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. 1,468 posts (1,649 including aliases). 7 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2014

Water sense doesn't seem necessary to me. I give you props for remembering the energy vulnerability. There is a shock shield spell I believe.

I never understood the fin-o-rangs either. I wondered why the zora form in Majora's Mask didn't give you some kind of energy attack on land. Prior to Ocarina of Time, Zoras were sea serpents that shot energy bullets and lightning at you.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

I'm happy with my item. It captured the imagination of both my pit crew and my friends. Though, I still feel like I could have done something more daring and bold.

Star Voter 2014

rainzax wrote:
you cannot roll a result of 5.5 on a d10 Cyrad, it's impossible!

That's what they said about dividing by zero!

Cyrad divides a pugwampi by zero and unleashes an infinite amount of pugwampis upon the world!

Star Voter 2014

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

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Papasteve08 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
...for instance a magic pastry, is not a magic weapon."

...To me, your example is kind of a no-brainer, and I would think doesn't need to be explained. Though I have to admit, I am a bit confused about the magic pastry... Pretty sure that is not one of the categories...

The takeaway of the pastry is that a magic pastry that isn't a weapon and has "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" as its requirement is no more one of this year's acceptable categories than a magic pole that is not a staff that has "Craft Staff" as its requirement.
As someone who often fails Craft (baked goods) checks, let me assure you that a non-magical pastry can be a weapon that does bludgeoning damage, is poisonous to consume, and requires adamantine to sunder it. :)

I had a friend who won a bar fight with a "critical ham."

Star Voter 2014

rainzax wrote:

i think setting a mean is a good idea, with the possibility to "roll hot" and end up with more HP, and eliminating the "cold rolling" that would put you under the mean. because having lower-than-average HP is not what many modern gamers want to deal with, lest they be masochistic grognards.

...

(example: 5th level fighter 14 CON = 10+5+5+5+5+CONx5 = 40.

The expected value of a fair d10 is 5.5. You made this big argument for giving characters at least half the average, and you're suggesting giving every character less than the expected value of their hit die? Your proposition seems so complicated that even after reading your post three times, I still don't get it. What little I understand doesn't strike me as mathematically sound, either.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

It just doesn't utilize its word count effectively.

Staff of Oscillating Presence:
Staff of Oscillating Presence
Aura moderate varies; CL 10th
Slot –; Price 30,340 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
The sterling head of this checkered staff resembles that of a large tuning fork. The staff allows use of the following spells:
  • Blur (1 charge)
  • Displacement (2 charges)
  • Mirror image (1 charges)

By expending 3 charges, the wielder can touch a willing creature with the head of the staff, causing both it and the creature to vibrate with a resonating chime. The subject vibrates with such intensity to split into two oscillating images, each one occupying an adjacent space. The subject may take actions and perform attacks from either image’s position, each image threatening and capable of flanking.

Attacks, spells, and other abilities can target either image to affect the subject. However, attacks have a 50% miss chance, and spells that target the creature have a 50% chance of failing unless the spellcaster has sight of both images. Spells and abilities that affect multiple creatures cannot subject the creature more than once as a result of occupying two spaces for the same reasons multiple target and area spells affect a Large creature no differently from a Medium creature.

The effect ends when the staff stops vibrating after 1 minute, the subject taking the position of one image of his choice. Dimensional anchor suppresses the effect and causes the subject to randomly end up in either image’s position. The staff may oscillate only one creature at a time.
Construction
Requirements Craft Staff, blur, displacement, mirror image; Cost 15,170 gp

Not as developed as my entry. My pit crew also informed me that similar items appeared in previous years.

Ghost Chain Javelin:
Ghost Chain Javelin
Aura XXX; CL XXX
Slot –; Price XX gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
The haft of this +1 ghost touch javelin appears covered with haggard ethereal chains that emit light as a candle.

After a successful thrown ranged attack, the weapon embeds into the ground, causing the chains to reach out towards nearby victims like grasping hands. Creatures within 15 feet must succeed on a DC 15 Reflex save or become entangled in chains tethered to the weapon. The javelin poses no harm to additional creatures that approach it.

Each round while tethered, creatures cannot move away from the javelin unless they succeed on a DC 18 Strength check. On a failed check, the unearthly chains respond by dragging the victim 5 feet towards the weapon into an unoccupied adjacent space, if one exists.

