| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ UnArcaneElection
My 1e/2e lv.3 Paladin does not agree. The rogue is happily wheeling and dealing hundreds of gold (NOT electrum) at a shot, meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out how the hell I'm going to pay for the inn tonight.
62.)Odd numbers in stats actually mean something other than "oh, that's what I'll bump at lv. 4"
Eh, yeah, but then you're going back to the days of charts on charts for each stat. It's bad enough that Strength gets its own Chart for Carrying Capacity; I am SO happy that Mental Stats are combined into a single Chart to determine Bonus Spells.
I mean, just LOOK at the Strength Table from AD&D - Str 11 through 15 did NOTHING in terms of combat, and even THEN it was an unintuitive piece of nonsense that Gygax REFUSED to drop for a more sensible system like the Stats we have today.
I'd rather Str 12 and 13 each do +1 to-hit and +1 to damage than have characters with Str 11-15 doing NOTHING special in combat AT ALL.
If something could be done to have odd-numbers do something without going back to ChartsChartsCharts!, then I'd be fine with that, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
64. Clerics with flail proficiency
65. Smaller/fewer initiative modifiers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
66. Halflings being able to wield weapons made by humans, elves, and dwarves.
They're guidelines. And I suspect originally intended to limit wealth as much as promise it. You don't hear so much about Monty Haul games these days.60(?). Absence of Wealth By Level. No more entitlements!
With the Cleaves playtest I'm getting ready for, They start with 10th level characters, so wealth by level is a good guideline for what gear they will have. If they buy a book to raise a stat more, they may be entering a space dungeon wearing just a loincloth. A lot of money doesn't make you a great adventurer.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're guidelines. And I suspect originally intended to limit wealth as much as promise it. You don't hear so much about Monty Haul games these days.60(?). Absence of Wealth By Level. No more entitlements!
They might be guidelines, but about 95%+ of posts that mention WBL on these forums don't seem to realize that. I mean, I've seen posts that talk about GMs doing WBL "audits", for Odin's sake! And if you dare mention that you don't always adhere to WBL, a horde will descend upon you demanding to know why you are such a tight-fisted bastard of a GM.
:P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
67. Sex based stat differences.
^What, like this?
* * * * * * * *
For the odd-numbered stats problem (other than Carrying Capacity and Feats that have an odd-numbered threshold), probably better to look to the future. Like in Mutants in Masterminds, just get rid of what we currently call the ability score and keep (and use) the modifier instead.
^What, like this?
* * * * * * * *
For the odd-numbered stats problem (other than Carrying Capacity and Feats that have an odd-numbered threshold), probably better to look to the future. Like in Mutants in Masterminds, just get rid of what we currently call the ability score and keep (and use) the modifier instead.
No, in AD&D, female characters had lower maximum strengths than male characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, in AD&D, female characters had lower maximum strengths than male characters.^What, like this?
* * * * * * * *
For the odd-numbered stats problem (other than Carrying Capacity and Feats that have an odd-numbered threshold), probably better to look to the future. Like in Mutants in Masterminds, just get rid of what we currently call the ability score and keep (and use) the modifier instead.
There is SOME realism to that - all objective (meaning regardless of gender) world records for strength are held by men, in part because, biologically, men aren't just generally larger but more muscular than women. And, no, this isn't a sexist thing; that's a legitimate fact of biology and anatomy that women have more body fat than men and proportionally smaller upper-body muscles - yes, there are lots of women who are stronger than men through training or natural strength, but average vs average and apex vs apex, men are bulkier and stronger than women (it's the main reason why guys like colder temperatures on average than women do - bigger muscles produce more heat making men warmer than women normally).
Same thing for speed (again, muscling, but also because of differences in the shape of women's pelvises and legs - men's legs are basically straight vertically, whereas women's legs angle inward at a slight angle so that the knees nearly touch... lots of women are naturally "pidgeon toed" as a result, while men's feet splay outward.
That being said, women are generally a LOT tougher than guys, have greater long-term endurance, and their pain thresholds are significantly higher than men.
