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

Cyrad's page

RPG Superstar 2014 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,473 posts (1,655 including aliases). 7 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

#33 You can use a grapple check to leap onto a larger creature Shadow of Colossus style.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Classes are one of the hardest things to design in this game. Classes are also the easiest way to break the game if you don't understand the internal mechanisms of how the game works. At-will fast healing is a great example of this. Healing 1 hit point per round doesn't seem very powerful at a glance. However, the game's internal mechanisms assume that all healing requires using up daily or long term resources. A character that can heal to full hit points after every encounter without spending any resources breaks all game mechanics that make this assumption. If you don't understand the consequences of breaking these assumption, you risk changing the game in a way you did not intend.

I'm not saying it's bad to change the game to suit your campaign and preferences. However, you can end up causing problems you did not suspect if you don't know what you're doing. Worse is that these classes mess with the fundamental machinations of the game.

It's like a customizing a car. It's fine to swap the tires, add a new stereo, or change your gas pedal to look like a foot print. But if you're not a mechanic, messing with the engine is a really bad idea.

Naoki00 wrote:
I much prefer to balance toward being equal to a wizard, and if it's too much dumbing it down.

Balancing content to make it on par with the most powerful or optimal case is a common mistake I see. This is not a good idea because the most powerful case may actually be too powerful. When you balance against the above advantage rather than the average, it causes power creep. You may accidentally make the content more powerful than the optimal content, which is a bad thing. A better strategy is to choose a benchmark you considered to be the most balanced case. And choose one most similar to your concept.

Balancing a martial against a wizard never strikes me as a good idea because they're radically different classes. Professional designers have been trying to balance martials against wizards for decades with mixed success. You're better off picking a martial you think is balanced and has a similar class feature structure. I'm using the bloodrager as a benchmark for my cyborg class because it also has a limited self-buffing mechanic and a bloodline-like feature.

Another issue with balancing against wizards is that many people make fallacious assumptions when they do so. It's fine to balance limited-use effects against spells. However, I've seen the faulty argument "It's fine if X class can do it at-will because a wizard can do it at the same level!" way too many times.

Scott_UAT wrote:
I think he was saying it was a little "on the nose" and allows you to play a character rather than a class.

I do agree with this, too, but it's a common issue I see with homebrew classes. If you're making the class specific to your campaign, it's not that big of a deal. However, it feels like the life gem should be an archetype or prestige class with the life gem as a class feature or an artifact that grants special abilities. The large benefit of reducing the scope of the project to a prestige class or archetype is that you don't need to build enough content to support a whole class. Instead, you can focus on the cool abilities that motivate you to homebrew it in the first place.

Naoki00 wrote:
AH before I forget Cyrad, you may like the Biomancer a little more, I've already gone through and made adjustments and gotten some thoughts from the forums with it before, so I believe it's in a good spot.

I gave that one a closer look. I actually kind of like it. My biggest issue comes from the fact it hooks onto summoner class, which I feel wary of because it's a broken class. Prohibiting some evolutions strikes me as a good idea, but a better idea might be to just cherrypick the available evolutions rather than black list some of them. This is the approach Advanced Class Guide took with slayer and investigator talents. Cherrypicking the evolutions might also grant you enough leverage to make it a full BAB class.

Star Voter 2014

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regards to the FAQ:

Quote:

When I use a magic item like ring of invisibility or hat of disguise that can be activated to gain the effects of a spell, does the wording "as the spell" also include the spell’s duration?

Yes, such items' effects have a duration, as indicated by the spell’s duration and the item’s caster level. If the item has no daily use limit, however, you can simply use the item again to reset the duration.

I understand ring of invisibility, because that requires activation and doesn't make much sense if you could be invisible all the time. However, this doesn't make any sense for hat of disguise from a mechanical, flavor, and rules standpoint.

1) The text doesn't provide an activation method, which implies it's a continuous effect. Yes, the magic item rules do say that items without provided activation methods are command words and the item is priced as one. However, this creates an ambiguous precedent where items that were obviously intended as continuous effects now have to be activated as command words.

2) Not having it be continuous goes completely against the nature of the item if you have to activate it every 10 minutes to keep up the disguise, especially when the hat requires you to have the item be part of the disguise in some way.

3) Unlike ring of invisibility, I see little mechanical reason to not allow this item to be continuous. It strikes me that the developer writing it intended it to be a continuous item.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing with dismemberment is an interesting idea. However, my feelings about these classes mirror the same feelings I had about your cyborg-ninja-that's-totally-not-Raiden that gets a +1 adamantine katana at 1st level as a class feature. They're broken classes that deliberately throw all balance and design sense out the window. So, I'm not sure what kind of meaningful critique or feedback I or anyone else can give you.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Last year, I posted a style guide I compiled when studying the game in a previous year. It has served me as a great tool, and I hope it does the same for you. If you would like to add to the list, please do so!

1. Spells should be italicized and lowercase, such as fly, invisibility, and black tentacles.

2. Magic items and properties should be italicized and lowercase, such as flaming and bag of holding.

3. Magic weapons/armor are PREFIXED by their enhancement bonus, such as a +1 flaming longsword and +2 spell storing leather armor.

