Da'ath's page

Da'ath wrote:

You could go the route I did with a "resilience" attribute, which adds +X to the difficulty of critical hit confirmation rolls based on shield weight.

For example, a light shield might add +2 to the difficulty, while a heavy shield might add +4-6.

Actually this is a really good idea too, I wish I'd thought of it! :)

Thanks. I actually use the stat in all my d20 games now, in one form or another.

I like the direction you're going, but I think a 100% crit negation is too strong, even if it means damaging the shield.

I pretty much agree. You could go the route I did with a "resilience" attribute, which adds +X to the difficulty of critical hit confirmation rolls based on shield weight.

For example, a light shield might add +2 to the difficulty, while a heavy shield might add +4-6.

I've been running games with no racial penalties for years - granted, I redesigned all the races from the ground up using humans as the baseline and made them competitive.

If you just use the core/stock races, it takes very little time to do the same.

LazarX wrote:

I'd never play a wizard under your rules. Period. And it's not because I prefer generalists. What the hell would my diviner wizard do besides casting tea leaves in your game?

Scout.

Now now, you know you're not supposed to think outside the tiny little corner of a hyperbolic box you're presented with, kyrt-ryder. Read that as, "thank you".

The biggest problem with the race guide race building rules is that to get the core races to line up they cheated.

Most obvious example is Gnome Magic, a 2 RP ability that gives your 4 spell like abilities plus a DC buff to illusion spells.

If bought separately as Spell-like Abilities, they would be 1 RP each and you could only get a max of 3.

Yeah, the hypocrisy of do as I say, not as I do of the ARG is faily entertaining and not the only example one can find in race-guide materials.

Yes or a rough formula

Star Wars Saga Edition rules came with a chart describing exactly what you're looking for (with distinctions for expected difficulty). It made designing adventures and on-the-fly adjustments extremely GM-friendly. I'd suggest reviewing the system, borrowing the chart, and adjusting it for Pathfinder.

I'm wanting to say it was in "Scum and Villainy", but I don't recall off the top of my head.

I think I'd either do a cooldown period or a point cost, but not both.

I hated that movie.

I'm guessing the vulnerability to acid was meant to represent "the dip"?

I seperated things out a bit as part of an ongoing experiment, maybethe following example will help and maybe it won't. In essence, you gained/lost skill points based on combined attribute modifiers. Had the interestng side effect of cutting down on dump stats.

Example

1st level Fighter

Strength 15 (+2 physical), Con 14 (+2 physical), Int 13 (+1 mental), Dex 12 (+1 physical), Wis 10 (+0 mental), Cha 8 (-1 mental)

Class Skill Points 2 (which can be spent on any class skill).

Mental Skill Points (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) Total: 0
Physical Skill Points (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution) Total: 5

At 1st level, he can spend 2 skill points on any class skills of his choice; additionally, he may spend 5 skill points on skills which use physical ability scores. Alternatively, he may spend 2 points derived from his physical skill points on one which is drawn from the mental list.

Example:
Class Skill Points: Perception 1 (class skill point), Sense Motive 1(Class Skill Point)

Physical Skills: Climb 1, Swim 1, Acrobatics 1, Ride 1, Stealth 1

Assume he wanted Perception instead. It could look like this:
Physical Skills: Swim 1, Acrobatics 1, Ride 1
Mental Skills: Perception 1

Quikc off the top of my head example. Hope it's self explanatory, but if it isn't, I'll try to explain better.

In a Damage Reduction thread, it was pointed out that the system already favors single, powerful attacks over multiple smaller strikes. In addition, boosting the DR rating of monsters would favor huge mega-damage bursts even more, since smaller strikes would be likely to do less, or even no damage at all.

So my question is: What is the simplest rule change that would reverse this priority? What would make slow, powerful blows less effective than multiple, smaller attacks?

I don't know about reversing the priority, but the simplest method I could come up with to make them comparable would be to make a melee version of Clustered Shots (Combat) & add in limitations to make sure it was used with weapons appropriate the two-weapon line.

