die_kluge's page

If you are a player in my PbP - get out. I don't think any of them are on these boards, but you never know...

Brief summary. The party is on a flat boat traveling a river, and their boat captain uses a long pole to navigate. On this pole, has tied a human skull for decoration - a skull he found on a river bank years ago. He never found the rest of the body.

I was thinking it would be cool to drop some hints that maybe the party could cast Speak with Dead on the skull, and learn something interesting.

The party is 5th level.

Any ideas what the skull has to say?

Hi there Everybody,

Jason - any sense of how much of a difference there is between the final product and the Beta product?

I mean - what will compel people to buy the final product if the Beta is free?

In other words - sell me on the final product. :)

Darrien wrote:

die_kluge wrote:

Flourishing Rose Petals

Aura faint universal; CL 3rd
Slot –; Price 3,200 gp; Weight ½ lb.
DESCRIPTION
Legends speak of a sorceress so vain she decided the ground itself was not deserving of her feet - so she created magic rose petals that would flitter on the ground before her, ensuring she always stepped on them. Such petals often come in a scented silk bag containing a couple of fistfuls of rose petals. The magic takes effect after the petals have been scattered on the ground. As the owner walks, the petals flitter into the air and land in front of the owner to be stepped on again. The petals try to land in the direction the owner is facing. Complex maneuvers confuse the petals, but they catch up over time – but they only move 30’ a round. A command word forces all the petals back into the pouch. When motionless, they scatter in a 10’ radius around the owner. The petals do not function in water, or during flight.
Flourishing rose petals provide a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, prestidigitation; Cost 1,600 gp

I like the item. Nice visuals, the back story while unnecessary is not overdone in my opinion.

I would probably go with Aura faint enchantment
I realize the spell used in construction is prestidigitation, a universal spell, but the effect of the item, other than coolness, is certainly in the enchantment vein, bordering on enchantment (charm).

I think that generally, the aura is mostly important to someone detecting magic to figure out what exactly the item does. I believe a magic items aura should reflect the power of the item, regardless of the auras of the spell(s) that are used in the construction.

For example, if a character constructed an item that brought a dead character back to life, but the spell used in the construction was wish rather than resurrection, as a GM, I would have the item radiate conjuration (healing)...

I think you misunderstand - perhaps why my item failed. The rose petals don't confer any special ability in how you walk. They simply land on the ground in front of you. If you were walking lava - you'd have to have the ability to walk on lava - the rose petals don't grant any special abilities to walk on water, walls, or anything else. They simply follow you around and litter themselves on the ground before you.

Which is why if you're flying, you're probably going to leave them all behind. If you're swimming, they're just going to float on the surface. If you're on lava, well they're going to incinerate.

If you teleport, I don't know. I guess that's a GM's call. I envision certain scenarios happening - dimension door, or teleport, for example, which leave the rose petals "stranded" - and they then collectively wander aimlessly.

In fact, this could be a random encounter - the group encounters a small "whirlwind" of rose petals flitting about randomly - searching for their previous owner. Collect them all, and put them in a bag, and then you can use them yourself.

I would appreciate some peer review comments as well.

Flourishing Rose Petals
Aura faint universal; CL 3rd
Slot –; Price 3,200 gp; Weight ½ lb.
DESCRIPTION
Legends speak of a sorceress so vain she decided the ground itself was not deserving of her feet - so she created magic rose petals that would flitter on the ground before her, ensuring she always stepped on them. Such petals often come in a scented silk bag containing a couple of fistfuls of rose petals. The magic takes effect after the petals have been scattered on the ground. As the owner walks, the petals flitter into the air and land in front of the owner to be stepped on again. The petals try to land in the direction the owner is facing. Complex maneuvers confuse the petals, but they catch up over time – but they only move 30’ a round. A command word forces all the petals back into the pouch. When motionless, they scatter in a 10’ radius around the owner. The petals do not function in water, or during flight.
Flourishing rose petals provide a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, prestidigitation; Cost 1,600 gp

Clark - thanks. Also, no need to hold anything back. I can handle it. :)

Flourishing Rose Petals
Aura faint universal; CL 3rd
Slot –; Price 3,200 gp; Weight ½ lb.
DESCRIPTION
Legends speak of a sorceress so vain she decided the ground itself was not deserving of her feet - so she created magic rose petals that would flitter on the ground before her, ensuring she always stepped on them. Such petals often come in a scented silk bag containing a couple of fistfuls of rose petals. The magic takes effect after the petals have been scattered on the ground. As the owner walks, the petals flitter into the air and land in front of the owner to be stepped on again. The petals try to land in the direction the owner is facing. Complex maneuvers confuse the petals, but they catch up over time – but they only move 30’ a round. A command word forces all the petals back into the pouch. When motionless, they scatter in a 10’ radius around the owner. The petals do not function in water, or during flight.
Flourishing rose petals provide a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, prestidigitation; Cost 1,600 gp

Here's the story thus far:

What I wrote to my player:

The book is written in Draconic. You read the first page and it basically gives a brief background of someone or something named Shelatrox, the gleaming. Shelatrox describes growing up in a beautiful mountain range in a place you've never heard of.

