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

Quijenoth's page

Goblin Squad Member. 547 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Goning to chime in here and apologies if others have mentioned it before, I haven't read more than the first pages of replies...

After reading the Warpriest it does lack the uniqueness of the other class crossovers.

Its focus is very unclear. is it a fighter? a cleric? or even a Paladin?

What I think would help the warpriest is if you instead focused on the War aspect of the name.

I could imagine a warpriest tending to the wounded in battle, helping groups of people instead of just one, fighting alongside allies, bolstering them with blessings and divine power.

In essence I see a warpriest being more of a team player than a "look what I can do" one trip pony.

My mind flicks back to the Marshal from D&D and its use of abilities like , Battle Orders, Don't Die on Me!, and Stand your Ground, all of which would fit a warpriest IMHO and give the class a unique element beyond the fighter/cleric wannabe paladin stereotype its in now.

if your looking for ideas perhaps give them the share spell ability that casters have with familiars that functions on allies when casting spells from their spell list (1 per 5 levels),

Give them a unique spell list focused on the mass cure wounds with a tailored 6 level spell list, removing a lot of the cleric spells that focus on a single target.

Give them the ability enchant defences such as doors, walls, ballistas, and other war machines to help when the party must defend instead of going on the offence (perhaps conjure a few). I could see a warpriest blessing the water in a mote that repels undead or demons.

Give them a censer as a focus item maybe, or the ability to create and enchant then with spell effects.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok so I looked at the new video today in my email and while overall it looked amazing, but one thing gave me the sad face :(

at 2:29 in the video you see a female character ascend some stairs to the wall, notice how her movement is never interrupted as she moves, she simply continues running up the stairs.

Now it may seem trivial but I noticed a few other Z-Axis type posts floating around discussing climbing, swimming, and even flying.

This is a big deal in the roleplaying element of the game and for immersion. The last thing I want is to feel like I'm running around on a flat surface that simply uses camouflaged ramps as stairs, hills, rocks and mountains.

I want to see characters pause when they approach a stairs, their hand reaching out for the handrail, and then ascending the stairs. If they choose to run up the stairs they would still use the handrail but leap 2 or 3 steps at a time. Fighting on stairs should be dangerous, risking falls as you move about on the uneven surface.

while we are at it what is the mechanics for falling damage? many games have superhuman abilities to jump and fall 100's of feet with minimal injury. I would prefer to see falling become lethal after 2 or 3 stories, making magic such as feather fall a valuable asset. likewise making jump a spell that allows quick traversing of large areas that would otherwise require a character to climb up/across.

Another thing is Ladders. Physically climbing a ladder (or rope, knotted rope, etc) to ascend a wall is one of the things I love about DDO. It makes the game feel like you are exploring.

Please Devs, get the immersion right on all levels and you will keep players like myself hooked for many, many years, knowing each new area provides new challenges, not just another pretty flat plain to run across at top speed.

Now I'm not affiliated with this in any way, shape or form but my god does this look good!

Tabletop Connect Kickstarter

Daniel Turner Zen Archer wrote:

Hmm... I'd consider adding a KI ability unique to this archetype you're building that allows the character to spend 1 ki point to allow his weapons from Sword-Trained do the same damage dice as his unarmed strike damage dice. The Zen Archer archetype fot fhe monk from APG already has this ki power, so having the Tengu have a specific training for this particular archetype would be useful. Keeping in mind that spending a Ki point from your Ki pool is generally a swift action (which you only have one per round of anyway), this is a decent ability to give your archetype.

I'd keep the racial feat that you created as a Monk-only feat if you're worried about it becoming broken, though myself I just think it'd be dandy to have a monk archetype that can flurry with a weapon while doing his unarmed damage dice just like a Zen Archer does to be quite useful for a melee focused monk.

I see where your going with the Ki arrows mimic but my concern for that would be sword choice - I'm envisioning Katanas and they already have a base damage equal to a 4th level monk meaning this ability wont be used till 8th. If you go with a two handed sword then your looking at 12th or even 16th level before this ability has any benefit to you. I would prefer to keep unarmed strike available for this build also, I could imagine a skilled katana user wielding a katana in one hand and using unarmed attacks in conjunction during a flurry to perform stunning fist attacks, trips or other combat maneuvers.

Daniel Turner Zen Archer wrote:
However, being a fan of the monk's AC bonuses, I'm leery of your Kata ability replacing the AC bonus that I so enjoy as a monk (envisions self as Agent Smith dodging bullets from Matrix when playing a monk). I'd probably replace the Stunning Fist, Evasion and/or Improved Evasion, Maneuver Training, or Still Mind for your Kata(EX) ability.

Giving Kendo Masters light and medium armor proficiency was the main reason for replacing monk AC. The Kata then concentrates on defecting blows instead of generating a fixed AC increase. Kendo is more about reaction and defense with the sword and I think combat reflexes mimics this perfectly. I probably need to look at either modifying or removing evasion (thinking they get evasion as a rogue and instead of improved evasion can use evasion in medium armor)

Daniel Turner Zen Archer wrote:
As to the One with the Sword (EX) ability, that DEFINITELY should replace and work as the Maneuver Training feature of the monk base class at the least, since your ability works very similarly to that EX ability.

I see what you mean about one with the sword and TBH I would prefer to keep maneuver training for this archtype (for reasons mentioned earlier). instead I have come up with an alternate to one with the sword...

Feat: One with the Sword (revised)

Requirements: Tengu, Swordtrained Racial Trait, BAB +1
This feat counts as the Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of feats and class abilities, including pre-requisites. You may substitute any unarmed strike with a melee attack with your sword (for example during a flurry of blows or making a stunning fist attack).

Special: If you have monk levels you also treat any sword as a monk special weapon.

Kendo Master Archtype (version 2)
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You are proficient with all swords (including exotic weapons) and with Light and Medium armor.

*Revised* One with the Sword (Ex): You gain the feat One with the sword as a bonus feat at 1st level even if you do not meat the prerequisites. This ability replaces Unarmed Strikes.