Removing these spells or altering their level won't adversely affect the game, regardless of what people claim. I've ran games with and without them depending on what we want to do with a particular campaign.

If your group is okay with it, by all means do so. Remember, what forum goers think isn't really important (no matter how much they think otherwise) - they're suggestions and occasional insights into potential issues. It is what sits well with you and your group that matters.

Just make sure you're removing, adding, or adjusting for the right reasons and don't be afraid to "retcon" the changes, particularly if you and your players find them problematic.

You can also find an extensive thread on the subject here: Anti-Christmas Tree Effect.

I use one of the methods found in the thread.

My original plan was to play a sorcerer/wizard/arcanist/witch. However, I've been playing nothing but straight spellcasters for decades at this point and decided to try magus instead (either a spelldancer/kampenia, kensai/blade bound, or just straight magus - haven't decided).

Endure elements is off the table for me at the moment, and I'm not sure I want to spend an arcana to get 2 1st level spells, so I'm probably going to take my chances and just use furs & a winter outfit for a +7 on Fort saves vs environment, all things considered.

Be aware that some people work environmental damage as your fine and toasty warm until the last round of the hour then mother nature comes around and makes you SO cold that round that you take all the damage that round.

So make sure your DM doesn't run it like that before you go in relying on it.

Thankfully, she's a very reasonable person and GM, but I will double check with her on how she intends to handle it.

Thanks, both of you!

I'm really trying to avoid that whole die by the elements bit in Reign of Winter, without having to sacrifice my character concept.=)

My best two cents.

Certainly cold resistance of 6 or more renders one immune to the effects of a cold environment and the rider effect of fatigue.

[...]

Cold resistance of less than five but at least 1 would probably fall into cold tolerant creatures, who when wearing cold weather gear are protected in extreme cold, (-50F to -20F)

I appreciate the response. I actually found what gave me my mistaken impression in an older edition of the game, but your comments help a ton - specifically, the unprotected bolded sections. I believe that wearing a winter outfit (+5 untyped Fort saves vs environmental) and Furs (+2 untyped Fort saves vs environmental) will actually cover me for the protected part in all but the most extreme of circumstances - at the very least, it gives me a foundation for arguing that one wearing such clothing should count as "protected" for cold weather and take the less severe option for extreme cold. Thanks!

Enchantment, though a powerful school, is one of the, if not THE, most easy-to-shut-down schools there is - by a level one spell of all things and vast amounts of immunity to mind-affecting, types, and so on.

Charisma in place of Intelligence seems fine, though I would admittedly be tempted to have them use the Sorcerer Known Spells and Spells per Day mechanics.

Familiar Agent is a very neat ability, but allows very little cheese that isn't already allowed by Improved Familiar (use of wands, etc.). I love it.

Familiar Conduit is, in many ways, a sort of crappy power, sorta neat power - in my opinion. It is thematically appropriate, but you're giving up a Major Hex for the ability to cast a spell spontaneously. I, personally, would rather have my Hex, but for the purposes of balance, I don't see it as being particularly out-of-line.

I've been trying to find a reference to how cold resistance interacts with the nonlethal damage from cold weather & environmental effects. I seem to recall that cold resistance of 2 or 5, for example, makes one "immune" to nonlethal damage of that type, but may be remembering incorrectly.

Can anyone verify this, and cite book and page number if this is the case?

11th level looks late for Spell Penetration. I'd trade that out with Improved Initiative.

Toughness at 17th... I think you can do better. Extra Exploit, if nothing else.

Thanks. I think I left the feats in that order because I was originally going to play an elf wizard with the spell penetrating racial. I'll correct that.

I'll probably move quick study exploit down to 9th, too, since on rereading it, it's really nice for a wizard. I'll go with extra exploit in place of toughness as you suggest, too.

There are few threads on building evocation wizards. IIRC a dip in sorcerer is quiet helpful, and pick up dazing spell, the metamagic feat.

