Jason Beardsley's page

Hey Krome! Thanks for answering! =)
Ja, I realize now that everyone is busy. I had a question for you about a month ago, I think, in another thread, that I think you missed

Anyway, thanks for the ideas. Do you know if there was any published material for 3.5 (or PRPG) that touches on the subject? A google search only revealed one 3.0 source called "Spells & Magic" by Bastion Press that has a PrC and some feats based on the idea, but that's it.

I don't know what "it" is that i'm looking for, but I'll know when I see it. It would also help if my DM wasn't wierd about roleplaying something differently than what's typical according to the books.

Anyway, I'm off to bed for the night. I'll most likely have a dream about being a blood mage.. again.. lol

Wow.. I thought I'd have a bunch of responses on this one. I'll try a google search or something.. see what comes up =/

In my bi-weekly D&D 3.5 game, I play a LN Diviner. Last session he gained his 3rd level in Blood Magus. The last few sessions I've been interested in expanding the roleplaying aspect of blood magic. I've toyed around with the idea of describing some of the most common (phb) spells that I prepare, in ways that reinforce the concept of "Blood Mage". For example: for power word: blind, I want to describe it as if I'm taking the blood from the opponents eyes; ray of enfeeblement as a beam of negative energy that allows me to control the blood flow to the creatures muscles; enervation as a negative ray that allows greater control of the creatures blood, restricting flow to his mind and body; and vampiric touch, most obviously, "vampire hands" comes to mind..

These are the sort of ideas I had in mind, but want to take it further than just that.. I like thinking outside the box, and in this case, the mechanics of the game, and just want to be more than a mage that does a couple things with blood (as the prc abilities allow)..

For example, in our game, one thing I'd like to be able to do is draw an arcane symbol with my own blood, for the sole purpose of being able to strengthen the wall it's drawn upon, while serving as a visual warning. Like a big "Forbidden! Go no further!" written in blood, that has the added benefit of making the wall stronger than usual.

What are everyone's thoughts and ideas on this matter? Also, are there any sources (PRPG or 3.5) that touch upon blood magic, other than the prestige class I'm currently taking?

28 here. My first experience with RPGs was with V:tM actually. I played a Malkavian with multiple personalities. The GM decided to roll a die to see how many I had, ended up with 10. During game, the GM decided to have me change personalities every 5 to 10 minutes. The thing about my personalities was, each thought he was part of a different vampire clan. Things were okay, to a point. It was kind of annoying to switch so often. But got really annoying when my last personality thought he was Asimite and tried killing an ally. There was so much bull-honkery going on that made me upset at that point. That was the one and only session of that game I ever played. Basically, combat ensued, but the GM was heavily favoring the person I attacked, and apparently, without any rolls, the ally apparently "knew" i was behind him and grabbed me by the throat as I tried to attack him from behind. He proceeded to lop my head off (not completely though), pour gasoline on me, and set me aflame. As I was set aflame, apparently the GM thought it was a good idea to add that it was daybreak...
Anyway.. the next time I played was a month later, a game of 3e D&D in 2000. My first D&D character was a sorcerer.

I'll definitely look into that! Thanks =)

Wow! What wonderful and interesting ideas! Thanks for sharing! =)

That's an interesting idea. I certainly would like to see that fleshed out. If you ever get the opportunity to do so, let us know! =)

Anything.. anything at all? lol

There's a couple things that bother me about the current way item creation is handled.
First is potions. Brew Potion only allows you to create a potion of a spell up to 3rd level, and cannot be a personal spell. However, if you do want a one shot item of 4th level or higher, call it an "elixir", and now it falls under the "Wonderous Item". Even though, mechanically, it's exactly the same. For example, my family group, once in high levels, makes it a regular habit of making/buying/finding elixirs of heal.
Next is wands. For pretty much the same reason as potions. Want a higher level spell in a stick with 50 charges? Cool, it's now a "Wonderous Item", or a staff, or a ring.. depending on what it 'looks like'.

