Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Green Dragon

DracoDruid's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,058 posts (1,059 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello once again everyone and a happy new year from germany!

Now, back to business:

I want to straighten the edges of the wizard class where I see them but I really would like your input on this.

My version is not nearly finished but I will post a link nontheless since post-editing is still not allowed here.

Anyways, I think I start with listing my basic changes I am planning and hope you guys will brainstorm with me:

- Skill points: 4 + Int.
All my classes receive a minimum of 4 skill points per level. I know the wizard will got plenty through his high INT, but it's something I simply do.

- Class skills: Craft, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Profession, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device.
I dropped Appraise since the only obvious reason was to "detect" magic items, but detect magic does the trick much butter, so I dropped it and added Intimidate and UMD to the list. I think every class should have at least one social skill and Intimidate fits quite well: "Fear me and my arcane powers or I will turn you into a toad! (and please don't realize that I am a 1st level wizard)".
I also think that a wizard should be quite adapt at handling magic items, so UMD was really missing here. Sure CHA won't be great for the wizard but class skill bonus might ease up on this.

- Bonus feats: 1 feat every 4th level (instead of 5th).
One more feat and a bit smoother progression. I simply prefer it.

- Spellcasting: +1 Spell per spell level.
This is part of one major change, because a specialist no longer receives an additional spell slot. It was the one reason no one would play a universalist and this is my way of fixing this. Specialists will get other benefits and other penalties.

- Arcane Bond:
I want to change the way familiars and Arcane Objects work. For now, I will simply drop the Concentration penalty for losing the Arcane Object. But I am thinking of adding a small Concentration bonus or penalty when having or not having the Arcane Object.

Familiars will receive a bigger nerf to be honest. I want to nerf the action economy trick with an improved familiar and UMD. It's simply too good and even more unbalancing than the wizard himself.
I want the familiar to be actually useful for scouting, delivering spells from a distance and helping when learning or crafting.

I would like to add one or two additional bond options but actually can't think of any ATM. Maybe making bonded weapons (athame) into a seperate bonded item type.

- Arcane School:
Now as I said, specialists no longer receive the additional spell slot. Instead, they receive +4 on ALL skill checks (usually spellcraft) and +1 spellcaster level when dealing with spells from their school, and start with one additional specialty spell at 1st level.
The opposition schools receive the mirrored penalty: -4 skill checks, -1 spellcaster level, and they count as two spells when chosen as new spells at 1st level or on level up.
(They no longer need two slots to be casts)

The Universalist gains neither bonuses nor penalties, as usual.

I will also look at all the school powers and try to bring them all at eye level if possible. I guess I will need your help especially on this part.

Well, I guess that's it. Maybe add some more Arcane Discoveries when I can think of some, we will see.

Thanks for reading and hopefully for many constructive posts.



Link to the Improved Wizard

Hey everyone.

I am momentarily playing a pharasman Inquisitor and am very disappointed of the domains and inquisitions allowed to Pharasma.

I am playing an Undead-Hunter and would love a domain/inquisition that emphasizes that.

So I had the following idea for an inquisition:
You are trained to hunt the hated foes of your faith.
Favored Enemy: At 1st level, you receive one favored enemy equal to a ranger at 1st level.
At 6th level, the bonuses against your favored enemy increase to +4.
You do not gain additional favored enemies.
What do you think? (Except poor wording)

Too much? Too few?

Still needs a clarification about how it interferes with the ranger ability.

Just read another thread about Vital Strike, and I came to wonder:

Why not make Vital Strike "activate" on a Move action?

First I thought about using a Swift Action, but this might be to powerful regarding high level full attacks.

I would definitely remove the option to Vital Strike on the move, but it would finally clarify the whole s#++ about it.

A move action is still kinda big to sacrifice so maybe the three VS feats should probably merged into one single feat.


OR, as an alternative way:

You activate it as a swift action, but the additional damage only adds to your FIRST attack this round.