Yeah, I've been pouring over various threads, guides, and so on over the past few days, which is what helped me with the basic framework above (specifically, using fireball as a damage/control spell).

I intend, however, to fully avoid dips, which I should have put in the above post.

I normally GM, but a friend is going to be running a game in January (Reign of Winter AP), so I actually get to play (it has been a long time). I'd appreciate some advice regarding general optimization with an Exploiter Archetype wizard. For the record, I'm optimizing because she expects it of us and requested it. I normally go for a more moderate approach.

The basic run down of what I have so far is as follows:

Spells: I'm very familiar with good spell choices, so no need for listing here. Many of my spells focus on the concept (primary & secondary to prevent damage), but I also added in some backups like Life Pact & Infernal Healing since we have no dedicated healer.

Basics

• Concept: Blaster (Primary), Control (Secondary).
  
• Traits: Magical Lineage (Fireball); Reactionary.
  
• Skill Points: 7/level: Perception, Knowledge (arcana), Use Magic Device, Fly, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Perform (RP purposes).
  
• Languages: Varisan, Chelaxian (Common), Skald, Vishkkanya, Draconic
  
• Favored Class Bonus: +1 Hit Point (Wizard).
  
• Race: Human; Ability Scores: STR: 10 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 19 WIS: 10 CHA: 14
  

Planned Feat/Exploit Progression

• 1st-Level: spell focus (evocation), varisian tattoo (evocation HBF), arcane reservoir, exploit (potent magic)
  
• 3rd-Level: spell specialization (burning hands - change to fireball at 5th level))
  
• 5th-Level: empower spell, intensified spell, exploit (school understanding – evocation (admixture))
  
• 6th-Level: greater spell focus (evocation)
  
• 9th-Level: improved initiative, exploit (metamagic knowledge (undecided))
  
• 10th-Level: dazing spell
  
• 11th-Level: spell penetration
  
• 13th-Level: quicken spell, exploit (quick study)
  
• 15th-Level: greater spell penetration, spell perfection (fireball)
  
• 17th-Level: toughness, exploit (metamixing or familiar)
  
• 19th-Level: greater spell specialization (fireball)
  
• 20th-Level: maximize spell
  

Party
The current party make-up, as I know it (at the moment). No dedicated healer (I'll admit, I'm a bit concerned, so I may take leadership to get a healer cohort at some point depending on how things go).
1 vishkanya rogue (deadly courtesan)
1 changeling witch (winter witch)
1 strix ranger (witchguard)
1 unknown race summoner (synthesist)
1 fetchlin inquisitor (black powder?)
1 human wizard (exploiter)

Again, any assistance is appreciated.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the factotum from 3.5? It does a lot of what you want this to do, as indicated in your notes sections, and might provide further inspiration (I'm suggesting you review it for ideas to enhance your concept, not to discourage you from persuing the course you've taken).

In addition, I think I'd be more tempted to make this a rogue archetype in lieu of bard, but take that with a grain of salt. I tend to see the rogue as more "modular" in terms of plug-and-play archetype design, but especially with regards to this type of class.

I appreciate the comments, and yeah, I've not been ignoring the thread so much as thinking on the system. I'd considered, at one point, making combat "spells" work as in the linked document, with utility as talents, though I'm not entirely sure I like that idea, either.

Even if you both are right....even if I should abase myself before you, begging your forgiveness for my impertinence while I flay my back with a cat-o-nine-tails....if only for the sake of clarity rather than agreement, it still begs the question:

Is there a point of core-class saturation?

And if so, how many, exactly, is that?

Thirty (plus myriad prestiges & archetypes) isn't enough. Clearly.

So what is the magic number here?

50?

100?

1000?

At what point do you put the Dungeon Master with anything but unlimited funds for books...& a rules-lawyer-brain on par with Clearance Darrow's...out of business? It's getting to the point where the tax code is more easily understood.

