What I mean is I am pretty sure it said you couldn't use the same charm more than 1 a day, (even if you have 10 of them). I could be wrong.
They did say that Cleric Domains are going more back to 3.5, but not fully.
Whoops,
Went and read, you're right. You can wear any number of chronocharms, but no more than one of the same kind. You have to wear them for 24 hours before they can be used.Still,
at 500gp apiece (on average), it's not bad, and most people don't fail a save more than once per game day (note it's per game day, not per gaming session).
|
What I mean is I am pretty sure it said you couldn't use the same charm more than 1 a day, (even if you have 10 of them). I could be wrong.
They did say that Cleric Domains are going more back to 3.5, but not fully.
That's not how this player plays it, and he's pretty bang on on rules knowledge... maybe he has various different charms that each allow a different kind of reroll? all I know is that these charms have saved his bacon time and time again. He probably saved over 50,000 gold pieces' worth of raise dead spells with that little 500 gp item.
Cleric Domains: that's not what I heard... I think the domain powers are staying, but that they are adding back the domain spell lists... anyone?
I just took a look to make sure I'm right about this...
None of the chronocharms in the MIC allows you to reroll a save. Three of them let you reroll a skill check, one gives you a kind of hustle ability, and another lets you cast a spell quicker.
If he's been rerolling Fort/Ref/Will it's either coming from something else or he is owed one hell of a godsmack.
EDIT: One gives you an AC bonus.
I never thought of myself as an "old-school" gamer btw, but why should low level characters be able to get ahold of magic? Even low level casters don't have much magic to spare, I wouldn't expect most characters to have more than the odd alchemical item.
|
The thing is that many of them are cheap and slotless... a player in my group has made it his "thing" to find the most cheapass x/day items and then just buy a bunch of them. He's got a bunch of chronocharms that are basically slotless items, from what I understand, and they each allow a reroll each day. Guess what? he's never missed a save-or-suck or save-or-die saving throw yet, and we're about to turn level 10.
To a DM's auditing eye, his character sheet looks harmless, as he doesn't have any big expensive magical item; the reality is that he is the most broken PC of 'em all, thanks to his half dozen chronocharms, as he'll never fail a saving throw.
Oh, this is too funny; my players handed in their wishlists last week, having just finished an adventure and come into some gear and money.
The two newer players are all '+1 this, +1 that', the paladin used a lot of his share on claiming several sets of masterwork gear for his upcoming henchmen, but guess what was on one player's list...?
continuous instead of 3/day Belt of Battle?
What I mean is I am pretty sure it said you couldn't use the same charm more than 1 a day, (even if you have 10 of them). I could be wrong.
They did say that Cleric Domains are going more back to 3.5, but not fully.
That's not how this player plays it, and he's pretty bang on on rules knowledge... maybe he has various different charms that each allow a different kind of reroll? all I know is that these charms have saved his bacon time and time again. He probably saved over 50,000 gold pieces' worth of raise dead spells with that little 500 gp item.
Cleric Domains: that's not what I heard... I think the domain powers are staying, but that they are adding back the domain spell lists... anyone?
I think it's just confusion over different ways of saying the same thing.
If you have a chronocharm necklace, you can place as many chronocharms as you want on it. Providing that none of them are duplicates of each other. So, you can have a Chronocharm of the Horizon Walker and a Chronocharm of the Uncaring Mage, and a Chronocharm of the Grand Master, and so on, but you can't have two Chronocharms of the Uncaring Mage.
In a single day, you can activate just the Chronocharm of the Horizon Walker, or just the Chronocharm of the Uncaring Mage, or both the Horizon Walker and the Uncaring Mage, or any other combination of charms you have on you, up to one time each. You can't activate the Uncaring Mage twice in a day, but you could activate every unique charm you have had equipped for at least 24 hours once each day.
The thing is that many of them are cheap and slotless... a player in my group has made it his "thing" to find the most cheapass x/day items and then just buy a bunch of them. He's got a bunch of chronocharms that are basically slotless items, from what I understand, and they each allow a reroll each day. Guess what? he's never missed a save-or-suck or save-or-die saving throw yet, and we're about to turn level 10.
