satorian's page

Hate to pester, but my first question may have gotten lost in the hubbub. So again: for those that like nWoD, do you find the lack of successes for PC actions to be real issues? Do you think the houserule to 6 or 7 is necessary? If not, why not? (I already have the "if so"...)Would it be better to go back to oWoD variable difficulties?

My point was that, while a mage's powers may not be entirely focused on combat (as your entropy/fate, mind and matter examples point out) when he does something so vulgar as to drop a boulder from thin air onto someone's head, or teleport someone into the sky only to fall thousands of feet to the earth, or stop someone's heart with a glance, it should do something. No?

I distinctly remember my starting-stat Akashic Brother killing 3 Black Spiral Dancers in 1 turn in Ascension. All it took was a little creativity (and Do).

Nevertheless, it just doesn't make any verisimilitude sense for the flames of a bonfire engulfing a person to do less damage than a punch. That's pure gamist balance reasoning, which I've never seen as being part of Mage (given that I've only played Ascension and that nWoD is built more for multi-type characters to hang out together).

I don't want to seem like I'm bringing 3.5 combat focused powergaming into a storyteller system. That's really not my goal. It just seems that mages in Awakening follow a very strange geometric power graph that I've yet to grok, and which makes significantly less sense to me than Ascension.

Nevertheless, thank you. Do you have any advice for the ST to slowly wean the characters off of rotes and into Ascension-style free casting?

Thanks so much,

However, the Dm wrote paradox into the setting, so I don't think that will be a problem.

Also, as I see it, Mages are going to be significantly less powerful than other supernaturals, even absent paradox, in this system. Others have way more physical capabilities, so until mages reach greater levels of power, having a good bow skill or potence or a vampire or werewolf healing even lethal damage will make any mage without 5 dots in something tantamount to useless in direct combat with such, even without paradox. Sure, luck from fate will help things, as will shields and various abilities to see things, but a tough farmer seems more than a match for a mage with 2 to 3 dots in their highest sphere. What am I missing?

Pax, et alia,
I just want you to know that this thread made me misty eyed with good grognardian cheer.

best,
satorian/labyrinthian

I don't know if this qualifies as thread necromancy after a couple weeks. Nevertheless, the part of this discussion that focused on the unpleasant rarity of characters being able to successfully do things, even things they were supposed to be good at, in the nWoD, didn't seem to be addressed by the fans of the newer system. Would you guys mind doing so? Do you think this is a fair critique?

My group is starting up a campaign set in a well-developed homebrew setting that was originally built for DnD 3.0. The DM/ST is adapting Mage:Awakening rules to fit this fantasy setting, complete with druids with limited access to spheres and limited access to Werewolf gifts. PCs can be mages or these druids. We can play half-elves, dwarves, and humans.

Now, the reason the DM did this is that he really enjoyed the idea of a freeform magic system after reading Mage for the first time (and my raving about Ascension as the greatest system I'd ever played). Howver, being a little scared that we would run rampant over all his best-laid plans because of his lack of experience with running a freeform campaign, he decided to go with the powered down mages of awakening, even though he too found ascension to be a bit more interesting.

So, in addition to the lack-of-successes question raised above, I have another: given that atlantis crap is all gone from this world, and given that we want to have fun without trouncing his stuff, what house rules do you think we should add to make a good low/moderate magic high fantasy setting sing? Lower difficulty for die rolls? I know I sure liked the old system. What to do to make spontaneous casting more viable (after he gets a handle on how spont casting works and what it is capable of) and rotes less necessary? He's already thinking of pumping up the damage that spells can do. (A forces 3 fireball that does bashing damage -- bloody stupid, no two ways around it; a farmer's punch does more damage than forces 2). Anything else?

I have a bit of a problem with the "just house rule it" way of thinking. PRPG exists to be a continuation of of 3.5, as we all know. However, there is already a free resource that does exactly that. Both systems (as all systems) can be houseruled, of course. However, the more issues a group finds with PRPG, the more likely it is to just stick with the SRD, maybe incorporating some things from the free beta into their houserules without buying the pathfinder final version. What decision the group makes is likely to be based on whether it feels that a significant majority of changes are good, or only a minority.

Essentially: is it easier to houserule 3.5 or houserule PRPG?

Also, 3.5 has the advantage, for current players, the group already having all the books they want, and of the free SRD. PRPG has the advantage of being in print, and in time will have new source material/adventures/etc. Which of these trumps for which group will, of course, depend on the group. I'd posit that some groups will do one, and some the other. Whether paizo could have designed a game that would have minimized the stay-with-3.5 crowd if they had only done XYZ is unknowable.

