|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Again, there is no precedent for permanent quick grow objects at first level. just because a spell has limited combat use does not mean you should lower its level.
3rd level. The tree grows to a height of ten feet + ten feet/3 caster levels, which can lead to some pretty epic trees at later levels. Also, 2d6 damage/3 levels to any structure being grown into by the tree, bypassing hardness.
Now imagine the 1st level wand of Grow Tree.
This creates full sized, permanent trees. If the trees lasted 1 hr/lvl, maybe it would be good as a first level spell. It would also need some language about not being able to rend structures, in order to not be used as a first level siege engine/door destroyer.
For permanent trees that can do damage (thorn bushes or the aforementioned utility uses) I would say level three with a minor component cost. Then you can reverse it to "Destroy Tree" which would completely eliminate normal sized plants and damage larger ones. You could also create a Shape Tree spell to make a tree suit your purposes better (shelter, increased hardness, thorns, Goodberries, etc...)
Nirmathas. I ran Crypt of the Everflame and loved the fluff for the place. Full of forests. Beset by political rivals to the south. Beset by orcs to the north west. Supported by the Paladins of Lastwall to the northeast. Framed by mountains to the west and a lake to the east. Nice for wilderness games.
What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.
This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.
Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.
An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.
The feat says you have to have the potion in hand at the beginning of the turn. To me, that means that you could retrieve the potion with your tail on turn one while making a move and standard action, and drink the potion as a move action on turn 2.
As for potions vs weapons, without the Quickdraw feat, a character with +1 BAB can draw a weapon as a free action as part of a move action.
From the SRD:
"...you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement."
So it is not Draw+Move+Standard, but Draw/Move+Standard.
It does seem to me that there are some balance issues, but I also think that I might eliminate Sorcerers and Wizards and make Arcanists the new Arcane Paradigm, depending on the final product. I like the idea of having access to all the spells via spellbook, but I am not a fan of Vancian memorization. Memorizing a few but casting them at will is right up my alley.
I feel like penetrating DR is more in tune with the pure power of axes, rather than the finesse of swords.
I admit that I am at a loss for what -would- display for the finesse of swords, and for that, I apologize. I like the options you have made for these three styles a lot, but the other two are for heavy bludgeoning and piercing weapons on a general basis, where this one is for swords (or axes) specifically. Though I do feel that swords and axes are sufficiently different in style and theme to warren their own distinct entries.
Paladins are Iconic in their dedication to a personal code (Lawful) and of protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked (good). I think the problem came in with antipaladins. They were made to be dark counterpoints to paladins, but acting within a certain code of behavior is the antithesis of chaos. There are plenty of ways to be an evil opponent to a paladin without making up a class. However, they opened the door for other alignments getting special archetype classes, which people now demand even though they are thematic stretches at best.
That said, I think Paladins would work much better as a PRC. You design a character toward being a Paladin, pass the required tests, earn your powers (and retain them) through obeying your code, and then continue developing as a warrior or cleric when you have finished with your ten PRC levels.
I think 9/10 of the beef people have with Paladins are that one alignment gets a nice thing (even though it doesn't really work with other alignments thematically) and that the alignment in question is LG, which a large and vocal portion of the player base hates with far more fervor than a couple of Lawful Stupid/Jerk players justifies.
Need help with ideas for building the most classic, archetypal fantasy RPG campaign as possible for my sons' first serious campaign.
Assassins don't have full BAB because they are not specialized at fighting. They are specialized at killing. Waiting for the perfect shot and taking it. Someone who kills somebody in a fight is an assassin in the same way the Conan is a thief because he kills all the guards so he can steal things.
Classes with precision based abilities are supposed to take advantage of situational modifiers, not just stand there and trade blows with melee types.
I don't see what the problem is with the old standby:
If you don't like it, don't have it in your game.
I personally am not a fan of most of the new races in the ARG, but it doesn't hurt the game to have them. In fact, it gives people more options for fun play in their style, so it's a great book for the game, even if I don't use it in mine.
The problem is that one side is calling wrongbadfun, which is never productive. Don't worry about what other people like. Play the game that you like.
Meanwhile, a lot of the people on the other side are waxing elitist, implying that those of us who like our JRRT are small minded, backward, and old fashioned, and those of us who limit players in any way are overbearing control freaks, and are having wrongbadfun ourselves. Don't worry about what other people like. Play the game that you like.