So, if anything, Men would get +1 Str, and women should get +1 Con.
However, we're talking about a game involving Elves and Hobbits and Catfolk here.
Forget logic & micro-managed realism, at that point - when dragons are flying overhead, why CAN'T you have a non-Kryptonian, 4ft 11in. woman, who wears a size 1 dress, deadlift a tractor one-handed? The image alone is pretty dang awesome.
Sexual Attribute Dimorphism would make a good defect. If male, max con. and wisdom are 17, each. If female, max strength and intelligence are 17, each.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexual Attribute Dimorphism would make a good defect. If male, max con. and wisdom are 17, each. If female, max strength and intelligence are 17, each.The comment about female intelligence being lower at its maximum is one that would trigger an assassination—character or otherwise.
Yeah, seriously, WTF.
Men I can KIND OF understand the Wis 17 (we do stupid s!&+e), but why the hell would women get Int 17 as a cap? 'Cause "men are better at math/science"?
Men, or rather BOYS, are known to have a much better spatial awareness than GIRLS, but that's ONLY really before they reach maturity. It starts out as a pretty huge difference when we're young, and then as time goes on the gap all-but disappears (basically, there's something like a 30% difference in ability at young ages like 2-3, but by the time men and women hit 17-19, it's down to a difference of about 2-3% in favor of men).
If you want to institute that Dimorphism rule, Goth, then go ahead.
I'd rather KEEP my testicles intact, myself, though, so I'd shy away from ANYTHING that plays around with Intelligence.
If you feel the need to potentially piss people off, at least you could do it in a way that would REWARD them for their sex players choose.
What you COULD do is this:
Men: +1 Str, +2 Bonus to Concentrate Checks.
Women: +1 Con, +2 Bonus to Perception.
THAT at least has some semblance of realism -
Men are noted over and over in studies for having the ability to block out sensory information and concentrate on one specific thing (which is why so man men can seem to have "tunnel vision")
Women, on the other hand, are noted to NOT be able to block information nearly as well as men, but instead are able to take in and process more sensory info than men (thus why they're much better multitaskers than men).
BUT again - save yourself potential embarrassment (and potential castration), and just... don't give bonuses based on gender.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of thing is easier for kobolds. I'm still only about 75% sure I got sexed right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaannnnndddd this is the point this thread goes to s@+#.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaannnnndddd this is the point this thread goes to s@!~.
Yeah, I'm voting to re-rail this damn thing.
Uh... uh...
70. TURNS!
Back in the day, players each went and said what they would be doing during their "Turn" which means what they would be doing for the next 10 minutes.
It didn't work perfectly, but it works well enough as a distraction to get people to stop talking about gender differences and bonuses/penalties as a means for tracking game-time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THe reason why Gygax didn't work with low stats having bonuses is to force specialization.
If everyone gets Strength bonuses easily, it means that those who rely on Strength primarily are devalued.
So, a 12 Str now gets you a +1/+1. That's the equal of a 17 Str in 1E. For next to no investment, you have a combat bonus.
It rewards spreading points around, rather then focusing on something and being good at it. Strength scores sub for martial ability easily (just ask wildshapers). By making it hard to get those strength scores and benefit from them, you made melee levels more valuable.
This is also why there were Con/HP bonus limits for non-melee classes. It made that big d10 for HP more valuable...you couldn't just buff Con to the skies to sub for it...which is exactly what caster classes do now. Fighters went from having absolutely the most hp to having basically what any other class with Con as a secondary stat did, or less, if that class wanted to raise Con and had fewer other stats to raise (like, oh, wizards).
=================================
Sucessive studies have shown that except for raw muscle power, there's really no difference at high end or average ability scores for men and women. Men can be colossally resistant to pain and possessed of superior endurance (start reading some survival stories, or look at ultra marathon records). Women are just as smart, understanding and capable of leadership, albeit in different manners.
