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, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,773 posts (1,957 including aliases). 7 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,773 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I have little intention in playing the game anyway because I'm not happy with subscription-based games. A big reason I play online games is to hang out with friends. It's hard to get friends to play a game I'm playing when they have to make a monthly payments.


Hm, interesting, though this race is annoying to read.

I agree with the others, but I also feel like you aren't using your design space effectively. For example, why does the feat that turns the tentacle into a natural weapon consider them as slam attacks when the game already defines a tentacle natural weapon? Most of the feats are really lame and look like they should be alternate racial traits or just race traits. Their society also needs more work. It doesn't really show me much about this race. What do they value? How does their civlization work? How do they treat one another? What about themselves do they take pride in? What gods do they worship and why?


Goth Guru wrote:
I choose B. Having that qualifies as having the feat or class ability of two weapon fighting when gaining a feat that requires it.

Really? I did not think that to be true unless the ability specifically calls it out.


rainzax wrote:
maybe DR/10 plus total concealment (50%)?

That's too powerful for a 3rd level spell to have all that. Besides, there's already a 3rd level spell that gives 50% miss chance and there's a 4th level spell that gives DR 10/adamantine up to a maximum amount of damage absorbed.


Alright, onward to Integrated Assault, the "flurry" attack for this class. I can't decide between two ideas for it:

A) Whenever the class full-attacks, they get a bonus attack from an integrated weapon (not stacking with Rapid Shot and TWF).

B) When full-attacking with only integrated weapons, they're treated as having TWF (essentially like brawler's flurry or flurry of blows)

I'm also reluctant to grant full flurry progression to this class. Unlike the brawler and monk, they can get a lot more interesting abilities than either of those classes and they already have an advantage in using better weaponry with the attack. Power sources should let the special attack and integrated weapons scale well without more extra attacks. What do you think?


Goth Guru wrote:
Draft C is pretty good.

Alrighty then! Rapid Reload seems like the better option, but the capacity makes it more unique and solves the same problem without giving too much. By the time the character's iteratives start to overcome their capacity, they should always have all their staple ranged feats to make choosing Rapid Reload not so painful. Hm, maybe I could also introduce an upgrade that works like Manyshot.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

INTEGRATED WEAPONS

RANGED
You mention that "two-handed" ranged weapon do not require a second hand to use. Does this mean I can wield two composite longbows and use the two-weapon fighting chain?

No, because you still need a hand to reload. But that can be pretty ridiculous, which is why the above drafts add the requirement that the weapon must be wieldable in one hand.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

GAUNTLET

As compenation for the general underwhelming ability of unarmed/gauntlet attacks, you toss in a +2 size bonus to CMB. I appreciate the sentiment, but the effectiveness is lost if my character gains the effect of enlarge person. I would eliminate the bonus type. If you still want a limiting factor, then change it +1.

That's a good catch. I might make the gauntlets an upgrade, a freebie, or an archetype that restricts you to using close weapons but grants full brawler's flurry.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

LAUNCHER

You have a bunch of ambiguous language in here. For the most part, it functions as though the character was simply throwing the weapon or loading and firing it. The only advantage here is that the weapon gains the enhancement of the launcher, is that correct? I really dislike the standard action to load a one-handed weapon. I think there is an easier way to say that is functions exactly as a normal thrown weapon.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Future versions won't take any longer than the time needed to draw a weapon.


I'm not crazy about granting extra standard actions either. I'd explicitly limit the choices what the class can do with them, which is what the monk of the four winds's slow time ability does.

Moving up to your speed as a swift action is a really powerful ability (in fact, it's a mythic ability). Even if it were just 30, 20, or even 10 feet, that's insanely good. Even the fact it's based off of movement speed rather than a flat value means it scales well if the class buffs their movement speed. Additionally, they can get an extra attack as a swift action. There's absolutely no reason for any martial to not dip one level into dynamo. Ranged fighters can get an extra attack and can move as a swift action and full attack.