*NEW* Sword Mastery (Ex): Your knowledge of the sword and its use for offence and defence grants you +1 to hit and +1 AC while you are wielding a sword. In addition at the beginning of every round you may apply your swords magical plus '+' to either your AC, CMD, CMB, to hit or damage. at 8th level you may add the swords bonus to any two (for example you can add the +3 bonus of your +3 sword to AC and CMD or CMB and damage), at 14th level you may apply it to any three. At 20th level your perfection of the sword applies to all of them. Since the draw of this ability is from the weapons magical enhancement if the item is rendered non-magical, or the kendo master is subject to a dispel or anti magic field this ability ceases to function, the Kendo master still retains the base +1 to hit and +1 AC from Sword Mastery however. This ability replaces Monk Unarmed Damage progression, a Kendo Masters unarmed damage does not improve like a regular monks.

*Unchanged* Kata (Ex): Kendo Masters learn patterns of movement that, unlike regular monks involve avoidance of the blows, instead rely on attacking and counterattacking with the sword. at 1st level a Kendo Master gains combat expertise but uses his wisdom modifier instead of his dexterity modifier to determine the number of attacks of opportunity he can make in a given round. at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter a Kendo Master gains an additional attack of opportunity up to +5 at 20th level. This ability replaces a monks AC Bonus.

*New* Way of the Sword(Ex): At 2nd level, a Kendo Master gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat with one type of Sword. At 6th level, the monk gains Weapon Specialization with the same weapon as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. This ability replaces evasion.

*New* Evasion (Ex): At 4th level and higher, a Kendo Master can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the Kendo Master is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless Kendo Master does not gain the benefit of evasion. This Ability replaces Slow Fall.

*New* Armored Evasion (Ex): at 9th level and higher, a kendo Masters training grants the use of Evasion while in Medium armor. This ability replaces Improved Evasion.

+5 Toaster wrote:
Why not both and say that the Kendo master gains One With the Sword as a bonus feat at first level, replacing unarmed strike.

The feat is more race specific making the option of using swords as monk weapons limited to Tengu's only.

The archtype opens up the idea to any race but in the process limits you to a monk class to obtain the full benefits.

The feat allows you to be a Tengu monk and take other monk archtypes, or you could be a Tengu rogue swordmaster and take monk feats that require unarmed strike (like the style feats) without actually having monk levels.

My preference is to keep such an ability very limited to avoid inadvertently breaking something hence posting it here to see if it could be broken.

I been considering a Tengu Monk build but have constantly fallen flat when trying to incorporate the Tengus swordmastery with monk levels.

So I though what about developing a Feat/Archtype that I could put towards my GM.

Before I do that however I have decided to post it here for some feedback and balancing.

Heres the ideas

Feat Version: One with the Sword

Requirements: Tengu, Swordtrained Racial Trait, BAB +1
Your Swordtrained Trait counts as Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of feats and class abilities, including pre-requisites. You may substitute any unarmed strike with a melee attack with your sword.

Special: If you have monk levels you also treat your sword as a monk special weapon.

Archtype Version: Kendo Master (monk)

Kendo Masters are proficient with light and medium armor.

Sword Mastery (Ex): You treat swords as monk special weapons and gain weapon focus in a sword of your choice. You are considered to have the Improved unarmed strike for the purpose of feats and class abilities, including pre-requisites and may substitute any unarmed strike with a melee attack with your sword. This ability replaces Unarmed Strikes.

Kata (Ex): Kendo Masters learn patterns of movement that, unlike regular monks involve avoidance of the blows, instead rely on attacking and counterattacking with the sword. at 1st level a Kendo Master gains combat expertise but uses his wisdom modifier instead of his dexterity modifier to determine the number of attacks of opportunity he can make in a given round. at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter a Kendo Master gains an additional attack of opportunity up to +5 at 20th level. This ability replaces a monks AC Bonus.

One with the Sword (Ex): Starting at 5th level, Whenever a Kendo Master
attacks with a sword, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), a Kendo Master becomes further trained in swords and increases this bonus by
+1 each. A Kendo Master also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with swords. This bonus also applies to the Kendo Master’s Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against swords. This ability replaces the monks unarmed damage increase.

Personally I'm leaning towards the Kendo Master over the feat but would appreciate peoples thoughts/input.

The only thing I see being readied in that photo is the quickly emptying pizza box!

Glad you guys have your priorities right ;)


Played another session of the game last night, to start with we went over previous rewards and loot and looked at converting it to the downtime system. The party has acquired the help of a local trader to sell our goods since the 2nd adventure in this campaign, we added up the loot and simply converted it to Goods (purchased Capital) we then divided the Goods among the players. We each ended up with 32 goods to use on downtime.

The Wizard in the party had a disused barn on a nearby abandoned farm as a reward, the DM classified it as a granary to calculate its square footage and allowed the wizard to spend money converting the storage into rooms to build a caster tower.

I received a decrepit old house on the edge of the town which I received as payment for a previous adventure. The DM requested I pay 1/3 the costs of a house in order to bring it back up to a liveable standard. Using the goods I had acquired from the trader covered all these costs minus 40gp to purchase some extra labor.

During the adventure we had a group of 10 bugbears attack the small town we where "defending", they simply charged down the road into the town square, my character stepped out of the tavern entrance and cast enthral on the advancing bugbears. I got 8 of the 10 (leaders saved) and succeeded on my Charisma checks to maintain their attention. The rest of the party dealt with the 2 I didn't enthral and then I proceeded to use diplomacy to teach them that Orcus is not a god they want to follow and should give themselves to The Overlord.

End result netted me 8 more slaves. I converted these and the previous bugbears to labourer teams to help rebuild my decrepit old house.

I plan to upgrade these bugbears to scofflaws and use them as pit-fighters to generate capital in the local tavern. once I have the capital I will then build a gladiatorial training school near my home and convert my house into a brothel. once that's done I can work on my evil scheme to introduce slavery as common practice in the area by inviting high standing nobles to my brothel and teaching them how beneficial slaves are compared to "paid" labor...

