
toyrobots |

Nehal— Human, Universalist Wizard, itinerant showman
Roquat— Gnome, Rogue, preposterously bearded
Jonan— Half Orc, Paladin of Iomedae, Sandpoint born and raised
Sefris— Human, Cleric of Iomedae, of distant Osirion
Relic— Human, Monk/Sorcerer (Undead), Dhampyre ward of a death-sage hermit
This thread won't be a play by play, just comments and problems as they arise.
We've gotten as far as the entryway to the catacombs of wrath. The party was nicely worn down by the initial goblin attack, but chose the northern-most entrance to the glassworks, and so managed to cut off the goblin's access to Tsuto and split one tough fight into two easy ones. I'm not sure if it's the Pathfinder PC boost or what, but the players don't seem to be hurting yet.
Today's Anecdote
When the PCs found Tsuto's letter to Ameiko, I didn't have the NPC translate for them. One of the party (Relic) actually speaks Minkai, so I figured he would read it. Much to my amusement, Roquat and Nehal began bickering about which of them was the better translator. Roquat fails his check, it moves to Nehal whose roll was mediocre as well.
So I let them read the letter in bits, and they got hung up on any word that was even remotely obscure. Relic would keep offering the right word until they figured out he knew Minkai.
"Wait, you can read this?"
"Yes."
"It didn't occur to you to mention that earlier?"
"You seemed so intent, I didn't want to spoil it."
Taoism FTW!
Today's Issues
I understand eliminating Use Rope, I really do. But how now are we expected to set Escape Artist DCs for captive characters tied up with rope? Without a skill to organize this rule, where should I expect to find it exactly? Is it just an untrained Dex check? Some people are trained to tie knots, and they tie much better knots than I can. Calling it Survival or even one of the Professions seems a little contrived.
Nehal is addicted to Hand of the Apprentice (Universalist Wizard ability). We've run into the notorious ambiguities a few times... there's a whole other thread on this issue so I won't go on about it. Clarity please!

hogarth |

I understand eliminating Use Rope, I really do. But how now are we expected to set Escape Artist DCs for captive characters tied up with rope? Without a skill to organize this rule, where should I expect to find it exactly?
Isn't it obvious? It's listed under "Grapple", of course!
Don't you know that wrestlers tie the best knots? :-)

![]() |

toyrobots wrote:I understand eliminating Use Rope, I really do. But how now are we expected to set Escape Artist DCs for captive characters tied up with rope? Without a skill to organize this rule, where should I expect to find it exactly?Isn't it obvious? It's listed under "Grapple", of course!
Don't you know that wrestlers tie the best knots? :-)
You know, using CMB is an okay default, but if someone had Craft (knots), I'd let them use that instead ...

toyrobots |

toyrobots wrote:I understand eliminating Use Rope, I really do. But how now are we expected to set Escape Artist DCs for captive characters tied up with rope? Without a skill to organize this rule, where should I expect to find it exactly?Isn't it obvious? It's listed under "Grapple", of course!
Don't you know that wrestlers tie the best knots? :-)
Thanks for spotting that Hogarth.
I am not a fan of this new mechanic. How is this CMB now? What does my attack bonus and SIZE have to do with tying someone up? I understand if it's actually part of the grapple, and the mechanic there can stay the same. At the very least, add Escape Artist ranks to the CMB roll. But I just don't see this as a CMB thing.
There are many situations where you have a captive at your mercy and there is no need to grapple with them to restrain them. In this case, the advantage should go to Rogues and characters with the escape artist skill, but having them roll that skill doesn't sit well with me either.
We need a provision for these situations under the "Description"/Adventuring chapter. Please cross-reference it with a sidebar in the skills chapter next to escape artist entitled "Ropes as restraints." Don't just wipe a skill out entirely and then expect us to locate where the rules went!

toyrobots |

Welcome back!
This week my (mostly) second level party took a wrong turn and ended up bumbling into the cathedral of wrath. Relic, Roquat, and Nehal were all second level, Jonan missed a session and so was first.
Considering what they were up against, they did quite well. The Flat 6 hp bonus made the difference here— at the end of the fight they had about 25 hp in the whole party. Without the flat 6, that could have been a TPK.
The battle with Eryllium and (2) sinspawn took most of the session, and Color Spray really turned the tide— Eryllium was stunned for 5 rounds, and Roquat managed to scale the wall and grapple her to the ground. Jonan took over and drowned her in that pool, since they were having serious problems with damage reduction. Still, it was a 9 round battle!
My favorite part: they left one of the Sinspawn dying at -6. 8 rounds later, when they Imp finally drowns, the sinspawn gets up and completely savages Nehal to -6hp. :D They won't be repeating that mistake.
Rules-wise we're looking at many of the same issues of last session.

