James Hunnicutt's page

True. Keep in mind that if the PCs are fighting a cult, they'll be up against multiples of clerics. Multiple evil clerics who all have Selective Channeling, even if they are CR-appropriate and have fewer character levels than the PCs, could be a delightfully steady drain on party resources.

If we're looking for a house-rule, I like the "resist energy" thing.

How about a cooldown period? Clerics can only channel once ever 1d3+1 rounds. I'd stick that to PCs too, to be fair. As the DM, I frequently get frustrated when the dang cleric undoes all the damage done by my monsters in a single round.

Under 3.5 rules, Quicken is not an option to spontaneous casters by default. To quote...

"This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action."

Rapid Metamagic (Complete Mage), on the other hand, is very nearly one of the must-have feats for spontaneous casters if you want to use metamagic in combat. Shame you can't get it until high levels.

Re Selective Channeling, I still disagree. Every cleric in our group takes it as a matter of course, and they certainly do use positive energy bursts during combat, both at low, medium, and high levels.

Selective Channeling? Not really. Other than undead, no one's around the party to exclude when you channel energy, because healing is not a combat action; it's too small to be significant, almost always less than a single attack would deal, and it's generally more efficient to just smack enemies in the head with your metal stick to make them die sooner or cast some spell to incapacitate 'em.

I'd add Quicken Spell for sorcerers, and I like it a lot for all other spellcasters too.

Druid: Natural Spell
Cleric: Selective Channeling

I feel silly even bothering to mention these, they're so obvious, but they define "must-have feats."

Necromancer Games;
The Tome of Horrors, Revised.

Their is fan based rules FAQ already that does list if the answer came from an official paizo member. Its located on the d20 PFSRD wiki.

I think somewhere it should say, "Those Sp abilities clerics/sorcerers/wizards may take at 1st level are the equivalent of 1st-level spells." Similarly, I'd like some errata clarifying whether spell immunity works against all spell-like abilities, including those class-based Sp abilities.

And maybe some more guidance on Hide in Plain Sight.

The DC of each roll will depend on how many of the opposition threathen the particular square. Example you're tumbling through two threathened squares A and B. If three folks threathen square A, you add the dc for the extra two, if you're tumbling a long distance and square B is threathened by one foe it's the standard DC.

the table states move through a threatened area or enemy's space - in singular. The implication of this is that you must make a skill check for EVERY threatened or occupied square you wish to move through.

I cite the Stealth rules as precedent: if you were stealthing past the same foes, you would only roll one stealth roll, and each foe would oppose that one roll with his own perception check.

Ergo, in both cases, one skill being used, one roll being made.

Rolling for each foe dramatically increases the difficulty.

Most rogue/duelist types of level 5+ can make themselves pretty incredible at Acrobatics, and will be able to tumble past or through more than one enemy, even with the double-jeopardy of the +2 DC and the need for multiple checks. Finally, the downside really isn't that horrendous: you provoke an attack of opportunity. That's not so bad, especially if that rogue/duelist has Mobility and if the foes lack Combat Reflexes.

It states it explicitly that you add +2 to each foe beyond the first at the bottom of the DC table.

Related question: can I assume everyone is still requiring a skill check per opponent tumbled past?

The description of Acrobatics doesn't really explain what happens if you fail the check when attempting to move through a square that's threatened or occupied by an enemy. Am I missing something? Are folks falling back to the 3.5 rules on this? (3.5 was explicit that if you try to tumble through a threatened square and fail, you complete your move but provoke an AOO. If you try to tumble through an occupied space and fail, you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke.) Thanks!

We house-ruled that dismiss-able spells end upon death, which is a favor to the PCs. It just seemed more fun that way, because it was kind of anti-climatic to defeat an evil wizard but then still have to deal with an ongoing enchantment or mop up his summoned creatures, which aren't even worth xp.

Other than lawyerly interpretations of the language of the spell, I haven't heard any good reason that spell immunity shouldn't block class-based spell-like abilities. Allowing spell immunity to block class-based spell-like abilities won't upset game balance, and seems fair all around. In fact, I think the converse is true: allowing Bleeding Touch and similar low-level abilities to bypass spell immunity (or globe of invulnerability) seems unfair and unbalanced. So if you come to my gaming table, the house rule is that if someone wants to cast spell immunity (Bleeding Touch) they certainly can. Thanks folks.

Though with the wording of innate all over the sorcerer and their bloodlines Sp would be affected by Spell Immunity. LOL

There is no way to permanently and irrevocably lose innate spell-like abilities short of intervention by a deity.

Regarding all the spell-like abilities clerics, sorcerers, and wizards now can acquire based on their domain/bloodline/school, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume they're the equivalent of 1st-level spells, since 1st-level characters can use them.

My attitude is that a normal or lesser globe of invulnerability should block all those Sp abilities you can get at character level 1.

