I played and then purchased at Origins. Great game, I've since played it with my wife several times. (And now itching to play it again)
While Yeti's are cool, the Mastodons rock. They are artillery pieces that can do a ton of damage at range. But when destroyed they explode and do damage to everyone around it. I have fallen prey to a mastodon explosion chain reaction. While it sucked for me, it was so awesome to witness.
The rules are easy to learn, the gameplay is smooth, and I have never played anything quite like it. It wins big on style points, too. All in all a lot of fun.
I'd love to see a way to add players, but I have absolutely no idea how I would do it. Yet.
I hope it sells well, because I would like to see more games in this line (gameplay could even be different, the style of the line is cool). Alamo, Bunker Hill, Iwo Jima, there are so many iconic battles that could use a little spice.
I bought a bunch of cheap (10 cents ea) game pieces. I believe the intent is to use them as board game pawns, but they are very small, stand upright, have multiple colors, are obvious, and can be moved out of the way easily. I just put one near the guy I have marked/cursed/whatever. Works well so far.
I've seen glass beads used for conditions, especially bloodied. That one is going to come up a lot so you should definitely have a lot of pieces to indicate that.
I saw one guy with small 1/2" square laminated square pieces indicating conditions.
I swear I read one of the designers was using a little bit of putty to attach a pin to the target, and then put various beads on the pin.
Keeping track of conditions is definitely a big challenge in 4E. It's not that there are more of them than 3E, it's just that they come up much more often.
Just because it came up recently at WOTC doesn't mean mooks are a 4E concept. The idea to try and give players the ability to plow through guys, ala Conan in Conan the Destroyer, has been around for awhile. Lower CR guys are not even noticeable, and sometimes still take a while to clear. The Mob rules from DMG2 are interesting but my experience with them didn't really give me the result I was looking for, although modifying them is an interesting idea.
In an earlier post that I think got lost:
Dark Lurker of Psionics wrote:
In the Wicked Fantasy Factory adventures from Goodman Games, some creatures are designated "Mooks". When you face them, every PC is considered to have the Cleave feat (Improved Cleave if you already have it) and all Crits are automatic.
And there's more to the WFF than that. Spells are maximized, and ranged attacks are considered to have the rapid shot feat. You don't change the stats of the original creature at all. And maybe this is a better way to go about it.
I'm not saying use the WFF rules exactly, because I think they needed a bit of work. But look at the core idea: changing the way the PC's interact with creatures who have been labeled mooks, instead of changing the creatures. I'm absolutely not a designer, but what about saying damage is maximized, or you hit on a 10+, or something like that. Change the focus from the monster to the PC.
I wouldn't mind seeing this in the Pathfinder book as an alternate rule in the DM's section, as opposed to core rules or something in a MM. Like a "ways to spice up your campaign" section. That way you leave it up to DM's whether to use it or not, and in addition, it doesn't make it into the Pathfinder Society or official modules.
I'm reposting this from a different thread as I feel I should have put it here instead of creating a new thread. You can discuss or ignore, I just want to add my two cents where it belongs.
Disclaimer: I haven't been at my computer recently and just started looking at the rules. I haven't read the stuff elsewhere, so this may be redundant. If so I apologize.
Just a few comments and suggestions. I haven't playtested, these are just the initial impressions of a longtime 3.5 DM who had been fiddling with the rules on his own.
I had to read through the skill rules a couple times to follow what was going on. Maybe clean up the text a bit to make it easier to follow. Or maybe I'm just dense, which is a distinct possibility.
I love getting rid of skill points, I was doing something similar to Saga myself.
But one thing I was considering was a way to allow characters to get high bonuses to skills that are not "class skills". I just have a belief that if someone wants to learn about Magic, if they study it enough they can be as proficient as a wizard. Also, I was wondering if there was a way to make it a bit more multiclassing friendly. My litmus test is "fighter multiclassing into a rogue". You have to be able to go from fighter to rogue and gain proficiency in enough skills to be able to effectively find and disable traps, and maybe one other roguish like skill (use magic device, etc).
What if you did something like these mechanics. Bear with me, I learned in RPGSuperstar I am not a designer. These are similar to my house rules I have been playing with, but a little De-SAGAfied. In my gmaes I use the whole 1/2 Level +5 thing from SAGA, but I removed that from the above to help comply with the idea of backwards compatibility.
The check for trained skills is 1d20+Character Level+3+Ability Mod+Racial Mod.
The check for un-trained skills is 1d20+1/2*(Character Level+3)+Ability Mod+Racial Mod. Some skills may not be used untrained.
There is no such thing as "cross-class".
A character first chooses a number of trained skills equal to their intelligence bonus. These can be any skills from the full list of skills.
A character then chooses a number of additional trained skills based on their class. Barbarian chooses 4, Bard chooses 6, etc. These skills can only be chosen from the class skill list.