I'm going to try and be diplomatic (for me), though if you video yourself self-flagellating and post in on youtube, you'll get a thumbs up from me. =)

No one, except you, is talking about class saturation in this discussion.

You posted a title that was confused with a concept from a fiction setting by several folks. These folks were interested in seeing another's take on how said class would be setup, just like I was interested in seeing the replacement for Bard in the Dark Sun setting many years ago when it came out (for example).

In a Sword of Truth setting, Confessor, Mord Sith, and so on "classes" would be constructed for use and in some cases replace pre-existing classes. There is nothing else to it.

To address your comments about class saturation, I actually agree with you. I think roughly five or so classes with a host of archetypes could do just about every concept quite well.

P.S. I'm serious about the video, it could go viral.

This reminds me a lot of Star Wars Sage Edition's Force powers.

Good catch! I took the idea of how one gains "spells" directly from it. I have never liked the use of skills rolled against attributes / saves / etc, however, so divorced it from that right off the bat and associated it with caster level.

i bring it up because whereas my right-brain loves tables, my left-brain loves simple rules.

I may do both in the final draft. I am a bit too fond of tables, I'll admit, but that's due to the fact they can remove any question of intent, where as many textual explanations I write sometimes come off as ambiguous or vague.

---------------------------

I added in "Wall of Fire" to provide an example for those who asked above, and I'm still working on "Acid Fog". While I don't intend to use either of these types of spells in the homebrew setting (which is more psi/tech), I really thought those examples would be very useful in showing how I think it should work.

Its been a busy week with doctor's appointments, Halloween coming up (it is bigger than Christmas at our house) & getting costumes ready, and so on, but should calm down shortly. I'll try to get a class or two up as well as more examples.

I am terribly disappointed. Not at your mechanics or anything, but at a presumed association.

I thought you were making a Confessor base class, based upon the Confessors from the Sword of Truth series. And yet, that is not the case. Yes, quite disappointed.

I thought the exact same thing, but didn't post, which saved me the patronizing lecture. You're neither alone, nor did your comment merit anything other than a "Nope! Sorry."

Removed a post. Telling others to stop playing the game isn't really all that productive or helpful.

The intent behind removal is appreciated, but in this case Rain was joking around with me, so no worries.=)

non-instantaneous?

i like the general idea that action type matters, but the specific idea about it being the 'cap determiner' i am not sure of.

if it is kept, consider simply 5 max dice per action cumulative, eschewing the table altogether.

do you have structural stat differentiation? or will that be fluid/dependent on class?

o btw please stop playing pathfinder...

At the moment, for the caster-specific classes the idea is they'll be able to breach these caps, effectively treating each action as one step lesser. I'm going to use Star Wars terms, but ONLY to illustrate an example.

A jedi guardian (20th level), which is very fighter-esque decides to expend 1 point of Force to effectively pounce his target. Lets assume he's attacking a Jedi Consular (also 20th level), which is very much like a full caster in most respects. He leaps and performs a full attack, significantly damaging the consular. Since the consular did not use a force power on the previous turn, he decides to expend his swift action in the form of an immediate, which normally would heal anyone else for 5 dice of damage. Due to a class feature, he is able to heal 10 dice of damage instead.

Does the example make more sense or just confound the issue further?

As far as stats go, they're going to be along the lines of the standard d20 iterations; magic/psionic/force caster classes will rely primarily on mental attributes and melee will rely on physical, but will have access to the magic/psionic/force abilities at a lesser degree. For mundanes, the base framework will function to reflect technological advancements/gadgets/what have you of similar scale and ability.

This sounds like a very ambitious project [...]

Not being able to use quickened spells seems like a nerf at higher levels (maybe you could introduce an option that allows to cast more spells per round at higher levels).

It is and I have no illusions it will be complete anytime soon. The idea is divorce "spell levels" from the powers and/or abilities used. In otherwords, instead of having spell chains charm person -> charm monster - > dominate person -> dominate monster, one spell, which can scale with "caster levels" or even ranks in a particular knowledge (such as arcana in this example) which serve the same purpose as levels. Feat chains which scale based on BAB are a good example of what I'm trying to say, I think.