My GM is looking at creating new types of teams and a manager that better suits the roles I'm looking for, based off the Gladiator: Sands of Death book by mongoose publishing.

will keep you posted on how these house rules turn out and will post a full rundown once its completed.

CaptainJandor wrote:
@Quijenoth - thanks for the clarifications! that's not a bad idea, either, (the 50% rule).

Thanks and glad I could help.

One of my biggest issues with D&D since 3.0 came out is the overall way the game handles money.

The price of magic items compared to mundane has always been impossibly skewed and the new downtime system only exaggerates that further.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Been brainstorming the downtime system this weekend with my group and will try and answer a few questions...

Jacen wrote:
Next up is town spending limits. Do you need to pay for the entire costs (good, capital, labour and magic) before the construction of a building or recruitment of an organisation can begin? Otherwise spending limits for town size seem fairly moot.

earning Capital and Constructing a building are two separate activities during downtime, you cannot begin constructing a building until you have earned the capital to pay for it. (however you could continue to earn additional capital while the building is being constructed.)

Also these costs apply to purchasing capital - you couldn't go into a village and expect to purchase 20 goods just because you got the gold.

Jacen wrote:

My last query is to do with the "Run a business" downtime activity. Now the description of this activity says the you can spend the day inspiring your workers by personally running your business, and this means you can make a check to earn capital at +10. So in the inn example my inn has a +41 bonus to earn capital and if I run it personaly this increases to a total of +51 correct?

Why then would I not just abandon this activity to earn capital for the inn by itself as soon as I have a skill modifier of more than +10 (which does not take long in pathfinder) Say I have craft(blacksmith) at +18 I could have myself earn capital at +18, and the inn earn capital at +41 for a total of +59 per day.

The +10 is in addition to your applied skill check (effectively if you have the skills and a business to run, your take a 10 on the check becomes a 20).

Remember earning capital and running a business is an Activity Phase but you business generates its capital during the Income Phase.

So in your example you could earn 1 goods (18 check) and the inn could earn 4 goods (41 check) or you could work together and get a +10 bonus for a total of 6 goods. It basically boils down to +1 capital. the only restriction is that it must be a capital the building can generate. you couldn't use an inn to get a +10 bonus to magic capital.

CaptainJandor wrote:

iirc, there is no upkeep associated with organizations or buildings. just the up-front cost.

remember, however, that for every 7 days you are away from a business that doesn't have a manager (i think) your earnings go down, and once you've been away for 30 days you have to make capital attrition checks.

there also may be costs that come into play due to Downtime Events, but those are randomly generated.

not entirely correct.

A typical Tavern (Page 112) has an earnings of +19 gp and +17 influence.
The tavern can earn you 2 gp 9 sp or 2 influence each day without you being there and without a manager. A Tavern has no upkeep costs but if you employ a manager (innkeeper) you must pay his wages (2gp/day) as upkeep.

So every day of downtime the tavern will generate you 2gp 9 sp or 2 influence, however, every 7 days you lose 1 point of capital (goods, influence, labor, or magic). Having a manager extends the attrition to 14 days but does NOT prevent capital attrition.

Also, according to the rules for earning capital;

Ultimate Campaign - page 77 wrote:
Earning capital is like using an item crafting feat to create a magic item: You have to put in some work to make the item, but you pay only half the normal price for it.

it goes on to say

Ultimate Campaign - page 77 wrote:
If a downtime activity’s description says it generates capital, you can earn that amount of capital by spending the required amount of downtime and gp on it;

In other words you can earn 2 points of influence from your tavern but it will cost you (or the tavern) 30gp to do so.

Business Attrition is all or nothing. if you are away from your business and it has no manager, the moment you fail a leadership check after 30 days away from the business that building cannot generate you ANY income since you last visited the business, it will continue to lose you capital however via capital attrition unless you abandon it.

Regarding the Ship - I would simply call the business an organisation. you could certainly use a dock or pirates cove as a base and run that as a business but I wouldn't "build" a ship out of rooms.

As pointed out, Magic can generate much more income than goods, labor, influence, or gp, effectively granting you 100gp towards magic item creation for 50gp and 1 days work.

Lets say you want to make a +1 longsword (2,000gp dropping the MW weapon costs to keep it simple) you could craft it for 1,000gp and 2 days work. alternatively you can earn 2 points of Magic for 100gp per day, spend 500gp and 5 days to generate 10 Magic. You could then spend the 10 magic and 2 days work to make the +1 longsword. You now have a +1 longsword for 500gp. you could sell it for 1,000 gp and make 500gp profit but its taken you 7 days to do it.

Is this such a big deal? well if your doing this yourself then no its not - most GMs wont worry because they wont give you the time to generate this between adventures. however if you have buildings or organisations generating you magic, the time investment is negated completely!

Personally I'd be inclined rule that only 50% of the cost to create a magic item can come from Magic Capital.

Hi all, I have been pouring over the Ultimate Campaign Rules to see if it would work for my character in a friends campaign.

The campaign uses a mix of Pathfinder (predominantly classes races, and feats) and 3.5 rules.
The campaign is set in the Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting.
The characters are evil or neutral alignments including 2 drow, a half-hobgoblin and a hobgoblin.
The campaign uses a hugely extended xp system that has required us to complete (on average) 3-4 adventures to obtain one level!

My Character:
My character is a cleric of the house of shackles (The Overlord) whose portfolio is oppression and slavery.
At character creation I purchased a number of slaves with starting money to begin my career.
Where possible, strong opponents defeated in combat on missions have been procured as slaves to sell to local mines and other labor intensive revenues.
Currently I have 3 Courtesans who ply the local town for information while I'm out "acquiring more slaves" (adventuring), a porter who accompanies me on quests to carry excess gear, and 6 bugbear warriors that I recently acquired in the last adventure to use as pit fighters in a local underground fighting ring.

The character concept is loosely based on the Spartacus TV series. my character fulfils the roll of Batiatus the owner of a Ludus (gladiator training school).

