03-28-08
Tomorrow my group will play it's first Pathfinder RPG game. I've been looking forward to this but decided to cease posting on the boards until I could post about actual play-testing rather than speculating about rules I've yet to try. I saw a lot of people making judgment calls on various rules likely without having even tried them, now I can see some rules being counted ridiculous after only reading but other, like the new skill system, are big changes that really need to be tried rather than bashed after a simple look over.
Now allow me to contradict that statement with this, I looked over the update and liked most of the changes I saw, I was a bit surprised at the Fighters Armor Mastery 19th level ability being reduced to a mere 5/-. In my experience as a DM of 3rd edition a 10/- around 20th level is a neat bonus especially when monsters and enemies sneeze and deal 10 points of damage but I'll have to see how I feel after playing through it especially considering it apparently stacks with other DR.
As it stands one of my players will be playing a Cleric, particularly a Cloistered Cleric, considering this particular player has made me shivver in fear at some of the builds he's come up with I decided this was a good idea to see just how far the rules could be abused in blending these two. After looking over the Knowledge domain and hearing his frightful build I realized that while scary, I could handle it. It involved a feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds and another feat from a Forgotten Realms supplement that will permit him to add a Wisdom bonus to his attack and with a skill check add his intelligence bonus, effectively neutralizing the cloistered clerics low attack bonus. Suffice to say it will be interesting to see how this plays out. As a DM I have my right to call something down.
One player will be playing a fighter so I'm sure he'll appreciate the nullification of the chain feats.
Two will be playing Wizards. This will be interesting as I've never had a party with two flat out wizards, or if I have I cannot remember. One wishes to avoid either a bonded item or a familiar as he believes they're more of a liability than a benefit. If anyone has any advice on this please comment.
Another thing that same player mentioned, and I fully agree with, is getting rid of the Vancian feel, well, dampening it a bit. The system would work like this. Say a wizard had 4 first level spells they could memorize. They would select four different 1st level spells but they could pick and choose which ones they wanted to cast and wouldn't lose them until they lost their total spells per day.
Allow me to clarify:
Normally a wizard would memorize something like Magic Missile x2, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor; she could only cast Mage Armor once, Expeditious Retreat once, and Magic Missile twice. The system I'm thinking of get's rid of what is (to my mind) a nonsensical rule. Instead they select four spells they can cast, in this case let's use Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Expeditious Retreat and Darkness. Now a Wizard would be able to cast four spells from this list before his 1st level spells were gone based on what was needed that day, whether it be casting magic missiles four times, or mage armor four times or Expeditious retreat once and then mage armor on his three companions. It permits flexibility without giving as much free reign as the sorcerer or nearly as many spells. Ironically as I read the rules in the PDF it never said it couldn't be done this way. Regardless I'm going to play with this.
The remaining player will be a rogue. He's a fairly quiet player and tends to gravitate towards the stealthy rogues anyway so it fits.
The first game we shall play will be the first Pathfinder module. Whether we continue on the adventure path from there or not I'm not sure. I'll try and fully convert it depending on how much time I have to work with.
Again, advice and constructive criticism will be welcome. I will occasionally report my players take on this system and the game itself as is necessary. I chose the general boards because I'll be discussing all aspects of the game here in this thread rather than hopping about from thread to thread, I'm lazy and this is easier for me. Anyone with snide or holier than thou remarks please ignore anything written here and go somewhere else, yes your gaming wang is ginormous, I don't care, leave. :-P
I'll follow this up tomorrow night as soon after my game as possible.
Another thing that same player mentioned, and I fully agree with, is getting rid of the Vancian feel, well, dampening it a bit. The system would work like this. Say a wizard had 4 first level spells they could memorize. They would select four different 1st level spells but they could pick and choose which ones they wanted to cast and wouldn't lose them until they lost their total spells per day.
Allow me to clarify:Normally a wizard would memorize something like Magic Missile x2, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor; she could only cast Mage Armor once, Expeditious Retreat once, and Magic Missile twice. The system I'm thinking of get's rid of what is (to my mind) a nonsensical rule. Instead they select four spells they can cast, in this case let's use Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Expeditious Retreat and Darkness. Now a Wizard would be able to cast four spells from this list before his 1st level spells were gone based on what was needed that day, whether it be casting magic missiles four times, or mage armor four times or Expeditious retreat once and then mage armor on his three companions. It permits flexibility without giving as much free reign as the sorcerer or nearly as many spells. Ironically as I read the rules in the PDF it never said it couldn't be done this way. Regardless I'm going to play with this.
Oooohhh... I like this thought. I am going to give this a try. There is one PC wizard (out of six PCs) and they are 5th level. As he is a specialist, the one "change" will be: One of the spells he does cast must be from his specialty.
