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

Machaeus's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Just reading the first page and the story, I lol'd so hard. This is actually great. If/when Paizo does in fact hit it big(ger), this will definitely be a collector's item, kinda like rare coins and stuff.

Who knows? The derp'd copies might even be worth something if/when that time comes :P


Actually, down by -1 for every 2 points below 11 is more accurate.

The formula is basically: (Ability Score - 10) / 2 = Ability Modifier. EDIT: Make sure you round down (towards a lower number, not towards 0).


That seems somewhat awkward to me. Why not just make it a full-round action or something to make it so you can shoot to hit and press it to someone, or a standard if you fire into the air/ground?

Or, maybe make it a swift action to do that, and only after a full attack?

I dunno, it seems like it could be made better and/or more clear.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

From the PRD:

Stop Bleeding: The gunslinger makes a firearm attack and then presses the hot barrel against herself or an adjacent creature to staunch a bleeding wound. Instead of dealing damage, the shot ends a single bleed condition affecting the creature. The gunslinger does not have to make an attack roll when performing the deed in this way; she can instead shoot the firearm into the air, but that shot still uses up ammunition normally.

Emphasis mine.

I love the idea for this mechanic, but...grammatically, I can't tell what is supposed to happen. Do you shoot at someone, but miss automatically, and then staunch the wound? Or can you hit someone with the actual bullet and powder?


*sigh* All this over a bad word choice.

I clicked on the thread because I'm an idiot. I closed the tab because I've learned to.

I suggest everyone else do the same, and not return; there's no real discussion here anymore.


Thank you all, these answers help!


So, I was wondering if there was a spell besides mage hand that allows you to quickly grab (even steal) an item at range. I can't seem to find such a thing, but maybe there's something I missed. I assume for such a spell there'd be a "ranged steal roll" for the mage (who likely has a crappy CMB, but you never know, it may work), but this all assumes such a spell exists.

If there isn't anything official, I may just make something for the hell of it and share it for peer review. And no, mage hand doesn't have quite the speed I'm looking for (say, 30 ft. in a move action, as opposed to 15 ft plus the standard action to grab the item in the first place).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FOREWARNING: I'm literally throwing this build together here and now on the forum, and it's not meant to be optimized exactly. I just want to see if it piques any interests; maybe someone else can optimize it. If someone tries, please keep the total Monk levels, at the very least, at an approximate ratio of 1 for every 3 character levels.

Assuming 20-point-buy for ability scores, and PF Core + Dreamscarred's Psionics Material (complete releases only). Using level 5 for now. There's probably a better way to do all this; and yes, I would like to see it, please!

Woo Shea, Female Elan Monk 2/Psychic Warrior (Ascetic) 3 (+5 HP), +2 Wis

Str 10 (12 w/belt), Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18 -> 20, Cha 8
Languages: Common
Skills: Acrobatics +7, Autohypnosis +12, Knowledge (history) +6, Perception +13, Sense Motive +13
Feats: Weapon Focus (unarmed), Psionic Dodge, Psionic Meditation
Bonus Feats: Wild Talent (Elan; converts to Psionic Talent), Dodge (Monk 1), Combat Reflexes (Monk 2), Psionic Fist (PsWr 1), Mental Leap (PsWr 2)
10,500 gp
Equip: Amulet of Mighty Fists +1, Belt of Giant Strength +2, Ring of Protection +1, 500 gp
AC 21, Touch 21, Flat-footed 11
BAB +3, CMB +4, CMD 16 (-1 CMB/CMD if missing belt)
Saves Fort +7, Ref +6 (evasion), Will +8
HP 36 (ave. all except 1st), Dead -12
Attack +6 unarmed (1d6+3 or 1d6+2+2d6) (-1 damage and attack w/out belt, -1 damage and attack w/out amulet)

Flurry of Blows +2/+2 (before PsWr BAB)
Stunning Fist 2/day

PP: 11
ML: 3
Powers Known:
1st: Biofeedback, Expansion, Thicken Skin

Bonus Powers (Max ML 4 if spending PP)
1st: Defensive Precognition, Offensive Precognition

Trance: +1 competence to AC or Saves (using AC)
Maneuver: +2 dodge to AC


MrSin wrote:
Diabolic themed hexes sound downright wicked.