ShadowChemosh wrote:

And spell-like abilities.

Except that it only protects against spell like abilities that duplicate spells, which Bleeding Touch isn't one of those Spell Like Abilities.

If I were to research a new spell, "immunity from spell-like abilities," wouldn't it be fairly balanced to treat it just like spell immunity, i.e., a 4th level cleric spell? And since clerics have access to every spell on their spell lists, aren't we splitting hairs making spell immunity and "immunity from spell-like abilities" two separate spells?

James Hunnicutt wrote:

Anything else out there? Thanks again.

Anti-Magic Field

Thank you for your thoughts.

Any suggestions on something that does block spell-like abilities that aren't necessarily tied to a named spell? Such as all those spell-like abilities clerics, sorcerers, and wizards now have?

I already thought about spell resistance, which gives you a decent SR, which does apply to spell-like abilities whether or not they're tied to a specific named spell. Anything else out there? Thanks again.

LE is a great PC class, in my opinion. You're a total SOB, but can play nice with others to get where you want to go. Frequently, it's the LE guy who can get things done.

I've let players play CN, but happily they tend to play them more CG or TN, as opposed to a true CN nutjob.

In Pathfinder, there are a lot of spell-like abilities granted by classes. In WotC's Spell Compendium, the language of "lesser spell immunity" was revised in such a way that it blocked all "spell-like effects." PF Core Rulebook uses the traditional 3.5 language, which is more ambiguous: spell immunity "protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks." I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?

1. Level 6
2. You start getting the "good stuff" - 3rd level spells, multiple attacks, another feat, plenty of HP and skill points, you can handle cool monsters, your Diplomacy and Disable Device skills are good enough to accomplish lots of cool stuff, you can afford nice but not overpowered magic items, you're still weak enough that there is lots to fear, etc.
3. Seven Days to the Grave... because I'm running it right now and everyone is loving it, and it's fun DMing because the players are constantly distressed by all the disease going around.

I love the change.

The only time it has ever really worked for me was in the Dark Sun setting where it was engineered to be integral to the game, and it was actually loads of fun.

With Clerics now having Channel Energy as an additional source of healing, is it still necessary to stagger Cure spells one level behind for Druids? Is the game going to break because a Druid can cast Cure Moderate Wounds as a 2nd rather than 3rd level spell?

Dramatically scale back the Travel domain. The dimension hop and flight abilities are far superior to the options available to the other domains.

Okay, where? I've been gaming since 1978, and I am having trouble finding this supposed plethora of "angry druids" out there. Folks keep saying it's been done to death, or give a number like this. I would like some adventure titles, please, so I can see it myself. Otherwise, it's random statements of non-fact supposition.

But I can honestly say I tried to give my villain both the striking visual and the goals to match! Tomorrow, I'll find out if I'm right.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Russ:
Just how much of a difference do you think it makes to what you can do with the word-count when there is the stat block alongside, which will (in theory) make some things (race, alignment, spells typically prepared, favourite weapon for example) obvious?

Honestly, very little. Looking over mine, I'd say I saved these 9 words, the text other than that stands without the stat block.

Male Advanced Four-Armed Sahuagin Paladin of Tyranny 8

A good villain needs to be connected to its background - that gives him/her/it a sense of place, a context so that their villainy is meaningful and not simply arbitrary.

Also, I really think there is a lot of value in a villain who is somehow tied to the PCs, via history or otherwise. That was why I like Sharina so much: she latches onto the heroes and plagues them for a while, until they figure it out and deal with her directly.

Carl Klutzke - Sharina Legendsinger
Neil Spicer - Gulga Cench, Scion of Cyth-V’sug
Trevor Gulliver - Bracht Darkhouse, The Flesh Peddler
Vladislav Rashkovski - Kardam, the Burning Khan

(Do people outside of the Order of the Stick actually say 'meh,' though? And yet- it's such a great interjection...)

A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).

I ran a pixie villain once, and it worked great. I think the trouble with Zavanix is making him insane and unpredictable. What's more frightening and intimidating is a pixie in full control of its powers: constant flight, constant greater invis, DR, SR, spell-like abilities, huge Dex bonsu, and then stack on top of that some Sor or Rog levels and then BAM you have a killer combatant. Among other things, the constant invis means all ranged attacks within 30 ft are sneak attacks.

Honestly, any party worth its salt is going to see past her myriad bluffs eventually

Hey, I already have my Villain pretty much statted up already.

I really liked precisely 4 of them, so voting was easy for me.

This is my #1 choice. Really great job. I think a recurring villain who frustrates the party, and who is not necessarily a big monster to fight at the end of an adventure, is simply fantastic.

And I like the name! Fantasy characters frequently have goofy, over-the-top names. And in a fantasy world with bards, the name sounds like a professional moniker. E.g., Joe Smith got his name from the fact that his ancestors were smiths. She might have applied the name to herself to describe her role in the world.

