I had a similar situation a few years ago. My Wizard took Greater Dispel Magic (one of my favorite spells) off the... Summoner list? Possibly Bard.
Anywho, I ended up using it more than even my 7th and 8th level spells.
EDIT: Oh, and Greater Teleport (but you already have that) and Dominate Monster (Summoner 6, Wizard 9!!!)
But in all seriousness, dropping both domains for a tough construct companion sounds totally fair to me. Might have to throw in a little bit about a good Rabbi's golem is healed by positive energy effects, and an evil Rabbi's golem is healed by negative energy effects, and a neutral Rabbi gets to choose?
Stolen and added.
Also, should be done in just a few. Had a bit of distraction.
One of the domains gives a Cleric an Animal Companion as a Druid of 4 levels lower (or three? Something like that). That's a good place to start for building the golems - the golem of a 1st-level Rabbi who gives up a single domain should be roughly equivalent to the Animal Companion of a 4th- or 5th-level Druid.
Of course that begs the question - what were you thinking of having the Cleric give up for the Rabbi Archetype? Figure that out, and building a golem progression wouldn't be very hard. In fact, I could pretty easily put one up here, if I knew what you wanted them to give up.
Is there any way to get simulacrum? Since this is for a home game I can just handwave it but I'd like to know if there's a legit way to get it on her spell list. Thanks!
Does she have to be Human?
If not, then there's an easy way: the Samsaran race has a racial ability that lets them add spells from other spell lists to their own.
I don't see it as impossible. I ran Legacy of Fire quite quick. Books 1, 2, 4, and 6 took normal time, but we did 3 and 5 in about 5 hours each. Granted, they didn't hit everything, but they didn't miss anything super-important.
I would have the players at a slightly higher level, maybe one higher than the AP would normally be recommended for, or use high point buy. Also, in addition to pre-levelling, use one of the many Magic-Item-Variants that don't rely on finding said item first. That way, the players can go ahead and work in even magic item statistics.
Does anyone think that Legacy of Fire might qualify (aside from being 3.5 instead of PF)? I haven't read it through yet - it's still sitting on my shelf, looking pretty :) - but it seems straight-forward, and might lend itself to some chopping/hand-waving.
Or yes, this is much better said - Legacy of Fire is incredibly straight forward. Book 4 is the only book where you don't have very clear and defined goals and steps to meet them, right out of the gate.
I ran a campaign not too long ago, the idea of which I nabbed from an online game someone ran in 2010.
Of course, I made a lot of changes converting it for tabletop, but it was a great campaign. Lots of fun, and lasted a surprisingly long time before the PCs' growth became too exponential.
This sounds absolutely awesome, and I'm totally down for helping in any way I can. I've got a bit of a tech-background, but likely only enough to "know what's going on". Unless something needs to be done in Python... then I'm your guy :)
The only problem I see right off the bat, is that there's very few applications that have much overlap in the specific things they support: a Herolab user may only have access to the Core Rulebook data pack, so exporting their Summoner from PCGen wouldn't work regardless of what format it's in. And vice-versa: trying to import my Magus from Herolab into PCGen wouldn't work since PCGen only supports Core and APG.
The Magic Item Compendium had quite a few examples of this, though if I remember correctly their Augmentation Gems (I think they called them) could fit onto any equipment (i.e. there was no need for "sockets").
I've seen a few different homebrewed ideas ripping off the Materia system from the Final Fantasy games, which is essentially the whole socket/gem deal. I'd Google "Materia D&D" or "Materia Pathfinder" and see what you get.
Evil Genius Prime wrote:
Check out: this class from French MMO "Dofus". Classes == Races in that game, and it had tons of flavor if I remember correctly :)
I'd also like underwater action, through I really don't expect Paizo to put it in the APs since I know it's not everybody's cup of tea.
One of the Top 4 from the last RPG Superstars proposed an underwater AP. Last time I saw him (when we playtested his scenario), he was mentioning that he had the outline and barebones of the AP laid out, and was filling things in. I might be seeing him later today, I'll ask about it.