As for myself, I am still up in the air, and will be until I can page through the new book. As of now, I love about half the changes (like the character creation race stuff and the sorcerer bloodlines) and strongly dislike the other to the point that I would avoid a game in which they were included as much as I would a 4e game (polymorph changes, wish changes, this bard duration rule, power attack). This 50% is not yet enough for me to switch to PRPG just so I can houserule a new game, but maybe the final version will have enough goodies to draw me in.

Dragnmoon wrote:

Here is the Web Page

Star Wars: The Old Republic

I can't believe how many Whiners and trolls are already on the SW:ToR forums already... and the game has not even started!!!

Argh...

Yeah, that or people who are legitimately unhappy about the fact that TOR is an MMORPG, and that a true KOTOR 3 is unlikely to happen are venting their frustrations in one of the few places where others might understand. It's similar to the less argumentative but more simply saddened anti-4e people on the WoTC boards before the release.

People know what they want in a game (tabletop or computer). When all available information points to a game being one a person doesn't like, he has every good reason to decide he is very unlikely to enjoy that game. I, for instance, don't enjoy the very premise of MMORPGs. I will not like TOR. I don't have to wait for it to be released. There are many others like me. We are writing into the ether to seek out reaffirmation of our unhappiness. We have a right to do so. And in some small way, we hope that BioWare sees just how unhappy they are making a sizable portion of their fanbase.

I saw a lot of people do the same thing during the edition wars. I agreed with them. I don't like the tactical aspect of DnD, and I don't care about balance. I knew I wouldn't like 4e, and so did many others. Many of us (though not all) were right.

Do you really lack a sense of empathy to such an extent that you cannot comprehend that people just enjoy playing games differently from you, that they know what they like, that they need a place to vent, and that they want to be heard? TOR looks to be right up your alley, Dragonmoon. You're excited. You have every right to be happy and post about it. I'm happy for you; really I am. My disappointment is not going to ruin the game for you. Perhaps you could return the favor.

At this point, if I were to put together a reasonably competent Pathfinder druid, I'd scour books for a level replacement or feat to get rid of my wildshape to get something, anything, in return. There is no reason to play the druid as he stands. In a standard adventuring day, the druid is always better off casting spells than wildshaping. Better yet, he should multiclass into any other class so he could be effective. For one step up from the current PfRPG druid, I recommend Samurai, or perhaps Truenamer.

You guys who like the fix may not get, but the real issue for me is the flavor. I'm still willing to give PfRPG a readthrough when it comes out and consider buying it. At this point, though, Paizo's "fixes" to some of the more "broken" aspects of the game strike me as unplayably gamist.

The reason I refused to go to 4e, the reason I found this forum, was a dislike of WotC's gamist tendencies. 3.5 was already about as gamist a game I could play, but hey, nobody was playing Mage 1st edition or Shadowrun 3rd. But the polymorph, druid and wish changes are just chasing me away. I mean, there's no in-world consistency. Is a druid turning into a real animal or a standardized animal analogue? But wait, isn't the latter a travesty of nature?

I think it's likely I'll just steal the beta sorcerer bloodlines for my home game and leave the rest. This is particularly true since the things that bother me most are the things Jason has said most forcefully will not change. Not only that, he's been saying those things wouldn't change since we first saw them. I won't deny he's been listening to some stuff that matters (fighting types, especially, though not the elemental silliness of the new barbarian) but this thing that matters to me most just will not change. And so, unfortunately, the game looks like it won't be for me. I mean, I'll look at it, but I don't have a lot of hope any more.

I don't really care about the nerf either way. I care about the flavor. I don't like the flavor of the beta fix.

Also, I think I was unclear about my suggestion. My druid would only be allowed to learn one form every level or two, and those forms would be limited by origin area and hit die. Not that I have any problem with a druid being a little more powerful on their home turf, but I don't think they would be. Say you are from a temperate forest. At 7th level you learn to turn into a black bear. No matter where you are or what you are fighting, you're a black bear when you change (or one of the lesser forms you learned in earlier levels). Though you might not shift form (in my ideal ruleset) since you don't have Natural Spell. Some new temperate forest animal come out in a splatbook that's 7 HD? OK, you can learn that form in a level or two.

I'd also say that if you normally have a STR of 8, and your animal form would normally have STR 20, you in that form have a STR 18. You are a little weak in your form, just like you are normally.