To a DM's auditing eye, his character sheet looks harmless, as he doesn't have any big expensive magical item; the reality is that he is the most broken PC of 'em all, thanks to his half dozen chronocharms, as he'll never fail a saving throw.
Oh, this is too funny; my players handed in their wishlists last week, having just finished an adventure and come into some gear and money.
The two newer players are all '+1 this, +1 that', the paladin used a lot of his share on claiming several sets of masterwork gear for his upcoming henchmen, but guess what was on one player's list...?
I'm guessing a bunch of low-level magic items sufficient to give him one magical item in every body slot, all of which add up to about the cost of a +1 armor and +1 weapon. All of them probably have 1 to 3 uses per day.
Belt of Magnificence +6. . .
Yeah!
If you want to remove iterative attacks you are basically telling people they should only play casters. You might not mean it that way, but that's what is going to be broadcast. One of the strongest features of full BaB is the ability to hit not only more precisely, but more often. And two-weapon fighting would be unnecessarily difficult to incorporate in that sort of doctored, attack-nerfed system.
I did not remove 'iterative' attacks. It was simplified, and overall they hit more often at -2/-2 than at 0/-5, etc.
-- david
Papa.DRB
You want these to be gone?Bloodline sorcerer powers, the new wizard specialization schools(though Universal needs work), and the cleric domains.
If they decide make the bloodlines more like 3.5 Dragon disciple, fix the Universalist, and finally give the clerics even a small nerf?
If that all happens, I'll answer your question with "Not entirely gone, just changed a little."
|
I see. And back to Alpha, or 3.5 or what? I don't care so much one way or the other about Bloodlines or Schools. I think both do a better job than the rather bland specialists in the PHB, but Bloodlines are a bit to strong, though I don't play Arcanists myself.
I am not really a fan of PF Domains. Both that they are not spells and I think they need a lot more diferentiation between the more similar one, such as Air and Water. Finally, some of them just don't work very well, or depending on how you interpret, are very strong/weak.
All in all though, I like the direction they tried to go with them all around. From what I understand it, the Dragon Disciple is going to be toned down, and Bloodlines slightly toned up so that they work more like the D.D.
|
|
I am not really a fan of PF Domains. Both that they are not spells and I think they need a lot more diferentiation between the more similar one, such as Air and Water. Finally, some of them just don't work very well, or depending on how you interpret, are very strong/weak.
Agreed on strength and weaknesses we are.
And back to Alpha, or 3.5 or what?
To something better I hope. But I'll play no matter what happens.
-2/-2
Most certainly does not hit as often as:
-5/-10/-15
Through blind luck if nothing else.
And through various feats that increase attack bonus, a full BaB, magic weapons, Attribute bonus, etc. That -15 is often a very respectable number.
While people are still wailing that fighters are underpowered (they aren't, imo) you want to remove the only thing that they do better than anyone else.
I'd be shocked if anyone with a lot of combat experience in-game was willing to put up with that for long.
I would make those chronocharms expendable...poof...thanks for playing...500gp gone. That's balanced.
Also, if the players know about all these items, how do their characters?
How the heck does a level 4 character even know a belt of magnificence +6 exist? They shouldn't, Knowledge:(Arcana), Knowledge (religion)...that's one way to fix their shiny red wagons...
+1 sword, it's not like they're called that inside the game...you don't go up to the wizard and say, "I'd like to buy a +1 long sword please!"
that's all metaspeak...if you break your gamers of it, you'll be happier...
DM: "The bard identifies the sword as a masterwork blade with has been ensorcelled with minor abjuration magics. This particular blade is know as Felwin's Folly, since he thought it was far more powerful, and attempted to defeat an ogre armed with only the blade and his trusty shield."
I would make those chronocharms expendable...poof...thanks for playing...500gp gone. That's balanced.
Also, if the players know about all these items, how do their characters?
How the heck does a level 4 character even know a belt of magnificence +6 exist? They shouldn't, Knowledge:(Arcana), Knowledge (religion)...that's one way to fix their shiny red wagons...