How about that?

Hey everyone.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Map from Sandpoint is WAY too small for a 1000 souls community?

1000 souls INCLUDING the Hinterlands/Farmlands might be okay (not sure) but otherwise...

Anyone care to elaborate?

Hey again everyone!

One of my gaming friends had this not so shabby idea.
At least on first sight. So it's on you to pick it apart:

"As a *** action you can take a number of CON damage (or spellcasting ability damage) equal to the desired spell level +1. This damage cannot be healed through magic, only through rest."

Hey everyone.

I am currently pondering about the idea to revert the skill rank system back to its 3.5 version.
(with some modifications of course)

While at first the new rule was nice and simple it still lacks in character versatility/outflashyness/whatever.


1) Max skill rank for class skills is 3+level, cross-class is half that level.
(multiclass characters have to calculate seperately and add them together in the end)

2) All skills cost 1 skill point per rank

3) Characters receive 15-20 (?) free skill points at 1st level + the normal amount of skill points for their class for advancing one level.
(This is easier than the whole x4 at 1st level thing considering multi-classing)

4) Re-Add 3 ranks to all feat/prestige requirements

5) something I forgot...

What do you guys think?

What would you prefer and why?

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hey everyone.
Quick question:

The APG "Souls" Subdomain has the first level ability "Touch of the Spirit World" which allows to make a weapon "sorta ghosttouch".

Problem is, it only says "With a touch you can..." but not a real type of action required.

I guess it's a free or swift action but if it's NO action, then couldn't I wait to use it until I made my attack roll and see IF I even hit?

Hey everyone.

Why are there no feats "Extra Smite" and "Extra Judgement"?

Are those considered TOO powerful?

Is one use of them better than ANY feat?

Just wondering...

Hey everyone.

I am currently looking into all Paladin options and stumbled upon a strange wording from the oathbound paladin:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Oath Spells: A paladin’s oath influences what magic she can perform. An oathbound paladin adds one spell to the paladin spell list at each paladin spell level she can cast (including spell levels for which she would only gain spells per day if her Charisma were high enough to grant bonus spells of that level). Her oath determines what spell is added to the spell list. If the paladin has multiple oaths, the spells from each oath are added to her spell list.

If an oathbound paladin has more than one oath, she may prepare any one of her oath’s spells in that slot (similar to a cleric choosing one of her two domain spells to prepare in a domain spell slot).

This seems as if the Paladin would get an additional domain SLOT.

But the wording before only speaks about "adding to the LIST".
But since the Paladin is a divine prepare caster his "List" is the WHOLE Paladin spell list, isn't it?

I guess he actually gets these spells "automatically and additionally" prepared, but the wording really should be cleared up.

Thoughts anyone?

Hey everyone.

One of my players is going for Paladin in my upcoming "RotRL" Campaign and since he hasn't much time, I am giving him some help in building his char.

So question:

What are your thoughts about the Paladin archetypes?

Which ones are good, which ones are bad?

I know the "Oath of Vengeance" is pretty awesome since it's the only one that gives at least the posibility of additional Smite Evil uses.

Any thoughts on the other archetypes/oaths?

Hey everyone!

I wonder: Did anyone of you ever looked through all 6 books (or better the AE) and counted the NUMBER and TYPE of the creatures to be fought?

I'm just wondering:
Carrion Crown is Undead heavy, but what is RotRL (if anything)?

If it isn't done yet, maybe someone is interested in doing it or splitting the work load (i.e. one book per person), though I guess there aren't THAT many encounters in each.

I guess I'll start doing that as soon as I have the time, but if it's already done, I would only waste my time.

Thanks for reading and have a nice weekend.

Hey everyone.
Let me first apologize for bringing this topic up again.
I know it has been done over and over and I took loooong time to search the various threads about it.
But - alas! - I found no adequate answer to my question:

I want to remove alignments from everything EXCEPT outsiders.

