My birthday's in early May. I'm turning 30, so to celebrate how responsible and adult I am, I'm organizing a birthday Pathfinder PvP team battle where everyone's playing an X-Men character. Rather than try to use existing classes, I'm basically putting together monster statblocks for each character that reflect the actual power sets and characteristics of each individual character. My plan at the moment is for everyone to have between 3 and 5 hit dice, and to keep the relative power level low so that the heavy hitters feel like heavy hitters, etc.
As a starting point, I decided to look at the "stat-blocks" Marvel publishes for each of their characters and see if I could port those numbers over to Pathfinder stats. So, the numbers listed after each character are their Intelligence, Strength, Speed, Durability, Energy Projection, and Fighting Skill, respectively (on a scale of 1 to 7).
How much weight should I give these numbers? Some of them feel a little weird to me. And do people have suggestions on how to implement these numbers? My gut is that the intelligence and strength scores listed should actually just be the characters' Int and Str modifiers. Maybe do the same with speed and durability? Just port them directly as Dex and Con modifiers? I had some ideas about using fighting skill to figure out BAB, but nothing's clicking so far. What do people think?
Once I have the basics worked out for the system (and I do want to stick as closely to actual Pathfinder rules as possible, not reinvent the wheel), I'll start posting my first drafts of stat-blocks here for people to critique and help me balance. I think we're going to actually play on May 12th, so I've got until then to get everything done!
I have a garuda-blooded aasimar druid with a celestial roc animal companion that I don't really want to play until the roc's big enough that it can serve as my mount. So, I've been dumping GM credits on it and I'll start playing the character once he hits 7th level. In the meantime, I have a 7th level character to put together. Here's my starting point:
DRUID Ability Scores: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 21 (includes bonus from headband), Cha 8
Feats: Celestial Servant, Mounted Combat, [insert feat here], [insert feat here]
Notable Equipment: +1 bronze dragonhide breastplate, +1 scythe, headband of inspired wisdom +2, acrimony veil (from GM cert)
ROC Ability Scores: Str 22, Dex 19, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 14 (includes bonus from headband)
Feats: Light Armour Proficiency, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack
Tricks: Attack (x2), Come, Defend, Down, Fetch, Guard, Heel, Stay
Notable Equipment: +1 chain shirt barding, headband of alluring charisma +2
And tactically, my plan is not to really wild shape often (if ever), but to ride around on my mount, letting it take full attacks when possible, and raining down lightning from the sky in the form of (sometimes empowered) call lightnings and ball lightnings. I like that I can move ball lightning as a move action, and call down lightning bolts as a standard action, allowing me to do both while either remaining mobile or letting my mount do even further damage.
It's more a concept build than a power gaming strategy. I like the idea of stormy heavenly bird druid guy, riding around on his great big heavenly bird. Consequently, I'm a little stumped on the feat slots. Celestial servant is a non-negotiable, and mounted combat makes a lot of sense since I plan to pretty much always be mounted, but after that I'm at a loss. Natural spell seems like an obvious choice since I'm a druid and I can wild shape, but it's not really a cornerstone of my strategy. And I considered ride-by attack and possibly spirited charge, but I just don't see myself charging very often. Ride-by attack isn't very clear, but it doesn't necessarily seem to involve my mount being able to attack too, and frankly my mount's the one that wants to be making melee attacks, not me. And my mount would rather be full-attacking.
I don't know. Does anyone have recommendations for feats that advance or synergize with my proposed strategy?
I have a few GM certs on a character I have yet to build and I want to put together a Hellknight Signifer. I've always been into mixed martial and magical characters and this class just seems awesome. I've looked into some options and it seems like cleric 5 is the easiest and most effective way to get into the class. Unfortunately, I'm just not that into the idea of playing this as a cleric.
I'm 99% sure I want to go wizard or witch (though feel free to try to change my mind), and the more I've looked into the two options, the more confident I am that wizard is probably the route I want to go. This is for two reasons: 1) I compiled a list of spells without somatic components and/or with swift or immediate action casting times, and the wizard just has the better list than the witch (and these spells seem important additions to the character, so I can attack and cast in the same round, and so I can cast without always having to activate those terrible arcane armour feats); 2) arcane bond just seems the better fit than a familiar (having spontaneous access to one situational spell a day seems useful, and being able to enhance my own weapon in PFS where NOBODY can normally enhance their weapons seems massive).
If I'm going wizard, I want to go teleportation-specialist wizard for the swift dimension door ability, but 15-foot teleporting is a huuuuge step-up from 10-foot teleporting, which makes me want to take 6 levels of wizard. Unfortunately, given that this is PFS, I just can't fathom taking more than 6 levels of anything before I start my prestige levels, so I can actually get decent play-time with the prestige class. And unfortunately, I'd have to take two armour proficiency feats and a weapon proficiency feat to reasonably play the character and qualify for the prestige class. This leads me to think a level of fighter is pretty much a must-have, but again--I don't want to do fighter 1/wizard 6 because that's 7 full levels before I get to start up with the prestige class.
So, what I need is PFS-legal suggestions or ideas for traits, spells, equipment, or anything else that will either allow me to cheat an effective additional wizard-level onto my swift dimension door ability with only five actual levels or ways that I can avoid the fighter level without having to have four terrible feats somehow squeezed into 6 levels.
I also have a wayang boon and was considering using it for this character.
I'm a huge fan of teleportation. The last time I played a duskblade (before Pathfinder arrived), I got approval from my GM to add a bunch of teleportation spells to the duskblade spell list. Currently I'm playing a magus going for the dimensional feat tree. Given that I want teleportation to be a major part of what my character does, and the magus can't do it until 10th level, I began to look at additional spell options to try to add to my character, and found that many of Paizo's options seem available only to strange class choices and mostly seem underpowered (especially when compared with the travel domain and teleportation specialization wizard options), almost all of the third party options out there seem either over or underpowered, and that most of the old 3.5 spells seem pretty overpowered. So, with GM approval, I'm authoring some of my own, taking into consideration all of the preexisting options I found.
I know I want a 2nd level spell and a 3rd level spell, and I want one of them to be usable offensively in conjunction with spellstrike, so the following are what I came up with. I wanted very basic spells as my starting point, but I'm open to more interesting ideas in addition if people have any. I'm looking for power level feedback mostly (since existing spells are all over the place and hard to gauge)!
Whisk School conjuration (teleportation); Level magus 3, sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
You teleport the target (and all objects it's wearing or carrying) a distance of 25 feet plus 5 feet per two caster levels to an unoccupied space you can see.
Dimension Gap School conjuration (teleportation); Level bard 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2, witch 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target you
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You teleport yourself from your current location to any other unoccupied spot you can see within range. After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn. You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed your maximum load, but not additional creatures. This spell counts as dimension door for the purposes of qualifying for or benefitting from the Dimensional Agility feat and feats with Dimensional Agility as a prerequisite.
Foothold School conjuration (teleportation); Level magus 1
Casting Time 1 swift action
Components V
Range personal
Target you
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You teleport yourself to standing position from lying prone. You must begin and end in the same space.
Hey there! My GM and I recently began work on an arcane ranger archetype because it fits the character concept of a fellow player who's brand new to the game and who started off taking levels of ranger, but has decided she wants to go a more arcane route. Neither my GM nor I is the most experienced ranger player, but we're both reasonably experienced players, and this is our first stab at an arcane ranger. The basic concept is to remove the really druidy feeling aspects of the ranger and replace them with more wizardly feeling parts instead. Please be honest about this and open with feedback! I can take critique and constructive criticism, but I'm not even going to acknowledge scathing remarks or posts to the tune of "this is a stupid concept and you shouldn't even bother with it." Our mind is at least made up that we are going to put forth this archetype as an option to the player. We just want help making sure it's not too over or underpowered. Thanks!