Why not make crafting feats separated like the MIC separated stuff? Also 'Craft X' isn't really accurate either, is it? You're not actually crafting a ring, or a belt, or a staff, you're enchanting a mundane item with magical powers.

So how about Brew Potion include spells higher than 3rd level? Why not go further and allow harmful spells to be applied to your weapon, like oils can be, and act like a temporary 'spell storing' ability? Apply 'poison', hit once, discharge spell. Would that really break the game?

Brew Potion (no level limit, includes oils, elixirs, and even 'spell grenades' such as fireball in a bottle), Enchant Clothing, Enchant Jewelry, Enchant Armour, Enchant Weapon, Enchant Stick (basically rods, wands and staves, no level limits, the name could use work), Scribe Scroll (i dont have a problem with this one), Enchant Wonderous Item (anything else that doesn't fall into the previous categories)

What are some house rules you use for this topic? What do you think of the ideas I propose?

Well, it's another alignment thread. Better smurf while you can!

Re OP: I say it's up to the GM.

edit: crap, i got smurfette..

Jason Beardsley wrote:

First, nowhere in the rules does it say that (glamer) spells automatically get a will save to disbelieve.

Second, the Will save that Invisibility does have, is to negate someone casting it on you in the first place.

Third, though spellcrafting the spell as it's being cast is a good idea, that doesn't mean you automatically get to see the creature.

It sounds like this "other friend" knows what he's talking about.

Yes i think my friend is confusing page 211. It says to get a saving throw you have to study it. Which is impossible, you are invisible.

Ja, it looks like he is. That entry is for Will Save (Disbelief) illusions. Which, invisibility is not.

First, nowhere in the rules does it say that (glamer) spells automatically get a will save to disbelieve.

Second, the Will save that Invisibility does have, is to negate someone casting it on you in the first place.

Third, though spellcrafting the spell as it's being cast is a good idea, that doesn't mean you automatically get to see the creature.

It sounds like this "other friend" knows what he's talking about.

James Jacobs wrote:

While I'd LOVE to see Dreamscarred Press do a Pathfinder version of the psionics rules, we don't want to license them the "official" Pathfinder rules at this time. What we eventually do with psionics hasn't been decided yet... but I'm a big enough fan of psionics that I'd love to do such a book in-house.

Hopefully, we'll have more 3rd party publishers producing Pathfinder material. We don't have the time or resources to institute any form of approval process for those books, though, which would be required if we were to dub any of them "official." That's not really in the spirit of the open gaming movement, anyway. Much better to have lots of choices out there.

Amen! To me, Paizo has been the most open supporter of 3PP in general. So I think the best thing we could do as 3PP is to keep putting out great RPG material.

I'll second that =)

My current DM likes to throw hordes of much lower level enemies at us at one time, and if my character hadn't banned evocation (3.5 game, i'm a diviner), I'd be chucking fireballs like there's no tomorrow, as that would be the most efficient way of dealing with them.

However, my party is appreciating me for the fact that I can turn most of our enemies into allies. Though, when we have to deal with a horde of constructs, then my character is almost useless. And in our game, it happens often.

The only spell that i can think of, that i do use, is vampiric touch. Though, I use that for the temp hp. That's always nice =)

My point is, even in certain situations, a direct damage spell would be useful. I certainly would enjoy being able to cast a fireball or two.

Goblin Witchlord wrote:

Sorcerers are fun, and it's been pretty easy to plug in 3.5e psionics straight.

I always felt like the 3.5e variant magic, especially incantations, should have gotten more love and development.

someone say incantations????? Look here! and here

I have messed with a little experiment, but never playtested it. Wizards work as is, using the book Vancian system, Clerics are changed and all are spontaneous casters, Sorcerers use their charisma to power spells using a spell point system, similar to psionics. It gives each class a very distinct feel of casting magic and explains why a wizard cannot cast a spell written by a Cleric... because the magic is fundamentally different. It also gives the Sorcerer a reason to exist in the first place. Bloodlines helped but still, it is just a Wizard... oh and entirely different spell lists... Sorcerer and Wizard do NOT use the same list.

