|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Cathus, the demiplane of intelligent cats weirds you out, and not Kinara, the demiplane of magical sentient tumors? Or Stais, the demiplane of living diseases?
Poor warpriest. All we really wanted was a full BAB divine class that wasn't a paladin.
So we still have the situation where a class all about grace and agility with piercing weapons can add their Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with a bastard sword, but not a dagger.
In fairness, that PCs have any option at all for Dex to damage is pretty damn strong, perhaps even unbalanced. If we were to decide Dex to damage is an acceptable mechanic (which they clearly did), having it come with stipulations is not exactly out of line.
Oh, I agree with you that it's strong and should not come without cost. I'm not here to start a "Dex to Damage balance" argument. Like you said, Paizo already decided this is an acceptable mechanic, but implemented it in such a bafflingly horrible way. Remember this was an advertised feature of the swashbuckler.
Wait, Fencing Grace only works for rapiers? One specific type of piercing weapon? When Slashing Grace lets you choose any non-two-handed slashing weapon? So it's still better to use a big hulking slashing weapon on a class all about using agile piercng weapons?
Come on, Paizo! You had two books to get this right. Oh, okay, so the feat also gives a +2 against disarm attempts? That seems useful on a class that gains immunity to all combat maneuvers targeting their weapon of choice.
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.
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.
With that logic, it should be evocation because you're invoking energy. Also not a bad idea.
I'd honestly overhaul prices of "spell-in-a-can" items, but that would be a monumental task as many items in the game are based on those numbers.
Sean K Reynolds made a good article about wands. For my campaign, I'm seriously considering removing wands entirely and reducing the price of potions so they're about the cost of a single charge of a wand. This would...
1) Reduce the price of consumable, non-expertise magic, making higher level spell consumables more viable.
2) Eliminate the tired notion of stockpiling CLW wands.
3) Potions have many mechanical and physical restrictions, such as action economy and encumbrance, that would help keep them in check.
4) Nerf the cleric as the action economy restrictions of potions would force them to use spells and channels more. Likewise, wand-using cohorts and familiars would suffer as well.
5) Makes a dedicated healer less necessary since anyone can use potions while at the same time making healing classes more valuable since they can burst heal with way better action economy.
6) Buffs Brew Potion.
7) Scrolls still retain their value since they don't have the target restrictions as a potion.
8) Help mitigate the abuse cases of wands that make skills obsolete since oils have to be physically applied.
9) Makes sense, in-world-wise. It makes more sense to buy a jug of healing potion than stockpile a bunch of magic sticks.
I like having agency over character builds on a per-level basis. Not only does it give me something to ponder and more to look forward to, but, more importantly, it allows my character's abilities to develop and change along with all other aspects of them. I love dynamic characters, ones whose attitudes and personalities change depending on the events that unfold. I like having the character's mechanics reflect that. However, this is a preference of mine. I understand many prefer keeping their character build options static from creation. That's fine.
That being said, I'm not trying to start edition wars. When I judge how much content 5th Edition's PHB has, I'm comparing to other games, not just Pathfinder. Shadowrun and Numenera have comparable prices to their CRBs and both have twice the page count. Both these games came with setting content, GMing rules, sample bestiaries, and even adventures. And 5e's PHB uses up a lot of space with larger fonts, more illustrations, and huge margins (though I do agree it's much easier on the eyes).
Sean K Reynolds talked about this before. I'd take his suggestion and simply revise the spells per day tables so they automatically account for the minimum ability score necessary to cast them. Eliminate any bonus spells you would get from above 20 Int/Cha/Wis, which will likely not significantly harm full caster's already excellent end game.
Honestly, I have a larger problem with the flavor of the spell. To me, it doesn't make any sense that you can cast a single spell to create an Efreeti and essentially get at-will scorching rays and plane shifts and get X amount of spells 3 times per day. That would be like if there existed a spell that granted you 9 free spell slots a day. That's madness. At least summon monster makes sense (it's a creature independent of you) and it's heavily regulated.
If I remade simulacrum, I'd split it into several spells, each one for a different creature type. It creates a creature of the type with CR X. If it has any of the abilities listed in its comparable polymorph spell description, it has those abilities.
Razmir is not a PC. He's an NPC, a story element, a narrative character. "What would you do if Razmir was a PC that you played?" is a trivial question. I assume you asked a narrative question, not a mechanical one. The answer to almost any mechanical question is "twink out my PC and kill everything standing between me and my goal."
Another necro'd thread?