Really I think getting rid of natural spell fixes a lot and allows the verisimilitude I like. If I turn into a wolf, I want to be one. Run and hunt with real wolves. And just like a wolf, I can't cast spells. You want melee? Cool. Either buff or turn into an animal. Spellcaster? Stay humanoid. Spy? Probably shift. gets rid of all the real imbalance without getting rid of verisimilitude. It worked in 2e, and it would work now.

Until that druid comes from the land of the dinosaurs... I think the current fix is much closer to what is needed. I agree with Kae Yoss, that it should end up being a combination of size bonus and another type of bonus (I kind of like the idea of replacing the racial bonus but enhancement works in the short term) I would like it to be something other than an enhancement bonus so all those wonderful buffing spells the druid has don't go to waste.

gah post eaten!

Anyway, the gist of what I said:

1) I agree with the racial vs. enhancement bonus thing you mentioned.

2) I don't think the "land of the lost druid" thing is so dangerous, so long as there is a hit die limit on what he can change into. E.g., velociraptor at 10th level, T-rex at 20th. Also, if the DM treats a dinosaur like a dinosaur, like it's cold so you are slowed because of your cold blood, etc., there is a further safeguard.

3) I think giving up either simulation or a sense of wonder for gamist needs should only be done when absolutely necessary. In this case, it is not necessary. The problem has never been Wild Shape, but rather Natural Spell. I say get rid of the feat, and turn the ability to cast spells while shaped into a prestige class, with absolute freedom to do so only at the capstone. Also, since it's a prestige class, the druid who wants this ability would give up another ability, perhaps wildshape advancement or companion advancement. This way, most druid would walk around like people most of the time (and use their buffs). Only when it made sense would they wildshape. You know, like in 2E.

Doskious Steele wrote:

That said, it strikes me as a far easier mechanic (and more Backwards Compatible too) to simply limit the number of forms a Druid has access to shape into, scaled to level, and alterable at level-up, similar to Sorcerers and spells. If the forms to shape into are limited and have to be selected during the level-up process, it's easy to track the changes to stats from each shape, and easy to limit the 'broken-ness' of forms a Druid has available. I'm usually in favor of simplifications to...

I agree completely. It makes total sense that a druid has a handful of shapes they like and can use all the time. I mean that's what I'd do as a Druid character anyways!

I agree too. It's flavorful, even reminiscent of the David Eddings and Ursula LeGuin books, where the respective main characters (given they were magic users, but in this function they were like Druids) had to learn what it was to be certain animals, to live in a wolf mind or a sparrowhawk mind. Only then could they use those forms. Limiting the number of forms, and perhaps only allowing forms native to the druid's native terrain, would fix a lot. It might even get rid of the need for the gamist fix Jason has put in. If you can only turn into a bear at 10th level, but never a tiger or T-Rex since there are no tigers in your home forest, no matter how many monster manuals come out, the old way of shapeshifting is far less gamebreaking.

The funny thing is that I can afford it. Comfortably even. I just will never buy into the MMORPG model. I'd pay $100 or even $200 for a game I would never have to buy extras for, but I will never pay a monthly fee for a game. That's just not how I want to game. Sadly, since that seems to be the direction gaming is going, I might have to find a new hobby. Clearly the great RPGs of the past are no longer being made. Maybe I'll learn how to ski. I recommend the millions of lovers of single player RPGs come with me to Vale. Maybe in few years the game companies will miss us and start making games for us. Then we can play games again. Maybe not. Then at least we'll have our new hobbies.

KOTOR2 wasn't perfect, but that was because it wasn't finished. With the fan-made dialogue patch, it was a lot better. Still, blame the publisher for that one. I liked the intended plot, even if production constraints precluded it from being a truly great game.

On the MMO: Will I be running into PCs named Revn666 talking to BadsszJDI42? Will I be overhearing idiots talking about phat lootz, thus ruining my immersion? Will I see other characters who look like me toting around the same followers? Will I constantly be dodging requests to join raidz and engage in PvP? Will the enemies be designed to present a challenge to raiding parties focusing on DPS as opposed to the single player immersive character experience? Will I have to pay money for the privilege of playing a game I've already payed for? If the answer is yes to any of these questions then this game is not for me.

The following would have to be true for me to buy it:
1) there would have to be an option to make all other players invisible, both visually and textually.
2) I would have to be able to save and load just like a CRPG.
3) There would be no fee on top of the original purchase. At all. Not even for special add-ons and texture packs.
4) The actions of other players would have no effect whatsoever on MY gameworld.
5) In all ways, I would have to feel like i was the only person playing the game, and that the plot was designed for my character alone.