I see what you did there :D


This and the prior one are on my list of things to get ASAP.

Also, I must either be tired or a terrible person, because I just saw one of my favorite webcomics update today, and I thought almost IMMEDIATELY that two of the main characters - an angel and a demon in a relationship - should totally name their first kid Shachath.

Goddammit brain.


Okay...which means that somehow I DIDN'T download it (despite remembering doing so, and some of how the numbers were crunched), or else deleted it sometime in the past and now it's inaccessible. S@&&.

Well, thank you for your help in any case. Looks like I'll have to do guesswork for my Words of Power houserule :P


Oh. I see, sorry. Even if it's free to begin with?

If so, I apologize; it's just that I still see the Mythic playtest document in my downloads. Was that an oversight, then?


If this has been asked before, or if I didn't get a memo of some kind stating that I'm not supposed to ask this, I'm sorry.

I'm looking for the Ultimate Magic Playtest PDF for round 2. It seems to have vanished from the site, and from the net. I wish to use it for the sake of house rules. Would anyone at Paizo be willing to re-upload it (assuming it still exists in their files, of course!)? Or perhaps e-mail/PM it to me in some way?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zombie Ninja wrote:

I like where this is going, but not to be a spoil sport but, Jason, you really need to work on your naming conventions.

Bloodrager = great idea but terrible name. Please consider Marauder, Conqueror, or vanquisher. Something less fake compound word sounding.

Hunter = It sounds more like a warden.

Shaman and Slayer are ok.

Warpriest = Templar, crusader, champion or perhaps sentinel.

Swashbuckler = Normally just fine, but there is an archetype by that name. To avoid confusion consider buccaneer.

There I got it off my chest, otherwise I'm really looking forward to this one.

Quote:
Warpriest = Templar, crusader, champion or perhaps sentinel.
Quote:
Warpriest = Templar

Oh f*** the hell YES. [/hellsingabridged]


ciretose wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Which is one thing that does bother me about all this while I do believe the comments were vile and horrific I cant help but think she set out to set up the situation to be this way

What I mean is she seems to have comments on all her other videos disabled except for this one, uses the comments to gain attention, then when she has her funding disables the comments again.

If she Disables comments normally to avoid such remarks why allow them on this video and then only disable them once she has got her funding?

Which is absolutely brilliant.

She is doing a wonderful job accomplishing exactly what she set out to accomplish. It is damn impressive, and good for her.

100% serious. Not kidding. I would hire the hell out of her to do PR work for me.

What I'm seeing on this thread is a lot of people acting like she is a damsel in distress. She isn't. She knows exactly what she is doing, she is playing the knuckledraggers like a fiddle for publicity and money toward her causes AND using the comments to illustrate her points.

Well done by her. Sincerely.

So stop patronizing her like she is some naive child, just because she is an woman. That is, to me, a far bigger roadblock to equality than anything in a video game.

This. Again, disagree, but she deserves to say it.


Several things to say.

First, as part of the self-loathing community (depression is proof of SOME kind of eldritch evil, I don't care WHAT you say), I do not perform these kinds of trolling acts. Please do not speak for me. (I know you're not, but my point is that even self-loathing gives them an excuse. I disagree with the vid, but these excremental creatures have no excuse.)

Second, perhaps it is merely my past experience, but I actively fear feminists simply because of their extreme viewpoints. This isn't even the publicized versions, it's just people I see/meet at random. I'm pretty sure if I told them I have an (OPTIONAL) D&D houserule stating that males get a +1 to STR/DEX/CON and females get a +1 to INT/WIS/CHA that they'd flip out and try to have me arrested for sexual assault. The reason that rule even exists in my head is because it's a pattern I've seen. And notice: NO PENALTIES to attributes. This is little more than a reflection of a tendency that evolution, if you believe in it, has ingrained in us; if you don't, it's a sign of our societies that we made.