Your Sorcerers and Wizards use different spell lists? Would you mind explaining what you did? I'm very curious about this. Also, what about your other spellcasters (bard, druid, paladin, ranger)?

LilithsThrall wrote:

I need to cast Invis once. It is my familiar. It will be rendered invisible when the Sorcerer is rendered invisible.

Wrong-o buddy. You need 2 casts, share spells LETS you cast spells on him that would normally affect you, not let you and the familiar split the benefit for a spell. Sorry.

That's how it used to work in 3.5. Looks like it was changed in PRPG. Bummer

And, of course, I also have this place to help feed my need.

Brains? lol...

Before I moved to this wonderful city of Plattsburgh, NY, I was playing a weekly game with my family. Me, my 2 brothers, my step-sister, my brother's friend, and my dad. Now, mind you, my dad is 50, i'm 28, and he still plays D&D with us. To me, that just kicks ass. Anyway.. we've been doing this for the past several years, and my brothers and I take turns GMing. One of us would have a great idea for a campaign, and we'd play through it, beyond epic levels, and even becoming demi-gods in one. When it got to that point, the campaign was over, and the next brother would start up a new game. Each time, character creation was slightly different, one was completely ridiculous, and featured one player as a vampiric balor. But towards the end of each campaign, the players would "lose their magic", they'd get restless, and bored with the current game.

One thing we tend to do, is take a week off, and usually that gives the GM enough time to recuperate, gather his thoughts, and try to breath life into the campaign. Sometimes it's due to players getting to mired in the rules to enjoy the game for what it is. When that happens, the GM has a talk with the players, citing his frustrations with "rules-lawyering" and second-guessing his decisions. Typically that's enough to get the game rolling again.

Now, I'm in a new city, I've found a new group, and I love it. I didn't at first, in fact, it almost got to the point where I almost left. (I think I even had a thread of me ranting about how terrible it was). At first, there was no magic. I was just glad to be playing the game again. But after sticking with it, I've become enthralled with it. Discovering my issues at first had nothing to do with the GM, and everything to do with disruptive players, was the key. Now, not only do I love my current character, but so do my companions. Enough so, that they pooled all their money together to have me brought back to life after I died (level 5ish i think). That, in and of itself, was enough for me to roleplay my new obsession with "blood magic". My character is now a diviner 10/blood magus 2, has more hp than a typical wizard, and even more than our party rogue.

Last session, the group had made it to the duergar city, and had encountered a durzagon. I made a deal with him, signed a contract, that resulted in him aiding us take over a castle run by a tyrant. The durzagon quickly showed how dimwitted he was, and while my character was away, the party cleric made wonderful use of stone shape, encasing the durzagon in a stone coffin. Now, we have a castle.

Most fun I've had with this game so far. And very excited for the next session, where we get 13 pages worth of treasure, try to manage a castle, set off to free a god, ask it's aid to restore a wall that's supposed to separate the giants from the rest of civilization, try to convince that god to teach my character rune magic, and try to get this damn angel off our backs. =)

Phasics wrote:

hehehe colorful

but I was thinking more of just doing the menial jobs.

working in the mines
cleaning the streets
moving industrial material around

you still need the crafters to actually put stuff together as zombies and skeletons aren't exactly a skilled workforce

but you wouldn't need any "labourers" your entire living population would be a skilled workforce, and labour would be handled by the undead.

on the plus side your entire labor force doubles as an instant army in a pinch ;) heh just try to siege our city with undead on every corner ;)

once they been wiped out your real army can lay waste to the poor remnants of your attackers.

then you just makes skeletons and zombies out of the army who attacked you ;) rinse and repeat

btw this is for Kingmaker :)

If you haven't seen it, there's a movie called "Fido" which this reminds me of and which I highly recommend.

Great movie! Really wierd too lol. I enjoyed it a lot =)

Jason Beardsley wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.

Cite please?

You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard?

