Magis's page

At the risk of being too nonspecific, why don't we take a page from the Expanded Psionics Handbook and bend the sorcerer more towards the Wilder, similar to the parallels drawn between the Psion and the Wizard? Give him an ability to "pump" his caster level, or maybe break some of those dice caps (14d6 fireballs? things of that nature?).

You could even tie this into the bloodlines by putting restrictions on what you could "pump" based on your bloodline, or simply allowing you to pump those more (ex 1: Fire elemental bloodline could only pump fire-based spells, demons only pump evil spells, etc. ex 2: Fire elemental bloodline could pump all spells by 2d6 but could pump his fire spells by 4d6). Just an idea, and not a particularly well thought out one at that, but perhaps it will put you guys on the right track.

--- Magis

Don't forget that the heavy armor melee classes have ways to increase their AC. Fighters get armor training and Paladins have their spells.

Lets see the options:

Heavy Armor AC/max Dex
Full Plate 8/+1

Medium Armor AC/max Dex
Mithral Full Plate 8/+1
Mithral Full Plate of Speed 8+1/+3
Chain Shirt 4/+4

Light Armor AC/max Dex
Mithral Breastplate 5/+3
Celestial Armor 5+3/+8
Elven Chain 5/+4
Mithral Shirt 4/+8

I'd like to see more options for heavy and medium armor, otherwise I don't see much of a problem if you can shell out the cash for the good stuff.

I'm really not sure where you're getting these stats from, especially regarding mithral, nor what the "of speed" is supposed to come from because the enchantment does not show up in the beta. Here's some corrected stats for your comparison:

Heavy Armor AC/max Dex
Full Plate 8/+1

Medium Armor AC/max Dex
Mithral Full Plate 8/+3

Light Armor AC/max Dex
Mithral Breastplate 5/+5
Elven Chain 5/+4
Mithral Shirt 4/+6
Chain Shirt 4/+4

Since enhancement bonuses can be added at a 1:1 basis to *any* armor, and this includes the fighter "armor training" bonuses as well as the paladin spell-buffs, those should be left out of calculations. The cost/benefit analysis should rely solely on the ratio of armor gained vs. the penalties applied.

Thus, the difference between Mithral full-plate and a mundane chain shirt is:

AC +3, Max Dex -1, speed reduced as appropriate to character. This is the case no matter which class is comparing the two.

--- Magis

Yep. I liked the idea in 4e (don't lynch me!) and I think it serves an excellent purpose here as well. Not only does it provide support for multi-stat-dependent classes, it allows single-stat classes to actually give some thought to their 4th level bump (name a wizard who didn't up int, a sorcerer charisma, etc). With an additional +1 to distribute, more customization could be achieved. I'd obviously recommend clarifying that the two +1's cannot be added to the SAME stat, else we end up with power creep that serves no true purpose.

--- Magis

The irony of course being that "slang" is a term invented long before the internet to refer to "shorthand language". Talk about self-defining.

--- Magis

Tagged for later. All good info.

Something I've recently done in my campaign to improve my DMing quality is to ask the players for their top 3 things they like to see in a session and the top 3 things they hate to see in a session. Some of the responses can be generic ("I don't like wasting an hour on another players actions that exclude the party") but even reading it and seeing it in print helps me while running a session to keep all the "dos" and "don'ts" in my mind while running so that I'm mindful of time spent on various events and when I get a specific answer ("I like seeing puzzles, but I also like the option of a skill check for a hint just in case the puzzle's too tough and using too much time") it's really golden.

--- Ryan

Well, there's a card in the first edition that has special properties of you're a troll. Now it looks like you can finally be a troll.

Actually I think that's an orc, but there was a special card for them too ;-)

--- Magis

This is perhaps the twink in me somewhat, but wisdom would be the last stat you'd want with a paizo paladin, who doesn't use the stat even for spellcasting (now charisma based). Also, at 2nd level, there's not going to be a whole lot of stuff *any* character can do. LoH and Smite Evil are pretty decent when you've got a full bab and heavy armor to fall back on.

Thumbs up on the swift-action-evil-detection but besides that, i think perhaps you're asking for a lot out of a 2nd level character. What does he play like at 8th level?

--- Magis

The Red Death wrote:

I find the favored class rules in PRPG to be a huge improvement from 3.5. As a matter of fact, I never applied the favored classes and associated penalties in my 3.X games. I know I'm far from being the only one. It was annoying for both players (limiting choices and penalizing original character concepts) and DMs (XP calculations).

there was this rule?

jajaja ok ok i did knew it... never used it

I liked what Paizo did in the Alpha, not having the favored class doesn't affect you at all... but if you have it... well you get a bonus (+1 hp), not much, not ground breaking but it well save your life

I definitively loved the Beta Change "or +1 skill point" (my character urgently needs that +1 skill, ok from 10 hp to 9 being the cleric its not TOO painful... but from 4 skill points to 5... yeah that makes a change for me)

i think its good as it is... or would anyone else prefer "+1 hp and +1 skill point" to make even more appealing the Favored Class?

the probelm of this is that there is a chance that stereotypes came in force.

