Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Caedwyr's page

2,409 posts (2,411 including aliases). 5 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know there's been a few things that have given rise to doubt, but I'm surprised how widespread the belief seems to be that Paizo's writers are incapable of writing a clear and consistent mechanic, as shown in this thread.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The world as per the spells and capabilities of characters/npcs does not match the world as typically presented by world builders. Any issues are generally glossed over with half-hearted justifications.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the Talented classes, how would you categorize them, if not calling them full classes? I agree that they are a redo of the core classes, but they are at least at the level of an alternate class. Note that a bunch of Super Genius Games credited classes are now Rogue Genius Games classes.

Also, here are a few more:

Aquanaut - Alluria Publishing
Greater Familiar - Skirmisher Publishing
Angler - Alluria Publishing
Kahuna - Alluria Publishing
Mariner - Alluria Publishing
Siren - Alluria Publishing
Angakkuq - Alluria Publishing
Front Grounder - Dias Ex Machnia
Heavy Grounder - Dias Ex Machina
Marshal - Dias Ex Machina
Mechanic - Dias Ex Machina
Operator - Dias Ex Machina
Medic - Dias Ex Machina
Stalker - Dias Ex Machina
Gunslinger - Dias Ex Machina
Sniper - Dias Ex Machina
Vanguard - Dias Ex Machina
Gunslinger - Alvena Publishing
Death Knight - Rogue Genius Games
Luckbringer - Rite Publishing
Mushakemono - Rite Publishing
Bone-Breaker - Rite Publishing
Hishoken - Rite Publishing

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I've always wondered about, is what is the the checklist designers go through when sitting down and doing the initial prototyping and concept level design, prior to putting actual mechanics down. I always figured it would be something like the following, but I am beginning to suspect that they might be following another procedure.

Caedwyr's imagined design procedure wrote:
  • Step 1. Identify niche/concept you want a class to cover.
  • Step 2. Ask yourself if this niche is sufficiently broad to warrant a new class, does it cover something players might want to play, and can the existing system and style of game promoted by the rules leave it as a viable niche.
  • Step 3. Review other classes/existing material to see if this is a niche that has already been covered, and if so, does it add anything to the game to add another option.
  • Step 4. Identify what range of activities you want the class to be doing in combat situations. Make sure you cover the different level ranges and the assumptions/style of game changes that occur over the different level ranges. Do you want the class to always be doing the same type of things, or do you want the class to shift focus as they go up in level?
  • Step 5. Identify what range of activities you want the class to be doing in a social situation. Make sure you cover the different level ranges and the assumptions/style of game changes that occur over the level ranges...
  • Step 6. Identify what other non-combat activities you want the class to be doing over the different level ranges.
  • Step 7. Review combat, social, and other non-combat areas to make sure you have provided ways for players of the class to contribute to suitable degrees in each area at all levels. Some areas may have more than others, but you want to be sure to have at least some way to participate in this different areas of the game or else the phone games come out and players start to tune out.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe Ashiel has made the case in the past that if you are going to restrict a new player to a more martial class, you are better off using the Ranger instead of the Fighter. The Ranger starts off as a functional martial with some direction as to what type of fighting they will want to do, adds some class features the player can customize in that direction, while still not ruining the ability to contribute if they make poor choices. It has a decent skill list and a fair number of skill points to spend on them, with some class-based support to their skills. Later on, it adds a lower powered companion and fairly simple, thematic spells, to provide an introduction to those parts of the game. After playing a Ranger, the new player has been slowly introduced to a wide range of the different areas of the game, but not all at once. They are also easier to build a functioning character with low levels of system mastery than something like a Fighter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if there are two rules and one rule creates something that fits the CR guidelines, while the other produces nonsensical results, choose the second? That seems like blindly following the wrong set of rules because you saw someone else doing it rather than using a bit of common sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks like an incredible hidden gem. Thanks for the review Endzeitgeist. This one took me completely by surprise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want your game to be accessible to new players, then where confusing wordings/interactions of different portions of the rules or other such issues arise, you need to address these issues. If you are not interested in expanding your playerbase or making the game accessible to non-grognards, then you can just keep on keeping on.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I think I will implement both Kirth and Diego's fixes. They look good.
Not bad, but I'd still prefer an official fix.
Why do you need one so badly? We hardly ever had "official fixes" back in the day, and we managed to get by quite nicely, in fact judging from this board, better than today.