From a game design perspective, I -think- using this method will follow suit with the "spell level X should have Y effect" paradigm. Regarding spells such as acid fog and wall of fire, I'll try to design a couple to illustrate the idea, which you, Rain, and Cyrad point out is missing which will hopefully better illustrate the idea.

Action type determine effect does, in some respects, represent exactly what you assumed. You're right on the money and you're solution in quotation is exactly what I planned to do when I begin developing the "caster" classes. As above, I'll see if I can get some solid representations out there for you and others to examine.

I agree with Amanuensis. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish. It looks like you're looking to homogenize spellcasting into a "damage + secondary effect" paradigm. Even assuming you wanted to make a game with mostly damaging spells, offensive spells have much more balance parameters than damage and range.

Have you ever heard of Spheres of Power? It should be coming out in a month or so and might be something you would be interested in.

There is definitely some homogenization going on, and I would definitely consider this a "alpha" stage. The utility spells haven't been included yet, but as with Amanuensis and Rain above, I'll see what I can do to get some examples out ASAP (with consideration to doctor visits, halloween, and my natural laziness). The range of most spells is going to be significantly less than that of your standard 3.x iteration. I'll try to get my chart up tonight for what I'm considering.

I haven't heard of it (spheres of power), but I'll call upon the great and powerful Google and see what it's about; I appreciate you directing me to it.=)

What follows is the VERY basic framework (specifically, a space opera style game, though I'm trying to keep the framework generic enough to adapt to magic, tech, and so on) for a conversion of homebrew material to Pathfinder, but uses an alternate method of powers/spells/etc with "no levels" or vanacian-style memorization. The final version will determine the theoretical and practical DPR expectations for designing the framework for PC and NPC (or monster) creation and associated charts.

I'd appreciate examination of said framework, to include constructive criticism and suggestions to assist in balancing said framework (and not to be rude, but I'm not interested in suggestions to use another system - this is the homebrew forum, afterall).

Power Framework (Tech/Psi/Force/Spell)

I've tried to keep everything brief and generic, also providing a few sample "effects".

Again, constructive criticism, comments, and any questions are appreciated.

I really like your class, Ex, and can see it having a lot of use as a GM. It would make an excellent compliment to a GM antagonist.

I agree with every point made by Excaliburproxy. I want to add, I think this is a pretty cool spell and can see a lot of practical use for it, as well.

What Zhang said, and it is pretty evil stuff when you look at the results. I did a quick google search for "Drow fleshwarping" and found some interesting hits. You might wanna hit up the giantitp.com forums for some inspiration. For example, here is a prestige class for fleshwarping that you might find helpful as a source of inspiration.

I'd go with either that or, if you really don't want people to be able to finesse out of the box, just removing the Mythic requirement from Mythic Weapon Finesse, maybe rename it Greater Weapon Finesse instead as a result.

There you go. In my opinion, this was a real slap in the face. We won't give you a feat for general use, but you can have it if you're mythic (because every GM uses mythic rules, right?). With that in mind, we'll give you all sorts of our setting specific material with Dexterity to damage....

If nothing else, Humanoid needs to be collapsed into 1 or 2 categories so it's not 12 different groupings.

I agree 100%. In a way, it's already separated into Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid. So many of them are blankets, as you point out above, that I find it interesting only two groups are split up like this (Humanoid & Outsiders).

One could argue that it is due to the number of creatures in these groups; one could argue, as well, that groups such as Aberrations, Fey, and Undead are just as large. If this argument holds true, then the divide in these two groups is based on, what? They ran out of options and split these two as filler?

So far I like it. I can say right now that I'm cribbing Arcane Bolt. DA2 staff mechanics were awesome.

I have to agree and it wasn't too difficult to mimic in game terms, either, after I thought about it a bit.

