After Months of trying to get my team focused on the beta, we have finally arrived at a point where I have 3 players that are willing to go through this process with me. Hurrah!
Unfortunately, I have not invested in any books on the Pathfinder campaign setting yet. I was really too busy getting the new rules down and a solid campaign story worked out to really spend anytime learning about a new setting, and I didn't want to corrupt the beta with settings I happen to be well versed in (realms, ebberon) so I have my first home brew setting going. The most important aspect of this as it relates to game play is the religions. For simplicity sake, I have created nine churches, each dedicated to an alignment. These institutions are the source of divine power, as wherever there are many gathered in the name of a particular set of ideals, clerics and paladins may begin to gain power.
The only house rule I use is that the DC for saving throws against spells are always equal to one-half the caster level (round down) plus ability modifier. This provides a blanket DC for all spells a caster might cast without having to spend any energy figuring DC's for individual spells. Any feats or other spells that modify DC (spell focus) function normally.
Character Creation:
We used the "high fantasy" 20 point buy system. I was very pleased with this. There was some minor grumbling from the players because they don't get to roll the dice, fudge the dice rolls, and assign 3 18's a couple of 16's and a 14. I also used the same system to calculate ability scores for many of the NPC's the players would be adventuring with, and battling against.
I have heard that one of the goals of the system was to make generating NPC's much easier for DM's. I am happy to say that my experience has confirmed this. The alteration to the skills has cut a lot of the time spent figuring skills for NPC's, and the new "cross class" skill system has made for more colorful characters. With the PDF, I can just copy and paste class abilities and even spells on to a word document and print it off, and not have to resort to the book during play.
One thing that I noticed right off the bat is that my players were willing to "sell down" some of their stats and take huge hits in some departments in order eek out a few extra points for their high scores. This isn't something I've done a whole lot of with NPC's. After 3 sessions, they are starting to feel the pain of their sacrifice. I'm wondering if they would have done it differently if they had it to do over again...
The 3 characters:
Jackson Stormsurge: Half elf Fighter 1
Stats: Str 18 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 9 Wis 10 Cha 7
Feats: Weapon Focus: longsword, Toughness
With the max HP's at first level, the toughness feat, and putting his favored class bonus into an extra point, Jackson ended up with a whopping 17 HP's at first level! However, his choices have left him with only one rank in skills in which to work with. He chose Stealth, and dumped his Skill focus feat from being a half-elf into that skill. This has generated a character that is excellent in a fight, and not bad in situations requiring a bit of discretion, and pretty much useless in every other situation. The number of times I have asked for a diplomacy or intimidate check in situations where he was trying to be convincing one way or another has left him out in the cold as far as getting his way.
Strabo Sparklebright (snicker) Gnome Bard 1
Stats: Str 6 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 14 Cha 17
Feats: Agile Maneuvers
Strabo said she wanted to be good at disarming people. I sort of scratched my head and let her know gently that it wasn't going to be easy. With her low strength, size modifier, and zero base attack bonus, it was a lot to ask for at first level. I recommended she use a whip, as bards are proficient in it, and to take the agile maneuvers feat. Unfortunately, this has only given her a disarming CMB of +3. For three game sessions now she has tried relentlessly to relieve her antagonists of their weapons, and has not succeeded even one time! I feel for her. She really is going to have to put every ounce of her character into this ability as she progresses. At 5th level, after having picked up combat expertise at third, and improved disarm at 5th, she will finally have a half decent disarming CMB of +9. Whether or not this will improve things for her as she faces 5th level challenges still remains to be seen.
Soveliss Nialo Elf Universalist Wizard 1
Stats: Str 7 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 12
Feats: spell focus: evocation
This character has not much to complain about, and has not much to write home about. With his two spells, which are always mage armor and magic missile, he relies heavily on hand of the apprentice. He has his arcane bond with his staff (as a weapon). This has given him a masterwork weapon to fight with. With an intelligence bonus of +4, and the enhancement bonus from the staff, he has a +5 to hit with the "hand".