Transcendent Wayfarer Ranger Archetype
Class Skills
A transcendent wayfarer’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
This replaces the standard ranger class skills.
Weapon and Armour Proficiency
A transcendent wayfarer is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armour, medium armour, and shields (except tower shields). She can cast transcendent wayfarer spells while wearing light armour without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a transcendent wayfarer wearing medium armour, heavy armour, or a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass transcendent wayfarer still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.
This replaces the standard ranger weapon and armour proficiency.
Detect Magic (Sp)
A transcendent wayfarer can cast detect magic as a spell-like ability at-will with a caster level equal to her ranger level.
This ability replaces wild empathy.
Transcendent Wayfarer Combat Style
A transcendent wayfarer gains access to the following combat style. She may still only choose one combat style to pursue.
Arcane Combat Style:
Arcane
If the ranger selects arcane style, she can choose from the following list whenever she gains a combat style feat:
At 6th level, she adds Arcane Armour Mastery, Arcane Blast*, Arcane Shield*, and Greater Spell Specialization** to the list.
At 10th level, she adds Destructive Dispel*** and Spell Perfection* to the list.
Arcane Bond (Ex or Sp)
At 4th level, a transcendent wayfarer gains an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to her ranger level minus 3.
This ability replaces hunter’s bond.
Spells
At 4th level, a transcendent wayfarer gains the ability to cast a small number of spells exactly like a standard ranger does, except her spells are arcane and drawn from the transcendent wayfarer spell list and she uses Intelligence instead of Wisdom when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, and any effects of her spells normally determined by her Wisdom. She must also choose to specialize in one school of magic, adding all ranger and sorcerer/wizard spells of 4th level or lower from that school of magic (that are not already on her class list) to her class spell list at the same spell level a standard ranger or wizard would receive them (whichever is higher). This choice must be made at 4th level, and once made it cannot be changed.
Each day, instead of meditating, a transcendent wayfarer must spend 1 hour communing with her familiar or studying her bonded item (depending on which she chose) in order to prepare spells for the day, though she may still prepare any spell on her class spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level.
Transcendent Wayfarer Spell List
1:abundant ammunition***, air bubble***, alarm, ant haul*, anticipate peril**, bowstaff***, cloak of shade*, dancing lantern*, deadeye’s lore***, delay poison, detect aberration*, detect animals or plants, detect poison, detect snares and pits, diagnose disease**, endure elements, feather fall, feather step*, glide*, gravity bow*, hide from animals, horn of pursuit**, hunter’s howl*, jump, keen senses*, know the enemy**, lead blades*, liberating command***, longshot***, longstrider, negate aroma*, obscuring mist, pass without trace, read magic, residual tracking*, resist energy, returning weapon***, sun metal***, tireless pursuit*
3:blessing of the mole**, burrow**, burst of speed***, clairaudience/clairvoyance, cloak of winds, cure moderate wounds, darkvision, delay poison (communal)***, dispel magic, feather step (mass)*, fickle winds**, instant enemy*, life bubble*, named bullet***, neutralize poison, protection from energy (communal)***, remove disease, resist energy (communal)***, tireless pursuers*, venomous bolt*, water breathing, water walk
4:blessing of the salamander*, bow spirit*, commune with nature, cure serious wounds, darkvision (communal)***, darkvision (greater)**, dispel magic (greater), find quarry***, freedom of movement, named bullet (greater)***, nondetection, stoneskin, terrain bond***, tree stride, water walk (communal)***
Redcap's Corner is proud to present the Unseelie Court, a weekend-long Pathfinder Society event from October 12th to 14th. We'll be running all the convention specials, a few tables of the Cyphermage Dilemma, a few sanctioned modules, and a variety of recent season three and four scenarios, with GM appearances by five venture-officers! The event is $10 to enter, regardless of how many tables you play, and we're running a single slot Friday night, as well as three slots each day Saturday and Sunday.
I played part 1 of Rats of Round Mountain the other day. I plan on playing part 2 with the same character before playing any other scenarios with that character. The chronicle sheet quite clearly states that the special reward is only available so long as my next chronicle sheet is part 2. Does that really mean that if I had taken a holiday boon as part of part 1, or if I GMed a different scenario for credit on this character between parts 1 and 2, that I wouldn't be eligible for whatever additional benefit is available for playing them back to back? I understood the point to be that the benefit was for having your character remain in the field between scenarios, and as far as I know GMing or taking a holiday doesn't have any bearing on that.
I have a ninth-level witch with Improved Familiar and a quasit by his side. I understand the risks of having my spellbook wander into battle, but I chose the quasit for its resilience (my spellbook has fast healing 2!) and I know when to use him and when to hold him back. Unfortunately, the quasit basically does nothing, and I have a feat invested into him. Solution? Time to turn my piles of gold into "equip my quasit."
Anyone have any suggestions for items that would make the little devil (I mean demon) a little more useful? He doesn't currently have UMD, but if he needs it I can get him up to a +9 next time I level up. Right now, he just has an Amulet of Mighty Fists that bestows vicious on him.
I know about archivesofnethys.com, but it seems like that site hasn't been updated since November or so, and it seems like the owner of that site decided to dilute its purpose by adding in all the hardback content too, which just isn't necessary since it's available so many other places, and arguably isn't even really desirable since it clutters the resource quite a bit.
Has anyone else stepped up to bat since Archives of Nethys stopped updating? Amongst other things, there's an item a friend recently saw in a newish paperback book that was something to the tune of Shackles of Truthfulness, and neither of us can find it now. It was an item similar to Manacles of Cooperation but more focused on forcing the wearer to tell the truth. And I'm also on the hunt for an item or feat that will give my 9th-level witch access to greater invisibility.
I have a ninth-level witch who could benefit greatly from the addition of greater invisibility to his repertoire. I have my ninth-level feat slot open, so a feat would work, and I also have about 23,000 gp so an item would work too. Right now I'm leaning toward a Staff of Stealth from the APG, but I wondered if people had other suggestions before I commit to that. Thanks!
So, I went to Paizocon 2010, and had a really fun time playing a variety of different games over the course of the event. However, only one of those events was part of the Pathfinder Society (Echoes of the Everwar, Part IV). The character with which I played that event was 7th level, and after I got back from Paizocon, all the games I played were with lower-level characters.
Well, tonight I'm playing in a higher level mod and I decided to dust off the old character for the first time in over a year. Unfortunately, somebody at Paizocon reported the character as having played in Silent Tide too. I don't know if other people can see the sessions for each other's characters but here's a link to the page, just in case:
It's super weird. It's listed as not having a GM, but it's showing up as part of my character nonetheless, and I received 2 prestige for (not) participating too!
I know I've reported this issue at least once in the past, certainly to Josh Frost, but maybe also to one of his successors, and I don't remember if they just never got back to me or if they told me there was nothing they could do about it, but what do I do?
I'm more than happy to ignore it and just accept that my chronicle sheets will always show me (correctly) having 1 less XP and 2 less prestige than my online records, except that this little oversight is going to prevent my character from ever getting credit for playing Silent Tide in the future. Actually, that might not be an issue because I believe one of my other characters played Silent Tide before the replay rules were changed, but still it's annoying that my online records are wrong and what if one of my other characters HADN'T played that particular mod?
What do I do? Anyone else ever have a similar problem?