Third, I was doing fine until LazarX mouthed off on the bottom of Page 2. I'm going to try and ignore that, but knowing my own idiocy and knowing him, I'm pretty sure I'll be dragged through the mud soon, if not dragging myself.

Fourth, howzabout this Voltaire quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it." While I'm a total f*cking coward and couldn't really put my life on the line (I could never be in the military, so I thank every vet I see), I think a lot of people need to learn this quote, and not the commonly-used political version of both right and left: "You may disagree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it."

Fifth, perhaps DQ is right. Perhaps the feminists are no different from Islam, in that there's a radical militant portion that's comparatively smaller than my little toe (and not wrapped up in terrorism, on the feminism side), but here's the thing: Right-wing groups are commonly called for the reigning in of their radical elements, and are actively hated by the vast majority of people. Those on the left, from my perspective, are not. Maybe it's just that the people who are silent are the majority. It probably is that. But compared to WBC (God hates A&&#~%~s :P No srsly, read the Commandments), who hears that much about PETA anymore? Therein lies my rub.

Idk. Mostly moderate, leaning right, and Libertarian "don't mandate everything into cold molasses" party here, so take it with more salt than you normally might for the internet.


Sissyl wrote:
Tolerance is for everyone except intolerants.

I hope you realize the irony there and you're saying it FOR that irony. If not, look up Voltaire's quote about "I may not agree".


I think Mr. Locke is purposefully ignoring the point that is trying to be made. Just as it is a homosexual's right to associate with whomever, it is the same for a heterosexual. Do I agree with the idea of "gays should die"? No. I don't know many who do, even if they think gay people are unequal or sinful.

The point he's making is he's saying that the "opposing viewpoint" is being declared as WRONG WRONG WRONG and everyone who says otherwise should be burned at the stake. While I don't know if this is true, having not read enough of Golarion's works...what if it doesn't float your boat? What if you're straight and don't like gays in THAT way?

Streets run both ways, generally. If he's right, then it IS intolerant. If he's wrong, then he's wrong. Simple. Also "I'm sorry you disagree" is an insult, not an apology, I hope you realize.

...g@!&$%mit I didn't want to get sucked back into this board. How'd it get unhidden for me?


Quote:
Well, if by hugs you mean personally visiting the world in the form of Pharaohs or old black jazz musicians

Or Hitler.


Lamontius: I KNOW that's a movie reference. I just haven't a clue as to what movie...


blackblood: As a furry, I lol'd. Hard.

Actually, I thought it was going to be about roleplaying a werewolf who has to tell his/her allies/friends about a "monthly problem" that has absolutely nothing to do with being a girl. And how he should go about doing that kind of scenario. Although, TBH that seems a little silly now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:

I have said some of this before (in my My Perspective on the Paladin's Code thread), but I will repeat it here.

The Paladins Code of Chivalry

Recently, there have been a number of threads on the Code of a Paladin on the Paizo boards. It has been rather surprising to me how many people appear to want to treat this Code as merely a mechanic of the class to justify the raw power of the Paladin. That isn't the point of the Paladin's Code of Conduct. It should not be merely a means to off-set those parts of the class that grant power. Abiding for a set of rules only to gain power is not what a Paladin is about; in fact, it is the antithesis of what a Paladin is.

The origin of the Paladin was based on the knights of Charlemagne, and on Sir Galahad from the Arthurian legends. Such beliefs are not suited for everyone: neither Arthur himself, nor Lancelot, nor any other of his Knights of the Round Table were Paladins. Because the path of a Paladin is a hard path to follow. It is an act of faith and belief that the Paladin must live, everyday, so that he is true to himself.

The Paladin's Code is (rather, that it should be) a guide for how they live their life. It is with good reason that Paladin's are restricted to a Lawful Good alignment. This is because the Paladin (above and beyond all other classes) is a character of staunch moral and ethical beliefs, who sacrifices his own freedom of actions (of choices) to uphold a higher sacred trust.

