A proposal I made in the Beta testing, was that the bloodline spell of each spell level should be gained earlier. Therefore, the level 2 spell would be gained at caster level 4, when their other second-level spells were learned.
Seconded, thirded and fourthed.
I can live with the Sorcerer getting his spells a level late. However, the variety of spells when reaching a new level leaves much to be desired.
Every single six-level progression class gets two new spells known when they reach a new spell level.
The Oracle gets access to three new spells known (one from her spell progression, one from her mystery, plus a cure or Inflict spell).
The Sorcerer is the only class that gets one.
Granting these Bloodline spells a level early (or two levels early, in case of the first level spell), at the very moment the Sorcerer comes into the power level to actually cast them would both be thematically appropriate (these spells are a cornerstone of his arcane definition, after all) and remove the 'single spell to spam' effect the Sorcerer is suffering from at the time.
Detect Magic wrote:
I thought bastard swords were pretty simple. What's the confusion? It's a two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand if you have the feat. What am I missing?
In a nutshell, Malachi claims that a bastard sword of any size, not just your own, is considered a martial weapon when wielded two-handed.
Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.
Oh, and the Bastard Sword is not a 'two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand with EWP'. For all design purposes regarding cost, hardness, and the like it is a one handed weapon.
Actually, it has come up before... and answered in the FAQ.
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.
What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?
That seems to be the other sides central argument.
In fact, it is.
I have been burned by at least one too many snowflake who sabotaged the party, the story or both claiming to 'just being playing my character' that I have come to the point of simply refusing to GM a group containing concepts that will not work together.
Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."
Yes, I do have a plot in mind when I offer to GM something. Just tossing your characters out into a world-sized sandbox with the PCs as the only driving force is not what I offer; if you require that kind of play, please find yourself another GM.
I can, and I will help players integrate the occasional oddball into the scenario, as long as things do not get odd enough to break my own suspension of disbelief.
However, I require the player in question to play with me in these cases. Give me a reason why this character is on this setting. Give me a reason why this character would want to travel with the group, and why the group would want to have him. If you bring a snow elf winter witch (from a violently xenophobic tribe, to boot) into a desert campaign, simply stating "Well, she's diffetent" when asked about your reason to be there is not gonna cut it.
I play this game because I want to have fun. As soon as you force me to do things that are un-fun for me, two things happen:
TL;DR: I offer a certain campaign, in a certain setting, within certain parameters.
Frankly, if I were in the the GM's shoes in that situation, I'd advise the players to change the GM, as well.
Supply and demand. I offer a campaign, which may or may not place certain limits on what may be a viable concept.
I don't know. The way I run it demons are pure evil and chaos given physical form. It's not just a person that's been lead astray and needs to be shown the error of his ways. Outsiders are the embodiment of concepts and not whole beings like mortals. That's what makes mortals so special. To even begin to change a demon's fundamental nature would require something of cosmic significance imo. They wouldn't so easy question their ways just because you shows weakness (mercy).
Umm... Arikiel... you are aware that this very AP sports a redeemed demon in a prominent role, aren't you?
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?
Frankly, unless you're prepared to be told "I don't have authoritative info on that type of daemon / qlippoth / herald of Groetus you're trying to call via planar binding or planar ally", I'd recommend you bring the stats for any creatures you call as well.
Same goes for your character polymorphing himself, an NPC, or another PC.
You add a resource to the game, or change an existing one, you are the one who is forced to be able to state its abilities, from a legal source.
Can't be that hard... or can it?
Conclusion: Spell like abilities obviously grant a caster level of some kind. If it works for (general) item creation, it works for PrCs as well.
Granting a caster Level says exactly ZERO about counting as the ability to cast spells of a certain spell level. Last time I checked, the PrC entry prerequisite was 'able to cast ($flavor) spells of Level X', rather than 'caster level Y'.
I am aware that SLAs count as being of a certain spell level regarding concentration checks or penetrating various defenses... yet still, they are something different from actual spells of the associated level. Unless my memory fails me, it is repeatedly writen that 'SLAs are not spells'.