Miscellaneous stuff:
If a character's intelligence bonus increases via a permanent increase (inherent bonus, ability increase from higher level), they may choose another trained skill from the full list of skills.
I have ignored intelligence penalties, but if you wanted to include them just say that the intelligence penalty is added to the number of trained skills based on class.
Humans choose a bonus trained skill from the full list of skills.
When Multiclassing, choose a number of additional trained skills based on the new class. This number is equal to the starting skill number of that class divided by 2. So if multiclassing into Barbarian choose 2, if multiclassing into bard choose 3, etc. These skills can only be selected from the class skill list of the new class.
Prestige classes work like multiclassing.
Please utilize any, all, or none of this as you like. I am not saying it's perfect, and it definitely makes characters more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, but that is something I decided fo allow for the same reasons they did it in SAGA.
Enjoy. If you have any questions I'll try to respond, but it may be intermittent during easter break.
and
shadow145 wrote:
For the record, I think skill points vs non-skill point systems both have their pros and cons.
Personally, as a DM, I'm less on the simulationist side, so my preference is Saga style. I find that I make NPC's faster when I just choose the skills that are trained, as opposed to choosing where to put skill points and whether the points are point for rank or point for 2 ranks.
As a player, I don't mind the time investment of using skill points as much. The precision targeting of skills allows a degree of customization and control over character development, as opposed to the more shotgun approach of Saga. And lets face it, it's been around since 3.0, so it has history.
But I am a bit bothered when certain skills, like Listen and Spot, can only be maxed out as class skills for certain classes, when I think those are skills all classes should be able to max. I have a problem with the 1st level rogue easily hiding from the 20th level fighter. That's why I like the way Saga includes 1/2 level to all skill checks. It kind of represents experience.
And when multiclassing, I don't like that certain key abilities that are tied to skills will not be available when a character first multiclasses into it. For example, the party fighter (say 10th level) wants to multiclass into rogue. But he has to split the 8+Int points he gets amoung all the rogue skills. He will have a very hard time searching for traps, disabling devices, opening locks, and using Magic devices to the degree that an EL appropriate adventure would require. So a lot of the key abilities a rogue should get (and possibly need) is lost.
One thing I don't like about Saga is the way a character can instantly master a skill, say when they increase their intelligence score. That sets off my realism alarm. I also don't like the way Saga handles learning new languages.
But in my game I accept the problems with Saga over the problems of skills points. But that's a personal preference, your preferences may differ.
One thought we need to keep in mind is that the mechanics for Saga may not be open. If Paizo uses a skill mechanic that is too close to Saga they may open themselves up to legal trouble. Whatever they use may have to be sufficiently different as to not step on WOTC toes. For instance, what I use at home may be too close to Saga to publish.
My first thought on seeing a Fly skill was "WTF!?!?". But after some thought, I gotta say I've warmed up to the idea. What might be really useful would be a scenario where I could sit down with some friends and playtest the Fly skill.
Same here. The comparison to climb and swim makes sense, except anyone can attemp to climb or swim, not everyone can fly. I think this might be more of a corner-case monstrous skill like control shape or whatever it is lycanthropes use.
Maybe this is a case where the addition is too far from 3.5 to fulfill the backwards compatibility requirement?
I like how it now doesn't require a ton of calculation, the choice is only whether to use it or not. It is such a basic feat that may slow down players and dms as they figure out on the fly how much to use.
I have some concerns more on the Monster side than the PC side. I liked being able to do tons of damage on single attacks with the big nasty monsters by taking large amounts of power attack. If a character is helpless, flatfooted, etc, they might go "all-out". Maybe the strength bonus is high enough to have the same effect.
Would adding a size modifier to hit and damage (like the one used for grapple) be appropriate? That way the ogre example has the potential to be a lot more dangerous.
Anyhow, not something I've tried, just something that came to mind right now.
I think I may try this one out in my next game and see how it goes.
Wow, didn't expect that to happen from my little post. I was just providing feedback to the rules from my perspective as requested from Paizo as part of the open playtest. And I shared what has worked for me in case it was an idea they liked or may want to incorporate in part.
I guess if I had read a few of the other threads first I would have realized it would have sparked another Skill Points vs Saga Skills feud. Sorry about that. I should have tried to phrase it differently, as that was not my intent.
I guess I started this thread, I am obligated to reply.
For the record, I think skill points vs non-skill point systems both have their pros and cons.
Personally, as a DM, I'm less on the simulationist side, so my preference is Saga style. I find that I make NPC's faster when I just choose the skills that are trained, as opposed to choosing where to put skill points and whether the points are point for rank or point for 2 ranks.
As a player, I don't mind the time investment of using skill points as much. The precision targeting of skills allows a degree of customization and control over character development, as opposed to the more shotgun approach of Saga. And lets face it, it's been around since 3.0, so it has history.