I already made some simple changes:

- Outsiders retain their alignments & subtypes
- Undead are always considered "Evil"
- Classes with the aura ability retain this aura (and are detected by "Detect Outsiders")
- Paladins gain "Smite Enemy" instead of "Smite Evil", but no additional effect against Dragons
- "Detect Alignment" is now "Detect Outsiders"
- Paladins and Inquisitors may choose either "Detect Outsiders" or "Detect Undead" as spell-like ability at will
- All non-outsider non-undead are considered "True Neutral"
(This is merely a "quick-fix" and could be dropped once the remaing questions are solved)

So the real problem comes with spells, magic items & monsters/damage reductions.
And that's where I could use your help:

Example: How would you treat spells like "Protection from Alignment" or "Magic Circle"?

Would you drop or change alignment based damage reduction?

Do you see other spells/items/monsters/stuff which could pose a problem?

I hope some of you can and will help me with this, so I say thank you for reading and hopefully for your input.

This it something I came to wonder some time ago, so here goes nothing:

Why do humanoids have unarmed strikes instead of natural weapons?

I mean, sure, a human bite (for example) is not THAT big a threat, but it's a potential attack (with a low damage die) nonetheless.

So what would happen if all humanoids (and other type with it) would receive a number of natural attacks instead of this mysterious unarmed strike?

Sure, the rules for natural attacks hat to be nerfed/changed, but maybe, just maybe, it would make things better in the long run?

Probably not, but that's what this THINKTANK is meant to find out!

I don't have that much time now, but I will take a deeper look into the natural attack rules soon and start thinking.

Hopefully some of you want to tag along and see where this would be going...


To all of you that think this idea is simply stupid and think this isn't going anywhere: Please don't post and simply stay away.
Thank you.

Hey everyone,

I just got my RotR AE book yesterday and started reading.

I just stumbled upon Tsuto's Letter marked "Handout 1-1", and I wondered:

How am I supposed to "hand that out"?

a) Am I required to photo-copy those myself or
b) should there be a "handout sheet" delivered with the book?

If a) then this sucks. Making a copy from a little booklet isn't that big a problem (though it wouldn't look that nice), but copying from a large 400 pages book is a pain in the ass.

If b) then I was screwed, because I didn't got any handouts delivered with the book!

Please help, anyone.

Hello everyone!

We recently made our first steps into Harrowstone Prison and encountered the Scythe.

After 3 rounds we realized that none of us would be able to overcome its hardness and tried to flee.
Hoping the scythe wouldn't persue us further than the platform it spawn.

Well, after our monk was crit-dropped from full 9 to -9 hp with one string one round later, our GM rethought the encounter and made it disappear, since none of us was really sure on how to use the "Haunted" ability.

So here's the question:

When a "haunted" animated object is attacked by positive energy, does this ignore hardness?

Yepp, it's this time of the month again, and DD has a new house-rule to present.

This time it's the IMPROVED ROGUE.

What's the improvements?

- Good Will save

- Sneak attack starting at level 2, but now attack & damage bonus instead of additional d6. So yes, you'll multiply those on a crit!

- Ranged sneak attacks now within weapon's first range increment, not simply 30 ft.

- Trapfinding & Trap Sense improved and now only one of several possible bonuses (see Rogue Trade).

- A Rogue Talent every level!

- Added all official rogue talents (and most ninja tricks) into one (pretty large) list, including many archetype abilities. Some got canned, some revised, some are completely new. See for yourself.

- Rogues can now take CRITICAL FEATS as if their BAB was equal to their rogue level! (see Critical Talent advanced rogue talent)

I am not really happy about the pinnacle ability "Master Strike".
It implies that the rogue is centered around SA, but I would like to have something else here. But I don't know yet.

As always I welcome every constructive critics, such as over- or underpowered abilities, design flaws, possible impacts I might consider, etc.

