Director of Games
|
Welcome to the eleventh stage of the playtest for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. We have now wrapped up the first ten stages of the playtest, which took a look at the Ability Scores, Races, Skills, Feats, Prestige Classes Equipment, Combat, Spells, and all of the base classes. Over the next week, I would like to take a look at some of the rules used behind the screen, including all of those found in Chapters 12, 13, 14, and 16 in the Pathfinder RPG Beta Playtest edition. While most of these rules are pretty straightforward, some of them can be a bit tricky, including the rules for traps, poisons, diseases, and curses. As a general note, if the rules would not be placed in this chapter, then it should probably wait or be placed into the correct playtest forum. When discussing topics in this playtest, start your thread title out with the general topic, followed by the issue you want to discuss. For example, if you wanted to talk about the a specific trap mechanic, your thread subject might read: Traps - How does the pricing work?
Here are a few thoughts to kick off the discussion.
- Encounter Building: Are the new rules for building encounters clear and simple to use? Do they create balanced and entertaining encounters? Do the treasure tables and experience point tables work well with the encounter building guidelines.
- Do the new trap creation guidelines make trap construction simpler than before, while still maintaining the necessary flexibility? Are the new costing guidelines easy and do they make sense in the assumed economy of the game?
- Are the terrain guidelines clear and concise?
- NPC Classes - They are not meant to be balanced with the core classes, but they are designed to be easy to use on the fly if needed. Do they meet this goal?
- Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
- Curses/Diseases/Poison - Are these rules simple to use? With the change to poisons, does it make them simpler to adjudicate and remember during play? Would these rules make it more likely that you would include curses or diseases in your game?
The previous playtests were quite useful and I expect this one to be the same.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
- Encounter Building: Are the new rules for building encounters clear and simple to use? Do they create balanced and entertaining encounters? Do the treasure tables and experience point tables work well with the encounter building guidelines.
Just a random question but, given that Pathfinder has pretty much eliminated all things that used to COST xp's (magic item creation, certain spells, level loss etc), what are the chances of getting a sidebar that says simply something along the lines of
"If you would like an even easier leveling system, disregard experience points altogether and just decide (or agree amongst all players) upon an agreeable leveling pace. If your group likes faster advancement then maybe level every other session. If your group prefers a bit slower advancement then have everyone level after every few sessions. This has an added advantage in that groups that focus more on roleplaying and less on combat no longer have to worry "if they've killed enough" monsters in order to level."
- Do the new trap creation guidelines make trap construction simpler than before, while still maintaining the necessary flexibility? Are the new costing guidelines easy and do they make sense in the assumed economy of the game?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone really look at prices of traps when decking out a dungeon, or do you just plop down a trap (of appropriate CR) in whatever place in the dungeon that makes the most sense? I personally never really look at prices of traps.
- NPC Classes - They are not meant to be balanced with the core classes, but they are designed to be easy to use on the fly if needed. Do they meet this goal?
I pretty much NEVER create 10th level commoners. That has always seemed absurd to me. I just want a dude who is really good at pouring ale and decent with a throwing axe. Everything else he sucks at.
With that said I'd appreciate quick and dirty rules for making basic classless townies who perform basic functions in the town such as pouring drinks, sweeping the horse-droppings, making horseshoes etc. I do not want to have to make up an X level Commoner for a nobody who happens to be good at making boots. I'd like to see extremely simplified rules for whipping out NPC's who really only are "services" in town (even if they do have a name and personality).
- Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
However, when it comes to more important NPC's, these characters have class levels and abilities and should be built carefully. I'd still like to see fairly detailed (though as streamlined as possible) rules for kicking out these NPC's as quickly as possible.
- Curses/Diseases/Poison - Are these rules simple to use? With the change to poisons, does it make them simpler to adjudicate and...
I'd *really* appreciate poisons that do more interesting things than just ability damage. Like a poison that dazes someone, or blinds someone. Or a poison that inflicts the sickened condition. In general, normal poison rules are *extremely* boring. I haven't checked to see how the current poison rules are but will as soon as I get home from work.
The new XP award system (flat rates) is a big hit at my table.
I support a "level when you want" sidebar, but as a houserule it is almost so obvious as to be a waste of space! You could probably skip it.
