Phil Renfroe's page

+1 to seeing the e-version of this as a form-fillable PDF. Maybe for subscribers...

I agree with Gauss about the motion on deck in a nautical campaign; should be difficult to shoot an arrow just like it makes casters have to concentrate. In our homebrew rules I have nerfed stacking many of the archery feats together and added some restrictions about multiple targets and arrows because archery gets ridiculous at higher levels; particularly when you introduce feats that ignore most cover and concealment. In your case though, it is probably too late and unfair to make homebrew changes at level 9 because your player has invested in it. Since it appears that it bugs you the way it bugged me, for your future games try making changes to ranged combat feats and make cover and concealment more debilitating - it is about the only thing other than the society changing effects of infinite create water spells that seems really broken in Pathfinder IMHO. My changes have not steered one of my PC's away from the bow using ranger and I think he is satisfied that his PC still has a good niche but it isn't crazy ridiculous as it would be with all of the feats stacked as is so common.

This has been mentioned before on this thread and it does not appear to be included in the recent errata document or the FAQ link of UM; seems like a significant oversight:

The preparation rituals that are noted in the section about spellbooks are really cool but there is no discernable system presented for how to evaluate the cost, what types of things can be made into a preparation ritual, and new question, what does a wizard or alchemist player character have to do or spend to obtain a preparation ritual for their use and / or develop their own preparation ritual?

This section has spurred a lot of creative thought at the game table but it would be nice to have this section of the book fleshed out consistent with other game mechanics; perhaps in a post here or in the FAQ for Ultimate Magic?

I'd take a fighter with leadership feat and a buff spell casting cohort any day!

Some houserule suggestions:

- Using a ranged weapon you cannot make multiple attacks per round on multiple targets without taking an attack roll penalty. I have a complicated rule that does help weaken the archers where you can shift to a new target but for every 5' the new target is from the first one, it adds a -2 penalty to the attack roll. Also if you change targets in a full attack, precise shot and manyshot cannot be used on the subsequent target. Finally you cannot attack more than two targets in around with a ranged weapon. This is to simulate the fact that with a REAL bow and arrow, to change targets takes focus and time.

- We have added a houserule that an enemy that moves more than 10' in the round gets a +2 to AC against ranged attacks until their next turn in the initiative order. This helps the PC's just as much as it weakens their ranged attacks.

- Do not forget cover and movement. The way I read the rules (not sure if it is right or not) an archer gets a -4 if the target is in melee (which is easily erased with precise shot) BUT they also should contend with soft cover from the allies that are often in the way and take penalties when their target moves. Make the archer have to position themselves to get best effect. Also, when the cover is an ally and they roll poorly, make the attack hit the ally once in a while.

- I also houserule that a shot with precise shot must be within 30' range (the logic here is that you have to have point blank shot to get the feat so it only applies to a point blank shot). Much more realistic. We also houserule that the point blank shot cannot be combined with rapid shot or manyshot. Make them choose between a better chance of hitting or lots of arrows at less precision. (This is sort of equivalent to making the melee fighter choose between full attack and a vital strike attack).

- Last and this went over like a lead brick at first but actually has made the ranger more specialized - for a character to carry a bow or crossbow on their person (not in their hands or efficient quiver) it applies an armor check penalty to all dexterity based skills (except disable device; different houserule), a spell failure chance and a bow cannot be "stowed" in this way while wearing a backpack. Shortbow and light crossbow is -1 and 5% and longbow / heavy crossbow is -2 and 15%.

If you don't like houserules to the archery - make sure you use enemies with the same ability to barrage the PC's with huge missile damage and return the favor.

I totally agree it is time to take the Captian to the Party. Also, does someone in the Party still acting as the moldspeaker? (Our moldspeaker perished on Kardswann's Axe...) Vardishal would recognize that if Rayhan gave up his knowledge to the wrong folks, it could be just as bad as giving up the scroll. I also think Vardishal would not let the scroll be sold to Marzuk...

There are so many threads on this; can't tell if this is the right place to put this but here is some feedback:

Used the Witch to add class levels to Undrella the Harpy in Legacy of Fire (I did this because we have a party of 6 and I'm finding that the PFRG characters are stronger than the old 3.5 characters so all CR's must be upgraded...). I gave her the Sleep, Charm and Ward hexes as a level 4 Witch on top of her base monster statistics (I wanted a fight against her to be a tough experience for the party if they took that route and this added flavor to the encounter). I am using a homemade version of the Harrow deck fate card system that was introduced in the CoCT campaign so one of my characters who had the Rabbit Prince card was "fate chosen" to be Undrella's favorite and she added her Ward Hex to him.