After reading some threads on this board, including a couple by Jason, I went ahead and did away with the bonus damage from HotA. Through out our sessions I have watched very closely how this ability (with the damage nerfed) stacks up against the NPC sorcerer's first level ability (elemental cold bloodline). The sorcerer doesn't have anywhere near as good attack bonus (dex mod +2), but the fact that he must make only a ranged touch attack tends to make up for it mostly.
However, there are a few situations where HotA is vastly superior. There have been many occasions where the sorcerer has had to worry about firing into melee (-4 penalty), and sometimes cover as well when the fighter is in his way (another -4). The Wizard fears none of these things. HotA simply strikes targets in range.
The other NPC besides the sorcerer is a first level cleric. She has the selective channeling feat and spends most of her time keeping her companions in the hit points. I'll have a more detailed analysis of this in the appropriate "feat and skill" playtest forum.
Without going into a more long, drawn out play by play report I will simply make known various observations about the beta in my playtests sessions thus far:
Spellcasters: The "staying power" of the beta spellcasters has been something i've only dreamed about for years. In past 3.5 campaigns, I've experimented with various alternate rules systems from the unearthed arcana to try and address the problem of what my group has come to call "the 15 minutes of butt kickin'" scenario.
These methods have never really solved the problem. Some have created more complications and/or went to the opposite end of the extreme (recharge Magic). Some have improved things but not to the point of satisfaction, and dirupted the overall flow of spellcasters (spell points).
Now, we have a system where the casters can almost always do something, even if relatively minor. I am finding that my players are a lot less likely to rest after one measly fight, and tend to save their spells for when they really need them. The arcane bond ability of the wizard to pull any spell out once per day, instead of resting just to memorize that one spell just to get through one particular problem, has been invaluable.
The Clerics Positive energy burst has freed her up quite a bit for using her spells for other things besides healing (bless, for instance). This has made for a longer adventuring day and I feel as though my first level PC's can finally begin to take themselves more seriously for the first time in my gaming history.
Spells: The new Identify mechanics are quite satisfactory. The old system of requiring a 100 GP pearl for identifying items had my PC's spending vast amounts of gold acquiring pearls...to the point where we often wondered where all these freakin pearls were coming from! At the same time, the fact that the caster has to roll to see if he is successful, and has the potential to fail, creates a bit of mystery. I've taken to creating an ability that can be added to any magic item for the cost of extra gold called "confounding", which increases the DC to identify the item by 5, 10 or 20 respectively. This has given me the ability to keep some items mysterious, where the PC might discover some of the items abilities through experimentation, but not all of them. I can now have an item's powers on the back burner where the PC may someday discover all the attributes of the item, just "not right now" or "ever".
I'm still not quite sold on unlimited cantrips. Unlimited detect magics empower first level PC's to go room by room, scanning each with a detect magic, and spotting hidden magic items without actually having to search for them. This also allows them to do a quick scan of each door, instantly spotting magical traps without a search check. I have hidden some items behind or within lead sheeting, which renders the detect magic useless, but the PC's just move on. This has created a situation where if the item is hidden in the room, it is automatically found. If it is hidden within lead, it is never found. Hmmmmmm.
Also, if a hidden character has even one magic item on them, they are discovered in two rounds. This caused one of my PC's to wonder why he bothered acquiring the stealth at all.
Unlimited acid splashes has become the bane of existence for locked doors and chests. Rogues just aren't so special anymore. This might be a good thing, or not.
Some of these are fine. I have no problem with unlimited stabilize or light, for instance.
Thats all for now...
The unlimited acid splash or ray of frost are useless against any object with a hardness of 3 or higher. Wood is 5, stone is 8 and iron is 10. Most of the first level cleric domain and arcane school powers only target "foes", so they are no good against objects either.
The detect magic is a little tougher to bring into balance. It is, however a zero level spell and should not be used to trump ANY higher level spell or automatically defeat any skill check. Nor should it allow the caster to see through objects, unless there is some other means of doing so.
The spell definition says "you detect magic auras". There is no definition of "aura", so the DM can call it as he sees fit.
As I DM, I rule that the object or creature must be seen to see its aura, and so to be detected as magic. Invisiblity stops the detect magic, as does a physical barrier. Magical traps are inherently invisible, unless found by a search check or a spell that specifically detects traps.
