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. 573 posts (740 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, anything you want. It's the one thing I like most about the summoner -- it's a class that encourages you to make a story about your main class feature.

Maybe your eidolon is an imaginary friend that turned out to be real.

Maybe your imagination gave birth to the eidolon -- it's a physical representation of your fears and darkest desires.

Maybe the eidolon is your greatest invention that you end up spending a lifetime figuring out how you created it in a night of bitter drunkeness.

Maybe your eidolon is an ancestor from a distance past.

Maybe your eidolon is yourself from the future.

Maybe your eidolon is the spirit of a loved one tied to an item you own.

Maybe your eidolon is the spirit of a haunted deck of cards that lets you materialize the cards into monsters.

Maybe your eidolon is actually your wife! A magical genie you had to marry because you drew The Marriage from the harrow deck of many things.

Maybe you are the eidolon. Your corporeal body is merely a puppet you control.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has this thread been derailed so much that it degraded into a petty WBL argument?

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.

Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.

That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.

Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.

You really hit the nail on the head. This mentality and ivory tower design was inherited from 3.5e. I'm tired of lazily made feats that serve no purpose other than pad out books and serve as flavor. A good feat can be both mechanically beneficial and have awesome flavor (see Deadly Dealer). I'm glad Pathfinder has traits to provide the fluff to not muddy up feats.

And I agree we're not asking Pathfinder to be "4th Editioned." 4th Edition divorced his mechanics from its fluff rather than marry the fluff to the mechanics. When narrative was tied to mechanics, it was done rather lazily.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time I look at this thread, I see more people complaining about prepared casting, usually over misconceptions on how the flavor works. You're not "forgetting" the spell after you use it. Instead, all preparations have been expended. A wizard cannot cast the spell again for the same reason you can't fire a muzzle-loaded gun after you just made a shot. It doesn't matter how many bullets you have. Unless you have another gun with the same type of bullet ready to fire, you still have to put more gunpowder in and prime the gun if you want to fire another shot.

As for Perception, I think it should be an innate statistic that all creatures have, like Initiative. This would also help fix many problems related to it, like Stealth and the trap system.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Allow the Deadly Dealer feat. The only reason that's banned is because it dips a toe into item creation. I think that's really lame and denies potential Varisian character concepts.

Allow archetypes that grant firearms.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.
You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.

Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.

Kinda makes their vaunted intelligence look a bit suspect.

Especially when the INT 7 Sorcerer can managed to remember how to do that stuff, yet the wizurd can't.

I can't believe this thread degenerated into arguments stemming from misconceptions about the flavor of wizards. Argh..

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask your GM this: "Be honest. Do you want us to make magic items?"

If the answer is "no," then say "Then don't let us. Forbid crafting and let us rebuild our characters."

If you're humble and cooperative about it, he may throw you a bone once in awhile

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to point out that the witch arguably has the weakest spell list out of the full casters. While she does get some goodies from the cleric list, she loses many staple spells that even a magus has. Most of her good spells target Will. Let's not forget the witch has the largest Achilles heel out of any spellcaster.

My point is that hexes should be strong. A witch sacrifices safety and spell selection for the hex class feature. This is their primary contribution to the party. Yes, slumber is strong. As Tacticslion explained in detail, it's not game breaking either. It's perfectly fine the way it is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The witch is using a standard action to disable a single foe in close range whereas staple wizard spells can disable multiple enemies at once from medium or even long range. Even if the witch succeeds, it may not be worth the action.

If you're making encounters with a single strong enemy, you're doing it wrong. Even a high level character will get wrecked when he's out numbered.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

A good GM doesn't allow a single player to ruin everyone else's fun. You have a bad GM. I strongly discourage you from engaging the issue in-character. Making characters and conspiracies to kill his character will only create a cycle of in-fighting, which is precisely what the troll wants. You come to the table to have 4-6 hours of weekly fun. This drama is not worth your time.