4. Magic items with varying bonuses are POSTFIXED by their bonus, such as headband of vast intelligence +2.

5. Feats should be capitalized, such as Weapon Focus, Arcane Strike, and Cleave.

6. Skill names should be capitalized while subskills in parenthesis should be lowercase, such as Sleight of Hand, Knowledge (arcana), and Profession (sailor).

7. Size categories should be capitalized, such as Large, Tiny, and Medium.

8. Almost all game mechanics except spells, magic items, feats, skills, and size categories should NOT have any special formatting.

9. Measurements should be empirical (feet, inches, miles) and NOT be abbreviated unless it's part of the item's template. For example, the template abbreviates the item's weight as "lb" or "lbs." However, you must use "pounds" when describing weight in the description text.

10. Construction requirements should be in the following order: feats, spells, other requirements, cost.

11. If the item requires more than one feat or spell, order them alphabetically.

12. Alphabetize list items in the text when possible. For example, if your item's text lists energy damage types, it should be in the order "acid, cold, electricity, and fire."

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is also a good example how to make your item avoid feeling like an SAK. Note that Mikko's sword actually does many things.

1) It gives the wielder a 20-foot pseudo-reach on melee attacks for one full-attack.

2) It increases the fire damage from the flaming property for one full-attack.

3) It teleports the wielder to a space within 20 feet.

However, since the flavor and mechanics all work harmoniously, it doesn't feel like a SAK. Mechanics #1 and #2 function as the same, logical action. Mechanic #3 comes as a logical consequence of the mechanics preceding it. The visuals tie all the mechanics together into a single effect reinforcing the sword's theme around the fire goddess.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would Master Template Fu approve of my formatting style guide?

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikko Kallio wrote:

1) Spending more time working on something usually adds to its complexity. But you should strive toward the opposite: each iteration should make the item simpler, more straightforward to use, until you only have left what the item really needs. What also happens easily is that first you add something, then you remove something, then add again, and so on. It can be an endless process.

I'll quote one of the greatest minds that ever lived: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Pardon me if I add to that quote with a favorite of mine.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

If you can make a cool item that does one iconic thing without a lot of moving parts, that's the mark of a great designer to me. Try to keep it simple but highly effective. Making the item complicated will not impress. I've seen many items create really complicated interactions that require an entire paragraph to explain when the designer could have simplified them to a combat maneuver. I've seen many add extraneous bits that did nothing but distract from the item's main purpose. The more you can do with less, the better. Remember there's a difference between depth and complexity. Some of the most well designed content I've ever seen had incredible depth with minimal complexity.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I want to play a spellcaster rogue, I'd honestly rather play a magus, which has plenty more support for the character concept and is simply more fleshed out in general. In fact, I'd recommend redesigning the class as a magus archetype or using the magus as a template. At the moment, the class feels too weak and has a narrow scope of character concepts it can enable. At the very least, you can afford to give them 6-level spellcasting. Additionally, several of their class features, like impromptu sneak attack, take away the gameplay of using their class features.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

I started tabletop gaming with 4th Edition, which has the healing surge system that 5th Edition's hit die (I hate that name) system evolved from. After a year or so of playing/studying 4th Edition, both my DM and I grew to dislike healing surges and came to the same conclusion. Healing surges eliminate healing/hitpoints as a long term resource. This reinforces the game as merely a daily sequence of skirmishes rather than an adventure. There's less tension because everyone can regain all their resources as long as they can rest for 8 hours. I don't like this. It was one of the many reasons I found 4th Edition so agonizingly boring to play.

Stopping to rest every three encounters is more adventurous?

In my experience, once you get past about 3rd level, the party has enough resources to heal as much as needed between encounters. So for me the 3X/PF method just feels like a pointless gold drain, not tense adventure.

Not quite. Let me elaborate on that, but I'll start off by saying that I'm NOT totally happy with how any modern edition of D&D handles hitpoints/healing as a resource.

From a design perspective, the entire game revolves around the concept of using encounters as a resource drain - each CR = APL encounter is mathematically designed to consume roughly 20% to 25% of your daily resources. These resources include hitpoints, abilities, and spells. The players' objective is to complete each encounter in a manner that mitigates the resource drain to a minimum. This creates gameplay and strategy and decision making.

Long term resources reinforce the idea of adventure. It creates the conflict of trying to make your long term resources last to the end of the adventure. This creates varying levels of tension and keeps encounters from getting monotonous. The same encounter can force players to approach it very differently depending on the availability of their resources.

Hit points function as the primary long term resource in D&D because it does not completely replenish each day and starting an encounter with fewer hit points increases the chance of death. The entire game's pacing hinges on this resource. In most editions of D&D, replenishing enough hit points to keep your character healthy costs either short term resources best saved for emergencies (healing spells) or another long term resource (money).

