wrecan's page

I'm glad so many suggestions are being incorporated. Well done, Paizo!

I've just gone through the new release, and although I've noticed a lot of changes and additions, I didn't notice that many if any of the changes were suggestions brought up in the threads on these boards, except, perhaps, the return of Skill Points.

Of course, I haven't meticulously combed through the boards, so I'm sure I missed stuff.

So I put it to the community. What differences between the two releases were first suggested here on the boards?

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.

A straw man argument is when you misrepresent someone else's position and then attack that made-up position (known as a straw man). As you did when you mischaracterized me as wanting a system in which DMs don't have to make decisions.

The game doesn't control money, in any fashion.

That's out of context. The game has wealth guidelines and it expects DMs to find a way t arbitrarily limit players to that wealth. Your system doesn't help that issue in any way, except to tell them to do that by arbitrarily limiting their downtime.

And of course, since I'm not claiming that the current system does not require changing, that's yet another fallacious argument. All I'm saying is that your system's flaws outweigh its benefits -- imo -- if it still requires DMs to arbitrarily limit wealth, which you've already acknowledged it does.

I won't comment on the insulting parts of your post, because I'm older than eight.

It would have been far far better if you just had avoided the straw men in the first place. (And for the record, I never insulted you. I only ever called attention to your straw man arguments.)

However, this part is straight up wrong. DMs already control free time AND money, because in DnD free time is money.

And your proposal changes none of that. It only changes the mechanism by which DMs control time and money. You accentuate the contol of time, while the game now controls the amount of money.

So I'm just simplifying things while adding fun to the game.

No, you're really not. And instead of addressing people's arguments about why it doesn't you mischaracterize their arguments and whine abut being insulted. Have fun convincing the folks at Pathfinder that such a proposal should be incorporated into the new game.

If you want a game that doesn't have a DM in control

Enough with the straw man, K. If you would look at the other posts on this board and my other suggestions, you'd see I in no way want to have no DM in control.

But we're talking rules design, and any rules proposal that effectively says "This has holes, but I rely on the DM to fill in the gaps I can't figure out" is bad design.

This is DnD, and DMs have to make choices about what players can do.

Then why bother with rules at all? Let's just all play make-believe with the magical DM telling everybody what happens. Yay! Straw men are fun.

The current system relies on the DM to arbitrarily keep people at the wealth guidelines. You do too, but you do so by adding the extra inconvenience of having the DM do it by manipulating free time instead of the more direct way of manipulating actual wealth levels.

Since your proposal seems to be less convenient than the current system, it doesn't pass muster with me. And it has nothign to do with whether DMs get to make decisions.

The problems it creates:

-DMs have to watch a player's free time if he seems about to go overboard with magic item creation.

-DMs have to create adventures that distribute treasure to make up for character weaknesses

Even if I thought these were the only problems, they would be deal-breakers for me with respect to any system trying to correct problems with item creation.

I guess one of the questions that needs to be asked is what sort of monk do you want?

Frank Trollman's proposal works for a "wire fu" monk, who is essentially a guy who does supernatural stuff under the veneer of quasi-eastern philosophy. I think his character works better with psionics.

I prefer the monk as a pankration wrestler, the epitome of human(oid) physical prowess whose power is through the delving into unarmed combat. He thinks me character works better as a fighter with lots of unarmed combat feats.

I'm slightly astounded that this thread has gone on for 229 posts. I appreciate that, for a minority, these sorts of issues really float their boat. Frankly, I am interested in commerce as a trigger for adventures, but what I really don't care about is trying to create a system for simulating an economy (or economies) in D&D, especially while trying to get it to any sort of level of verisimilitude.

Every fifty posts the following disclaimer must be written:

Nobody wants a complex economic treatise to be in the books. All of the proposals in this thread have involved pretty simple fixes to buying and selling goods that could be condensed to more or less the same space it now occupies in the DMG and PHB. The rationale behind these rules take up a lot of space, but the rationale need not be in the sourcebook. So please don't complain that we're going to turn this into Guildmasters & Greengrocers. We're not.

I agree with those who said the monk is underpowered. It is. Here are the problems as I see it.

1) MAD as hell and not going to take it anymore. The monk requires good Str, Dex, Wis and Con to be effective.

2) Stand still and take it. A monk gets bonus speed, but it's flurry of blows requires it to take full actions.

3) Good saves -- bad BAB. This is why a monk is great for grappling casters... and nothing else.

4) All dressed up and nowhere to go. What do you spend your money on? A monk's belt. And then what? Not much.

All these issues need to be fixed. Most importantly, we need to figure out what the monk is supposed to be. I agree with those who want to separate the monk from his oriental roots. He's an unarmed fighter who concentrates on his own physical health to power amazing effects.

In my opinion, he should require Con and Wis and that's it. Str and Dex are helpful but not crucial. Int and Cha just get in the way.

Proposals:
1) Full BAB and Good saves.
2) Wis bonus to AC out of the gate.
3) Con bonus to hit and damage from unarmed attacks, including grapple rolls
4) Bonus ability points on 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th levels.
5) A full complement of new magic items that monks will want and need to spend their cash upon. Slippers, sashes, belts, robes, headbands.

But artificially controlling wealth still makes having wealth not be fun.

Since time is money (almost literally with your item creation rules), controlling time is controlling wealth. Either way it's an artificial limitation.

I don't see the functional difference between:
"I won't let you accumulate more wealth than the guidelines allow"
and
"I won't let you have enough downtime to accumulate more wealth than the guidelines allow"

As for why people don't rob the Mage-Mart, allow me to cite the Economicon

Well in an ideal world so would I, but we'd be fooling ourselves if we say 3rd editions' wealth-by-level & treasure-by-CR limits aren't there for metagame reasons, and any in-game explanations are just after-the-fact justification.

All the same, I'd like the best in-game jusification that could be provided, or I'd like a better system.

I think the answer's quite different.

I gave an in-game justification. You gave a metagame justification. They aren't mutually exclusive to one another. I would prefer there be explanations for phenomenon in the world that don't involve "It's a game."

