|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts 
Are you also thinking that if a normal Druid prepares 1 casting of Summon Nature's Ally, she can't use Spontaneous Casting for the rest of her spell slots? The wording is the same. "A druid can channel stored spell energy into summoning spells that she hasn't prepared ahead of time." This is a good point. The wording is similar for clerical spontaneous casting as well. Thanks for clarifying that. The confusion I had springs from the fact that a cleric or druid will almost never prepare a Cure spell or a Summon Nature's Ally spell in a regular slot. Why would she, when she can cast it spontaneously? Moreover, Cure spells and Summon spells are very much in demand, with utility at pretty much every encounter. It would be redundant to prep a spell you can cast spontaneously. So by the common interpretation, the urban druid can spontaneously cast spells of generally more limited utility that she has already prepped once per day each in her domain slots. Note that there can be no Fire Domain Urban Druid. She is limited to: Charm, Community, Knowledge, Nobility, Protection, Repose, Rune, or Weather. Take the Knowledge Domain Urban Druid. How often is she going to want to cast Comprehend Languages? She already has it prepped once. Being able to swap out her other first level spells for Comp Langs seems underwhelming. Some of the other domains are more compelling at some levels, even less so at others. Charm is not bad, with Suggestion, Charm Monster, etc, but useless against undead, vermin, mindless things, etc. How often is a Community Urban Druid really going to Shield Other? A Nobility Urban Druid is going to want to cast Enthrall and Discern Lies all the time, sure. I understand the interpretation, but I have to say that having heard it, it seems like the Urban Druid's spontaneous casting is a real step backward from the usual druid casting Summon Nature's Ally spells at will. First, it is redundant to be able to cast spells you already have prepped in your domain slots. And second, the core ability to spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally is more potent and generally useful than the ability to cast Domain spells you have already prepped each day.
I appreciate your interpretation, but the rule does not say she can cast domain spells she has prepared. It says, "domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time." Why does it say that? Why? Is it an error?
In GoG, they give new favored class options for goblins. For rogues they get a free rank (not point) to either ride or Stealth. At first glance I am like how is this different then a free skill point but I looked at the wording and figure it be away to get past the rank equal to or less than level rule. Personally, I would interpret this to mean that by putting free ranks in Ride or Stealth, your goblin rogue frees up ranks to put in other skills. I would not allow you to beat the "rank must be equal to or less than character level" rule.
One of my players plays a Gnome Paladin (lvl 9) with a medium size boar mount. He plans to have reduce person cast permanently on his Gnome. Will this affect his ability to ride his mount? The only problem I can see, per the Ride rules, is that he will not be able to use the fast mount and fast dismount aspects of the ride skill: You can't use fast mount or dismount on a mount more than one size category larger than yourself.
Am I missing something here? Based on the rules for being prone, you have a good point. The author of the feat wrote on 29 Jul 11: I wrote that feat. In my turnover it gave a small (I think +1 or +2) bonus to attack rolls when shooting from prone. So looks to me like the feat got nerfed between conception and publication, and needs some kind of revision. It is useless to a crossbow shooter as written.
You are reading to much into that line (certainly as it's the first line of a description, thus often fluff). Huh? Thanks for answering, but that's just not true. Look at the other first lines of other Urban Druid abilities: An urban druid may not select an animal companion ... At 2nd level, an urban druid adds Diplomacy, Knowledge (history), Knowledge (local), and Knowledge (nobility) skills to her list of class skills ... At 4th level, an urban druid gains a +2 bonus on saves vs. divinations and enchantments ... etc None of the first lines are fluff. Are you saying the rules don't matter, or they are wrong? It specifically says you can spontaneously cast domain spells that you have NOT prepared ahead of time. An urban druid preps her domain spells ahead of time, so what non-prepped domain spells can she spontaneously cast?
I have a question about this rule: "Spontaneous Casting: An urban druid can channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time. She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any domain spell of the same level or lower. This ability replaces the ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally spells." An urban druid has only one domain. The vast majority of the time, the druid will prepare each of the domain spells to which she has access. A 5th level Urban Druid with the Knowledge Domain will prep comprehend languages, detect thoughts, and speak with dead. The question is, she can "channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time." But she HAS prepared comprehend languages, detect thoughts, and speak with dead. So what "domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time" can she cast spontaneously? The rules say, "any domain spell of the same level or lower." Chosen from what domains?