Alright, then the class can attack multiple times with the same weapon in a flurry of blows-like way. Here's three drafts of integrated weapon. The first one tries to keep the weapon standardized but later provide ways to augment it. The second and third restricts integrated weapons to only weapons you can wield in one hand--this helps ensure ranged weapons are too strong with this since one-handed ranged weapons tend to have half the range increment. To not hurt them too much, they

Draft a


  • cannot be disarmed
  • can draw weapon as a free action and retract weapon as a move action as if using the stow weapon action
  • choose whether it is a melee weapon or a ranged weapon
  • choose whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage
  • deal 1d6 points of damage and apply full Strength modifier to damage rolls regardless of type
  • ranged integrated weapons have a range increment of 40 feet and are reloaded with a free action

Draft B


  • cannot be disarmed
  • can draw weapon as a free action and retract weapon as a move action as if using the stow weapon action
  • has the properties of a light melee weapon, one-handed melee weapon, or a ranged weapon that requires one hand to wield
  • if a thrown weapon, the integrated weapon fires it as if it were ammunition and the artiforged
  • if a ranged weapon, the artiforged receives Rapid Reload for this integrated weapon as a bonus feat.
  • add Strength modifier to damage rolls regardless of type

Draft C


  • cannot be disarmed
  • can draw weapon as a free action and retract weapon as a move action as if using the stow weapon action
  • has the properties of a light melee weapon, one-handed melee weapon, or a ranged weapon that requires one hand to wield
  • if a thrown weapon, the integrated weapon fires it as if it were ammunition
  • ranged integrated weapons can hold 4 units of ammunition
  • add Strength modifier to damage rolls regardless of type


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deadly Agility is better and more balanced.


Interesting upgrade suggestions.

Goddity wrote:
You say one attack per weapon, and they only get one weapon at first level. This makes integrated assault entirely redundant, until 5th. There should be more levels with upgrades and more upgrades in general.

You're totally right. They only get the second attack if they pick gauntlets. This should be the first thing that gets changed. As I see it, I need to do either of three things with integrated weapons:

A) The class should get more integrated weapons to make use of the extra attacks. However, that could get cumbersome dealing with a plethora of different weapons on the character.

B) The class should be able to attack multiple times with the same weapon when using integrated assault. This, however, would make it very powerful for ranged builds.

C) The class should get some other special attack instead of a flurry of blows-like attack.

Which appeals to you?


Christopher Dudley wrote:
The flip side of that is that if their body augmentations improve them along the lines of the expected gear level, it should cost them gold to improve. Because getting WBL gear for free in ADDITION to their WBL really is too much.

Just giving them free gear and stats is not really a direction I want to go in, which is why I choose to, instead, give them ways to augment the special things they get from the class.

Goth Guru wrote:
I stand by the no encumbrance for installed armor.

I don't want to do that directly since that's kind of the fighter's thing. However, I think I do agree that a class feature that involves grafting something on you to impede your movement sounds like a bad deal. It might be better to keep it as an armor bonus to AC that's attached to you, sort of like an innate bracers of armor.


Vagabond? wrote:
And, yeah, to be frank, it is supposed to be kinda a nerf- Kinda trying to drop Wizard from tier 1 to tier 1.5 or so. UNLIMITED POWER comes at a sizable cost.

Every change should be done to make the game more fun to play. All of these nerfs just feel like punches to face than an attempt to tone down their power.


Getting crippled by my own abilities doesn't sound very fun at all, actually.


Maybe the previous draft can help? I didn't realize how complete the last draft was--just not having all the upgrades finished.

LINK


I believe she did not use the spell to its potential. It's best to use gaseous form to ensure an escape rather than simply run away. Other spells are already good for that, like haste or fly. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And I don't think it should be. I think it's great the spell requires a little bit of planning and creativity to utilize properly.


If you're using gaseous form to tank attacks, you're doing it wrong. You can fly and fit through tiny cracks so they can't attack you at all.


A friend recently told me he wants to start a magitech campaign and gave me permission to play a class of my own design. I can't pass up this opportunity to playtest my artiforged class, which is a perfect fit. However, there's several things I haven't figured out well and I need to finish the draft by the end of the month!