Hey there. I'm making a new PFS character for the first time in a long while, and I decided to go with an undead lord cleric, as it seemed like a lot of fun. I have a really good non-evil premise for the character.
Anyway, I did some thread searching and I saw that a few other people had asked about corpse companions and how they worked. To me, the ability reads pretty clearly and I have no doubt that I can animate any fallen creature with discernible anatomy in-game as long as the result doesn't end up with HD exceeding my own.
What I'm curious about is: can I begin with a 1HD skeleton the very first game I play with this character? As in, can we assume that as an undead lord he has come across some sort of corpse in the past and animated it? Or do I have to wait until something dies in the first adventure and stall the game for 8 in-game hours?
I would hope I could begin play with a companion, but I need an official ruling before I begin playing the character.
Is there an official ruling on whether or not Spell Combat is a full-attack action? I'm building a magus as my new character for an existing 9th-level home game, and the GM and I are having a disagreement about the way this ability is worded. I'll happily defer to him if there's no official ruling, but I believe he'd happily defer to me if there is an official ruling that says I'm right. It's not a huge deal either way, but I figured I'd ask.
The way I read Spell Combat, it functions like two-weapon fighting, which DOES use a full-attack action. It then goes on to clarify exactly what being "like two-weapon fighting" means, during which it notes that you need to use a full-round action. I read that as being explanatory, and not as superseding the original statement that it functions like two-weapon fighting. A full-attack action IS a full-round action, so it doesn't seem to me to be problematic that it uses only the full-round terminology. The full-attack action seems inherent to the ability since the ability works "like two-weapon fighting."
My GM, on the other hand, believes the fact that it doesn't explicitly state that it's a full-attack action means it isn't, and that the "works much like two-weapon fighting" terminology is meant only to draw comparison mechanically, not to set a rules foundation. He believes the text that follows that statement is the rules, and that the two-weapon fighting reference is just a helpful way to remember how the ability works. Again, I believe the opposite: that the two-weapon fighting reference sets the foundation and that the following text clarifies that foundation.
Any verdict? That actually matters because if it's not a full-attack action, I'll get no bonus attack from haste, won't be able to use Dimensional Dervish in conjunction, etc., etc.
1) I'm assuming the answer to this is "no," but if I have the maneuver mastery arcana for disarming and choose to disarm for each attack as part of my full attack, do I get iterative attacks based on the increased BAB? Again, I assume this is "no" based on the way it reads, but I figured I'd ask the internet for a second opinion.
2) Secondly, I'm using a cape of the mountebank to qualify for the dimensional feats from Ultimate Combat. There's no problem there, right? I understand that things that are "like" or "as" dimension door would seem not to qualify you for the feats, but the cape is quite explicit that you're actually just using it to cast dimension door, rather than generate a similar effect. I feel like qualifying for feats via equipment is sort of a gray area, but I haven't met a person yet who feels like belts and headbands of +2/+4/+6 stat can't help you meet the minimum requirements of feats like Weapon Finesse, Power Attack, or Two-Weapon Fighting. If stat-boost items can do it, then the cape can do it too. Plus, it seems to be the only way to make those feats usable at a relevant level.
I'm trying to put together some zombies to update the 3.5 summon undead spells, and in using the Pathfinder template, I couldn't help but notice that the phrasing is different with regard to the natural armour the zombies receive. In 3.5 the template increased the creature's existing natural armour, and in Pathfinder it reads as though it flat-out replaces the creature's natural armour. This is a pretty substantial nerf, and I wondered how intentional people believe it was. This isn't just a misreading of the 3.5 version either, because the statblocks in the old MM all support the increased natural armour. I feel like these zombies are all going to be terrible, despite CR, if I go by the letter of the law with Pathfinder on this one. Thoughts anyone?
The language is really imprecise, so there's been some debate on my end, but they read to me as though they're combat-trained by default, right? I'm not talking about as an animal companion or anything, or even as a summons. Just as a regular old PC purchase, they come pre-combat trained?
I don't want to go into too much detail, but I'm playing a summoner in a game. In-game, however, he doesn't think of himself as a summoner, he thinks of himself as a fighter descended from dragons. His eidolon is a dragon (and his closest confidant), and he has never, ever used one of his summon monster spell-like abilities, because they just don't fit the flavour of the character. Well, there's another player in the group who's playing a dread necromancer (the 3.5 class) and we (by "we," i mean, she, the GM, and I, collectively) recently decided to go ahead and update her summon undead spells to include CR-appropriate Pathfinder undead, since a lot of them are really cool. And while I was contributing to helping her with her summoning lists, it occurred to me that my summon monster ability could absolutely be in-character if we just re-flavoured it so it was a little more dragon-y. The GM consented, and now I'm off to work on authoring my own custom summons list. For low CRs, this is what I've been able to find in Pathfinder books:
CR 1: Pseudodragon (Bestiary)
CR 2: Crystal Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary 2), Faerie Dragon (Bonus Bestiary), White Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary)
CR 3: Black Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Brass Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Brine Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary 2)
CR 4: Copper Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Forest Drake (Bestiary 2), Green Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Magma Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary 2), Very Young Crystal Dragon (Bestiary 2), Very Young White Dragon (Bestiary)
C5 5: Blue Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Bronze Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary), Cloud Dragon Wyrmling (Bestiary 2), Flame Drake (Bestiary 2), Very Young Black Dragon (Bestiary), Very Young Brass Dragon (Bestiary), Very Young Brine Dragon (Bestiary 2)
The problem? Well, summon monster I tends toward CR 1/3 or 1/2 creatures, with summon monster II tending toward CR 1, III tending toward CR 2, and each spell level above that focusing on the next two CRs above the previous spell level (3 and 4 for IV, 5 and 6 for V, etc.). And there just aren't any dragons below CR 1, with only one dragon at CR 1.
So, what I'm asking is this: does anybody know of any templates (preferably Paizo-published, but third party is cool too) that might be appropriate for lowering the CR on some dragons to help me build summon dragon I and summon dragon II up a little? Or does anybody have any other ideas or stats that they think might be appropriate? I was thinking about stealing the celestial hawk stats and just dragonizing them a little bit if I could do so without affecting power level, etc. Any help would be appreciated, though! Thanks, guys!
Silly question, I realize, but I have an ability that refers to hellcats going up on a wiki and I'd like to cite the page number for the most recent stats. I won't be able to own Bestiary 2 until its street date, but I'm sure I'm going to forget to go back and edit this if I just don't do it now while I'm thinking about it. Can any subscribers help me out? Thanks!
I need some stats for a hook sword for a new campaign, but I have no experience with balancing mundane weapons (much better at classes, races, etc.). If you're unfamiliar with the weapon, check out the wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword
Things to consider:
1) It should be a trip weapon, but is also used to catch weapons (some sort of AC bonus when not attacking? I think I saw that on a weapon in the APG)
2) These swords are almost always used as a pair, but in a pinch you can hold both in one hand and still fight if you need a free hand for something.
3) The "reach" tactic mentioned in the wiki entry will probably be covered by the lunge feat or something similar.
4) This thing has blades all over it and is really versatile. Lots of I-stab-you-because-you-tried-to-stab-me potential. Any thoughts on how to represent that?
I don't know! Any thoughts on putting together balanced stats for one of these would be great.
A month or two back I noticed that the PFS mod I played in at PaizoCon2010 had not yet been reported, and I emailed Josh Frost to ask him what the story was with that. He admitted that he had yet to report the PaizoCon mods, but was getting to it soon.