However, no edition of D&D I played handle hit points as a resource as effectively as it should. Healing that is too scarce can slow an adventure to an agonizing pace or halt it entirely, which is what CLW was designed to fix. However, CLW trivializes healing into a consumable that's extremely easy to stockpile. Like you said, this results in out-of-combat healing feeling like a pointless gold drain. 4th Edition tried to fix this problem with healing surges, free healing that replenishes daily. However, in doing so, they intentionally threw the baby out with the bathwater in order to focus 4th Edition as a skirmish game than a game about journey and adventure. It eliminated healing as a long term resource. 5th Edition inherited this mechanic, though tried to mitigate somewhat by requiring you to rest for 1 hour to heal and making you only replenish half your hit dice daily.

In summary, I strongly prefer a game that has a middle ground concerning scarcity of healing/hitpoints. I don't want a game with healing so scarce that a single bad luck encounter can bring the game to a halt. At the same time, I don't want a game that trivializes hit points as a long term resource. It reinforces D&D/PF as a skirmish game rather than a game about adventuring. To put it simply, I believe mechanics like healing surges and 5e hit dice do not solve the problem CLW creates in the game as I perceive it. Rather, it internalizes it into a new form.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I'm done being polite. I gotta get outta this monkey cage.

Byenara.

Responding condescendingly to criticism neither advances your idea nor this discussion.

The reason many had negative first impressions of your idea stems from what I said in my previous post. Completely breaking the economy of a fundamental system in the game does not make for a viable solution to the problem at hand. Many people can intuitively come to this conclusion even with only cursory understanding of game design and D&D/PF. This is reason many people were quick to respond with "it's a bad idea." These are not personal attacks against you. It's simply a gut response to your idea from their intuition. It's valid criticism, and I haven't found any examples of someone criticizing your idea an inappropriate manner.

If someone gives you an abrupt response, then politely ask for an elaboration. Criticizing the way they do their criticism neither advances your idea nor the topic at hand. It's rude and generally considered unacceptable behavior in this community. Throughout this thread, you elevated the abrasive nature of your responses in a manner I consider as a personal attack against the people in the thread who feel genuinely invested in the subject of giving the fighter quality of life changes.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started tabletop gaming with 4th Edition, which has the healing surge system that 5th Edition's hit die (I hate that name) system evolved from. After a year or so of playing/studying 4th Edition, both my DM and I grew to dislike healing surges and came to the same conclusion. Healing surges eliminate healing/hitpoints as a long term resource. This reinforces the game as merely a daily sequence of skirmishes rather than an adventure. There's less tension because everyone can regain all their resources as long as they can rest for 8 hours. I don't like this. It was one of the many reasons I found 4th Edition so agonizingly boring to play.

In a response to an article by Sean K Reynolds, I proposed another solution: eliminate wands and make potions the price of a single wand charge. Potions have many inherent physical limitations to make them less of a trivial source for healing while maintaining them as a long term resource. The benefits of this are:

1) Action economy limitations of potions make clerical healing more valuable (easier to cast a healing spell on an ally during battle), but not as necessary (don't need UMD to use a potion).

2) Potions have greater difficulty to stockpile than wands. It's not easy to store 50 potions of CLW. Shoving them into a bag of holding or handy haversack has its own problems and risk breaking the bottles. It forces players to become creative with their storage.

3) Encourages players to buy more expensive cure consumables due to cheaper prices, action economy, and storage issues.

4) Makes potions the iconic source for consumable magic, as is the case for most fantasy settings and games.

Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A botched time travel experiment or the plane of time collided with the kingdom, causing it to suddenly age as if thousands of years passed within an instant. One of the clues includes surviving records all indicating the event happened only 100 years ago despite the ruins showing thousands of years of disrepair. Some of the elder bad guy races recall suddenly finding the homes of their enemies like this.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Both. I always thought lightsabers needed a guard of some sort. I'm happy there's finally a lightsaber that has one, but the design looks silly. How about a selectively-permeable lightsaber-proof energy field around the hilt as a guard? Ya know, exactly like the ones those "roller" droids had in Phantom Menace?

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This hasn't been something that occurred yet in my campaign. However, I considered that once a character drops to hitpoints at negative Constitution, the character's fate is sealed, but they can still remain conscious and perform actions, like make a last stand before death.

I experimented with having petrification be a gradual process represented by Dexterity bleed where you turn to stone at 0 Dexterity. This resulted in a very dramatic fight with two characters using the remaining seconds of their life to aid the party before succumbing.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having no legs basically makes you immune to tripping. Nagaji are basically just lizard people.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's already rules for hustling too long. I don't think this will really add anything to the game.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yet another punch to a martial's gut?

From a game design standpoint, what's the whole point of this?

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would allow it because:
1) Rule of Cool.

2) The fireball spell points out that obstructions can impede the spell and cause it to blow prematurely.

3) This is the sort of thing that readied actions are made for. You can perform a reactionary response normally not allowed by the game at the cost of your turn and initiative. While powerful, it's very costly and not abusable.

4) I think it's the kind of creativity that a GM should encourage.

5) It adds another way for martials to contribute to their team without just whacking things with a pointy object.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The magic item creation rules explicitly say you cannot create custom items to cheat the system.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I could change one, they'd have a full BAB.