The class, called the artiforged, is basically the fantasy equivalent of a cyborg, designed to be largely setting neutral where the flavor of your augmentations varies. You could be attaching clockwork to yourself, growing organs using alchemy, Frankensteining yourself with undead limbs, or turning yourself into a half-man/half-Groot-like creature. It's a full BAB class centered around the character gradually augmenting their body. Some of its class features include:

  • Integrated Weapon: They receive a retractable masterwork weapon that's grafted onto their body.
  • Power Source: A resource pool that works similar to a sorcerer/bloodrager bloodline, dictating the flavor of how their augmentations work (clockwork, magical devices, symbiotic plants, necrocrafting, etc). The primary use of the resource pool involves buffing integrated weapon attacks for 1 round. The details of buff differ depending on the power source.
  • Upgrades: A talent pool where the class gains new gadgets and cool features, some of them costing a point from the resource pool
  • Integrated Armor: The class can somehow gain a power armor attached to them that can be enhanced.
  • Salvage Parts: The class can destroy an existing magic weapon or armor to transfer its magical enhancements to an integrated weapon or their armor.
I'm stumped on the following questions about designing these.
  • What should be the benefit of integrated weapons? I feel like this should be a major focus of the class. One idea I had was giving a flurry of blows-like attack. Another idea was that the class receives additional integrated weapons as they level up and have the ability to attack with all of them when full-attacking as if they were natural weapons.
  • What should the resource pool be like? In one draft, the pool was a static engine like a ki pool or arcane pool. However, that seems a little boring. Maybe instead, using abilities accumulates points that could be detrimental to you?
  • How should Integrated Armor be implemented? Should it be a scaling armor bonus or actually involve attaching armor to the character?


There's no such thing as elements in the game, except for elementals.


Synergex wrote:
The concept of the archetype was to trade utility/healing for more offense.

Pathfinder is an offense-oriented game. Offense is often more valuable than defense and healing. As a result, trading healing abilities for lots of more damage is a massive power increase. It's typically good archetype design to have ability replacements match the general purpose and theme of the ability getting replaced.


Considering that martials are more reliant on gear than other classes, the fact that they get the shaft on mythic powers while spellcasters become god-like with the ability to cast any spell they want, that sounds like a really bad idea.


Adding the spell to your spell list is still a pretty big deal for classes like bloodragers and magi who have class features restricted to only spells in their class's spell list.

Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Cyrad

Maurice took the words right out of my mouth. DC 25 Reflex save seems pretty high for a CR 1 trap. But that's a minor issue.

I actually really like the encounter. There's a lot going on. The premise is pretty evil in a fascinating way: an undead lord that uses living creatures as "soil" for his garden. That's such a delightfully evil thing that I gotta use that in my campaign. I also like how each enemy has their own tactic.

This will get a vote from me.


Having a low AC is something a Strength magus has to deal with until he can get better armor and items. Being a reach weapon wielder gives you an edge. Rely on your spells for defense and escaping bad situations.


Use the shield spell? It's not worth losing a level for something that will be fixed when you can have better armor and items. Especially when the dip involves a class that gives you a curse.


I remember having a conversation about this before. Having multiple levels of masterwork that increase the attack bonus (damage wouldn't really work because by definition, a +1 weapon is magical).

I worked out the price formula as price = [weapon price] + 300*[bonus]^2. It might be helpful to give each quality a name. +1 = masterwork, +2 = refined, +3 = flawless, +4 = superior, +5 = perfect.

The price of a bonus contributes towards the price of a magic weapon of the same bonus. In other words, if you want to upgrade your refined +1 longsword to a +2 longsword, you simply subtract the prices.


10 or automatic success for the same reason you don't need to do touch attacks to cast cure light wounds on your ally.


One could arrange a formula based on CR and the suggested treasure per encounter table, with the value increasing or decreasing depending on whether the monster's "treasure" value doubles or has no treasure at all.


Alright, great!


Rynjin wrote:

Don't get me started on the Seascarred, the variant with special Magus Arcana only it can take.

And an Int penalty.

I wasn't aware that you needed to be a seascarred to select those arcana. Most of the options don't actually say you need to be a certain race or heritage in the actual text of the option. For example, the arcana's text doesn't say you need to be a seascarred and for most of them, there's no reason why other characters could use it.


Yeah, some of the SLAs are pretty lame, like jump. However, the heritages that get the worst SLAs also get the best bestial form abilities. Though fanglords have jump, they have a choice of up to three natural attacks, +10 movement speed, and see in darkness. Despite having talking to rats as their SLA, wererat-kin get the best ability of them all: distraction! In fact, it actually looks overpowered unless your GM rules it only works on natural attacks.