If something like Lordzack's synergy suggestion gets used it would be of great benefit to Craft/Profession. An idea would be to allow Players to aid their own skills with a related Craft/Profession, at increasing bonuses based on the check. For example a Professional Mountain climber, Profession(Mount Climber) could get a +2 to his climb check with a roll of 10+ on his profession, perhaps a +4 with a 20+, +6 with 30+.

Better yet, eliminate the Skill Focus feat and grant a +3 synergy bonus to anybody who takes five ranks (or is proficient, depending on what the revised Skill set looks like) in a Trade with a corresponding non-Trade skill.

Of course, some skills don't work so well as Trades. Are there to be professional swimmers, fliers, perceivers, spellcrafters and magic device users?

The others work adequately...
Acrobatics = Trade (acrobat)
Appraise = Trade (appraiser)
Climb = Trade (sherpa)
Deception = Trade (actor)
Diplomacy = Trade (diplomat)
Disable Device = Trade (mechanic)
Disguise = Trade (costumer)
Escape Artist = Trade (escape artist)
Handle Animal = Trade (husbandry)
Heal = Trade (physic)
Intimidate = Trade (bravo)
Knowledge (x) = Trade (sage: x)
Linguistics = Trade (linguist)
Perform (x) = Trade (performer: x)
Ride = Trade (equestrian)
Stealth = Trade (spy)
Theft = Trade (thief)

One should not be allowed to take a trade that grants a synergy bonus unless one has five ranks in the related skill. In addition, I would change some of the NPC classes -- Commoner and Expert -- so that they could take five ranks in a Skill at first level. That way you can have tradesmen with appropriate synergy bonuses without arbitrarily making a lot of 2nd and 3rd level commoners.

A 1st level commoner with a +2 ability bonus in their Trade would thus have a +10 on their Trade checks, meaning that most low-level characters would be hard-pressed to top them. A character would have to actually concentrate on being a better smith than the common-folk, which is something I would prefer.

Thanks, Archgamer! Me too!

I dislike this greatly. Firstly, you can't do it without the Craft skills anyway (to produce the base item). Secondly, commoners should not make magic items.

1. Folks with the feat but no Craft can always buy the base item. it's the cheapest component in the item.

More likely, Experts and Adepts will be making magic items. Which explains why there are so many potions running around the world.

FYI, Jason Bulmahn has said he is eliminating XP costs for magic items. Not only does this eliminate the need for my third proposal, it makes implementing the Item Creation Skills a lot easier.

How do you guys feel about a situational bonus to some of the rolls?

I'm all for it. I think that circumstances would make up a large portion.

• Bonuses for good acting by the player
  
• Bonuses for an approach the NPC would be predisposed to accept
  
• Bonuses for teamwork (i.e., good cop-bad cop)

But penalties as well

• Penalty for poor etiquette
  
• Penalty for an approach the NPC would be predisposed to reject
  
• Penalty for contradicting or being contradicted by your allies.
  
• Penalty for wasting time (i.e., the boredom penalty)

A social encounter section in a Pathfinder supplement should have only the barest minimum of mechanics, but a lot of discussion on how to construct good social encounters, which would include a discussion not only of penalties and bonuses, but also time management issues, building complex NPCs, juggling multiple NPCs with conflicting agendas, and discussing when it is appropriate and inappropriate to use the dice.

A lot of these sections would be useful even to people who have no plans to roll dice to resolve social conflicts.

VERSION IV

Proposal 1: Item Creation Skills.
Certain Craft skills (called “Item Creation Skills”) can be used to manufacture magic items without the need for the craftsman to have an Item Creation Feat. (This proposal does not replace the Item Creation feats; rather it provides a second method of making magic items.) To craft a magic item, the craftsman must meet the following criteria:

• The craftsman must have the appropriate Craft for that item (see below). Cursed items can also be made with the appropriate Item Creation Skill (as determined by the DM). Artifacts cannot be manufactured with Item Creation Skills.
  
• The craftsman’s character level must be the minimum level that a spellcaster needs to learn the Item Creation Feat for that category of magic item.
  
• If the magic item description states that the creator needs to be a certain class, race, level, alignment or possess a specific skill, then the craftsman must also meet those requirements. (But see Use Magic Device, below.)
  
• If the item uses spell completion or spell trigger activation (specifically scrolls, staves and wands), the craftsman must be able to cast the spell to be triggered or completed, and must cast such a spell (through spellcasting ability or an item using the spell completion or spell trigger activation) every day the item is being crafted. (But see Use Magic Device, below.)
  
• The craftsman must possess all of the components that someone using the analogous Item Creation feat would require This means the craftsman needs to contribute 50% of the item price in components, not the one-third usually required by the Craft skill.
  
• The craftsman must donate the same XP that someone with the Item Creation feat would need to donate. (But see XP Donation, below.)
  
• The craftsman must spend as much time making the item as someone using the appropriate Item Creation Feat. This time cannot be elongated or reduced by altering the DC of the Craft check.

Aid Other. A craftsman with proficiency in the skill but insufficient levels to manufacture the item alone may Aid Another of the appropriate level. Only one person may Aid Another in this fashion for any given magic item.

The Skills. The Item Creation Skills and the items they create are:

• Craft (alchemy): Potions
  
• Craft (armorsmith): Magic Armor
  
• Craft (jewelling): Rings
  
• Craft (scribing): Scrolls
  
• Craft (scrimshawing): Rods, Staves and Wands
  
• Craft (tinkering): Wondrous items
  
• Craft (weaponsmith): Magic Arms

Craft DC. To calculate the DC of the Craft check, count the number of digits in the price of a magic item as set forth in gold pieces and add 20, as follows:
DC Item Price (gp)
25 1-9 (assuming such items even exist!)
30 10-99
35 100-999
40 1,000-9,999
45 10,000-99,999
50 100,000+ (the most expensive non-artifact items cap out at about 500,000 gp)
The DC will never exceed 50. It is assumed that the craftsman is always taking 20 because the Crafting time cannot be increased or decreased by changing the Craft DC.

Proposal 2: Craft (alchemy).
Craft (alchemy) no longer requires the ability to cast arcane magic.