If I could change two things, they'd also have better talents.

Thankfully, the rogue will get reworked in Pathfinder Unchained.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Numbers aren't the main problem with martials. It's that for classes dedicated to combat, they're only good at only ONE aspect of combat (doing damage) that any class with a decent Strength and a BAB that isn't terrible can do.

I did implement the free Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Combat Expetise, and Weapon Finesse in my game and have seen suggestions for adding BAB to initiative, which I liked.

Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Complexity =/= Depth

My problem is that when I finally dig through the bloat and complexity, I'm honestly not seeing much depth to the classes. The spiritualist is just a summoner with a ghost. While a cool concept, it doesn't need any of the horrific bloat and complexity the summoner's eidolon has. The mesmer doesn't really have much to it. The medium is cool, but the wandering and combination spirit mechanics just overcomplicate what should be a fairly elegant class: you channel a spirit and get buffs. In addition, the kineticist seems fun enough, but it has so many different types of talents that even after reading the class three times, I'm still not entirely sure how it all works.

In other words, the complexity of these classes don't necessarily give them depth. that's my concern.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2) The swordmage is like that because 4th Edition basically homogenizes spellcasting with all other types of abilities. The swordmage was still a spellcaster. Most of their abilities involved casting magic or channeling magic through a weapon attack, which lies within the flavor of the magus. Their abilities still provoked attacks of opportunity. I can understand you don't like spell bookkeeping and probably don't like the magus because of it utilizes complex mechanics. At the very least, call the class something other than a "swordmage" because it makes no sense that they're called a "mage" when they do not cast spells.

5) Teleportation is very powerful. You must understand that abilities that seem balanced in combat can have huge consequences elsewhere. An ability that teleports you 30 feet as a move action at-will doesn't seem like a big deal in combat, but it means the character can make any obstacle trivial. Even 4th Edition limited the teleportation abilities. I recommend reworking this class's ability to model the arcanist's Dimensional Slide exploit and have it expend a resource or have a usage per day.

8) Start with reworking the aegis ability.

9) Having the ability replace the existing enhancements is really lame. At the same time, this ability also grants you a free +5 weapon at 7th level. In addition, there's no duration listed and the class can change the enhancements easily. Either this needs to work like the magus's arcane pool or reduce the bonus progression significantly. If I designed this, I'd either have it work similarly to the bladebound magus's blackblade or the warpriest's sacred weapon.

12) You don't really have any of the swordmage's powers here, just a clunky version of some of their class features.

I still believe a good approach is either make this an archetype or use an existing class as a reference. Designing classes is hard. I find it very surprising many attempt designing entire classes when it's one of the most difficult things to design in the game.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
2) Two-weapon fighting grants you a bonus attack using another weapon you're wielding. Normally, this comes from your off-hand, but can come from other weapons like armor spikes.

Armour spikes are still an off "hand" - when using TWF the rules associated with off-hand attacks still apply to armour spikes. They're just not a physical hand.

I think magus' spell combat does also take both a hand and a "hand" since it's called out as working like TWF.

EDIT: I also think this is very weird and probably not worth the confusion.

The point I'm making is that you should stop thinking about it in terms of "I gain an extra attack for each other weapon I'm wielding." Instead, think of it in terms of action economy. The rules do make this confusing as it suggests that simply having an extra weapon grants you a bonus attack. Two/multi-weapon fighting should read like this:

Rewritten Two-Weapon Fighting:

When making a full-attack action while wielding multiple weapons, you may perform a two-weapon fighting special attack, gaining a bonus attack for each off-hand your body possesses. You do not need to make the attack using a weapon wielded in this off-hand. However, you cannot make this bonus attack using a weapon wielded by your primary hand (or a weapon already used this round for a bonus attack gained this way). An off-hand used to wield a weapon two-handed does not grant a bonus attack. You make these bonus attacks at a -10 penalty, which imparts a -6 penalty on all other attacks made on your turn. The Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting) feat and wielding light weapons reduce these penalties, as shown in Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) I describe monster based on the way it looks and acts.
2) Player asks if they can use Knowledge to identify it
3) If player beats standard DC, I describe how they knew of the creature, what that article identified it as, and the general premise of the creature.
4) For every 5 above the DC, I allow the player to gain one additional piece of information. This can be the answer to a single question.

ME: "The large creature flies overhead with its leathery wings, a deadly spiked tail behind it."

WIZARD: "Do I know what it is? Can I roll to identify it?"

ME: "Sure. Gimme Knowledge (Dungeoneering)."

WIZARD: "Hm...21"

ME (Sees that the monster's CR is 5, thus DC 15): "You remember reading about this creature during your academic studies. The text book called it a 'cloaker,' an intelligent aberrant creature that flies around underground like a bat."

WIZARD: "Like a bat? Does it have any special attacks?"

ME: "Yes, among other abilities, it can emit a powerful shrieking sound that can disable its prey through fear or nausa."

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

Five Moons RPG didn't raise much capital. Not like how Numerena did.