I imagine because some players are interested in making the game more accessible to newer players.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I tried to raise upthread, is that while common sense and experience with the game is great for all the long-time GMs, GMs and players new to the game do not have all the experience or calibration of common sense that allows them to identify what is disruptive and what is not disruptive. If you want your game to be accessible to new players... you might want to clean up landmines such as Simulacrum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.
The "community" needs to learn that it can help itself.

It can. No reasonable GM will allow it.

That doesn't change the fact that, by RAW, it is a possible outcome.

If it requires houseruling to fix, obviously it was broken.

Why not push for an official fix, eh? It won't hurt your game one way or another, and will help the game as a whole. Why gripe about it except to hear the sound of your own typing?

If we asked Paizo for an "official fix" for every possible spell, archetype, game effect that could possibly break a game, then we'd be asking for a FAQ the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There have been breakable things in the game since First Edition. However it was Third Edition with it's emphasis on "builds" and builder tools to serve it which opened up the floodgates. to the kind of nonsese we see here. The answer is not to try to build an incomprehensible list of fixes for excesses, it's for GM's to develop the common sense and discipline to simply say "NO!" to obvious crack monkey moves.

On the other hand, defaulting too much to Rule Zero ends up hurting the robustness of the Pathfinder ruleset. At some point, you end up with so much in the way of house rules and DM Fiat that the base rules aren't much more than a very loose set of guidelines. A bit of table variation is fine, but if every single game needs twenty pages of house rules plus lots of fiat rulings/bans during actual play...

Not to mention that the more time the GM needs to spend being the rules referee, the less time there is for actually playing the game, building the world, etc.

The problem with leaving all sorts of things in the game because they can be "rule zero'd" away is that it makes it much harder for a new group or new GMs to pick up the game and not hit all of the various landmines of broken or unbalanced rules. This is fine if you aren't planning on adding any new players to the game... but not so great if you are trying to make your game more accessible.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

They can if they take the feat.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is a martial ability more powerful than what is available to the class in the Core Rulebook. Under the balance paradigm as outlined by the Paizo design team in other threads, this means that the ability to rage cycle at earlier levels is something that should be removed or severely toned down to achieve the same end.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess, is many players come up with a character concept and how that character engages in combat. What they forget, is that they will not always be able to dictate the terms of the engagement and that their opponents will also want to control the terms of the fight.

The common sense part of gear selection, is recognizing that combat will not always go according to plan and to make sure you have equipment to help cover these scenarios. In this situation, asking yourself "what if the enemies try to stay out of reach or attack from a hard to reach/unreachable location?" leads to the fairly obvious response "I better find a way to hit them back even when I can't walk up to them".

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I recently made a post related to this issues as it relates to the Skill System. One of issues with the Skill system is most uses are firmly in the mundane level range, which generally the 1-6 and maybe a few in the heroic range (6-10 or so). The skill system starts to fall behind with what is possible outside of these levels and this means that characters that depend on skills for non-combat participation in the game start to become marginalized.

So, looking at the skills situation and how it doesn't manage to keep up with the magical capabilities at higher levels I was wondering if any thought had been put to the following.

Have specific skill rank requirements for certain tasks, and keep these requirements separate from the DC's.

For example, using the heal skill, you might have Raise Dead as per the Raise Dead spell, but requiring 5,000 gp in exotic medical supplies per attempt, as a possible thing doable with the skill provided you have at least 12 skill ranks. The DC for this task can be whatever the designer wants, but they need to have at least 12 skill ranks to attempt it. You can fiddle with the number of skill ranks required, but you'd generally need to decide when you want the different more powerful skill uses to come on line and design around that.

Under this system, you can keep the skill system relevant at the higher levels, while preventing people from pumping their skill checks and being able to perform deeds at levels divergent from their intended target level.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
3. Folks should recognize that there are some feats we expect to be common and should be pegged at the top of the power curve (or close to it). We expect to see a lot of people with Power Attack. Thats why its in the core rulebook. That is not to say other feats cannot be as good (or close to it), but if we are always putting out Feats (and other mechanics) that trump existing ones, we end up with power creep. Its a delicate balancing act, and not one that we always get right. Every rule builds on those that have come before and as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to foresee all the ramifications. Thats not meant to be an excuse, I just wanted to give folks an idea of what we have to deal with on a daily basis. Concerning this feat, we came to agree that it was pushing a bit to high above the base line. We pulled it back. We are looking to see if we went too far. Its clear to us that many of you think we have. We will take that into consideration going forward.
To quote Gandalf, "Hope is kindled!"
But no one will remember this the next time they feel like saying the design team doesn't listen, just like the don't remember the last time, or the time before that. :/

