vivsavage's page

Over all I see this as a non-issue.

We'll have to agree to differ.

So just to be clear, your problem with will saves in Pathfinder is inherited from the core 3.5 PHB?

Correct. Although Bravery, as others have noted, is a help with the fighter at least. But the whole courage/bravery thing is still an issue with other classes.. namely the barbarian IMO.

And while I'm mentioning it, the mechanic of Intimidate is very wierd...
IMHO, It should use the stronger of either the Target's Will Save (no new sub-system) or CMB (likewise) to set the DC. Consolidating wonky sub-systems like that seemed a pretty big goal of Pathfinder, so hopefully that little sub-system will see some work in the Final... ???

I agree it is very odd. But basing Intimidate against Will again results in "tough guy" classes backing down before the "intellectual" classes would. I don't think *either* type would be more apt to back down than the other (barbarians have big muscles and wizards can fry you)... I think Intimidate should be more a roleplaying thing that a die-rolling thing.

It sounds to me like everyone is confusing Will with Fortitude.

Crossing the alps, that's Fortitude.

Facing a mind flayer's mental attack - that's will.

Hand in pot of boiling water - Fortitude.

Facing a horror that you'd never see in the village, or even the gladatorial pits, but only in your deepest nightmare - that's will.

Physical torture - Fortitude.

Mental torture - Will.

Eating the gastronic horror - Will

Not puking it up - Fortitude.

No confusion here. Eating the gastronic horror -- Will. Conan chickens out, but Draco Malfoy eats it.

Facing a balrog -- Will. Gandalf does it, but Aragorn & Boromir also refuse to stand back. But not, perhaps, in D&D.

Low-level fighters are supposed to be vulnerable to attacks on their will power. Being able to resist those attacks is notable and heroic.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about being less vulnerable to attacks on their will power. I'm talking about the mundane stuff mentioned in Heroes of Horror and other supplements & adventures where PCs need to test their will to do things like avoid being intimidated by heights, confined spaces and deep water.

Let's imagine that our heroes are being held captive. They're told they will be allowed to leave if they have the will to pass some hideous "Survivor" type challenge of eating live slime worms. It's a Will test with a DC of 20. Conan chickens and covers his mouth... but Draco Malfoy happily slurps them down because he's got a better Will save.

A lousy example, but you get the point.

vivsavage wrote:

Yes, you can take feats that help with saves, but I don't think the big brave fighter should have to take a special feat just to be as brave as a a wizard.

How about rephrasing this in other contexts? Why should the wizard have to take a feat to be as nimble as a rogue or as tough as a fighter?

I didn't say they should. But the Will thing is especially bothersome to me because the fighter-heroes are traditionally (in literature) tough-minded when it comes to non-magical things. Boromir is the prime example: weak minded when it came to resisting the Ring, but tough-minded when it came to crossing Caradhras. My point is that Will needs to be better defined as a magic-only stat, or at least giving each PC the choice of what save to make good, poor, etc.

My proposal: give players one of the following choices when designing their save progressions:

1) one good (+12), two medium (+9)
2) two good (+12), one poor (+6)

I see where you're coming from with this.. but do you have any examples from SRD/Pathfinder? Other than supernatural fear effects (like a dragon charging), I can't think of any Will saves from non-magical effects (maybe some exotic mental poisons?)

I don't, honestly. I haven't looked. My feeling is that if Pathfinder is aiming for compatibility with 3.5 products, then that would include Heroes of Horror and other works. It's really just a philosophical thing for me... when I see that fighters and barbarians have low Will, it seems strange to me. Conan sure didn't have low Will! If your PC has been captured and is being interrogated, I don't want the tough guy wimping out while the wizard holds fast.

I've always had an issue with the Will saving throw. My problem is that it favors the non-"tough" classes. Now this makes perfect sense if Will is only referring to being able to resist magical effects, but it isn't. It's also about overcoming non-magical fear and phobias (as in "Heroes of Horror"). So suddenly the big tough fighter becomes much more susceptible to being afraid of heights and spiders, for example. Somehow this seems wrong. I don't really see why any specific class should have an advantage over another when it comes to non-magical Will tests... sure, when the evil necromancer is putting fearful thoughts in your head, the wizard should be able to resist and recognize what is being done more than the fighter. But why should the fighter or barbarian be more vulnerable in mundane Will-based tests?