This means that if you are going to create a new rpg find a demographic or interest that isn't covered by one of the major game systems.

Pathfinder has its faults, not enough faults for people to jump ship.

As long as Paizo keeps on producing quality products its business as usual.

Though I agree it's foolish for Paizo to create a whole new game, I have strong objections to your comment because:

1) Discrediting Five Moons because of financial success is not really a fair statement considering the game is a year from release. It's especially unfair to compare it to Numenera, which had a larger development team, which included SKR. I was recommending it to the OP because the game seems very relevant to his interests and concerns.

2) There does exist a substantial amount of players that would like to see PF get spruced up, even though many prefer one that doesn't invalidate previous content. In fact, many of the threads in this forum are dedicated to fixing or reworking existing mechanics.

3) It should be noted that a Pathfinder 2.0 doesn't necessarily have to follow D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.

4) I'm baffled by the notion that playing one game means you'll never play another, especially when the games have different goals and experiences.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer they refine the archetype system and simply add more good archetypes that actually have been playtested. If a new class does something cool and obviously wouldn't work as an archetype, that's fine. However, the psychic is essentially a sorcerer with a different spell list.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
But nobody seems to be complaining about haste, despite how much it distorts the game.

I don't see that as a bad thing. It's a great spell. As strange is this phrase sounds out of context, I completely agree with Mythic Evil Lincoln. It's a spell fun for everyone that encourages teamwork without making fights feel trivial. Even the GM benfeits as it's a great spell for a Big Bad to cast on his minions. It's everything a spell should be.

Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vagabonds. wrote:
Well, I did add a caster equivalent, and critical fumbles are not exactly that common.

It still punishes martials more than casters because martials need to attack multiple times per round to stay useful in a party. That means they are several times more likely to fumble.

I personally really, REALLY don't like that fumble deck. I own one. I tried it for two sessions, one at my game and one at a friend's game. Our groups unanimously agreed it was pretty awful. My character crit herself. When the enemy fumbled, they got an automatic hit.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vagabonds. wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Your house rules should depend on what your goals are.
The goal is to buff melee characters, and somewhat nerf-casters, but not particularly heavily.

In that case, don't do critical fumbles. They really hurt martials. If you want to buff martials, why not allow the maneuvers from Dreamscarred Press's Path of War?

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Yeah I'm going to lay the blame on the 3.5 conversion team, they're the ones that moved healing spells out of Necromancy and into Conjuration. Paizo just didn't think, either by deliberate choice or accidental oversight, to move them back.

Considering the hell Paizo went through to get the CRB out the door, I don't think it's fair to be pointing fingers, especially when the whole company at stake and the company only had interest in publishing setting books and adventures at the time.

If fingers must be pointed, I'm more inclined to do so towards the WotC 3.5e staff for lumping way too many spells into conjuration.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to imagine conjuration as fundamentally a school of transportation. When you conjure a chair, you're not actually creating a chair from nothing. That chair already existed somewhere in the multiverse from one of the infinite number of planes/demiplanes. Your spell merely teleports a chair of your description to you. This makes sense because of the following.

1) It explains why spells of creation fall into the same category as summoning and planar travel. They all work the same way.

2) It explains why created items disappear after a duration. After the duration, the item returns to its normal location.

3) GameMastery Guide illustrates there exists an infinite number of unusual demiplanes, giving the demiplane of cats and the demiplane of sentient tumors as explicit examples. There might be a demiplane for anything a conjurer "creates."

4) There's a god that owns a vault filled with a copy of every item in the multiverse.

I also had fun thoughts of polymorph spells working like this, too. When you transform, you're actually swapping bodies with something else in the multiverse.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
You could just make healing spells Necromancy, like they used to be. Having them be Conjuration doesn't make much sense anyway.

I'm guessing that you're "conjuring flesh" onto someone's body, but I totally agree. The staple spells for keeping people alive should belong to the school dedicated to life and death. Conjuration has too many nice toys.

Gulian wrote:

Why not? You conjure positive energy from the positive energy plane.

Necromancy healing sounds cool and nasty.

With that logic, it should be evocation because you're invoking energy. Also not a bad idea.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:

Aka, a 19th level pathfinder wizard with at least full WBL, how would you use PF rules to...

(a) Achieve inmortatlity?
(b) Conquer the river kindoms?
(c) Eventualy Conquer Golarion?

Disclaimer: This post was made with total Ignorance of relevant information in AP, single adnvetures or PF tales.

I based the latter half of my campaign by answering the question "What would I do if I was Razmir?"

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's already been discussions about this.

EDIT: Pardon my rudeness. I am a very sleepy man today.

Cannibalizing 5e

Lessons for 2nd Edition

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feedback has been very helpful. Here's my current draft for essence pool, reave, and eldritch ray.

Essence Pool (Su):
At 1st level, a reaver keeps a reservoir of energy stolen from his victims to fuel his eldritch powers. He can store a maximum amount of points of essence equal to his Constitution bonus (minimum 1). However, he begins each day with zero points of essence, and loses all points when he regains his daily uses of the reave ability. A reaver gains points of essence using the reave ability (see below).