Dave Gillam says, "Unfortunately, when I look at published adventures, AP, and the other options, its almost universal; clerics have one purpose: healbot. Even buffbot is only if you have a party that manages to avoid getting routinely slaughtered every fight. So, while it may be possible to create other types of clerics by the rules, it isnt practical." I suggest that if you make a non-healbot cleric ... maybe a diplomacy/enchanter cleric, or a tank/melee cleric, or any other build that de-emphasizes healing ... and if you are dying every adventure, then perhaps you need to talk to the DM, because clearly he is selecting / writing the wrong adventures. Find a DM, I suggest, who takes PC capabilities in mind when crafting what the heck it is you do every Friday night. A party consisting entirely of rogues and bards should be just fine if the DM makes the right kind of adventures. Honestly, given the many many rogue and bard specialization options in the APG, I think a campaign like that, limited to just rogues and bards, would be extremely enjoyable.
The urban druid has a very interesting ability. "Spontaneous Casting: An urban druid can channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time. She can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast any domain spell of the same level or lower. This ability replaces the ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally spells." The interesting part comes from interpretation. Under the strictest interpretation, the urban druid can cast "any domain spell" in place of a prepared spell. The rules do not restrict the PC to domains they have, for example, or to druid prepared spells. For example, a urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could spontaneously cast a Chaos Hammer spell in place of a prepared Dimension Door, because the Chaos Hammer is "any domain spell" and the dim door is "a prepared spell." If you limit "any domain spell" to "any spell from a known domain," then the urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could still spontaneously cast a 4th level spell from the druid's one domain in place of a wizard spell. If you limit "any domain spell" to "any spell from a known domain that the PC can cast," then the urban druid 1 / wiz 7 could still spontaneously cast a 1st level spell from the druid's one domain in place of a wizard spell. Even under this restricted interpretation, an urban druid 1 / cleric 7 could spontaneously cast all his cleric domain spells. If you limit "a prepared spell" to "a prepared druid spell" then what about casting cleric domain spells using druid prepared spell slots? But if you went to the player who tried this and told him, "This only applies to spontaneously casting druidic domain spells only in place of a prepared druid spell" ... well, would the player's howls of outrage be unjustified, as he cried, "The rules say ANY Domain Spell, ANY! How can 'ANY' mean 'from a single known druidic domain'? How can 'a prepared spell' mean 'a prepared druid spell'?" How would you interpret the urban druid's Spontaneous Casting ability, and what would you say to a player who wants to use a literal interpretation of the rules as written?
As a longtime wemic fan (My wemic site has been online for more than 10 years), here are some ideas for you. First off, I prefer "liontaur." I've also seen cat-taur (used in the series by Stephen Brust), felitaur, leonid, and similar constructions. For exotic authenticity, try "urmahlullu," the actual name of ancient Assyrian wemics. For those concerned about copyright, although WotC owns "wemic," fantastical centaur creatures that are lions from the waist down have appeared not only in ancient Assyrian art but also in Middle Ages English heraldry. An online 50-strong play-by-post Pathfinder community called the Wold uses liontaurs, centaurs, and minotaurs as player character races that have no racial hit dice and no "level adjustment." Also consider that some lamia in D&D are very liontaur-like. Some useful links: Centauroid creature on Wikipedia Pathfinderized Liontaurs in the Wold The Wold in general (always welcoming new players) My Wemic Site (very sadly in need of renovation ... come back in January!)
Seems to me that this is an idea that increases player character power and makes the game more complex. But I think that we should not be giving more power to players -- the alpha rules already do that. I think we should not be making the game more complex -- simple systems are more elegant. ::laughs and puts on old curmudgeon hat:: I remember back in the day when if you needed a +2 weapon to hit a spectre or a fire elemental, you had ZERO chance to do damage with a lesser weapon. At low level, if we had to fight a wererat, the one guy with a silver dagger got to fight, and the rest of us slung silver pieces at it, because there was no sweet sweet damage reduction -- if all you had was a plain sword, you could not touch that rat! And if you got hit by poison, you saved or DIED! First level light spell in your eyes? BLINDED! Nonlethal damage against trolls? NO SUCH THING! We fought hard odds against a deck stacked to screw us, and we liked it! You namby pamby kids these days! 'Boo hoo! My 50% miss chance is too hard! I roll bad!' Cry me a time machine, so I can take you all back to when real heroes duked it out with truly deadly foes, and still won! Or went down swinging! ::takes off old curmudgeon hat, hoping everyone else is laughing too:: Seriously, what's wrong with a simple 50% miss chance? Mechanistically, trading a 50% miss chance for a simple half damage does not increase player power, nor is it more complex. That's an idea we could use. Still. in the interest of backward compatibility and keeping the new game like the existing one, I'm still not convinced that half damage is an improvement over a 50% miss chance.