Thank you all very much.

Hey everyone!

I would like to use this thread to compile my ongoing house-rules and hopefully get some (more) constructive critics to them:

(Discussion in this thread)

The Improved Fighter
(click here for the ongoing thread)

Generic Weapons Rules
(click here for the ongoing thread)

Generic Armor Rules
(click here for the ongoing thread)

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Greetings everyone.

I have a quick question:

Reading my way through the board, I stumbled multiple times upon an axiom that seems well established but which I couldn't pinpoint in the rules:

An animal (a creature of the animal type) which somehow gains an INT of 3 (and - depending on who you ask - one rank in the Linguistic skill) can understand the language of its owner and therefore doesn't need any tricks.

I believe the foundation of this "rule" is the ability describtion of Intelligence:

PFRPG wrote:
...Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3...

BUT - having studied mathmatics for several semesters - I know that "IF a THEN B" does NOT automatically mean "IF b THEN a".

Only because "understanding speech" has a requirement of "INT 3" does NOT automatically mean "every creature with INT 3 can automatically understand speech"!

So i.e. a druid's animal companion would not benefit from an increased Intelligence score from 2 to 3 (in any way actually).


Hello everyone.

Well, some of you might already my Generic Weapons Rules (if not, you're welcome to check it out and leave comments), and it somehow came naturally that I would at least try the same for armor.

I must admit, the armor list isn't NEARLY as cluttered and over the top as the weapons list, but I still had the feeling that their isn't really a fair use of all the armor (you'll either go chain mail, breastplate or full plate, as soon as possible).

Therefore I present my first take on GENERIC ARMOR.

I welcome any critic (even if you say I am wrong with my initial assumption), but please remain constructive and explain your thoughts.
(Should be a no-brainer, but trolls are everywhere, sad but true...)

Otherwise have a nice day.

Hello everyone, quick question:

Would you consider it gamebreaking if one would allow characters to take item creation feats at any level?
But OF COURSE keep the caster level requirements for ACTUALLY crafting any magic item.

Why not let clerics brew potions of CLW at level 1?

Why no druids with rings of animal friendship at level 3?

Or a wizard with a ring of feather fall at level 1?

Would it really be game breaking?

(working title)

Okay here's the deal, I had the idea of creating a feat that lets you choose one of the classes listed for your raceunder "Favored Class Options" in the APG.
Then, whenever you advance a level in that specific class, you receive the bonus listed as if taken as a favored class option (also retroactive if taken later in levels).

- if the class selected is ALSO one of your favored classes, you may NOT take the racial option twice. You must take a hit point or skill point instead.
- if the favored class option gives a bonus that depends on your level, you must use the exact level you would normally gain it and NOT your current level.

Example: If taken as a human sorcerer but at 10th level, you would NOT gain 10 4th level spells known, but rather 3x cantrip, 2x 1st, 2x 2nd, 2x 3rd, 1x 4th.

I am aware that this is WAY stronger then several other feats, but then again, taking 1 hp per level is BOTH a feat and a favored class option, so shouldn't all OTHER favored class options be the equivalent of 1 feat too? (measured over 20 levels)
And would anyone really TAKE "Expanded Arcana"?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Quick question:

Does changing a judgement as a swift action (as stated in the rules) use up an additional use of the judgement ability?

Or rather: Once I have chosen one target for my judgement, I can change the judgement's effect (name, bonus, whatever) once per round (as a swift action) just like I desire,
and only changing THE TARGET of my judgement takes an additional use?


Hello everyone.

While looking through the Inquisitor, I wondered if giving him a full BAB and less spells would be balanced on either side.

So I would like your feedback for the following changes:

+ Full BAB
+ Full Martial Weapon Proficiency
+ HD d10

- Spell casting like a Paladin (preparing with Inquisitor's spell list)
- optionally prepare two 0 level spells instead of one 1st level spell
- no Domain
- no orisons


Would you allow this class variant?