Paladins are not just fighters by another name; they are more than a knight in shining armor. They are (or should be) pious and virtuous, honorable and merciful, charitable and chivalrous. In all things. Acting in such a fashion should not be something a person who plays a Paladin should view as a restriction upon his actions, it is merely the way which a Paladin (the character) lives his life, because that is who and what he is. A Lawful Good man...

The only legitimate response to a post this awesome.

EDIT: Remembered an idea I had for a paladin once. It was a "practical" (read: pragmatic) paladin. His idea of a good battle plan involved himself being in the middle of the road the enemy army traveled on, and shouting a challenge to them. Meanwhile his allies were in the foliage waiting to ambush them while the morons tried to pick off the "lone, stupid knight-man". Divided forces = easier fight.

His reasoning? "Two things. One, I can heal myself and fight as well as anyone else. I'm perfect for drawing the bait. Two...if they really are dumb enough to think I'm alone, they almost deserve to be ambushed like this."

Just a silly idea I had.


Aelryinth wrote:

The fighter would like to take his iconic high level abilities back from the barbarian.

He would like to be able to Sunder Spells, Resist Magic, hit people who hit him, learn how to tumble, get DR as he levels instead of at level 19, be able to improve his will save automatically with class features, and have 4 skill points a level, thanks.

The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.

Spells that duplicate/eliminate gp production should be revised or fixed. Example, Fabricate should replace one day's skill check, allowing it to be done instantly, not instantly make a completed item requiring a hundred day's labor out of raw materials. It also should not allow you to make a potent masterwork item with one Rank in the appropriate skill and a +10 Competency item, i.e. you need 7 Ranks in profession (smith) before you can work mithral, 10 before you can work adamantine.

An item is required to be masterwork and have a crafting level = the spellcasting level needed to power it. Thus, if you want a +5 sword, you need a sword made by a smith with 15 Ranks in the skill, or it won't hold the enchantment. This makes legendary craftsman NECCESSARY to make legendary items, and magic won't sub for Ranks.

==Aelryinth

I like all of what you say here, but the bolded especially. I think I may make that a house rule.

But in such an instance, do you think that Fabricate could be made a lower-level spell as a result? I think it could, but that's me. Suddenly I'm imagining a blacksmith with a wizard level (or three) so he CAN cast Fabricate, making his life a bit easier and increasing income. "Yeah, going to magic college was worth every copper. I can get three days worth of work done in one!" EDIT: Would probably lower the amount of material worked with, too. 10 cubic feet of steel ingots could be made into quite a few swords; so maybe 1 or 2 cubic feet per casting?

Screw it, I'm going to try making this work.


I once banned Paladins from a world simply because the world in question didn't have a concept for it. I was aiming for a more gritty world in doing so (not that said world ever got made into a campaign anyways! :P).

On the whole, I understand the argument presented, but the topic name "Why ban a class for flavor?" seems to miss that there are other standards of "flavor" to consider. If you want to make raviolis, you don't add ice cream to the recipe. However, if you want a banana split as part of a 3-course meal, you would. If it doesn't fit the vision you have for your world, and there's no way to reconcile it, ban; if you can think of a way to make it fit, do. Ninja are assassins historically, correct? Ergo, call them "assassins". Samurai are "knights" (though Cavaliers fit the bill there, so whatever). Gunslingers might be "snipers". Heck, maybe paladins don't draw on Holy and Righteous power, but something unique to your world. Name them something cool related to that unique something. Maybe they're just replaced by Incarnates, if you want to update some 3.5 stuff. Maybe you want spell-less rangers, there's probably a couple hundred ideas of how to do that out there. Just run with ideas, think about their core concepts and who or what might share that concept.

Heck, maybe you're in a world where magic isn't advanced very far, but you have a psionics system. One that hasn't been printed yet, or at least in a while (rewrite an old system?). Lower the spell level maximum, and add your idea of Psychic Powers.

I guess I'm trying to get at the idea that nothing in the game is set in stone until you make it that way. This does include class flavors, as has been stated. Sorry if that seemed at all "rant"y.


So bookmark'd, so dotted, and definitely, DEFINITELY yoinked to tinker with.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

If you really want to get stats for deities check out an older book called Primal Order. It is not specific to any game system but will give you an idea of what a deity can do. There are some conversion but the book predates 3.x much less pathfinder.