A reaver can spend 1 point of essence as a standard action to grant a touched creature a number of temporary hit points equal to his level plus his Charisma modifier. Alternatively, he can bestow the temporary hit points to himself as a swift action. This lasts 1 minute per reaver level or until the temporary hit points are lost.

Eldritch Ray (Sp):
At 1st level, a reaver may spend 1 point of essence as a standard action to fire a ray at a creature within 30 feet. On a successful ranged touch attack, the creature takes negative energy damage equal to 1d6 + the reaver's Charisma modifier. The ray deals 1d6 bonus damage at 3rd level and every odd level afterwards.

An undead creature takes no damage from the ray, but instead must succeed on a Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1 minute. The DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 the reaver’s level + the reaver's Charisma modifier. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each round to end the effect.

Reave (Su):
At 1st level, a reaver can forcefully rip the life force from a creature he has hit with a melee attack as a free action. The creature takes 1d4 + 1 negative energy damage every 2 reaver levels and becomes shaken for a number of rounds equal to the reaver's Charisma bonus. A successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 reaver level + Charisma modifier) negates the shakened condition, which cannot advance to frightened or panicked. An undead creature takes no damage, but instead becomes staggered on a failed save. This is a necromancy effect.

After the target takes damage, a reaver gains 1 point of essence. Unless the creature has immunity to necromancy effects, he gains the point regardless of whether or not the creature succeeded on its saving throw or took damage.

A reaver can use this a number of times per day equal to his Charisma modifier plus his level.

Amanuensis wrote:


So you can reave as often as you hit (which may or may not be considered a 'nova' option, depending on how potent reave is), but you can apply the rider effect (or partial rider effect, in your example) from exploits only once per round. That seems like a smart solution to the action economy problem (certainly less awkward than the magus' spell combat/spellstrike mechanics, by which it will have to be measured).

I believe the Constitution modifier cap on essence pool and the iterative attack progression will help gate the nova potential.

Amanuensis wrote:

In your example, does the reaver's opponent have to fail his save for the enlargement to work? I assume yes, but it is not entirely clear.

Can the reaver 'store' the enlargement for a later fight or does he have to use it immediately? I assume the latter, since the first option would make for some tedious bookkeeping.

Bonus reave effects trigger on a failed save, but the reaver can only use one bonus effect per reave. In other words, it works like this:

1) Reaver reaves a target.
2) Target fails save.
3) Reaver decides to trigger an exploit that causes a bonus reave effect.

The reaver can store the essence point to enlarge him for a later fight or use it immediately as he wishes. I do agree with the concern for book keeping, but that might not be so bad since the player isn't *forced* to keep track of it. If he doesn't want to enlarge himself later, he doesn't have to.

Amanuensis wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
My idea for #2 was that you essentially have the same number of combined uses of reave and eldritch ray (or other effects) as an alchemist has bombs, so that the damage is roughly the same.
Then I misunderstood. From your opening post, I still assumed that eldritch ray was a ranged damage option fueled by essence, not a ranged version of reave.

Your initial impression had it right. Reave and eldritch ray are separate abilities. The idea behind Idea #2 was that reave does the same amount of damage as eldritch ray, but the reaver can only perform reave 1/2 level + CHA mod rather than level + CHA mod. This would make reave worth using a standard action on at the cost of using it less. However, your earlier point and the fact it confused you serves as evidence this isn't a good idea.

Amanuensis wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this class fares compared to the magus.

Agreed (magus is my favorite class). I'm going to increase the reaver skills to 4 + Int and probably add a special skill ability at 1st level. I'm envisioning the reaver as having a little more utility, versatility, and skill usage than the magus whereas the magus has harder novas. Eldritch ray's negative energy gives the reaver an edge. I'll have to do some number crunching on that.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't be too hard to homebrew one.
1) Magus gains spontaneous casting using Charisma and the bard's spell progression.
2) Magus uses Charisma instead of Intelligence for magus arcana and similar magus class features that rely on Intelligence.
3) Replace spell recall and improved spell recall. I hate to do this for archetype reasons, but this cannot be avoided since improved spell recall won't work at all with spontaneous casting.

René P wrote:
The Eldritch Scion from the Advanced Class Guide! Thanks Paizo!

I wrote a small essay explaining why that archetype is so bad.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why's this in the homebrew section?

I have nothing against people who want to enjoy epic levels, but I'm very happy with the way Paizo has handled it with mythic rules. I'm also not keen on true gods getting statted. I like having my gods remain gods. If people want to run campaigns where players become true gods and interact with other true gods, I don't think merely extending the character level cap would do it justice. Such a campaign would likely require a completely different rule set to support divine and extraplanar politics. Ones that involve establishing your religion, advanced social encounters with divine beings, influencing mortals, shaping entire civilizations and worlds. This is not something that suits the basic D&D/PF rule set, which is built more for adventuring and combat.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
A sentient plant creature bent on revenge looks for patches of sleeping humans and chooses one with the biggest, roundest head. He cuts it off at the neck-vine and brings it home. After some refrshments, the plant creature opens the top, scrapes out the gooey insides, mutilates the face, and lights the inside on fire. How will the PCs track down this monster?