Avianfoo wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Does this mean he can cast a spell with 1 minute casting time and concentrate on a manipulation?
No. The 1 minute casting time will be interrupted 1 round after it's started, by the concentration action, be it a standard, move or swift action.

Is this with or without the recent change you made?


I'm running a 2 year campaign. So far, no character deaths, but we had some close calls. Just like I prefer.

I'm honestly considering removing the material cost of raise dead based on arguments made by SKR.


When you stop and think about each non-core book as an optional third-party supplement that coincidentally was made by the company that made the core rulebook, suddenly every new book doesn't seem like the end of the game as we know it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skinwalkers don't take a -4 penalty to Charisma. Read this again.

Quote:
While in bestial form, a skinwalker takes a –4 penalty on Charisma and Charisma-based checks when interacting with humanoids that lack the shapechanger subtype.

The text means they take a penalty on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks. They have to use this language because Charisma checks are not skill checks---they're ability checks. Charisma checks are used for things such as charm person and Command Undead. If the author meant the bestial form grants a Charisma penalty, then the text would say "to Charisma" and the penalty would be mentioned in the Ability Score racial trait heading. Additionally, it doesn't make any lick of sense why some heritages would give you Charisma bonuses when you shapeshift despite having a penalty.


Avianfoo wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

3) If concentrating on a manipulation doesn't follow most of the rules for concentration, then it shouldn't be called "concentration."

It does follow most of the rules except one: spells and manipulations can be started while concentrating on the a previous manipulation. Later the puppeteer can spend different actions to concentrate on the manipulations.

Changing the action economy of it is a pretty big difference. This class has some major action economy issues. Being able to cast spells and use this ability also raises a lot of questions. You can't just say "the puppeteer can start casting a spell without breaking concentration" because concentrating on a spell is an on-going activity. If it were me, I'd make it work more like bardic performance or rage except you have to spend an action to renew it that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Cyrad wrote:
5) I find it odd that this class has a 3/4 BAB and needs to be within close range to use its main class feature, and yet they can never use that BAB to fight because they need to spend all their action economy on manipulation.
Are you saying the class should have more BA or less? Manipulations still require an attack to attach at very least and there is at least 1 manipulation that can be used to attack directly. That is before even looking at the mastermind flair.

I'm saying they should have more ways to use their BAB. They can't make any attacks while manipulating and having a BAB doesn't confer any benefit to his manipulations. It just feels like a waste. I do think giving them a 3/4 BAB and 6-level spellcasting is a good fit. And having manipulation be limited by requiring a standard action and additional action economy tax each round is a smart idea. However, it feels weird that he has a good BAB but cannot perform attacks or use it in any other way.

Much of this comes from experience when working on one of my classes. I had a class that needed a standard action to gain a resource, a standard action to use the resource and perform his primary blasting attack. In addition, he had a medium BAB and can cast spells. He had way too many things to do with his standard action. Your class seems like it will have plenty of action economy issues that make it really annoying to play.

Also, touch attacks were designed for low BAB characters. Even low BAB characters can easily land touch attacks, especially at higher levels. As a result, touch attacks are easy for a medium BAB character. Initiating a manipulation should be relatively easy to create a simple minion because the class has to use up a standard action just to start using their main class feature. However, i wouldn't call a touch attack a good way to utilize the BAB.


I feel like both classes are too narrow of concept and need a strong mechanic to back them up. But if I had to pick one of the two, I'd go with the first one, even though that sounds like a ranged flurry of blows. I could see that concept expanded for a melee combatant, maybe even a samurai with inhuman reflexes.


I'll look over the class with more detail later, but here are my first impressions.

1) A class centered around attaching magical threads to creatures and objects and controlling them like a puppet is really interesting. I've harshly criticized many classes on this forum because they lacked a unique/interesting mechanic worthy of an entire class. The puppeteer definitely deserves to be its own class and serves as a good foundation for a number of character concepts thanks to puppeteer masteries.

2) I got really confused when I first looked at the manipulation ability text. The text spends three paragraphs explaining the rules around manipulation without actually saying what the power actually does or how it benefits the player. I didn't understand it until I saw one of the puppeteer masteries. I highly recommend rewriting this ability to keep it simple and concise and clue that the benefits of the ability are listed elsewhere.

3) If concentrating on a manipulation doesn't follow most of the rules for concentration, then it shouldn't be called "concentration."