The above is incredibly unlikely to happen. I understand other people like the MMO experience. I don't.

I dunno. I'm terrifically upset by this. I've been waiting ages for KOTOR 3 and now there's this. I don't play MMORPGs. I don't want to. I like the immersion in stories of the single player games. When I want to play something with my friends, I have a tabletop designed for just that. On my computer, I play single player RPGs. Nary the twain shall meet. Really, I'm so downed by this, I'm thinking of boycotting BioWare forever. Blech.

'thematically poor' as in Sorcerer, Druid, Monk?
they'll just have to rely on the other party members to, pretty please, boost them for the gold worth that they didn't take from the loot

Well, those are the most common classes to be thematically poor. Well, core, at least. But I'm more referring to character RP choice to be anti-possession. Basically, anyone not exalted who isn't interested in possessions. Such a decision is impossible for most melee builds, but should be doable for a few. Now, such characters are already weaker because of the importance of the xmas tree effect. But the removal of xp from permanency only makes it worse.

EDIT: The character it's worst for is the primary caster sorcerer. He's the on,y one who can cast it in the party, and can't use the necessary money to do so.

re-write Vow of Poverty so the character can assist createing magical tattoos or permanencing spells on him by replacing 5GP worth of diamonds with 1XP
and mebby let him gain 1XP for donating 10GP to charity, after all they get some nifty feats that are supposed to compensate for the lack of material stuff.

I see what you're trying to do, but there are a couple of issues with that fix.

You know, this brings up a problem with getting rid of XP costs. I've never been a fan of XP costs as a mechanic, so I cheered when Pathfinder trashed them. However, thematically, I've always thought of permanency as a way for purposefully poor (Vow of Poverty or just role-play poverty) characters to have some level of walking-around magical-ness. Getting rid of XP isn't a problem for magic items, since poor characters wouldn't carry lots of these around anyway. But with permanency, or magical tattoos or other inherent-to-my-essence type stuff, switching to a gp cost really messes with low-gold character concepts. Any ideas on how to fix this?

That's one way to view a fighter. but isn't that more of a "marshal" type character? Another type of fighter is a loner weaponmaster. The fighter is versatile class. You can make yours with feats and I can make mine. I'd be unhappy to see him pigeonholed into MMO roles.

Building off this idea...

Tie in the Eschew Materials feat with their spell selections.

Spell Casting: A Sorcerer may only choose spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list which may be affected by the Eschew Materials feat.

Cantrips: The cantrips a Sorcerer knows may be used at will, furthermore these cantrips are cast as Spell-like Abilities, requiring neither somatic, verbal or material components.

Arcane Apophysis:At 4th level a sorcerer's understanding of his art increases, granting him access to either the Still Spell or Silent Spell feat. The effect of the feat chosen is automatically applied to his 1st level spells without increasing the casting time.
At 6th level, the Sorcerer gains access to the second feat. This feat is also applied directly to his 1st level spells. They are now considered Spell-like Abilities.
At 8th level and this point beyond, spells 2 levels below the Sorcerer's max spell casting level are treated as Spell-like Abilities. Spells 1 level below, may have either the Silent or Still effect applied, without increasing the casting time.

Just a random thought running through my head. O,o

Pathos, I agree with every single one of your suggestions. That's just great.

I quite like the idea of skill ranks, but I think there should be a lot more skill points available to each class. We still have the problem of the 19th level fighter likely not being able to recognize an orc.

I love what you've done with the fighter. Maybe add the ability to overcome any DR as a high level combat feat and I'm happy.

I've never played a barbarian in 3.5, so I don't know enough to say, but whoah, looks great. And yes, it is just about good enough to keep someone from prestige classing. I understand people complaining about some classes being overpowered. But really, when there are prestige classes out there that give you full rage progression, you have to give people some reason to stay. I like the idea of making base classes feel like prestige classes.

The sorcerer is almost there. I'd give them all eschew materials for free at level 1, and put still and silent spell in all of their bonus lists, as well as making them get a bonus feat every 5, not 6 levels. I love playing sorcerers, but I do so knowing that they are weaker than wizards by a long shot. That doesn't need to be the case.

Alternately check out the variant sorcerer in The Complete Book of Eldritch Might for inspiration (Monte Cook I think).

First of all, I understand the impetus behind the new way of doing polymorph, but I'm not sure you got it right. Shapechanging is an old fantasy trope, so it's gotta stay in some way or another. The fix you are giving only works if you make the forms in the spells worth taking. These aren't. The elemental spells, even the 7th level variant, only provides resistance to the element 20. Um, no. Presumably fire shield is still in right, the significantly lower level spell that damages anyone who hits you and gives better protection than this? Elementals are not that strong. Just give people full transformation for elementals and animals.