Ultimate campaigns downtime system has provided the DM with a much more structured ruleset as many of the PCs have plans to create hideouts, businesses, and training schools.
For most of the players, the rules work pretty much as written, however there is no clear definition of how to use slaves as workers in a business.
I would like to know what other peoples thoughts are on this matter and how best to expand on the downtime system to include slaves or as a simple houserule.

The other concern is CR/HD of higher level slaves and the effect they would have on the downtime system. Having a storm giant slave will likely fill the role of many laborers for example.

Current thoughts;
My thinking is that slaves count as laborers but cannot be acquired through anything other than gold or rewards.
Acquired slaves through adventures count as 1 person per HD of the creature. since laborer teams include 5 people a 5 HD creature would fulfil the role of 1 laborer team.
upgrading follows the existing rules but the (slave) prefix remains in place. for example you could upgrade a slave laborer team to a slave driver team.

Using slaves reduces capital attrition for 14 days like a manager, and you MUST have a slave master (4gp/day manager) to operate the slaves at all times. If you fail to pay your slave master you lose the manager AND all slaves revolt.
Slaves used in a business increases the risk of detrimental downtime events providing +1 crime and +10 danger modifier. A slave manager does not prevent business attrition although you may employ an additional manager for the business to prevent it.
If you fail a leadership check against a business run by slaves the slaves revolt and are lost.
Any buildings using slaves must provide 1 cell per slave team or 1 bunks per 2 slave teams.

I have subscribed to Pathfinder RPG, Adveture Paths and Companions in the past but stopped. I have always found the subscriptions great value for money back in Pathfinders infancy.

While setting up a new RPG subscrition for the Ultimate Campaign book I was a little shocked by the $57.61 Price tag for one book plus shipping+handling. I know its expensive to ship outside US but this seemed rather high.

Upon checking my previous book order (Advanced Race Guide) the shipping was only $13.60 compared to the $19.97 (-$2.35 discount)

Total Price after conversion for the subscription for me comes to £37.12 based on current exchange rates so I decided to check my local options.

RRP is £29.99 in UK for Ultimate Campaign - offer Free Shipping.
PDF option is $9.99 which is £6.44
Total Price £36.43 a total saving of 69p
Now its not alot I know and certainly worth the cost for receiving the book and PDF early.

BUT, are currently offering a Pre-Order Price Deal of £19.19!!!

Thats a Saving of £11.49!

I'm sorry to say this, but at that kind of saving, I can sure wait a couple of weeks to get my hands on the books. Perhaps its because of how popular Pathfinder has become that its now more commercially available.
Its a shame because I do like to show my support for Paizo but the subscription options just aren't worth it for non US customers anymore.

I find it hard to get my players out of the

"Your Not My Father"
mentality for star wars games. What I would like to see is a rules system built with SWtoR or KotOR timelines instead of the movies.

WotC SAGA Rules helped standardize the ruleset over the original West End Games version (which I actually quite enjoyed playing when I was younger) but, like others, I feel the d20 system is too restrictive for the Star Wars Universe.

Heres hoping this does a better job than the others.

Thank you all for the replies. They certainly have given me plenty to think about.

And a special thanks to you Michael for the Kaidan info and links.

I will keep you posted on my development, in the mean time any other ideas are welcome.

The Problem with using Minkai is that its vastly different from Rokugan...

Jade regent Spoilers enclosed

The 5 ruling familes are all but extinct where as the clans of Rokugan are currently at war with vast armies clashing on front lines around the emperors city.

While reading through The Minkai section in "Tides of Honor" the thought of time travel has also crept into my mind. What if, the PC return to Ameiko after Jade Regent to help with a new threat set many years in the past (assuming they succeed in Jade Regent and defeat him). The power might be an ancestor of the Jade Regent, who has been sent back in time to place a sleeper agent on the throne, while the families are still very much incontrol of Minkai? The intent would be to unmask the threat of Ameiko to the Jade Regent (or to simply steal away the Amatatsu Imperial Seal). Thus preventing her return to claim the throne.

My campaign differs quite a bit from the Minkai history...

The campaign begins life with the PCs helping to create an underground route from scorpion clan terratory into dragon terratory. the Phoenix clan is amassing an army with the help of lion military might to take control of Dragon holdings.

Once the threat of war has been averted the PCs turn their attention to the job of investigating the clans presented Heirs to the Throne. Its at this point the campaign becomes a cross between a murder mystery and a Trial of Champions.

The bulk of my campaign involves alot of traveling over the northern area of Rokugan which is an area of approximately 700 miles across. however many of the later campaign traveling can be overcome via teleportation magic. Tian Xai however spans over 7000 miles with minkai almost 2000 miles from north to south!

Considering this it wouldnt be too hard to perhaps place the clans inside a single imperial family. perhaps creating some internal struggle to declare a new imperial heir to obtain rights to one of the imperial seals.

This would create a nice follow-on to Jade Regent to allow another imperial family to challenge Ameikos Rule or in the case of Ameikos demise attempt a second threat to the Jade Regent with a new Heir to the Throne.

Overall I think im liking the follow-on approach more to the time travel. I feel it does give me more freedom to shape the future of Tian Xai while remaining mostly acceptable to the cannon of Jade Regent and future APs.

Many years ago I built a campaign for d20 Rokugan.

The campaign spanned 15 levels from 1st

The Emperor has recently died and the clans are looking to present a replacement. The main plot involves an evil force who are trying to infiltrate the empire by replacing one of the clan heir's with a sleeper agent. With much finger pointing it is up to the PCs to first discover deception, then they must discover who is behind it, and then finally uncover the agent before the ceremony to crown a new emporer.

As you can imagine the campaign was heavily dependent on the interaction of the clans presented in Rokugan. In its first incantation I had 3 PCs from the scorpion Clan (2 of which were brother and sister) and 1 from the Dragon Clan, but I had built the campaign to allow PCs to choose characters from any clan.

What I'm looking for help on is rebuilding this campaign on Golarion.