If "when the target drops his guard" is the readied action, I agree it wouldn't be triggered in that case. However, if the readied action is "when the target casts a spell", even if it is cast defensively, it still triggers the readied action.

And since, as per RAW, there are no restrictions on what the triggering condition for a readied action is, "when the target casts a spell" is just a legit a triggering condition as "when the target lies" or "when the target thinks something evil".

Perhaps. Per RAW maybe, per GM though..

I'm of the opinion that it's up to the GM to dictate what happens "visually" in game as far as the silenced, stilled, eschewed spellcaster goes. I recall someone mentioning something about an electric energy in the air, that could be one GM's interpretation. As far as we, outside the game, are concerned, we say "i cast X" and it just happens. But in-game, it could take several whole seconds to manifest before going off. Perhaps, in-game, the person who readied an action against the enemy mage, waits for not just the mage to start flailing his arms about, but for signs of the manifestation of a spell. Such as a ball of fire suddenly forming in front of the mage, or the crackle of electricity over his body, or his hand being surrounded by a deepening dark energy.

Matthew Morris wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.

Cite please?

You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard?

If "when the target drops his guard" is the readied action, I agree it wouldn't be triggered in that case. However, if the readied action is "when the target casts a spell", even if it is cast defensively, it still triggers the readied action.

Matthew Morris wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.

Cite please?

Casting on the defensive does not provoke an AoO. Do I really need to give you are rule quote for that?

No, but it would still trigger a readied action against it. I think that's what he's referring to. I apologize if I'm wrong in that assumption.

Yeah 4's pretty much blow Here is a link to a site that supposedly has some of the best dice in the world, he has some weird dice like 3 and 5 sided and other odd numbered dice.

A couple videos of the guy talking about his dice. They are shameless promotions for his dice but they are a interesting watch none the less.

Video #1

Video #1

i never get tired of watching those =)

Hounds of G.O.D. was officially released last night. From the website:

In Hounds of G.O.D. the players take the role of human-wolf experiments known as Hounds. Bound to serve the United Earth Corporation and their handler for life, they are forced to face the abominations of science gone mad, survive the hostile environments of far off worlds, and even kill off their own kind. Everyday is a struggle with difficult choices and the beast within.

Will you toe the line and be a dutiful servant? Or will you bite the hand that feeds, slip the leash, and become a Stray?

I just want to say this is a fun game. I helped playtest it, and I really enjoyed it a lot.

The website is here. It's only $7 for the PDF, and $8 for the Print version.

There is little in the sorcerer section that says your ancestry determines the bloodline you choose for the character, and you can fluff your way around the need for a blood-relation of any sort..

** spoiler omitted **

...

I like the way you think, Sir! =)

I know a guy that firmly believes that because the site he has subscribed to is based in another country, where it's not against the law to share files, that it's okay do download anything he wants. His rational being that since it's not breaking the law there, it's okay. It's kind of silly when you have to sit with a grown ass person, and explain to them "if it's not yours, and you didn't pay for it, it's stealing". Apparently he never learned that lesson as a child.

In any case, I haven't purchased any PDFs recently, within the last 7 months or so, but I certainly plan on continuing to do so once I get financially stable. Now that I have a job, my first 2 checks are being spend on a bus ticket to my family reunion.

After that though, Paizo, expect me to buy more PDFs from you. I have some catching up to do.

Perhaps... but the spell doesn't exist. and if you check the Summonor spell list in that very same document, it's not there either.

We don't know if that'll be the published version, however. For all we know, the published version will be dramatically different.

Dragging the thread back into vaguely the original direction.

One of the ways in which an unlocked PDF is currently 'better value' than a stock PDF is that you can remove background/artwork to reduce ink usage and increase contrast - better for those of us with poor old eyes.

Would Paizo consider adding a third download option making the options :

• One File
  
• One file per chapter
  
• Printer friendly
  

Still watermarked, still locked, same page layout - just with the background and artwork knocked out. If the PDFs currently have artwork on a different layer to diagrams, this might not be too much extra work to implement.

