In case you don’t know why I am in love with this program, let me take a few moments to tell you. First, I love character creation. I love, if only for a few moments, building the back story and personality of a new character. For a long time, I used to have to build these characters by hand and it would take hours per character with two or three books laying about me. Now it just takes my laptop and about twenty minutes. This has been a huge time saver when making opponent forces for our regular gaming group.

That is another of the wonders of this program. I paid the extra $15 to add the entire Pathfinder Bestiary to my Core Rules (which come with the purchase of the software). So I can now customize almost any creature that I want. I can add hit dice, templates and class levels to whatever creature I would like. So, when the players run into a bearded devil (handily identified by the cleric), they might expect it to have a bleeding attack and that weird beard thing, but they probably wouldn’t expect it to also have a couple of barbarian levels complete with rage abilities. I love the diversity that it allows me to throw at the players, which keeps them on their toes.

I can then take these newly modified monsters and output their created data in lots of useful formats. Obviously there is its own format, but it can easily be saved in XML to be edited later. You can also output the character data as plain text, BBCode, html or WikiText. This format ends up being identical to the format used in the Pathfinder Bestiary. This is super useful if I am running custom bad guys alongside stock monsters.

There is some functionality that I have not attempted to utilize yet. According to the fine folks at Lone Wolf, I can edit pretty much anything in the software to reflect our houserules. For example, at our table we give fighters 4+Int skills per level, rather than 2+Int, and we give extra iterative attacks one point of BAB early. I could go in and make these changes to my software so that it can reflect our table’s preferences. It also is supposed to allow me to custom create classes and creatures. I’ve not needed to do any of that yet, but I like that it is available. However, having not done any of this, I cannot say whether this is a simple and clean process or a cludgy and complex one.

Lastly, Lone Wolf is continually expanding the software and doing so without charging an arm and a leg. At least in my opinion, the software and expansions are very reasonably priced and very simple to acquire. Looking at the post over in Paizo’s forum, you can see what their future plans are for Hero Lab.

In short, I really like this program and I know that it has really enhanced my gaming experience. I don’t have any ties to Lone Wolf or Hero Lab other than being a now loyal customer. You can download and purchase Hero Lab here.

As you might already be aware, full-casters are generally much more powerful than non-casters and druids are pretty solidly powerful, even among full-casters.  Pathfinder has done well (in my opinion) of powering down druids, but one-on-one, a druid is still more powerful than an evenly leveled fighter.  The animal companion plus summoning spells make them a more than formidable adversary.  So why bother with fighters when you can just raise armies of druids (and clerics and wizards)?

Our first problem when answering this question is that, in Pathfinder, your basic NPCs are given the stat array 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 with no mention of how those stats should be best arranged.  With this we concluded that it is more-or-less evenly distributed, with one in six people having any particular stat be that 13.   Since a 13 wisdom will let you cast 3rd level spells as a druid or cleric, wouldn’t 16% of the population be prime candidates for militarized divine spellcasting? And another 16% primed to be wizards?

The second problem we run into is that we have no built in controls on how common the various heroic PC classes are.  The rules make vague statements that most people fall into one of the NPC classes (commoner, warrior, expert, aristocrat and adept) but there is no hard and fast rule saying that they can’t be of heroic PC classes.  Gone are the 1e days of stat requirements to play classes (17 charisma to be a paladin, anyone?) so why not take a level in ranger or barbarian or fighter instead of warrior?  Why not take cleric levels instead of  adept?  What makes the NPCs take NPC classes?

This kind of thinking leads toward an end that we, as our gaming group, do not desire: the Tippyverse.  If you frequent the Giant in the Playground message boards, you may have heard of the DnD universe created by the poster Emperor Tippy.  For those of you who haven’t heard, this thread explains it relatively well.  Basically it is a world were RAW is Law and the logical extensions of a world wherein magic exists and costs nothing but time and coin are explored.  It’s a magocracy to the Nth degree.  Our group does not want this.  So how do we fix it?

My first solution to this conundrum was to decide that the stat arrays were not evenly distributed.  In a pseudo-medieval society, your basic person is going to be best served by a high constitution.  Yes in a magical setting, clerics, bards, druids and adepts exist and can cast curative spells, but they aren’t around all the time and not every midwife has levels in them.  People die from injury and disease.  Those who have that 8 in constitution are much more likely to die than the ones with their 13 there.  Secondly, because every street corner doesn’t have a wizard on it offering to solve your problems with a few arcane spells, manual labor still needs to be done.  Fields need to be plowed; tools need to be made; things need to be lifted and carried; a decent strength score is probably well prized among the common folk.  Essentially, natural selection has made it such that the stat arras are skewed towards the physical stats rather than the mental ones.