If you come across a PrC, or Feat that requires 'able to cast Daylight', go ahead with your Aasimar. You are fulfilling that prerequisite. Likewise, your friendly neighborhood Succubus will easily qualify for any Feat of PrC that requires 'Caster Level X' (if X < 13).
However, if the requirement is 'able to cast arcane (or divine) spells, your SLAs just won't do the trick.
Possibly from the linked info; http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
I am aware of that one (I think I actually stated that very example).
However, while being able to cast Dimension Door (whether as a spell, a SLA) obviously qualifies as being able to cast Dimension Door (duh!), the connection to 'thus is able to cast 4th level arcane spells' (or even 'cast arcane spells' at all) is the very link I am missing.
The fact that a Dimension Door SLA counts as being arcane does not make it an arcane spell.
The fact that I can create magical items that require Dimension Door, supplying my SLA in lieu of the spell does not make my SLA an actual arcane spell
So; a Feat, a PRC, or whatever that needed the ability to cast Dimension Door would easily accessible by having the SLA.
Sorry to rain on your collective parade, but...
Where exactly did you come to the conclusion that an SLA meets the prerequisite 'must be able to cast X - level arcane spells' for a prestige class?
I see a 'yes' to item creation, I see a comment that most SLAs count as arcane (nota bene: not as arcane spells), and I seem to remember that having a particular SLA (e.g. Dimension Door) qualifies for the prerequisite 'Capable of casting Dimension Door.
However; that's about it. So, I am unable to follow the leap of logic along the lines of 'SLAs are arcane, so they must be arcane spells, so they are a qualifying ticket into PrCs'.
I'm sorry to say, but this whole attempt to loophole a shortcut into EK, MT or whatever PrC still appears illegal to me, on top of actually pinning the cheese-o-meter.
Question: For all it's worth, why did no one of you plainly ask the question 'Can I meet a PrC's requirement of can cast arcane spells of Level X or higher' by possessing a SLA of appropriate level?'
Since it doesn't specify swapping a Bonus Fighter Feat or a Bonus Combat Feat, it seems logical that, in the absence of a specific restriction as exists in other classes (ie. Magus, Summoner) and by the precedent of multi-class meshing being permissible (ie. Orc bloodline benefiting non-sorc spells), it stands to reason that, so long as you earned the feat by a Bonus Feats class ability, you can trade it out.
Well, let's see what happens if I apply your logic on something else in the Core Rulebook (something that was brought up by Ravingdork, IIRC)
Note that nothing in the second paragraph indicates that I have to swap out my old spell for a spell from the Sorcerer list. Heck, even the initial paragraph only claims that I draw my spells primarily from the Sor/Wiz list, thus making it obviously clear, that by logic, I am fully within my rights to swap out an old spell for any kind of spell, doesn't it?
Mechanics aside, I must say I have to agree with the OP, flavor-wise.
Last time I checked, a Sorcerer was able to wield magic due to some ancient or eldritch powers singing in his blood.
Like the magic of Dragons.
Coming soon to a supplement near you: The Commoner Bloodline.
Also to note, before reading this thread, I had no idea that Tieflings couldn't be the target of X Person spells. It really is so far beyond logic that I never would have guessed, and must have glossed over reading those parts of the ARG or something.
You won't find it spelled out in the ARG. The whole 'immune to Person spells' thing is simple and logical application of the rules of 'xxx Person works only on Humanoid type targets'.
Actually, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Sprinkle holy water on an evil human sorcerer, he'll get wet. Sprinkle the same holy water on an evil Oread sorcerer, ooh, look at the effect of holy water having on evil outsiders.
Tieflings (and Aasimar, Sylphs, etc.) are utterly unaffected by an Antilife Shell.
Because 'Humor doesn't translate well', any Aasimar is less likely to be affected by a Hideous Laughter spell cast by a human. Your friendly Succubus Bard, on the other hand, is quite adept at finding the perfect punchline for her fellow outsider.
A Tiefling cannot ever use a Hat of Disguise to appear human (as you cannot appear as another creature type). Disguising himself as a fire elemental, though, is no problem at all.