It does have a lot of useful stuff on deities and reasons for going through mortals. There are rules for creating deities including Joey the god of basket weaving. There is also a lot of stuff for deity vs. deity fights.

Basically what it comes down to is that a mortal can't stand up to a deity unless he is backed by another deity. But often what happens is the deities use mortals to weaken the other deities so there are rules for interactions between them.

I just want to thank MS. I found the book online and already love it. (I love books about rules for/playing deities for some reason.)


Well, I don't exactly agree with everything I've seen you say...

However, this topic - your entire rant - makes sense. It DOES seem rather lazy logic at best, at least in most instances.

One exception I take is the dragon. A dragon is known for its hoard, and is known to obsess over said hoard to the point of OCD, so I'd almost expect it to literally sit on that gold pile (which, actually, is pretty small if you account for volume!). It'd be like expecting Austin Powers not to make a pass at a lady or a corny joke at just about anyone. A marilith, though, is definitely going to arm itself.

...no pun intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm...

For Sale:

- An extra soul: This was harvested from a stillborn before its personality fully formed; the child wants to experience life, and this is (at least according to the fey) the only way to do so, without reincarnation magic. It grants one person immunity to soul-binding-, death-, or possession-based effects.

- The hand of a lady: The hand is not physical, but sometime in the future the player will meet a lady of high stature who becomes smitten with him (as per charm person, but permanent unless purposefully broken by the character). A female PC version could exist as well. The hand brings in the dangers of politics but also the power of nobility, especially should they wed.

- A devil's blood: You gain the sorcerer's Infernal bloodline and all powers associated with it. These powers and their effects are based on the level of one of your favored classes (since only half-elves have multiples, the choice is easy for everyone else). You may use any bonus spells once per day as a spell-like ability, and can gain one bonus feat from the Infernal bloodline list. If the character already has the Infernal bloodline as a sorcerer, his effective sorcerer level doubles for the purposes of earning (EDIT: and improving) abilities.

Prices:

- A devil's soul: You give away the soul a devil has stolen or seduced from a mortal. This devil is well-connected (though not a Duke of Hell...yet...) and will hold this grudge against you until it is destroyed (EDIT: since this was not yours to give away). It will inevitably ruin your plans, and may send its cultists after you with a special gem that can use soul bind on you alone. Should this gem be touched by anyone not of the devil's cult, it goes back to him immediately.

- Power: You permanently lose 2 caster levels, though access to spells, hit dice, and the like do not change. In short, you count as 2 caster levels lower for purposes of spells you cast; a Wizard 7 does 5d6 with fireball. This may not be regained except with a wish, which has a 25% chance to make you lose your purchased item or boon. (Obviously only available for spellcasters.)

- Your time: During a single important fight in your life, you will vanish for 1d4+1 rounds. Should your allies win with no casualties (dropping to 0 or fewer hp or dying), this duration is extended to 1d4+1 minutes (minus the rounds in which you were gone). During this time, you recall having a pleasant afternoon tea with your prior benefactor, and being completely oblivious to the fight - as though it had been temporarily wiped from your memory.

It's official, I love this idea and this thread. Love love love.

EDIT again: New Something for Sale:

- A new location: Gain the effects of blur. This is extraordinary, but makes putting on your clothing and armor difficult.


Mauril wrote:

I think the diviner ought to get the option to wake up, but not be forced one way or another. The Forewarned ability is sort of a spidey sense, which you can't really turn off. However, you can always choose to ignore the spidey sense if you wanted. Not having rested enough to regain spells or something might be a reason to not wake up.

I would then assume that getting up would be the move action you'd take in the surprise round.

Quote:
The Forewarned ability is sort of a spidey sense, which you can't really turn off.
Quote:
spidey sense

I am SO making a diviner with a cloak of arachnida. I'll ask the GM to make it a body suit. :P


wraithstrike wrote:
Machaeus wrote:

Of course this all happened while I was either asleep or just not paying attention. :P

In response to all:

Wraith: It's actually been too long since I've played. It may well have been my group's playstyle...