The Ward Hex is really good. However, I noticed issue with the other two. I think that the Charm Hex needs to be upgraded to minutes instead of rounds and the way it is written it seems to be too much weaker than a Charm spell. (example: if the one person that is affected is unfriendly and raised to indifferent, but still surrounded by friends that are unfriendly, it seems this is worthless because they will join their friends). I wanted to cast the charm spell but then the rest of the party would notice this and I figured a very unfavorable response would come from it because they were waffling between work with her vs. combat her. My intent was for Undrella to charm her favorite using the hex (while pawing over her favorite "rabbit price" PC) which I read as more subtle and definately more "new" than a spell but the duration was too short and weak for it to accomplish anything. As is she really didn't end up using any of her abilities to push them into the direction of helping her, I did that by roleplaying only and they were swayed by metagame information when they realized she had placed the ward on him. I only used her harpy song to bring them close enough to use her abilities...

Also, the sleep hex is a very flavorful item for the witch (like something from Mother Goose). It needs to also be upgraded to ten minutes per level IMO. This would be perhaps the witch's best offensive hex option but again it is sort of short lived as written.
There seems to be a void in the hexes and the spell list at low level (againt his was just level 4 witch) as there is really no option that can affect everyone in a group, so particularly if trying to work for a PC, this is a handicap that should be addressed IMO.

Overall, I think this really worked well as an NPC class and particularly in this encounter. However, I am seeing a real void in offensive versatility for the witch as a PC so I feel it would be quite weak compared to an equivalent Wizard or Cleric. I know that the hexes are the witches toys vs. feats but I think it wouldn't hurt to throw in some bonus feats to the build or perhaps a feat that can be taken to allow earlier access to the higher tier hexes or to improve the power of specific hexes. Another boon to this class would be to make some of the spells that are really in line with the flavor of the class to be accessed as lower level spells than a Sor/Wiz/bard would receive them.

I did also come across some questions that I think need to be clarified in the final text.

A.) I've posted this elsewhere but there is no information for starting gold for any of the six new classes. This needs to be addressed for someone to make a new witch by the book...

B.) As I read it, the Hexes are an "at will" special ability. However, there does not appear to be any text that specifically says this or tells how many uses the witch receives. The hexes are weak enough that they do not seem to be unbalancing as an "at will" the way they are printed but maybe if you make them stronger as suggested above you might want to limit them to witch level + int bonus times per day. It also would help to clarify what "type" of ability this is specifically (like supernatural, magical, etc.) to help tie this to the various spells that could be used to counter the hexes.

C.) The familiar specific spells really should have spell levels clarified with them. I was assuming that they are the same level as for a Wizard or cleric (shield of faith from her Owl familiar) but at higher levels this assumption might not be correct and sometimes spell level is variable by class.

D.) Just an added opinion - in line with the "mother goose" flavor - the witch [i[needs[/i] access to more polymorphing abilities earlier IMO.

Not sure where to post this so the feedback is seen but all six of the classes do not appear to have guidelines listed for the starting gold. This needs to be fixed in the final printing of the APG... Hopefully someone at Paizo reads this...

Hope this is the right place to post this because it looks like the offical playtest thread. Board is too long to read all posts so if already covered please excuse:

For the final draft - please address the fact that there is no value for starting wealth at 1st level provided. At least our group hasn't been able to find it. Any suggestions? We are starting in a week and in lieu of an answer we will probably use 5d6 x 10 for Cavalier and 2d6 x 10 for Oracle. Just my assumptions keeping in line with the other classes in table 6-1 p. 140.

My houserule fix for this channeling issue is to have the channel ability provoke attacks of opportunity like a spell. In 3.5 there was no access to healing while engaged in melee without suffering the AoA (except with use of some magic items). Now the channel, combined with selective channel feat, allows the cleric to heal their self and allies while engaged in melee. That is really the only part of the channel feat that seems to be wrong to me. Although I don't mind having to houserule this because it does require a feat to work in most cases.

1st level characters and all commoners are supposed to be in awe of the third level cleric...

Note that wall of stone describes using the spell for the cocoon effect and it does not allow spell resistance to apply.

Note also that stone shape is a transmutation spell and not a conjuration like wall of stone. This is important because it is clarifying that stone shape is not actually creating or removing any material. Note in the text where it refers to an existing piece of stone, so with this spell you are reshaping the existing stone surface. The stone for the cocoon or manacles or whatever is "sculpted" or "pulled" from the surrounding stone. Wall of stone actually "creates" new stone, which is why it is a conjuration spell.