The story covers some of this backstory, and then gets into a complicated bit about how Shelatrox summoned a Janni - a type of Djinni, and ended up earning the enmity of an Efreeti in the process. The Efreeti sought revenge against Shelatrox, and created an elaborate trap - a trap which caused Shelatrox to be stuck in a pocket dimension, unable to escape.

There, he's been stuck for countless years, surviving only through his ability to summon creatures to his aid - and his ability to summon Jannis, which have the ability to create food and water for him, an ability which he lacks himself, as he is an arcane spellcaster, not a divine spellcaster.

Shelatrox goes on to describe how he created three identical books - destroying his own spellbook in the process in order to do so, save for retaining only those spells he deemed critical for his survival. These three books - one of which you are reading currently, were created in order to compel someone, somewhere to follow his instructions to free him from his pocket prison.

Furthermore, he apologizes for the compulsions placed upon you, but he indicates that his very survival is at risk, and he must do what he can to ensure his escape, even at the cost of the free will of whomever might read the tome.

Next, Shelatrox describes a process he wishes for you to complete.

First, cast a rope trick spell.

Secondly, climb into it.

Third, cast hold portal on the door of the rope trick sealing yourself inside. At this point, Shelatrox goes into some weird arcane theory about how this shouldn't theoretically work since a rope trick doesn't actually have a door, and attempts to explain it - a very complicated section which ends up giving you a slight headache.
But also gives you a permanent +1 to Spellcraft and Knowledge(Arcana)

Next, cast another rope trick inside this rope trick. Again, Shelatrox goes into a very deep philosophical discussion describing how most arcane theorists would suggest that this would be an extremely bad idea, but he reassures you, and suggests that it's a plausible and effective way of gaining access to otherwise closed off pocket dimensions. The entire section reads like stereo instructions (but you are compelled to read it), but after reading it, you gain some insight into the nature of the cosmos, gaining a permanent +1 to knowledge(planes) (and it becomes a class skill)

Lastly, he instructs you to cast the spell which he has prepared for you, and can be found at the back of the book. He asks that you tear the page out, and then cast it - as it is an independent scroll which can be cast by any arcane spellcaster. Once inside the second rope trick area, cast this scroll, and it will open up a new area, which will lead you to Shelatrox.

You hastily flip to the back of the book and find the page missing.

____________

Basically, the book casts three spells:
Lesser Geas
Delusion - a spell of my own invention
and charm person - the last attempts to convince the reader the book is their best friend, essentially.

The lesser geas compells the reader to "read the book; do what it says". Since it's all written in Draconic, the hope is that a spellcaster would read it - one who could cast the required spells.

Delusion (4th level enchantment) basically places the victim into a delusional state. In this case, the recipient believes that everyone around them is potentially capable and willing to taking the book away from her.

Shelatrox is a brass dragon isolated in a pocket dimension. I haven't decided on the details on that yet. I was debating with the idea of Shelatrox being LONG dead ages ago. Otherwise, I have to deal with the possibility that my players free him and then release an ancient wyrm brass dragon into the land (in an E8 game no less) who then owes them a big debt.

Of course, in an E8 game, I'll probably scale the dragons back, to where an ancient wyrm could actually be defeated by an 8th level party, albeit with difficulty. Still, I decided that he could summon a Janni with Summon Monster V, so it's likely that the dragon is/was merely an adult dragon, with the ability to cast 5th level spells.

All amazing ideas.

Some of them aren't quite feasible (the recreation of murders, for example - the town is only about 1,000 people total).

I'm liking the idea of a silver dragon trapped in a pocket dimension somewhere, and when the ritual is complete, perhaps a portal opens, where the PCs can travel to some sort of prison on the astral plane, and perform another ritual there, to release the dragon.

This would have to be a relatively easy ritual, since the party is only 4th level currently.

Still, it's better than what I had originally, which was next to nothing.