Nah, for me the larger concern I have with the future of the game is not this one instance of a nerf/buff to an ability, but the comprehension and competency of the people designing the game mechanics and system behind the particular instance. The errata of Crane Wing broke or made very ambiguous a follow-up feat in the same feat chain. This speaks to me of either poor QA/QC on the mechanics side of things, or poor QA/QC on the wording and review of the errata and it's knock-on effects. This isn't the only time this has happened in the last year either.

The second concern, is when Crane Wing is compared to other similar capabilities and their effectiveness in a normal game. If they were to have limited Crane Wing to a # of times per day, or made some other modifications that toned it down, but didn't render it useless in a significant number of instances it might be used, then I would have been reassured. That they instead pretty much removed it as a useful option while not touching other abilities like Snake Style, Mirror Image, and other methods of preventing a character from being struck, speaks to me of this being a knee-jerk or tunnel-vision limited reaction rather than a thorough review of the design space and concept behind the feat.

To conclude, the way this was handled and the stated reasoning behind the changes causes me to doubt the competency of the design team, which makes me, and probably others more hesitant to purchase additional rules/mechanics material from Paizo.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread will be an excellent one to necro a year from now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a

Normal: This is how the rules normally work.

Frequently, but not nearly always. Its rather unevenly applied, which has always bothered me to be honest, but that is a subject for another day.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

When you are issuing an errata for a feat that is changing how it functions, would it not be an appropriate time to add such a line?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
2. The Crane Riposte feat still works just fine. It ALLOWS you to take an AoO in that specific circumstance (even though you normally could not). It could perhaps use a callout specifically to that effect, but the wording is pretty plain.
Not one person who isn't you has said in any of the threads on this errata that I've read that they thought Crane Riposte still worked. If the wording is plain it's plainly not saying what you intended.

Feats allow you to do things that you could not otherwise do based on the rules all the time. That is the entire point of them. Like I said, it could probably have used a parenthetical stating "(even though you could not normally do so)", but I think the wording is still plain enough.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Don't feats that let you break the rules (not an addition or expansion) have a

Normal: This is how the rules normally work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the important thing to remember is that people who push the caster vs. martial disparity are people with agendas. It's also important to remember that magic is supposed to be better and balance is done under this paradigm. Keeping these facts in mind, the only surprising thing is that an overpowered option for monks has lasted as long as it has. I feel that the nerfing to the point of uselessness and the breaking of Crane Riposte is the correct course of action and should not be a surprise to any forumgoers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes to both. They are conversions to PFRPG with a bit of input from James Jacobs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other prestige classes that are interesting and you might be able to build something fun with:

Gutter Stalker

Dinosaur Cultist

I like the Test of Meat part.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Where can I find this Deathseeker class you speak of?

It's a prestige class you can find here Deathseeker

The ability is only available at level 17 at the earliest, so it's a capstone "you win the game" type ability. This isn't something that's going to wreck campaigns, but instead pull a partial victory out of the flames of failure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Level 1 Commoner wrote:
Do you really ask that? Would you allow a "Screw-your-campaign"-at-will-button in a game of yours?
Last Resort (Su) wrote:
At 10th level, when the deathseeker witnesses an event that will undoubtly plunge an otherwise neutral or good aligned world towards evil, the deathseeker may activate this ability. If the Gamemaster agrees that there is no other way to prevent this catastrophe, the immediate 3 square mile radius, including the deathseeker and all beings and objects in this area, is transported to an inescapable demiplane where they remain for no less than 1,000 years. Nothing is immune to this effect, not even artifacts. As this is a potentially campaign-ending power, the Gamemaster may adjudicate when this power may be used, or if it can be used at all. The Gamemaster may optionally increase or decrease the area of effect as needed. The Gamemaster may provide some means of escape for any good or neutral aligned non-kval who become trapped on the resulting demiplane at his discretion.