I would never just make blanket rules. I always make rules with the group in mind. What might work for one group might not work for another. Maybe some rules were being ignored in the old group, or maybe you have a someone who really knew the game well playing with people that did not.

This is actually, exactly my point in my OP. I understand not everyone has caster problems; I wanted to see what happens if you do that for groups that DO have caster problems. Which your next post somewhat addresses.

wraithstrike wrote:
Machaeus wrote:

Marthian: I actually am not going entirely by the book in my archetype. It might just end up being another class entirely...sorry for the confusion.

Alitan: I can see this. However, a wizard can do a LOT of things other classes can do. Charm/Dominate, etc. I agree there is a "too far", and I am glad for your feedback.

..but it can't do its job, and the other class's job and not waste resources.

It also can do it as long or without other limitations.

As an example I had a player who chose a paladin because it can fight, cast spells, and heal. That sounds really good when you read it, but you still only get one action per turn, and the paladin is not the best at any of those except in certain circumstances.

Yeah wizards/sorc can charm/dominate, but at higher levels many monsters have high modifiers to save, they have to get past SR, and the monster might just be immune.

The bard can still use diplomacy or intimidate to achieve similar affects. Well skills can't dominate so with that spell he is not stepping on anyone's toes.

These are things I hear about in theory, but never see at a table. If someone tells me they happen at a table then usually the caster is allowed to waste resources and/or rest at will, but if you allow casters to rest at will it won't change anything. They can just max out the two casting scores, and be decent in con.

They don't really need dex since touch AC's are normally really low, even at high levels. The handy haversack takes care of them dumping strength.

20 pb

str 10
dex 10
con 14

2nd stat which controls how many spells you can cast 16(14 base+2 from racial modifier)

primary casting stat 16(controls which level of spells they can access + the DC )

10 or less for the dump stat.

These player might want thing more spells per day is important if he does not focus on SoD or SoS spells.

Actually, you can do both, depending on how well the player is playing the god-wizard. There are other limits, yes, but a wizard can, in fact, do some of the other class' jobs for them.

It's only a suggestion. If it doesn't work, and from your arguments it might not, oh well.


Marthian: I actually am not going entirely by the book in my archetype. It might just end up being another class entirely...sorry for the confusion.

Alitan: I can see this. However, a wizard can do a LOT of things other classes can do. Charm/Dominate, etc. I agree there is a "too far", and I am glad for your feedback.


Of course this all happened while I was either asleep or just not paying attention. :P

In response to all:

Wraith: It's actually been too long since I've played. It may well have been my group's playstyle...

Alitan: Fair enough. I hadn't really thought of those issues, but that's what I meant to get when I came here. Thank you.

Xavier: See Viktyr's comment.

Viktyr: Exactly my point, yes. I'm doubting it'll be enough, but it's something to try, maybe.

LazarX: Depends on the magic item. What if it's a pipe that you can use to create a smoky obscuring mist that consumes a dose of tobacco? (I made this, actually. Full-round to light, and move to make it smoky.) But I digress; you do raise good points, but I doubt that's the only major reason.

BEGS: The thing is, the fighter can't do that in one or two rounds. Three, hell yes, but two, probably not. Let's say he's level 10, fighting a CR 10 creature. We'll say an advanced Yrthak (Best 2, pg 290). He Vital Strikes his foe, rolls a +3 greatsword hit, Strength 26 after magic items and ability +s from levels, about 50 damage if he rolls 16 on his 2d6? Tell me if my math is off, of course. This means he'll have to use another 2 turns (unless he crits) to take it down, because an advanced Yrthak would have 138 hit points. If a wizard can end the encounter sooner on his own, that's a power discrepancy. Of course, the wizard can only do it so many times in a day, but that's not a terribly strong balance factor.

Granted, this IS a teamwork game. Assuming the rogue could sneak attack (easily possible with a deafness spell by cleric or wizard!), and the cleric hit with some kind of smite, that would probably end the encounter in a single round (if they were all 10th level). That of course assumes semi-perfect conditions.