What is the relationship to the PCs?

Is this a single encounter, an adventure or the beginning of a campaign?

Are the PCs meant to help him in his completion of the book-geas; or stop him from accomplishing it?

His relationship is acquaintance. He runs the map and book store in town, where the PCs are based. He is the older brother of the town's mayor, a female paladin who has helped the party (and continues to do so) with information on some quests they are working on.

This is a side-quest, but it can be as insignificant, or complex as I want it to be. The campaign is a sandbox - the PCs go where the action is. And they're currently investigating this, since they know something isn't right here. Plus, they'd like to help the mayor, since she's been so helpful.

Either/or. I hadn't considered the angle of "helping" him finish it. Though, that seems a little odd - most "good" scenarios wouldn't involve a book that would force someone to do it. I was thinking - planar entity wants to return to the material, and somehow got a magic book created that would somehow ensure that that would happen, and said entity saw to it that the book ended up on the material plane, where it would (hopefully) force someone into doing the deed.

It would be kind of odd that a book that forced someone to complete a task would somehow be happy with the end result. :)

(If you're a player in my CircvsMaximvs.com PbP - stay out!)

So, in my game, the local book dealer has a book - a strange book that he keeps close by, and he's become a recluse, and "odd". His sister, a paladin who is also the mayor of the town, gave up adventuring to take care of him. He doesn't cook, he doesn't clean - he just reads. His store is a mess, and he neglects anything that doesn't involve staying in his store, and reading.

The book in question, I'm reasoning, casts lesser geas on him every time he reads it. Basically, the book is a use-activated item that casts lesser gears 1/day on the target. The geas is to basically read the book, and since reading the book (which is written in Draconic) requires more than one day, the poor chap is always under the effects of the geas spell.

It's basically made the guy crazy, and a little paranoid.

I'm reasoning that the geas basically says "read the book, and do what it says." So, he's got the reading of the book down, but it's the doing what it says part that has him stymied.

I was thinking that the book could be some sort of ritual to summon a creature - it could be anything. But, since he's not a spellcaster (just a scholar who happens to read Draconic) he's managed to set up some sort of makeshift summoning circle (perhaps one he keeps hidden from his sister somehow) but casting the proper spells is an aspect of the ritual he is unable to complete. Since the geas can't penalize him for not doing things he is unable to do, he's floundered on this aspect of the geas, and repeats the other aspects of it (perhaps cleansing objects necessary for the ritual, etc.) over and over again. Apparently, he's been doing this for years now.

Any other ideas on what this book might do, or what the actions in the book might tell him to do?

I tend to agree with the assessment on this PrC. I'm playing one in our monthly RL game, and I did just as you indicated - I took (I think) 3 levels of SD, and then decided to go back to rogue so I could get sneak attack back.

I would suggest replacing some of the gonzo weird abilities like shadow illusions and summoning shadows (since when is a shadowdancer a necromancer??) with sneak attack progressions.

HIPS is powerful - but it basically only allows the shadowdancer to hide. I mean, it's not like he's going to take out your BBEG doing that. All it means is that it will allow them to basically survive a TPK because the BBEG will simply have a really hard time finding him.

Hardly game-breaking stuff.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120300111415

These are no longer in print. So, now's your chance!

I write and transpose (mostly) classical music. I'm in a woodwind quintet (minus the bassoon) *shrug* but I transpose a lot of stuff for that group, otherwise we'd have nothing to play.

I also write pieces. Though, most are pretty short and a lot of them are unfinished. I've actually had two different community bands play a piece I wrote.

Gestalt isn't a class, and if you're going to use it, it's only fair that ALL players use it. It's a nice solution for groups with few players. YMMV.

I ban monks and druids.

The former because they don't fit the feel of the game.I would probably not allow Samurai, ninjas and wu-jen for the same reason, although there isn't anything particularly Asian about wu-jen, aside from the name.

The latter because they are WAY too complicated in play, and I never quite understood why they would adventure rather than protect their chosen forest, or whatever.

So, while druids exist as NPCs, monks never do.

I also only allow the 4 core splatbooks, so I tend to avoid a lot of the really broken stuff like whatever is in Book of Exalted Might, Incarnum, Bo9S, et al.

My main beef with this concept is that it almost seems magical in nature. There's no mundane way to explain this ability. In other words, take away all magic items, and all spellcasters for a minute - and ask yourself, do the classes that have no spellcasting ability still make sense if one were trying to create a game set in Medieval Europe? If the answer is no, then something is wrong, IMHO.