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, am I the only one who has "serious" problems with some of the size categories chosen for animal (companions)?


Badger - Small (rather tiny)
Bear - Small (hello? medium anyone?)
Small Cat - Small (Leopard/Cougar only small?)
Wolf - Medium (but a wolf medium? - see below)


Lion/Tiger - Large (sure they a VERY muscular but still medium! A human could barely ride them)
Wolverine - Medium (WTF? That thing is barely small!)
Wolf - Medium (barely medium, if anything somewhere between small & medium)

I am sure there are more, but I didn't look through them all.

Bottomline, it doesn't make sense if those animals represent real-life animals.

Hey again everyone.

I had this idea for some spellcasting house-rules in my head, and would really like to discuss them with you.

DracoDruid's Spellcasting House-Rules


Short Summary:

- prep. casters prepare spell list instead of single spells (like Monte Cook' Arcana Evolved)

- High spellcasting ability give spells known or additional spells prepared per day instead of spell slots.

- "Encumbrance penalty" instead of "armor ASF"

- and some more...

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

and not a supernatural?

It has no caster level, it isn't duplicating any spell, so why?

Hello everyone,

I hope to get some help in building an "Undead Scourge" Paladin.
Requirements/Restrictions: NO Ultimate C/M, only Core & APG.

Starting with attributes & race (preferable human) and which direction to assign the feats (up to level 15 if you like).

The group already has a healing cleric, so this build should focus on dealing damage (to the undead).

I hope some of you like to give it a try or can give me some pointers regarding "sticks 'n' stones" with this build.

Thank you very much.

This started as part of another thread, and I was asked to create a new thread for this, so here it is.
I will simply start with my initial post/idea and we'll see where this goes:

Just recently, I started a thread about "Generic Weapons". Mabye it might be a good idea to combine both ideas in the end...

The problem you are talking about actually has nothing to do with swords or whatever weapon.

It's simply a fact, that the d20 critical mechanic is pretty fuzzy.

IMO, the chances for critical hits (with any weapon!) should increase with the skill of the combatant and not on the weapon used.

Basically, a critical threat should occur if your attack roll supercedes the enemy's AC by a certain number of points (I'd say 10).

So, for every 10 points above the enemy's AC you inflict the weapon's damage one additional time.

Feats like "Improved Crit" could simply lower this threshold by 2 points or something like that.

Bottom line of this rule, the bigger the difference between two combatants, the bigger the chance of critical hits (by the better combatant of course).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greetings everyone.

I had this idea for quite some time now and finally wrote them down.

The aim of these rules is to give players a simple way to wield whatever kind of weapon they want their character to wield without thinking about whether the chosen weapon is "good" or "bad" or "unefficient".

If you want your character to wield a falchion instead of a greatsword because it just fits his background, than do so.

These rules DO NOT intend to be able to recreate all weapons 1-to-1.

And remember: These rules are still in beta.

DracoDruid's Generic Weapon Rules

Yes it's me again and I would like those of you who (like me) are disappointed by the standard metamagic rules and feats to sit together and find a new and more interesting way to deal with it.

As of right now, I have several ideas, but none is solid.

But to begin with, I don't like the idea of limited "free" uses per day OR the standard rules of needing higher slots.

One way or the other, many feats need to be rechecked and maybe even replaced/scrapped, but we'll see to that later (after finding a good mechanic):


Use an additional slot equal to the metamagic increase or the level of the spell (whatever is lower).

Metamagic is always spontaneously applied and requires a Spellcraft check (DC dependent on the spell + MM-adjustment).
No additional power required, but a failed check loses the whole spell.

You can apply any metamagic feat FOR FREE on any spell with "Spell level + MM-adjustment" is equal or below your maximum spell level.
(So 1st level mage with still spell can prepare all 0 level spells as still)
Arcane Spell Failure needs rethinking though.