But I am a bit bothered when certain skills, like Listen and Spot, can only be maxed out as class skills for certain classes, when I think those are skills all classes should be able to max. I have a problem with the 1st level rogue easily hiding from the 20th level fighter. That's why I like the way Saga includes 1/2 level to all skill checks. It kind of represents experience.
And when multiclassing, I don't like that certain key abilities that are tied to skills will not be available when a character first multiclasses into it. For example, the party fighter (say 10th level) wants to multiclass into rogue. But he has to split the 8+Int points he gets amoung all the rogue skills. He will have a very hard time searching for traps, disabling devices, opening locks, and using Magic devices to the degree that an EL appropriate adventure would require. So a lot of the key abilities a rogue should get (and possibly need) is lost.
One thing I don't like about Saga is the way a character can instantly master a skill, say when they increase their intelligence score. That sets off my realism alarm. I also don't like the way Saga handles learning new languages.
But in my game I accept the problems with Saga over the problems of skills points. But that's a personal preference, your preferences may differ.
One thought we need to keep in mind is that the mechanics for Saga may not be open. If Paizo uses a skill mechanic that is too close to Saga they may open themselves up to legal trouble. Whatever they use may have to be sufficiently different as to not step on WOTC toes. For instance, what I use at home may be too close to Saga to publish.
Disclaimer: I haven't been at my computer recently and just started looking at the rules. I haven't read the stuff elsewhere, so this may be redundant. If so I apologize.
Just a few comments and suggestions. I haven't playtested, these are just the initial impressions of a longtime 3.5 DM who had been fiddling with the rules on his own.
I had to read through the skill rules a couple times to follow what was going on. Maybe clean up the text a bit to make it easier to follow. Or maybe I'm just dense, which is a distinct possibility.
I love getting rid of skill points, I was doing something similar to Saga myself.
But one thing I was considering was a way to allow characters to get high bonuses to skills that are not "class skills". I just have a belief that if someone wants to learn about Magic, if they study it enough they can be as proficient as a wizard. Also, I was wondering if there was a way to make it a bit more multiclassing friendly. My litmus test is "fighter multiclassing into a rogue". You have to be able to go from fighter to rogue and gain proficiency in enough skills to be able to effectively find and disable traps, and maybe one other roguish like skill (use magic device, etc).
What if you did something like these mechanics. Bear with me, I learned in RPGSuperstar I am not a designer. These are similar to my house rules I have been playing with, but a little De-SAGAfied. In my gmaes I use the whole 1/2 Level +5 thing from SAGA, but I removed that from the above to help comply with the idea of backwards compatibility.
The check for trained skills is 1d20+Character Level+3+Ability Mod+Racial Mod.
The check for un-trained skills is 1d20+1/2*(Character Level+3)+Ability Mod+Racial Mod. Some skills may not be used untrained.
There is no such thing as "cross-class".
A character first chooses a number of trained skills equal to their intelligence bonus. These can be any skills from the full list of skills.
A character then chooses a number of additional trained skills based on their class. Barbarian chooses 4, Bard chooses 6, etc. These skills can only be chosen from the class skill list.
Miscellaneous stuff:
If a character's intelligence bonus increases via a permanent increase (inherent bonus, ability increase from higher level), they may choose another trained skill from the full list of skills.
I have ignored intelligence penalties, but if you wanted to include them just say that the intelligence penalty is added to the number of trained skills based on class.
Humans choose a bonus trained skill from the full list of skills.
When Multiclassing, choose a number of additional trained skills based on the new class. This number is equal to the starting skill number of that class divided by 2. So if multiclassing into Barbarian choose 2, if multiclassing into bard choose 3, etc. These skills can only be selected from the class skill list of the new class.
Prestige classes work like multiclassing.
Please utilize any, all, or none of this as you like. I am not saying it's perfect, and it definitely makes characters more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts, but that is something I decided fo allow for the same reasons they did it in SAGA.
Enjoy. If you have any questions I'll try to respond, but it may be intermittent during easter break.
If instead of thinking of it as a slingstone that grows and does extra damage (putting it in the weapon category), present it the other way. It a a stone that provides a 5' x 5' x 5' piece of cover upon command. In addition, it can also be fired from a sling or thrown as the command word is said, to grow in mid-flight and do the extra damage. That would probably move it to the wondrous item category.
In that case, I have a nice two-handed cheese slicer to show you. Sure, it's a wondrous item. *wink*
Just so that I don't sound entirely crazy, look up Mattock of the Titans and Maul of the Titans in the SRD, and the one of the winners, the Malleus Maleficareum. I'm not saying it's right, but there is a precedent.
I am guessing my item (Tunic of Negative Energy Reversal) fell into the following categories:
Poorly Named Item
The Item That Solves A Problem That Heroes Don't Have
or simply:
Not Superstar Quality.