Proposal 3: XP Donation.
The XP required to manufacture a magic item need not be contributed by the creator of the item. Rather, a voluntary donation of XP may be made by a third party (often the person who commissioned the item’s construction). The donor must be present throughout the item creation process or the creation fails and the magical components of the item are forever lost.

Proposal 4: Use Magic Device
A person proficient in an Item Creation Skill and Use Magic Device may mimic a prerequisite the craftsman does not otherwise meet with a successful Use Magic Device check of the following DC:
Ability + 15: Emulate an ability score
15: Emulate a skill proficiency (only usable for item creation, and the craftsman cannot emulate the Item Creation skill)
20: Emulate a class
25: Emulate a race
30: Emulate an alignment
The craftsman cannot emulate a higher level than the craftsman currently possesses. The Use Magic Device skill check must be made successfully on each day the item is being crafted. The craftsman cannot take 10 or 20 on the skill check. If the craftsman emulates a spellcasting class for the purpose of crafting an item using the spell activation or spell triggering method, the craftsman must still invoke the spell to be triggered or completed by the item once for each day the item is crafted. This may require the craftsman to Use Magic Device to activate scrolls or wands with that spell within.

Will is also used to disbelieve illusions, lies are just mundane illusions of word.

No, disbelieving illusions is an artifactof 2nd edition. The Will save for illusions indicates resisting the effect of the spell telling your mind that something is real. The gestures and sounds of a liar are real (unlike the photons or sounds of an illusion) -- it's the meaning that is false. I think that makes it fundamentally different from illusions.

Hasn't "Scrutinize" just become Search a al 3.5?

I hope not. You can't use Scrutinize to do any of the things that Search did. It doesn't let you find traps or secret doors. Since those things are hidden you need to use Perception. I might suggest that Decipher Script be added into Scrutinize.

I am on the fence whether it should be Int or Wis.

Craft and Profession have literally *dozens* of "sub-skills", and should they be made into an ability score?

Unlike Craft and Profession, it is expected that people will use all these Perception subskills a lot. That makes the game a lot more complicated. The schema you outlines above with Untalented Cross-Class, Trained Cross-Class, Untalented Class, Talented Class and Masterful Class, with different benefits to all subskills is just agoonizing in its complexity.

There is a balance to be had between consolidating too many skills and having too many skills. I realyl don't see the benefit of having eight types of Perception (Listen, Spot, Intuit, Smell, Search, Appraise, etc.)

I like the concept. A lot.

Thanks!

1) Only classes who can use the item can craft the item.

Well, I eliminated Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items from Skill-based Crafting, so what's left? Metamagic rods? Why not let Scrimshaws make rods they cannot use? And mages can make magic exotic weapons they cannot use, so I don't see the big deal.

let specific "ingredients" (gems, precious metals etc) have an impact on the craft DC.

I think circumstance bonuses like that should be left to individual DMs.

3) UMD can be used to "cheat" the magic when a rogue creates his wand of fireballs. He'd still need ingredients etc.

I love it!!

If we are talking about completely "folding" skills into another (i.e. there would not be any "subskills" for most skills), such as being able to use your Athletics skill for climbing, swimming, riding and jumping, *then* it's a different matter (and this is what 4E has done with skills).

It appears to be what Pathfinder is doing to skills as well. We already have Acrobatics (Balance, Jump and Tumble), Deception (Bluff, Sense Motive), Linguistics (Decipher Script, Forgery, and Speak Languages), and several others.

If Perception combines Appraise, Listen, Search, Spot and Sense Motive, we might as well simply make it an Ability like Charisma. I wouldn't like that at all.

That's why I like Perception (perceiving that which is hidden or obscured) and Scrutinize (understanding that which is perceived but subtle or confusing). (Maybe "Acumen" is a better term than "Scrutinize")

Both as Wisdom abilities, but different in scope.
Perception = Listen, Search, Spot
Scrutinize = Appraise, Sense Motive

I think Sense Motive should simply be kept separate, or maybe replaced with Will saves to disbelieve?

I like the idea of making Sense Motive a saving through, although Will is inappropriate. Will measures your ability to resist mental pressure (sort of the mental version of Fortitude). Sense Motive would be the ability to catch something quick and slippery, sort of the mental equivalent of Reflex.

But adding a fourth saving throw would hurt Pathfinder's backwards compatibility.

I'd ha[t]e to see all characters of all the classes being able to make them via skills.

Under my proposal (Version III), the Feats aren't going anywhere. Skills are simply an additional way to make items (using the magic inherent in the rare and mysterious "components")

1) The whole point of my proposal is to allow item creation by craftsmen of any class. This eliminates the bottleneck of fighters begging party wizards for discount items.

2) Your proposal doesn't seem very customizable. What if I want a wandsmithing Sorcerer, but not one who brews potions? Right now, I make Feat selections. With yours I get Brew Potion whether I want it or not.

Ah, gotcha. That's pretty spiffy. This seems like a pretty rules light system overall, with complimentary skills/rolls when needed if I followed correctly.

Thanks!!

Do you see any reasons why you might want to increase the structure or is your preference to leave it mostly to the DM with outs for when they get stuck?

Well, the goal of any game design is to make it Fine-sized, but the temptation is to make it Colossal! Yeah, a supplement might involve expanded Social Encounter Rules, with feats and classes dedicated to it. But I think the mechanics are pretty sound and they encompass most issues.

The expansion, in my opinion, would simply be a means to expand on how a DM can prepare social encounters, flesh out NPCs for social situations, and better "wing it" when an encounter you thought would be a fight turns into a parley.

As a follow-up, how would you apply this to something like a debate? More structure, or mostly DM interaction?

Mostly DM interaction. Also, D&D isn't made for formal debate. Frankly, that might get resolved simply with opposing Perform (oratory) checks.

Fundamentally, we need some way to track "social stamina", which is analagous to how we track "physical durability": through hit points.

We do? Why? Why not just let the DM decide when the NPC says, "I tire of this jabbering. Are you going to do what I ask or is this going to get ugly?"