Thank you for making a good, old-fashioned, kick-butt villain, with a theatrical appearance. I don't really understand villains that are average-looking, non-descript, etc. Heroes want to fight memorable-looking bad guys! This fellow sounds like he's straight out of a pulp fantasy comic book, which is precisely where my players want to dwell.

I love it. Very Cthulhu-ish. Great stuff.

YES! I love this one. Evil and icky. Well done.

My eye of fire is posted over on the Feedback thread. Basically, it allows a positive energy channeler to convert channeled energy into either a defense (death ward) or a single-target ranged attack (searing light).

Eibom’s Ineffable Headstone
Aura moderate necromancy [evil]; CL 10th
Slot hands; Price 65,000 gp; Weight 30 lbs.
Description

A black chain adorned with a heavy manacle pierces the crown of this weathered slate headstone, engraved only with a hand pointing at a star.

Clasping the manacle about the wrist reveals the Headstone’s powers. Its four charges renew each sunset. Once affixed into the ground (a full-round action), the Headstone may be activated:

• Attract undead within 500 feet to the Headstone, DC 15 Will save. (2 charges)
  
• Channel Negative energy as a 10th level cleric. Undead make a DC 15 Will save or fall under the bearer’s command. Undead within a Desecrate automatically fail. (1 charge)
  
• Increase another power’s DC by three. (1 charge, part of activated power)

While manacled, the bearer is considered a 10th Level cleric for commanding undead and may command up to 30 Hit Dice. Removing the manacle frees controlled undead.

The bearer may activate powers when no charges remain by suffering 10% of his maximum hit points in damage per charge. This damage cannot heal magically, only through rest.

Sure thing - here's mine:

DIVINE AMULET {not the best name in the world...}
Aura faint necromancy; CL 3rd
Slot neck; Price 4,200 gp (+1), 9,600 gp (+2), 16,200 gp (+3), 24,000 gp (+4), 33,000 gp (+5); Weight --

Description
This device appears to be a simple circular disk, made of dark hardwood, silver, gold, platinum or adamantium, with one face polished mirror smooth and attached to a braided leather cord (if wood) or a fine chain of the same metal.

When a divine amulet is worn by a character devoted to a deity or philosophy (Cleric, Druid, etc.) the smooth face acquires an etched representation of, and can be used exactly like, her holy symbol. Up to three times a day, a divine amulet can be used to boost channelled energy, increasing the energy damage by 1d6 and improving the Will save DC by an amount determined by the base material of the device: wood +1, silver +2, gold +3, platinum +4, adamantium +5.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ability to channel positive or negative energy, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the symbol’s bonus; Cost 2,100 gp (+1), 4,800 gp (+2), 8,100 gp (+3), 12,000 gp (+4), 16,500 gp (+5)

I designed a channeling item, and was intrigued when one of the judges commented on the fact that they'd received lots of those... but apparently they didn't make it into the top 32. Well, I would really like to see them. One of the reasons I designed a channeling item is that I'm playing a cleric and I'd like some options for magic items that enhance that power.

So if you made a channeling item, please post it here. Thank you!

To get things rolling, here is mine:

PRAYER BEADS OF THE REDEEMED SEPULCHER
Aura moderate necromancy [good]; CL 10th
Slot none; Price 13,000 gp; Weight -
Description
Malevolent necromancers and similar villains take great pleasure infesting holy burial sites with the living dead. If the undead are driven away and such places cleansed, it is common to consecrate the location by erecting a small shrine. In these shrines, virtuous clerics fashion these long strings of prayer beads. Such prayer beads may be tied to, and untied from, any holy symbol. When using a holy symbol with these prayer beads attached to channel positive energy, the user's cleric level is treated as two higher than normal for purposes of channeling positive energy, and the user may choose to reduce the number of dice she rolls in exchange for any combination of the following benefits. The user may reduce the positive energy unleashed by: 1d6 to increase the DC of the Will save undead make by 1 (up to +4), and 2d6 to increase the radius of the positive energy burst by 5 feet (up to +20 feet). One can benefit from only a single set of prayer beads at a time.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, 10th-level cleric; Cost 6,500 gp

No ranting. Obviously, there simply was some sort of mechanical problem with the submission form on the website, and mine didn't process. No one to blame, just a glitch in the system. That's the only possible explanation. ;^) Congratulations to the top 32!

I think "design a wondrous item" is perfect for the round 1 entries, and gives some nice consistency to the contest year-to-year. You can do anything with a wondrous item, which can bestow powers akin to new feats, new spells, new monster powers, etc.

Consecrate and desecrate are omitted from the Beta, meaning the 3.5 version applies. But the 3.5 version boosts/hinders turning, not the channeling of positive/negative energy. So these two spells should be revised for Pathfinder and included in the final version.

Dang.

Bring on Superstar 2010!