Since we are playing tomorrow (every other Sunday), I'll let the player know and also know that it is a pure experiment, and can get revoked at any time. Thank you for this idea.
-- david
Papa-DRB
Grognard
My better half and me
That would make sense for a specialist. I shall include that into my little system.
My cleric brought up a good point today (Here I go contradicting myself again). He was a touch disappointed at the Luck Domain's 1st level ability. Given I've never been fond of the 'Must declare before your role' thing for anything luck related I decided to adjust it to how 3.5 handled it. One would roll, then they could declare they want to use their luck ability and roll again only before they know the result. That way they have the comfort of re-rolling for obvious failures though still having to declare for more ambiguous results. This is a change I honestly and wholeheartedly promote for the luck domain.
3-30-08
WARNING: SPOILERS TO RISE OF THE RUNELORDS AHEAD!
Well, suffice to say our first game went off splendidly.
My players loved the new system and had a lot of positive things to say about it. Naturally there are some critiques but I'll get to those later, first I shall summarize what we have going here.
There are five PC's
Aaron: 1st Lvl half elf Wizard, Evocation specialist.
Alister: 1st lvl half elf Rogue
Bazrid: 1st lvl dwarf fighter
Bengiant Boldfellow: 1st lvl halfling cloistered cleric (Desna)
Tek'lefarus: 1st lvl elven Wizard, Generalist
We are using the Pathfinder RPG 1.1 rules with a few modifications:
* A Crit is a Crit: There is no 'critical confirmation' we've been using this since 3.0 and while it has resulted in potential player kills that could have been avoided it's helped far more hindered.
* Initiative: We roll init every round... sadly that makes my magnetic combat pad useless :-( but speeds up combat for us.
* The Anti-Vancian Movement: A spell caster selects a number of spells equal to however many spells they can cast per day. They can then select from these spells and cast them freely. This will slightly dampen how one must custom tailor their spell selection permitting a little flexibility without stepping on the toes of the Sorcerer. Specialists, of course, must have at least one spell of their chosen school for each spell level.
* The town of Whistledown is now a predominantly Halfling town.
* The first level luck domain ability doesn't have to be declared before rolling but before the result is determined.
* I am using the Racial starting HP.
Now, the characters have good stats (I spoil them), and some have their characters optimized about as much as one can at 1st level (i.e. Cloistered Cleric who has a +6 to attack with a sling, Dwarven Fighter with 20 Con and Toughness and a racial bonus hp of 8) but is otherwise fine.
The game was short as we spent a good hour finishing up characters. This is likely only due to the fact that the PC's are dealing with a system that is somewhat new and the copies I gave to them changed in the week since they were handed out. That and two of them hadn't quite started, one for a good reason the other due to being lazy.
The PC's started out in Sandpoint for various reasons. Bengiant had a dream wherein he was to travel west towards the coast from his town, that his arrival in Sandpoint coincided with the Swallowtail festival was not lost on him and he took it as a sign. Bazrin, a drunk of a dwarf (on the rare occasions he can get drunk) had been conscripted as a caravan guard after breaking some of their wares while drunk, given his lawful nature and he agreed to that deal rather than spend some time in jail as it seemed a reasonable alternative. The Caravan was heading to Sandpoint to sell wares during the festival. The half elf blooded wizards had recently graduated from the academy, the full elf having been ejected from the elven academy due to petty social circumstances. Sandpoint was effectively on their way to Magnimar. The player who played the Rogue was late in making his character so he was simply there.
As they were enjoying the festival the goblins struck and the battle was fierce. The PC's truly stood out as heroes, and, even though their teamwork was sloppy (they had only just met after all) they were able to handle the goblins with relative ease. I had done a total conversion and increased the number of goblins they had to deal with seeing as there were five PC's and there is a bit of a power creep. Unfortunately that was as far as we got.
I enjoy the fact that there is an increase in how powerful the PC's are. While as a DM I like putting them in their place I also feel Dungeons and Dragons should feature the PC's as heroes, people who are a cut above the rest, and granted anyone else with levels can theoretically do the same things this gives them that feeling. Then again I come from the camp that never considered 3.0 Spell Focus 'over powered' in any way shape or form so *shrug*.
*CRITICISM*
So far so good. One thing that confused the hell out of my PC's and that they never liked was the Deception skill. It just seemed insane that two skills that were not only in opposition but of different base stats were now the same skill and Charisma based. Suffice to say we hates it :-P If I were to change anything I would return those two to Bluff and Sense Motive, it just doesn't make enough sense to blend them and I'll likely house rule accordingly.
I've voiced our take of the 1st level luck domain ability and will do so here: Honestly it should be changed to choosing before results the role are determined.