Tonight I checked again, and not only was I correctly reported as having played Echoes of the Everwar IV, but the same character seems to have been credited with having played Silent Tide at PaizoCon... only I didn't play Silent Tide at PaizoCon. This is awkward. Was this a slip-up that affected lots of people or was I just accidentally added to the reporting sheet for an additional game? Can the record of my having played Silent Tide be corrected, or should I go ahead and fill out a chronicle sheet (PS. Thanks for crediting me with two prestige, but isn't only one prestige available for Silent Tide? PPS. Just kidding about filling out a chronicle sheet, but seriously what should I do? This makes it look like my character should be a level higher than he is)?
I own a store in Philadelphia that has been running Pathfinder Society for the last year or so. In that year, we've run over 100 mods, so we're averaging around two per week. We schedule PFS once per week, but sometimes we have impromptu sessions, run more than one table simultaneously, or just play two mods back to back.
A few months ago, when PPP was updated to allow credit for replaying mods, it couldn't have come at a better time for us. We were just getting to the point where seating people was proving difficult. You never know who's going to show up to play, and you have to make sure that mods are read thoroughly and prepared before people start showing up, but when you prepare mods X and Z and people show up who've played both already, there isn't much you can do but turn them away unless you have access to some sort of replay options. And this is exactly what we were beginning to encounter each week.
Additionally, when you're playing two sessions per week and only two new mods are coming out per month, it doesn't take long before you run out, and quite frankly we have some customers that show up pretty much every time we play PFS. Without allowing for the option of replay, we're going to be turning these customers away en masse, and frankly it's probably going to ruin Pathfinder Society at our store.
I realize that 1 player credit and 1 GM credit makes a lot of sense at conventions where many different mods are being run, and I realize it makes a lot of sense for home games where there's a steadier crowd showing up each week, but for stores who have less predictable crowds and fewer resources (not to mention smaller turnouts than conventions), losing the option of replay is literally a death sentence for the program. As for the option of replaying without receiving credit, my question is to what end? The only reason at all I can think to disallow replay is to stop players who have already played from ruining the plot hooks for everyone else. But receiving credit isn't what makes that a risk, it's replaying the mod at all that gives you the opportunity to spoil the ending. Replaying without receiving credit just feels like a punishment, since there doesn't seem to be any reason to deny credit but still allow replay. And frankly, the ability for a GM to deny credit to someone who spoils the plot actually better incentivizes people to stay in line. I would think people for whom nothing is at stake would be more likely to ruin the fun (not that I've ever known plot-spoiling to be a problem, at least at my store).
The PPP section of the GtPFS has always emphasized that it's never right to turn a player away and that the bottom line is fun, but disallowing replay is going to force us to turn people away and allowing replay without granting credit is going to ruin people's fun (because it feels like a senseless punishment, and nobody likes playing without gaining XP) and effectively turn them away. Either option seems really, really bad for PFS at stores.
This is not to mention that there simply aren't enough mods in existence to maintain more than about one and a half characters without replay. If your 8th-level character were to die and be unrevivable, you'd likely hit a point where you just couldn't level up your new character until a new low-level mod came out, which means more turning away players. And hell, every player should have a low-level character on-hand at all times just in case not enough high-level character-holders show up any given night, but without replay options you just can't have more than two characters. There aren't enough mods.
And that leads into my next complaint, which is that the retirement of mods is getting really out of hand and seems really premature to begin with. I've already explained that in only a year of running this, we have multiple players who have played just about every available mod (especially with so few lower-level mods available), and though I agree that some of the older mods are not very good and should be retired at some point in the future, I think it's crazy that retirements began before season 2 had even started. I realize writing adventures is time-consuming and the process can't really be sped up all that much, but seriously: it's hard enough as it is to run this program with the already highly-limited number of available adventures without those adventures disappearing before critical mass has been reached. And I don't have access to the mods from home to do any number-crunching, but I assure you (as somebody who's been running eight games a month for the last year) adventure critical mass has absolutely yet to be reached.
Please, please reconsider retiring any further mods (and if possible please unretire those retired... we don't have enough adventures to keep running PFS), and please, please reconsider disallowing replay. These two decisions, especially in tandem, are going to put an end to Pathfinder Society at my store (and I'd wager at many others like it), and not out of some sort of childish protest, but because they actually make successfully running the program functionally impossible!
Thanks for running a great program otherwise, though, and I hope this came across as optimistic pleading and not whiny complaining!
So, I'm putting together my magus right now, and first of all I'm really excited. The class seems like a lot of fun. I still maintain that full BAB would make for a better frame for the class, but I'm not going to mouth off too much about that until I've actually sat in the driver seat with my new character. I did, however, notice two big issues in character creation:
1) Am I missing something or is the class's only touch spell Shocking Grasp until 7th-level? I realize Ultimate Magic will introduce new spells, probably many of them touch spells, and I also realize that at low levels Shocking Grasp far and away out-damages any other touch spells, BUT it would be nice if the magus had something to spellstrike other than damage. Why no chill touch, etc.? I agree with a strict limitation on how many touch spells, but a single 1st-level spell until 7th-level? Honestly, even if Shocking Grasp is always the best choice that's more of an argument to allow more options than to deny them, since more options would only make the class less boring and not more powerful. I'd strongly encourage Vampiric Touch as a high-level option also. Even if they're only temporary replacements until we see the new spells from Ultimate Magic, it would help to have a few more options to use with spellstrike.
2) For a class relying on spellstrike to deal a reasonable amount of damage (unlike the fighter whose wealth of bonus feats fills that void) 1, 2, or 3 1st-level spells is never going to be enough, especially since Shocking Grasp only has one charge. The class either needs a boost to the number of spells per day it gets (especially low level spells per day), more touch spells that allow you to get multiple uses out of a single casting, or some sort of weak spell-like ability usable with spellstrike to keep the class competitive. Maybe it just needs an ability where you choose one 1st-level touch spell each day and get 2 or 3 extra castings of that single spell for that day? I don't know. Right now, it just isn't going to be able to get enough mileage out of its signature class ability.
I also had an idea that maybe the class should be able to use spellstrike with any touch abilities granted by magus arcanas and that maybe you could make some of the "sacrifice a spell to get the following spell effect" arcanas actually have damaging touch spell effects, so that you don't get stuck preparing Shocking Grasp in all your slots every day. Or, maybe at least give the magus the ability to spontaneously convert spells into something spellstrike-able at each level, like a druid's summon spells or cleric's cure spells. I like the class as a prepared caster, but not if it means I just have to prepare all damaging touch spells every day in case I get into a lot of combats.
If your name is Jessica Bickis, Mike Motyka, Andrew Coffman, Kurt Ro, or Aaron Billheimer, please get out of this thread now, so you don't ruin a plot point of our game for yourself. Anyone else, look on, and please help:
Click Here!:
So, one of the PCs in my game has been abducted by a doppelganger who's now impersonating her character. He's a doppelganger hexblade 1/ur-priest 5. We use 3.5 material with Pathfinder rules, obviously. Now, the character he's impersonating is a goliath binder 6. The actual race is a little home-brew and updated to fit better with Pathfinder conventions, but it's based on goliath. The player is in on this and is using a fake character sheet that upon first glance will appear to be her actual character's sheet, but upon closer scrutiny doesn't really add up because it uses math from the doppelganger's stats, etc. She's intentionally slipping up every now and then, so that eventually the other players will catch her and have to fight the doppelganger.