On the topic of annotating PDFs, Skim can annotate locked PDFs by saving the annotations to a companion file. Mac OSX only though.

Printer friendly would be nice. I'm not sure if my theory is right or not, but I believe it'd look less garbled if you put a PF version on an eReader. Hmm, if Paizo does release eReader versions of their products, would they be included as part of the PDFs, or would they be sold separately?

LilithsThrall wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Psion do not need to be sci-fi, metal powers have a role from stone age till the gothic era's with ease.

In non-sci fi, non-modern settings, it's typically called "mysticism", not "psionics". If pathfinder is going to use the concept, I really wish they'd change the name.

I know what you mean, but the name is really immaterial. You, the DM, can call it whatever you like.

Sorry for the tangent, but this brings up a pet peeve of mine.

One of my brothers, when it's his turn to DM, has this habit of introducing an NPC, and what he does, as his class name. I mean, come on, how much imagination do you have to have to just call that evil sorcerer a warlock, magister, archmagus, etc? Or the half-orc cleric, who leads his tribe, a shaman, mystic, priest, cultist, etc?

In-game, villagers typically won't know the difference between a nature-worshiping cleric and a druid, or a sorcerer and a wizard, or in some cases, a cleric and a paladin, a fighter and a ranger, etc. So, why not name them for what they do in game, instead of what they are out of game?

[/rant]

That's the kind of conclusion I'd expect to learn didn't actually come from the studies themselves, but perhaps instead came from a non-scientific summary of the studies by a party that doesn't understand—or doesn't want to acknowledge—the distinction.

You know, I enjoy coming to the Paizo Messageboards because the Staff generally seem like fun, though stressed out at times, and paizo-family oriented.

That being said, when I read this quote, I read it as "You're too stupid or ignorant to know what actually happened." I'm not sure if you intended it being read this way, but I'm letting you know that this upset me.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Urizen wrote:

Aberzombie wrote:

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:

Another thing you guys may not know is that aberzombie has dentures, he tried to bite into Urizens skull once but it was to thick, lost all his chompers now he has dentures.

Fixodent, and forget it!

My brainnnnnnnnnn....where did it gooooooooooooooooooo

I have no idea why but this post has me giggling like an idiot.

Sobriety is overrated; wait, you don't do that.

Even if I did drink, I posted that just after noon, waaaaaaay too early for the booze :P

Nonsense! It's always 5 o'clock somewhere =)

The problem with that is D&D games have never -by the book- rewarded RP. It's pretty much all about leveling by killing monsters. Perhaps I missed a section for Pathfinder where it addresses this? (I hope)

Sadly, the current group I'm in doesn't get full XP for RPing an encounter. For example, an Ettin Monk 5 was blocking the entrance to a tunnel we needed to get in, instead of fighting him, the party Bard made the Ettin believe he was our friend. We were granted access to the cave entrance, and only received half XP for the encounter.

Luckily, the DM is starting to come around, as he is actually enjoying the RP encounters now. He typically used to run games that were almost all combat. Now that he's flexing his RP muscle, he's having much more fun. =)

Also, it was last session that he started giving full XP ;)

If I were to create a psion class I would probably go the route of Trees ...

I like this. Cleric has Domains. Sorcerer has Bloodlines. Wizard has Schools. Why not do something similar with Psion and Disciplines?

Also, though I love the Power Points that go along with Powers, I would be willing to try giving them spells per day like other Core casters. But augmentation needs to remain a part of Psionics. Though, some effects would auto-scale.

An example of such a system could be:
Casting Time Hop is normally a 3rd level power, the augmentation to include more targets would be an auto-scaling feature. If you want to include a larger creature, you could prepare/manifest the power as one level higher for each size larger.

Regardless of what system the Psion uses for manifesting powers, I believe augmentation is essential.

Jason Beardsley wrote:

I just want to voice my, seemingly insignificant, opinion about this project.

First, I want to say that I love psionics, and always try to implement them in all my games. I love DSP, their products, and their enthusiasm to bring Psionics to Pathfinder.