+1 sword, it's not like they're called that inside the game...you don't go up to the wizard and say, "I'd like to buy a +1 long sword please!"
that's all metaspeak...if you break your gamers of it, you'll be happier...
DM: "The bard identifies the sword as a masterwork blade with has been ensorcelled with minor abjuration magics. This particular blade is know as Felwin's Folly, since he thought it was far more powerful, and attempted to defeat an ogre armed with only the blade and his trusty shield."
My my,
That's uhm... a confusion waiting for a place to happen.Player 1 : I attack with my Felwin's Folly. I roll a 14 on my d20.
GM : What did you get total.
Player 1 : I don't know, I don't know what Felwin's Folly does. You tell me.
GM : <searches through notes, since he made the name up> Uhm, no you missed, next.
Player 2 : I use this necklace with rubies on it that sends out fireballs. I try to hit the ogre.
GM : Ok, roll your damage dice, it's an Area of Effect.
Player 2 : Uhm, I don't know how may damage dice to roll, you just told me it's a Stoobin's Stupendulous Necklace of Fireballs.
GM : *sigh* Uhm, ok, it does uh... <rolls a d4 and adds 2, then rolls 3d6> Ok it does... oh never mind, he looks crispy...
Player 3 : I fire at him with the wand I bought at the magic shops last week.
Harried GM : Ok, what does it do?
Player 3 : I dunno, the guy said it was a wand of monster killing.
GM : *sigh*
That's where is the DMs job to keep track of it.
Wands are pretty obvious, they have a spell which is in it...a spell which can easily be identified by spellcraft.
Sorry but you described the most incompetent DM ever in that example...
That's where is the DMs job to keep track of it.
Wands are pretty obvious, they have a spell which is in it...a spell which can easily be identified by spellcraft.
Sorry but you described the most incompetent DM ever in that example...
Well,
Yeah. Any DM that wants to keep track of all his players equipment stats, and never let them know what they are, is, well, in my opinion, pretty incompetent.Keeping track of 4-5 sets of equipment, ensuring he's got the right feats and bonus's at the right time, because the players don't know what bonus's they get on anything anymore. Then, on top of that, he has to keep track of the all the enemies equipment, stats and gear.
Then do all the math, most if not all the rolls... frankly, that seems a very slow gaming night to me, and it takes away a lot of my control over my character. "Oooh, I have a Fenwicks Folly sword and a Belgrin's Boogerwart Breastplate!" Sheesh.
And to your example, it doesn't matter if the wand is identifiable, the exact strength of the wand is meta gaming, by your definition. So, if it's a wand of fireball, what caster level is it? It could be 5th, or 15th, or 20th. And each of those different caster levels does a different number of d6. In fact, d6 is meta gaming by your deffinition, it should just be 'Fireball that does some' or 'Moderate fireball' or 'OMG you killed Kenny Fireball!'. So that means the GM has to keep track of *everything*, which is certainly possible (I could do it myself) but it would slow the game to a crawl.
There is a difference between 'In Character' and 'In Game'. If someone says in chracter 'Yeah, I have a +2 magic longsword and a amulet of natural armor that boosts me 4 points' then I slam them with no RP XP. If they say 'I got a minor ensorceled weapon and a moderate amulet of armor' then that's in character. But the player knows what his equipment is.
I am not really a fan of PF Domains. Both that they are not spells and I think they need a lot more differentiation between the more similar one, such as Air and Water. Finally, some of them just don't work very well, or depending on how you interpret, are very strong/weak.
I agree on the differentiation (Gozreh has *three* domains with 1st level spell of Obscuring Mist), but the PF Domain abilities *are* spells (unless you mean the 1st and 8th level ones, or you mean it's not spell lists). They say '(sp)', but that was a holdover from the Alpha - they are very much spells, not spell-like. I was actually rather disappointed at that change. It specifies it in the description of the domains fyi.
-2/-2
Most certainly does not hit as often as:
-5/-10/-15
Through blind luck if nothing else.
And through various feats that increase attack bonus, a full BaB, magic weapons, Attribute bonus, etc. That -15 is often a very respectable number.