Another thing: Attacks of opportunity have always been more of a nuance than anything for us. Perhaps AoO's for Combat Maneuvers should only occur if the maneuver fails, this can both help and hinder the PC's and thus ultimately balances out.
Our spell casters love the fact that they are no longer casting two spells then twiddling their thumbs for the rest of the day at first level. I honestly like the fact that there are 1st level abilities spell casters can always use and that orisons and cantrips can be cast an unlimited number of times, gives them a little something to fall back on without (in my opinion) over powering them.
Skills are good, though some seem needlessly combined (i.e. deception) and considering how much easier it is to eventually have all your class skills maxed out getting rid of a couple of those combined skills couldn't hurt too much. Perception and Stealth are strokes of genius though.
Anyway, that ends my journal for our first foray into the Pathfinder RPG, we'll be running the game again next week and should have something. Questions, comments, criticisms and advice are all welcome provided you do so in a mature fashion. Talk to you soon.
Another thing that same player mentioned, and I fully agree with, is getting rid of the Vancian feel, well, dampening it a bit. The system would work like this. Say a wizard had 4 first level spells they could memorize. They would select four different 1st level spells but they could pick and choose which ones they wanted to cast and wouldn't lose them until they lost their total spells per day.
Allow me to clarify:Normally a wizard would memorize something like Magic Missile x2, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor; she could only cast Mage Armor once, Expeditious Retreat once, and Magic Missile twice. The system I'm thinking of get's rid of what is (to my mind) a nonsensical rule. Instead they select four spells they can cast, in this case let's use Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Expeditious Retreat and Darkness. Now a Wizard would be able to cast four spells from this list before his 1st level spells were gone based on what was needed that day, whether it be casting magic missiles four times, or mage armor four times or Expeditious retreat once and then mage armor on his three companions. It permits flexibility without giving as much free reign as the sorcerer or nearly as many spells. Ironically as I read the rules in the PDF it never said it couldn't be done this way. Regardless I'm going to play with this.
I'm afraid this might prove unbalancing, and at the very least it would marginalize the wizard as a separate class. Yes, the wizard would be able to cast fewer spells in a day than a sorcerer, but it would provide them with far more selection and utility.
A wizard obtains the sorcerer's spontaneous casting, gains the ability to switch spells known on a daily basis, retains the ability to continually expand his or her spell repertoire, as well as retaining a greater advancement in spell levels known.
To me it feels like an attempt to turn the wizard class into a pseudo-sorcerer. Still I look forward to hearing how this plays out. In particular, do your players run these characters as wizards, or sorcerers?
Nice! I really like all the changes you've made, I plan to use it mytself.
Let us know how it follows!
Regards,
ZOOROOS
I'm afraid this might prove unbalancing, and at the very least it would marginalize the wizard as a separate class. Yes, the wizard would be able to cast fewer spells in a day than a sorcerer, but it would provide them with far more selection and utility.A wizard obtains the sorcerer's spontaneous casting, gains the ability to switch spells known on a daily basis, retains the ability to continually expand his or her spell repertoire, as well as retaining a greater advancement in spell levels known.
To me it feels like an attempt to turn the wizard class into a pseudo-sorcerer. Still I look forward to hearing how this plays out. In particular, do your players run these...
I have to disagree, I think it provides much needed flexibility without making them too flexible and honestly I don't think a little selection and utility is a bad thing. Time will show how it affects the gameplay. As for turning the wizard class into more of a sorcerer, it's an attempt to get rid of a rather silly concept behind spell casting, one memorizing the same thing multiple times? As for the sorcerer... in our group we call it 'wizard for dummies' and I look forward to seeing how Paizo changes it because it has been skipped over as a class more than the 3.0 ranger or the bard in general. Regardless if it seems too powerful I'll revert to a version I remember reading of in one of Wizards supplements: wherein if a Wizard has four spells they memorize three and can cast any one of them twice etc.
My question is, based on your concept, what mechanic makes the wizard unique? In the past it has always been a different method of spellcasting, but you've essentially given the wizard the same ability as the sorcerer. The are a few minor changes in its function, but its the same method; what remains, in your mind, to define the wizard as a unique class instead of simply a modified sorcerer?
Well, the wizard is still effectively a wizard, they still collect spells, memorize them, and cast them a set number of days. Just the mechanic of memorizing them is different. To me it never made sense that they'd have to memorize magic missile three times in order to cast it three times, it just seemed ridiculous. The sorcerer still gets more spells per day, they're Charisma based, and have full flexibility though I'll be impressed if Paizo actually manages to make them worth playing. This way those who play a Wizard have a little flexibility but of a far more limited form and aren't screwed over if they find they needed two Shield spells rather than two Magic Missiles. Again, if it unbalances the game I'll simply revert to the still flexible but slightly more limited version wherein they need extra slots open for that flexibility.