The problem? Well, vestiges give weird powers, and the cleric spell list is nice and flexible, but it's still hard coming up with ability suites that mimic the granted powers of vestiges. So, what I'm asking, as a thought experiment for all you creative converters, is can you come up with spell packages using the cleric/ur-priest spell list (for an ur-priest 5) that mimic any of the vestiges available to a binder 8 (she's only a binder 6, but has the feat that lets her be two levels ahead for binding purposes). Obviously, nothing's going to be an exact match, but any help with this would be fantastic. I've done a few, but I'm not all that pleased with my work, and it's really hard to do too many of these. She's already played a few games with my work, and I don't want her to have to keep faking this for too many more games, but I'd like the facade to be as realistic as possible in the meantime, and we're playing again tonight!
At PaizoCon this weekend, Erik Mona confirmed during his talk at the Advanced Player's Guide Banquet that spring 2011 would bring with it a new book called Ultimate Magic that would contain exactly one new base class, the weapon-wielding arcanist known as the Magus, but would also contain tons of new spells and feats for spellcasters of all stripes, as well as an alternate magic system for use with Pathfinder. What sort of things are people expecting or hoping to come out of this product? What are the most important aspects of a book like this, do people think?
I'm not staying at the hotel. I have a rental car with me out here and I'm staying with friends in Seattle. What can I expect for parking each day? Is this going to be hugely annoying?
I get that normal light becomes darkness, and that dim light or dakness becomes supernatural darkness. What I'm not sure about is the sentence that reads "This functions like darkness, but even creatures with
darkvision cannot see within the spell’s confines." Does this sentence refer to darkness created by the spell or does it describe the effects of "supernatural darkness."
I guess, what I'm asking is: does darkvision work in darkness created by this spell? I know it doesn't work in supernatural darkness, but I'm able to read the spell description two different ways with regard to regular darkness.
I know both of these events state "materials provided," but I'm pretty sure other events that stated the same also allowed for custom character creation. Are these events using only pre-generated characters, or are attendees allowed to have characters built in advance?
Follow up:
If these events are using pre-generated characters only, is there any chance we can get advance peeks at them? I hate going into a game not feeling like I know my character well enough to make reasonable decisions. This holds especially for the Coliseum, as I feel like 16th-level characters require some fore-knowledge.
If we're allowed to build our own characters, what are the guidelines for doing so?
My business partner and I are coming all the way from Philadelphia for PaizoCon, and we're coming as a business trip so the tickets for the con were purchased with our store Paizo account. We missed the lottery sign-up by a few hours because we didn't know about it, so I emailed for help, mentioning both that I had missed the lottery sign-up by only a few hours (and wondered if that was resolvable) and that I still didn't understand how to sign two people up for anything with this system, given that both tickets existed as a part of our shared business account. The sign-up system just doesn't seem to take into consideration the possibility that someone holds more than one ticket.
Well, I never received a response about either issue, so I logged in today to find that sure enough it isn't possible to sign up two people for events with one account. I've been calling customer service all morning with no answer, and after finally leaving a message for customer service, I realized that I could transfer ownership of one of our tickets and one of our banquet tickets to my personal email account, which might make things easier. I did so, and was able to sign-up for the few events which are left, but I have two major issues:
First of all, everything I was interested in is full, which is a major bummer considering I just had no idea about the lottery in time and would have run into the same problems with signing up more than one person had I known. Am I really stuck?
Second of all, I transfered one of my banquet tickets to my personal account when I transfered my 3-day badge, but of course it wouldn't let me sign-up for the banquet on my events schedule. This is just a mistake, right? I'm not being denied entrance to the banquet, despite holding a ticket, am I? I was excited about a lot of aspects of this con, but the banquet was at the top of the list, and I'm going to be really angry if I can't get in, despite having bought a ticket.
Does anyone know if anything can be done about any of this? I'm really bummed out, because I was excited about this, but the process has been so strange and cumbersome, I'm not even sure I want to go anymore.
I've been play-testing a witch in Pathfinder Society, and I think most of the changes to the class are great, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, based on testing the class both before and after the recent changes.
1) The loss of "touch range" in favour of 30-foot range for most hexes makes a huge difference. The class is really, truly playable now! This was the perfect fix.
2) Removing the provocation of attacks of opportunity from hexes is also a great idea.
3) Lowering the spell level on Baleful Polymorph is great. Having Baleful Polymorph and Bestow Curse, two totally iconic witch abilities, feel more special for the witch by virtue of giving them to them at lower spell levels really hammers home the flavour of the class.
4) Amending flight so that it's a regular hex was definitely the right move. Witches fly, right? The flavour of the ability is great too.
5) I think cackle could be broader. It should probably say "any targeted hex with a limited duration" rather than specifically citing Evil Eye, Misfortune, etc. That way it's cleaner to apply cackle to other hexes that might become available in future books. Cackle, by the way, is awesome.
6) The witch's familiar still feels incredibly fragile, and the witch has too much invested in his familiar for that to feel all right. Imbue With Spells is a cool ability, and getting bonus spells from the familiar is an awesome idea, but if a witch's familiar dies, he's starting almost completely over with having to research spells. Something should be done to make the familiar a little more durable or able to reincarnate itself or something. Having a familiar but having to keep it hidden away at all times seems like kind of a waste.
7) A class so focused on having a familiar seems like a good fit for Improved Familiar. That does, however, mean sacrificing the bonus spells granted by his familiar. A second sidebar with bonus spells from improved familiars for the witch who chooses to go that route would be awesome. Or maybe rules that allow you to polymorph your familiar into an improved familiar when you take the feat, so that you can keep the bonus spell list of your original familiar. Just a thought.
I had been really, really excited for this class prior to its first printing, and when it was originally revealed I was actually a little disappointed, but having read through it a little more thoroughly, played it a little, and having seen the changes, it's actually one of my favourite classes, and lives up every bit to my original expectations. I'm excited to see where this class might go.
I've been play-testing an oracle in Pathfinder Society, and I think most of the changes to the class are spot-on, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, based on testing the class both before and after the recent changes.
1) The medium armour proficiency is a huge, huge help, and I really think it will help make the difference for this class. I still believe the class should get good Fort saves, like a cleric, but I think this was the more important change.
2) The free cure or inflict spells go a long, long way toward making the cleric spell list more manageable for a spontaneous caster. I still think the oracle could use an extra spell known or two, but I think this is a really positive, beneficial change. My complaint before was that spontaneous casting lent itself less well to the cleric spell list because its more reactive, and thus benefits more from preparation. Not having to choose cure spells really helps with that, though I'm not positive it's 100% enough.
3) I still really like the idea of a healing-focused mystery for the oracle, for the player who really wants to try test-driving the oracle in the cleric's party seat. Channel energy is huge for a healer, and no access to that severely limits the oracle's ability to play the role of a primary healer. The extra spells-per-day beyond that of a cleric go a long way too, though.
4) Now that the oracle has access to medium armour, the armour bonus revelations that most mysteries provide seem wildly inappropriate and almost never worth choosing. Certainly at low-levels they're virtually worthless. I'd strongly consider lowering the bonus to AC on each of these and changing them from armour bonus to something more obscure. Nobody's ever going to pick these and waste one of their precious revelations on something that can be purchased with no penalty for 200gp or less. I'd absolutely consider using a revelation to gain a scaling +2 deflection bonus or dodge bonus or whathaveyou, though. It could create a refreshing difference between each of the different versions of this ability to provide different bonuses based on the particular mystery too. For instance, wind could get dodge, bones could get natural armour, heavens could get deflection, etc.
5) The new mysteries are awesome, especially Lore.