It really depends on your interpretations of the ability scores and the flavor of the classes. For me, Intelligence works fine for witches. I think of the patron as more of a teacher than some entity a witch devotes their faith into. Mechanically, that's all the patron does anyway -- teach the witch spells they normally couldn't learn. Additionally, when I think of a witch, I think of a spellcaster that performs their magic through arcane rituals rather than invoking some kind of heritage.
I based the latter half of my campaign by answering the question "What would I do if I was Razmir?"
Riding drakes might work. Drakes are no where near as intelligent or egotistical as true dragons. Balance-wise, it's also more manageable. It might make sense if there existed a league of knights that raised drakes to be valorous.
Riding true dragons, however, raises a very important question. What does a true dragon gain from having a rider? Dragons are smarter and both magically and physically more powerful than even some of the most heroic humanoids. Some dragons can even shapeshift into humanoid form. Why would they ever want some monkey on their back telling them what to do? Even companionship isn't much of a reason as dragons can live up to a thousand years.
I write, design, roleplay, and illustrate characters outside of tabletop gaming. Most of my character concepts already exist. So, it's normally a matter of selecting an existing character and adapting them to the system and setting.
For example, I have a character that's a four-armed anthropomorphic cerberus that guards an ancient forbidden library and born as a result of the last intruders that foolishly tried to use the library's knowledge. My GM was a big fan of the character, so he let me adapt her for his Pathfinder campaign.
Am I allowed to say I'd still play/run Pathfinder even if I found/created a game I like better? Is it madness to say my fandom for games is not mutually exclusive? That I'd still use Pathfinder content even if I used a different game system? Though, that game might be Sean K Reynold's Five Moons RPG, not 5th Edition.
5e has more class and race choices in the PHB than Pathfinder has in the CRB.
Pathfinder CRB has way more character building options and also has magic item listings, rules for intelligent items, and game mastering rules. I wasn't even comparing PF's CRB to 5th Edition in my earlier statement. While not as many classes as 5th Edition's PHB, 4th Edition's classes had a ton more crunch into it and the book had magic items. That book was about 35 bucks.
I'm not trying to make this into a PF vs 5e argument. I'm just saying that I expected more content for a $50 book when the previous edition had more pages, a competitor had twice the page count, and a percentage of the book was made free.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Aye, specializations are basically a built-in archetype system. I'm not that crazy about how they implemented them, but I really like some of them. (It still tempts me to make an Eldritch Knight archetype for the fighter).
If you're doing any kind of write up, you should put it in a document stored on a cloud, like Google Drive. It makes it easier to read, and if someone wants to use it, they can print or export it. Additionally, you can't change your post, so it's best to post a link than put the content directly on the post. When I post stuff, I tend to post a link and then give a summary in my actual post.
I just hope the 5e sorcerer ends up with more than just dragon bloodline and wild magic.
Agreed. One of my biggest complaints against the PHB is lack of content. Every class only received two or three specializations. No magic items. Almost no content for higher level of play as the developers admittedly centered the game's design around the first few levels.
I'm not sure if WotC "stole" from Pathfinder when they gave bloodlines to sorcerers. Sorcerers had bloodlines in 4th Edition, the book they appeared in released and developed around the same time as the PF CRB. The bloodlines listed in 5th Edition take from 4th Edition, however, the dragon bloodline does look rather similar to the one in PF.
Getting an extra attack is actually way better for 5th Edition than 3rd Edition. It's more difficult to obtain iterative attacks for non-martials. Martials, obviously, do more damage and tend to have higher ability scores since they receive score increases more frequently and most of the martial feats grant ability score increases, negating the cost of the feat.
Having ability score increases scale off of BAB would actually be kind of neat in PF and help reduce martial dependency on belts. How about a character receives a +1 ability score increase at +3, +6, +9, +12, +15, and +18 BAB? This means martials get bonuses every three levels. Gishes get bonuses every four levels as normal. And full arcane casters get bonuses every six levels.
No! Not another one! I'm already working on two classes ontop of my thesis and have been neglecting the Blazing 9.
My comment was largely that the class was advertised as a "Lovecraftian detective" and the actual class doesn't fit the description it conveys.
In 5th Edition, concentration doesn't expend your standard action.
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.
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.
I believe the Constitution modifier cap on essence pool and the iterative attack progression will help gate the nova potential.
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.
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.
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.
On entropic malison, I cannot recommend lowering the BAB for the sake of a single, problematic ability. Especially one that doesn't add much gameplay or flavor to the class. If you lower the BAB, then you need to give them 6-level spells. No class in the game has a 3/4 BAB without any spells. The only exceptions (monk and rogue) Paizo intends to fix that in Pathfinder Unchained.
I still think having greater malison target a single creature for a greater is a good way to give some gameplay choices. Also, keep in mind that the ranger and paladin both get 4-level spells and they're full BAB classes.