Explain how one memorizing something multiple times in order to use it multiple is logical? Does one memorize a math equation three times and then find themselves only able to use it three times? It's a poor game mechanic that has never had a good solid explanation (maybe one that was a decent attempt but never a good solid one) and in my book giving them that flexibility doesn't overbalance the game enough for me to merit going back to a rule I've considered ridiculous since I started gaming.
Either way, while I can respect the belief that it gives the spell caster too much power, it just seems like there should be a better way. For now I'm using my houserule, if it is abused then I'll revert to the other house rule which works on the same premise but is far more limiting. Either way I'll not force my players to do something as inane as memorizing something twice in order to use it twice, I understand one should never argue reason and logic when dealing with D&D (I mean hitpoint... my god :-P ) but if I can avoid this little nuance then I will and I honestly think any improvements made upon the system should at least go in that direction. If one thinks the Wizard is stepping on the Sorcerers toes then improve the Sorcerer, it has needed improvements since its conception.
Now this thread has gone off track, it's a house rule so I'll leave it at that and try to focus any future posts on the Pathfinder game system. My apologies for the above rant but I see the Vancian system as a flaw of D&D, not a positive force.
Explain how one memorizing something multiple times in order to use it multiple is logical? Does one memorize a math equation three times and then find themselves only able to use it three times? It's a poor game mechanic that has never had a good solid explanation (maybe one that was a decent attempt but never a good solid one) and in my book giving them that flexibility doesn't overbalance the game enough for me to merit going back to a rule I've considered ridiculous since I started gaming.
This explains a lot; you don't understand how the wizard spellcasting mechanic functions.
A wizard doesn't memorize a spell when he or she prepares it; wizards actually cast the majority of any spell they wish to use in a given day ahead of time. They have to preselect their spells because it takes too much time to cast them in their entirety in a stressful situation, such as combat. All that remains is the final trigger, which activates the effect when completed.
What you are referring to is a cheap explanation Wizards came up with to explain a mechanic of D&D that's been vexing spellcasters since 1st edition, a mechanic that had poor logic behind it so rather than fix a flaw they slapped the most logical explanation they could find because the idiocy of memorizing (now preparing) the same spell multiple times for use multiple times is somehow 'classic' when in actuality it's a flaw that should not be. Giving a wizard this level of flexibility is by no means over powered, they still perish with ease under the right circumstances, now they can do so while having an arsenal that's slightly more flexible.
This is a house rule that works for our group, you can find clarification on it on page 153 of Unearthed Arcana and the suggestions they use should it prove unbalancing. I honestly think they should incorporate that rule or a variant thereof for all 'prepared spellcasters' and do something else to make spontaneous spell casters more worthwhile. Now, it's clear nothing I can say will change your mind on the matter and nothing you can say will change mine, so drop this. No reason for a thread to go on this long over a house rule when it is supposed to be dedicated to analyzing and playtesting the Alpha rules.
Thank you.
04-06-2008
***WARNING: Spoilers for Rise of the Runelords ***
Much of the session tonight involved the roleplaying between the attack on Sandpoint and the incident at the Glassworks. However we did make it through the goblin battle in the Glassworks furnace room.
The PC's did more or less what I expected them too. Approach the glassworks expecting the worst and using stealth. Many of them have taken perception as either a class skill or a cross class skill though occasionally I make the rolls when secrecy is needed. There were a few elements of the mechanics that came into play noted by the *'s.
Today we had the first use of the CMB.
The attack on the goblins went well. The PC's all climbed up to the roof and checked out the skylights disgusted to see the bodies within and the goblins dancing about making mischief and pouring molten glass on the dead bodies of the workers. Suffice to say they didn't see the PC's coming. Given our party has five people and these people tend to be clever with builds and tactics I built the encounter for 12 rather than 8 goblins as described in the module. Using the mechanics of the Pathfinder Encounter system this is technically an epic combat. I have to say even without the power creep of the pathfinder I'd consider a group of 12 goblins would likely prove a moderate to challenging encounter if it was a straight up fight. In this case it was a slaughter.
*Maybe it was the surprise attack that permitted it or perhaps the encounter system needs adjusting, or perhaps my PC's are simply good at what they do but could this mean encounters need tweaking? 12 cr 1/3 creatures should not be considered an epic battle even by standard 3.5 rules with five 1st level characters. At least, not in my not-so-humble-appearance.