Really, that's the sort of thing that should be written into the personality of the NPC. "This NPC is impatient." "This NPC is more likely to wear down the PCs than vice versa." "If the PCs haven't convinced the NPC before General Hospital comes on, he stops listening." "This NPC begins discussion by saying 'I'll give you one minute, then I have a pedicure to get to.'" "This NPC will listen patiently, but if they mention that they've been to the county of Sarlek, the NPC will stop listening to anythign they say until after they patiently hear his long and boring tale of his trek to the Sarleki Mountains forty years ago. If they interrupt, he kicks them out. If they listen patiently, they will get a +3 circumstance bonus on all social rolls for the rest of the encounter."

Maybe dance could be one subset of the music performances? I know it's a stretch in terms of "realism," but it might work in game terms.

Or, the rules could allow a Bard to assign any Dex or Cha based Skill in which they are proficient as a form of Performance. Maybe with the purchase of an "Exotic Performer" Feat. Or maybe such Skills could count as two categories of musical instrument. Then dance is a part of Acrobatics.

does "scrutinize" subsume parts of Search as well?

I'm hesitant to do that. Scrutinize means noticing the details in an object everyone can see plainly. Spot and Listen mean noticing a thing that people might not see.

If you let people substitute Scrutinize for Spot, you encourage some gamesmanship I don't like. (I try to Perceive Traps. Crud, I rolled a 4. You don't perceive any. Okay. I scrutinize the area for traps. I rolled a 19! Grumble....)

Random thought: What do you think about adding something similar to common sense/philosophy to Wisdom?

Well, common sense? Sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" though. That seems more like a Knowledge.

How do you see resolution? Working off a tri-stat system, do you see it as a split based on what you want to achieve? IE: My PC has a high INT, and I need to convince the duke to loan us troops to guard something while my party knocks out the main threat. So I could use Knowledge to lay out the why, then Diplomacy to finish the deal?

Would you be able to blend rolls for an effect?

Same example; I start with the Knowledge skill, but finish with a WIS based Perception check to point out the benefits to the duke.

Well, I would actually require the party to role-play it out, because although the intent may be to start out with a factual appeal (Int + Know) to convince the duke about the nature of the threat, they might hit a metaphorical wall. So then one of the other players starts probing the Duke with questions (A Wisdom-based appeal). In this case, wither Inquiry (Wis+Diplomacy) or intuition (Wis+Sense Motive) might work. Interrogation (Wis+Intimidate) is probably a sure trip to the stockades! If successful, the party might discover the DUke already agrees that the main threat is serious, but fears that re-allocating troops would open himself to a more serious threat elsewhere.

Well, that throws a monkey wrench in your plans. Now the party needs to come up with a new approach. What's this other threat? Is it really more serious than the one we know of. Could the Duke help us in other ways?

Only through actually role-playing the scenario would the DM be able to determine which approach the players are using and only through role-play would the players be able to actually affect things. The dice are used only when the DM is unsure how a NPC might react.

Making PCs rely on multiple abilities and multiple skills ensures however, that the encounter won't simply be resolved by one PC with a +35 on his Charisma + Diplomacy.

2. Yes; I'd keep Acrobatics as Tumble + Balance, and might let a player make a case that his or her character can dance, too -- and then I could eliminate Perform (dance).

Should a brd be able to invoke bardic abilities through Dance? If so, then you want to keep that as a Perform skill. If not, no problems.

what about Sense Motive? If it's not part of Deception, does it get its own skill? I think I'm against adding anything else to Perception; it's already almost too good.

I suggested in another thread that Sense Motive be combines with Appraise to form a new skill called "Scrutinize" which allows yo to gather information from small details (like a person's "tells" or the fact that the yellowing on this antique parchment was really caused with lemon juice)

4. I'd actually take ALL musical performance types and combine them; you'd learn new groups of instuments the way Linguistics gives you "free" languages.

I love that! That's a great suggestion!!

{snip the shirt-tempered rant}

That said, what about a system based off of the CMB as a core, but with different potential moves. I know someone joked about Debate dodge, but to keep things somewhat similar mechanically, might this be a good starting point?

I don't think social encounters should be analogous to combat. We may talk about a "verbal parry" in colloquial English, but social interaction is not similar to combat. I don't think we should give people Wit Points instead of Hit Points or a Humor Class instead of an Armor Class.

Social encounters either need their own mechanic (not so backwards compatible) or they need to work off the existing social mechanic as much as possible. It also has to reflect how we actually go about interacting with people

That's why my idea is to split interaction based on the primary mental trait used: Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma. And then to split that further into three approaches based on how those interactions are used.

Wisdom, which is a passive Ability tied to observation, is used to get information from someone either through positive appeals (Diplomacy/"good cop"), negative threats (Intimidate/bad cop) or intuitive observation (Perception/profiling).

Intelligence, which reflects one's breadth and depth of knowledge, can be used to convince someone of a fact, whether through rigorous argument (Knowledge), through lording one's expertise over someone (Intimidate), and through confusing someone with torturous verbal legerdemain (Diplomacy)

Charisma, which reflects one's ability to affect others socially, can evoke emotional responses in others, whether positive (Diplomacy), fearful (Intimidate) or angry (Perform -- usually oratory).

This allows a variety of players to participate in social encounters, based on their Skill set and their Abilities. Moreover,not every approach is good for every scenario. Heavy circumstance bonuses and penalties should apply. For example, trying to get a goblin to sympathize with the poor plight of an elven village threatened by an orc army should receive a hefty penalty, so the guy with the high Cha + Diplomacy score may have to give way to someone using a different approach (for example, the guy with Charisma + Perform, who gets that goblin angry over the fact that the army of orcs is coming to kill everyone -- including him).

Note that a DM would not analyze every statement. He'd let the role-play play out. Only when it's time for the DM to decide if the NPC 1) releases information, 2) agrees with the truth of the PCs' story, or 3) sympathizes with the PCs, the DM will either decide "There's no way the NPC buys this" (no dice), "This NPC will absolutely buy this" (no dice) or "Hmmm... I'm not sure if this NPC will buy this... maybe I'm being convinced by the player's abilities, notwithstanding that his character has a 6 Charisma... maybe I'm being too skeptical because I'm moderately intelligent and the NPC has a 6 Wisdom..." In that case, then the DM calls for a roll.