The best way to reflect the difference in women's social abilities is simply assign the -2 to Strength, and +2 to any other ability score, up to 18 maximum, to reflect the fact they don't get by on raw muscle power. If that ends up in Wisdom or Charisma or Dexterity, that's 'normal', and women will be naturally stronger in areas men are not by default, but not at the high end.
And note that while magical strength doesn't have to obey biology, even at the high end of literature examples, the male characters tend to be stronger then the women (Superman/Supergirl being best examples), while the women tend to have other strengths.
==Aelryinth
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are not talking about "Female: -2 Strength"
We are not talking about "Female: -2 Strength"
Anyway. Umm...
71. Name Levels
In old D&D, you got a title just for living long enough to hit ninth level. Fighters became "Lord" or "Lady," clerics became "Patriarch" or "Matriarch" (or if they were absolutely insane neutral, "Druid"), magic-users became "Wizard" or "Maga," thieves became "Master Thief" regardless of gender, dwarves became dwarf-lord or dwarf-lady, elves became lord-wizard or lady-maga, halflings became "Sheriff" regardless of gender, mystics became "Master" or "Mistress." Besides giving you a badass stronghold and followers (yes, everyone got Leadership back in the 80s and 90s!) you were actually allowed to write your title ahead of your name on your character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
70a Rounds. I want to go back to where combat was each round is a minute. None of this, we killed a dragon in 6 or 12 seconds.
I want to pop over to the "3.x stuff your players try to scam you into allowing" thread and just start making arguments about diversity and how Pun-Pun is a desirable alternative to Pathfinder wizards. Just to teach you punks a lesson.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to pop over to the "3.x stuff your players try to scam you into allowing" thread and just start making arguments about diversity and how Pun-Pun is a desirable alternative to Pathfinder wizards. Just to teach you punks a lesson.
I kind of agree with you.
Although, honestly, I WOULD like to see spells be a nightmare to renew again, if only to hear the whining from casters and the cheering from martials because of it.
I do also think it makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, though perhaps not a balance standpoint as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells taking time to renew is an out of combat thing. Which means, if youw ant the spellcaster around, you leave combat too.
So, standard memorization taking too long hurts the party, not the wizard. Once he's got his spells up, he's fine...everyone else waits on him.
Now, the whole 'sit down for 15 minutes to grab the spells I want on the fly', yeah.
73. Ability score maximum benefits by class. Especially Con scores.
==Aelryinth
|
73. Ability score maximum benefits by class. Especially Con scores.
It's interesting how things come and go out of fashion. Bonuses for high Str and high Con scores used to be pretty much Fighter only, giving members of a specific class an extra bonus. Fighters (and Paladins / Rangers) also got additional attacks, which sort of went with the idea of their BAB being 'worth more' than other classes attack bonuses. (Not that they had BAB, back then...)
Iron Heroes / Book of Experimental Might introduced the idea of Fighters getting special bonuses from common feats, that only they could access.
And now Pathfinder Unchained is adding the notion that a Rogue might be able to unlock an additional level of utility from skills that anyone can learn (which they've had for awhile now with Perception and Disable Device, thanks to trapfinding).
The wheel keeps turning.
Thanks to Evasion (and Mettle, back in 3.5), there's even a mechanic by which one persons saving throws include options that not everybody benefits from.
Now we just need a class that unlocks additional utility from hit points or Armor Class, to complete the trend. :)
They're guidelines. And I suspect originally intended to limit wealth as much as promise it. You don't hear so much about Monty Haul games these days.60(?). Absence of Wealth By Level. No more entitlements!
They might be guidelines, but about 95%+ of posts that mention WBL on these forums don't seem to realize that. I mean, I've seen posts that talk about GMs doing WBL "audits", for Odin's sake! And if you dare mention that you don't always adhere to WBL, a horde will descend upon you demanding to know why you are such a tight-fisted bastard of a GM.
:P
Really? I hear "My players have too much money because they're 1GP over the WBL!" more often on this, and gods forbid you mention magic item crafting or GMs will have a huge fit.
Sexual Attribute Dimorphism would make a good defect. If male, max con. and wisdom are 17, each. If female, max strength and intelligence are 17, each.The comment about female intelligence being lower at its maximum is one that would trigger an assassination—character or otherwise.