Of course, it won't be official Paizo, but hey :)
PFS uses scenarios(made specifically for PFS). Modules are similar to scenarios, but they are not made mostly for PFS, and are long enough that they most likely won't be completed in four hours. An AP is like a collection of module that tells a longer story.
Though... that's an interesting idea...
An Organized Play Adventure Path? (Hint, hint!)
Crimson Jester wrote:
... And thus the greatest Big-Bag-Evil-Guy in all Paizo-dom was born!
A great example is when I was thinking of doing criticals as "your attack exceeds the target's defense by more than X". I'm still doing that... but I had been thinking of making X vary by weapon (similar to how weapons have different threat ranges). But I just can't see a way to do that without constantly having to call out "I hit Defense 25 and crit Defense 19"... for every player and for the GM. So that's got to go. So instead, I'm keeping X constant, and will find other ways to differentiate weapons, to keep the game flowing more smoothly.
I'm working towards my own system as well, and am using something similar to this. Each 5 by which an attack beats a target's AC nets it a +50% to damage. (I'd have normal damage listed on character sheets AND whatever 50% of that is, so it's easy to add.) To differentiate weapons, rolling in a former threat range gives an effective +2 (or some other +Number) to the effective attack roll.
So, a Fighter with a +9 to hit with a Longsword rolls a nat 19. 19+9=28. But, since a Longsword's crit range is 19-20, he gets a +2: 28+2=30. if his target's AC was 25, he just got 1.5 times damage. I'm not sure how to do critical multiplier, though :(
I have it pre-ordered. Grabbed it from Newegg when they had it on sale for 47.95. I didn't even play the first one, but 48 bucks for a no-subscription, highly-rated MMORPG? Heck. Yes.
Info's been pretty sparse as far as I can tell. Most of it seems to relate it to GW1, which is useless to me, as I didn't play the first one :P
Looking forward to it, though. Especially those bad-ass rabbit-people-things.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
frankly kinda bad (Second Darkness)
I still can't figure this one out. I GM'd the 1st-5th chapters, and it was smooth as butter. I actually enjoyed reading the APs themselves (unlike the 1st Curse Of The Crimson Throne chapter which, even though it was a great adventure, read like a textbook), and it was much more fluid than it gets credit for. The "major issue" between the 2nd and 3rd books is easily solved with a little forward thinking by the GM.
Just my 2cp.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Whenever I give out loot, I give the "sell" prices for everything, as long as it's been identified. This makes selling all the loot a simple process of adding up everything in a list, diving it by two, then dividing it by the number of PC's. Much better than having to look everything up, halting the game, just to sell a few unused swords.
Troy Loney wrote:
Ditto. I'd like to know this as well.
I always like hearing everyone's opinion on this part of the game. I'll throw this in as well:
I recently started GMing my third campaign. I'm not just known as a non-lethal DM - I actively try not to kill players most of the time. As a result, some of my players tend to be very reckless with their characters. For this new campaign I decided to change things up: characters that die are automatically revived at full health in their home base. "Oh wow, even easier!" my players thought. Little did they realize that I could then feel free to kill characters whenever the need arose. Six or so sessions in, and they are already guarding their characters like a family heirloom.
My point being that death and dying should fit the players just like any other part of the game rules.
All spellcasters have unlimited-use 0-level spells, Wizards and Clerics included. Read their cantrip or orison class feature.
Just because it's not mathematically sound, doesn't mean you can't take it and have fun with it. Mechanically speaking the Rage Prophet isn't a great choice, but there are tons of people that take it and love it. Math alone doesn't make a fun game.
First, I want to echo this.
Mathematically, the 1s->2s ability will only ever increase your average damage if you could only hit with a natural 20 with your regular attack. However, the 1s&2s->3s ability will increase your average damage as long as you can hit normally with a 4 or higher (which isn't very often). It breaks even if you can only hit normally with a 5 or higher. Regardless of DR, these statements hold, except when the DR is high enough that the damage is 0 in both cases.
After reading that article I was quite surprised, and very saddened, to see that an edition the designers are touting as "modular" and "able to be played in whatever style you'd like" is going to be so strict with a specific class. Why not develop modular classes?