And also, even if the PCs' roll succeeds, the NPC still reacts consistently with his character, and is not a thrall of the PCs' uber-social skills.

Disguise is rolled into Perform (acting), to simulate the character's familiarity with costumes, props, and impersonation.

How is Perform (acting) different than "Bluff"? Or is Bluff rolled into Perform (acting) too. (That actually would be a good idea.)

Hmmm....
Roll Diplomacy into Perform (Oratory)
Roll Tumble, Balance and Perform (Dance) into Perform (Acrobatics)
Roll Disguise, Bluff and Perform (Comedy) into Perform (Act)
Roll Perform (Keyboard) into Perform (String Instruments)

I agree, I'd like to see what people have up their sleeves.

For the third time, here's the bare bones of my ideas: LINK

One area where this system doesn't quite work, however, is in creating new magic items. It's a fine replacement for the existing list of magic items - but if the player wanted to create something brand new, there's no formula by which the player can use to determine the cost.

What's wrong with using the cost tables in the SRD? The cost would still be based on the spell level of the effect with which the item is imbued and the minimum level a caster needs to be to invoke the spell. Am I missing something?

Maybe Selk and Archgamer want to take a look at my proposed rules -- which I've linked to in this thread -- before they go making assumptions that social encounter rules mean rolling dice every time someone speaks. If they would, they would see that I am not advocating that dice replace role-play, that a player's ability to strategize socially be diminished, or that there be a roll every time someone opens their mouth. Maybe they would see that the suggestion merely expands the woefully clumsy Diplomacy/Intimidate rules which their DMs apparently already ignore.

Sheesh. Maybe, Archgamer, if you lack the imagination to think there might be a way in between "never roll" and "always roll"... um... don't participate in game design threads. (Or even better, maybe when you do participate, you keep the snarky insults like the one above in the sandbox.)

Here is the consolidated list, including dragons, which I realize works entirely by size.

So here's the proposed rule:

• Every creature with a Fly speed listed in their monster entry is proficient in Fly.
  
• Creatures with the air, extraplanar or incorporeal subtypes receive a +8 racial bonus to Fly and can take 10 on Fly checks even when threatened.
  
• Creatures add their Dex, Size bonus to AC and subtract their Natural Armor bonus to AC.

The "+" after the name means, they are one category better than they were in 3.5. The "-" after the name means they are one category worse than they were in 3.5. (However, ravids and lantern archons are perfect fliers in 3.5, but much worse in this system)

Clumsy (negative)
Darkmantle- (-1), Dragons, non-green Colossal (-4)

Poor (0-4)
Cloaker- (+4), Dragons, non-green Medium through Gargantuan (+4 to +0), Griffon- (+4), Manticore+ (+4), Chimera (+3), Hippogriff- (+3), Ogre mage- (+2), Ravid- (+2), Giant praying mantis (+1), Sphinx, andro/crio (+1), Lammasu- (+0), Sphinx, gyno (+0)

Average (5-9)
Homonculus- (+9), Lantern archon- (+9), Planetar angel- (+9), Succubus demon (+9), Vrock demon (+9), Dragon, green Gargantuan+ (+8), Ghaele- (+8), Grig sprite+ (+8), Mephit, earth/salt (+8), Pixie Sprite+ (+8), Raven (+8), Zelekhut inevitable (+8), Hawk (+7), Owl (+7), Couatl- (+6), Dragonne+ (+6), Dragons, non-green and non-white Tiny (+6), Eagle (+6), Giant bee- (+6), Giant eagle (+6), Giant owl (+6), Nalfeshnee demon+ (+6), Dragons, non-green Small (+5), Gargoyle (+5), Nightmare- (+5), Pegasus (+5), Pseudodragon- (+5), Sphinx, hieraco+ (+5)

Good (10-14)
Belker- (+14), Imp devil- (+14), Mephit, ice- (+14), Dragon, green Huge and smaller+ (+13 to +10), Horned devil (+13), Pit fiend devil (+13), Astral deva angel (+12), Bat swarm (+12), Cockatrice+ (+12), Mephit, fire/magma/steam+ (+12), Nightwing (+12), Trumpet archon (+12), Giant wasp (+12), Harpy+ (+11), Bat (+10), Dragon, white wyrmling+ (+10), Janni- (+10), Mephit, ooze/water- (+10), Roc+ (+10), Stirge+ (+10)

Perfect (15+)
Will-O’-Wisp (+30), Air elemental (between +26 and +14), Arrowhawk (between +23 and +18), Planetar angel+ (+19), Spectre (+19), Wraith (+19), Balor demon+ (+18), Djinni (+18), Invisible Stalker (+18), Efreeti (+17), Erinyes Devil (+17), Allip (+16), Avoral+ (+16), Shadow (+16), Solar angel+ (+16), Quasit demon (+16), Bralani+ (+15), Lillend+ (+15), Mephit, air/dust (+15)

A quick footnote on how dragons fly under my set-up.

The Fly Skill does not have anything to do with speed. So dragons are still the swiftest things in the sky. What they cannot do is turn on a dime or remain aloft in case of collision with larger creatures and weather that affects creatures of their size.

But remember that dragons -- once grown -- are some off the biggest creatures in the sky. They grow to gargantuan and colossal in size. So once grown, their lack of a Fly bonus is irrelevant to those issues. They can remain aloft in all but hurricane force winds, and the only collisions they need to avoid are rocs and other ancient dragons.

Otherwise, all this means is that dragons have to approach prey smartly, swooping in low and making broad majestic turns in the sky. They have the Intelligence for it. And there's a reason that dragons have an average Dexterity. They're not intended to be majorly agile.

However, even on my system you can fix that. If you want agile dragons, increase their Dexterity. If you make their Dex match their Str, their Fly bonuses increase by up to +10, moving them from clumsy and poor fliers to good or even perfect fliers (and green dragons become the best fliers in the sky, after air elementals and will-o-the-wisps). And then they can easily turn on a dime, despite their bulk, and do all the maneuvers their massive draconic hearts desire.

Sorry, disenchanter, your post disappeared during the server issues over the weekend and I didn't see it until just now.