Much more could be done to explain encounter building, the beta presentation is too emaciated to be considered useful for anyone who never played 3.5. As for what should go into a chapter with guidelines on encounter, adventure, and campaign design, I wouldn't dare to tell Paizo how it's done, I want them to show me how they do it so well. A condensed version of whatever framework your editors apply to the APs (if there is such a thing) would be much appreciated by all GMs.
If these chapters can't train a new GM from scratch, your game is a supplement. (Unless you release a GM's guide, then you're in the clear)
The new XP award system (flat rates) is a big hit at my table.
I support a "level when you want" sidebar, but as a houserule it is almost so obvious as to be a waste of space! You could probably skip it.
Well, I would phrase it a bit differently. Something like: "For a fast progression, you would level after about 9 Average encounters and 2 Hard encounters. For a medium progression, you would level after about 13 Average encounters and 3 Medium encounters. And for a slow progression, you would level after about 18 Average encounters and 4 Hard encounters."
(Or whatever a good ratio works out to be.)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Just out of curiosity, does anyone really look at prices of traps when decking out a dungeon, or do you just plop down a trap (of appropriate CR) in whatever place in the dungeon that makes the most sense? I personally never really look at prices of traps.
The price of traps become relevant if the PCs want to buy/build a trap for their fortress, vault, headquarters, etc.
|
Wholly a.gree with jreyst regarding flat damage poisons being uninspired - poisons should have a range of effects (sickness etc) more-so magical poisons in a fantasy world (though magical poisons should be flagged as such).
Any chance of adding Hauntings to the Traps, Curses, Poisons chapter? Hauntings have already been used to good effect in several Paizo adventures, it would be really useful for these rules to be placed in the hands of all GM's.
- Curses/Diseases/Poison - Are these rules simple to use? With the change to poisons, does it make them simpler to adjudicate and remember during play? Would these rules make it more likely that you would include curses or diseases in your game?
The rules are *quite* elegant. However (and I realize you know this) the actual effects of the poisons, as listed, are better balanced with: "Cure: 2 saves.", instead of the current "1 save" for most of them.
I plan to analyze this in depth shortly and will provide my results.
The rules are *quite* elegant. However (and I realize you know this) the actual effects of the poisons, as listed, are better balanced with: "Cure: 2 saves.", instead of the current "1 save" for most of them.
Oh sure they are elegant, so long as elegant means boring. I do agree though that there should be a healing "track" like in 4E, one of the few things 4E did better than 3.5 I think.
|
|
i agree in the ideaof mosre interesting poisons...
i disagree in the idea of not having the basic XP leveling... it feels like i am growing as i earn XP, isntead of... "oh.. yeah i think tis time for you all to level up, you will need it"
i have played how its is when the DM decides when to level the characters, i haven't always felt this is right so i prefer to let my players level with xp...
if fast progresion isa problem Halt it and go to medium or slow... i like my players leveling fast so i give the Fast Progression
i disagree in the idea of not having the basic XP leveling... it feels like i am growing as i earn XP, isntead of... "oh.. yeah i think tis time for you all to level up, you will need it"
i have played how its is when the DM decides when to level the characters, i haven't always felt this is right so i prefer to let my players level with xp...
if fast progresion isa problem Halt it and go to medium or slow... i like my players leveling fast so i give the Fast Progression
Oh I don't just willy-nilly tell them when they level. Before beginning the campaign I had the players (including myself) vote on the desired progression pace. Two of the players wanted to level more quickly, at a pace of two sessions per level, whereas I wanted to slow it down some. So after doing that for some time everyone agreed to go with three sessions per level. Its extremely liberating as a DM not having to worry about XPs at all.
what are the chances of getting a sidebar that says simply something along the lines of
"If you would like an even easier leveling system, disregard experience points altogether and just decide (or agree amongst all players) upon an agreeable leveling pace.
Monte Cook suggests a "step system" in his WoD book, in which each session the party levels up a different "step" of the character (be it BaB/HP-saves/skills-class features), every three steps, your charanter goes up a level. However, such system only works in a game with a freeform XP progression, contrary to your average d20 fantasy game where a monster's CR is always a cause for expectation from your players.