The other is a fix for Find the Path. Just make the focus something intimately related to the thing you want to find (or intimate knowledge of the thing). Lost city? So adventure to the sacred valley to get the one known cobblestone kept since time immemorial by the monks of whickywhack. But wait, you have to legend lore before you can even know that. Not broken. Or simply use the intimate knowledge to find the way home if you're dropped in the middle of the woods. It's home, not broken. You don't even need to raise the level.

The Wish ability score nerf was unnecessary. By the time people get wish, an ability score bump is not really a big deal. Indeed, to make saves that high level monsters will fail even some of the time, it's almost necessary for spellcasters, as for fighters to overcome DR. In terms of verisimilitude, is it so odd for beings of legendary stature to have legendary abilities?

Finally, I still think that ability damage is better than GP costs for spells. This is a verisimilitude thing. The fabric of the universe is not some accountant making sure spellcasters pay the price.

Generally speaking, as you balance things, remember that many (though not all of course) of the people considering going with Pathfinder instead of 4E are doing so because they feel that the gamist bent of WoTC has gone too far. For me, and my group, and I'm sure some others, balance is important, but less so than a world that makes sense internally.

I

Well, certainly the current system has to be changed. In my games, nobody uses anything from any book that has an XP cost. No crafting and none of the spells. Maybe my two DMs should houserule something here, but they haven't, so we just don't use it. Instead of making a spell require a sacrifice, we just don't ever cast it. Crafting and any spells that require XP have effectively been houseruled out. So I'm really glad to hear about the Pathfinder decision.

That said, I have a couple balancing suggestions. I like the poster above's ability damage suggestion. Something like 1 con damage/1000XP listed, or 1 wis damage/500XP listed. And it would have to heal naturally. This way, magic item crafting would only be done during downtime, and wishes would only be used in dire circumstances, or in downtime. There could be a mechanic where going beyond this doesn't kill you but drops you into a coma until you are healed. The DM can control the power jumps from crafting or wishing by limiting when they can take downtime. If the world is going to end and only you can stop it, the Ring of Wizardry can wait. So you have to save the world without it.

I also do not want to see fighters gaining magical abilities (like an anti-magic field effect). But there are several things I'd like to see fighters gain.

... This would allow them to do things like cut through a wall of force or a blade barrier, banish summoned monsters, perhaps debuff certain magical wards (like shield and mage armor), etc. ignoring many forms of magical battlefield control and protection.

Umm... that's magical. I could sanction bypassing magical effects, for the same reason you used. But not dispelling. Countermagic is magic. Like I mentioned above, a sort of "finding the chink" in magic would be more his role. Being able to actually dispel stuff should be a prestige class.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with all high saves and flurry stuff either. 2 high saves, yes. And an available feat that allows fighter to sub fort for will in specific situations. A monk is already worse than a fighter most of the time. The fighter problem isn't not enough attacks. They need better attacks, and they need to be able to ignore the defenses of enemies. For reasons of economy, they need to do so without five weapons for different DR situations. So let them bypass DR. And miss chance. Let them crit constructs. Fighters just know where the weaknesses are, and have perfect timing.

For those of us who like verisimilitude, heal as per day would be silly. That's like saying a battlefield nurse can only bind cuts a number of times per day based on her character level. Heal is a medic's ability. Why not just make it take time to actually heal hit points, say 1d4hp/hour/skillpoint? That way it wouldn't be like an auto-heal after every combat but would still be useful. During combat, you could stabilize in a standard action or cure 1hp in a full round action. Onlu in the rarest situation would someone burn a full round action (and get themselves an AoO) in combat. But in the few situations where it's warranted, it'd be useful, i.e. get the fighter up to 0hp so he can drink his potion and get moving in a round to either fight, get to the cleric, or run away.

Fighter should be able to do things that seem impossible or magical but can be explained away entirely without magic. No antimagic field. That takes magic. However, finding chinks in magical defenses he can strike through, ignoring damage resistance no matter what weapon he has (thus getting rid of the golf bag of swords effect), the ability to ignore miss chances for cover and incorporeality, basically ignoring or overcoming the special abilities of others. he could also use more skills (however Paizo ends up doing those) so he could have all the combat skills, and also be able to know what a skeleton looks like. Though it might step on monk teos, a fighter might also be able to give himself a cover miss chance. Sort of like when you fight a really good combatant in real life -- he just never seems to be where you thought he was.