The second solution that I arrived on (which still is contended by Wolfgod) is that the PC classes are just less common.  My reasoning is that, even though as players we think, “I want to be a cleric” or “I’d like to play a barbarian this time”, the people in the world don’t make that conscious decision.  They simply do stuff and then their actions are translated into classes, feats, skills and such as best modeled by the rules.  The rules of the game, as I see them, are like the laws of physics in our world.  Physics does not force an object to fall when I drop it.  Physics describes how the object fell and can help me predict what other falling objects will do based on centuries of data.  In the same way, being a fighter or cleric or druid was not a conscious decision by the character, but rather a reflection of the decisions that he made in his life.  With this outlook in mind, the NPC classes are just easier to fall into.  It’s easier for your average soldier to have made decisions that made him a warrior instead of a fighter or for your skillful NPC to be an expert rather than a rogue.  My basic viewpoint is that not all priests are clerics and not all soldiers are fighters.  Most are NPCs and a select few are specialized PC classes.

With these two constraints in mind, we have gone to building the various armies.  We are still hammering out the finer points and balance issues, but our basic conclusion was that the vast majority of an army needs to be made up of rank-and-file guys with spears (or swords or whatever) and that spell slingers are a small minority.  We are setting a fluid limit of no more than 5-10% of your force can be casters and I would eventually like to see a rule that states how many of your infantry need to be warriors instead of fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins.

If you have any comments or advice on how best to achieve our desired low-medium magic world, I’d love to hear them.  We are always looking to make our world fit our vision for it and would like to have reasons why it has developed and remained that way.

Can’t I just cast like everybody else?

On paper, the Alchemist looked interesting – bomb-throwing, funny-sounding infusions, lots of custom rules.  Basically, it’s a replacement Bard – a limited arcane caster (who doesn’t *really* cast as such, he brews) who operates as a support character with some combat capabilities delineated later.   I skimmed all the classes and the Alchemist was the one I decided I wanted to playtest.

In practice, it gave me a headache.  I understand the urge to build a non-casting caster, but I ended up having to study for some time just to figure out how to make the class work.  (Not study to optimize, just to play, and I’ve played a lot of classes).

Mutagens – wouldn’t touch them.  I’m sure some players will want to build a self-only casting physical-stat booster who wades into melee despite a medium BAB, simple weapons and light armor – but not me.   (Also, I think there are other classes that probably do this better).

The few options to build a party-support character seemed weak – blade poison isn’t that great after low levels and being able to cast my spells into little infusions so other characters could drink ‘em later seemed clumsy at best.

So I built a Mad Bomber.  The Bomb options are kind of neat, though I wish they were a little more divided into Discoveries that Stack and Discoveries that Don’t Stack.  As it is, part of your Discovery stacks, but not the rest … headache.  Bomb damage is about the same as a Rogue’s sneak attack, but is a tad easier to deliver since it’s a Touch Attack and doesn’t require special conditions.  On the other hand, for most of your Alchemist career you can throw one Bomb as a standard action and are kind of wimpy.  I spent the level 10 Playtests wandering around trying to be relevant and getting killed.  I’m pretty sure my level 7 Ranger in our usual Campaign could take this guy at level 10.

That said, in the level 15 playtest I became a B-52.  I could throw bombs equal to my BAB, and with Rapid Shot and Haste (assuming both are legal) I could throw 5 bombs a round – at that level, 40d6+45, all touch attacks, with me needing to roll a 2+ with all but the last bomb against the big demons we were killing.  Considering I could throw various damage types, I could literally carpet-bomb big enemies and kill their sidekicks with spash damage.  At the moment it felt cool because I could finally do something useful, but in hindsight, that’s a tremendous amount of damage output.  (I can’t keep it up long because I only had 24 bombs per day, but still … until I run outta bombs, it’s evil.)

Casting was frustrating.  Because I hadn’t taken the ability to make my personal spells usable by others, I literally could do nothing to help my friends in battle and often couldn’t be effective myself, because I couldn’t hang in melee, had to get close to toss bombs, and couldn’t buff or heal my friends when they needed.  Even if I had been able to infuse my ‘spells’ for use by others, they still had to waste actions drinking them.  Any other buff caster would be better.  I did my most useful actions UMDing wands to help my allies, which was lame.

Recommendations and Thoughts:

I did like the class concept, even though it’s not very high-fantasy – still, a mad bomber is a fun idea, and though I didn’t use it, the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde mutagen build was at least amusing.