For NPCs... it depends what i need... i need an extra hard npc to confront my players, it goes to HP, i need someone more savvy and who will challenge them in other areas than combat, then skill points.

it all depends what you want to run :D

ok my DM will hit his head this weekend when he need to change that in the npcs of "Burning Offerings"

I don't see a need to make it both. In fact, I prefer the choice simply because it adds more character customization- something I'm always in favor of (and one of the reasons I am holding off on 4e).

--- Magis

Do critical hits now score vs. Undead?

Reasoning: If Sneak Attack is finding a "weak spot", shouldn't Critical Hit bonus damage also be allowed, since you are essentially hitting the undead in its weak spot?

Can't see why this should not work if sneak attack works.

I was fine with neither one working, but if one works and the other doesn't it bothers me- and all of my players.

I suspect it's mostly a balance thing. Preventing sneak attack nukes a class ability where preventing crits simply denies a "perk" similar to an elemental immunity. I'm having a hard time coming up with a rationalization for what the in-game reasoning would be, but mechanically speaking I can see plenty of reason to allow sneak attack but keep crits disallowed. Really though, if it bothers you that much go ahead and allow crits (though I'd significantly increase all undead HP to compensate. Perhaps add their charisma mod the same way you'd normally add con mod?)

--- Magis

Just to play devil's advocate here :)

What if there was a racial benefit that granted the character the ability to cast certain spells, but it was worded so that a spellcasting class of that race didn't gain any benefits?

Would those of you who say leave it as is still say the same?

I understand your goals with this, but extra spells >> proficiency in a weapon when you don't have a strong BAB. Not necessarily an apt comparison and tough to argue without extreme specifics.

--- Magis

This one makes more sense to me than exotic weapons. I may pass it by the DM when we get together to go over houserules. The problem is that combat maneuvers don't come into play much with our group, so as a general concensus the group won't see any benefit of the +1 CMB which puts us back at square one for warriors missing out on a racial benefit.

Extra feats can be a problem I guess, we've just never ran into it. We currently start at 1st level with 1 normal feat, one "regional" feat, and human's get a bonus feat. During the last campaign, we even allowed flaws for an additional feat. That was 4 feats at first level for a human.....

I've been tossing up the idea of just granting a +1 unnamed attack bonus with the chosen weapon instead of an extra feat. That would grant the same benefits without the "extra feat" issue coming into play....

you guys don't fight wolves? bears? many animals have bonus maneuvers. Improved grab's a pretty common monster trait as well. In addition, the extra CMB will probably be as effective for a warrior as longbow proficiency will be for a moderate-level spellslinger (that is, the longbow will sit limply in his hand). The class that will see the most benefit from this, i suspect, will be the bard and frankly it needs the love (yes, even post-paizo, though they definitely gave it some oomph).

Also, I believe I read some discussion at some point claiming that post-paizo simplification the combat maneuvers were too difficult to pull off- this will help give those fighter types another small boost to such things, making it 5% easier to do.

--- Magis

ps- giving a +1 unnamed bonus was something I considered until I realized it would stack with weapon focus. not a good idea imo.

fray wrote:

Um... why not take an exotic weapon?

Bam! Solved.

Y'all can thank me later.

Because as a group we decided that an exotic weapon proficiency was too much. Being able to get a free bastard sword exotic weapon proficiency (using it in 1 hand instead of two) for example, would mean from a rules perspective no human warrior would wield a longsword. 1d8 vs 1d10? Or why take a battleaxe when you can wield a dwarven waraxe the same way? Then of course there would be the mass production and use of spiked chains....

Granting a feat that is almost certainly taken by any warrior type is just as strong as granting an exotic prof imo. In fact, weapon familiarity takes care of your waraxe example anyway- there already are NOT any dwarves who take battleaxes when waraxes are available. I don't see a problem with a single exotic proficiency in the place of a martial proficiency for warrior types. Weapon focus is a pretty significant increase (easily as much as an exotic proficiency in terms of mathematic design) and can be used to meet pre-req's which could end up being an issue.

How about granting a +1 CMB if you end up with "double proficiency" instead of a feat? This could represent additional training in the weapon without necessarily granting a feat (which can be used to meet prereqs for PrCs earlier than intended etc).

--- Magis

I hope you'll be fair minded if Obama wins but part or all of the legislature goes back to the Republican. Because I remember a lot of stonewalling of Clinton's initiatives after 1994, particularly judicial appointments, because of partisan nonsense. And let's not forget that the legislature is now hampered by an obstructionist minority in the Senate that manages to paralyze most work.
So don't bother lecturing about anti-Republican hostility. They bring plenty of it on themselves whenever they get the chance with their own partisan grand-standing.