Thanks to your successful Linguistics check, you manage to decipher the incoherent babble of the local townsfolk, who report that the last victim was a small child found dead this morning in the pumpkin patch and wrapped up in a blue blanket.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I studied the Deific Obedience boons for the purpose of homebrewing my race's goddess. Perhaps my notes could be of use?

Deific Obedience Designer Notes:
The obedience boon is usually a +4 sacred/profane bonus to a skill. If the skill has a high value (like Perception), it gives a +2 bonus instead. With some boons, the bonus applies to a second, low value skill like Appraise or Knowledge (nobility). Some boons will grant you a +4 bonus to saves against certain effects. Others will grant you a +1 caster level on certain effects
The prestige class boons vary in theme. The exalted boons usually benefit a spellcaster, particularly a cleric. Sentinel boons usually benefit a fighting character. Evangelist boons seem designed to benefit a general character that might not be a wizard or cleric. Some evangelist boons will directly benefit a class feature from one of the listed required aligned classes listed in the evangelist description. For example, Lamashtu’s second boon affects a summoner eidolon. These boons offer alternate effects for those without the required class feature.
The first boon grants to cast either a 1st-level spell three times per day, a 2nd-level spell twice per day, or a third-level spell once per day as spell-like abilities.
The second boon is a special ability that’s roughly on par with a 5th level spell cast once per day. Some are buffs or allow you to change how a spell or class feature work. Buffs usually last a number of rounds equal to 1 + 1 per 4 HD.
The third boon is roughly on par with an 8th level spell cast once per day. In fact, many of them are spells with mechanical differences thematic for the god. Some will summon a particular creature native to the god’s realm, which last 1 minute per HD, allow telepathic communication at 100 feet, and can be commanded. However, they won’t follow any command that violates its alignment and service to the god. In fact, they may even attack you. See Sarenrae’s angelic ally.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
TarSpartan wrote:
I am having "Ultima: Exodus" flashbacks while reading this thread. You know, fight the old woman running the shop for her gold (usually taking her out in one hit), then leave town before the town guards find you? Or am I the only one who played that way?
I can only think of Ultima: Ascension, the game where unarmed shirtless guys will pick a fight with you, the demigod messiah visibly armed and armored with magical gear, and be turned into a pile of gore. And then there's the kid that can cast fire balls when magic supposedly doesn't work such that even the god of magic (you) cannot cast fireballs.
I assure you, not only were you NOT the only person who played Ultima III (or IV!) that way, you aren't playing an Ultima game right if you aren't butchering townsfolk for gold and ducking out of town before the guards decide to put the hurt on you (and doing some ridiculously easy stuff in IV to ease the karma penalties.) =p

It doesn't help that the creator of the Ultima series has said in an interview that he created a tradition of putting scenarios of obligated child slaying in the games just to troll the player.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have an opponent that is the sword. He is either a warrior that has fallen in battle but whose lust for battle proved too much for his spirit to rest. Or, it is a blade imbued with the spirit of battle by Gorum. On his journey, the magus discovers a stone illuminated by the sun rise with a haggard sword embedded within (like Gorum's holy symbol), surrounded by the decayed remains of what was once a great battle. When he reaches for the sword, the spirit of the sword greets him and challenges him to a duel for the glory of Gorum. Upon his defeat, the spirit agrees to join the magus on his quest and spread Gorum's will together.

The spirit would either be a swashbuckler, a warpriest, a fighter, or barbarian of 3rd level with NPC gear.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rabbiteconomist wrote:
The respective aging/hunger/thirst catch-up with Pathfinder timeless planes is different from 3.5, which did not feature this. I had overlooked this difference until this forum thread. So I now ask, would it even be possible for things to invade (such as Githyanki) from the astral plane in pathfinder? Githyanki must also lay their eggs in the prime material plane since they don't have normal metabolic functions there in the astral. Would "Natives" of the Astral Plane be immune to this catch - up effect?

Outsiders are not mortals. Many of them used to be mortals or some other lesser type of existence before becoming what they are. They don't even need to breathe or eat, so timeless planes mean nothing to them. Outsiders native to the Material Plane serve as the exception and function the same way as any other mortal. Material plane outsiders have a lifespan and likely become true outsiders after death.

But the Astral Plane would make an interesting place for a villain to reside to cheat death. He would have to recruit followers to do his bidding, though.

I had Fridge Horror about the timeless nature of the Astral Plane. I have a cute kitsune witch with a kitten familiar named Elle. The witch loves Elle and considers her a best friend. Elle likes the witch's bag of holding (provided the bag is open so air can come inside), but then I thought what would happen if someone punctured the bag with Elle inside of it. Elle would be sucked into the Astral Plane and made to float aimlessly in a void. The witch would have no way to reliably locate Elle -- it would be like searching for something lost in a sea bigger than the entire universe. The witch would be in a position where she must either abandon her search for Elle or lose all of her spellcasting for the rest of her life, constantly feeling the fear and loneliness her familiar has. Eventually, she'd have to make that difficult choice to get another familiar. In doing so, Elle would feel her intelligence fading away. At that point, she would realize that all hope of rescue is lost. And so, Elle would become nothing more than a confused kitten mewing desperately into the voice for all eternity, abandoned by her best friend, never dying, cold and lonely forever.