I've bolded the sections that allow Gamemaster control to prevent it from ruining the campaign. From what is written, this can really only be used when the only other option is failure. Otherwise the Gamemaster can say "no, there are other options available so I am not allowing the power to work". It's a narrative power, for those situations when the party has failed to defeat the evil they are fighting, so they seal it away for a thousand years. This can allow an entirely new campaign to deal with the consequences of this action, rather than being left with a ruined campaign world due to the failure of the PCs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I'd love to see someone build a Deathseeker link. The level 10 power sounds like a fair but of fun if you can pull it off in an appropriate moment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This strikes me as a "are magical roofies wrong?" type question.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a modified version of the Wish Economy discussed during the alpha phase of Pathfinder. Lots of interesting discussion. Some of it, as you've pointed out is less relevant due to the changes to Wish, but some of the other issues with regards to the capability of players to acquire wealth beyond that expected by their level still exist. Kirthfinder has a method of dealing with this, but it's an issue for how the adventure world and the types of adventures that can occur.

High Level Economics

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
richard develyn wrote:
Economics is indeed one of those things that I struggle with in the fantasy world, so if you want to post up a link to your blog entry please do.

Sure thing. Economics in Pathfinder and D&D. It basically explains how wealth can work based on the mechanics. It derives conclusions from things that are mechanically set in the rules, such as the amount of money that you can make with skills, different forms of currency (such as with trade goods), and discusses how nobles/rulers/governments can acquire their money and where it can then turn around and go. Finally it explains how the traffic of magic items and spellcasting services fit into the world and how it's really not so improbable.

Your link is broken.

Magic's effects on life in a fantasy world

Economics in Pathfinder

Seem to be the ones you were referring to.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Mikaze's in-character description of Antagonize and it's effects:

Mikaze wrote:

I try not to think about that night.

We were hired to defend this small village on the border from this warlord that had been tearing across human and orc territory alike. We were expecting trouble, eventually, but we had handled petty orc warlords before.

The villagers were as ready as they could be as well. They had lived their entire lives near the border, they knew the risks. And they did everything we suggested to bolster their defenses.

But then they actually came. Everything went to hell.

These hulking brutes just stomped forth out of the night, shouting vile insults and horrific threats. They made no attempt to hide themselves. They practically announced their presense.

We might have actually been able to halt their advance, but the villagers...gods.

They started to run towards the buildings we had prepared as shelter. But as they ran, as they heard the calls of those orcs....I swear most of them were half-orcs...they stopped in their tracks. Men. Women. Children. The old. They all just turned around and charged towards their own deaths.

Most of them didn't have any weapons. Those that did were hardly of any real quality. But still they turned and charged right into the midst of the enemy to be cut down.

There was an old woman...I never even learned her name....she always seemed to be bringing us food and thanking us for our work. So sweet natured and I never learned her name. I remember calling out to her to run towards safety. She just turned and ran into some orc's axe.

Faris, our mage....he couldn't do anything. Everything he had planned fell apart in an instant when the villagers ran into the orcs' midst. Almost everything he could have done would have killed the people were were there to protect. So he ran.

He didn't get very far. An orc stepped out from behind a house, holding a struggling child in one arm. The brute shouted that he would use Faris' skull as a bowl.

Faris seemed as if he was about to torch the orc right then and there. I saw him glance at the child. He just charged. Faris was a good man...he deserved better.

It all happened so fast...we began to pull back. It wasn't a fight to protect the village anymore. We were all just running, to save as many lives as we could. I was carrying a man I had to knock unconcious to keep him from running towards his own death. He had been weeping, screaming for the wife and children cut down before his own eyes.

I ran past Phaera. She was kneeling over Revik, trying to stop his bleeding. The man was dying, but she had never been one to leave behind those in need. A more loving soul I had never known. She was practically her goddess made flesh by my account.

She was just about to whisper her prayers when one of the bastards called out to her, laughing at her attempts and promising as painful a death as those we had witnessed in the dozens already that hour.

I screamed at her to cover her ears. To run with me.

I don't know if it was fear or rage in her eyes as she stood and ran to her death.

I try not to think about it.

I hear the war's getting closer still. I really thought things would turn around once we started making those muffling helmets for our soldiers. That brought new problems all on its own, but then the bastards learned how to use body and sign language.

Wizards're saying that whatever is happening, it isn't magic. People are just going crazy whenever that horde shows up.

My advice? Keep moving west. Don't look back. Don't listen. Just keep running.