While people are still wailing that fighters are underpowered (they aren't, imo) you want to remove the only thing that they do better than anyone else.
I'd be shocked if anyone with a lot of combat experience in-game was willing to put up with that for long.
I did not say that -2/-2 was -5/-10/-15. If you are going to misquote me, at least be more subtle.
Standard iteration vs. new iteration:
1st - 5th level: same
6th - 10th level: 0/-5 vs. -2/-2
11th - 15th level: 0/-5/-10 vs -1/-1
16th+ level: 0/-5/-10/-15 vs 0/0
Well, I guess you are shocked. My guys like it. Less dice and on average more damage per turn. They are happy and I am happy.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Standard iteration vs. new iteration:
1st - 5th level: same
6th - 10th level: 0/-5 vs. -2/-2
11th - 15th level: 0/-5/-10 vs -1/-1
16th+ level: 0/-5/-10/-15 vs 0/0Well, I guess you are shocked. My guys like it. Less dice and on average more damage per turn. They are happy and I am happy.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I kinda like it, too. I think I'd use -3, -2, -1 for the penalties though.
I kinda like it, too. I think I'd use -3, -2, -1 for the penalties though.
I did not come up with the idea. Wulf Ratbane did on this thread over at ENWorld. I am just using it in my game and like I said, both my players and myself like it.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/248004-iterative- attacks.html
-- david
Papa.DRB
Sorry. Then: 0/0 most certainly does not hit as often as 0/-5/-10/-15.
I'm shocked!
That's where is the DMs job to keep track of it.
Wands are pretty obvious, they have a spell which is in it...a spell which can easily be identified by spellcraft.
Sorry but you described the most incompetent DM ever in that example...
Well,
Yeah. Any DM that wants to keep track of all his players equipment stats, and never let them know what they are, is, well, in my opinion, pretty incompetent.Keeping track of 4-5 sets of equipment, ensuring he's got the right feats and bonus's at the right time, because the players don't know what bonus's they get on anything anymore. Then, on top of that, he has to keep track of the all the enemies equipment, stats and gear.
Then do all the math, most if not all the rolls... frankly, that seems a very slow gaming night to me, and it takes away a lot of my control over my character. "Oooh, I have a Fenwicks Folly sword and a Belgrin's Boogerwart Breastplate!" Sheesh.
And to your example, it doesn't matter if the wand is identifiable, the exact strength of the wand is meta gaming, by your definition. So, if it's a wand of fireball, what caster level is it? It could be 5th, or 15th, or 20th. And each of those different caster levels does a different number of d6. In fact, d6 is meta gaming by your deffinition, it should just be 'Fireball that does some' or 'Moderate fireball' or 'OMG you killed Kenny Fireball!'. So that means the GM has to keep track of *everything*, which is certainly possible (I could do it myself) but it would slow the game to a crawl.
There is a difference between 'In Character' and 'In Game'. If someone says in chracter 'Yeah, I have a +2 magic longsword and a amulet of natural armor that boosts me 4 points' then I slam them with no RP XP. If they say 'I got a minor ensorceled weapon and a moderate amulet of armor' then that's in character. But the player knows what his equipment is.
Not all items are named, or legendary. Sometimes a wizard enchants a long sword to be +1 because he's practicing, he then sells it down the road to a fighter who's willing to pay and goes back to study more. Or he gifts it to a friend's squire when he arrives to give his friend(Paladin) the mighty sword Foehammer, a +3 holy longsword. Now for me anything past +2 is likely named, or if not named there will be some bardic tale to be told about it. But low end items maybe not.
Either way the point is yes the bard says it's called Fenwicks Folly. The DM uses a 3x5 card, a note in his word doc about the PC, or whatever note keeping method he has and records it as a +1 long sword. After a fight or two you just pass the card to the player, he knows it's name but having used it a bit he's learned it's obvious properities as well. Or an identify spell gives you the properties and all, but you still give it a name/history if that fits and call it by that giving the stats to the player. While he, the player, knows the stats his character knows it's name. A little meta gaming maybe but only enough to make the play flow smoothly.