Is there any way to represent the clans and their holdings in Tian Xia?

I have ordered the Dragon Empires Gazatteer and have the Jade Regent AP for which I want to run first before launching this campaign, that and it gives me some time to rebuild it before playing.

Currently I'm looking at 2 main approaches.

The first is to scale down the campaign into one area of Tian Xia. This won't be too hard as Tian Xia is alot larger than the Rokugan in terms of scale.

My second idea is to replace the clans with smaller families and placing the campaign on a remote island.

My last option, and probably simplest, is to place the struggle on a parallel world that maintains the core campaign.

I don't like doing parallel world clichés but it's a last option as I enjoyed running this game so much due to its strong dependency on the players making key decisions to shape the campaign.

Any thoughts and input you guys have is most welcome.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Any chance of getting a larger version of this once the order fixed?

Would look awesome as my desktop* background

*1920 x 1080

NoStrings wrote:

I'm the one responsible for this terrain. So far, it's gotten very positive responses, which is exactly what I was going for. Thanks to everyone that played at my tables so far!

The scenario is 3-25 Storming the Diamond Gate.

The cliffs remind me of Worldworksgames terrain. good to see some 3D terrain at the Con.

Please could you cancel my Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription. I have no need for the character folio set as I store my characters digitally.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Harsk: "Hey look, The Pathfinder Ride... Wow, Neat!"

Tenku: "Gimmie a break!"

Merisiel: "I dont like this!!!"

Kobolds: *Singing*
"It's a world of laughter,
A world of tears.
It's a world of hopes,
And a world of fears.
There's so much that we share,
That it's time we're aware,
It's a small world after all.

It's a small world after all.
It's a small world after all.
It's a small world after all.
It's a small, small world. "

Party runs out screaming!

Goblin Squad Member

many games come with voice chat but for some reason they all sound terrible. I play DDO and alright its not the best voice chat example its certainly typical of poor chat implementation.

As a result I use Skype running in the background to chat with a regular group.

Voice chat should be linked into gameplay too. One word commands to broadcast chat strings, actions tied to voice, even chat linked to NPC interaction!

Goblin Squad Member

I know the OP isn't reading this but I understand where hes coming from.

From what I'm reading so far I'm actually being turned off the idea of playing PFO, instead of feeling an urge to google it every day to find a release date!.

I don't like PvP most of the time but occasionally I enjoy the adrenaline rush it gives me.

When I don't want to PvP I play a roleplaying or challenge game like Skyrim or Batman: arkham city.

When I want to PvP I Play an online FPS like Team Fortress, Quake III Arena, etc.

PvP has its place but it needs to be balanced and on a level playing field.

MMOs are far from balanced because of levels, time investment and achievements. I don't think there is a way to marry the two together equaly without restricting it to specific servers or areas (battlegrounds) but game designers will continue to try. in many PvP MMOs the choice is there to PvP or Not but from what I'm reading the choice may not be there at all which puts PFO squarely in the Play to PVP camp.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a suggestion for PVP Griefer discouragement.

Law and punishment should be upheld in the game and built into the play experience.

What do I mean? simply put when you die two things happen, you are either captured or enter a death state.


This includes captured by enemy player guilds, arrest in an NPC town and the like.

Anyone that is captured is placed in jail. Then the act of leaving jail falls not only on yourself (in the way a rogue would try and escape his cell by picking the lock while the guard sleeps; but also by your team mates who should do their best to free you from your incarceration.

failure to escape leads to two end results, you do your time and walk free (a timer that could pass while offline) for lesser crimes, or you are sentenced to death via execution for major crimes, thus entering the death state. You could also suicide to enter death state prematurely.

Death State

While many games in the past have left you with a simple button to re-spawn at your bind point or to force you to journey to specific resurrection alters, or even wait for a kind soul to resurrect you on the battlefield. to prevent death-rush griefing I propose an alternate death state. you effectively travel as a spirit in the world. You cannot interact with anything or anyone and must travel to special churches and alters before interaction can take place. This could include a communing priest (PC or NPC) or even "haunting" a dungeon or house.

Once at those alters you must wait for your soul to be united with your body. teammates can recover your corpse from the battlefield and drop you off at a shrine or church at which point you can use the alter to return to life. without a body you can be brought back via powerful resurrection magics but you must wait for either a hosting body or for the new body to regrow.

Resurrection in the battlefield should be a lengthy process - not a simple click and your up.

Death state is just as much as a journey as adventuring and if done right many players might enjoy staying in death state for extended periods of time. the spirits of others both players, NPCs, Mobs and Environment are all still there and you can fight them off as they try and prevent you from getting to a shrine or church.

Additionally the death state has a bright light that hovers above your head. A destination that allows souls to move on from the world. choosing this option (by simply clicking it) deletes your character from the game. you go back to character selection and can only choice 2 options, delete and restart. Delete clears the available character slot. restart sets your character back to its original state when first created and allows you to restart from scratch without having to remake the character.

Additional Comments

Dieing is an experience and while many games in the past have penalized people for dieing with XP loss or time investments on corpse runs, I propose to reward people for dieing. give players that die some incentive to come back to life. The longer between each death the bigger the reward. These rewards would affect you in life such as granting a sixth sense of other spirits near you or a limited ability to commune with the dead.

Starting characters:
When making characters for this game immersion should start BEFORE you click "enter world" - The character creation process should be tied in with mini-games, puzzles and tutorial maps to introduce the player to the game but to also deal with certain decision making aspects of character creation.

For example deciding to be a wizard should enter you into a tutorial on how to cast spells. you are entered into the game as a young version of yourself experiencing the wizard guilds training. you then, upon completion, return to character creation and decide on additional skills, taking blacksmithing introduces you to the role of a smith and what you can make. being evil introduces you to the dregs of society in your starter town. bully's, muggers, and assassins teach you how to truly be evil.

Each skill choice and the decisions on alignment (if its in the game) should come with some form of gameplay.