There's a lot of factors, yes, but in a vacuum with just the rules the fighter isn't quite as badass as the wizard.

EDIT: BiggDawg: Probably, yes. Two stats of MAD is probably just right. Look at the monk, which has three (or four, depending on how much you value HP).


This was just an idea I had while working on a Pokemon Trainer archetype for Pathfinder's Summoner. And listening to the Pokemon Season 1 opening, repeatedly. (GOD I love that theme for some reason.)

While I was making the class, I realized it was the only "caster" class with MAD for its "casting" progression (I'm using the word "tactics"). This got me thinking: Would this sort of thing help out game balance? Say, a Wizard needs Intelligence to learn his spells, Wisdom to have extra spells per day, and Intelligence to enhance the DCs? Or some other combination therein. In short, have a single "dominant" casting score and a single "secondary" casting score; the former counts for two things, while the latter counts for one.

Has anyone else thought of trying this? While MAD is considered bad game design, a god-wizard or CoDzilla who has to put his good ability scores in two places to be a good caster could potentially give the fighting classes a great deal of breathing room.

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, where would you place the ability requirements? I'd like opinions on this idea.

NOTE: This is not official in any regard, and those of you whom have no problems with OP casters are not required to "call me out on my stupidity for nerfing the glass cannons". It's just an idea I had; I want the opinions of the people who DO have this trouble. I've noticed some tendencies of this myself, so I sometimes think of how to make this not such a problem. You are, of course, free to weigh in, but I'd like to see what everyone else thinks WITHOUT this thread turning into a flame war.

EDIT: For those who don't know, MAD is "Multiple Ability/Attribute Distribution". SAD is "Single Ability Distribution". I think there was another one, too, but I can't remember it...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course. Thank you very much!

I'll probably be up all night pressing that button for all the threads in the Off-Topic section, but it may be worth it.

EDIT: Read your edit, thank you again. You have given me a restful night's sleep.


LazarX wrote:
Quite frankly, Mach... consider taking a vacation from these boards. Gamers Plus Internet Equals Vitriol. Whatever you think you need even if they agree.... it probably won't happen fast enough to do you the good a break from this place would.

Unfortunately, I get news involving new releases here. Even then...let's just say my brain hates me. And I think you missed the "weak-willed" part. Wisdom score is 1, I swear to God.

I also haven't found an "ignore" button...is that some breed of teasing/joking, or is there actually such a thing and my -5 Perception missed something vital AGAIN?

Wouldn't surprise me. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A serious question. Probably has been asked, but here goes.

I am a very weak-willed person, and I tend to read things on these boards that I shouldn't and get all upset over them. Mental disorders and chemical imbalances in the brain tend to do that.

My question is: Is there ANY chance you could ask the tech guy to add a button on the "Messageboards" section (right side of the opening screen) to "minimize" that panel, condense it and basically make it not so inviting to click around on? Or perhaps make an option in Account Preferences to purposefully remove that bar from the screen?

I'm just sick of seeing political spew threads, mostly, because the loud idiots I find make me sick to my stomach and to the point of wanting to become a lich so that I'm not f#$~ing human anymore.

My apologies for the vitriol, I'm not feeling well stomach-wise and just saw another stupid bait thread.


ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Well, full-on interparty combat. Exciting.

I had a great idea for a two-party campaign (one good and one evil) both pursuing the same list of artifacts over a long campaign and then at the end having the two parties face off.

It would alternate weeks, with the same people playing both groups, including in the final winner take all battle.

Couldn't get my group to buy in, but I think it could be great.

Agree with TOZ. May I steal that idea please?


There are 3rd-party supplements galore for this sort of thing. I have a few of them for the sake of various options, pulling things from one for my own version.

Of course, making your own is also an option.


...wait, was he talking purely 0-level spells?

If so, then I derp'd. I thought he meant spell levels. Like, at 1st level you have (as a Wizard) 1 + Int modifier spells/day, but at 9th level you could divide those spell levels up (say, if it's 20 Int you could have 1 + 4 5th-level spells).

Aaaaaaaand now I want to see what would happen if you did that. WTF brain.