I've always liked the whole "history behind items" thing, just like I've always liked the randomly glowing magic weapons. Both are a bit of a chore to implement though. Past a certain point, any AP (even if it's home made) for mid-high level players is dropping lots of loot, and they're not generally supplying back story on most of it.
I can't be bothered to fill in a history for +3 longswords when the players just fought ten guys who are all using them. I gotta work a day job at some point.
Not all items are named, or legendary. Sometimes a wizard enchants a long sword to be +1 because he's practicing, he then sells it down the road to a fighter who's willing to pay and goes back to study more. Or he gifts it to a friend's squire when he arrives to give his friend(Paladin) the mighty sword Foehammer, a +3 holy longsword. Now for me anything past +2 is likely named, or if not named there will be some bardic tale to be told about it. But low end items maybe not.Either way the point is yes the bard says it's called Fenwicks Folly. The DM uses a 3x5 card, a note in his word doc about the PC, or whatever note keeping method he has and records it as a +1 long sword. After a fight or two you just pass the card to the player, he knows it's name but having used it a bit he's learned it's obvious properities as well. Or an identify spell gives you the properties and all, but you still give it a name/history if that fits and call it by that giving the stats to the player. While he, the player, knows the stats his character knows it's name. A little meta gaming maybe but only enough to make the play flow smoothly.
Now that I can agree with. I don't have a problem with it the way you've described it. The original post was making the argument that everything should be named/non-statted.
And I also agree with the 'anything above a certain power level' should be named. A +1 or +2, nah. Too many around. A +3 or better, (either a +3, a +1 with a +2 effect, or a +2 with a +1) is likely to have a rep. Not nearly as many of them around. Now, in a remote area, even a +2 might have a name and background (my players were just given a +1 Dragonbane bow by a village for promising to destroy a dragon that is bothering them (adult black). They call it Seith's Wrath, and it belonged to a hero of the village 300 years ago. So everything is relative. :)
guess what was on one player's list...?I'm guessing a bunch of low-level magic items sufficient to give him one magical item in every body slot, all of which add up to about the cost of a +1 armor and +1 weapon. All of them probably have 1 to 3 uses per day.
Well, nearly. I've asked for a couple of chronocharms (horizon walker and fateweaver), armband of elusive action, third eye improv, vest of resistance and a pair of 'Acrobat boots of agile leaping and landing'. *ahem*
Not game breaking by any stretch. But I'm threadjacking, back on topic:
The lack of any means to work out quickly which chapter you wish to turn to in the printed version.
Tabs, different coloured headers, prominent chapter names at the top of every page (prominent so they can be differentiated from each other). Any means to make flipping to magic items to equipment to classes to spells less of an exercise in memorising the chapter numbers...
I know this isn't rules but it's important if you want your game to play fast...
The lack of any means to work out quickly which chapter you wish to turn to in the printed version.
I actually had a friend that used to use these little colored notebook tabs in all his game books. If you ran out of colors you could also pencil in a quick description on the tab. It was very useful.
The lack of any means to work out quickly which chapter you wish to turn to in the printed version.Tabs, different coloured headers, prominent chapter names at the top of every page (prominent so they can be differentiated from each other). Any means to make flipping to magic items to equipment to classes to spells less of an exercise in memorising the chapter numbers...
I know this isn't rules but it's important if you want your game to play fast...
That I'll definitely agree with. And on top of that, a good solid index in the back with page references would be REALLY nice.
I would take the greataxe to Favored Class:
Each race already has natural inclination towards some classes based on ability bonuses, and other racial attributes. Adding any additional benefits just encourages the same old class/race combos over and over again. Don't punish unusual character concepts.
Summon Monster Mechanics:
The whole Celestial crocodile or Fiendish alligator Monster Summoning spell options. Pathfinder should come up with a Lawful and Chaotic templates, the the spell should simply summon the appropriate (Templated) Dire Badger. Also, tweak the lists just a little bit.
I really like Paizo's little bonus for taking your favored class. I'd like everyone to choose their own favored class at creation. Maybe humans can choose two?