Gather a group of other players that feel the same way and agree to give the GM an ultimatum: kick the troll or we leave to form our own game.

The only way to beat a troll is to not play his game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"There are no foolish players. Only poor Game Masters."
If the player is fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions, it's appropriate their PC dies. But if they do something foolish enough to puzzle you, you may have failed as a GM to convey the risks involved, especially ones a character actually living in the game world would know about. This article explains it in better detail.

Here, I see potential fault. Was the player aware the monsters had reach? This is information you shouldn't withhold because his character would clearly see the monsters' size would enable them to reach 10 feet away. The player probably would not have approached the monster if he knew it would provoke an attack of opportunity. If the player did know and choose to provoke an attack of opportunity anyway, then his character's death is on his head.

Before punishing a player for their mistake, make sure your vision of the world is consistent with theirs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
So I was playing with 6 other people and we were having a pretty hard time against a (20AC spellcaster in level 1-2 scenario!)single enemy

A single enemy encounter needs to be fairly strong or have a high AC to offset a significant action economy disadvantage. It's a 1 vs 6 battle -- the enemy gets 1 standard action per round while the party has 6 standard actions per round. Without a high AC, the enemy will die before the end of the round. Also, many enemy spellcasters in modules will cast buffs on themselves before battle if they hear intruders approaching.

Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
so a bard used a wand to resurrect her and I just realized how ridiculous wands are.

Reviving a dying ally is the most optimal way to use healing in combat. However, this is still not a favorable situation. The cleric had to get into touch range and waste a standard action to bring back an ally that will likely get dropped again or have to retreat. Your party is down two members for at least a round.

Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
Bad guys don't get to use wands, if they did the battle would never end,

Enemies with wands are uncommon because:

1) Using a wand each turn is a bad way to spend your actions. Enemies only live for about three or four rounds and often have action economy disadvantages. An enemy cannot heal himself and fight at the same time.
2) It doesn't make sense from a design standpoint. If a module designer wants an enemy to cast spells from a wand, why not just make the enemy a spellcaster?
3) The players will get the wand when the enemy dies.

Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
yet pcs can which pretty much removes all threat of death as long as one caster can stay alive.

At best, that caster can only revive one person per round. The caster has touch his buddy to heal them, which means he has to put himself into serious risk to do so. Also keep in mind there's a downward spiral effect. The more people that drop, the more hits the other PCs will take, which can lead to more people dropping.

Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
The biggest problem is the fact you get so many charges. I understand potions because you would go broke buying potions and would use them wisely. The economy of wands seems cheesy.

Wands are best at low levels, but low levels usually don't have the money for them. To buy a wand of CLW, a party has to pool their money together for it. Yes, wands are ultimately cheaper than potions, but that's balanced by the fact you must purchase one with 50 charges. How is that cheesy?

Skullford - Forgive me, I'm nub wrote:
I'm mostly just griping because I am a monk and I went for sponge as opposed to hitter. What good is someone that can't be killed when nobody will ever get killed with wands around. I like the fact there is a limit to spells, which wands completely remove. I understand there use outside of battle, but maybe there should be some loops to jump through during battle.

Pathfinder is not World of Warcraft. You cannot simply min-max defenses at the cost of offense to "tank." Clerics are not healbots. You cannot win a fight by out-sustaining your enemy.

The untold secret to winning combat in D&D is to end fights quickly or not fight at all. Each combat puts lives at risk and takes its toll on valuable resources (hitpoints, wand charges, spells, etc). The less resources you spent on the battle, the better. If your party had to spend precious wand charges, that's bad. Preventing damage is less costly than healing it.

This is why your character does not do well. Being completely defense-oriented does not end the fight faster. If you want to draw attention away from your teammates, you must present yourself as a significant threat

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's not really any "ultimate" magus. It all depends what you want out of your character.

Want to have enough AC to be a consistent combatant in combat? Go Dervish Dance.

