|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, what metamagics have effects you might want, but the increased caster level means that it is generally not worth the higher level spell slot required to use?
Also, Paragon Surge + Sacred Geometry seems like a fun combo.
One combo that also seems interesting is Umbral Spell + Shadow Grasp which turns every spell into a pseudo Black Tentacles spell.
Interjection Games wrote:
Yeah, Endzeitgeist gave it a glowing review. It's on my list of classes to check out.
Also, the Ethermancer was reviewed by Endzeitgeist as being the best iteration of the warlock in any d20 system.
Also, funny fact...Paladins and Rangers both get auto-confirm crits as class features. Paladins get it at 4th level. :P
Bless Weapon is pretty nice, though it is against evil foes only.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for the response James. It was very informative. It sounds like for future playtests it is very important to stress test the system over the entire level range with a focus on probability of success, relative effectiveness of choices, etc. It's unfortunate the system didn't work out as well as you hoped for the Mythic ruleset.
Exactly. They are okayish at killing things, but it'd be nice if the class provided some ways of interacting with the other portions of the game and to not leave it all on the thespian skills of the player.
Possibly. You'd still pick up the immunities, protective aura, senses (including true sight), flight, DR, resistances, and access to the feats (not all, but some). You might also get the Slaying Arrow Su ability, since the effect is automatic, which suggests that it is not an activated ability.
Either way, it'd be great if we had some insight as to what you get from a Simulacrum. A template or more explicit guidelines would go a long way to reducing the confusing and abuseability of this spell.
Wouldn't you get the passive Su and Ex abilities? They count as always on, and as such would not need to be activated. To put it another way, can a troll turn-off their regeneration, or is it always on for them (unless they get burned by fire/acid, at which point it is suppressed for a time)?
James Jacobs wrote:
James, there's something I'm curious about and I was hoping you might be able to shed light upon. Since many of the issues that have arisen with this AP are related to Mythic and the numbers underlying the system, I was wondering if there was any attempt to mathematically model expected damage outputs, initiative values, and other fairly basic "be good at your combat niche" type character building options? Things like probability of success, expected damage amounts, etc are all calculatable values. I've found the bestiary monster CR guidelines (how much HP, damage, etc you should expect for a monster of a certain CR) extremely valuable and I was wondering why it appears something similar wasn't done when developing this system.
Thanks for your responses in this thread and I look forward to seeing what you come up with next.
The idea sounds interesting, although I've always been a fan of weapons that 'grow' with a character, so that, for instance, Amiri the Barbarian could 'unlock' hidden potential within her giant sword, even such oddities as it being revealed to have been made of a special material, but so covered with verdigris and grime that it wasn't obvious until after she got the money to have it alchemically cleaned off (mysteriously the same cost to upgrade to a weapon made of that special material... How odd!). Coin spent on buying a new magic weapon would instead be spent on unlocking ancient power within a current weapon, for instance, and so Amiri could 'discover' that her giant sword was actually the magical sword handed down by frost giant jarls over many centuries, and only needed some TLC (and exactly the amount of gold it would have cost to buy one with those abilities) to unlock the 'hidden potential' of her legacy blade.
This is pretty much the numen/item aquisition/upgrade system from Kirthfinder.
If you were to rebuild the proficiency system so that each weapon had different levels of proficiency that unlocked different abilities, you could make the Fighter's large number of weapon proficiencies more special, and even add extra tricks available for each weapon group based on their specialization.
Even if you didn't go with the revised weapon proficiency system, you could give the Fighter a pool of weapon tricks they gain access to at each levels of weapon training in weapons they are proficient with. The same could be done with Armor Training. That way, you could keep the niche of the fighter to be a weapon master, but actually allow them to do some impressive things with their weapons and armor at higher levels of weapon/armor training. It could be a great way to allow them some Charles Atlas Superpowers without having to completely rebuild the class.
I'd still want to see some powers that allow them to do things outside of battle. Without rebuilding the skill system so it extends beyond the E6 range for tasks you can expect to do with it, you would probably have most luck with adding some interesting things to the Bravery class feature, even if it was just automatically granting certain more social/exploration/investigation feats at different levels of the Bravery feature.
Kirthfinder is one approach. It's still pretty much Pathfinder/D&D, but designed so there are many more viable builds and that all classes can enjoy getting new and exciting abilities to interact with the game at all levels.
Exactly. Paizo typically does this for monsters and on rare occasions some other material as well. I personally feel they could stand to do so more often, with all the high quality 3pp out there, in order to avoid reinventing the wheel so often. It could be that 137ben intended a different meaning to the post, but that was my take.
@Set: Were you the one who proposed that different classes be able to get more out of weapon/armor enchants? I remember someone writing some in-character examples regarding a kid playing around with the parent's sword, the father showing the kid how he could light the sword on fire, and the mother (who was the owner of the sword and the higher level fighter) being able to wreath their entire body in flame and basically turn into a sword wielding fire elemental.
I've tried to find the post, but have had no luck to date.
Ross Byers wrote:
My reading of the quoted text was that a 3pp had produced something that was thematically/mechanically consistent with Paizo's design goals and that Paizo could benefit by either using or reviewing and being inspired by the material.
The third option of course, is to make some minor modifications to spells and capabilities that allows for both. The normal example for Castles and Dungeons is to make it so stone of a minimum thickness can block teleportation and scrying. There's a lot of little things that can be done to make the powers and capabilities you want present in a setting mesh a bit more with the setting as presented, but it requires thinking these things through and acting on them. Basically, you have to care about the internal consistency of your setting and not just shrug and say 'close enough'. It's more work, but the advantage is you start being able to use logic to figure out how a problem might be resolved rather than having to rely on deus ex machina, "a wizard did it", or the players to follow a gentleman's agreement to not totally wreck the setting with the capabilities they have been provided.