Players should be able to make quickplay characters but this should be limited to 1 slot per account. That quickplay slot should be limited to 1 character per day (thus deleting it locks that slot to prevent multiple toons and each is flagged as non-PVP for the first day it enters the world.

The intent on this is to A) discourage making fast play characters purely to grief new players. B) make the penalty for dieing time consuming without it being a grind or boring.

Do's & Dont's
If your attempt is immersion please, please, please do not have the new areas of the game teaming with giant rats, snakes and other vermin for the players to "grind" on. MMOs are notorious for filing the worlds with trash to kill, its not realistic and it most certainly isn't immersible gameplay.

Some people like to be helpful and I think it would be very nice to have guide programs. Guild leaders, officers and the like could flag themselves as guides. They could tutor people during these tutorials as possible recruits for their guilds. This would only improve the interaction and immersion. Guides should be aware of the requirements however, kind of like a customer service option, the player is responsible for his actions, everything they do is reported to the Customer Service for mediation after the fact, thus highlighting (and discoraging) bad experiences for new players.

A Man In Black wrote:

Here's my big Jack Can't Steal A Chicken problem: where are the rules for silently killing one orc guard without alerting his friend?

Right now, if Jack tries to wring the chicken's neck (or even just grabs it to stuff it in a sack), boom, he automatically is no longer Hidden and both Woof and the farmer are making DC 0 Perception checks (modified by range and intervening objects) to notice him.

Plus, this is very in-genre. What's the point of being sneaky if you can't do the "quietly picking off the guards one-by-one" scene?

A lesser issue is that Camouflage still makes HIPS moot.

I think your right on some of this.

Sniping definately needs ammending to cover what the image in the blog post portrays. Just some clarification that if you effectively "assassinate" a target from the hidden condition, those nearby will be able to make perceptions to notice the action but the act does not break stealth/hidden for those who fail to notice you.

A Man In Black wrote:

Anyway, clarity issues.

First off, when the crap do I make a Stealth check? As soon as I start moving? After moving? As part of any action that isn't specifically disqualified? I can sort of guess what's intended here, but clarity is a major problem.

The way I understand it, you make a stealth check whenever you want to be hidden, at the same time as using any action that isn't specifically disqualified above, or by burning a swift action if nothing else. Is this correct?

According to the writeup

Action: Usually making a Stealth check is not an action. Using Stealth is part of the action you are taking.

My reading of this is the roll should be made when the GM feels it needs...
some situations might simply be easier to do it first. some GMs may feel sneaking between two points and knowing the result of sucess or failure may lead to a player changing his mind.

How I would work it is you make a stealth check. player starts his movement. once completed I roll perceptions for onlookers and determine results appropriately.

A Man In Black wrote:
When are you noticed if you fail a Stealth check? Before, after, or during the relevant action?

see above

A Man In Black wrote:
What happens if you hide with multiple characters who can see you, and beat some but not all?

Another grey area and very situational. I would normally allow completion of actions and base responces on the actions that follow. If 2 of 5 guards spot a rogue moving one might call out while another might move to investigate. yet the rogue could be lucky and the guards simply turns a blind eye.

A Man In Black wrote:
You seem to have added rules that require multiple Stealth checks per turn, like if I draw a weapon with Quick Draw (free action) and walk from X to Y. Is this intentional?

Draw a weapon is part of a move action - they are one and the same. however, for each action stealth attempts may be required but the rules seem to indicate to me that the first action in a round that you try and conceal with the stealth skill applies to all those actions. this prevents mutliple rolls as indicated by the following...

Other Perception Checks: If a creature makes a Perception check as a move action to notice a hidden creature, the DC of the Perception check is the hidden creature's last Stealth check. This is also the case if a creature makes a Perception check to notice a hidden creature because the perceiving creature is entering an area where it could possibly notice a hidden creature.

A Man In Black wrote:

Dropping concentration on a spell requires a new stealth check? It's not the only example of a purely mental action, but it's the most obvious and specifically called out in the free action portion of the combat rules.

Also, spells that don't involve attacks don't require a separate stealth check, even if they have verbal(!) components. Intentional?

The part you quote covers actually making a stealth check at the start of a round - sure those actions will not break stealth but then if you wish to move in the round you will need to make a stealth check to do so. You could mentally end a spell and do no actions - as long as you have cover/concealment you are still hidden thus benefiting from stealth. See the hidden condition...

Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You do not have line of sight to a creature or object that is hidden from you.

A Man In Black wrote:
Full-round actions traditionally include lots of things people in the real world can do sneakily, including slitting helpless people's throats, picking locks, or really anything that requires multiple rounds.

Agreed and already stressed in my request for expanded sniping rules.

A Man In Black wrote:
It's kind of weird that giants can't play hide-and-seek with each other, because they all suffer from huge Stealth penalties but see Medium-sized things equally as well as a human does. Oh well.

I agree too. perhaps the size category should be changed to "diference in size equals -4 per size category"?

A Man In Black wrote:
Seriously? So you can silently hew a door with a fireaxe?

A bit extreme but I can see how it would be read that way. the action would not break stealth (read hidden condition) but the sound of the action would certainly alert people to allow them to notice you thus making a perception check.

A Man In Black wrote:
Is it intentional that you can snipe someone without cover/concealment?

Sniping allows you to make a stealth check to remain hidden - since a stealth check requires some form of cover/concealment you would still need that to succeed at sniping.

A Man In Black wrote:
Does the "5' rule" only apply when taking a move action to find the scent, or is it always-on 5' range Stealth-beating radar?

I would say that if you pass within 5 ft of a creature scent is automatic like a sniffer dog or pointer searching for an item. So the latter.

A Man In Black wrote:
Unrelated to Stealth, but is this LITERAL tracks only, or can Scent let you track things that float, swim, or fly?

again dogs do not need physical references to track with scent. odours can be picked up from concrete or other solid objects. It would be GMs discression if water would effectively mask a scent which i think those rules are covered under tracking/survival (though I havent checked).