Hi again.

Back in 3.5's "Unearthed Arcana", there were optional rules on how to deal with metamagic feats.

Is there anything like this in PF?

I am asking because I (still) think the standard rules are no good.

(I don't want to start an "argue-thread" about those rules, so please don't...)

Hey again.

I don't know if this is the right sub-forum, but anyways:

My question is:
Is there a feat that lets you use other class levels as class levels relevant for your animal companion or familiar?

Something like:
"Use up to 4 other class levels as effective druid levels to determine the abilities of your animal companion.
This cannot increase your effective druid level above your character level (of course)."


If there is none such feat, do you think it should?
How many levels should the feat give?
Should it be taken multiple times?

Hello everyone,

I am thinking about playing a beast totem barbarian and/or a Shapeshifter-Ranger.

Anyone made any experience with any of those?

Is there any other way besides "AoMF" to make the barbarians claws magical?
A rage power or feat I am not aware of?

Can I take "Improved Natural Attack" to further increase the Beast Totems claws?

Thank you for your input.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the fighter as he should be, at least in my opinion.
Maybe he now is a bit overpowered, so that's where you guys (and gals) are come into play.

However, I believe that the main concept is solid and only some of the fighter training abilities (you'll see what I mean) are to powerful (or maybe to weak).

Thank you all for your time and interest.

DracoDruid's Improved Fighter

Hello everyone.

For quite some time I thought about saving throws.

I always thought it stupid that the good or poor saves depended solely on your choice of class.

Sure, you can add one ability modifier, but compared to the basic level-dependent bonus, that's not a big deal.
Also, the difference between good and poor are a whopping +6 over 20 levels!
And burning one feat for a mediocre +2 isn't that great either.

So I wonder if there isn't a way to change this.

Why not make the saves variable?

I know there are several ways and I wonder which version you would prefer?

Some ideas:

A) Simply allow to change around the saves from your class(es). Want a fighter with good REF? fine, but FORT is poor than. Want a ranger with strong WILL? change either REF or FORT to poor.
PRO: It's quick and simple.
CON: You are bound by the number of good or bad saves from your classes.

B) All saves are poor for ALL characters and ALL classes. BUT, you add STR+CON to FORT, DEX+INT to REF and WIS+CHA to WILL.
(actually, I would prefer: DEX+WIS to REF, and INT+CHA to WILL...)
PRO: Your abilities have a stronger impact on your saves, granting more individuality.
CON: classes with more than one good save are "punished" more, saves might be too low in the end.

C) Introduce medium saves (1+level*5/12, from +1 to +9).
Every CHARACTER (not class) has FORT, REF, WILL on medium.
At CharCreation you may lower one save to "poor" in order to raise one to "good".
Use either standard ability association, or like B) or like D&D4 (choose best of either)
PRO: Similar to B)
CON: one-good-save-classes get a power bumb while others are tuned down a notch.

One question I cannot answer myself:

Are saves notoriously too good or rather too poor?
Meaning: Would it be better to tune them up or down across the bank?

If you have any more ideas or comments on my initial ideas, I would really welcome them!

Hello everyone,

I read a lot about the Monk lately and it kept me thinking.
There seems to be some general disagreement/discussion about the monk and her combat abilities (especially the FoB).

So I thought about house-ruling the following:

1) BAB changes to "Good"
2) Flurry of Blows: The monk receives the following bonus feats as long he is neither wearing armor nor a medium/heavy load and only when using UAS or monk weapons:
1st level: Two-Weapon Fighting, Double Slice
6th level: Improved TWF
11th level: Greater TWF
3) Drop "Maneuver Training"

I thought about giving them something like the "Pounce" ability too.

Well. What do you think about it and what would possibly come out of these changes?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone.

I just started a new (and my first) wiki, in an effort to have a place where we could collect and discuss all the different takes on the Eberron to Pathfinder conversions, since there will almost definitley never be an official version.