For Reference:
Spoiler:
Tunic of Negative Energy Reversal:
The inside of this black long-sleeved tunic is so white that it appears to shimmer with its own light. It is a boon for both those allied with clerics who channel negative energy as well as those who make it their business to hunt them.
The tunic converts any negative energy damage sustained by the wearer from inflict spells and effects to positive energy, thus healing the wearer as if the spell was instead a cure spell or effect. For example, if the wearer is subject to an inflict light wounds spell, instead of taking damage from the spell he heals a number of hit points equal to the damage that would have been taken as if the spell was a cure light wounds spell.
Faint conjuration and necromancy; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, cure light wounds, inflict light wounds; Price 1,000 gp.
I am curious if my mechanics were okay, I am thinking it might make cure spells obsolete, but maybe not. I am a bit on the fence.
The "Losing items thread" is like a game design workshop, I am picking up a lot from that.
I feel really nervous asking, but if I want to be a better designer/DM, I need to listen to the criticism so I can get better.
So not to take too much of the judges time (they have given so much already) I only have one question. Was my item good enough to make it into the initial keep folder, or did it get blown away outright?
Thanks again for the contest, the judging, and the post contest commentary. You are really educating future designers and that can only be wonderful for the industry.
Yes, the cost was high. With the once per day use and the rock being unweildy, the cost should have been reduced. Hmm... need to do some more reading before next year...
Thank you for your comment - I very much appreciate the feedback.
Hey Patrick, one other idea to add to your item I had this morning. I wasn't kidding when I said I liked it, I'm still thinking about it the next day.
If instead of thinking of it as a slingstone that grows and does extra damage (putting it in the weapon category), present it the other way.
It a a stone that provides a 5' x 5' x 5' piece of cover upon command. In addition, it can also be fired from a sling or thrown as the command word is said, to grow in mid-flight and do the extra damage.
That would probably move it to the wondrous item category.
You should probably throw in some rules on where it lands, though, like in the space adjacent to the target between the PC and the target, and adjudicate that if it misses use the grenade-like weapon rules to determine where it lands and provides the cover.
What if you cast cure light wounds? Does it reverse, double effect, or simply pass through.
This side-steps the check and balance of having a "healer" with negative energy spells. "I can heal my friends and harm enemies, all with the same spell. Why should I ever give any thought to spell selection ever again."
Thanks for the comments!
I thought about having a blurb about how wearing the shirt inside out reverses the effect, but I passed because I couldn't decide on the usefulness of a shirt that converted cure spells cast on you into inflict spells. I guess if you were an intelligent undead ally of a good-aligned cleric?
Valid point on the checks and balances.
The Positive cleric can spontaneously heal, and doesn't have to worry about spell selection. This item gives the negative cleric the same flexibility to a limited degree. It only gives him the flexibility on allies who spend a body slot to wear the item. And it's usefulness becomes limited once wands become affordable. Then the item's main use becomes resisting inflict spells.
Of course, Now I've written that I think I see that if everyone in the party wears one, you just eliminated cure spells from the game. Or even just one that can be passed around. Oh well, guess I'm not superstar material...yet...
It's only fair I return the favor:
Thurburner Stone
I like this a lot. I see this as a very useful, balanced item that makes slings interesting at high level. The only thing I don't like is the cost vs the duration to recover. 36,000 is a lot, and after use the PC either has to wait 24 hours to recover it, leave it behind, or come back later and hope it is still there. I thing I might have done is reduce the cost and the damage (to compensate for reduced cost) and add a command word to shrink it down over a minute. That ensures it can be recovered immediately after an encounter, but keeps it from being used over and over in an encounter.
The inside of this black long-sleeved tunic is so white that it appears to shimmer with its own light. It is a boon for both those allied with clerics who channel negative energy as well as those who make it their business to hunt them.
The tunic converts any negative energy damage sustained by the wearer from inflict spells and effects to positive energy, thus healing the wearer as if the spell was instead a cure spell or effect. For example, if the wearer is subject to an inflict light wounds spell, instead of taking damage from the spell he heals a number of hit points equal to the damage that would have been taken as if the spell was a cure light wounds spell.
1) Not enough flash
2) Name stinks
3) Possible question on the use of Inflict light wounds.
4) Description doesn't flow
Mechanically, my design goals were to make it simple. I like the Tunic aspect because there aren't enough items for that slot. I feel the price was right, as I wanted it accessable to low-level characters,and at high level it just doesn't make sense.
What it brings to the game is that it helps solve the problem of a player wanting to play a negative energy channeling cleric, but the rest of the players want a healer. This allows the cleric player to play the cleric they want, and puts the burden on the other players to do something to be able to receive spontanious healing.
Congratulations to all the finalists and I look forward to reading your future submissions.