When it comes to the Psi-classes, I'm not a fan of the direction they're taking them. There's just too much going on, too many additions, and it feels to me like backwards compatibility was thrown out the window. If the end product is like this, I'm going to have to say it's something I'm not going to support.

I'd like to post more about this, but I've not the time at the moment.

All opinions and criticisms are welcome. Backward compatibility is balanced against ironing out problems with classes. The Wilder is good for backward compatibility while gaining some interesting new features. The soulknife is the opposite end of the spectrum - like a lot of combat classes, it needed serious re-writing as the original was underpowered enough to make the fighter in 3.5 look tough.

It's funny you mention the Soulknife, I left a comment about that in the DSP forums.

I actually liked the variant soulknife in Untapped Potential. I thought this was good. I know more work needs to be done to bring it up to PRPG standards, but I think making it a full BAB class is not the way to go.

just as a Wizard is defined by his spells not his class abilities, so should the Psion

I couldn't agree more.

I just want to voice my, seemingly insignificant, opinion about this project.

First, I want to say that I love psionics, and always try to implement them in all my games. I love DSP, their products, and their enthusiasm to bring Psionics to Pathfinder.

When it comes to the Psi-classes, I'm not a fan of the direction they're taking them. There's just too much going on, too many additions, and it feels to me like backwards compatibility was thrown out the window. If the end product is like this, I'm going to have to say it's something I'm not going to support.

I'd like to post more about this, but I've not the time at the moment.

Oh yeah, well 30% of people thought, "Huh, a Fern Gully remake?" (Not as many people remember Fern Gully without being reminded)

This was my exact thought when I first watched it.

BTW, loved Fern Gully.

Summoner build?

Let's all just learn Lojban and be done with the other languages ;) lol

FabesMinis wrote:

Apparently Heroes of Shadow will feature the Assassin, the Necromancer and the Hexblade.

So everyone is guessing:

Assassin - Striker (this is known)
Necromancer - Controller
Hexblade - Defender

A Shadow Power Leader would be nice. We also have the Warlock. Hmmm.....Not Shadow power but Scourges have lots of Necro damage and temp hit points. Maybe they will give us a Warlock Build that is a Leader or has a Leader secondary role to help the party by gving them life force from the enemy. Kind of a Vampire channeller.

I can dream. Dark, shadowy dreams.

Being that I'm REALLY new to 4e, off the top of my head, I'd think Necromancer would've been a Leader. But, I could be wrong, and most likely am.

Good luck, Larry! Let us know how it works out =)

It's a shame I moved from that area in October. I'd absolutely take you up on this =(

Jason Beardsley wrote:

David Wickham wrote:

Jason Beardsley wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

...

Just.. why :'(

Thanks for the info everyone!

Jason Beardsley wrote:

Epistolary is a legitimate word, with no copyrights on it, as far as I know.

Sweet. Good on you for the research.

I think Epistolary would be a great name for this class. It's a suitably arcane word with no 3.5 associations that I can think of.

Ja, but have you seen the definition? lol

Borrowed from Games Workshop and possibly copyrighted:
Codicier
Epistolary

Epistolary is a legitimate word, with no copyrights on it, as far as I know. Codicier however, when searching the term on the net, only comes up with 40k references and names of 'virtual profiles' of some kind (such as a blog alias, or a WoW character).

Jason Beardsley wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Personally, I hope Paizo just hands off psionics to DSP, and make them the actually official source for Pathfinder Psionics. I'd rather see it handed to a 3rd party publisher that really enjoys it, than be published by a company that only 'kinda' wants to do it.

Dreamscarred Press has a book (pdf only i believe) called Untapped Potential. I'd start there, and recommend to brows DSP's other stuff. They're the unofficially official 3pp for Psionics, and they do a damn good job =)

I was glancing at my friends copy of the PH3, and noticed in the back a reference to the Shadow power source. Now I'm curious. Which book was that introduced, and which classes use it?