I hope there are many of you who like to participate by sharing their conversions, ideas or simply constructive critic.

As I said, it is my very first wiki, so if you have tips and tricks to help me manage it, you are very much welcome.

Click here to go there

Hello everyone!

It took some time but I finally got my copy of Pathfinder RPG and a group to play.

I really would like to take a look into the Golarion Campaign Setting.

Which books are a good start for that?

I now there is the PF Chronicles Campaign Setting but that was designed with 3.5 in mind.

Is there a PF-RPG update or something?

Maybe someone can picture me the general feeling of the setting?
You know, Eberron has its "Tech-Magic", Ravenloft: "Horror", Dragonlance: "Lost-Gods", Forgotten Realms: "...whatever".

Hope you know what I am aiming at.

Hey everyone,

some days ago I finally got my hands on a PF hardcopy (4th printing - that's what took so long).

I just realized, that the Druid can't cast "Form of the Dragon"!?

... ähh... why?

I just have one major concern I have to shout out loud:

"PLEASE! Stop making every aspect of the game, the classes and the feats focussed on Combat!"

The Rogue(Thief) was once the ultimate Skill-Monkey. Now (especially with his new capstone) he is just another fighter type (but with skills). If you look at the rogue it is: Sneak attack, sneak attack, sneak attack.

The same goes for the wizard and the sorcerer. All those ideas about bloodlines and improved specialists/universalists are GREAT. But almost everything they get is: +Armor, more damage, touch attack, magehand for fighting with weapon...

It's just sad. Pathfinder really has the opportunity to become more than what WotC has done.
Please, take a look again and think about it.


You read the title, so you know what I want in this thread.

Actually, I can't come up with a good mechanic (set of bonuses) which achieve the following:

- skilled combatants act first (= BAB?)
- Small and lively vs. huge and slow (= Size-Mod.?)

- is Init about:
-- being faster/more agile (= DEX) OR
-- being faster to assess the situation (= INT/WIS?)

Hmm... Maybe I gave me my answer myself.

But I am eager to get your ideas!

I just looked through the 0 level spells and would like to see some minor adjustments.
Since the design focus, shouldn't be flooded with too many "unimportant" posts I will post them here and any of you feel free to add:

Merge Mage Hand, Open/Close and "ignite torch/candles" -> Prestidigitation

Rename Guidance to INSIGHT and give it all full casters

Make Death Watch and Detect "Alignment 0 level spells and add them to the sor/wiz list

Quick and simple.
My proposal, add the BAB to all initiative checks.
Why? Because skilled combatants are just faster in reacting to combat situations (keeping a cool head, etc.)


Instead of using BAB one could use the REF-save bonus as a initiative bonus.

But I much prefer BAB (since a fighter should be better at this than a rogue).

Ok, I wonder what you all think about the Vitality/Wound point system.
I found it quite interesting, because they actually make it "understandable" what "Hitpoints" are and give players a faster healing progression so they don't need a priest THAT much.

Wait, is it OGL?

- better understanding
- faster healing w/o priests

- Two pools to remember

- lucky hits more deadly
- no non-lethal damage (but I would reintroduce them once all vitality points are used up: critical hit with a sap, *bumm*, victim unconcious)

Ok. As I scanned over the rogue I really got disappointed.

They still get to choose combat maneuvers, weapon finesse and weapon focus.
I can understand, that the Sneak Attack won't be changed (f.e. only once per turn and no flanking - my favorite), but to grant rogues those feats above as BONUS feats is just the wrong way!

Ok here's the deal:

Any percentage roll I know of is always measured with the smallest in-/decrease of 5%.
If I am not wrong about that, a 5% on a d% is JUST THE SAME as a 1 on d20.

Therefor, every d% roll could be easily transfered to a d20, and we would get rid of just another unnecessary die-type.


1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.