Want to have consistent damage output? Go Strength magus.

Want to be spell focused? Be a human, pick up Spell Focus and Spell Specialization so your Shocking Grasp can do 3d6 at first level.

Want to have a bag of tricks to provide debuffing and utility? Go Hexcrafter magus.

Want to be martial focused? Go kensai.

You can be a crit fisher with any of these suggestions. The only prerequisite to crit fishing is getting a high crit weapon and keening it one way or another.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Psionics don't appeal to me. Psychics feel too science fiction for my fantasy tastes. In standard Pathfinder lore, psychic powers are more related with otherworldly monsters -- it's what makes them alien, terrifying, and monstrous. Making it commmonplace with PCs doesn't feel right. It makes the monsters less mysterious and makes the PCs more monstrous.

Still, I'd probably allow psionics, but would refluff it or require a psionic PC to be somehow touched by an otherworldly presence that haunts them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the developers intended that you could not two-hand a spellstrike, they would have explicitly written that limitation just as they did with spell combat.

I'm not really seeing the point of barring two-handing a spellstrike. To me, it just robs character concepts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So your problem with summoners is that they're too flavorfully versatile to fit the tone of your campaign?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the western fantasy feel. It gives Pathfinder its own flavor.

But I really grow irritated with people who say guns shouldn't exist at all in the game. Golerion was designed to be a campaign setting of campaign settings so there's a place to fit every taste. If you want lawless wilderness and feuding kingdoms, you got River Kingdoms. If you want a pirate adventure, you got the Shackles. If you want an Arabian adventure, you got Katapesh. If you want an Egyptian adventure, you got Orision. If you want an African jungle adventure, you got Mwangi. If you want magitech, you got Nex and the Mana Wastes. If you want science fantasy, you got Numeria.

If guns aren't your taste, that's fine. But to say that firearms and western themes don't belong is to spit in the face of what makes Golerion a great setting.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Gods are deliberately not statted in Pathfinder because true divinity bestows power beyond comparision with that of mortal magic and understanding. If you want to break it down, the spectrum of divinity is as follows:

1) God - power ascends beyond comparision with anything lesser. They're essentially untouchable. A god can extend their divine power to others. The only stats they have are an alignment, 5 domains, and a favored weapon.

2) Demigod - Like a god, but lacks the untouchable status of a true god. They have four domains. Most demigods are direct subordinates of a true god.

3) Mythic Divine Source - a mythic character with the Divine Source ability. They are not a deity, but they possess enough divine power that those who worship them gain benefits.

4) Mythic - a typical mythic character. They're not a god at all, but divine power has made them stronger than normal characters.

5) Normal - a normal character, even if they're level 20.

I'm having trouble reading and understanding your post due to the giant wall of unstructured text.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good traps create drama.

My best use of a trap was also the simplest. I employed a pool of fear, a simple fear trap. Trusting my player to roleplay it out, I simply passed a note describing their character seeing a reflection of themselves slaughtering each of their allies in gruesome, vivid detail. The player described her character briefly having a look of horror, sheathing her sword, and asking if the party can swiftly continue on, urging them not to look into the pool. It was a brief, but dramatic moment that left all players curious yet afraid of what she saw. A year has past since that moment, and yet it still lingers in the back of that PC's mind.

I've started to draft a whole set of pools like this for the players to find with a subplot tied to them, each pool representing one of the runelords. Karzoug's pool made a PC see themselves as a wealthy king surrounded by riches with their female rival by their side, slave Princess Leia style. We had a fun moment where he grew suspicious of his allies and threw a fit when they pulled him away from the pool like a screaming child.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can probably refluff the skinwalker.

Don't rule out kitsune totally. They can get Realistic Likeness, which allows them to shapeshift into any human. A lenient GM could allow it to work for other humanoid races as well.

The Eberron Pathfinder conversion, as suggested by Zhayne, looks good and has several versions of the Changeling. I made my own conversion for a friend when we switched from 4th Edition.