Here's an example of why (IMO) the current Will saves don't work. From "Heroes of Horror", a character suffering from a mild phobia makes a Will save vs DC of 12 + CR of the challenge that is the subject of the phobia. A moderate phobia is 14 + CR, and as severe one is 16 + CR. These phobias are non-magical in nature, including heights, cramped quarters, darkness, fire and water. Why should the barbarian be more afraid of heights than a wizard? Why should a fighter be more afraid of water than a cleric?

My hope is that the Will save progression in Pathfinder will either be entirely against magic or that non-magic based Will saves will be equal for all classes. Any chance of that?

Yes, you can take feats that help with saves, but I don't think the big brave fighter should have to take a special feat just to be as brave as a a wizard.

There's much more than a remote chance... I'd say a relatively GOOD chance, in fact, of Paizo some day doing some sort of basic game/intro to the game for the Pathfinder RPG.

That's terrific! I hope that, when and if it arrives, it will be more than just a primer for the "advanced" game, but a worthy creation unto itself. I know a lot of people felt that the BECMI stuff was better than AD&D. At any rate, I truly believe this type of product is virtually absent from RPGs now; a game aimed squarely at introducing basic concepts of roleplaying to neophytes, as well as something that makes for quick & simple gaming for experienced gamers. Here's my vote for a box set!

I really miss the days of Basic D&D and Advanced D&D. WOTC clearly doesn't want to go that route, so I wondered... is there even a remote chance of a Basic Pathfinder or Pathfinder 'Lite'? I'd jump at the chance to buy a good old fashioned basic boxed set with simplified rules, faster play, etc.

I'm sure it's a pipe dream, but I thought I'd ask. To me, it seems like there is a genuine gap in the market for a real beginner's box set. The D&D Game doesn't count IMO because it doesn't include PC generation, etc.

Um, so I guess the response is a resounding "not interested"? Too bad. It sounds great to me.

I'd like to see the barbarian given abilities that reflect their upbringing in wild environs in addition to the standard rage powers, trap sense and enhanced movement not withstanding. Perhaps some ambushing skill, natural poisons knowledge or resistance, survival enhancements, etc. There was more to Conan than just the red mists...

All of us here at Paizo are huge fans of D&D, and that includes things like the classes, Vancing magic, the schools of magic, critical hits, death and dying, and single BAB. Those things are fundamental parts of the game WE love. I'm not interested at this point in building some completely new game.

I completely understand. And reading my post regarding possible changes, I realize that when I said Vancian magic I really meant spell slots. While I see spell slots as important to the wizard in maintaining the concept of fire & forget casting... with the sorcerer I thought there might be some latitude in doing away with the slot system and going to some sort of point system. It wouldn't change the game at all but would differentiate the two classes more as well as sticking with the "inborn magic" concept of the sorcerer. I've always found it odd that a sorcerer can use up all his low level spells but still have the high level ones left over... if he isn't memorizing the spells it just doesn't gel for me. And, yes, I know he can swap out the higher level spells for lower level ones... but swapping out a 5th level spell for a first level spell seems a bit...ummm... unfair.

Sorry for the ramble. Probably should have posted this in the sorcerer thread...

No, it's not just you.

That's nice to know. But I assume this is a class feature that will not change? Anyone from the design team care to comment?

Drizzt.

That's it? I always thought of him as being special; an exception to the rule in most every way. I still don't see what it has to do with being a ranger... why would you learn to use two scimitars because you're a guy who fights in the woods? Guess it's just me.

What things are off-limits for being changed? For instance...

- are the classes set in stone (ie, can there be new classes in the core book that are not in the D&D PHB 3.5)?
- is vancian magic set in stone? Could it be used for wizards but not for sorcerers?
- are the standard schools of magic set in stone?
- are critical hits definitely staying the same?
- are the death & dying rules set in stone?
- is the single BAB set in stone (as opposed to having two BABs; one for melee and another for missile)?