I am not sure I understand -- and please forgive a newbie to these boards -- can someone explain to me WHY we would want to add the ability to make iterative attacks and more than a five-foot step? How does this improve the game? Does it make the game simpler? more balanced? more realistic? more backwards compatible? What are the guiding goals that we use here to evaluate the reason for making a change? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm guessing that if we can offer the Powers That Be a solid REASON for a particular change, maybe they will be more likely to adopt it. The proposed addition is nifty because it opens up more combat options for PCs with higher BABs? That to me seems mostly to increase character power, and the Alpha rules already do plenty of that. Are "Add more options for combat maneuverability" and "Boost PC power" goals that we should pursue?
Ähmm... Cayzle? Have you actually READ the Pathfinder Alpha Release? LOLOL! I really have, but clearly not well enough! I will be rereading and studying more! Thanks for the friendly chiding! I started off recently with my own thoughts and essays on how *I* would revamp D&D 3E were I doing so. But then I figured that (A) my ideas were MUCH more likely to be adopted if I posted them here rather than just on my own blog, and (B) many smart people here are thinking the same things I am. So I'm jumping in here feet first. Please accept my apologies as I get my toes wet.
LOL Again! Okay, I'll back off. But my links to my blog are directly relevant to my posts. These are the exact same ideas I've been having on my own, and I'm excited to see others posting the same one. Still, sorry for being too forward! Can I ask you all something? How much of this posting in the New Rules actually has a chance of being adopted in Pathfinder? Has this stuff all been set in stone already, or is there a chance that our ideas might get into the final rules?
Of course, you can always take a level of cleric with Luck domain and just reroll your hit die if need be when you level up. Totally worth it for you hit point monsters out there. :-)
This is a neat idea, but problematic. What to do about bards, rangers, paladins, assassins, and other classes with non-standard spell progressions? Now, I am the first to agree that multiclassed spellcasters need to be fixed. But my suggestion is that all caster levels stack among all classes, and that caster level be used to set spell DC, not spell level. You can read more about that on my blog and at this thread. See, there has to be a trade off. I don;t think that multiclassed casters should get access to high level spell slots. That's what single class casters have going for them. A multi-class caster should have lots of effective low level spells. A single-class caster should be the only one with access to the most amazing and potent high level spells. IMNSHO.
Making fractional base attack bonus and base saving throws as a norm. Meaning a wizard gets 1/2 BAB, a cleric gets 3/4 and a fighter gets 1. This way a Cleric 2/Monk 2 would have BAB 3 instead of the petty BAB 2. Thank you! Thank you! This is a key idea that I also am pushing! If Every Level Is Equal -- as D&D promises in its design but fails to fully deliver, as in this example -- then why do some levels give you a +1 and others a +0? This idea -- of a fractional BUT CONSTANT add every level -- is an essential part of ensuring that all levels are equal! We need less granularity in D&D. I outline this exact idea in my blog. And denying multiple +2 bonuses on saves is just a good thing. On first level you get +2 on good saves, as well as +1/2, and +1/3 on poor. Here I agree totally with your goal, but not your implementation. First off, you have to recognize that the First Level Bump throws saves out of whack. We have to Move the Bump, like Kaisoku was saying above. Then, we have to smooth out the granularity of the resultant save progression. In fact, good saves progress at a rate of +1 every other level, and poor ones at a rate of +1 every four levels. So good saves should improve at +0.5 per level, and poor ones at +0.25 per level. Now, understand that we have to fight a pitched battle against the anti-fraction folk out there to get this idea adopted. To do that, we really have to keep it simple. So let's keep it to halves and quarters, not only because they more accurately reflect the intended progressions, but because they are simple to keep in your head. No need to use thirds! :-).
The idea is as follows: XP gained are split between the classes of a multiclass character, and recorded separately in order to level up the character in each class separately. This determines the class level in each class the character trains in. The character level is calculated by the total XP the character gained, and is determined from the Level/XP chart as well. A problem I have with this is one of bookkeeping. What if one has five or six classes? -- and there is nothing under the rules to say you should not. Sucks to have to track five or six xp totals. But a larger problem I have is that this is inelegant. See, the elegance of 3E D&D is the central idea that the quantum unit of character building is the level. By piling level upon level, you can create a wide array of different characters. To make this work, a fundamental idea is that All Levels Are Equal. A single common xp total, a single common base attack bonus, a single common set of saving throws, and -- in one of my proposals -- a single common caster level unite these building block levels, and each level makes a contribution to the total. Your suggestion reminds me of first edition. A magic-user 5 / cleric 5 would use whatever was better of the two class's saves and attacks. I think the 3E way is better.
Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. One of the beautiful and elegant parts of 3E D&D is level equivalence, that is, the idea that All Levels Are Equal. Any combination of classes should be allowed, and game play requires a fairly smooth and easy transition in taking a level of one class rather than another. No, this is not realistic, but neither are "classes" and "levels" -- these are game mechanics designed for flexibility, balance, and play, not for realistic simulation. However, if you are unhappy with a quick transition when a new level is gained -- famously and hilariously skewered by the Order of the Stick -- then I suggest using the optional rule for training found in the DMG. I hope this honest disagreement in philosophy (game play trumps simulation) does not offend anyone. Certainly there is room for disagreement, and for different philosophies, under the wide D&D umbrella.
So, what we can do is separate what would be considered basic to the class for taking one level in it, and what would be considered "background training/knowledge". HOORAY! I really really agree with the fundamental of this idea! The game assumes, presumably for survivability reasons, that characters need a First Level Bump -- by maxing your first hit die, by getting four times normal skill points, and by getting better saves at level 1 than at any other level. But this is bad design because a prime design goal of D&D is that All Levels Are Equal. When a third level fighter takes a level of monk, she should not get a +2 bonus to all three saves! That's the first level bump, and a 4th level PC should not get it. Similarly, a fighter1/rogue1 should have the same skill ranks and hit points as a rogue1/fighter1. We can achieve these design goals by MOVING the First Level Bump So I abso-frickin-lutely agree with Kaisoku's idea -- we need to take the bump away from classes and give it somewhere else! Kaisoku's excellent idea is to give it to a "Background." That works for me. However, this adds another step to character creation and adds a mechanic. My idea is to put the bump into Race! For example, all elves gain +2 hit points, +1 to Will and Reflex saves, and 15 skill ranks to be divided among class and cross-class skills ... with elves given a set of class skills for that purpose, and a top limit of three ranks per skill. Dwarves might get +6 hit points, +2 on Fort saves, and 6 skill ranks. For more on this idea, check out [url="http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book068.html"]my blog[/link].
Why would a fighter contribute +1 caster level per three class levels while a cleric also contributes +1 per three class levels? And why should your cleric levels contribute to your wizard levels, for example, but not vice versa? You do not need a feat for your wizard levels to contribute to your fighter's BAB. And note that the wizard's contribution is +1 to BAB per every two class levels. If a wizard level contributes +0.5 per level to fighting, then a fighter level should contribute +0.5 to casting. This is the essence of my proposal -- not a feat that arbitrarily boosts one class's casting. Rather, that all classes contribute to caster level, the same way that all levels contribute to fighting and to making saves. See my blog post for more.
I think that the idea of tying save DCs to caster level, not spell level, is an exceptionally good one -- for the sake of multiclass casters, primarily. For a single class caster, this makes low level spells more useful. A Grease or a Glitterdust becomes effective against foes with god saves. So it is a power booster for casters. But that is not what recommends it. It is also a return to the earlier editions of the game, insofar as making a "save vs spell" did not vary with spell level. But aside from a perhaps debatable return to tradition, this is also not what recommends it. The value to this rule is its potential to help multiclass casters. What if a character's caster level is not a value locked into a particular class? What if one's caster level were the sum of all caster levels from all classes? For example, a cleric3/wizard3 would have a caster level of 6. A druid5/bard4/assassin10 would have caster level 19. Combined with the rule that spell DC is 8 + half caster level + ability score mod + adjustments, now the multiclass caster, although penalized by a lack of high level spells, at least can cast his low level spells effectively. Of course, caster level still would be used for all the usual purposes, especially determining variable effects like range, duration, damage, etc. And for dispel checks, spell penetration, etc. And here too, stacking caster levels puts the multiclassed caster on par with other casters. Now the trade-off as a multiclassed caster is to gain a large variety of spells and a large number of low level spells but to lose access to high level spells. I have another idea on this as well. Even if you are a wizard, your levels stack with your other classes to boost your BAB. Granted, wizard levels stack at half value compared with fighter levels, but they stack nonetheless. I propose that all classes include a caster level component. Non-casters (barbarians, rogues, fighters, etc) contribute +0.5 caster levels per class level; poor casters (rangers, paladins, dragon disciples, etc) contribute +0.75 caster levels per class level; and good casters (bards, druids, wizards, etc) contribute one for one. This also gives some benefit to multiclass casters who take non-caster levels. By the way, I would give monks a +1 caster level per class level progression, and tie monk special ability saves to caster level.