In the case of stone shape, if a caster was high enough level to shape enough volume of rock to make the cocoon - then yes. However, it would take a fairly large volume of rock to create the cocoon, so it is unlikely that anything larger than medium size would ever be threatened by this - also note that stone can be broken if it is thin enough, much like wall of stone. This spell seems to be more of an "effect" spell where it does not specifically target the affected character. Due to this, my interpretation is that Spell Resistance would not apply because the spell is not directly affecting the target character. The spell description says no saving throw, my interpretation is that this is referring to the targeted stone object - however, if this were to happen in my game I would allow a reflex save to the targeted character (not the stone) since the character is getting caught in an effect that does not directly target the magic at them (similar to being caught in a rockslide or a cave in; see the description in Wall of Stone that is very similar to this application where the save is specifically allowed). Note if the character is not free to react, I would not allow a reflex save. Two more common uses of this spell that I have seen are to shape the stone enough to encase the target's feet - thereby immobilizing / grounding the opponent temporarily and using the spell to create manacles to pin a hand or a weapon. This takes a lot less volume and is available immediately to the caster. Wall of Stone is really the spell for a character to use to create the cocoon effect.

Spidey continues to lead the pack...

Would we all be talking about Spidey otherwise???

Sells magazines; the hubub is exactly what they want, period.

Pain

by: Kittie

Where does the book say the bardic performance ends when a standard action is taken? The combat chapter regarding actions appears to be silent on the bardic performance as a free action. It does not appear in table 8-2. They way I read the description of the bardic performance ability, maintaining the performance is a free action that is only disrupted by the inability to take a free action or willfully stopping the performance. There is no text that I see that says the performance stops to take another standard action (like a melee attack).

HOWEVER, it would really help me understand this if there were some text saying the performance ends - it doesn't make any sence for Bard playing a two handed instrument (free action) as their bardic performance to be able to use a shield to get AC bonus while pulling out their rapier (move action) to make an attack (standard action). If this isn't forbidden in the book, how do you explain this?

Also while playing said flute, how does the bard even do other free actions, like talking or other standard actions that require speaking or using a hand like casting a spell???

I suggest the simple fix would be to simply adjust the casting times for many of the overused / abused spells.

James Jacobs wrote:

Actually... I think that since the bard's the only class that depends on skills to function, really (since he has skill minimums for a key ability), upping his skill points is really easy to argue. Fighters and Wizards and Clerics don't need skills to function.

They don't need them as much as others, but they still could use them. Plus, wizards get a bunch more anyway thanks to high intelligence bonuses.

And I'd still consider making an end-run around the argument by giving bards the equivalent of one performance skill at max ranks for free.

I am with Bill on this one. The bard is not comparable to the other classes becasue you must use your skill points to make the class skills operate. I think making one performance skill a basic class feature is better than upping the skill points. The bard is our group's "almost never used" class - the consensus is that they just don't bring enough to the table. You could probably up the skill points and free up the class features from the skill points and the class would not be out of balance.

Just to break radio silence and put in my two cents...

I will play 3.5 and my whole group is firmly set that we have spent enough on our many hundreds of dollars book collection to make this change. We didn'tappreciate the loss of the investment when 3.0 became 3.5 but we quickly embraced that new system becasue it was close enough that our existing library of books from 3.0 were easily integrated. Now I can't afford to recreate the library and 4e will not be compatible at all. D&D is a creative enterprise and while being in the current rule set makes the setup easier because new stuff is readily available, we are smart people and our current library has infinite possibilities.

Further, we also firmly hope that Paizo stays with 3.5. If they stay with 3.5, I will stay because I like the regular "fix" of new ideas and it will keep making the setup easy (and Pathfinder so far is GREAT). I was with Dungeon since before Paizo so I am pretty loyal to the "fix". However, if someone is counting the 4e naysayeers; my subscription will end when the content switches. I have invested too much to re-learn yet another ruleset and we are having a lot of fun with the current rules.

Paizo really needs to go in the direction of their authors though. The authors are your lifeblood.

Seems as if this is fading idea for Dungeon's future. Although, it seems to me there was interest in conversions of past Dungeon Adventures. I would love to see it if anyone is counting the votes.

My "A" List: Mud Sorcerer's Tomb Issue #37 (This has been my favorite since I first got it, in the first issue I ever bought. I have played ever since...) Serpents of the Sands also Issue #37 and Dragon's Delve issue #62.

For a good desert adventure, if you are willing to do the conversion work - Seek out Serpents of the Sands in issue #37. One of my personal favorites back then. The primary antagonists were Yuan Ti and the Spirit Naga which still exist in 3.5. As Yuan Ti have class levels you can adjust it fairly easily to any level above around eighth.