On a different forum, we established that there are two different kinds of compatibility - sideways and backwards.

Backwards compatibility isn't much of an issue with PRPG - this is the ability to play older modules, or even 3.5 modules with relative ease. PRPG succeeds here because it retains gnomes and bards, and all the things that 3rd edition (and even 2nd edition) modules are written around.

Sideways compatibility is the RPG's ability to be augmented with like-version products, in this case - things like Bo9s or Complete Arcane. To some, PRPG fails in this regard because of the relative power creep and whether or not a Scout (for example) from Complete Adventurer would be able to hold his own when coupled with a party of PRPG core characters.

This isn't that big of a deal to me personally, but I know some folks are concerned about it.

I don't think the game would suffer without counterspelling.

I've seen counterspelling done a total of once, maybe twice since 2000 when 3rd edition came out - and I was the one who did it.

So, it's definitely not a very common rule.

Drop favored class. It bugs the holy living crap out of me.

One thing you could do is rule that magical ammunition follow the same rules as creating wands.

Crazy? Hear me out.

Magical ammunition: 50 items which, when used, become mundane.
Wand: 50 charges which, when used, become lost.

So, you could create a set of 50 arrows of some generic 1st level fire spell to create fire arrows, or maybe shocking grasp to create lightning arrows, or whatever. Or, you could just the magic weapon spell to create generic +1 arrows if you want.

I'd like to see gnomes be TINY, and able to speak to animals "at-will".

I don't think d20 wish is broken. Put it back the way it was. It was capped at +5 anyway. That's not terribly game-breaking at 20th level anyway.

This thread seems to have taken a turn towards believing the favored class mechanic is there as a means to curb multi-classing. Those are certainly it's roots - but consider that it also penalizes single-class characters who are simply not the favored class for their race - Elven rogues, if you will, or gnome druids.

In my mind, if you're going to keep the favored class rule as a means to penalize players for multi-classing, you should at least allow players to just pick their favored class. No more stereotyping.

Players are already going to pick classes that their races will give them an edge in. Elven rogues make sense, half-orc wizards do not. People aren't stupid. They're going to figure out pretty quickly which classes work well with which races. The favored class mechanic doesn't need to spell it out for them. Oh sure, you could include some fluff verbage like "elves tend to be wizards and rangers." But you really don't need a mechanic to enforce that.

If you're going to keep a favored class mechanic, it should be this:

Whichever class you choose at 1st level is your favored class. Each time you take a level in your favored class, you gain +1 skill point. Levels taken in other classes do not provide this benefit.

Here's the thing about favored class - it just doubly enforces what the core mechanic already has in place - sticking with a single class is the best way to go. Why do we need yet another "cherry on top" to say "yea, you shouldn't multi-class".

See, there's ALREADY a huge benefit in sticking with a single class - you get all the high level benefits from being in a single class. Multi-class characters already suffer in the extreme power department, in favor of more of a variety of powers. Why does the favored class mechanic have to reward people who are already going to be more powerful by virtue of being in a single class?

If anything,we should be giving +1 hit point per level to people who multiclass. They're the ones who need it.

That, and it just enforces stereotypes. Elves don't get favored class rogue, even though they've got perfect stats for it. They did get favored class rogue in alpha 2, but was replaced with Ranger in alpha 3.

The whole concept is just stupid. It was in 3rd edition, and it still is. It should just be dropped. It is completely and totally unnecessary.

I think it should stay.

It adds a bit of flavor to the game and does not penalize anyone for not following their racial favored classes.

If you wish, for your home game, it is easy to remove.
Or modify, like change the 1 HP per level to 1 skill rank point per level.

Don't kid yourself. Just because there isn't a minus sign in front of the number, doesn't mean it's not a penalty.

Players are being penalized for making creative race/class combinations. That's what it boils down to, pure and simple.

You don't favored class to retain backwards compatibility. It wasn't even needed in 3rd edition.

And the favored class mechanic does introduce a penalty - it penalizes players for making creative class choices for their characters. Half-elf fighter/wizard? Sorry, pick one you're "good at".

Elven rogue? No dice.

It's only going to push players into stereotypical roles. The game will suffer as a result, IMHO.

I never really had that much of a problem with favored classes in 3.x, but that's because, when I did get to play, I played as humans. I do understand the problems other people ran into with favored classes and such, but I don't think Paizo's really doing that much of a disservice to the player regarding favored classes. All taking levels in a favored class gives you now is a whopping 1 hit point per level. If you take 20 levels in a racially favored class, you'll be up 20 hp over someone who doesn't. It's not a massive difference, and it doesn't do anything that negatively impacts a PC like the XP penalty used to.