"THIS group likes doing magic like THIS so they use Module A for casting classes."
For a product that is supposed to appeal to as many people as possible, they sure are cutting large chunks of their fans already.
(In full disclosure, I'm a Pathfinder fan and always have been. Never played actual D&D, and didn't really expect to get into 5th either.)
Post his build. Monk/Summoner has very little synergy, so there's no reason he should be more powerful than anyone else.
They both have their pros and cons, of course.
I typically use something akin to the 5 Room Dungeon when it's only a small section of the current adventure:
The "classic" style, I use when I want an actual dungeon-crawl adventure. Oddly, I really like throwing at least one "5 Room Dungeon" within a larger dungeon crawl. Usually something akin to a "bonus room", complete with secret door, high difficulty Near-BBEG, and a great reward.
Hate to say it, but you may have to have them drop their stats. This is less of a power-balance issue, and more of a mathematical one: the d20 system is built around generating random numbers up to 19 apart (1 and 20). The farther away bonuses and target numbers get from each other, the less random things actually are.
To put it in perspective: in every campaign there comes a point at which your monsters will either hit the Wizard on anything but a 1, or can only hit the Fighter on a 20. The higher your point buy, the earlier that occurs. Think about that: would it really be fun to always roll your d20 either looking for a 1 or 20, and no numbers in between even matter?
I'd split down the middle: drop the stats a bit, and keep the gestalting.
Of course, I'm a big fan of gestalt, so take that with a grain of salt.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Cool, that's what I was expecting. I apparently missed the "and wishes to recreate it as a campaign" part of the post I replied to :)
I usually rip a map here and there, maybe a monster concept or two.
Jason S wrote:
Any time a DM gets a brilliant idea from a book, and wishes to recreate that book as a campaign. It gets worse when you don't do exactly what was in the book and throw the campaign completely off the rails. lol. I can't believe how much time we wasted creating PCs that only played one session, not to mention the time it took for him to create a framework for a campaign that only lasted a few sessions.
Could you expand on why you dislike when a DM gets ideas from other sources? Is it just that he/she runs short sessions and railroads you?
Reason I ask is that I frequently take snippets of ideas from various media, and I want to make sure that doing so isn't compromising any of my players' fun.
Mergy has the right of it. A NG Cleric has to channel Positive, and thus would be ineligible for the feat.
They still have the -4 penalty to AC, as they are still considered prone. Note, though, that this also means you cannot use a Trip for an AoO on an enemy standing up from prone.
As stated above, Trip is fine to use as an AoO for normal movement.
Well then, it's a good thing it works for kukris as well!
Knife Master wrote:
There's two additional requirements, though both are taken care of by the ability somewhat:-You must have deciphered the scroll (which is taken care of by the bit about Linguistics in place of Spellcraft).
-Your caster level must be at least equal to the caster level of the scroll (that's why the caster level equal to Cavalier Level-4 is in there).
That last one is the most important. An 8th level Cavalier with this ability, for example, would only be able to use scrolls of caster level 4 or lower (without resorting to UMD, that is).
PS: Found you!
If the eidolon mechanics calls out dismissal and banishment exclusively, than no, this would not work. If it is not an exclusive list, however, than it WOULD work.
Summoner - Eidolon wrote:
The eidolon cannot be sent back to its home plane by means of dispel magic, but spells such as dismissal and banishment work normally.
Looks like it's not an exclusive list. Thus, looks like Blasphemy will work.
I'm leaning towards "yes" for this for two reasons:
1) Project Image creates a "quasi-real...version of yourself". I would think that this means there's some shadow-stuff in that square and that Blindsense/sight would detect it.
2) Blindsense says: "Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing..." and Project Image says "The projected image looks, sounds, and smells like you...". I'd say if a creature's Blindsense functioned off of smell or hearing, the projected image would give out all those stimuli as well, thus the creature would detect it.
However, I'm not sure at all, and I really want to make a correct call here.
How would you rule it? What's the RAW? What's the RAI?