toyrobots |

Toyrobots, reporting in.
Last night's session wasn't very revealing about Beta Mechanics, but some other serious issues for Pathfinder crossed my game table. What follows is an unfocused rant, but it covers an issue of great importance to me as a GM and customer.
The PCs had a tough night, and got pretty banged up by Koruvus. Jonan the Paladin went to -6 after a full attack. They survived, but just barely, which means that without the Flat 6 HP boost this would have been a TPK.
A problem has arisen though: Jonan's player just plain hates d20. It is as though he is allergic to it. He really wants to play because he gets drawn in by the stories and the roleplaying, but in his words: "The d20 system is all about telling you what you 'can't' do. There's not really enough freedom to make characters whose nuances come through in the stats, and by extension in rolls." (I should note, this is not an "edition war" issue. We haven't even speculated about 4e... I think the main competition in his mind is Shadowrun 3. But it's not about that either...)
These are the words of a player who is a little frustrated because his character got dropped (although he didn't throw a tantrum or anything). However, I see some truth in the statement. The 3.5 rule places a huge emphasis on types of actions, when certain actions are valid or invalid, the validity of exceptions like attacks of opportunity including lists and whatnot. It's as though the quest for clarity in the rules has created a legalese abomination that can really take its toll on players. I think the oppressiveness of it stems from the way it's presented, nothing more.
Attacks of Opportunity are a perfect example of this kind of legal rut. I have always thought it was an interesting rule, but the execution leaves a whole lot to be desired. The number of actions defined in the game is ever increasing, and you you need a table to tell you what you can and can't do! Explaining to to new players borders on mysticism. Even then name of the rule is clumsy (my table has stolen "Free Strike" from DP9's Silhouette, they probably got it from somewhere else).
My prescription for AOO is to create a high-level benchmark for actions that do or do not incur. Ideally, I would change the name to something less than 8 syllables— can you imagine how much time had been wasted over game tables for the last few years just interrupting ongoing turns with that mouthful? (digression for a pet peeve).
Like Grapple, AOO is a rule I'd like to see repackaged, retooled, and renamed. But this isn't about AOO. It's about the whole system. 3.5 has a lot of working components, but I feel like the entire SRD needs to be rephrased in light of all the "playtesting" it has endured in the past few years.
Action types, for example. Charging is a full round action that can also be a standard action under exceptional circumstances? Sheesh. How many kinds of action do we need? Most RPGs function quite happily with three. I'm not even talking about changing the rules, in a lot of cases, the fix could be achieved by changing the writing and the order in which the rules are presented.
My hope for the beta is that Paizo's writers will start with an empty doc file, and transfer each sentence on an approval basis. Completely redesign the flow of the document. Involve new players in the process of defining the rules, to ensure that we don't stay stuck in this rut.
Thanks for listening!

Selgard |

While I understand your frustration- I find it doubtful they will do an en masse renaming of the game rules. Such would completely degrade, if not out right destroy, any sense of backward compatibility.
What one should Not have to do in order to play a 3.5 adventure using Pathfinder rules, is use a term-of-art-translation chart to figure out what term means what in which game.
is Attack of Opportunity needlessly wordy? Absolutely. But its what we're stuck with- since anything different would mean having to reference what it used to be compared to what it was changed to, each time it came up.
For one rule that doesn't seem to be a big deal- but if the same were done to other clunky terms in the 3.5 -> Paizo conversion all it would really amount to was confusion.
-S

toyrobots |

I agree, of course.
However, I stand by the notion of a complete restructuring of the rules (though not a re-writing). The current flow just doesn't seem as logical as it did when the original 3.0 PHB came out.
Maybe the presence of some kind of introductory chapter that sets a foundation would help. As is, I don't think I would hand this book to a new player and expect them to get into it without some serious help.

hogarth |

is Attack of Opportunity needlessly wordy? Absolutely. But its what we're stuck with- since anything different would mean having to reference what it used to be compared to what it was changed to, each time it came up.
I don't think it would cause too many problems to categorize actions as "safe" or "risky" and then have a footnote saying "Safe actions do not provoke attacks of opportunity, but risky actions do".

toyrobots |

Selgard wrote:I don't think it would cause too many problems to categorize actions as "safe" or "risky" and then have a footnote saying "Safe actions do not provoke attacks of opportunity, but risky actions do".
is Attack of Opportunity needlessly wordy? Absolutely. But its what we're stuck with- since anything different would mean having to reference what it used to be compared to what it was changed to, each time it came up.
This is good. I want to go a bit further and have a blanket definition for undefined actions to determine if they risk or not. I can usually do this fairly ("does this action keep enemies at bay?") but it could be sort of a mystery for newer players, and should be spelled out. Actually, the term "At Bay" might be best, since it seems to describe literally the way the rule works.