6) I realize multi-classing is supposed to weaken overall power since it provides so much more versatility, but I have to jump on board and agree with people complaining that the curse too harshly penalizes multi-classing. I think the curse is a great role-playing device and I love that some of them help a little, hurt a little and others help a lot and hurt a lot, but I really, really think you should consider changing the benefits of the curse to be based on character level rather than oracle level. Honestly, I think the scaling revelations should work the same way. If Invisibility is level-appropriate for an oracle of wind at 3rd-level, I don't see why it's level inappropriate for a 1st-level sorcerer, 2nd-level oracle on his or her way to a mystic theurge. I'm less sold on this idea, because spell levels obviously work the same way, but the oracle doesn't get a lot of class features, so for some of the good ones to be completely level-inappropriate by the time a multi-classing oracle is able to pick them seems pretty rough to me. Either way, I believe the curse needs to function off of character level. My Pathfinder Society character is multi-classed and it hasn't been a huge deal so far, but at 6th-level I still can't see between 30 and 60 feet because of my two levels of paladin.
I'm still really into this class, though, and I believe the few changes that were made were great. I just thought I'd point out the other observations I'd made through playing. I think this class will be a serious fixture of many games, just as the favoured soul always was for my playgroup.
I've been play-testing a summoner in one of my home games, and I think most of the changes to the class are perfect, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, based on testing the class both before and after the recent changes.
1) The changes to the summon monster spell-like abilities are perfect. Absolutely perfect. I wouldn't change a thing. Min./level, standard action, no more than one active at a time is just what the doctor ordered in my opinion. Actually, there's one thing that could maybe change, and I suggested it last time I made this thread: I still think the summoner could stand to have access to summon nature's ally lists through this ability. This is not a deal-breaker in any way, though.
2) I thought the summoner's abilities and the levels at which they're gained were pretty much perfect before, and given that they haven't changed much, I'm still happy. I don't remember if there was a restriction before on ability score increase as an evolution to apply to the summoner with aspect, but I think it makes good sense.
3) Adding maximum number of attack limits to the eidolon is a great idea, and I think reducing the creature's total hit dice at high levels also makes a lot of sense. At high levels, the eidolon previously outshone a lot of parties' fighters, etc., etc. However, I think reducing hit dice from 2 to 1 at first level is a little too harsh. Eidolons don't get maximum hit points at 1st-level, which means they probably have, what? 5, 6hp? The summoner is a really bad caster with a good fighter for a pet. If the summoner is a really bad caster with a really bad, fragile fighter for a pet, he's in pretty bad shape. As it stands, what can the summoner do at first level? Cast shield on himself or his eidolon and just hope nobody gets hit? That extra early HD kept the eidolon (and by extension the summoner) relevant at first level.
4) And then there's the spell list. The summoner was a pretty terrible caster before, and he only got worse with the updates. Before, the eidolon was a tad too powerful (mostly because of having the potential to have so many attacks each round), but I didn't feel like the summoner himself needed any nerfing. Here's what I think about the spell level changes. First of all, it seems to me that the summoner is a caster for the purposes of hiding, evading, and buffing his summons' and eidolon, as well as summoning (duh). To that effect, I believe those are the types of effects he should be seeing at level-appropriate opportunities.
The bard gets confusion and crushing despair at 7th-level instead of 10th, and dominate person at 10th-level instead of 13th because those are level-appropriate times for him to get effects that fit his theme of fascinating and mind-controlling. He also gets greater dispel magic at 13th-level rather than 16th because it's an important effect for all casters, and should thereby be granted when it's useful and level-appropriate. A caster having to wait until 16th-level to upgrade dispel magic is in pretty sad shape, and at a huge disadvantage. I don't care whether they're primary or secondary. Dispel Magic effects are staples of their repertoire. The bard is still getting these spells later than or at the same time as the wizard or sorcerer, and the majority of the bard's spell list is still stunted with comparison to the wizard or sorcerer, but certain tactics just shouldn't be delayed because they're essential to the nature of the bard. If you want to cast mind-affecting enchantments, you shouldn't be punished for playing a bard, since that's one of their focuses. And that same train of thought applies to the summoner and effects that allow him to hide or buff his eidolon.
In particular, dimension door, greater invisibility, teleport, greater dispel magic, mass invisibility, spell turning, and greater teleport all seem like the type of spells that absolutely qualify, and should be lowered for the purpose of the summoner's spell list. Haste also seems like a summoner signature spell, and whereas I realize 7th-level is when the bard gets the spell, and that sorcerers only get it a level earlier at 6th, and that wizards only a level earlier than that at 5th, it seems to me like that spell is the epitome of everything the summoner aims to do with his spells and it really does seem too late for that spell to first rear its head at level 7. Is 4 too early? I don't know. It didn't seem game-breaking when I was running around with a level 4 summoner. It seemed incredibly helpful and I certainly used it all the time, but it didn't make us invincible or mean that we destroyed our opponents in half a round or anything like that. If I were the Paizo guys, I'd seriously consider reinstating haste as a 2nd-level spell, along with lower-level versions of the other spells I listed. Other stuff like slow, baleful polymorph, black tentacles, insect plague, creeping doom, much of that stuff doesn't even seem appropriate for the summoner to me and I certainly don't think it needs any of that stuff at a lower level than other classes. I really do believe that hiding and buffing spells should be given special consideration, though, in the same way that the bard gets special consideration for mind-affecting enchantments.
This is not even to mention the actual summon spells. I realize the summoner is getting the spell-like abilities either way, and honestly I don't see many people actually using their spells known on further summons, but the option should be there for flavour alone. It feels weird that a summoner's spell slots wouldn't allow him to cast the better summon spells, thereby allowing him to cast multiple summons at once. Right now a wizard at high-level is a significantly better mass-summoner, and the summoner should outshine all other casting classes when it comes to summoning. I see summon monster I as a 1st-level spell, summon monster III as a 2nd-level (a level earlier than a wizard gets it), summon monster IV as a 3rd-level, summon monster VI as a 4th-level (again, a level earlier than a wizard), summon monster VII as a 5th-level, and summon monster IX and gate as 6th-level spells (again, a level earlier). I don't remember where these spells fell on the list before the revision, but I don't think a breakdown like this would be anywhere close to over-powered, and really would make a lot of sense for a summoner. Again, I also think corresponding summon nature's ally spells should be on the list too. The summoner summons. Make it happen.
5) I couldn't find any information in the revision about what happens to an eidolon's equipment when it returns to its home plane, so I assume the previous errata about it dropping it all has been removed. If that's true, I'm on board. That seemed really sloppy before. I like the solution of removing all the proficiency evolutions and requiring those instead to be granted via feats if so desired. I'm fine with banning armour outright too. That all makes a lot of sense to me.
Those are just my thoughts on the class. Either way, I'm a big fan, and I think the summoner's special abilities are really well constructed and among the most interesting of any of the new classes, even though they nearly all relate directly to the eidolon. Keep up the good work, Paizo!
So, I own a game shop, and one of my business partners and I are looking to expand our business into the world of game design. We've decided to begin with a Pathfinder supplement to see how it does (and also, because this book in particular would be incredibly useful in our own campaigns, and how awesome would it be to have the book to show the players in our games rather than a Microsoft Word document?). We have a good idea for our book, and I think it should be pretty awesome, but it's going to take a phenomenal amount of research to guarantee its legality, and--though I will ultimately have to do some serious research on the topic--I wondered if anybody knew off the top of their head if any of the following monsters' names and concepts were open for usage, even if certain stat-blocks associated with these names are owned by Wizards of the Coast or Paizo.
I'm sure many of these are completely closed concepts, but I'm likewise positive some of these concepts and names are fair game for spit-shining. If anybody knows for sure on any of these, it would be great to hear from you!
I've been play-testing a summoner in a home game, and I have the following thoughts.