A tethered creature can free themselves as a full round action by succeeding on a DC 23 Strength check or a DC 23 Escape Artist check. The chains automatically relinquish victims that move 30 feet from the javelin. A creature can pull the javelin free with a successful DC 28 Strength check, releasing all tethered creatures. The individual that threw the weapon automatically succeeds on this check.

The chains affect incorporeal creatures as if they possessed the ghost touch quality. These creatures make Charisma checks instead of Strength checks to interact with the bindings.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, dimensional anchor, snare; Cost XX gp

Star Voter 2014

ckdragons wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I like giving maximum hitpoints for several reasons.

Do you also max hp all of the monsters, too?

I like some of your points you provided. However, my players are quite experienced playing Pathfinder since it was released, in addition to D&D for many many years prior.

For a period, I tried having every monster be at maximum, but it made combats last too long, just as you said earlier in this thread. Now, I usually keep the hit points as shown in the stat block, but if I want the encounter to use up more resources, I'll raise them to max.

Star Voter 2014

Ravingdork wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Protoman wrote:
If it's a continuous effect, how do you change the appearance the hat of disguise is granting?
Take it off and put it back on?
This is actually how I've always interpreted it. There's something to be said for someone able to change identities like others change hats. ;P

Admittedly, the item is kind of vague.

One of my characters made a custom hat of disguise where a command word changes the disguise with the hat polymorphing into whatever form that fits the disguise. For example, if you disguise yourself as an attractive elf with a barrette in her hair, the hat stays as a barrette even when you take it off. Whenever you put the barrette on, you disguise as that same elf until you decide to change the disguise with a command word. Since making this custom hat of disguise, my group has houseruled the core hat working the same way.

Star Voter 2014

I like giving maximum hitpoints for several reasons.

1) It makes the characters more durable. My players put a considerable amount of investment in the narrative of their characters. I tailor the campaign to their characters' stories. Nobody wants a player to make a new character all the time. While I don't want my campaign to be without death, I want to make sure a character's death is a decisive consequence.

2) It gives me wiggle room to be brutal or imperfect in my encounter design. It allows me to let enemies focus fire or use clever tactics, because I know the PCs are more durable than the average character.

3) My players still feel like death is possible. If the players feel too indestructible, I can throw them a tough encounter to keep their hubris in check. That's my power as a GM. Really, GMs should be doing this anyway -- alternating between easy and tough encounters to give the players highs and lows.

4) It's so much easier to calculate hitpoints. My players aren't the most savvy with Pathfinder, so sometimes they calculate their stats wrong (more often NOT in their favor). With max hitpoints, it's always Level * (Hit Die + Con modifier). If they use favored class bonuses for hitpoints, they can figure out if they done so just by checking the disparity.

5) Solves all the problems with random hitpoint generation.

Also remember that players feel much more weight with hit point loss than the GM. Losing 25% of a PC's hit points doesn't feel that big of a deal to a GM, who knows the scope of the adventure and encounter. To that player, it's a much bigger deal.

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

13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

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

#9 Focus shot works with firearms and any similar loading weapon

#10 "Denied Dexterity bonus to AC" is remained to the "flat-footed" condition. Being flat-footed at the start of combat is just a special case.

#11 Ghost touch and other on-hit melee only weapon abilities can be applied to ammunition.

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

Archae wrote:
Well I had an idea for the fluff its just a matter of actually typing it up at this point

If you write the fluff, the mechanics should come out well.

To me, a real key to making an interesting race is giving them meaningful flaws. Not just mechanical or physical ones either. Social and personality flaws. Mental flaws. Note that some of the iconic races have strengths and weaknesses that run counter to their strengths. Elves are incredibly smart, but often aloof or prideful. They're agile, but physically frail. Dwarves are friendly, loyal, and down-to-earth, but often portrayed as conceited and materialistic. They're hardy, but short and sluggish.

Star Voter 2014

I always feel like it's sort of backwards to stat the race first and then give them fluff rather than the other way around.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

Jacob W. Michaels wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
Anthony Adam wrote:

That's an interesting idea there Nazard...

A fighter based staff with fighter based powers... very unique possibly?