A Man In Black wrote:
Is the omission of line-of-effect intentional? This currently jumps gaps in the tremorsense medium, and I don't think that's intentional.

Noticing movement 2 rooms away certainly seems viable but would it work 15 ft away on the other side of a 500ft deep revene? again GM discression I think steps in here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

Something that bothers me repeatedly is the bonuses based on size.

Rules wrote:

Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.

The problem isn't at the upper end, Colossal is pretty easy to see, regardless of the size of the viewer. However... We end up with the following issues :

Spiders : Spiders that don't rely on webs to trap passing insects cease to exist, because they starve to death as a species. So trapdoor spiders, tarantulas, etc all disappear. They starve to death. A trapdoor spider has to have a massive perception bonus to have a chance of noticing a passing centipede (Say, 1 rank in stealth, +16 size bonus, +3 dex bonus, 19+ 1d20, so minimum roll of 20, maximum of 29). To ambush the centipede, the trapdoor spider needs, if he has 1 rank in perception and a +1 wisdom, an 18 or higher to catch him. In other words, a 15% chance of noticing the centipede as it goes past.

Insects : Any predatory insect has the same issues as Spiders. Which means non-predatory insects take over, eat all the crops, and the entire ecosystem dies. :)

Cat & Mouse : Cat's never catch mice, they never notice them. The mice has a +12 bonus to stealth vs something about it's size that's a natural predator for it.

I'm not sure what the fix is. But it bothers me. I started to suggest a bonus based on size difference, but that doesn't work for larger creatures, not really.

not sure this is how it would work in the real world.

Trapdoor spiders, cats, etc. would actually only need to perceive their prey who most of the time would not notice the predator. its the predator that is using stealth not the other way round as your reading it. Cats effectively ready an action to attack a mouse when it "breaks" cover.

In effect predators like you describe would actually be using survival to track down their prey then stealth to wait for the moment to strike. The prey is almost always unaware of the danger until its too late.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heres a suggestion to fix the diversion part...

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. If you do not have cover or concealment, as a swift action, you can attempt a Bluff check opposed by the Sense Motive of opponents that can see you. If you are successful, you are considered to have concealment from those creatures (but you do not gain the percent miss chance from concealment) until the end of your next action, you make an attack (as defined in the Attacking while Hidden section, above), or the end of your turn, whichever happens first.

Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. If you do not have cover or concealment, as a standard action, you can make a feint to gain concealment to make a stealth check to hide. If you are successful, you are considered to have concealment from those creatures (but you do not gain the percent miss chance from concealment) at the start of your next action or you make an attack (as defined in the feint rules). If you do not have cover or concealment by the end of your next action any stealth check to become hidden automatically fails. If you have the improved feint feat you can make a stealth check as part of the feats move action to feint (granting you the hidden condition for that attack).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, WOW what a wonderful re-write!

This is such a great improvement to the existing rules. "wonders when these conditions will get added to the condition card set? :)"

One question I do still have though. multiple onlookers.
The rules clearly state how stealth works against a single person.
They also clearly state how stealth works when you are hiding from multiple onlookers.
But it doesnt clearly define how stealth is handled when one person spots you but others do not while trying to maintain stealth.

In the past when someone spots a sniper up on a rooftop he would use an action to help others by pointing the target out (thus prompting a new perception check from those that failed). Is this how you see these rules working or would you recommend something else?

The rules do allow for additional perception checks base on new stimuly (such as sniping every round) but what about when your trying to lay low?

Alternatively you could just use my house rule.

Casting Defensively
You can choose to cast a spell defensively as a standard action. If you do so, you take a –5 penalty on all concentration checks in a round to gain a +2 to AC for the same round.

Modified Feat
Combat Casting

Add: "In addition you receive a +2 bonus to AC while defensively casting (bringing your total to +4)."

Saves alot of uneccessary die rolls and you dont lose your spell unless your actually hit and fail the check.

Only down side I've seen to this is some players used it to get a free +4 AC on their squishy wizards which I'm not too worried about.
You could always state the +2 AC only applies against attacks of opportunies made against you.
I've also toyed with making it a full round action while doubling the AC boosts (+4/+8).

Helic wrote:

Man that's a lot of posts to sift through. My thoughts:

This cannot be corrected by addressing JUST Stealth alone. Perception and several of the existing standards need adjustment. It's probably not TOO much that needs changing, however.

We need a Distracted Condition. Its effects: -5 on Perception Checks. What makes a person distracted? Good question. I propose that people on guard duty (i.e. taking 10 on Perception) use their Swift Actions to do so. They are not distracted. People observing in detail is a Move Action as normal - also not distracted. People making reactive perception rolls are 'distracted'.

This would make Perception rolls by PCs more difficult, especially in combat, as they would want to save their Swift Actions for things other than taking 10 on Perception checks. All I can say is combat should be distracting. Actually, combat should automatically be distracting and probably not allow taking 10, but we could easily allow people to employ their Swift Action in combat to avoid the -5 penalty (keeping an eye out in the fight), which lets people actually employ their Swift Actions who might otherwise have no use for them.

This lets you do a bunch of things...

I'm gonna examine the distraction aspect a little more.

I think the most common distraction should be combat but a swift action is a little common even for someone executing a full attack. how about making it a move action with the following rules.

Move Action Rule wrote:

Awareness: as a move action you can remove the distracted condition from yourself, negating the -5 penalty to perception checks and allowing you to take 10 on perception rolls for the round.

If you have at least 1 rank in Perception, you may remove the distracted condition as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Alertness feat, you can remove the distracted condition as a swift action.

Note that these rules would have to clarify that any condition that allows stealth doesnt affect the distraction condition or prevent/allow stealth against them. someone who is not distracted can still be sneak attacked by a rogue hidden in the shadows or behind cover.

I like Helics approach to perception and distraction, its abstract, as is the way of these rules without bogging things down with sight/sound/smell/etc mechanics,something Im strongly against (but I am aware that some situations need to be addressed regarding them, noticeably with regards to certain creatures and abilities).