While Shadows and normal Vampires still can easily kill your average Tiefling, they cannot change him into one of their own (the Shadow's spawn ability working only on humanoids, the vampire's only on creatures of their own type)
Should I continue?
Yes, some of these effects are counter-intuitive. Some are illogical. Yet, it is the developer's explicit intent that the planetouched races are Native Outsiders, period. So, I wouldn't count on that changing anytime soon.
Frankly, my group has found the whole shebang to be more hassle than it's worth, and we have shifted the 0HD Native Outsider races to Humanoids with the (planetouched) subtype, and I recommend this house rule to whatever group I am playing with... but this is, and will remain, a house rule.
Frankly, I think instating the policy of 'No rules questions, folks' as a response to that ominous 'get your house in order' thread was... kind of an overreaction.
There are many forumites (myself included) who liked to get an opinion on how the creative director was seeing the rules without intending to use the 'JJ said this, so your differing opinion must be ZOMGBADWRONG!!1!11' hammer.
Might I kindly ask you to return to giving out your personal opinion about how you think some things should be resolved?
I just checked in for voting, and feel the urgent need for adding a possibility to declare 'None of these items should advance'.
Out of the first 10 items I saw, precisely zero adhered to the template. I am not talking a wrongly placed semicolon, but all caps instead of bold text, the ubiquious 'wonderous item' and the like.
Is it just me? Am I too harsh, or elitist? Did I get off with a bad start?
I must admit, the so-called 'Most important rule: Did you warn him?' is the one I disagree with.
Granted; in most cases, the Paladin (or rather, his player) should be be given the chance to see he is straying from the path; however, there are exceptions.
A Paladin that takes offense on the (admittedly outrageous) prices a shopkeeper asks, leaves the shop and tries to set fire to the building the following night will fall without warning in my game.
A Paladin who follows a code that states 'My word is my honor' who formally enters parley with an enemy emissary, only to strike him down (with a resounding 'SMITE EVIL') once negotiations have begun with no treachery on the enemy's part will fall. No, I will not accept excuses along the lines of 'Hey, he was evil, so I was doing a good thing.'
A Paladin who gains an audience with the Crown Princess, and runs her through before she can finish the sentence of 'Welcome, hero of *urgh*' because, well, the player felt that 'this b#?ch was going to betray us anyway' will fall so hard he reaches terminal velocity before impacting on the floor.
As for the 'no win situation': I agree that it is bad form for a GM to make a habit out of crafting a situation that only have 'You fall' solutions for a Paladin. Truth be told, I don't design my adventures that way.
However, even if I don't design the adventure in such ways, some antagonist NPC's who have a personal gripe with the PCs will attempt to strike them where it hurts. Their reputations. Their loved ones. Their possessions. Their faith.
And if a scheming devil, or an experienced succubus sees a possibility to maneuver the Pally into a situation where he seems to have the choice between falling and failing... trust me, it will do its very best.
Actually, my question is the other way round:
I am aware of this effect.
Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either.
In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceived as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere.
In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught).
Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards.
Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.
Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.
Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'.
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.
In fact, I am starting to doubt so-called common sense is truly common in the first place.
I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.
Negative on that, Houston.
By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size.
However, the weapon size rules remain untouched, shifting a huge (or larger) Bastard Sword out of wieldable range.
So, while you are proficient with a colossal bastard sword in theory, you are physically incapable of wielding it.
*sigh* After trying to claim Bane, why stop there?
Hey, I got a holy weapon... shouldn't I get the added bonus by treating my opponent as if it were an evil outsider?
May I call to your attention that the developers themselves stated that, at times, common sense should be applied instead of reading just the letter of the RAW?
And now, back to your regularly sceduled discussion.
Both are correct, there is no contradiction.
Being an Outsider, the Eidolon enjoys 6+Int modifier skill points per level.
If the Summoner increases his Eidolon's Int, the Eidolon will retroactively gain skill points, just as a character does.