Most zero level spells at will can be kept in balance with careful DM decisions. But some cleareer definitions would not be amiss.
Right Jack, I agree with you 100%. And I am not overtly concerned about any of these things. However, after reading your post here I went and doubled checked the rules on energy attacks with objects and lo and behold! You are right in that hardness now applies to energy damage, which has been changed from 3.5 (i missed that before).
As for the rest, including Detect Magic, I've running RAW for play test purposes. While I agree that a 0 level spell probably shouldn't give you a limited form of x-ray vision, in reality (snicker) it does.
If we are going to have "at will" detect magics, I'm alright with that. But I would like to see some minor alterations to the spell so that it only works on objects and spells you would be able to see normally; ie, not invisible, successfully hidden, or behind a barrier of any sort.
As for adjudicating the definition of "aura"....
Well I don't know about that. In general my players have been able to rely on me to at least be consistent, and I would prefer to have "aura" defined as anything that is or contains spells or is crafted using any of the Item Creation feats. By applying some limitations to Detect Magic, as above and as you have mentioned, then the idea of defining what kind of magic does and does not produce an aura needn't concern us.
Actually in 3.5 SRD some energy is affected by hardness, others not:
Acid: full damage, ignore hardness
Sonic: full damage, ignore hardness
Fire: half damage, then reduce by hardness
Electicity: half damage, then reduce by hardness
Cold: quarter damage, then reduce by hardness
Then there are two rules also affecting object damage.
Vulnerability: some objects are especially vulnerable to specific energy damage (DM call which) and take double damage and ignore hardness. It is assumed that paper is vulnerable to fire, glass to sonic, etc., but there is no actual list of specifications in the SRD.
Ineffective Weapons: This rule is a total DM fiat. It states certain weapons cannot damage certain objects. There are no specifications or guidelines. I would assume its to stop daggers from destroying large iron doors, or using a club to destroy cloth.
|
There was a discussion somewhere here not long ago that said that acid and sonic damage do not ignore hardness. Not sure where it was.
EDIT: Here's a different one, quoting from the FAQ pointing out that sonic and acid damage is subject to hardness.
There was a discussion somewhere here not long ago that said that acid and sonic damage do not ignore hardness. Not sure where it was.
EDIT: Here's a different one, quoting from the FAQ pointing out that sonic and acid damage is subject to hardness.
The FAQ is not in any way official rules. What's more, it often contradicts itself, much less the SRD. And it seldom explains the reasons for its interpretation. So it is a poor choice for interpretation.
Both the SRD and the PFRPG say the same thing on energy damage to objects. The energy forms other than acid and sonic all say that they specifically are halved or quartered then reduced by hardness. Acid and sonic just say apply damage normally, there is no mention of hardness.
On a closer look, I think I may change my interpretation, but not because of the FAQ.
Under hardness, the SRD says "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." It does not say anything about type of damage, so it should mean all types of damage, including energy.
In addition, I would rule that hardness applies to sonic because most spells that do sonic damage say that the spell ignores hardness, which would be unnecessary if it always ignored hardness. I keep the same ruling for acid because it is lumped together with sonic in the rules for energy damage to objects, as fire and electric are lumped together (because they are halved) and cold is kept separate (because it is quartered).
It still stops low-damage energy-attacks-at-will from destroying objects.
|
|
The FAQ certainly is dodgy in places, although that looked like a better-explained answer than some (and the explanation at least sort of made sense).
I can see that sonic damage might have a weird relationship with hardness -- hard objects are also often going to be good transmitters of sound -- but it makes sense to me that acid has to overcome hardness. On the other hand, corrosion by an acid is a chemical reaction, so if they reaction can happen at all, it will happen slowly (but 'slowly' might be very slow). However, the reaction energetics have nothing to do with hardness at all. Also, of course, 'hardness' seems to incorporate elements of other properties like stiffness and breaking strain.
**Face Palm**
You are right. Given the quantity of a certain substance that this particular player chooses to inhale on his own free will, I really shouldn't be surprised. It didn't even occur to me that any of my players might have accidentally sold themselves down the river.
He needs to allocate 3 more points. Thanks Eric. It's a good thing I have you guys around to keep me on track.