I'll be honest. That kinda surprised me. Almost every wizard I've seen played takes the Arcane Bonded Item instead of a familiar because they feel it is such a dang useful boost the wizard got switching to PF. {shrug} I'll agree it isn't as flashy as some of the other abilities a specialist wizard gets, but it is incredibly useful. Any one spell from your book plus a half price magic item? Pretty dang amazing to me.

But whatever. If you guys don't like it, it's perfectly reasonable to change it.

Also, I've never seen a wizard need to carry a crossbow after 2nd level. Many still do, but I've rarely seen it used and it certainly wasn't necessary.

At our table and in my opinion, familiars are one of the really-easy-to-exploit aspects of wizard's in the game and can impact action economy in some interesting ways. While they were a huge drawback in AD&D, in iterations of 3.x the extra utility you gain as an already powerful class is over-the-top in many cases (again, in my opinion, of course). I'm sure our difference in opinion comes from different GM styles, different players and levels of optimization, and so on. To clarfy: I don't think either of us is misguided in our opinions, just different experiences with the game.

I'm going to address the general idea rather than specifics. I think the concept of what you proposed is fairly reasonable. I would try real hard to keep it away from the same abilities that other classes/archtypes/specializations get. So as others have said; an energy bolt similar to what a specialization already gets or eschew materials that a sorcerer gets, seem like a poor choice.

Also I think there should be more limits. Your replacing a once a day ability with what on some of them sound like at will powers.

Your input is much appreciated, particularly in light of the fact you don't see the change as necessary. Several of the others have mirrored your concerns in one form or fashion, and I'm not one to shy away from good advice or get "married" to a concept. The only thing I'm considering which conflicts with your suggestions is drawing upon the bladebound archetype of the magus; I'm not going to straight up copy it, but I think it's a good place for inspiration. As it stands, I split the features into a straight up revision for our table (first entry) and into an archetype I'm going to try and persue just before I made this post.

All things considered, the energy bolt, as it stands in the "revision" could use a little more work, but I'm pretty happy with it in some respects. It differs in that it scales better than these powers, ultimately, but uses a ranged attack in lieu of a touch attack (which many of them do), respects damage reduction of all types, and now has a "cost" associated with the "normal" use of the the "cast any spell" bit. I'd love your thoughts on the changes.

An arcane bond focused archetype that replaces arcane school sounds like a great idea to me.

On an unrelated note, what does "peaching" mean?

Cieran got to it; it's a term I picked up ages ago from the giantitp.com forums, though I've no clue about the actual origins of the acryonym.

Welcome, fellow Playground members!

I mostly lurk. =)

I made a few changes, separating it out into the "standard" revision I'd like to use for a wizard as well as the "archetype" work in progress.

While I'm all about persuing new directions, I find myself - somewhat to my surprise - in agreement with DocShock. Don't get me wrong, I think some of the groupings are downright silly and could use some retooling.

I like some of the concepts above, though I'd make it a part of the skirmisher archetype (spell-less ranger). A new talent requiring a knowledge check to temporarily substitute in a favored enemy would be ideal, at a reduced value, since normally only Rangers with spell-lists can do so, which, in my opinion, means most Rangers don't need the extra help (ie you wanna switch your FE bonus, select the spell).

My opinions, of course.

I did a quick search of the size category of giants. Most are large creatures, several are huge creatures. I think we can safely say, using your example, that dwarves DO spend decades training to be harder to hit by large creatures.

You say it's quite alright to change out the traits for alternate traits - which my suggestion could very well be an alternate trait if I so chose - but then you go on to say the race loses its flavor when you cut things out - which is it?

Athasian halflings aren't "lucky", for example, but according to you, Timothy Brown's original concept and take on them destroys their flavor, because its different. Or are you saying it's only okay to excercise creative license if a big name company changes it, then charges you for it?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If I've misunderstood your point - I apologize - but please spell it out more clearly.

Da'ath wrote:

For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations.