That's why I was kidding. That's also why I ran that idea up a flagpole here before trying it on my actual defect topic. Even better, when some pretard tries to tell you girls being bad at math is a fact, you tell them they only tested ultra rare freaks!
No, in AD&D, female characters had lower maximum strengths than male characters.^What, like this?
{. . .}
I know, I was just pointing out an example modern enough to have been invented in Pathfinder itself.
THe reason why Gygax didn't work with low stats having bonuses is to force specialization.
If everyone gets Strength bonuses easily, it means that those who rely on Strength primarily are devalued. {. . .}
Problem with this is that in D&D before 2.5, point buy officially never existed (even though I've actually done it myself), with the closest thing being that in Basic D&D, after rolling ability scores, Fighters could trade 2 points of Intelligence or 3 points of Wisdom for 1 point of Strength, and some of the other classes had similar (and similarly unfavorable) trades. After a while, character creation methods were introduced for rolling up some stats and rearranging them, or rolling more dice (and dropping more low ones) for your more important ability scores, but it wasn't the same as the actual point buy that is official now. In any case, a wide range of rolls would put you into the Strength range where you didn't get any bonuses or penalties, because it was so wide. And then of course 1st and 2nd editions had the weirdness in which if you were a Fighter and rolled an 18 Strength (1 chance in 216 with 3d6(*), and better with 4d6_drop_lowest but still pretty small) you rolled percentile dice for Exceptional Strength, written as 18/01 through 18/00 (which was initially the maximum strength, with scores 19 and up without percentiles being introduced part way into AD&D 1.x days). One odd side effect of this was that Fighters often had Strength (before magic items) less than 18 and rarely greater than 18, but not exactly 18 unless they suffered Strength loss (including due to aging, which was REALLY harsh on Strength, in most cases treating the percentile Strength as if it wasn't there, and dropping you to a lower number -- things could be harsh for martials back then as well).
(*)This is assuming you didn't do some trick like spin-stabilize the dice, and that the dice weren't playing tricks on you if you didn't do that. I actually wrote a dice-roller program in UCSD Pascal 1.1 in the 1980s (cue in discussion of faults with computerized random number generation), but never ended up getting to use it beyond the testing phase.
There's a 3E rage variant from Unearthed, where you automatically go into Rage whenever you're at half your HP or less, and stay there until healed up.
I thought that one was immensely flavorful.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Warriors in EverQuest d20 automatically went into a rage when they were reduced to 1/4 of their max HP. They gained +2 to melee attack and melee damage rolls and +2 (!!) AC. It lasted (Warrior level + Con mod) rounds, until you got healed up, or until you made a DC 15 Will save to voluntarily drop out of it.
I am glad to see I am not the only one to liked Specialty Priests.
Specialty priests just got moved to being an Archetype and Prestige class thing-- 3.5 had a ton of them, and PF has a few, and if you're in your homebrew world you can easily make flavorful PrC's for specific priesthoods that are as cool/ cooler than 2nd Ed Priest spheres and grated powers.
Especially if you used the suggested rules for those. . . that made super weak priesthoods.
Aye. 2E spheres were awful.
Greyhawk module, where you go into the land of Iuz. Pretend you're infected with the plague.
Priests of Iuz, because of spheres, have no ability to cure disease. They flee from the plagued!
Not bad for the greatest native evil of Oerth.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I am glad to see I am not the only one to liked Specialty Priests.Specialty priests just got moved to being an Archetype and Prestige class thing-- 3.5 had a ton of them, and PF has a few, and if you're in your homebrew world you can easily make flavorful PrC's for specific priesthoods that are as cool/ cooler than 2nd Ed Priest spheres and grated powers.
Especially if you used the suggested rules for those. . . that made super weak priesthoods.
No, I would much rather have highly flavorful cleric archetypes that mimic the specialty priests of 2nd AD&D with sometimes the swaps being as extensive as the Stonelord dwarf archetype for Paladins.