So, what you're saying is - the rule doesn't matter. Shouldn't a rule that doesn't matter be removed from the game?

I've seen others express similar concerns.

Can't we just drop the Favored Class mechanic?

Reasons:
It removes diversity from the game. Players will feel like they are at a mechanical disadvantage if they play something other than a "favored class". Elves with their bonuses to int and dex would make great rogues, but I'd get penalized for doing that.

As a mechanic, it's unnecessary.

Adds absolutely nothing to the game other than to enforce stereotypes and to "put a box" around people's creativity.

By removing it, you could put in more art. :)

Oh sure, now you post this, after I go through the trouble of actually buying the pdf. Doh.

Sorry. If it's any conciliation, I don't make any money off those PDFs. In fact, I never even got paid for that book at all. Oh well.

Look at it this way - you've got all piecemeal armor, component listings, the full instability rules, the socketed and gestalt set rules, the potion flavor chart, the item background history generator, and all the appendices. Plus, with this PDF - a pocket guide, if you will. :)

I did end up fixing a few things, so the short version clears up a few problem areas - namely "items granting permanent effects", the ammunition rules, and a few other minor things.

For whatever reason, the file doesn't download for me. Maybe Firefox dislikes MediaFire...

I just did it with Firefox. Maybe mediafire just doesn't like you. :)

Seriously, I don't know. It's been downloaded, so I know others are getting it OK.

Weird. Posted this, but it's not showing up. anyway...

Enjoy this free PDF.
http://www.mediafire.com/?hmj2zmwundk

It's a condensed 10 page version of the 96-page Artificer's Handbook. It's 100% open game content.

I see lots of folks on here complaining about the existing magic item creation system in core. It's basically why we wrote that book - because I hate it, too.

I welcome any feedback.

Free PDF.

http://www.mediafire.com/?hmj2zmwundk
100% OGC.

I condensed 3 chapters of Mystic Eye Games' Artificer's Handbook (I was the lead author) into a 10 page PDF.

I welcome any feedback.

No spellcraft? How does a Sorcerer counterspell then? Don't tell me you've never gotten into a true spell duel...

I just failed my will save - people *actually* use the counterspell rules? I think that's come up once in 8 years of playing. Once.

Sorcerers, IMHO, shouldn't have spellcraft because the way they cast spells isn't like the way a wizard would cast a spell. Sorcerers could learn it, just like a rogue or fighter could (CC), but it wouldn't come naturally to them.

Some of these seem excessively strict. While there are game delaying aspects to each of these, a good group of players should be able to handle them without much problem. Taking away any an all animal companions, familiars, mounts, etc reduces huge parts of those classes, and in almost every case variant CF's presented in PHBII etc are not as powerful or universally attractive. I'm not saying house rules shouldn't be instituted, but if you pulled some of those (especially the early ones) I'd find a new DM.

I wasn't really suggested that we remove all the slow aspects, but to A) identify those areas which really bog the game down, and B) improve upon them.

In a completely unrelated discussion on another forum, we were discussing the problems with high level D&D, specifically as they related to PbP gaming. One of the users (Joshua Randall), posted some rules he used in his RL game that help curb the excessive delays caused by high level play.

I wanted to share some of these here to help give the developers ideas about some of the areas that really bog down high level play. I think Pathfinder is working towards fixing many of these, but I wanted to share the list just the same.

________________________________________________________________________

I've never run a PbP, but I have run two high-ish level D&D games. One of them was a game with 7 players, which caused me to introduce some rules intended to reduce complexity. I ended up liking those rules so much, they are now my default 3.5 house rules.

Reading these over, they sound rather draconion, but in practice everyone was fine with these rules.

* No player may have an animal companion, mount, cohort (via Leadership), nor any other "pet" type of creature/person. Each player controls one and only one PC. (This rule alone drastically reduced complexity and sped up combat.)

* For classes that normally rely on those things, there are plenty of extant variants. (Lots in PH2 -- companion-less Ranger, mount-less Paladin, etc.)

* You may not change shape, polymorph, alter self, etc. Period. (I rather like shapechanging, but it's just a horrible mess in 3.5, and rather than try to patch it, I just excised it.)

* Druids may use the PH2 shapeshift variant (grants Str/Dex/movement bonuses) or may swap out wildshape for another ability.