4) As a addition to #3, I agree with Ciaran that the strings should be better defined. Perhaps there's something you can do with the strings by themselves as defined under the manipulation text.

5) I find it odd that this class has a 3/4 BAB and needs to be within close range to use its main class feature, and yet they can never use that BAB to fight because they need to spend all their action economy on manipulation. It might be interesting that manipulation works by having the puppeteer sacrifice basic attacks to have their puppet attack instead. Almost like Azir from League of Legends. In other words, instead of manipulation working by maintaining "concentration," he performs actions using his puppets as if he were performing the action himself. Any action the puppet does uses his action economy. This would help make the class more distinct than just a summoner and allow other abilities to hook onto this mechanic.


Step 1: Why not just give the monk a full BAB? They should have been a full BAB class to begin with.

Step 2: That's a pretty big nerf as the monk relies heavily on Power Attack to really do some serious damage.

Step 3: I'm not crazy with this new FoB.

I also don't understand why the change with amulet of mighty fists.

I personally thought of making the TWF feat grant the ability to perform a special attack that's basically vital strike where the bonus damage uses the off-hand's damage dice. *Shrug*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I didn't see that there was a link there. This site's CSS always trips me up on that.


In terms of balance, the class's early game looks alright, but I'm not so sure about their late game. 6-level spellcasters tend to fall off around 10th level. Also keep in mind that all talent pools either have multiple tiers (rogue talents) and/or have level restrictions (magus arcana). Classes have this so they aren't stuck having to pick low level abilities. With this class, I'm not so sure. I think they'd be overpowered to gain major hexes or advanced ninja tricks.

On the other hand, having a 20 foot natural weapon is a pretty huge boon that pays off well in the end game. Some hexes are amazing at all levels (like Flight). So, I guess the class is pretty well balanced for the most part.

On another note, I'm not crazy about them getting lay on hands when they can already get the healing hex, which is amazing in its own right.


Ah, there we go. You don't need to use so many parenthesis. You have an entire sentence all in parenthesis.

This is actually a pretty cool idea. I've been brainstorming various replacements for spell combat and spellstrike that have the same general theme (combat-related action economy benefits with spells) but do something different.


I disagree. There's many cool archetypes for specific concepts. I think the niche that prestige classes fill could be fulfilled either by expanding archetypes to work for multiple classes or by creating a new construct entirely.

What exactly do you have in mind for the Eldritch Knight? So far, I haven't really seen any specifics.


I'd make that a little more clear.


While well written, I'm not really crazy about it. I think it's too narrow-focused to be a class on its own. I see the general idea though: turn the white-hair witch (an otherwise very awful archetype) into a 6-level, 3/4 BAB class. However, it steals pretty much all of its class features from other classes. In the end, I'd rather play a hexcrafter magus with maybe another archetype attached that's like Kapenia Dancer, but grants the prehensile hair hex instead of proficiency in bladed scarfs.


Why shouldn't prestige classes have 10 levels? Bad enough they only have 5 or 10. Even Sean K Reynolds pointed out that prestige classes are a dead end in terms of design space.


Does the magus get an attack in addition to the spell this grants?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.

Alchemy isn't magic, but the alchemist's alchemy is magic. However, many feats like Arcane Strike and item creation feats only care if you can cast spells, even if the feat itself doesn't have anything to do with casting a spell.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And the class all about making potions still can't make elixirs because he technically doesn't count as a spellcaster for item creation feats.


I agree with Zhayne. I don't understand why it needs to be a whole class. It has almost no class features and borrows most of its class features from the magus. Even the talent pool is basically a bunch of bonus feats. So, it would be better off as an archetype. Designing classes is really hard, anyway.


Which of the pair to buy
The games in each pair have some Pokemon exclusive to one or the other, most notably the legendary---the Pokemon on the cover of the box. If you don't care about sifting through which exclusives you want, just pick the game with the cooler Pokemon on the box.

General Game Structure
In Pokemon, you play as a kid who travels from his little one-horse town to explore the world, traveling from town to town to find and defeat eight Pokemon leaders so you can get into the regional tournament. The game is free-roaming, but paths between towns are largely linear, forcing you to fight other trainers looking for a fight. You later unlock special abilities that let you access new areas, like giving a pokemon the ability to fly and let you fast travel to other cities.

1 to 50 of 1,773 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.