Wow, that's ... DON'T DISTRACT ME!! MUST FOCUS ON MAP SKILLZ!

But yeah - having submitted my item for this round, this intrigues me. I may have to chase this rabbit a bit...just to see what happens...

Maybe not a fighter-based staff, but what about one that's spells were based on one of the other classes with an expendable resource, like ki or grit/panache? That might be something I'd upvote, depending how it was done. Expand staves a little bit...

Why didn't I think of that? However, i think such a staff would need much more than that to be Superstar. Just changing the resource isn't enough.

Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder models sanity with Wisdom damage/drain. If a PC takes a significant amount of mental stat drain, they risk suffering an insanity.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

For art programs, I personally recommend GIMP. It's a free Photoshop-like program you can download. Change the preferences to have everything snap to the grid and set the grid to something like 50 pixels (it's better to make the image large and shrink it when exporting). Then use line tools and such. You can place a grid over the image by creating a new layer, pasting the grid there, and then set the layer to multiply.

I personally use Adobe Illustrator for simple line art maps. If I want to pretty it up, I export it to Photoshop and paint over it.

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

You can still do dry playtesting by playing out the class in your mind or creating a character using the class and seeing how they measure up compared to core classes.

This is another plus with making archetypes or talents over whole classes. With an archetype, you don't need as much testing. I test my classes by making NPCs with them.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

Don't special abilities cost double because weapons are slotless items?

Star Voter 2014

Sounds like a boring way to solve their mobility issues. I honesty considered replacing Nimble with a scaling Dodge feat and maybe give Mobility for free, which would allow the class to easily pick up really cool mobility feats.

Star Voter 2014

Rallaster wrote:
@Cyrad: Everybody starts somewhere.

I'm not ridiculing you. I'm recommending starting small and utilize the existing design spaces as much as possible. Actually, have you considered entering into the RPG Superstar competition? The forums there can really help you build up your design skills. They have mine.

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

I agree with your expansion of SAK.

I didn't know you add the full price of the masterwork weapon to the cost. Thanks for pointing that out.

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

170. You inherit 2d4 adorable kittens all exactly specified in your aunt's will...written 3 years ago.

Star Voter 2014

Rallaster wrote:
@Cyrad: The fighter basically only has 4 class features... Feats, Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training...

The fighter isn't that well designed, but even it has more than your class. If your class is just a fighter with a few bonuses to charging, then you might want to reconsider its design. Additionally, the obvious lack of proofreading make this appear as a first draft. If you want to be a game designer, you need to put much more effort and consideration into your work than this.

As I've said to many that posted classes on this forum, classes are one of the hardest things to design in this game. It takes plenty of experience, skill, time, and effort to create a good class. It always baffles me why many individuals on this forum think they can crank out a class in a few hours in a single draft without any dry playtesting. With most of them looking like existing classes with only one or two minor class feature differences, it baffles me why they make classes in the first place. One of Pathfinder's best features stems from the numerous ways you can use existing classes to make new character concepts, such as with archetypes and talent pools.

Rallaster wrote:
@LazarX: It wouldn't kill you to read it before making assumptions from the name... Sephyrus, sounds like zephyr? Also, its based on the name of a greek god Zephyrus. God of wind.

A person's first impression provides very powerful insights into the quality of your work. Don't discredit it.

Star Voter 2014

Honestly, I rolled Appraise and Craft into Profession. Instead of Craft (alchemy) you got Profession (alchemist). Instead of Appraise, you got Profession (merchant).

Star Voter 2014

Yet another class that should be an archetype because it doesn't have enough fleshed out mechanics and class features.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

It needs to be a single item, but like Jacob says, you can try to make it a double weapon.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

A word, by definition, is a string of characters delimited by white space characters. In other words, as long as you don't put any spaces in your tags, you should be fine.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

Items that negate a spell or attack and throw it back at the assailant while gaining some kind of buff against that type of attack. I saw like 7 or 8 of those last year and I don't think any of them made it top 100.

Star Voter 2014

Am I one of the only GMs that love augury-like spells?

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

The 1st advice still feels a little vague to me. I'm guessing the weapon's use or form should play a major role in its special ability?

It feels weird that I was worried that one of my items would be too much like a weapon, and now I'm worried a converted version of that item is too much like a wondrous item.