Make NO bomb discovery stack with any part of any other.  Make all the things that modify Bomb abilities that stack into feats – so I can get the increased splash radius or smoke or rapid-fire or whatever as feats.  (I didn’t need many feats, because few of them help me throw bombs, and I’m not REALLY a caster …)

Please, please make the Alchemist a standard caster.  It’s OK to know some magic in order to perform Alchemy.  If you cast like an underpowered wizard, you could use Metamagic feats and items and would be governed by all the ‘normal’ magic rules.  This would make for a much shorter, less complicated character description which can concentrate on special abilities and bombs and not the intricacies of casting without being a caster.  This would make it easier to be a party support character – and much, much more useful without being overpowered.

The Alchemist is enough of a skill-monger to sub for a Rogue, if they could disarm magical traps.  Just sayin’.

Throwing one bomb per Standard action is too weak and throwing at full BAB is nuts if you go for rate-of-bombing.  I’m not sure if there is a proper compromise for this.

And now for the rest of the party:
The Summoner:

A souped-up Conjurer or an uber-Druid – the Summoner is a cool character concept.  Basically, it can pull some magic and a lot of Summoning, plus it has a seriously heavy ‘pet’ that’s a mutable outsider – basically build-a-monster that is your Summoner’s loyal servant – called an Eidolon.

Oh, my.  After the playtest, we all agreed our Summoner was easily the most powerful character on the battlefield even though the Player hadn’t bothered to buy his 10^th level gear and only had a single magic item at 15^th.  This character never personally engaged in combat.  There were some rounds he was magically dominating the battlefield and the Eidolon wasn’t even participating.

First, the Eidolon is WAY too complicated.  I heartily dislike it as character ‘pet’.  I recommend you remove from the class entirely.  The Summoner is powerful enough with spells and their Summon Monster Spell-like ability.

If the Eidolon can’t be gotten rid of, please consider making ‘Eidonlon Master’ it’s own class – because, really, the guy controlling it doesn’t NEED spells of his own – or, at the very least, making it a ‘track’ of Summoner ALTERNATIVE to Summon Monster(Sp); having both of these was just amazingly powerful.

I liked the idea of the Summoner, but would modify it.  First, I’d make the Summon Monster(Sp) creatures individuals – you’re summoning the same monster(s) every time, so you build a relationship (and might be able to upgrade) your critters.  We thought it’d be cool if, for example, at 1-4 you can summon one Elemental, then at 5-8 two types, then 9-12 three, and so forth.  By 16^th level you could summon whatever elemental type you needed, and perhaps might have upgraded your extraplanar allies a bit with feats or items.  Seemed like a cool class different enough from a Druid to make them worth playing.

Overall, cool character concept, but the Eidonlon and SM(Sp) combination is ugly.

The Inquisitor:

Imagine a smoothed-out multiclass between Cleric and Ranger (with a dash of Paladin) and you’ve got something like an Inquisitor.  Limited casting (more Bard, not Pally), Cleric-ish selection of weapons, and some cool abilities.  Could sub for a Ranger or Pally or light support caster.

This class seemed pretty good from my side of the table.  He needed a Battle Buddy to really use his powers, but did well in Melee and later on tossed some handy spells.   We didn’t notice any abilities or skills that seemed over or underpowered, though anything ‘Teamwork’ seemed a bit weak.

The Witch:

Basically another heavy-caster class, like a Wizard or Sorc; the Witch (A Witch!) has a few special abilities and less of a direct-damage casting list.

Not too shabby – like most power casters, struggled a bit to hit her stride, but contributed a LOT to the battles and was generally liked – except the NAME.  First, ‘Witch’ makes everybody assume a female character, and second, ‘A Witch’ causes spontaneous Monty Python and the Holy Grail quoting, which chews up game time every time it happens. 

The Cavalier:

A dedicated mounted fighter focused on lance charges and with banners to boost his allies, the Cavalier is distantly related to the old 1st Edition Cav.

Oh, the poor Cavalier.  Of all the classes we tested, this was the only one I think we’d reject completely.  The Cavalier is WAY too dependent on horses and charging.  The poor Cavalier was the most prone to be killed or badly wounded.  Fighting a dungeon crawl without a mount was crippling.

I played a Cavalier back in 1^st edition and loved him.  Right now, there’s really no reason not to play a Fighter instead.