Also I would look into the Spheres of Power 3rd party book since the way i see it is that all clerics should not share 90% of spells in common.
Edit: Though in this case they would be archetypes that create specialty priests for the pantheon of Pathfinder.
Dot.
75(?). No more video game style leveling up (suddenly getting more powerful because you happened to be put over the edge when you kicked a beggar or something). You got the XP or qualifying accomplishments (if not using XP) to level up: You have to take some time out and work on it. In AD&D 1.x this was typically 1 to 4 weeks, depending upon whether you had access to a trainer, and how well you had been doing (including roleplaying) up to that point, and it cost some serious money too (that last part doesn't really fit the flavor of some classes). This time-consuming timeout leveling doesn't suit some Adventure Paths, so as an alternative, allow a method of incrementally leveling up if you don't have access to proper training.
|
75(?). No more video game style leveling up (suddenly getting more powerful because you happened to be put over the edge when you kicked a beggar or something). You got the XP or qualifying accomplishments (if not using XP) to level up: You have to take some time out and work on it. In AD&D 1.x this was typically 1 to 4 weeks, depending upon whether you had access to a trainer, and how well you had been doing (including roleplaying) up to that point, and it cost some serious money too (that last part doesn't really fit the flavor of some classes). This time-consuming timeout leveling doesn't suit some Adventure Paths, so as an alternative, allow a method of incrementally leveling up if you don't have access to proper training.
I disagree with this, at least partially. I'm with you on not suddenly exploding a la World of Warcraft, but as a diehard Might & Magic fan, I will say that the worst thing about those games was needing to visit a training grounds and pay for training. I will not endorse needing to train for every level (although I could see my way to supporting needing to seek out a great teacher to learn certain powerful or important feats or spells).
What I've seen playing Pathfinder is that levels are either gained "offstage," or with an evening's rest (rather than going "ding" in the middle of a dungeon, although for certain characters, in particular classes like Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks, an invigorating epiphany in the midst of battle sounds very appropriate).
Speaking of which gave me an idea for a feat whereby you did indeed suddenly regain all your hit points (and maybe Ki/Grit/Arcana/Bloodline Powers etc) after gaining enough experience for your next level Blizzard Entertainment-style. Some people would take it. I think it would make sense for Monks.
75(?). No more video game style leveling up (suddenly getting more powerful because you happened to be put over the edge when you kicked a beggar or something). You got the XP or qualifying accomplishments (if not using XP) to level up: You have to take some time out and work on it. In AD&D 1.x this was typically 1 to 4 weeks, depending upon whether you had access to a trainer, and how well you had been doing (including roleplaying) up to that point, and it cost some serious money too (that last part doesn't really fit the flavor of some classes). This time-consuming timeout leveling doesn't suit some Adventure Paths, so as an alternative, allow a method of incrementally leveling up if you don't have access to proper training.
It's adorable that you think that's something inherently good.
Plenty (most) DMs followed the method of DING! FRIES ARE DONE! in regards to leveling up back in the day.
Here's why:
Experience oints are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. Just because Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieve's Guild has managed to acquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers, the Footpad. The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible to gain a level of experience, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide.
Consider the natural functions of each class of Character. consider also the Professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:
E - Excellent, few deviants from the norm = 1
S - Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
F - Fair performance, more norm than deviations = 3
P - Poor showing with aberrant behavior = 4...
Award experience points normally. When each character is given his or her total, also give them an alphabetical rating - E, S, F, or P. When a character's total experience points indicate eligibility for an advancement in level, use the alphabetical assessment to assign equal weight to the behavior of the character during each separate adventure - regardless of how many or how few experience points were gain in each. The resulting total is then divided by the number of entries (adventures) to come up with some number from 1 to 4. This number indicates the number of WEEKS the character must spend in study and/or training before he or she actually gains the benefits of the new level. Be certain that all decimals are retained, as each .145 equals a game day.