Also it works for those of us who don't want to have to throw in a "required" number of giants to make the trait as useful as it needs to be.

Exactly. There are a lot of "relics" like this that just flat out need removed.

For dwarves, if they existed in my setting, I'd probably make their defensive training give a +2 against creatures of large size or greater, instead of just Giants to illustrate their skill in fighting the "big stuff". It is useful in a lot of situations, but still not "all" situations. Granted, I'm all for removing all "cultural training" material from races as it is and have done so in my own setting, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

Re: Mortuum - Apparently, I misunderstood his round breakdown entirely. My apologies: my reading comprehension normally doesn't suck.

DocShock, maybe this isn't the thread for you. These are just ideas; they can't hurt you or change your local game. We're brainstorming here.

You phrased that much more nicely than I was going to. You gained +1 Diplomacy. =P

It changed hands at one point, and I think that dude just bailed for whatever reason. I had a lot of homebrew I'd put up there, too.

I toyed with that idea a couple years back when I was working on the Noble base class, but I would love to see other takes on it. I think I ended up making it a rogue archetype at some point, as well.

Edit: I havent looked at that link in two years. After reading it again, I really need to clean it up a bit in terms of consistent language and typos.

That's pretty hyperbolic.

Or do you genuinely feel a caster should be able to cast as many spells as typical melee gets actions in terms of move and standard?

I'd add casting times back in, then.

Something like Spell level / 3 in "casting actions" that take the place of iterative attacks.

It has interesting implications for the Caster-Martial Disparity, in that it becomes a LOT easier to disrupt a casting in progress.

Still, very complicated though. But it's not without merit.

Not sure if you or others recall, but AD&D 2e had initiative penalties for spellcasting, roughly equal to the level of the spell cast (some spells ignored these), ie. -1 for a 1st level, -6 for 6th level. I'd think that would need to make a comeback for a system like this and would certainly counter, in some respects, the initiative stacking wizard depending on spell cast.

I love the concept, and I do think it is a route to be persued a a variant rule. I'd expand it to any spell which counters another (light vs darkness, true seeing bs invisibility, etc). An issue I forsee, however, is book-keeping, though the significance of it is still in the air. My meaning is after calculating the results, you'll have to go back and recalculate based on the new PR. It may or may not slow down the game; not sure yet.

Hm. Judging from Cieran and Amanuensis' comments, I may have already exceeded my original goal of "just making it worth taking" by a good bit.

Heading to the park with my daughter now, but when I get back, I'll break it down into two versions: 1. A straight replacement for arcane bond toned down from the current revision; and 2. A full-fledged archetype style replacement for familiar and arcane school using the current framework.

Thanks for stopping me from making a monumental mistake, folks. =)

Anyone know if anyone's come up with a feat for a Necrotic Symbiote (aka a sort of "D's Left Hand" kinda thing)? Maybe it could be combined with a Necrotic Familiar feat? Is there something like this already?

Not sure if it's what you're looking for, but the Alchemist class has a "tumor familiar". I'm sure you could adapt that in some form or fashion.

Hm, I retract my suggestions then. I need to think more on that.

Do you have rules for your magitech that one could view or is it more of a fluff thing?

Hiding the rolls really doesn't work in a game that has all sorts of reroll abilities.

There is only one type of reroll ability that causes the sort of issue you suggest; it was widespread in SWSE (i.e. "choose to reroll the die before the results are known," which allows the player meta knowledge, intentionally, to determine whether to use their reroll or not).

This isn't the case in Pathfinder - I'm not saying they don't exist, but the majority are "take the better result" or "take the lesser result" or "reroll a failed" - all of which can and are quite easily handled behind the GM screen.

As green tea mentions, they're getting more, in some ways than they're giving up. Dumping the plant and elemental shapes would, in my opinion, tip that scale a bit. I'll admit I'm partial to the original shapes of the AD&D druid, anyway.

It almost seems to me you're basing your druid a little more off the real world druid in terms of role in many respects than the 3.x version, no?