The primary assumptions of Frank Trollman's proposal (as pertains to high level magic) seem to me to be...

1) The game expects players to receive wealth in amounts approximating the wealth-by-level guidelines.
2) The game expects players to spend that wealth exclusively on magic items that allow them to defeat encounters appropriate for their level.
3) At ninth level, players gain access to spells -- like plane shift -- that allow players to easily surpass the wealth-by-level guidelines.

Do you take issue with these three premises? I think this would help clarify your issues with the proposal.

Alright. Since you need a detailed response to understand things, I'll accommodate you.

Yeah, it's funny how I lack the ability to read your mind and actually need things to be written out with words.

Premise 3) Needs DM Control to not exist:

No, premise 3 requires that a game not rely on DM fiat to fix its own problems.

If your defense to a problem is "The DM can use Rule Zero to handwave it away" then you haven't addressed the problem. You've just abdicated responsibility as a game designer. And if that's going to be your philosophy, then why bother making suggestions? Why should we even have Pathfinder, since the DM can just hand-wave away any issues that Pathfinder is trying to address?

In order to "break" Premise 2), which requires DM Control to exist. After all, if the DM doesn't care about Wealth per Level, everything else is moot.

I care about the premises of the game from a design perspective, and the game absolutely cares about players sticking to the wealth guidelines in order to provide a balanced encounter.

So once again, your answer is effectively "This isn't a problem because the DM can use Rule Zero to ignore it."

So what kind of discussion can we have on that topic? No matter how I answer, you have already set the trap.

Yeah, it's funny how logical proofs sometimes feel like trap to people who disagree with them. That's often a sign that the person who feels trapped is wrong yet unwilling to admit that.

And just so that you can't say I am avoiding any part, Premise 1) "The DM has to hand out truckloads of gold,"

As can be seen at the top of this post, what you quoted is not Premise Number 1. I never mentioned "truckloads of gold" in my premises. The truckloads of gold issue is a separate problem. (Though one you also handwave away by saying the DM should use Rule Zero to make it not exist.)

Frank never said that the PCs couldn't take, or use the item creation feats.... Frank Trollman did state that "high power" magic items couldn't be made without the "high level" trade goods.

No, he said that was something that might be considered in a thread about magic item creation. It's extraneous to this thread -- which he stated -- but since you thought you smelled blood, you decided to jump the rails and pursue the non sequitur. Please stop chewing on the straw man and rejoin us in the on-topic portion of the thread.

If you try to achieve wealth way beyond your CR, you will inevitably attract the attention someone of a much higher CR. They will show up, smack your b!tch UP, and steal your lunch money (no save). So don't f#ck around at the deep end of the pool.

In addition to the critiques lodged by others in this thread, I have my own.

PCs who follow the wealth tables have already achieved wealth beyond their CR. There is a separate wealth table for NPCs and PCs and PCs have about four times as much wealth as a PC of the same ECL. So from the perspective of the NPCs, the PCs are already over-treasured.

So why aren't PCs being constantly mugged? Because the equipment enables them to handle the NPCs who would want that equipment. And the same holds true for PCs who are over-treasured.

But the fact that you did means we're arguing about consensus. Subtractive ideas have just as much weight as additive ideas in this discussion.

It seems that you should be indifferent to my proposal since it will have absolutely no effect on how you play. So what is your "subtractive idea"? That we eliminate Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Gather Information and Sense Motive from the game entirely and leave it completely up to role-play at the table? That would certainly same some space in the game books.

To your first post: Sounds like what pregine falcon does... I know it favors the high HD monster, and the only way to do it under the fly skill would to give it less skill points which is less than optimal

My system accommodates it just fine.

1)Dragons could do all those things in the 3.5 by buring feats.

And I thought 3.5 was nonsensical on this point. Red dragons with feats were simultaneously clumsy fliers and able to hover?! Wha-huh?

We are in complete disagreement on the point of whether dragons should fly well or not. Your dragons are ungraceful giants, mine are fast, killing machines that use their years of experience(feats) to outmaneuver their foes in the air, despite their grait.

Under your system every creature is going to have to be individually tailored to fit a preconceived notion. I liked simplifying Skills. Statting a dragon in 3.5 is one of the more annoying chores for a DM.

As for doubling maneuver mods, it's still more complicated than my system (which as far as I can tell you dislike because you have some notion that natural armor means skin as thin as tissue but as tough as steel, rather than big and bulky skin). Another way to look at the natural armor penalty is to think of it as an double armor penalty, just like swimming in physical armor.

Moreover, it basically renders all other modifiers irrelevant. Perfect fliers get a +16. At 1 HD they will make every check. Good fliers get a +8, meaning that the Skill becomes irrelevant for them around 5th level (with typical Dex mods). Clumsy fliers (-16) might as well never use their wings.

The trick for feats that are primarily used to avoid natural hazards (Swim, Jump, Climb) is keeping bonuses in-between -5 and +15. Below that and using the Skill is too treacherous. Above that and the Skill is utterly irrelevant.

Hmm. Maybe I am confused - I guess I'm not fond of the current system either. I guess that's why my group doesn't use it.

And you will equally be able to ignore any other system that might be implemented.

And a question, are you completely against the idea of dragons being good flyers?

For backwards compatibility purposes, yes, I am against the idea of most dragons being good flyers. Dragons should not be able to hover like a hummingbird or a will-o-the-wisp, make hairpin turns or nose dives to stop on a dime. Dragons are huge majestic creatures that need to soar and swoop, using their breath weapons to keep larger creatures at bay.

wrecan, I really like the work you're doing here; the comparisons are a huge help in the debate. I wonder why a +10 racial bonus, though, instead of +8 as creatures currently get with Climb or Swim? A few sphynxes and devils would drop a maneuverability rating, but otherwise it wouldn't affect much, and would retain consistency with the other racial movement mods.

Excellent suggestion! And thanks for the compliment. (By the by, sphinxes don't get the racial modifiers)

To BM: There is at least one aspect of the Fly skill which does directly relate to competitive flying. If two creatures of equal size collide, they each must make a DC 25 Fly check or fall to the ground. A creature with a decent chance to make that check should always try to collide with a creature less likely to make that check, inflicting massive falling damage (particularly if he lures the creature to or encounters the creature at a nice height).