Bonus feats might work. I'd say a greater malison at 2nd level and every three levels after. A bonus feat at 3rd level and every three levels after. Give them spellcasting at 4th level or some kind of spell-like ability progression centered around curses.
A martial with a debuff aura. Not a bad concept. For the most part, it looks okay. However, there just isn't enough meat on the bones of this class. They don't have enough cool class features. Giving them 4-level spell progression or bonus feats might help.
My biggest problem with malison is that passive auras don't have much in the way of gameplay. The character will just run up and attack things -- there's no decision making on part of the player. Another problem is that this is a bookkeeping nightmare for the GM. If I were designing this class feature, I'd keep the aura something simple and useful (-2 to attack rolls and saves at 1st level), and have greater malisons be swift actions that target a creature in the aura for some greater effect. The Strength/Dexterity penalties greater malisons also seem way more powerful than other effects.
Also, you need to have each ability description indicate what level the class receives it. Don't make the player have to cross reference the table constantly.
You have great flavor, but I'm honestly not impressed with it. It's basically an alchemist that trades mutagen and bombs for a few little questionable abilities. I do have to give credit for the capstone ability's creatvity, though basically most of them are essentially free tickets to derail the campaign. I hoped for deeper mechanics. It makes me pine for an investigator mechanic that takes Wisdom damage to use inspiration for greater effect, representing the character making a huge relevation at the cost of their sanity.
You have interesting ideas, a class all about mutating himself or others, but I can't say I like the execution. Eldritch pool is way too powerful. You should make your own list of evolutions rather than use the eidolon's (a broken class feature in its own right). As written, the alienist can make everyone in the party grow wings at 2nd level, letting them fly three levels before any other class can. That's a big benchmark no-no. In addition, the alienist gets a ton of points. The other class features don't really impress me. Most of them are just stealing hexes and mysteries from the witch and oracle.
I expected an investigator that deals with eldritch abominations and cults worshipping Dark Tapestry gods. Instead, I got a mad scientist that mutates people and steals primary class features from other classes.
That sounds like an interesting idea for the bloodrager, but not quite what I'm shooting for. Reaving every round would shoot the essence pool economy.
The point I'm making in the context of this discussion is that it eliminates the extra math one has to do when gaining bonuses and penalties. In nearly every case in the game, only the ability modifiers matter. So rage would simply grant +2 STR, which equates to +2 to attack and damage rolls with melee weapons.
Does it still take a swift action to activate a reave after hitting an opponent in melee?
It's a swift action, but now I'm considering making it a free action and having some essence-spending exploits usable as a swift action. This might solve a lot of action economy problems.
For example, there's one exploit that steals a creature's size. As a reave effect, the target gets affected as reduce person. The reaver can spend a point of essence to gain the benefits of enlarge person. So the reduction could be reave effect (free action) and the enlargement a swift action.
What's your thoughts on this?
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. I was starting to feel fairly confident about this.
However, you're absolutely right. As their signature ability that the entire class centers around, it should be something they can do often. So #2 isn't a good idea.
I think Jason Bulman said he wanted Pathfinder Unchained to fix this problem so that "everytime you rage, you don't have to sit down and do a bunch of math."
Even Sean K Reynolds is eliminating ability scores from his new RPG that he's kickstarting for this reason. Instead of having ability scores, you only have ability modifiers
Wouldn't be too hard to homebrew one.
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.
Alright, thanks, Amanuensis.
An archetype that sabotages undead sounds like a great idea.
I'm still not confident about the default effect of reave (1d4+1/2 level negative energy damage and shaken for Charisma bonus rounds). I'm very strongly leaning on the idea of making it melee-only with an exploit that allows you to do it at range and perhaps affect multiple targets at once. My ideas are:
1) Keep it the same. 1d4+[1/2 level] negative energy damage plus shakened for [Charisma bonus] rounds (Will halves damage and negates shakened). Exploits replace shakened condition with a different condition.
2) Reduce reaves per day to Charisma + 1/2 level. Reave deals 1d4 per odd level negative energy damage plus Charisma modifier (Will halves). Eldritch Ray deals the same damage as reave. All exploits simply add effects to reave.
3) Same as #1 except reave deals 1d4 negative energy damage and an extra die every 4 levels.
4) Same as #2 except 1d6 instead of 1d4?
I'm not really a fan of archetypes that let you cheat spell slot economy. Being able to cast any 1-4th level spell as a standard action is kind of broken, in my opinion, even at the cost of a 5th level spell. That's even better than Quicken Spell. I want archetypes that will make playing the class more fun. This doesn't really make it fun and instead just gives more munchkin tools.