* If you play a summoner, you may summon one and only one creature off each level's summoning list. You must have the creature pre-statted, or your summon spell/ability fizzles with no effect.

* If playing a spellcaster, you are strongly, strongly encouraged to play a spontaneous spellcaster. If you play a prepared caster, you should prepare your spells off-screen, NOT AT THE TABLE. I suggest you maintain several lists (In Town, In the Dungeon, Info Gathering, Recon, etc.).

* Exception: if there's a specific named villain the party is about to face, and you want to craft your prepared spells specifically for that villain, I will allow this as part of the party's general prep time.

Just drop the entire damned system. XP is a relic that isn't necessary. Furthermore, it's not necessary for backwards compatibility anyway. Levels are needed, but not the actual XP component.

I haven't used XP since.. Well, never, really. And I've DM'd since '91.

I would suggest that Jason could give us his home address so we could send him some pizzas, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea. :)

*knock, knock*

*Jason opens the door to find a mob of impatient gamers.*

Some ideas I'd like to see:

Remove spellcraft, knowledge(arcana) as class skills. Sorcerers don't study magic, so they shouldn't know this stuff.

Eschew materials for free.

Up the number of cantrips they can cast - give them -at will- cantrips like clerics.

In general - I want more cantrips! There's lots of 3rd party cantrips out there. You can't have enough.

No familiars.

Don't let sorcerers cast spells that require and XP cost or require a material focus or anything like that.

I can see (and appreciate) arguments on both sides of the coin.

On the one hand, having a really flexible class that is completely tailored by the player would be great - having all fighters be able to perform the same kind of "maneuver" at 1st level detracts from that.

On the other side of the coin, I can see that making a system more like GURPS, Grim Tales, or HERO would be a step in the wrong direction. D&D is D&D after all, and it really wouldn't be the same kind of game at all if you opened up that can of worms. And I'm OK with that.

Personally, I'd love to see the 4 core classes (+ maybe sorcerer) be the base plus options that could really tailor the class to however the player wanted them. I'd love to see something like 2nd editions Skills & Powers where I could start with a fighter, and buy the Barbarian "package" or the "Ranger" package and have those classes - OR, I could buy parts of each with points that I get at each level. That would be awesome. AND would still allow for complete backwards compatibility.

It's a pretty radical departure from the typical game. But I think such a thing might create the best of both worlds.

I admit I've not followed the skill debate too closely, but it seems to me that each class should have certain specific skills that they should just automatically be good at (maxed ranks) - for rogues, this could be broken out into specific "packages". For example, each class could pick some number of skills to be maxed. And then they might get extra discretionary skills that they can allocate however they like.

So like a rogue could pick 8 skills to be their maxed out skills, and then maybe a number of skills equal to their int mod that they can also assign to skills.

furthermore, you could alter what you consider to be class or cross-class with such a system.

Nobody cares what I think, but my vote is to remove the Monk. It has no place in the game, and should never have been brought back into 3rd edition.

Perhaps fighters should be nigh indestructible? Frank's point about people throwing around spells like Wail of the Banshee is a good one. Perhaps fighters need to just sort of develop immunities to random acts of death.

Like, immunity to level drain
immunity to ability draining
immunity to save vs. die effects.

In my mind, if the lich casts "wail of the banshee" and everyone in the party dies, the lone fighter should be the one remaining, brandishing his sword against the lich with a sly grin on his face.

I think some of the 1st level spells could be cantrips.

endure elements (maybe reduce the duration) - from a mechanical POV, this spell does *nothing*

hold portal - who memorizes this?

floating disk - maybe reduce the duration and size. No one ever memorizes this spell.

ventriloquism - too fun to not use occasionally; too weak to waste a 1st level spell slot on.

magic aura - reduce the duration. Fun for the whole family.

Thoughts?

So long as we're having a rational, intelligent adult conversation about item creation, let me wax philosophical a bit. Obviously, having penned a 96 page book on the subject, means I've spent a great deal of time on the topic of magic item creation.

To the above point about "the over-abundance" of magic items, I agree. One of the major goals of AH was to highlight some of the ridiculousness of the costs of magic items. The first chapter spends a fair amount of time talking about how much volume 100,000 gold coins consumes and how much it weighs (a ton).

I believe far too many players simply erase 15,000 gold pieces from their character, subtract a little XP, and then voila! - end up with a robe of blending (or whatever).