Suggestions (radical):  Repurpose this class.  Were it me, I’d make them a non-magical buffer like a Bard who can fight well in melee – Cavaliers Lead the Way or something like that.  Possibly Morale boosting abilities for all allies in 30’ on a Charge OR when set to Receive a Charge.  (Radius increases when mounted or something).  Morale bonuses to Save if they make a save or Crit if they Crit.  Their mount and allies mounts should be able to charge further.  The ability to take a Monster Mount at high levels.

Their abilities – whatever they are – need to work on foot and mounted, or they swap abilities when on foot or mounted, or as a last resort, give them two Cavalier tracks, one specializing in being mounted, the other for being afoot.

Finally, if you’re going to tie most of their combat power to a mount, you’ve got to make sure they can keep their mount with them.  What happens when the Cavalier has to adventure underwater?  In a narrow hallway?  I’d let them magically summon their horse.

The Final Word:

OK.  I’m a High-Fantasy, Low Magic kind of player in general, a roleplayer who rarely min-maxes and doesn’t much care for multiclassing for optimization.  That said, there’s little among these classes that appeals to me.  I’d ban Summoners outright from my campaigns without major changes to their Eidolon and power level.  I doubt many would play an Alchemist or Cavalier without minor changes to the first and major to the second.  Right now the Inquisitor and Witch would fit into my Campaign setting and games just fine.  Wish we’d gotten to test the Oracle …

Mainly, though, all these classes are COMPLICATED.  Some needlessly so.  I realize every class can’t be simple, but Pathfinder has enough shared mechanics in combat, magic and monsters that creating new classes shouldn’t require quite so much mental gymnastics.  I’m not asking for dumbed-down classes, just elegance in gameplay, even if it takes more playtesting and more time.

I’m sure the other guys will chime in with their thoughts, then they’ll send them on to Paizo.  I’m looking forward to seeing the final product!

Computing at the gaming table is nothing new, due to the prevalence of laptops and smartphones.  However, the first is obtrusive and obstructive, and the second is often too small to read.

So, that leaves an opening for the iPad.  It seems that it would be large enough to be readable, without standing between the players like a laptop does.  The first obvious solutions are digital versions of game books, and dice rolling apps.  But, I think there’s more options here.

With the size of screen on the iPad, and the coming herd of iPad-specific apps, I think there are other options as well.  There could very easily be a tool with everything needed by a DM — initiative tracker, dice roller, reference books, etc.  There could even be a game board app for very close quarters combat.  Zoomable maps are another possibility, since we consistently reference maps of our game world as we play.  If tablet computers became common enough, everyone could have quick access to their rulebooks in the same app that contains their character sheet.  This would greatly clean up the gaming table.

While it may replace books and character sheets, I think that people still prefer the physicality of dice and miniatures, so it can’t replace everything.  But, I do definitely see the advantanges.

What do you think?  Will tablet computers help or hinder the gaming process?  What features would the ultimate gaming app include?  Tell us in the comments!

We’ve tried several mechanisms to work around this issue – mass Aid Another works, but it feels cheesy – six people are crowded around one guy, helping him be quiet?  It feels wrong even if it’s legal.  Having only one character Aid Another feels more reasonable, but it’s also kind of weak sauce at high levels … oh, boy, a +2.  The guy listening for us has a +18 Perception …

After some discussion, we came up with a possible House Rule – Aid Another on Skill Checks might confer a scaled bonus based on the margin of success.  For example, a Rogue Aids the Cleric on his Stealth check.  Normally this would be a DC 10 for a +2.  Perhaps for every 5 ranks of success, we get another +1?  So the low-level Rogue rolls a 21, and grants a +4 Stealth.  If the same Cleric was being aided by a 19th level Ranger with some Skill Focus, he could reasonably roll say a 38, which would confer a +7 … after all, he knows a lot more about sneaking than the low level Rogue.

It’s a thought at least, and something that might make Aid Another seem like a good investment of an action even at high levels.

The relationship between rider and horse is complex – the horse has a mind of its own, but can be guided by the skill of it’s rider.  So, what if the rider has a special skill, like Evasion?  Will the mount benefit from this skill?

I can certainly understand a ruling that says while the rider might well use his Evasion ability for a reflex save that affects both rider and mount, he can’t very well help the horse dodge.  Granted, but what if we assume for the moment that the mount has Evasion?  If the mount makes its save, would it not also carry the rider to safety in some fashion?

What if the mount is intelligent?  Say for example my loyal War Griffon has Evasion and we’re fireballed.  The Griffon saves … can I fail?

I know the rules as written would simply have both mount and rider affected seperately, ignoring for the most part the complication of riding.  I’m just curious if there might be a better mechanism or perhaps future feat tree that would focus more on mounted combat, or mounted combat on an intelligent mount …