Me? I'm going to stay right here and drink myself blind and deaf. At least then...I might be able to die as myself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Sleep Hex is a world changing ability. It is however, one of many world changing abilities, that while it may be appropriate for an encounter, have vast world-changing effects outside of single encounters. Look at Antagonize (Intimidate) for another example. Mikaze did a great in-character demonstration of what Antagonize does to the game world.

Mending, Purify Food/Drink, Detect Poison, Read Magic, and similar also have world changing effects, that may not be obvious at first, but have the potential to transform the game world and attitudes/expectations of its inhabitants to something that many players may not recognize.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Insert makeup related joke*

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A few ideas for this class, borrowed from The Investigator class:

Crime Scene Analysis (Ex): The investigator can
get a feel for what sort of intelligence committed
a crime (or other specific act that leaves behind
evidence, such as who set up an abandoned camp,
or sewed together a flesh golem, or created a
specific forgery, or performed a blood ritual) by
careful examination of the scene of the action and
interviews with witnesses and locals. This allows
the investigator to make a Sense Motive roll (the
GM should make the check in private) to learn
things about whoever committed the deed being

The investigator must study the site of a deed
for 1d6 x 10 minutes before a check can be made.
The DC of the Sense Motive check is 10 + the CR of
the perpetrator (or of the highest-level perpetrator
for deeds committed by a group). A successful check
allows the investigator to determine the number of
perpetrators, and the creature type of the highest-
CR member.

Like a Knowledge skill used to gain information
about a creature, for every 5 points by which this
check’s result exceeds the DC, the investigator
learns another piece of useful information about
the perpetrators. Potential information the GM
may choose to hand out includes the total
number of perpetrators (if there are more than
one), gender, specific race, whether or not the
perpetrator is a spellcaster, Strength modifier,
Dexterity modifier, specific class, broad motive
(greed, personal vengeance, contract killing,
etc.), and likely future targets.

An investigator may only make a single Sense
Motive check at a given scene, and may not
take 10 or take 20. However, if an investigator
analyzes additional scenes committed by the
same perpetrator, a successful Sense Motive
check for analysis reveals this, and additional
information gained for every 5 points by
which this check’s result exceeds the DC is new
information about the perpetrator. As a result,
each new crime scene grants the investigator a
new opportunity to learn about the perpetrator.

In Your Head (Ex): When the investigator
is tracking down a perpetrator, he comes to
understand his foe’s actions and motivations so
well that he gains bonuses when opposing the
perpetrator. Once a great detective has made a
successful Sense Motive check to use the Crime
Scene Analysis talent against a perpetrator, he
treats that perpetrator as if it was a favored
enemy (as the ranger class), using the great
detective’s class level as his ranger level. The
investigator can only be in the head of a single
creature at a time. If he successfully uses Crime
Scene Analysis against a second perpetrator,
he must decide whether to retain his previous
foe as a favored enemy, or switch to the new

Contemplative Trance (Ex): The investigator can, once per day, spend a 1d6 x 10
minutes in uninterrupted meditation to allow
her mind to sort through the clues and facts
she has gathered and look for patterns and
connections not visible to the conscious mind.
The contemplative trance acts as a divination
with 90% effectiveness. As an extraordinary
ability, the contemplative trance is limited
to information a mortal could conceivably know or deduce (though it is not limited to
knowledge a mortal could reasonably acquire --
only information it is impossible for any mortal
anywhere to know is beyond the reach of the
ultimate deduction), and is not subject to spells
or effects that block divination magic.

Lethal Blow (Ex): The investigator’s
experience with mortal wounds and knowledge
of anatomy give her a keen understanding of where best to land blows in combat. The investigator gains a 1d6 sneak attack (as the rogue
class ability), and a +2 bonus to attack rolls
made to confirm critical hits. These bonuses
increase to +2d6 sneak attack and +4 to confirm
critical hits at 8th level, and +3d6 sneak attack
and +6 to confirm critical hits at 16th level.