I don't believe the AH system is perfect. Far from it. Some of it is wonky (I can say that in retrospect), and some of the feats and PrCs are entirely unnecessary. That said, I love the flexibility of the system, and the realism. I also like that you can't actually create a wand of fireballs at 5th level, so it tends to make magic items a bit more out of reach. Some of the magic items in the DMG with our system are actually impossible to make by anyone but the highest level sorcerers because of the extreme number of spell slots they require. Which is why we introduced "ritual creation" into the mix so you have to work with a partner to create excessively powerful items, which makes the most powerful items exceedingly rare.

Personally, I prefer a more "magic rare" kind of system, which is why we also introduced a lot of rules variants to cover "low/med/high" magic kinds of settings. It's full of variants.

With some time, I could probably sit down and write up a very simplified, yet fully functional version of the system. I may just do that. I can post it here for all to see.

Once upon a time, I posted the errata on ENWorld. Here's the link.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=105797

Hey, I wasnt trying to knock the product, just voicing my opinion of it. But as to the pricing, one of the example items is a +3 weapon with a special critical hit ability involving chickens (I wont detail the specifics to stir up interest in the product for ya) but the price listed for it was a measley 8,700gp, where by core even a basic +3 weapon is at least 18,000. I just didnt feel that the new method was going to come close enough to be balanced with book listed prices.

Sadly, that entry is wrong.

There's a lot of errata. Most of the examples as written ended up being calculated incorrectly. A few others I had concerns about and decided they needed to be done slightly differently (amulets of natural armor cost the same as rings of protection, but I felt like that wasn't accurate since amulets of natural armor are more valuable, so the errata reflects that as well) - stuff like that.

Email me and I'll send you the errata. It was never formally published since MEG basically went defunct.

curtis.bennett
gmail.

Here's the corrected entry for the Maul of the Chicken.

pg. 26: The formula of the Maul of the Chicken is wrong. The SS: entry should read as follows: SS: Five 4th level slots (caster level 8) and four 4th level slots (caster level 7) (+5 slots for bonus item (greater magic weapon), +5 slots unlimited-use permanent spell (polymorph other), -2 slots (works on critical), +1 for additional spell; Market Price: 17,400gp, Creation Cost: 8,700gp (4,350gp x 2 for weapon cost).

So, a little less than 18,000gp for a +3 item. Like I said, the lower costs tend to be a reflection of the fact that we believed the D&D economy was WAY out of control. It's tweakable; I'm not married to it.

So I took it upon myself to buy the Artificer's Handbook, and at first glance I really liked the variant magic item creation rules. It's based on the idea that you temporarily imbue the item with your spell slots and are without them for the duration of the crafting. However, the system is complicated to the point of needed the flowchart/sheet provided in the back for every item and also the costs for item creation is WAY below what they are now.

The rules are complicated because magic items are complicated. Believe me, we wanted a simpler system, but we couldn't swing it and still provide rules for all the weird items out there. We also felt like there was way too much "guesswork" in the way items were costed in RAW.

We felt justified by the complexity because most likely, magic item creation is something that happens outside the game. Item creation - the specifics of what it is is, etc, should all be handled between the crafter and the GM outside the game.

On the cost:
Many of the costs are, on average, lower. A few are higher. In 3.0, we costed out a "chaos diamond" at WAY more than what the 3.0 DMG had defined. (see pg. 101 for sample price comparisons) In 3.5, someone apparently figured out their mistake, and the cost of a Chaos Diamond went from 93,000gp to 160,000gp (closer to AH's cost).

See also chapter 1 where it discusses the absurdity of carrying around 100,000gp in order to create a rod of power (3.0 cost). 100,000 gold coins weigh a ton. We felt like the slightly lower cost were at least a start to the ridiculous escalating economy that is the D&D economics model.

Lastly, if you think the costs are too low - modify the costing formula - 10gp(SL + CL -1) *SS^2 to something like 15gp or even 20gp.

CrackedOzy wrote:

die_kluge wrote:

Artificer's Handbook by Mystic Eye Games has all the magic item creation rules I'll ever need.

It's also 100% OGC, so they can dump the entirety of it into the Pathfinder book if they wanted to.

If it's OGC, could you give us a run down on just how the AH book handles magic item creation?

Seconded!

Certainly.