Changeling (Eberron)
Changeling Racial Traits
+2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma, -2 Constitution: Changelings are crafty and charming, but physically frail.
Medium: Changelings are medium-sized creatures and have no penalties or bonuses due to their size.
Shapeshifter: Changelings are humanoids with the shapeshifter subtype.
Normal Speed: Changelings have a base speed of 30 feet.
Change Shape (Su): Changelings can assume the appearance of a Small or Medium humanoid as the alter self spell, save that it does not adjust their ability scores.
Gift of the Tongues: Changelings gain a +1 racial bonus on Bluff and Diplomacy checks, and they learn one additional language every time they put a rank in the Linguistics skill.
Languages: Changelings begin play speaking Common. Changelings with high Intelligence scores can choose any languages they want (except secret languages such as Druidic).

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whoa, Fleshless Shroud made it! I made the top 100 in the two years I competed, despite being a relative tabletop RPG newbie. I'm in good spirits.

Make no mistake, the competition was brutal this year. I saw many items I loved that did not make it. Beard-knot included.

Yes, no dwarf would burn their beard. Even their race description says that dwarven beardlessness is a sign of madness. If it didn't burn the beard, I would totally make a dwarf just for that item.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules say you have to pay the 100*(spell level) per day and that it takes 7*(spell level) days of progress to complete researching a spell. This means it costs at least 700*(spell level)^2 to research a spell. In the core rules, it costs 1000*(spell level) and you never risk losing money.

Research a Spell
The Core Rulebook allows you to perform spell research, either to create a new spell or learn an existing spell from another source. In the downtime system, the steps for spell research each day are as follows.

Pay 100 gp × the spell's level for research costs and rare ingredients. You may spend Goods or Magic toward this cost.
Determine the total days of progress required to complete the research, which is 7 × the spell level.
Determine the spell research DC, which is 10 + twice the spell's level.
Attempt a Spellcraft check and a Knowledge check (arcana for an arcane spell, religion for a divine spell) against the spell research DC. You can't take 10 on these checks. You may spend Magic to modify a check result, with 1 point of Magic adding 2 to your total (maximum +10). If both checks succeed, you make 1 day's progress toward completing the spell. When your days of progress equal the total number of days needed, the spell is completed and added to your spellbook or list of spells known.
If either or both spell research checks fail by 4 or less, you make no progress. For each check that fails by 5 or more, your research has led to poor results and you lose a day of progress toward completing the spell.

If you're an alchemist, you can use this downtime option to research a new extract formula. Instead of a Spellcraft check, attempt a Craft (alchemy) check. For Knowledge (arcana) checks, you may attempt a Knowledge (nature) check instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who plays a spell researching magus, I don't see much of a problem with allowing spell research, because you're sacrificing a significant amount of wealth. That's wealth that could make your character powerful in other ways, so there's a disadvantage to using spell research over spell blending. A GM should allow it as long as it makes sense for your character to research that spell.

Keep in mind that the magus is limited by the number of unique spells he can prepare and by his spell progression. Even if he had every spell list in the game, he'd still be an inferior caster to a cleric or wizard. No matter how deep his bag of tricks goes, shocking grasp and other staple magus spells will always be the best spells he's got.

I recommend using the core spell research rules. The downtime rules for spell research are broken and obviously not playtested at all. My GM allowed my magus to research restoration since she's the only spellcaster in the group and party desperately needed a cleric. Using the Ultimate Campaign downtime rules, learning restoration would cost her at least 11,200gp and take her 28 days to complete. With the GameMastery Guide rules, it would cost her 4,000gp and take only 2 weeks. The only advantage to using downtime rules are lower check DCs and the ability to spend downtime capital. Sure, downtime lets you work in days at a time, but you have to perform a check for each of the 28 days -- you can't take 10 on them and failing risks losing money.