Good stuff. I agree 100%! We need to adopt and embrace easy fractions (quarters and halves) because using +1s and +0s leads to granularity and the problem that some levels are more useful than others. Take level 5. At level 5, because of the pattern of save and BAB advancement, no PC gets any save bonus at all, and PCs with average and poor BAB advancement gain nothing there either! But level 6! Woohoo! Every class gets +1 on all three saves and +1 BAB! That makes level 6 more useful than level 5! All other things being equal, a multiclassing player sees NO reason to take five levels in a class unless she intends to go on to take level 6. Of course, all things are not equal. Getting level 3 spells at level 5, to cite just one example, makes level 5 a good level. But not for bards and sorcerers. For them, level 5 sucks! But that betrays the promise and design goal of D&D that All Levels Are Equal. For BAB, I would advance BAB by +1 per level for classes with good attacks, by +0.75 per level for classes with average attacks, and by +0.5 per level for classes with weak attacks. If you want to read more along this line, visit my blog
The elegance and beauty of 3E multiclassing comes from the design philosophy and goal that All Levels Are Equal. That is, since you can create a character by taking any number of classes, and any number of levels, and since a design goal of D&D is that all characters of the same character level should be approximately balanced in power, then it should not matter if you are a fighter5 or a ranger1/barbarian1/rogue1/mage1/cleric1. But of course, it DOES matter, per the RAW, because the rules do not fulfill the goal. In actual play, a very multiclassed character's saving throws are out of whack, as cp's example shows. And Pathfinder does not fix what is broken about the way the rules do not conform to the All Levels Are Equal philosophy. In the RAW and in Pathfinder, saves at first level have a special First Level Bump. So if you take enough level 1s in diverse classes, you get the First Level Bump too many times. The First Level Bump is intended to improve the survivability of first level characters. We also see the Bump in max hit points and quadruple skill points for first level PCs. But the rules have managed to keep the Bump to just first level for max hp and quad skills by fiat (an inelegant solution, but that's another post). For Pathfinder, I think a better solution is to Move the Bump and Use Fractions. MOVE THE BUMP. I'm talking here about the +2 on saves given at first level. A class with one good save gets a total +2 on saves (Fort+Will+Refx) at first level, but on average gains only +1 per level at each following level. A class with two good saves gets a +4 at level 1 but has on average +1.25 at each following level. A class with three good saves gets a +6 at first level but on average gains only +1.5 per level. If we need a bump at first level, then we must find a way to grant it without allowing it to be taken repeatedly by multiclassers. One way would be by fiat, that is, by a rule that something applies only at first level. For example: "At first level only, your base save bonus is doubled." But that still leaves us with the problem that we want to ensure All Levels Are Equal. If we just double the saves at level 1, then classes with more god saves still benefit disproportionately. Instead, my suggestion is that we Move the Bump. Race is something that is picked only once, and at first level. If we want a bump, then add it to race. For example, maybe every race has an extra +2 on certain saves. Maybe elves get +1 on Will and Reflex. Dwarves get +2 on Fort. Humans can chose to put their +2 or +1/+1 wherever they want. One human PC might go with +2 Reflex; another +1 each on Will and Fort. Thus, first level characters still get the bump. AND multiclass characters do not get the benefit of too many +2s by taking lots of first levels. USE FRACTIONS. We need to not be shy about using halves and quarters! The math is not hard! And the alternative is the absurd example that cp gives above. I propose that classes with good saves advance the good save by +0.5 every level. Classes with poor saves advance the poor save by +0.25 every level. Fractions of 0.25 round down; fractions of 0.5 and 0.75 round up. So Moving the Bump and Using Fractions, the first 10 levels of ranger would look like this: Level........Will........Reflex........Fort
After rounding, like this: Level........Will......Reflex......Fort
When you multiclass conventionally, the granularity, the bumpiness, of the current non-fractional system creates artifacts like the Will +0 that cp has for a relatively high level PC. But the beauty of this solution is that lacking that granularity, you also lose the artifacts created by adding in too many +0s and not enough +1s. That's because, with my suggestion, we come closer to the design goal that All Levels Are Equal. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
