start again and in all truth, that is what I feel about epic characters as a whole.

We (my game group) is starting out first Pathfinder game this weekend (and I am really sorry I did not find out about this wonderful thing earlier one, like during actual beta testing) and already the question of Practiced Spellcaster has come up.

My ruling on it was that it increases your relative caster level, but does not grant you the benifits of having levels in the class. Meaning: a 4th level Wizard/4th level Fighter could take Practiced Spellcaster: Wizard and be considered an 8th level Wizard/4th level Fighter in terms of how much damage his Burning Hands spell will do, but he does not get the benifit of having those Wizard levels for determining what abilities he has from his chosen specialty in magic or the powers of his familiar.

This ruling has worked so far.

Personally, I have always found the LA/HD rules in 3.5 to be a bit overencumbering. One of the things I feel that 4E did right was getting rid of them all together and I hope that Pathfinder does the same.

With the increase in power of the basic races out of the main book I think that some creatures such as aasimar, tiefling, drow, and the other +1 or +2 LA creatures will be fully playable without any need for such a system. I just worry about some of the other creatures that have always proved popular with my players such as the centaur and the minotaur. I hope that they can do the same with them to make them readily available as players.

I say do away with Level Adjustment!