I wonder why a +10 racial bonus, though, instead of +8 as creatures currently get with Climb or Swim? A few sphynxes and devils would drop a maneuverability rating, but otherwise it wouldn't affect much, and would retain consistency with the other racial movement mods.

Good question. Ten seemed like a nice round number. +8 is consistent with other racial movement bonuses.

There is nothing that indicates that it reprents true flying ability.

I quote "You are skilled at flying... and can perform maneuvers while airborne." Page 24.

Mechanically, it does represent one's flying ability. It tells you exactly what your chance of falling if hit. It tells you your chance of making a sharp turn in combat. It tells you your chance of avoiding damage in a fall. It tells you your ability to remain airborne in harsh weather.

The entirely of the problem you seem to have is that Dragons automatically get full ranks in fly.

Any dragon who isn't a total moron will make sure he is maximized in a skill that could prevent him from dying from collision damage!

This is not the fault of the fly skill. It is the fault of the skill system. A skill system, that is going to be CHANGED.

And I am offering a way to change it.

Can you explain to me how this is a flaw of the fly skill and not the skill system?

They are entwined until we see the new system. Ar eyou saying we should not offer suggestions because Jason is considering changes to the system? Isn't this exactly the time we should be making suggestions?

Do you have any evidence the new system is going to return to the clunky old system where you have to allocate skill points at every level and keep track of Int increases?

In terms of backwards compatibility, I wondered what would happen if I didn’t replace any of the natural armor bonuses, as I did earlier, but maintained the +10 racial bonus for creatures with the air and incorporeal subtypes. This would maximize backwards compatibility.

Doing so, I realized the nightmare and ravid were inappropriately clumsy. I decided to see what would happen if I extended the +10 racial bonus (which I am now changing to +8) to all extraplanar creatures with a fly speed. Turns out almost everybody is within one category of where I think they should be.

So here's the proposed rule:
1) Every creature with a Fly speed listed in their monster entry is proficient in Fly.
2) Creatures with the air, extraplanar or incorporeal subtypes receive a +8 racial bonus to Fly and can take 10 on Fly checks even when threatened.
3) Creatures add their Dex, Size bonus to AC and subtract their Natural Armor bonus to AC.

Here's what we end up with. The "+" after the name means, they are one category better than they were in 3.5. The "-" after the name means they are one category worse than they were in 3.5.

Clumsy (negative)
Darkmantle- (-1)

Poor (0-4)
Cloaker- (+4), Griffon- (+4), Manticore+ (+4), Chimera (+3), Hippogriff- (+3), Ogre mage- (+2), Ravid- (+2), Giant praying mantis (+1), Sphinx, andro/crio (+1), Lammasu- (+0), Sphinx, gyno (+0)

Average (5-9)
Homonculus- (+9), Lantern archon- (+9), Planetar angel- (+9), Succubus demon (+9), Vrock demon (+9), Ghaele- (+8), Grig sprite+ (+8), Mephit, earth/salt (+8), Pixie Sprite+ (+8), Raven (+8), Zelekhut inevitable (+8), Hawk (+7), Owl (+7), Couatl- (+6), Dragonne+ (+6), Eagle (+6), Giant bee- (+6), Giant eagle (+6), Giant owl (+6), Nalfeshnee demon+ (+6), Gargoyle (+5), Nightmare- (+5), Pegasus (+5), Pseudodragon- (+5), Sphinx, hieraco+ (+5)

Good (10-14)
Belker- (+14), Imp devil- (+14), Mephit, ice- (+14), Horned devil (+13), Pit fiend devil (+13), Astral deva angel (+12), Bat swarm (+12), Cockatrice+ (+12), Mephit, fire/magma/steam+ (+12), Nightwing (+12), Trumpet archon (+12), Giant wasp (+12), Harpy+ (+11), Bat (+10), Janni- (+10), Mephit, ooze/water- (+10), Roc+ (+10), Stirge+ (+10)

Perfect (15+)
Will-O’-Wisp (+30), Air elemental (between +26 and +14), Arrowhawk (between +23 and +18), Planetar angel+ (+19), Spectre (+19), Wraith (+19), Balor demon+ (+18), Djinni (+18), Invisible Stalker (+18), Efreeti (+17), Erinyes Devil (+17), Allip (+16), Avoral+ (+16), Shadow (+16), Solar angel+ (+16), Quasit demon (+16), Bralani+ (+15), Lillend+ (+15), Mephit, air/dust (+15)

I make a compelling and incisive counter-argument that makes your previous posts in this thread look poorly reasoned.

*rolls die*

Woo! 29!

I love this new system.

You must be confused, because what you just described is the current system.

And how is it any more arbitrary than any other racial mod?

When did I say I wanted to modify Fly by racial modifiers? I didn't. I think racial modifiers should be kept to a bare minimum, not made an intrinsic part of ever Fly check.

Also, without looking a griffon has average maneuverability(+0 mod), and a chimera has poor maneuverability(-4 mod).

And the bralani? The earth mephit? The roc?

I mean, I can explain maneuverability as you inherently suck at flying for reason X(you're massive, poor aerodynamics, etc..) or vice versa(very good dynamics, magic, etc). Under your system, you suck at it because.. your skin is tough?... Its more arbitrary from a logic stand point, and is no simplier.

Natural armor is almost never "tough skin". It represents added bulk, often in the form of carapace or scales, which is why natural armor increases as you increase a creature's Size Category. Their skin doesn't get tougher -- they get bulkier. And that's exactly what makes creatures less maneuverable.

Your system:Fly + Dex + Size* - Natural armor

Currently: Fly + Dex + Maneuverability.

How is that any simplier?

The Dex, Size and Natural armor modifiers are already listed on one line in the monster's Armor Class entry, making for easy reference. The Maneuverability modifier requires you to cross-reference the Fly Skill chart. For purposes of backwards compatibility, my way is much simpler, because the numbers are already laid out for you if you use a book that was not made for Pathfinder (such as, say, the Monster Manual or any of Paizo’s pre-Pathfinder publications).