Firstly, the book offers alternative methods for limitations, aside from XP:
time & money - very realistic, but not necessarily practical.
requiring rare components (my preference) - realistic
instability limitation - basically, the more items you create, the more unstable they become.
discrete levels - an arbitrary number of items can be created (with a number of variants)

Secondly, the core of the item creation rules is called the Spell Slot creation system.
From the book: "In order to create an item, the creator imbues it with power by casting a spell “into” the item a number of times. The number of times, known as slots, the spell must be cast into the item is based
on the desired abilities of the item. This is where the term Spell Slot is derived. The number of spell slots a caster has determines the amount of power they can put into an item. The caster can cast lower-level spells using higher-level spell slots, just like normal. A side effect of this system is that a 5th level wizard with a 16 Intelligence is
slightly better at creating items than another 5th level wizard with a 14 Intelligence, because they have more spell slots available."

"The amount of time it takes to create an item using the Spell Slot system is based on the caster level and the spell level for the given effect, using the following formula:
(# Spell Slots) x (Caster level + Spell level) = hours."

From there, it's mostly tables that indicate how many spell slots are required. The number of spell slots is based on the kind of item, and how it is activated. For example, a scroll (single-use, spell-completion) is 1 spell slot. More complex items require more spell slots. Furthermore, Artificer's Handbook assumes ammunition (50 +2 arrows) are created the same way as a 50 charge wand, but are use-activated, and not spell-completion activated.

For example "use-per" items, such as things that give you (3 uses per day) are created with the following rules:
2 spell slots for Use-per Spell-Completion (e.g. reusable scroll)
3 spell slots for Use-per Spell-Trigger (e.g. wand)
4 spell slots Use-per Command-Word (e.g. rod)
5 spell slots Use-per Use-Activation (e.g. multiple sip potion)
+1 1 use per year
+2 1 use per month
+3 1 use per week
+4 1 use per day
+5 2 uses per day +1 cumulative for each additional charge

So, to create a magical trap, that has 10 uses per day (use-activated by stepping on a platform) is 5 (use-activated) + 5 (2 uses per day) + 5 more = 15 total spell slots.

If the "spell" is a 3rd level fireball, creating such a thing would require 15 3rd level spell slots. Such a thing could be created by a 10th level sorcerer with a charisma of at least 12 utilizing all his 4th and 5th level spell slots to cast 3rd level spells. (A spellcaster can always use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell if they want to - a rule crucial to the spell slot system).

The cost formula is as follows:
10gp ( spell level x caster level -1) * # of spell slots, squared

Or, in this case:
10(3 x 5 (the minimum for fireball) - 1) * 15^2

equals
1gp(14) * 225 = creation cost
140gp * 225 = 31,500gp

The number of hours:
(# Spell Slots) x (Caster level + Spell level) = hours."
15 * (5+3) = 120 hours (or 15 8-hour work days).

Trying to squeeze in a longer work day introduces instability. There's an entire chapter on instability. Basically, it might not work as expected (it might work better than expected), or it might end up cursed, etc.

There. That's it. The heart of the Spell Slot item creation system. It's all just tables to derive the number of spell slots required, and a couple of pretty simple formulas.

Once you make a few items, it's easy.

Furthermore, creating the following items is easy (and produces a very accurate cost - no more guessing).
+1 shield of Argos which casts CLW/3 day and when paired up with the Armor of Argos, allows the wearer to cast CSW 1/day

Jade skull which casts speak with dead 3x/day, confers constant protection from good to the wielder, and has 10 charges of 'unholy word'.

Using this system, I can mathematically determine accurate costs for any items like those.

Folks in my regular (monthly) D&D group and folks in my local Meetup group have both mentioned the new Pathfinder RPG.

These are people I consider to be _EXTREMELY_ mainstream D&D players. You know the kind - never heard of any 3rd party product, don't own many books, and usually only buy WoTC material.

That's got to be good news for Paizo. I'm wondering if the "over 10,000" figure is low now. I have to believe the second week of downloads had to be as strong as the first. The word definitely seems to be getting out there.

While we're here discussing the Int bonus to skills, might I make a humble suggestion:

Make Int increases retroactive in skill point bonuses.

In other words, if my rogue goes from a 15 int to a 16 int at level 8, I want him to get 8 new skill points.

Because statting up higher level characters is a major pain in the butt in this regard, since you have to keep track of skill points prior to an int boost, and skill points after an int boost.

What happens if the cleric turns (heals) his party and they are at maximum hit points? Do they gain bonus hit points, or is the effect wasted?

Is PRPG going to be Open License? I don't even know yet, urgh!

I really want to offer versions of all my Indulgences and Dark Vistas in Pathfinder when it's all sexified up and ready to go!

Nick

At this point, the only thing I've heard that will be closed is the deity list. Otherwise, the plan is (AFAIK) to have an SRD for it just like D20. PRPG is based on the d20 license.