Not only must game time be spent by the character desiring advancement, but treasure will have to be spent as well. The amount of gold pieces, or the equivalent in value in gems, jewelry, magic items, etc. is found by using the following simple formula:
LEVEL OF THE TRAINEE CHARACTER X 1,500 = WEEKLY COST DURING STUDY/TRAINING.
The level of the aspiring character should be computed at current (not to be gained) level.
...
The actual text goes on for another half-page detailing minute details of study & training based on class, but you get the idea - convoluted as hell.
Conversely, the bit about spending GP and training for a week or so in order to gain a level sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like spending Capital and Activity Phases during Downtime.
It's little wonder why plenty of DMs these days fiat that leveling occurs during Downtime.
Still, the end result is that the game has ALWAYS been up to DM discretion, and how/when leveling occurs, and it's always been extremely varied.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adorable? Is it really necessary to patronise those with differing preferences than you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, What Number Were We On Again?: Druids
Becoming a Druid in Third Edition, 3.5e, Pathfinder, Fourth Edition, and Fifth Edition:
- Find the Character Class blank on your character sheet.
- Write "Druid" in the blank.
- (If you're multiclassing into it in Fifth Edition) Have 13 Wisdom.
Becoming a Druid in Rules Cyclopedia D&D:
Wasn't as easy as it is nowadays. First, you needed to be a cleric of at least eighth level. (So no halfling, dwarven, or elven druids. Go figure on that last one.) You also had to be strictly Neutral; not Lawful, not Chaotic, just plain ol' honest to (Whomever) Neutral. Then you had to gain a character level.
So, you get to ninth level (the Name level as I mentioned above!) and you become a druid. You immediately lose all ability to turn undead because you're not a cleric anymore, but you can cast all cleric spells (except spells like Protection From Evil because those affect good/evil) and new spells from the druid list. You also lose all ability to use armor and weapons made out of metal (including scimitars, which seem to be the iconic druid weapon because I DON'T KNOW.)
You do not get wild shape like you do in post-1999 D&D. You do not get an animal companion. You only get 1 HP per level because pre-2000 D&D. You do get a whole lot of spells that clerics and magic-users can't use.
So, as you gain levels, you come across the other hurdle in the book: In the default D&D rules, there are only nine 30th level druids, seven 31st, five 32nd, four 33rd, three 34th, two 35th, and one 36th level Grand Druid.
In order to actually be allowed to level up past 29th level, you're gonna have to go find and kick the asses of at least seven druids higher level than you are.
Yes, the druid was the only class in D&D that required another character to retire/die/have one of your companions HASTEN THEM ALONG in order to gain level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, wrong! Mystics had to defeat higher level Masters in BECMI too!
Not having training does remove an entirely realistic background from characters, and a big source of story arcs. Basically, it removes the entire Asian-centered 'study under a great master', which is basically a LIFE QUEST, completely from play.
So, meh.
I do the same thing with paladins and clerics, however. If you are actively serving the interests of your patron, you just level...it's a perk of the class.
It's the same way that Paladins don't need to train how to fight. If you're chosen as a paladin, bam, weapon prof and armor prof instantly. Drives the fighters nuts, who train for years for the same benefits.
I do restrict all classes but Fighters and Paladins in weapons and armor proficiencies, however.
non-full BAB classes typically have proficiency in simple weapons equal to their starting skill points. If they want more weapons, they spend a skill point to earn one. Study a weapon, or study a trade...trade-off.
Non-full BAB martial classes that start with Martial Weapon Proficiencies can spend skill points on Martial weapons as they like.
Full BAB Martial classes gain proficiency in a number of martial weapons equal to their starting skill points. Fighters and Paladins have ALL. Barbs thus get 4 automatically, and Rangers 6.
Monks are proficient in all Monk Weapons.
Taking the armor and weapon proficiency feats allows you to spend skill points on armor or weapon types of the appropriate weight. Starting at level 1 with the armor profs means you are proficient in all types.
This gives weight to level 1 starting skill loads, and makes armor and weapon profs important again.
=======================
74. Bring back limited weapon proficiencies by class.
75. Bring back size L damage for weapons.
==Aelryinth