The cleric cast bless and the dwarf fighter went first, using his tower shield he crashed through the skylight. I declared that his use of the tower shield prevented the glass from cutting him and rolled snake eyes on the falling damage, suffice to say the tank was okay and the goblins quite surprised. Next came the cloistered cleric of Desna, often relying on luck his prayers were answered as he leapt down. Suffice to say it was an excellent time to get a high roll (for the acrobatics check to negate 10ft of damage) or a natural 20 (for the attack on the goblin directly below. With one blow the cloistered cleric managed to squick a goblin (I admit, seeing as it's Pathfinder RPG and my players I give the goblins an hp boost). Meanwhile the generalist used his sword to cut a goblin down to 0hp. The other characters spent their surprise round getting down via various means.
Afterwards it was slaughter. The PC's got the initiative and hilarity ensued. Burning hands brought three goblins down to pitiful hp, and killed the 0hp goblin. Whereas the generalists magehand sword cut down another. After the rogue and the fighter both rolled misses the cleric got another lucky hit in and offed one of the remaining goblins (wounded by the burning hands) with his morning star. Meanwhile I decided that while only four were killed I decided that due to those four dying before the goblins stopped being flatfooted that that made up for the remaining and three of the goblins began to run off while four more tried taking on the cleric figuring a halfling would be easy to trip and drag to the furnace.
The first one he critted on an attack of opportunity promptly destroying
that goblin (max damage, the cloistered cleric was destroying more in melee than the dwarven tank >.<). He wasn't too lucky after that though, while the second goblin failed to trip the third had no problem and the fourth tried to drag him to the furnace but had little success.
*My player was not fond of the fact that all an enemy had to do to trip was hit a CMB of 16 (his bonus being +1) I can understand the desire to feel you at least helped influenced your fate. Perhaps opposed CMB rolls instead? Easy concept: DM and Player rolls, whoever has the result of the D20 plus their CMB higher wins.
The beginning of the next round led to another flaming hands spell leveled above the prone halfling. Suffice to say the goblins were not thrilled at being torched and promptly dropped him and began running about, an AoO cut down one but two got by the PC's. Meanwhile one of the PC's cut down a gobling he was facing leaving only two. The cleric threw his dagger and hit one of the fleeing goblins dropping him leaving only one which the dwarf promptly took down. The part was more or less unharmed and nine goblins were dead with three having fled to the next encounter.
Another note was that this battle had a lot of 'cool points'. The PC's have also been playing in the Forgotten Realms campaigns 'Cormyr' and now 'Shadowdale' wherein the designers seem hell bent on making life hell for anyone with the audacity of being a spell caster while pulling out monsters and templates that results in a saying that has become popular in my group "Evil gets blown", a belief that if you're evil, you get cool s&*! PC's would normally never get. I believe this started with a rant about a certain deathknight of Krynn who's 'punishment' for betraying people was... power?! Yes, power. Lots of it. Enough to make him some great villain of Dragonlance and it was some sort of punishment. Now I might have my facts wrong, I'm not a dragonlance fan and am only passingly familiar with it, but that seems a touch counter productive to the forces of good.
I digress. I admit I like seeing the players enjoy being able to pull off cool stuff at low levels, stuff they do for nothing more than style, I look forward to seeing how they handle the first truly difficult combat of the game with a certain malicious glee. It's one criticized by people as having no place that early in an adventure (2nd level characters can easily encounter a flying creature with a 22+ AC, spell like abilities, spells, ranged attacks, damage resistance and more! Suffice to say one that should be saved for later) however I think it will be doable with the Pathfinder rules and far more fitting of its CR than with standard 3.5 rules.
*Another point that came up.
A player is playing a dwarf, and one thing we noticed was they lack their classic bonuses to working metal and stone, he had built the dwarf not quite thinking about their absence until he tried to help out the local blacksmith. Suffice to say we were all puzzled by it and I'm wondering if it would really be so bad to give them such a bonus again. It fits, and honestly a +2 bonus to craft in relation to armor and weapons just doesn't strike me as overpowered.
Well, that's about it, next week we take care of the rest of the glass works then switch over to the Realms game for a couple weeks.
Until then,
DoR
What you are referring to is a cheap explanation Wizards came up with to explain a mechanic of D&D that's been vexing spellcasters since 1st edition, a mechanic that had poor logic behind it so rather than fix a flaw they slapped the most logical explanation they could find because the idiocy of memorizing (now preparing) the same spell multiple times for use multiple times is somehow 'classic' when in actuality it's a flaw that should not be.
Fine, you don't like it. But it's not a "cheap explanation," it's the basis behind the wizard spellcasting mechanic.
Giving a wizard this level of flexibility is by no means over powered, they still perish with ease under the right circumstances, now they can do so while having an arsenal that's slightly more flexible.
My concern isn't whether it unbalances things; that can be fixed with time. My concern is that it strips away the mechanic that defines the wizard as a unique class.