Overall, if your GM trusts you not to abuse it, spell research can be a really fun way to spice up your spellcaster. I personally always wanted to make a wizard that invented his own baleful polymorph spells.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to compile a list of exactly what makes the rogue underpowered for the purpose of houseruling in my campaign. I'd make another thread, but I don't think we need another thread dedicated to bashing the rogue class. Maybe you can help me with it?

1) Rogues have very few class features, especially for a class with a 3/4 BAB.

2) Nearly all rogue talents are terrible because their mechanical benefits are simply weak or involve things any character should be able to do

3) Many of their specialties can be replicated or done better by low-level magic

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
The hardest choices to make are those between really good items. I have had a number of these event turn up now, and each time I have had to further refine my views on each item. As a result these votes kinds of votes turn out to be the most informative in learning about magic item design.

When I stumble upon this issue, I solve it by figuring out which item would a player most likely want to buy. So far, this has solved most of those draws.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep stumbling upon this item. It does hardly anything at all compared to other items, but I find it very interesting and creative. I'd very much like to upvote this rather than some complicated item that no sensible character would use.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly considered giving prestige class levels as in-game rewards where prestige class levels are independent of your normal class levels. It makes sense to me considering that nearly all prestige classes are tied to a some kind of faction or professional status. Any prestige class that doesn't fit this description would probably be better off retooled as an archetype anyway.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feros has been pretty cool, too.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be more explicit, here are lessons to learn from this:

1) Your entry should be a Wondrous Item. This item is not a wondrous item -- it's a weapon. This can get you DQ'd. I've seen several items that were daggers and such in the competition.

2) Your item should do something you cannot completely replicate with a spell, feat, or class feature. If your item replicates a spell, it needs to do so in an interesting or novel way that fits the item's theme. An item that does nothing but let the user cast fly once per day is boring.

3) Your entry should NOT be a unique item. Only major artifacts can be unique items. Wondrous Item descriptions are basically recipes for characters to build. You can't say your item is a legendary cape that Bob the Epic Fighter used when any 3rd level spellcaster can craft one.

4) You should devote very little to description. As my own personal rule, I spend no more than one sentence describing the item's appearance and background. Your item mechanics can speak for it if you design them well.

5) Your item should give typed bonuses. In nearly all cases, an item should never give untyped bonuses. See Magic Item Pricing in the CRB for typical bonus types. The most common bonus types for wondrous items are enhancement (for ability scores), competence (for skills), and resistance (for saves).

Obviously, there's way more than this, but these are five of the common traps I've seen -- and now see less often after the cull.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. If it did exist, I personally wouldn't allow it as a GM. I despise items that give you feats and class features for free.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I've seen a ton of items that cheat action economy with drinking potions in this competition. Even though I agree that potions have such meager benefit for the action economy they cost, I have mixed feelings about such items. However, I just absolutely love this one.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that I detest the negativity in this thread (and admit I contributed to it). It's especially not cool to gang up on an item.

Most of my frustration comes from the fact that many designers do not use the convenient resources provided to them. The contest provides a template, and Sean K. Reynolds generously compiled a list of design traps. Yet I see many entries with missing fields and many SIAC items when that's the first trap SKR describes. While I'm glad the contest has more entries, I don't consider it Superstar to ignore resources provided to you. I've never seen a competition possess a community this supportive before, so I can see why such a community might feel disheartened when they see entries that completely disregard their support, especially when many community members spend so much time trying to find that one diamond in the rough to upvote.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In terms of mojo quality, many of these items are starting to be roughly the same. I've now started just giving the one with the better formatting my vote.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
I'm just gonna chime in to say that, from my experience so far, many of the "joke" items, items with rhyming names, or alliterative items haven't bothered me enough to affect my voting. In some cases, I'd even say that the humor was just enough to make the items stick out without taking away from their practical applications. Major kudos to everyone who falls in this net!