Selgard |

How is "safe or risky" any less problematic than the chart in the books detailing what provokes an AoO with the "Yes" or "No" as it has now?
Does it Provoke?
yes, no
Does it provoke?
safe, risky.
It's still just a slight change of wording that really does nothing but require the DM to look something up in order to use the old stuff with the new. There are *tons* of things like this in the rules that could be improved with just a little imagination and some new terms. It'll be bad enough already when the new terms they Have to put in and change to prevent confusion (where two terms mean the same or very similar things).
Could they have worded AOO better? Absolutely. Does it need to be changed now? That, I'm not so sure of.
-S

hogarth |

How is "safe or risky" any less problematic than the chart in the books detailing what provokes an AoO with the "Yes" or "No" as it has now?
Not every action is in the chart, and even the ones that are in the chart usually have some boiler plate saying "X does/doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity". For instance, just in the Pathfinder document, the following places mention "provok[ing] an attack of opportunity":
Quick Reflexes barbarian ability
Wild Shape druid ability
Lay On Hands paladin ability
Rogue Crawl rogue ability
Stand Up rogue ability
drawing a hidden weapon
metamagic feats don't eliminate the AoO except for Quicken Spell
Eschew Materials feat
Improved X (where X is a combat maneuver)
At this point, I got tired of counting them. :-)
I agree that it's not a big deal to replace one set of wording with another, but "does not provoke an attack of opportunity" doesn't really roll trippingly off the tongue. :-)

toyrobots |

Could they have worded AOO better? Absolutely. Does it need to be changed now? That, I'm not so sure of.
I agree.
I aim to suggest that the Beta still has a lot of 3.5's problems. Some of these problems were sufficient to convince WotC to switch to a completely overhauled 4th edition.
Pathfinder has fixed some things, but I am still left with a frustrated player at my table. It is my belief that the publishers of a game should do everything in their power to make that game fun for its players, therefore, as a playtester and GM, I must report the issue as I understand it.
For me, the chief offense of 3.5 is the general flow of the rules. The mechanics are not the problem, the rules work and I understand them after years of playing. Layout and communication are problems. In order to give a continued commitment to this system, I would need to see a final release that meets my standards for ease and clarity. I feel that the beta release has actually lost some clarity in its presentation, inheriting the SRD's flaws and compounding them with ambiguities. For example, as much as CMB cleans things up, the hole left by use rope is a detriment to play— even if I agree with the removal of the Use Rope skill.
This is symptomatic of any large and aging complex system. If I didn't think this could be fixed, I would not continue to playtest and report. I hope to see a final release that addresses my needs.

toyrobots |

I might like to see some rules under Diplomacy for Bartering. I also have merchants barter when I am a GM, and having a mechanical recourse from Diplomacy (or Bluff) and Appraise would be very useful.
I tend to adjust the price by 5% up or down depending on the roll result.
Mr. Bulmahn has posted the interim beta paladin. We are adopting all changes for Jonan except for Smite.
I've posted my feelings on Smite many times, but for posterity is should suffice to say: At lower than sixth level, with only one attack per full attack action and one smite attempt per day, it is far to easy for the paladin to "waste" his smite. This is the only per/day class ability to my knowledge that combines this risk with a small number of attempts.
Playtest Alternative
Paladins may smite x evil targets per day. Declaring a target is a swift action, and the paladin must be able to attack the target at the time the effect is declared. The paladin applies his Cha bonus (if any) to attack rolls, and adds his Paladin Level to damage for attacks against a target. Additionally, the paladin adds his Cha Bonus (if any) to his AC for all attack made against him by the target. This bonus lasts until the target is dead or banished. If the engagement is broken off, the paladin's smite remains in effect until the end of the day.
If the target is of the Dragon, Evil Outsider, or Undead type, the attack deals an additional 1d6 holy damage at first level, and +1d6 holy damage at every odd numbered level thereafter.
----
My hope is that this will give the paladin some incentive to Smite at lower levels— as things stand the player is hesitant to use Smite at dramatic times due to the risk of wasting the ability. I don't think it becomes too powerful at higher levels, since the number of additional smites is not very large, and each attempt can only be used one 1 target. For this reason, it is less flexible than many high level feats, spells, sneak attack and rage.
I think the paladin should be encouraged to use Smite on the most evil and intimidating opponents— he should be at least as effective in this regard as the rogue's sneak attack is.