As you mentioned elsewhere, sorcerers need to be buffed. I'm sure they will be as part of this development process. It's obvious you and your group prefer the sorcerer concept over that of the wizard, and the wizard concept is not likely to change; Paizo's gone on the record with that. Rather than attempt to change the wizard into something it's not meant to be, why not try changing the sorcerer in a way that makes it more appealing to you and your group.
Now, it's clear nothing I can say will change your mind on the matter and nothing you can say will change mine, so drop this. No reason for a thread to go on this long over a house rule when it is supposed to be dedicated to analyzing and playtesting the Alpha rules.
To put it simply, you're wrong. You proposed this change at the start of your thread, and it's a core mechanic in your playtest; it shouldn't be ignored, as it impacts any and all results you post, and as it was proposed here it only makes sense to discuss it here.
I wouldn't go with the wizard changes, but I'll not argue if it works in your campaign. Personally, I think not enough wizards leave spell slots open to memorize later if they need spells, and I think that school powers and cantrips allow this option much more readily than before.
I'd be interested in finding out how rolling initiative every round speeds things up. One initiative roll for the combat is something I've actually really, really loved because you can just keep rolling one round into the next.
I'll certainly agree that deception seems problematic. I don't think it follows that just because you are a good liar you should be the best one to pick up on a lie. Our party paladin prided herself on her sense motive, but she didn't really want to be even a little good at lying, so she dropped the skill in conversion. I'm not sure the Sense Motive really needed to be rolled into anything, and the "hunch" ability, while nebulous, just kind of "went away," instead of being part of any other skill.
None of my players have taken the luck domain, but I have to admit that I agree with your assessment of the way the power should work.
I know this cuts both ways, but the CMB just being used as a static defense, I think, is the best way to go. I've got players actually considering the options now, where they didn't when there was an opposed roll. Two sets of variable numbers (i.e. to d20 rolling) makes the outcome less predictable, and makes the situation "feel" more complicated than it is.
That having been said, I understand that players don't always like when an "effect" happens to them that they can't control or mitigate. My paladin player grumbled when she got hit with an empowered ray of enfeeblement last session because once the necromancer hit her, it was all about his rolls.
I think a certain amount of this has to exist for game balance and for speed of play though.
I'm not sure if there was a directive on how many pluses should be assigned or some such, but I agree that dwarves probably should have some kind of bonus to metal working.
Fine, you don't like it. But it's not a "cheap explanation," it's the basis behind the wizard spellcasting mechanic.
Actually in previous editions there was no 'preparing' spells by casting them to a point and saving the trigger for later. That was something that evolved in 3rd edition when wizards realized they needed a better explanation for a mechanic that was simply didn't make much sense otherwise. (do you memorize the formula for discerning the radius of a circle twice and therefor can only use it twice in that day? Hmmm, I know, we'll 'prepare them!' *high fives all around*) Now, as I've mentioned before, if it proves over balancing I'll bring it up as well as this house rules impact on the game, if necessary I'll change it but I honestly believe the
Magic Missile x2
Mage Armor
Expeditious Retreat
Method of memorizing spells must go, if anything replace it with something like this:
A wizard has 4 1st level spell slots.
He memorizes Magic missile, Mage Armor, and Expeditious retreat leaving one slot open. Now throughout the day me can only cast those three spells but he can use that open slot to cast any of those three spells.
This would provide some level of flexibility while not infringing as much on the Sorcerers territory. So rather than memorizing four separate spells and being to cast any combination of them a total of four times the mechanic limits them while providing a little flexibility.
I'd be interested in finding out how rolling initiative every round speeds things up. One initiative roll for the combat is something I've actually really, really loved because you can just keep rolling one round into the next.
With our group it does. First, this isn't something I'd recommend for the house rules, and I understand it doesn't make sense, it's just something that is preferred by our group. We tried the static initiative and it kind of bored everyone, complaints, lack of interest as they waited their turn led to annoyed players which led to an annoyed GM, suffice to say if something as small as letting them change up their initiative order each round makes them happy then it makes my life easier even if technically a static init would be faster.
I'll certainly agree that deception seems problematic. I don't think it follows that just because you are a good liar you should be the best one to pick up on a lie. Our party paladin prided herself on her sense motive, but she didn't really want to be even a little good at lying, so she dropped the skill in conversion. I'm not sure the Sense Motive really needed to be rolled into anything, and the "hunch" ability, while nebulous, just kind of "went away," instead of being part of any other skill.
Honestly I think they were just trying to clump as many skills together as they could and will filter through them during the play testing. Honestly with the new system I'd strongly recommend they at least unclump that one. I also thing they should do something with the heal skill, it just never seems worthwhile to invest full ranks into it and in 3.5 that worked fine but here they might want to give it a little more oomph, not too much but enough to make it something you wont mind having maxed out at 10th or 20th level.