How fast is too fast depends entirely on the gaming table you ask, if your table plays every other day then mid to slow progression might be best. The tables I play at use the fast progression table because can't play that often (a session per week is usually the best we get, RL happens), but then an old-school draconian player will most likely excommunicate any gaming table that advances any faster than a level per year.
It's all on who you ask.
|
|
I think the "GM determines when you level up" method has gained popularity for a couple of reasons:
1) It kind of works this way in Living games played at conventions for simplicity, eg Pathfinder Society, you level up after every three scenarios;
2) Feedback from players of Paizo's Adventure Paths, knowing the recommended level before each Boss encounter, so that GMs can insert additional encounters if required, or simply bump the players up to the required level.
Yes, there's the whole "the GM should know what level the payers should be versus each Boss encounter, it's a factor of CR/ECL/etc" argument, but in reality, not every GM is as familiar with the mechanics behind the game, particularly if he's not building encounters himself. Busy GMs purchase off-the-shelf adventures so that this work is done for them, and particularly during an extended Adventure Path where characters level a few times before reaching the next volume, if the adventure doesn't say what level characters should be before encountering Boss X, then you can't blame the GM when TPKs occur.
Eg, you know what level the characters should be at the beginning of each of the six chapters in an Adventure Path, it says so right on the front (back?) cover, along with sample iconic PCs. But knowing when to level up during a chapter to keep pace with the challenges isn't always obvious.
Calculating XP is a DM's chore, one I could rather do without. I highly support the "ignore XP and level up as appropriate" option/sidebar with adequate explanation of what this entails.
|
NPC Classes - They are not meant to be balanced with the core classes, but they are designed to be easy to use on the fly if needed. Do they meet this goal?
- Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
Yes ... firstly, give Experts all class skills. Giving them any 10 isn't clear, and the extra bit doesn't change them that much.
- Curses/Diseases/Poison - Are these rules simple to use? With the change to poisons, does it make them simpler to adjudicate and...
Poisons out of combat are a bit fussy. If someone is poisoned by a trap, should they make save after save after save?
PS - One other thing to add ... area effect templates. No where does it actually explain what a 15 foot cone looks like or effects. We players are going on the old 3.5 DMG appendix, but we can't assume that knowledge...
I am quite sure that the different area of effect templates is described, the cone being a 45 degree arc. I am not sure where, and don't have the time to look it up right now.
Edit: It is found in the magic section on page 163. I might be an idea to place it in a more generel section.
Encounter Building: The entirety of the campaign, whether my old 3.5 converted to Alpha 1-3 or my current Rise of the Runelords or Savage Tide, hasn't really been intentionally remapped for treasure, because that kind of felt like was against the spirit of using 3.5 sources anyway.
Using those sources, though, does produce some issues, like the staff of frost one of the players found.
At any rate, for the most part, when I've built encounters using the guidelines set up, since I've inserted a few encounters of my own in all of my campaigns so far, seem to be fairly close to the guidelines. Its obviously going to vary based on monsters, etc., but I've not had an "epic" encounter that was easy for the party or an "easy" encounter that nearly killed them, and most of the "standard" encounters have some tough moments and sap resources.
Traps: Traps have honestly not come up that much, since most of them encountered have been existing ones in the APs mentioned.
Terrain Guides: Also, not coming up much so far.
Creating NPCs: So far, so good, with an exception . . . you have to fudge gold allocation eventually, because not all items will take up the same useful percentage of someone's gold as they progress in levels. Sometimes its just a matter of throwing a few hundred extra into another category.
Curses/Diseases/Poisons: Of all of these, poisons have come up the most often. I like that they are more of a constant threat than a lurking one, but despite the current rules, and the fact that, on their face they aren't bad, some poisons aren't that easy to convert on the fly. There are monsters even in the SRD whose poison doesn't map to any of the example poisons, and if you forget to work this out ahead of time it kind of trips you up in a session.
It also feels as if it might make combats a bit more dangerous, which I'm not sure if its the intent for some monsters. In a fight with a quasit, because of the more immediate ongoing damage, I had a character become completely immobilized from dex damage from one hit from the quasit. I didn't mind it, but I'm interested to see if this is a problem with other monsters down the line.