1) We've been house-ruling the class to keep the modified "one spell-like summons at a time" errata, but not the rounds/level, full-round action errata, and it really isn't unbalancing. I think the limitation on number of summons is really important because the class suffers from being a little cumbersome if you're allowed too many creatures to control (not to mention frustrating for the other players who want their turns). I think the other changes to this ability, however, hurt the class's niche too much. I realize the eidolon is the focus of the class and the summoning is a bonus, but it does strike me that the out-of-combat summoning potential is much greater with minutes/level. As far as I know, no other summoning options in the game will let you do any real summoning with a duration of more than a couple of minutes, which means its pretty much limited to combat or summon-and-immediately-exploit-summoned-creature's-spells applications. The summoner, pre-errata, could use monsters to make sure complex time-consuming dangers were safe for the PCs, or use monsters to distract NPCs while the PCs snuck in through the back door, or whathaveyou. And with standard action casting time, the summoner could stay mobile while filling up the room, another feat not otherwise possible in the game unless you want to use Quicken Spell to make your 1st-level summons take up a 5th-level spell slot. These were cool abilities for the class not because they upped the power-level terribly significantly (because honestly, they didn't), but because nobody else is capable of handling summoning like this. They made the summoner really feel like a summoner. If you want to summon, this is the class that should give you the most options and be the best at doing it. If power-level still seems like an issue, maybe you could have the option of casting as a full-round action and getting minutes/level, or casting as a standard action and getting rounds/level. The two benefits don't need to be simultaneous.
2) In the spirit of being the best summoner there is, maybe Summon Nature's Ally could be added to its repertoire, at least to the spell list, if not to the spell-like ability? I really think a class called summoner should be the absolute be-all, end-all class for summoning.
3) This one might step on some treacherous legal ground, but functional reprints of Wraithstrike and Nerveskitter should find their way onto the summoner's spell list. More than any other class that exists so far, this class has the potential to be an arcane warrior. Spells like those, and any great short-range teleportation spells Paizo can come up with (like Benign Transposition, Knight's Move, etc.) would make fantastic additions to an already really good spell list. It isn't the only use for the class, and it isn't the best version of an arcane warrior that should be possible, but it would be great to further nurture the possibility to play the summoner like this.
4) The eidolon seems abusable, though I honestly don't think your average eidolon is going to be game-breaking in any way. I think it would be wise to continue to write in restrictions that might prevent certain evolutions from being too abusive with one another, but I think the eidolon's basic framework is just right.
5) The "drops all equipment" errata seems really sloppy. I'd almost rather just see a ban on an eidolon's usage of equipment than have to deal with carrying all my eidolon's stuff every time it gets sent back to its home plane. There's got to be a better way to add meaningful costs to an eidolon's item usage (besides the very real monetary costs of providing equipment for yourself and your pet).
Of all the new classes, I think this one was closest to being totally right coming out of the gates. There should probably be a few additional safeguards on the eidolon to prevent power gamers from exploiting too many loop-holes, and I think the one-summons-at-a-time errata is perfect, but otherwise this class is really fun to play and has a variety of cool and interesting mechanics that make it by far the most unique of all the new classes. I love that it completely has its own thing going on, without really borrowing much from any existing class, stepping on anybody's toes, or feeling like it doesn't have a home in your average adventuring party. Great work, Paizo! Please don't change too much about this incredibly, surprisingly sweet class!
I've been play-testing an oracle in Pathfinder Society, and I have the following thoughts.
1) The cleric gets d8 HD, medium BAB, good Fort saves, and decent armour proficiencies over the wizard because its spell list is geared more toward buffing and reacting and less toward blowing up, enchanting, debuffing, etc. The sorcerer and the wizard get all the same stats as one another because they share a highly offensive spell list with one another. Their saves, HD, BAB, and armour proficiencies are bad because their spells pick up the slack. The oracle on the other hand shares a spell list with the cleric and feels like it should follow the cleric stat-model much more closely. It has the d8 HD and medium BAB, but I really think it could benefit from the improved Fort saves and the increased armour proficiency. Right now the class is most effective wading into combat, and has a hard time doing so. In all the games I've played, I've felt incredibly useless on the sidelines, and felt the need to wade into melee. It could use the boost.
2) The cleric spell-list is very good at doing cleric things, which are usually utility-based, reactive, or preventative. The cleric, however, benefits from knowing all of its spells and getting to choose the right responsive tools for the job, each day. The sorcerer doesn't care that it knows so few spells because it isn't a responder, it's a blower of things up. The oracle on the other hand has a really reactive spell list and so few spells known, it will rarely have the right tools for the job. The foci help a lot, but the oracle still feels really impotent. I think it should probably receive more bonus spells known, or higher spells known in general, or have some ability to switch out a spell known on the fly or something. With its current limitations on spells known, it feels like there isn't a real role carved out for the oracle, and I imagine the intended role is "cleric for somebody who wants to take a different angle to their character, or for somebody new to the game for whom prepared casting might be overwhelming."
3) The sorcerer's arcane bloodline lets you pick up one of the wizard's iconic class features (the familiar), and I think it would be a really cool analogue to put together some sort of healing focus and give it access to Channel Energy. The flavour behind the oracle is so incredibly cool, it would be nice to have an option for playing one that would actually allow it to compete for the cleric's seat in a party. As it stands, it can't.
Beyond that, I love the class, and I think its foundation is really solid. I especially love the build-flexibility (choices within choices) and the whole notion of the curses, and how they range from minor penalty with mostly role-playing benefits to steep penalty with powerful benefits. I'd love to see this class powered up just a little more so it reaches its potential.
I've diligently waited on all three release mornings for the new play-test classes, refreshing every so often to see whether or not the new classes were available for me to check out. I've been really excited about all of them (though I'll admit I was most excited for the witch initially), and I've paid very close attention when each class was coming out so I could be among the first to read through each new PDF and learn what each class was really all about.
So far I've only actually play-tested the summoner and the oracle, but--I'll be honest--that's because those were the two classes that grabbed me the most. I know the feedback Paizo is looking for is mostly based on actual play experience, but I think the notion of first impressions is an important consideration too. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how fun and balanced a class is if nobody's interested in playing it. I don't think every class needs to be built with every type of player in mind, but I do think classes should look as compelling on paper as they actually are fun to play, and of course every class should have meaningful reasons for its existence, both mechanically and flavourfully.
With all that in mind, here's where I'm heading. The cavalier, the oracle, the summoner, and the witch are all really compelling, even upon first read. Like I said, I think the oracle and the summoner are the more compelling of the four, at least for me, but I read through all four of those classes on the days of their release and was excited about the prospects of all of them. That's really great design. There are kinks that need working, of course, but overall each of those four classes has a flavour niche and does something interesting mechanically. They all look like a lot of fun. The alchemist and the inquisitor, on the other hand, seem to me to fall flat on their faces.
It's not that I don't like the concepts. I honestly think both classes fill big flavour gaps and have their niches in that department. I just think both classes read, mechanically, as incredibly boring and all over the place. I wasn't sure what to expect from the inquisitor at all, and when I read the class description, right before I read the class abilities, I was unbelievably excited about what the class might have to offer. A holy assassin? Awesome! It was just that after I read the abilities, I was totally underwhelmed. I don't think either of the these two most recent classes fills any mechanical niche or has any clarity of purpose. They both seem totally unfocused, but not versatile in the way that a cleric or wizard is.
And maybe I'm wrong about these classes, but I'll probably never know, and that's exactly my point. They don't leave good first impressions, and it doesn't matter how well they actually play if nobody wants to go through the trouble of playing them.