I know this cuts both ways, but the CMB just being used as a static defense, I think, is the best way to go. I've got players actually considering the options now, where they didn't when there was an opposed roll. Two sets of variable numbers (i.e. to d20 rolling) makes the outcome less predictable, and makes the situation "feel" more complicated than it is.
The player who complained has a tendency to get disgruntled whenever things don't go his way, the goblins were picking on his halfling as he seemed the easiest one to try and get into the furnace and he was the closest. With the travel domain he was in no real danger provided he had initiative on them the next round (rather likely all things considered) I honestly think it does add an element of danger as well as one that might encourage the PC's to try and use more interesting tactics rather than "I attack..." roll "... and miss!"
And I do hope dwarves can get a bonus to those craft checks. Maybe it was deemed not 'as important' and left out. *shrug*
Alright, I understand this has struck a chord with some people, I think the purpose of this thread in relation to this debate has been lost. It's a house rule that I think should be incorporated on some level, either the initial version or the lesser one, or perhaps listed as a recommended option for those interested. It's merely my opinion no matter how I phrase it and by no means is it anything I'm trying to shove down the collective throats of the people on these boards. Now I'm going to say a classic line here 'let's agree to disagree' and move on. Any further comments on that particular house rule will be ignored as I focus on other aspects of the Alpha. If anyone really wants to continue the debate (if you can really call it such rather than what it is) let's make a nice little thread elsewhere.
Thank you.
4/15/08
I got caught up in other things and was unable to post a new journal. My grumpy player continued to complain about the lack of an opposed roll for the CMB. He's the only one though so the lack of sympathy from the others has me inclined to ignore him. That and one of them made the same point earlier in this thread about how this actually makes combat maneuvers a more viable option to make things interesting in the typically tedious roll and hit/miss combat sessions of old.
Not much rules wise has come up. The PC's made it through the glassworks area with one of the wizards never casting a single spell. Though that changed when they started hitting sin spawn in the catacombs of wrath. One thing that did show up:
Linguistics.
Even my players, guys who are fond of getting neat stuff and being more powerful were not fond of the linguistics skill and thought it was too much. One language for every bonus skill you have? Maybe it's because half of them have studies languages and linguistics or maybe it's just too excessive even for them to accept. I certainly think so. I would reccommend halving that, or changing how languages are dealt with skill wise.
Beyond that things are looking good. It's our forgotten realms game for the next couple weeks so until next time.
DoR
The changes you have talked about with Wizards have got me thinking (which is a good thing).
In my recent campaigns, no one seems to choose Wizards any more, which is a shame. I think this was purely down to their limit of spells at 1st level as this is sighted as the main reason.
I am interested if the Alpha release of the wizard has changed this for anyone else?
4/27/08
So we had slated last nights game for the Forgotten Realms campaign but apparently my players wanted to run the Pathfinder a little more. We regained one of our players who recently came back from Iraq so it was now a party of six, he chose to be a half orc fighter intending on making up for the gap left by the dwarf who, while an excellent tank was not a great damage dealer.
The transition into the second release had a mixed reception, no one liked the changes to the skill system though they agreed the alteration of the cross class skills helped dull the pain considerably so the new system gained a grudging acceptance and makes for less... ridiculous elements. I myself liked the old one and figured it just needed a little tweaking rather than the complete overhaul but I admit this works and is likely for the best despite my having to endure some jabs.
The change to the Evocation specialists 1st level ability as well as the altered half elf stats. The halforc was criticized some as Orc Blooded didn't seem like anything remotely close to a benefit and ultimately the players felt it was shy of being worthwhile. Well, save the one playing it who wound up squicking some goblin dogs with ease. Honestly I think they were fine. I was also very impressed with the fighters class skills, it's about time they were able to do something other than jump and climb.
Everyone was glad that Deception was returned to Bluff and Sense Motive. Particularly the cleric who now only had to worry about one as his character is a very honest and friendly halfling who's not as naive as he seems.
The impression of the Sorcerer was mixed. Between my two best players it seemed one was fine with it and the other still considers it a worthless class. The one who was fine with it provided more arguments in favor than the one against. One thing that was agreed upon was that the first level abilities needed to be changed. Touch attacks are not a good thing for fragile spell casters.
I haven't had time to peruse the entire new setup. The Staves were met with disdain still considered a waste of time to make and even use though they were glad caster level came into effect they thought 10 charges was far too low and recharging one thing a day a waste of time and effort. Personally I like how they have it though would like to see maybe 15 charges instead and a spell like ability that can be done once or twice a day.
One thing I would have liked would have been a list of changes made to content that was in the first release. That way I could go over what I knew the PC's have and alter them accordingly. Maybe there's a thread somewhere I missed?