Most of the joke items were actually decent except for the ones that the creator obviously didn't put any effort into. Even the ones I found inappropriate gave me a laugh. One joke item even ended up in my keep folder.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad this thread exists. The other just has so much negativity. I'm guilty as well.

I really want an item like this. It looks so much fun.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a lot of money to pay for a gladware container.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A joke item that's actually funny, interesting, and useful.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People please stop making wondrous items that only work if you attach them to other specific magic items!

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just voted on an item that does nothing. My gosh, you should have seen the other item.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your item is a unique trinket of royalty, then why can any 3rd level wizard craft it?

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yay! Yet another "I negate your attack and throw it back at you" item. Except this one can accidentally kill your party.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do people make vomiting items when SKR specifically made a guideline against vomiting items?

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The inspiration is so obvious that even giving the meme reference would probably identify the item enough to DQ me.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

5 people marked this as a favorite.

No, I don't want to know what happens when I eat your item.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So this item does not work unless it's attached to the specific variant of a specific magic item?

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last year...
1. The competition started around the final stressful weeks of college, giving me little time to polish and iterate.

2. I never actually played Pathfinder. I just started GMing a few months ago, so I never tangled with magic items.

3. First year of tabletop RPG playing.

4. My entry was my first formally made item.

I made an item with cool visuals, but weak, clumsy mechanics.

I made a sloppy archetype and submitted it literally at the last minute.

This year...
1. The competition started literally two hours after the end of my last final exam.

2. I now play a complicated character that deals with item creation and uses a homebrew race of my design. My campaign PCs are now level 7.

3. Second year of tabletop RPG playing. I've only played Pathfinder and 4th Edition, but I've read rulebooks for several games and frequent designer blogs.

4. I've designed several homebrew archetypes and items. I'm developing my own RPG. I participated in playtests of ambitious 3rd party material.

5. I made an item with great visuals, but much cleaner mechanics.

6. I am sad there's no archetype round. I never formally created a monster stat block from the ground up, but I feel very confident in my abilities to do so, and have dedicated plenty of time for design iteration.

And finally, I'm now looking to publish my own third party material. I'm also in active development of a self-published commercial video game.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was a runner up for the top 32 last year when I never actually played a game of Pathfinder. I only GM'd for a couple of months, never used magic items, and only started the hobby in the prior Spring.

Don't hesitate to give it a try! I had so much fun last year.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me see if I can list a number of conventions I spotted. I dedicated myself to finding these conventions when I entered last year because I was almost an absolute tabletop RPG newbie back then.

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.

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.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really sorry to hear! It's better to create your entry in a word processor with formatting and everything.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The witch is using a standard action to disable a single foe. If it fails, she can't do it again. The witch also has to be in close range.

The example of a 1st level party beating a frost giant doesn't hold water. A Slumber hex only lasts 1 round for a 1st level witch. The fighter would have to be 5 feet away in order to coup de grace. If this isn't true or the hex fails, the party dies. Yeah, they could beat it, but many powerful creatures can be bushwhacked by low level characters if everything goes in their favor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't have my character go around saying "I'm not evil!" Show, don't tell. And like MurthysParadox says, be wary that actually raising dead is truly evil.

I definitely second the witch. The entire flavor of the witch is a spellcaster that does things that could be perceived as shadey and evil. They get their spellcasting from mysterious otherworldly powers. They jinx people into having bad luck. They curse people with the evil eye. They laugh maniacally to make their curses linger. There's even hexes for hunting and eating babies.

It's also hilarious with my witch. My witch is a cutesy type of girl, so all of the witchcraft stuff gives her an interesting edge. For example, when the rogue tried to carve out the hide of a dead naga to use for armor, he botched the roll and ended up brutally mutilating the corpse. The party members said "Oh man, someone cover our witch's eyes. This will be hard for her to watch."

I respond, "Actually, she's just shaking her head and sighing in a 'man, what an amateur' sort of way."

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.