Studied Attacks (Ex): An investigator may use
her vast knowledge of creatures, as well as her
understanding of her own capabilities, to plan
attacks to be most effective against specific foes.
As a standard action, the investigator may make
an appropriate Knowledge check against a creature
with a DC of 15 + the creature’s CR. If she succeeds,
she may grant herself a circumstance bonus of
+1/4 levels to hp damage she deals to the creature
with any attack she makes that normally deals hp
damage. If facing multiple creatures of the same
type who have identical defenses, this bonus applies
against all of them. The bonus lasts for 1 round/
investigator level. The investigator cannot benefit
from this ability against more than one foe (or
set of identical foes) at a time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There may be others, but the one(s) that have a triangle in their logo I'm aware of are:

Dreamscarred Press
Necromancers of the Northwest

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that confuses me about the rogue, is why they didn't just decide to publish stronger Talents and Advanced Talents. The basic class structure seems to be pretty good, it's just the abilities aren't all that great. The Barbarian saw a nice upgrade in the APG from the new rage powers, and the rogue has a similar structure there already that makes it easy to add new powers to the class.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

So, the conceptual question comes up: What's the point of a new class which is worse than the three classes in whose spot it tries to find its place? What is its role, compared to those three classes? Until this concept is really established, it is difficult to give effective feedback, outside of raw data if the class was able to hit things enough.

Isn't that something that should be checked with statistical models and not with annecdotal tests? Otherwise, you become more susceptible to streaky results.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kaisos Erranon wrote:

If 10 classes is too many for all-new mechanics, why do 10 classes to begin with?

To be frank, even with reusing older mechanics it doesn't feel like a great idea, a lot of these are conceptually... weak.
I'm not alone in thinking that most of these would have been better off as archetypes, so wouldn't it have been better to make a book about those instead?
Most of these are not DOABLE as archtypes. You can't give cleric features to a fighter as an archetype, or the other way around. It's more drastic change than what an archetype is supposed to address. These are essentially a new class of archetype if you must use that term, an archetype to address certain classic multi-class models, such as the fighter/cleric, sorceer/wizard, druid/ranger, fighter/assassin, etc.

It'd be cool if they decided to create a multiclass archetype system that allows players to blend different classes with the right multiclass archetype.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, if Paizo is interested in multi-class hybrids, have they considered the Multi-class Archetypes.

It seems to me that this system would allow for pretty much all the multiclass combos offered in this playtest so far, and also be much easier to expand upon in the future. This would allow Paizo to add more hybrids in the future with less effort and also not obsolete the existing multi-class system. Plus, everyone loves archetypes. Seems like a win-win. You can even take the existing class hybrids and adapt them to multi-class archetypes with minimal work.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It strikes me that if there are problems with the multiclassing system, it would be better to fix those problems instead of continually creating work-arounds and band-aids. If your new system adds something to the game beyond a work-around, then great. But otherwise, you'd be better off in the long run fixing the problems that cause the work-arounds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

World of Xoth I may have been mistaken on. It looks like the semi-campaign guide is for Sword and Sorcery not PFRPG.

Shadowlands has a conversion guide and a free module

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I went and did the obvious and looked at Endzeitgeist's website under "Campaign Settings". Here are the ones that have been missed so far in this thread:

Realms of Twilight
World of Xoth
Coliseum Morpheuon
Obsidium Apocalypse
Kingdoms of Legend

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what about the stipulation:

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cheat on or fail to fulfill any of the criteria, and you, in turn, stop saying they're fine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could go the route of Catholics and have lots of saints to deal with the aspects of the portfolios. Or the Hindu method of having multiple deities which are actually just aspects of a single deity.

What in particular are you looking for guidance? Interaction between the pantheons? Ways of allowing clerics without giving them too many domains. Relations between worshipers of different pantheons?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Being tied to a desk job sucks. I know from experience.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, those are some really glowing rules. It looks like Legendary Games has put out a superior alternative/supplement for both the kingdom rules and the mass combat rules from Ultimate Campaign. I hope when others, such as Paizo use these rules in the future, they make use of the updates from Legendary Games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

Good guys get immortality fom lvl 20 wizard or oracle but can still be killed, just not killed by age. Liches are immortal but can still have their bodies killed, but their bodies will keep coming back as long as tbeir pythantrophy isn't destroyed.

Lvl 20 monk gets a better deal than everybody as in they do not age and cannot be killed by age. Yes tbey can be killed but they will always respawn somewhere 24 hours later. You can't stop it like u can a lich
What are you talking about? Monks don't respawn. You have to resurrect the like everyone else. Liches get a get out of jail free card (doubly so since they can hide their phylactery anywhere, including some other plane, or anywhere in the universe).

I believe it is a reference to the Monk of Four Winds Archetype:

Immortality (Su): At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once. This ability replaces perfect self.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to get at. I was interested in hearing more from Jess, since her earlier post just gave an outline of the the idea and didn't get into specifics.

1 to 50 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.