Sorry if this has been addressed a million times before...

I've never understood why rangers have this option for 2-weapon fighting. What does that have to do with being a ranger? I can see archery, but wouldn't some extra skill with a spear or some kind of ambush attack be more "ranger-ish" than wielding two swords? Is this a 2e legacy thing? Why have it?

I'd like to see something like this as well. The d20 system needs a low magic setting.

We also use the CON + Level for total negative. I do like the way you added the save to stay conscious and still in the fight. Is the save FORT or WILL ? I would guess the save itself would be 10+ (maybe 15?) the total hit point loss below 0. The extra hit points by this system don't help the PC's battle (unless you add in that optional stay conscious rule) but does help prevent some deaths.

I use a FORT save because using a WILL save would mean wizards would stay conscious more often than a fighter. I use a DC of 10 + the total HP loss below 0, as you guessed. I really like the way it gives PCs a penalty to actions while still staying conscious. It mimics the "wounded but still standing" stuff you always see in movies or read about in books. I never liked that D&D characters don't suffer penalties before falling unconscious.

One other thing: are weapon damage values going to be the same?

What I would like to see addressed is how someone who is reduced to 1 hp can still make full attacks w/ regular damage as if they were at full strength. I suppose I should chalk it up to just being part of the fantasy, but this has always bugged me.

Me too. I employ a rule that negative hit points give you an equal penalty to any actions. Thus, -5 hp means you suffer a -5 penalty to your actions. This way, positive hit points are an indicator of how long you can go before suffering from your wounds. You die at -CON in my game and roll to stay conscious with each new injury below 0 hp. I like it and it's very simple.

Before I offer up comments and suggestions, I'm just wondering what sacred cows there are regarding the 3.5 rules? For instance, are Vancian magic and spell slots a sure thing, or is there wiggle room for a spell point system or something? Are you fixed on having only the core races & classes? Are alignments going to be the same? Will rangers be spellcasters as usual?

Further, is this a "generic" game, or is it setting-specific? Likewise, is this a flexible game that can operate with low magic and/or a gritty feel, or is it assumed you'll be playing heroic level stuff?

In other words, will this game allow me to play Conan style stuff one week, Tolkien the next, and the lower, Deryni-level stuff, after that? I see that you have different XP costs for leveling up (love it BTW), so I'm wondering about these types of questions.

One last question: will there be anything in the rules for making the GM's job easier? 3.5 is quite a beast for the GM at high levels, after all. You've got to juggle a billion feats, spells, abilities, rules...etc. Anything that makes my job easier is better for me!

When I heard Paizo was redesigning and rethinking Dragon, I was thrilled. I have disliked Dragon ever since 3e came out. The approach seems to be far too heavy on new PrCs, magic items, spells, monsters, racial variants, etc. Just not my cup of tea. I liked TSR's approach far better, with optional rules that covered things not in the original game books, historical campaign ideas, campaign designing, etc. And the covers.... well, there is no comparison. TSR focused on evocative covers that actually told a story. But WOTC and Paizo seem to prefer the comic-book style of presenting a character or monster in a "pose", with no story behind them at all.
So, the "new" Dragon....is utterly dreadful. Absolutely the worst, most boring and uninspired design ever. The logo is dismal. Guys, this is a fantasy RPG. Make the logo reflect that! The layout is, again, dull, dull, dull. Lots of wasted space. How in the world was this the result of gamer input?
The articles are too much a part of the "new PrCs, new feats, new monsters" variety that I find uninspiring. And there is waaaaaaay too much self promotion. This magazine isn't a gaming tool anymore, IMO. It's getting more like White Dwarf – no substance. 1 out of 10. And that's a gift. Thank goodness I still have piles of 1980s Dragon mags to look at and delve into for inspiration.
I know I am in the minority concerning the content aspects of the mag, so just consider this a rant by an old schooler who doesn't like the 3e approach to gaming. Just my opinion, and not an attempt to say anyone else agrees with me.