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

What is a rod, anyway? Staves have the unique prospect of being a rechargeable spell trigger item that scales with the wielder's caster level. Nearly all rods, however, strike me as bland wondrous items with X per day abilities.

I really wanted to make a magic gun. I love magic guns. While I can think of half a dozen cool and flavorable magic guns, I suspect the prejustice and high expectations will require something truly clever and innovative to pull off.

Star Voter 2014

Just because a build doesn't optimally synergize with all of your abilities doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. With a thrower, you're still encouraged to have Strength and many thrown weapons are melee weapons, so the magus can thrive with a switch hitter build. What matters is that you're having fun. I played a two-hander magus and another magus that was rather effective with a bow while the other melee-oriented gish in the party sat there twiddling her thumbs because she refused to carry a ranged weapon. Why? Because it wasn't "optimal" for her character.

Star Voter 2014

CalethosVB wrote:
Just doing a bunch of writing on this has made me realize that classes (or archetypes) can't really be banged out in a day. At least, not by me.

I started developing mine months ago and still not ready for the public to see!

Star Voter 2014

Alex G St-Amand wrote:

Outside PFS

- Bring back Cure/Inflict Minor Wound, it's time consuming, but not wealth wasting and not iritating for people who roll 1s or 2s on CLW almost all the times.

- Remove the Randomness from Cure and Inflict spells when used for healing.

Neither options remove the need for healing items, but reduce it to more manageable levels.

I'm considering a house rule for the second one. You can attempt a Heal check when spending 10 minutes providing care for a character. If successful, all cure spell, spell-like, and supernatural abilities targeting this character during the period are maximized as if subject to the Maximize Spell feat.

Star Voter 2014

CalethosVB wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
CalethosVB wrote:
Again, I didn't use the Magus as the chassis for this as I didn't think Spell Combat or all its supporting abilities lent themselves to the class I'm trying to build, as this isn't supposed to be a combat spellcaster but a melee specialist with a few specialized spells.
If that's the case, then make them a full BAB class that gets spells at 4th level and some kind of teleportation ability at 1st or 2nd level.
I see 3/4 BAB as the "sweet spot" where classes are allowed to gain cool and useful abilities, both in and out of combat and not just a large scaling flat bonus to hit and damage, but where tactics beyond "I full-attack it" come into play.

The problem is that the class doesn't have enough cool abilities to stand as its own class, and you refused to hook what little you have on an existing class. I can play your character concept as another class and do better. If I want a rogueish fighter with spellcasting ability, I can play a magus. If I wanted to be more skill and utility focused, a bard is a better choice. Heck, I played a magus that reserved her spells for utility and crowd control and stealth rather than shocking grasp.

A class can have a full BAB and cool abilities. The paladin, the ranger, the swashbuckler, the bloodrager are all full of cool and fun class features. The brawler doesn't have many largely because of flurry of blows, martial flexibility, and the tons of bonus feats the class receives.

Star Voter 2014

Jiggy wrote:

What would happen if, without any other houserules in place, every effect whose only function was HP recovery was completely at-will? For instance, cure X wounds must be prepared in a slot or taken as a spell known as normal, but is not expended when cast (much like a cantrip, but for higher spell levels than 0). Channeled energy, when used to do nothing but heal HP damage, does not tick off a daily usage. And so forth.

What would the game be like, if that was the only change made?

This would change the game significantly.

Maybe a subtle change on the surface, but a major one nonetheless. It's subtle because CLW wands essentially give the healing resource pool a high capacity. However, wands are still a finite resource. Taking damage-to-be-healed still has a financial or class resource cost, which still incentivizes players to play smart even in non-deadly encounters. There will be many more consequences, perhaps too many for me to list at the moment. I'm dreadfully tired from finals week.

I do agree the healing item system and core assumptions need an overhaul. As I said earlier, I believe the problem simply stems from PCs being able to trivially carry way too much inexpensive healing at once. This is why at-will healing spells appear to have little effect on the game

Star Voter 2014 aka Cyrad

Remember that the goal of this competition is to show that you're a great game designer.

Star Voter 2014

This is a good discussion. I think this calls for experimentation. If I can finish my work for the day, I'll see if I can create a few machination diagrams and run some tests. I use machination diagrams to study game mechanics and refine the mechanics of my own creations.

LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:
Healing surges and hit die, in particular, reinforce what I call the "one-day adventure." It removes the long attrition one expects from a multi-day journey by having everything replenish at the start of each day.
Everything, except other consumables, rituals, whatever gear got broken/henchmen killed/mounts perished, rations... You know, all that unimportant stuff. But HP gets recovered, so I guess you can just adventure-a-day.

As I mentioned earlier, healing should be the big resource because combat serves as a major pillar of the game. It's also a consistently needed resource that requires regular attention, unlike henchmen, mounts, and rations (which are cheap, easy to store, and do not risk spoiling).

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Healing surges and hit die, in particular, reinforce what I call the "one-day adventure." It removes the long attrition one expects from a multi-day journey by having everything replenish at the start of each day.
What we're seeing is probably a decline in "multi-day journey" expectations. I know I find the idea of them at least a little tedious and prefer the action happen over a short, possibly even rushed, span of space and time.

Like mplindustries says, I feel like some players are growing accustomed to an adventure lacking long term resources. However, I believe many players do not like this paradigm. The ubiquitous nature of CLW wands spurs many complaints, many of them involving how CLW eliminates attrition.

My point is: we can have it both ways. We can compromise. The current systems aren't balanced. Without CLW/surges, out-of-combat healing is too scarce. With CLW/surges, it's too plentiful. We can design a system that finds the right balance. This could be as simple as changing the healing items themselves.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

mplindustries, I'm gonna take you up in detail here -- I'm not intending to simply contradict you, but to seize upon an interesting discussion. Here goes!

mplindustries wrote:

The core issue here is this:

The game is, at it's core, about managing attrition.

Is it? Why do you say this?

I often say the game is about power fantasy, and has become increasingly so over the various editions.

mplindustries is referring to the game mechanics. Under the hood, the game works by attrition. I explained this in detail earlier in the thread.

The game is about many things, but adventure is one that endures. It's one worth supporting. We can have the game be about many things at once as long as the game supports them in a way that do not render them mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, CLW/healing surges do a terrible job of this.

Star Voter 2014

CalethosVB wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Street smarts has no gameplay with it. It's just bonus damage on something the player is trying to do anyway (get sneak attacks).
Let me point out Bravery and Weapon Training.

That's a really bad counterexample. Many consider the fighter one of the worst designed classes because they're just a ball of stats and bonus feats. It's why modern martials like the swashbuckler, slayer, and

CalethosVB wrote:
Again, I didn't use the Magus as the chassis for this as I didn't think Spell Combat or all its supporting abilities lent themselves to the class I'm trying to build, as this isn't supposed to be a combat spellcaster but a melee specialist with a few specialized spells.

If that's the case, then make them a full BAB class that gets spells at 4th level and some kind of teleportation ability at 1st or 2nd level.

Star Voter 2014

Street smarts has no gameplay with it. It's just bonus damage on something the player is trying to do anyway (get sneak attacks). Arcane pool and spells require decision making and resource management. Even the Arcane Accuracy arcana (which doesn't allow the magus to add his Intelligence to damage, by the way) requires spending points. The flavor is also really weak.

You need much more mechanics to have this idea stand as its own class. Designing classes is hard. Really hard. So hard that it baffles me why everyone's first instinct when envisioning a character concept is to build an entire class on it when Pathfinder has many ways to modify existing classes.

Star Voter 2014

Starting most combats at full hit points is fine. However, I have issue with CLW/healing surges/hit die trivializing the resources necessary to achieve that. Trivializing them undermines the feeling of adventure because the PCs become less dependent on resupplying, which removes the long term attrition. Healing surges and hit die, in particular, reinforce what I call the "one-day adventure." It removes the long attrition one expects from a multi-day journey by having everything replenish at the start of each day.

Star Voter 2014

They have a 3/4 BAB and only 4-levels of spellcasting. That's weak compared to other similar classes. The standard structure for a gish class is 3/4 BAB and 6-level spellcasting. Even so, those classes have much more class features. Look at the vivisectionist alchemist. They start off with the same skills/BAB, sneak attack, mutagen, and 6-level extracts. And I'd consider the vivisectionist weaker than the base alchemist.

The magus is still a good chassis, even if you want to remove spell combat.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.