And finally, the GM can and should ban stuff he doesn't want to use. If he doesn't like the rules. If it doesn't fit the campaign he's got in mind. Whatever. He doesn't have to cater to every whim of the players and somehow try to make a coherent game out of it.
^^ This ^^
*shrugs* Frankly, while my own character concepts pretty much default to somewhere between NG and CG, I have no problem with players playing evil characters.
What I have issues with are:
If you have a concept of an evil character that is interesting to play with, is able to fit within a team, and is not running contrary to what was agreed as campaign theme, go ahead.
In a nutshell, please make sure that you are playing with the group and the GM's ideas, not against them. Almost any alignment (with maybe the exception of CE) can be a valid choice for a character that will be fun for the other players to play with. Choosing to play an evil character in no way frees you from the primary directive: play in a way that everyone at the table is having fun.
Problem is, quite a lot of players seem to equate evil = psychopathic, or destructive, preferrably in a way that targets the other characters.
- The alter self spell has had its duration reduced from 10 minutes per level to 1 minute per level. That pretty much eliminates its usefulness in a social, diplomatic setting, especially at low-to-mid levels.
Indeed. This spell has pretty much been changed into yet another buffing effect.Bonus points for granting +2 to a stat if you change 'into someone of my own race'.
- The CMB mechanic should offer greater advantages to larger and naturally-grabby creatures; as is, creatures with grab are frequently better off simply attacking normally than by using the ability.
On the other end, CMD is pretty much b0rken in several cases.So, being big makes it that much more difficult to move past you, huh?
And, while it is dang hard to even touch a zig-zagging Atomie, just grabbing her out of the air is no problem at all...
- I don't understand why the bonus Weapon Finesse feat was removed from Tiny creatures (cats, monkeys, rats, etc). All of these creatures used to have one of the skill-bonus feats in addition to Weapon Finesse, which at least served to differentiate them a little bit more. Now, their feat slot is taken up by a feat they should have had for free.
Frankly, I wouldn't even require the feat. A simple rule of Tiny (or smaller) creatures using Dex instead of Str (as they already do for Swimming and Climbing) would both lift the Feat tax, and allow Tiny vermin to actually employ their Dex for attacks.As is, lil' spidey cannot use Dex in any case, being mindless, and thus, featless.
- I don't like that a high enhancement bonus allows you to overcome DR/material and DR/alignment, and I like smite evil's ability to overcome all DR even less.
Amen, on both parts.I'd make the Pally's smites count as lawful, good, and magic. We can talk about epic if the Pally is epi... ahem, mythic. But DR/evil? DR/vorpal? Puh-leese, give me a break!
Oh joy... yet another corner case where applying RAW by the letter shows that we have moved beyond the scope where the rules were intended to go.
Just add a minimum of +500 to mithril (or mithral, or mythril, see if I care) weapons (akin to the +300 for masterwork); use the tried and trusted formular for mithral ammunition, and leave things be.
Seriously, guys: Are you trying to play a game, or are you practicing for your final exams in legalese?
who should I pick to join the game? The cleric or the pally?
Take the one who will 'fit' into the party better, both as a player and as a character.From what you wrote, the Pally player is more enthusiastic. This would be quite a bonus in my book. Now, how would the players fit into the group?
Don't forget to add the Int bonus to the number of spells you can learn for free when you level.
And where would you have that idea from? Last time I checked, you added your Int bonus to the number of spells you received with your first wizard level only.
Negative on that, Houston.
Your usable spell slots, and the spells known, are tied to the class that you got them with.
(A question, though: Would a Page of Spell Knowledge (UE) be usable with either slot? I think it would...)
"It's too late! Next spell!"
.Amen to that.
Taking the Cure line of spells from Necromancy into Conjuration, then stuffing the barrage of fear-inducing spell into Necromancy rather than Enchantment (a school messing with emotions); to accentuate the fact that Necromancy is ICKY AND SCAAAAAARY is one of the pet peeves I have with 3.X.
Same with your Mage Armor example. It's a g%~+*@n force spell, which has Evocation written all over it, with a possible second entry into Abjuration.
Someone just had to make double sure to make Conjuration the most useful school EVAH.