I think, in our media-centric world, it'll be near impossible for Obama to fail to win. Conservatives like myself will have to just deal with that and the results thereof. Do I like that fact? not a bit, but I'll support whoever becomes president much like I support Bush, for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is because I *know* I don't have all the facts at my fingertips like the President does. I truly believe that every individual that seeks public office has the best interests of the country at heart, so I will support them until it comes time to choose another where I will cast my vote for the person whose policies I prefer (then the cycle will repeat).

I don't find the argument "They brought partisanship on themselves" valid. Each party does plenty of partisan grand-standing, but setting it aside is what's important, and right now the ball's in the democrat's court to do so. When the republicans start acting that way, then I'll say the same of them, but that's simply not the case at the moment.

--- Magis

Magis wrote:

Checks and balances work, most of the time. When the fail, I have yet to understand why it's simply 1/3 of the system that eats the entire blame.

Oh, believe me. A lot of people HAVE been blaming Congress. There's a reason control of the House and Senate went to the Democrats in 2006. That's the country holding the Republican party accountable for lack of checks and balances.

Now if only Reid and Pelosi would grow some real balls...

Control went to the democrats, but I'm not convinced that solved anything. In fact, since they've taken over things have only gotten worse- economy's slipped etc. Tough to track all this and blame it on any one thing, or say even that any one thing has solved the issue. Just seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Historically speaking, the most good comes when both parties stop the nonsense and get together instead of attacking each other. WHOEVER gets elected, I hope we see some moderation and cooperation after November, but I fear hostilities and anti-Republican sentiment (hanging over from anti-bush sentiments) will keep anything from really going anywhere again for quite some time...

--- Magis

It's too bad we don't have a Civil Political Discussion thread with the grace and intelligence of the Civil Religious Discussion thread.

I would kill to have a discussion on politics and their place in D&D. I like to run heavy story/RP games, but my ability to write up a sufficiently convoluted political scenario is limited. A forum where DMs could discuss such things would be great. (I realize this is different than the intent of your comment Sebastian, but your comments what inspired the thought so I figured it was as apropriate here as anywhere).

--- Magis

Which have since been found to be Unconstitutional. The Patriot Act infringes on at least half of the Amendments of the Constitution. US citizens are supposed to be invisible and our governement agencies visible. The Patriot Act has reversed this trend. Not what the founding fathers had in mind.

And again, it wasn't Bush who, in one demonic swoop, created, proposed, passed, and implemented the Patriot Act. You seem to like to hate Bush, which is fine if that's easiest for you emotionally- that's at least half the President's job (to act as a figurehead when someone needs to point a finger)- but it doesn't change the fact that it was Congress as a whole who passed it, then Bush failed to veto it.

Checks and balances work, most of the time. When the fail, I have yet to understand why it's simply 1/3 of the system that eats the entire blame.

--- Magis

dmchucky69 wrote:

So how do you feel about the Patriot Act? It pretty much negates large parts of the Constitution.

Have you actually read the Patriot Act? I have and based on my study of it, there is nothing in the Patriot Act that is not in Rico laws. It is simply applied to terrorism instead of orginized crime.

People seem to forget that the Patriot Act couldn't have been passed without help *far* outside of Bush's single signature. We have this thing called Congress... they pass laws... usually they're called "Acts".

--- Magis

David Fryer wrote:

And they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power with no accidents. France is a fine example of the way the U.S.A. should be dealing with the energy crisis.

Yes! Just opening up some more drilling is like slapping a band-aid on a severed artery.

Given the improvements in modern technology and environmentally safe equipment, NOT drilling is wasting tons of economic growth potential, as well as sending the statement that we'd rather send money overseas than be self-sufficient.

The obvious retort is that alternative energy sources would result in self-sufficiency, but I argue that it will take longer to get alternative energy off the ground (in a realistic, "will replace oil" level) than it will to drill for more oil- why not use the proceeds from the domestic oil production to fund alternative energy? There's nothing that says we need to pursue only one option, and domestic drilling sends the message immediately rather than "Lets hope wind power works" and continuing to send all that money overseas.

--- Magis

Edit: looks like Sebastian and I see eye to eye.

Fatespinner wrote:

Because you'd all hate me.

Even more than you already do.

Impossible.

The power of my hate for you is capable of boiling lead. If sheds light that is visible up to a mile away. It actually powers the entire western seaboard. My hatred for you sings me to sleep at night, with lyrics describing your painful death. If I were to hate you any more, I would redefine hatred into a new emotion never before witnessed by mankind.

Dude... that was almost poetic. *applause*

--- Magis, long time lurker