It might be helpful to see some kind of conversion chart trying to take in various permutations of how 1d6/1d4 or whatever might convert over to, so that GM's don't feel like they are making something too powerful or too weak that they don't see spelled out on the converted poisons.
|
|
Creating NPCs: So far, so good, with an exception . . . you have to fudge gold allocation eventually, because not all items will take up the same useful percentage of someone's gold as they progress in levels. Sometimes its just a matter of throwing a few hundred extra into another category.
You know it isn't actually very clear to me how much "non-significant" NPCs (i.e. a group of "non-heroic" NPCs) should have -- should I use the encounter awards (based on APL) or individually as per the NPC Gear table? Also, the sums may end up being *VERY* different, such as, say, two 2nd level NPC warriors yielding the same amount as five 4th level warriors -- at least using the encounter award table. Also, there should be "0-level/commoner" category with minimal rewards for certain types of NPCs (such as 1st level commoners or warriors, i.e. farmers and town guards). I've had *really* odd results with low-level "minions" using both methods, when PCs were surprised to discover that each man had over 100 GPs in "excess cash".
|
|
Jason, would it be possible to list "Terrain Modifiers" in the combat section, too? Because it's a bit bothersome to leaf through the book when the PCs are fighting in a terrain featuring trees (edge of the forest, or treeline), open ground and a river (i.e. water). In such a case you might have to constantly recheck the cover/concealment/attack bonus modifiers on three different pages.
You know it isn't actually very clear to me how much "non-significant" NPCs (i.e. a group of "non-heroic" NPCs) should have -- should I use the encounter awards (based on APL) or individually as per the NPC Gear table? Also, the sums may end up being *VERY* different, such as, say, two 2nd level NPC warriors yielding the same amount as five 4th level warriors -- at least using the encounter award table. Also, there should be "0-level/commoner" category with minimal rewards for certain types of NPCs (such as 1st level commoners or warriors, i.e. farmers and town guards). I've had *really* odd results with low-level "minions" using both methods, when PCs were surprised to discover that each man had over 100 GPs in "excess cash".
Good point. 1st level NPC classes could be clarified a bit. It doesn't come up all the time since there are "standard" goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, etc, but when you make one up yourself, you suddenly realize that you don't how how much they should have on them from scratch.
Now that you bring this up, it did come up with some 1st level mooks in my Alpha campaign, although there weren't any PF rules on the subject at that time, but there weren't really clear 3.5 ones either.
|
|
Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
I would rather
I think it would be rather helpful to streamline the NPC Class rules altogether by making one NPC Base Class, with the differences being assigned as starting packages.
For Example:
A NPC Warrior would have a +1 to BAB, +1 Fort save, and a free feat from the Fighter list (or Combat feat). A Aristocrat has an additional +4 skill points over base. Each would have specific skill sets to choose from, but the Expert package would allow any ten skills as starting skills.
Trying to keep it simple.
Thoughts?
|
I have run into in my game needing both craft dc's and costs for poisons. Having this information in the poisons entry in the book would make it a ton easier to reference rather than deriving formulas for general level of the poison.
Also, poisons, curses and diseases are HARD TO FIND in the book. Having them under the 'afflictions' heading under the 'glossary' chapter makes navigating the pdf via bookmarks to the poison section a bit numbing. Perhaps adding in a sub-level bookmark for each of the 3 affliction types would make it more intuitive to find them.
"If you would like an even easier leveling system, disregard experience points altogether and just decide (or agree amongst all players) upon an agreeable leveling pace. If your group likes faster advancement then maybe level every other session. If your group prefers a bit slower advancement then have everyone level after every few sessions. This has an added advantage in that groups that focus more on roleplaying and less on combat no longer have to worry "if they've killed enough" monsters in order to level."
I already level the group whenever I deem it appropriate completely disregarding the XP system and have been doing so even when XP was important mechanically. That said, the need for a sidebar is questionable - the space in the book is limited...
|
|
While I like Saga's single non-heroic class, I much prefer the feel I get from various NPC classes. Even when I play Saga I end up utilizing more of the PC classes than NH because it just isn't as varied as I'd like to to be (though I might use 1 level of it to stop the triple starting HP's).
Overall though, I like the multi-class approach to NPCs as a DM/GM. I agree with many above, however, in that an NPC starting gold table would be nice. :)