That could very well be the case. They want to create a traditional D&D fantasy world, but are stuck using a legacy system that doesn't mesh well with the world they want to create. One of the points made in Sanderson's articles, is the more complex your magic systems the harder to extrapolate and to create any sort of internal consistency.
The society-warping effects of magic is something that most designers don't think through completely, much like how many science fiction writers don't really comprehend how large planets are. Really solid world-building is actually a lot rarer than most think and it is really easy for a designer to have blind spots that result in their world's inhabitants not behaving like normal people would (from pretty much any time period) if they were dropped into or grew up in the fantasy world.
Kitchen sink style settings like Golarion tend to have even more blind spots than most fantasy settings, because the patchwork and self-contained nature of each portion of the setting that has minimal communication with other parts of the setting. With so many designers involved in writing the world, unless there is very strong shared setting oversight, you end up with even more discrepancies.
If you want a well-thought out setting that fully considers the implications of all the various changes that have been made to make it more fantastic, you are likely going to have to go with a setting designed by one person or a small team and which has strong oversight to make sure everything is consistent.
There's several really good blog entries by Brandon Sanderson (author of the Mistborn, Words of Radience, and several other series with very imaginative magic systems and strong worldbuilding) on this topic:
My request for all of the new classes in Pathfinder Unchained is that they all be able to contribute meaningfully in all areas of the game at all levels.
This would include
Obviously, some classes will be designed to be better in some areas than others, but it would be very nice to allow players to have a chance to participate (be the main person or be a helper) in overcoming challenges in all areas and not just be a load for their other party members to carry.
As I mentioned above, it is also important to make sure to extend the ability to participate across the entire level range and not just a narrow low-level range. Look for the challenges the players can be expected to encounter in each level range and then come up with thematically appropriate ways for each class to contribute to solving those problems. Otherwise, if you design the class first then every problem is going to end up looking like a nail and you may end up creating something that will result in the players sitting around waiting for a chance to contribute for whole swaths of the game.
Basically, the traditional classes are more rooted in older western mythologies, whereas psionics are more rooted in eastern mythologies, 19th century Europe and America, or have been co-opted by the magic system (clairvoyant and prophetic powers).
Detect Magic wrote:
It isn't Dreamscarred Press, but this seems to be exactly what you are asking for from Rogue Genius Games. It has great reviews and seems to be generally well received by all who have looked at the books.
Was the brawler given a way to meaningfully interact with the non-combat portions of the game over their whole range of levels? This was one of the issues raised during the playtest and I never saw any responses indicating the developer's thoughts on the matter.
My issue with Reactionary is the following
The Dictionary wrote:
None of these meanings have anything to do with a person with fast reflexes.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Does Deep Magic fix the spell duration/timing issue and the problems with making every long duration buff type effect instantaneous (so they behave like Awaken)?
And for some reason, lots of PFS encounters feature single enemies with a low number of attacks.
Funnily, enough, one of the best versions of Words of Power I've run across is in the meta-magic feat system of Kirthfinder. (See here for the discussion thread. Rules are available upon request).
Something I realized recently, is that the metamagic system introduced in Kirthfinder could be reworked for a Words of Power type spellcasting system fairly easily. Rather than getting a normal spell progression, the Words of Power caster would gain the cantrips, daily spell slots, and be able to learn a certain number of metamagic feats at each level (similar to rage powers or rogue talents). The Kirthfinder system already allows this, but one could also easily port the entire system back into the normal PFRPG, call it a slightly different type of caster/form of casting class and it would run seamlessly.
Yeah, I don't think it's a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but with the terminology being used for a powerful and popular (everyone likes the Blue Mage) ability of the arcanist, I'm guessing the question of enemy/ally and the consequences of how that is ruled on other parts of the game is going to come up more often in the next little while, and as such it's worthwhile considering what those implications might be.
Agreed, but those are pretty paltry non-combat options and I'd still argue it makes them an incomplete class. Not as poorly off as the Fighter, but still not completely baked.
Here's a question, would an arcanist with Suffering Knowledge be able to take advantage of the ability if they were hit by an ally who was charmed by an enemy (but not known to the characters) who cast a spell on the arcanist? Why, or why not and is the answer to that question consistent with how enemies are determined elsewhere in the rules?
Agreed. However, if the words enemy and ally are interchangeable with "individual" (for a more neutral word), it means that one can benefit from a spell or ability that is intended to affect enemies, and has been balanced around that design paradigm, but which can have larger benefits if it can be triggered much more easily.
Blackpowder Witch wrote:
What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.
I would argue that with it's almost exclusive focus on combat, the Gunslinger is an incomplete class. A more well rounded class would have features that allow it to contribute in a wide range of non-combat and combat situations at all levels.
Greater Arcane Sight + Bless/bane = enemy/ally/neutral detector. Greater Arcane Sight lets the user see who has what spell effects active. Bless affects the caster and all allies within a 50 feet burst. Bane is the same, except it only affects enemies. Using the three spells will let you know if someone is an ally (affected by bless), an enemy (affected by bane) or neutral (affected by neither).
Depending on how bane and bless work with respect to creatures under a compulsion or domination spell, it might also let you determine who is under such an effect.
Well, ensuring that party members maintain a "frenemy-like" or antagonistic relationship will provide lots of fertile ground for roleplaying. =p
(It'd be nice if designers could try to avoid given spells intelligence and the capability to determine who is an enemy and who isn't. Otherwise, you can turn them into detection spells, or the word enemy/ally can cause additional confusion as to who is affected by a spell unless the designer is extra careful.)
Also, if a arcanist is hit by a spell, so that they temporarily know and have it memorized, can they then scribe it on a scroll or write it down in their spellbook in order to be able to permanently learn it?