Oh, and the opinions of the Druid and Paladin were fairly lackluster, but no one gave them much of a look save the player who dislikes damn near everything >.< I hate to say it but I'm beginning to ignore his opinions, one might say it's a smart thing however half the time his arguments are very well thought out and make a considerable amount of sense.
Oh, and change the luck domain to using the ability after a roll already. It's not too over powered alright?! sheesh :-P
Sadly the Destined blood line is effectively useless to our group. Primarily because we don't use 'critical confirmation' rolls. Just seemed like a waste of time and a way to piss of GM and Player alike on the occasions they got that rare critical.
Anyway, I need to run.
DoR
5/4/8
Well, tonights game went fairly well.
The PC's finally made it into Thistletop despite a lot of things going against them. They are presently stationing themselves atop one of the towers considering trying to rest for eight hours so as to be prepared for the pain to come as they invade. Theoretically their plan is risky but sound. They have an advantage in a sense and honestly I'm unsure how the enemy might react. The PC's have cover and are pretty much the assaulting force, even if their rest is interrupted the enemy doesn't have unlimited resources to throw at them and honestly I don't want to try and dig up the pain that would be throwing the entire complex at them during the night. Not sure how to handle this and would welcome any advice others have on the matter.
*A few points involving the rules came up. The rules for ranged cover were insane. I'm unsure but I think they were needlessly complicated or at least for us they were, when the topic came up it bogged things down as we sat there trying to 'draw lines to all four corners of the enemies square' now maybe it's easier after a few times but what was so wrong with partial, half, and full cover providing the appropriate bonuses?
*Another thing that came up is more of a question. Our spell caster is really liking his special abilities and is wondering if one can get weapon focus and rapid shot for a ranged touch attack. I'm wondering how others would interpret the rules on this. I can see quite a few drawbacks in permitting it and I'm tempted to rule against it but I'm curious as to what others say.
We had a long discussion about CMB's and created a scenario to determine how useful disarm would be against, of all things, an ogre. It was eventually determined that most ogres would wield two handed weapons and going by the rules I believe a standard ogre would have +5 for str, +3 for base attack, and +1 for size giving them a general CMB DC of 24. However give them a two handed weapon and that jumps to 34. Which is understandable. It gets high for just about anyone with a two handed weapon. Compared to someone with a single handed weapon it was a lot more manageable which sort of makes sense to us.
All in all our only full complaint was the Ranged Cover. It strikes me as taking too much into account and doesn't quite help for those combats wherein we don't have a map to 'draw lines to corners of squares' as it requires. Honestly I'd rather judge something based on percentage of cover. Just seems excessive in the new fashion. Beyond that everything ran fairly smoothly, the PC's didn't fight anything too powerful save for a 4th level druid who was quite a pain but not so much in a damage dealing fashion. Clever use of the travel domain and a critical hit cut him down to size, followed by a well rolled flame bolt from the wizard (who simply likes fire) as well as a successful AoO as he tried to flee worked in the parties favor. Still, all things considered luck probably worked more in their favor than anything.
Another thing that came up is more of a question. Our spell caster is really liking his special abilities and is wondering if one can get weapon focus and rapid shot for a ranged touch attack. I'm wondering how others would interpret the rules on this. I can see quite a few drawbacks in permitting it and I'm tempted to rule against it but I'm curious as to what others say.
There is a precedence for weapon focus for ranged touch. Not only do a few PrCs actually require it in 3.5, but Complete Arcane specifically mentions it as well.
On the other hand, rapid shot I would, at least myself, say no to. Even an unlimited ability to do something magical should have some limits, if you take my meaning. In world logic would suggest that you can't summon magic any faster than it already comes to you, and I'm not sure that powering up an at will ability is really what the point of the ability is.
Plus, there is a precedence in that haste won't give you another spell, Heroic Surge feat won't give you another spell, etc. Another spell is pretty much reserved for preparing a spell as a quickened spell.
But that's just my take on it.
Thank you Knight Errant Jr. I think I'll permit the weapon focus, it makes sense, not so sure on the rapid shot though. I'll probably pass on that.
I think I might move this thread to the alpha 2 general discussion forum and hopefully get more feedback.
Great stuff Devil
This also might be the funniest line i have ever read on here
[quote=]
The PC's have also been playing in the Forgotten Realms campaigns 'Cormyr' and now 'Shadowdale' wherein the designers seem hell bent on making life hell for anyone with the audacity of being a spell caster while pulling out monsters and templates that results in a saying that has become popular in my group "Evil gets blown", a belief that if you're evil, you get cool s*#@ PC's would normally never get. I believe this started with a rant about a certain deathknight of Krynn who's 'punishment' for betraying people was... power?! Yes, power. Lots of it. Enough to make him some great villain of Dragonlance and it was some sort of punishment.