hogarth |

I might like to see some rules under Diplomacy for Bartering. I also have merchants barter when I am a GM, and having a mechanical recourse from Diplomacy (or Bluff) and Appraise would be very useful.I tend to adjust the price by 5% up or down depending on the roll result.
I'm a bit skeptical about allowing specific discounts with Diplomacy. Either the maximum discount is small (in which case it's hardly worth adding a new rule to accomodate it) or the maximum discount is large (in which case everyone will make their purchases through the one guy with the maxxxed-out Diplomacy skill).
In addition, I'm not crazy about rules that are asymmetric between PCs and NPCs; if a diplomatic PC can negotiate a discount on a purchase, why can't a diplomatic NPC negotiate a higher price for his goods?

toyrobots |

I'm a bit skeptical about allowing specific discounts with Diplomacy. Either the maximum discount is small (in which case it's hardly worth adding a new rule to accomodate it) or the maximum discount is large (in which case everyone will make their purchases through the one guy with the maxxxed-out Diplomacy skill).In addition, I'm not crazy about rules that are asymmetric between PCs and NPCs; if a diplomatic PC can negotiate a discount on a purchase, why can't a diplomatic NPC negotiate a higher price for his goods?
Hm. I suppose I wasn't clear, but I was thinking if you failed the opposed check by 5 or more that the price would go up!

hogarth |

Hm. I suppose I wasn't clear, but I was thinking if you failed the opposed check by 5 or more that the price would go up!
That's not my point. Does the (NPC) seller's Diplomacy count for anything, or is it just the (PC) buyer who matters when getting a discount.
At any rate, I'd just be wary of adding another rule that people could point at and say: "If I boost my Diplomacy score using X, Y and Z, the rules say that I can buy INFINITE OREGANO!!" :-)
[For what it's worth, I played in the Core Coliseum message board at wizards.com; they had a discount system based on Diplomacy (-1% to prices per +1 Diplomacy modifier). It mostly just caused a lot of pressure to boost your Diplomacy modifier (to buy better stuff) or to give your money to a buddy with a high Diplomacy modifier.)

toyrobots |

Does the (NPC) seller's Diplomacy count for anything, or is it just the (PC) buyer who matters when getting a discount.
Your point is well-taken, Hogarth, and thanks for talking it out with me!
IIRC, Shadowrun 3rd Ed. had a model for negotiation that worked well. It did lead to a single character acting as the "trader," which I think is good as RP, and makes for fun occasions when that character isn't available to be the face of the party.
[For what it's worth, I played in the Core Coliseum message board at wizards.com; they had a discount system based on Diplomacy (-1% to prices per +1 Diplomacy modifier). It mostly just caused a lot of pressure to boost your Diplomacy modifier (to buy better stuff) or to give your money to a buddy with a high Diplomacy modifier.)
I wouldn't touch that mechanic with a ten foot pole. There's a reason that Margin of Success/Failure in D20 is almost always +/- 5 to the DC, and that is how I would apply it here. This would be an opposed roll for Diplomacy (so the seller's Diplo counts), and if you beat the opposition by five points, you get a % discount. Conversely, if the opposition beats you by five points, the prices raises. Maybe this shouldn't scale with further success/failure, although as a GM I would double the discount on a Natural 20.
I have had positive experiences with this type of negotiation mechanic before— looking at the example you presented I can understand your opposition to the idea. Just remember that it is easy for a GM to make a merchant savvy (high Diplo) but also it is a good role for "contact" merchants who don't haggle with PCs. As in reality, a merchant you trust is worth a great deal. If the rule doesn't encourage roleplay, I have no purpose for it.