A untrained dragon making a fly skill check(if the fly skill is made to allow untrained checks) as a mod of its dex and maneuverability.

What dragon, demon or devil is not going to get Proficient in Fly even if, for no good reason, it isn’t considered a class skill for dragons? Dragons, devils and demons are not stupid. If you have wings, it is suicide not to learn to use them. Heck, wizards and druids are going to be blowing Proficiencies on Fly and they only have wings occasionally! And once a dragon learns the skill cross-class, the maneuverability penalty becomes inconsequential because it does not scale with level.

In fact, dragons, who are supposed to get clumsier with age, will now get more aerodynamic with age. Let’s take the iconic red dragon. In the MM, the wyrmling red dragon is a poor flier (-4), and the great wyrm is a clumsy flier (-8). But once the dragon becomes proficient in Fly (which he should right out of the egg!), the wyrmling has a -1 penalty to Fly, but the Great Wyrm has a +12!

In contrast, the giant owl, which is an average flier, and probably proficient in Fly, has a +10. So now the “clumsy” cross-trained dragon is better than the average naturally proficient giant owl. So explain again how your system provides for high HD/low maneuverability creatures, because I don’t see it.

You're wrong on both these parts. The maneuverability modifier is no different from a racial mod

It's different from a racial modifier because it's arbitrary. There's no easy way to know a creature's maneuverability. Quick, without looking, what's a bralani's maneuverability? A griffon's? A chimera's?

My way, the modifier is easy to figure out. In fact, all the modifiers are right there in the AC line (just change the bonus from natural armor to a penalty). The add HD+3, and if it has the Air subtype, an additional +10. Done. Easy.

The one exception -- in my chart -- is the nightmare, which gets a +10 modifier. But even better would be to drop the nightmare's natural armor bonus to +3 and give it a +10 dodge bonus to AC.

you can have a low maneuverability, HD flyier, by not giving them ranks in the fly skill.

Fly is a trained only skill. Without the training, you are always the equivalent of a Clumsy flier with no chance of making any maneuver. Which means that such creatures are considered flatfooted while flying, cannot use snatch or wingover and cannot avoid falling damage when flying. This makes dragons in the air sitting ducks (no pun intended).

If you make these creatures take Fly cross-class you still don't have high-HD/low maneuverability. Cross-class skills use half the HD. Clumsy gives you a -8 penalty. At 8 HD, the worst that a flier will be is the equivalent of Poor. By 16 HD, you've eliminated the penalty and become an average flier. Dragons have upwards of 32 HD. None of them are going to be poor fliers.

So in this scenario you have three choices:
1) Dragons take Fly as a class skill and are awesome fliers.
2) Dragons take Fly as a cross-class skill and are above average fliers
3) Dragons are untrained in Fly and are dead as soon as they take wing.

Me? I would like dragons to be poor fliers, but still able to grab a cow for lunch without crashing into the ground.

Note that an Elite Expert (15 in Intelligence -- +2), with Skill Focus (+3) and masterwork artisan’s tools (+2) and an apprentice (+2) will have the following Craft check at each level:
3-5: DC 30 (no item can be made before 3rd -- potions)
6-10: DC 35
11-14: DC 40
15-19: DC 45
20: DC 50

However, at 5th level, an Expert with Craft (tinkering) could start making headbands of intellect and magical artisan’s tools to improve his crafts

VERSION III

Proposal 1: Item Creation Skills.
Certain Craft skills (called “Item Creation Skills”) can be used to manufacture magic items without the need for the craftsman to have an Item Creation Feat. To utilize an Item Creation Skill to create a magic item, the craftsman’s character level must be the minimum level that a spell caster needs to learn the Item Creation Feat for that category of magic item. A craftsman with proficiency in the skill but insufficient levels may Aid Another of the appropriate level. Only one person may Aid Another in this fashion for any given magic item. In addition, if the magic item description states that the creator needs to be a certain class, race, level, alignment or possess a specific skill, then the craftsman must also meet those requirements. Items that use spell completion or spell trigger activation (specifically scrolls, staves and wands) cannot be created using Item Creation Skills. Artifacts cannot be manufactured with Item Creation Skills. Cursed items can also be made with the appropriate Item Creation Skill (as determined by the DM)

The Item Creation Skills (and the items they can create) are:
Craft (alchemy): Potions
Craft (armorsmith): Magic Armor
Craft (jewelling): Rings
Craft (scrimshawing): Rods
Craft (tinkering): Wondrous items
Craft (weaponsmith): Magic Arms

Crafting an item with this skill requires all of the components that someone using the analogous feat would require (including XP expenditure). This means the craftsman needs to contribute 50% of the item price in components, not the one-third usually required by the Craft skill. Crafting an item with this skill takes just as long as crafting the item with Item Creation feats. This time cannot be elongated or reduced by altering the DC of the Craft check.

To calculate the DC of the Craft check, count the number of digits in the price of a magic item as set forth in gold pieces and add 20:
DC Item Price (gp)
25 1-9 (assuming such items even exist!)
30 10-99
35 100-999
40 1,000-9,999
45 10,000-99,999
50 100,000+ (the most expensive non-artifact items cap out at about 500,000 gp)
The DC will never exceed 50. It is assumed that the craftsman is always taking 20 because the Crafting time cannot be increased or decreased by changing the Craft DC.

Proposal 2: Craft (alchemy).
Craft (alchemy) no longer requires the ability to cast arcane magic.

Proposal 3: XP Donation.
The XP required to manufacture a magic item need not be contributed by the creator of the item. Rather, a voluntary donation of XP may be made by a third party (often the person who commissioned the item’s construction). The donor must be present throughout the item creation process or the creation fails and the magical components of the item are forever lost.

First off to make sure on the same page, what to you mean drop maneuverability and make it all part of the fly skill?

No, I mean drop maneuverability as a modifier, category or descriptor in its entirety. Use natural armor, as I describe above.

The maneuverability modifier adds an unnecessary complication to the game. It also means you cannot have high-HD/Low maneuverability creatures, like dragons. Just dump it.