You know...I've honestly never thought about this before...but I think the additional-0-level-spells will see its appearance as a house rule in my games. If nothing else I'll playtest it to see how well it balances out.

Unlimited times per day, but still pretty low-key effects, remember. Sure, it makes a huge difference in the short run, but not necessarily in the long run.

Of course, Sorcerers would still get shafted as-written. Maybe they can learn additional level 0 spells based on how many they'd cast in a day...I dunno. But I like the basic concept.

EDIT: @Mudfoot:

Wait, the casting STAT? That's...that's pretty overpowered. Unless you mean the casting MODIFIER.


You'd also think that if private jets are so bad that the Democrats and their supporters wouldn't have any. Fact is, they all suck. All of them.

They deserve to rot alive, IMHO, but since we can't inject them with Phyresis, we're stuck with them making our legal, tax, and healthcare system stink of decayed flesh. Literally in that last case.


165: Have a rolling boulder trap. Make the PCs require Constitution checks every 5 rounds or so to keep ahead. As you do this, play the Indiana Jones theme.

166: Have an underwater temple with a trapped room. The room is 7 feet high from the platforms to the ceiling, and 30 feet deep filled with water. In the room is a giant squid (hiding) and a platform smack-dab between the ways out of the room. Once you step onto the middle platform, water starts gushing in. The only way to remove water is by standing on a doorway platform; the water will only go back to 30 feet deep, and is slow to drain. The squid will suddenly become a major threat...along with drowning.

167: Cause it to hail, and have it deal 1d2-1 nonlethal damage each round. Should anyone ask why, shrug. If they examine the hail in any way, have them realize they're inexplicably getting teeth rained on them. Have it be a side effect of whatever foul ritual the bad guys are causing.

168: Have the campfire stop producing warmth during the night. When they wake up, the flames are blue and there's a stylized face in the flames. Have this flame be your quest-giver for the next few quests...then inexplicably, have the flames blood-red one time, with a dying body in the flames. Their patron.


...

Okay, I just shared Mikaze's protean speech with my mother...she thought it sounded very JarJar-ish (from Star Wars).

I think it actually explains a lot. JarJar is a protean petitioner. And he's only in the movies because George Lucas wishes to return us to the Primordial Times through propaganda for the proteans. Unfortunately, his plot failed, and that's why he's upset that people didn't like JarJar...it means they're not ready to accept his lords yet, and he takes that personally.

What do you know, Paizo, that we do not?! *points accusing finger at random staff member*


I think gnome is a pretty cool guy, eh kills demons and doesn't afraid of anything.


Looks like this got double-posted. Oops.


Brayden Green wrote:
...Flurry of blows is more like THIS in my mind (starts at approx :40 seconds)...

Having not seen this movie yet, I can only say the following:

That was freaking awesome.

On the monk redo, I have no real opinion. Maybe I'm just out of it, but I don't really get what happened/changed...

Then again, I made a simple fix for the monk, and generally use that (because one of my common players thinks it's awesome). Would anyone be interested in seeing this in a separate thread, maybe pointing out some major flaws that likely exist?


Guilty of 69 and 5. 69 is my every day. And I've done the one that involves determining others' (and your own) class levels. I figure I'm a Monk 2/Fighter 1/Rogue 1 by now. (I'm a terrible multiclasser...)

86: You can remember the book, page number, name, school, levels, and other vital statistics of your favorite spell...but you can't remember what you had for lunch. Assuming you even HAD lunch. (God knows how many times I've skipped a meal for Minecraft or character building.)


Question, Arminas. If RD HADN'T retconned it, what would your opinion be?

And frankly, yes, it would have been on your head, because you were tasked with retrieving them. Also I implore you to read this. That right there is kinda what being a successful adventurer is about.


Random thought: Should I drop the effect a spell level or two? And if so, would the power need to drop as well for it to be balanced, and how much?

By the way, it would be 7d6+105 (132 average).

The more I look at it, the less I think this was a good idea. Ah well, I write down plenty of bad ideas. :P

EDIT: Missed Thomas's post. Thank you, I'll review that.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.