Slime |

...
I wouldn't touch that mechanic with a ten foot pole. There's a reason that Margin of Success/Failure in D20 is almost always +/- 5 to the DC, and that is how I would apply it here. This would be an opposed roll for Diplomacy (so the seller's Diplo counts), and if you beat the opposition by five points, you get a % discount. Conversely, if the opposition beats you by five points, the prices raises. Maybe this shouldn't scale with further success/failure, although as a GM I would double the discount on a Natural 20.
...
I suggest you consider allowing the sellers to use Profession(Merchant) instead of Diplomacy to oppose the discount Diplomacy roll. Knowing your stuff should make a difference.
My 2c.

hogarth |

If the rule doesn't encourage roleplay, I have no purpose for it.
I'd just stick with pure roleplaying, personally. I just don't like the idea of saying "Well, Joe the blacksmith likes you, but you rolled a 1 on your Diplomacy check, so the rules say you get screwed." Just like I don't like the following:
Player: I tell the enemy "up is down". I got a 35 on my Bluff check.
DM: Up is down? That's impossible, so that's a -20 on your check. Let me roll the Sense Motive... <sigh> O.K., the guy grabs on to a tree to avoid falling into the sky.
:-) (Not that my players would do that, but they shouldn't be able to even if they wanted to!)

toyrobots |

I'd just stick with pure roleplaying, personally. I just don't like the idea of saying "Well, Joe the blacksmith likes you, but you rolled a 1 on your Diplomacy check, so the rules say you get screwed."
Uh, not to be contrary, but I basically said that should never happen. You don't have to make Diplo checks for people who want to give you a fair deal or a discount, so it is then worth it for the PCs to cultivate NPC connections with trustworthy merchants. This encourages role-play in two ways: NPC contacts, and mistrust of unknown merchants.
This can be done through sheer role-play, of course, but since this is basically "financial combat" and money is on the line, I might like a system that leaves it up to the dice. There are good reasons to do this. Haggling is difficult to do in real life, much less roleplay, so leaving it to the dice absolves the GM from setting "unfair" prices.
When the merchant and buyer both want the best price (PCs could be sellers OR buyers here), make an opposed Diplomacy check. If the difference in the rolls is less than 5, the item is worth its market value. If the different is greater than 5, adjust the market value by 10% in favor of the winner. On a roll of a natural 20 or 1, double the adjustment (+/- 20%). If the merchant wants to give the buyer a fair price or a discount, no roll is required.
Maybe it makes a better house-rule. I've seen this sort of thing in some other games and it works well in my group.

toyrobots |

I'm asking this in another thread to the general community, but for chargen did you use the PRFPG point-buy? And if you did, how many points?
We used point buy, 25 points.
I would have liked to go lower, but you know players... they like to think that higher scores actually matter instead of just making more work for the GM.

![]() |

We used point buy, 25 points.
I would have liked to go lower, but you know players... they like to think that higher scores actually matter instead of just making more work for the GM.
That's interesting; Kae Yoss also went with the 'epic fantasy' 25-point option for RoTR.
I had been thinking of the 15-point standard fantasy one, but perhaps that's lowballing. You have a feeling for how it would go with 20-point 'high fantasy'? Seems to me that the new racial mods at least guarantee an 18 that way, although secondary stat for a human or half-elf would probably be stuck at 14 to start.

toyrobots |

That's interesting; Kae Yoss also went with the 'epic fantasy' 25-point option for RoTR.I had been thinking of the 15-point standard fantasy one, but perhaps that's lowballing. You have a feeling for how it would go with 20-point 'high fantasy'? Seems to me that the new racial mods at least guarantee an 18 that way, although secondary stat for a human or half-elf would probably be stuck at 14 to start.
I think the only difference is that the game would be more fun if characters played with something remotely resembling the default array. High stats are an illusory benefit— I always end up balancing the challenge to fit the players. All that standard stats would do is save me the paperwork.
But there's something about seeing 18s and 20s on that character sheet that the players just can't resist. It's like catnip to them.
This is why I have routinely called for Ability scores to factor into EL and APL. The whole challenge system needs to be expanded to account for all the subsystems, to take the guesswork out of GMing. This is something I am most curious to see if Pathfinder has an answer for— but the "Running" chapter playtest is a long way off.

toyrobots |

Good session last night after a three-week hiatus.
A goblin ambush:
Vs:
Just a little treat to get us back into the swing of things and level up to 3rd before we hit Thistletop next week.
The only playtest feedback I have for this week is: Pathfinder is fun. Just like 3rd edition, only a little more survivable. It is very simple to pick up a 3.5 adventure and run it in Pathfinder, I hope it remains so.
See you next monday!