After that thought, the witch never allows Elle to sleep in her bag of holding...

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
haruhiko88 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
haruhiko88 wrote:
I use a majority of paizo material so just about every class minus the magus and summoner are allowed at my tables. As for races I look at where my campaign will take place and pick races from those regions. For example for Skull & Shackles which I run I go with core + 2 variety of skinwalker, tengu, and vanara. I haven't had any complaints especially since I have a few more house rules that I apply.
Out of curiosity, why the magus? I haven't had much problems with them aside from the bladebound getting a free scaling weapon.
I haven't been able to get to a proper computer since Friday so I'll answer this now. I personally dislike how the magus works within a party. I love the idea behind the class (back in 2e I played a lot of elven fighter/mages), but I do not like how it was implemented.

I'm rather interested in hearing you elaborate on that (perhaps in an IM). I'm a magus fanboy, but I always like hearing how something can be improved. In terms of roles in a party, I tend to play my magi as a wizard substitute or as a rogue. I scout ahead, examine magical doodads, assassinate priority targets, and assist the fighter.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bookrat, even colonial period firearms weren't capable of reliably penetrating armor. Even with our modern weapons, we still need high caliber firearms to take down big game. The problem is that instead of having the goal of making a realistic portrayal of firearms or a fantastical fun portral of firearms, Paizo straddled a midpoint, which resulted in a broken, unfun weapon rules. Touch attacks are a flawed concept because every monster relies on natural armor. Touch attacks were originally designed to help mages hit with spells -- and they gave them to a full BAB class that can stack Dexterity.

Kain Darkwind wrote:

It is not that the gunslinger is overpowered. It is that it does not make sense for a gun to ignore all armor and natural armor, regardless of its value. You could have a planet sized turtle with natural armor +20000 and the most basic of basic pistols still ignores it. That's...not how guns actually work. And they never have.

Cyrad, how have you found your house rules to work?

So far, the gunslinger in my campaign has found my house ruled firearms much more enjoyable. He hasn't made use of his new deeds yet, but his DPR has noticably increased.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

There are, however, restrictions that aren't possible to compromise. If dwarves don't exist, then there is a binary state: they do or they do not, there is no "try". If you reflect a dwarfs stats as a non dwarf, it isn't a dwarf. You can't be "sorta" pregnant; you are or you are not. And if you are coming into a campaign that has preset limits on it, the onus of compromise lies upon the person trying to go against them.

Then you find out why the player wants to play a dwarf and work with him such that he can still play his character concept in a way non-disruptive to your campaign such that he is technically not a dwarf.

In which case ... The ban on dwarves is still there. I still said "no dwarves" and lo, there were verily no dwarves.

Finding a different thing that gives you what you are looking for is not actually playing something which is banned; nor really is it even compromising - because in that case if they had come around with this non dwarven thing with some dwarf like characteristics which already were available to him anyway, then I would have had no objection whatsoever anyway.

You're arguing semantics here, which doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. My point is that a GM and a player can work together to create the character concept that the player wants to play while not disrupting the campaign. Additionally, content can be refluffed or houseruled to work. For this reason, I don't just issue a blanket ban.

Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

I don't ban disruptive content. I ban disruptive players.

I can compromise. I can refluff inappropriate material. I can house rule fixes for imbalanced or broken content. But if I cannot trust a player enough to make non-disruptive character, then that player does not belong at my table.

But an inappropriate race/class can be a disruptive character, depending on the setting. In Athas, a normal mage without the preserver/defiler mechanic would be disruptive. Disruptive can absolutely be specific material, and a player shoehorning in that specific material is being ... Disruptive.

That's why I said compromise, refluff, house rule, etc. An uncompromising GM is a problem GM. An uncompromising player is a problem player. Neither deserves a place at the table.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't ban disruptive content. I ban disruptive players.

I can compromise. I can refluff inappropriate material. I can house rule fixes for imbalanced or broken content. But if I cannot trust a player enough to make non-disruptive character, then that player does not belong at my table.

Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:


I think the relevant point though is that all of the races Tolkien included in his party were established as part of the world, with societies that had been developing and interacting with one another for millennia. In other words, all of Tolkien's races fit. If you're following Tolkien's approach, you can't just add a wayang character to the party without figuring out where the wayang live, what customs they follow, who the great wayang heroes and/or villains were, and what role the wayang have played in world history. That's very different from the "cantina" approach, where strange aliens just show up with no explanation offered or expected.

If i remember correctly, 4th Edition quite literally did this by having a dimensional meteor cause all the races to suddenly appear. Because why go through the trouble of writing inter-racial politics, relationships and history spanning over a millenia when you can just say a meteor did it!

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.