I don't mean this to be insulting in any way, as I know Jason put a lot of care into designing these classes, and I'm sure he did a great job and that these classes are actually incredibly fun to play. I just thought I'd relay my feelings on this because I do want to see these and all the other classes be the best they can be. I hope this criticism is interpreted constructively, anyway! I <3 Paizo, and I think you guys can do a good job cleaning these classes up. I just wanted to call it as I saw it to help you do that.
9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Core Rulebook description for Chill Touch wrote:
Chill Touch
School: necromancy; Level: sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: touch
Targets: creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)
Duration: instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial or Will negates; see text; Spell
Resistance: yes
A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw. You can use this melee touch attack up to one time per level.
An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4 rounds + 1 round per caster level.
So, here's the Pathfinder description for Chill Touch. I'm having a hard time getting my head around how exactly this spell works. It lists its targets as up to one creature per level, but it's a touch spell with a duration of "instantaneous." I took a look at the way touch spells work, and this is what the Core Rulebook says:
Core Rulebook on Touch Range wrote:
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
First of all, weirdly, this description doesn't explicitly say that you have to roll an attack to touch the opponent. I know you do, and it sort of alludes to it with its talk of critical hits, but it doesn't say it specifically and it certainly doesn't make mention of it in the spell description. Next, it says that some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets, then that you can touch up to 6 willing targets--but they all have to be touched in a single round--then that touching 6 creatures (not necessarily willing) is a full-round action if you can touch targets over multiple rounds (which it just said you couldn't do).
What is going on here? Can you touch any 6 creatures, or do they have to be willing? If you have a caster level of 12, do you have to spend two full-round actions to complete a standard action casting time spell against the maximum number of creatures? What if you have a caster level of 11? Does that mean one full-round and one standard action? Or am I reading too far into this and does it mean you get 6 for free if they're willing, but six take a full-round action if they're unwilling? The other big issue is the spell's duration:
Core Rulebook on Instantaneous Duration wrote:
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
How can a spell that comes and goes in an instant allow you to touch multiple targets with a single casting? Should this spell really be read entirely literally, meaning that you make a touch attack against each intended target (up to a maximum of your caster level, even if that's 7 or 8) as a single standard action and the spell is discharged in only that single round?
In other words, if I have a level 7 wizard, surrounded by 7 foes, am I able to spend a single standard action and 7 touch attack rolls to affect all of those foes with this spell? I realize I provoke a lot of attacks of opportunity if I do so. I'm just curious how this all works.
Also, with touch spells, you can cast before moving and then discharge with a touch at the end of the move to avoid provoking attacks, right?
I don't know if I missed it, or if it's just common sense, but are the restrictions for when you can take certain revelations based on character level or oracle level?
I have a Pathfinder Society character with two levels in paladin. I'm a deity-less paladin who doesn't believe in gods, and having just picked up enough XP to hit level 3, I want to start taking levels in oracle. The gods have picked up on my dunce of a character you see, and have decided to teach him a lesson for his lack of faith.
I'm taking the wind revelation, but I wondered if I could take the "invisibility" revelation at this level. It specifies that it can't be taken until 3rd-level, but it doesn't say whether or not that means 3rd-level in oracle. I'm sure there's a general ruling on this one way or the other, and my intuition is that it probably does mean I have to wait two more levels, but it strikes me that the intent of those level restrictions is to stop characters from taking certain revelations before they would be level appropriate, which means there's certainly a case for having it based on character level. If a 3rd-level oracle is level-appropriate for supernatural invisibility, I don't see why a 2nd-level paladin/1st-level oracle isn't.
If a creature is essentially blinded due to being in an area of darkness without darkvision, are they vulnerable to sneak attacks?
Can you sneak attack on a charge?
Say, I'm riding a creature with fly speed 60 feet, may I charge a creature on the ground? Does it work as normal, ie. I move 120 feet (while descending) and make a single attack?
I get +2 to attack when charging, but do I also get an additional +1 for higher ground when charging with a mount?
My mount doesn't also get an attack on a charge if it has natural attacks, right?
Check out page 158 of the 3.5 Monster Manual to take a look at the robot pegasus centaur that is the Zelekhut. I have a roommate who has been playing one of these in a campaign for nearly three years, and it's the first character she ever made. The campaign's coming to a close soon, but she's incredibly sentimentally attached to her character, and seeing as I drew her name for the house secret santa I thought it might be a nice gesture to put together a custom mini for her so she can play the last few games with it and have something by which to remember her first ever character.
So, what I need is suggestions for minis to chop up and resculpt to put this monster together. I'm only really used to working with plastic, and honestly I'd like to keep it that way for now. It'll be more consistent with our D&D minis collection, and it'll be easier for me to resculpt because I can remove features as easily as I can add them. I think I want to use a Centaur War Hulk from the D&D minis Blood War set for the body, but the head on that is ugly and I'd rather start with a head that more closely resembles the finished product if anybody has suggestions. I also need some sort of mechanical-looking wings and spiked chains if anybody has thoughts on where I could turn for those. I know there's a shadar-kai D&D mini in Desert of Desolation I could use for chains, but I wondered if anybody had any other thoughts.
Played a summoner last night and had a lot of fun with it! I found my 4th-level summoner and eidolon to be fun and interesting without being over-powered. My eidolon was still missing plenty in combat, though I suspect that will change when he becomes large at 6th-level. Anyway, there were two elements of eidolon creation/usage that I thought were a little unclear. Maybe I missed something, or maybe these are covered by general rules for familiars/animal companions/pets, but these are just my impressions.
1) Does the eidolon have language? I assume it does because it has a high enough Intelligence score (ie. above a 2), but it doesn't mention automatic languages, and it doesn't have a high enough Intelligence score for bonus languages. Can it speak? Do you have to put ranks in linguistics? How does this work?
2) Does it have its own initiative? Does it use the summoner's initiative? This is probably covered by animal companions/familiars, but I wasn't sure. Is this just up to however the DM wants to play it?
It has been mentioned by Paizo employees that there are going to be new spells in the APG to allow the bard to be more combat-focused in case anyone wants to play a combat bard. Since we know, then, that the book will have new spells, is it fair to assume that the witch and the summoner will actually have longer spell lists than we've so far seen?
I'm play-testing a summoner in one of my games (I switched a 4th-level character built around a Pathfinder-converted battle sorcerer over because it honestly doesn't change anything about the way I've been playing the character [I mean, it makes him more versatile, but it doesn't actually take anything I've been using away from him], and I had planned on working the character into having a draconic familiar eventually anyway... so now the character has a dragon-like eidolon), and I'm experimenting with adding a few minor spells from the Spell Compendium to his spell list. I'd like to focus this thread around suggestions for Spell Compendium spells that would be class-appropriate for the summoner or witch. My thought being that the two of them almost certainly have other spells on their lists that we have yet to see published, and if we can give Paizo feedback on which Spell Compendium spells work well with the classes, it might give them ideas for brand new spells that could be part of the summoner or witch's lists.
I realize they aren't able to directly reprint spells from the Spell Compendium, but they could pretty easily work similar, or at least thematically similar, spells into the book, especially if there's playtest support to back them up.
So far, I've been using:
Nerveskitter Swift Expeditious Retreat
for the summoner, and both seem really appropriate for the class, considering some of the ways it can be played. Actually, both seem pretty good for really any use of the class, but specifically for the way I'm playing him (as a replacement for a battle sorcerer, who just happens to have some cool summoning powers).
I'm also considering:
Wraithstrike
It seems really good when shared with a full attack pouncing eidolon, and the fact that the summoner has extremely limited spells-per-day, means it shouldn't be too powerful in my opinion.