His approach also fits in nicely with my concept of making perception and stealth a unique mechanic like AC or CMB/CMD. Distracted could be a condition marked similar to flat-footed AC.

I personally think keeping the rules abstract is key here. I know alot of people here are hoping to see a fix for the many questions that frequently come up like tremorsence and scent. I personally am hoping for an abstract ruling that provides a way to explain their effect on those abilities without creating new rules for each.

Anburaid wrote:
I wonder if there will be conditions in combat that would allow for a rogue to treat an opponent as distracted, such as if they are stunned, or maybe even dazzled.

Dazzled would provide a penalty to perception anyway so the chances of sneaking are increased vs them automatically.

Stunned, as well as Dazed, prevent the recipient from taking actions thus making them distracted.

What about different levels of failure?

I like to be kind to my players when they attempt things exceptional and stealth right now is one of those do or die aspects.

What I propose is that if a stealth attempt fails by less than 5 you can "abandon" your current action to make a new stealth check to "re-stealth". The situation could be highlighted by the DM by saying, "As you go to move in on your opponent you catch sight of a loose stone just before your foot comes into contact with it." (rolls re-stealth) pass = "You quickly step back into the shadows and wait for another opportunity." fail = "as you step to avoid the stone your scabbard scrapes the nearby wall alerting your target to your presence"

I would also allow those under invisibility to increase the fail DC by 10 or less given that their effectively removing one of the senses.

Of cause there may be situations that when cover is broken it cannot be re-established so easily. this is where the second "re-stealth" could include a higher DC or perhaps prevent it altogether (if the cover ,like a wagon, has moved out of range for example).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I like what I've read, there is still one issue that concerns me. mass die rolls.

Stealth performed every round, by multiple opponents observing can lead to a combat round getting bogged down by uncessessary die rolls.

What I propose is that if you are considering re-writing the rules perhaps is the time to hardcode in some static rules to cover stealth and perception.

Consider them along the lines of CMB/CMD where one is fixed while the other is rolled.

The advantage I see to this is allowing room for additional rules such as class benefits (assassin and ninja springs to mind) and perhaps stackable and situational bonuses to cover the differential between perception (sight) and perception (sound).

An example might be that the stealth skill for a character might be rolled against a fixed DC of perception (sight) and/or perception (sound) specified in each opponent. Perception might consider a flat 10, like AC, but gets boosted by +5 for a character that is considered alert to danger and +10 that is aware of who or where that danger is. A sleeping character might be considered to have a -10.

Fixed dice does require a slight adjustment in the rules for determining stealth since as an opposed roll the chances of succeeding against a automatic 20 rolled perception doesnt put the odds favorably on the stealthy character.


Please could you cancel my Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription. I have no need for the beginners set.

not realy a rules clarification more of an expansion on the rules presented.

The blocking feature of weapons adds +1 shield bonus to AC when fighting defensively.

My questions are;
1) "would you allow a standard enhancement bonus to the weapon to increase the shield bonus of the weapon when fighting defensively?"
2) "would you allow weapons with the blocking property to be enchanted as shields?" or
3) "would you create a new property to apply to blocking weapons (similar to bashing for shields) to increase the defence of the weapon?"

I'd be tempted to go with 2 and 3 to keep the ability in line with existing rules...

Irulesmost wrote:
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Exocrat wrote:
None of the new monk weapons have text saying that monks are proficient, and this does not seem to be addressed elsewhere.

Monks are proficient with all Monk weapons. Monk Weapons are noted in the special section, thus monk's are proficient with the following weapons:** spoiler omitted **

Monks are not proficient with all monk weapons. Until an update (if any) they are proficient with
PRD wrote:
the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Further, if I understand your question, the 20ft range for the shoge is its range increment, i.e. what you use to determine penalties for using it as a thrown weapon, independent of actually holding on to one end.

The intention of the eastern equipment section is presented as follows

Quote: Ultimate Combat
This section contains all the Eastern weapons needed to run an Eastern-inspired fantasy campaign with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Monks are not eastern although many prefer to think of them that way. monks are proficient with simple weapons that mimic most household items, for example the nunchaku is a weaponized version of a grain flail.

If you want your monk to be more eastern then I think it should be up to the GM to determine if you can include these weapons in your proficiency list.

Personally I think they should have done a Shaolin class to fill the eastern monk role, with 72 unique fighting styles of the shaolin kung-fu theres planty of scope for new and unique abilities for a Shaolin Monk.

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

Why does the Kyoketsu shoge have a 20ft range, but a 10ft rope? Shouldn't it be 10ft range and also say something about that being max range?

The weapon is both a spiked chain and a dagger.

The weapon has reach due to the rope but can also be thrown like a dagger at a range of 20 ft assuming you release (or detach) the rope to throw.

Ravingdork wrote:
Quijenoth, is there any reason those goblins aren't trying to sunder the armor first?

True options like sunder might help in certain situations but given the exceptional lean towards adamantine, sunder becomes less viable unless you start equiping all your monsters with adamantine weapons.

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have some comments on the Armor as Damage Reduction variant rules.

Firstly I found the size reference very confusing on first read and I think it needs its own explaination preferably with an example.

Secondly was this system even playtested?

How it reads is that even if you have the entire party wearing heavy armor with no magical properties they are going to get destroyed by any large creature because it ignores any damage reduction of armor. A fully armored fighter may as well be wearing a paper towel against many low level opponents such as horses (CR 1), gorillas (CR2), or ogres (CR 3).

And on the flip side, small, weaker creatures designed to inflict attrition against the party are now practically useless...

for example: an average goblin warrior has 10 strength (+0) and uses a shortsword 1d4 (19-20) his +1 to hit from size means that on a natural 20 he can hit AC (or defence) of 21. his maxium damage is 4 so anyone in a chain shirt or better is immune to the goblins attacks unless its a critical. even if you sent 50 goblins against the guy he can pretty much ignore them.
Even if you used leveled opponenents, such as a level 15 goblin fighter, his chance to hurt the fighter will only improve if he increases his strength, weapon size or uses a magical weapon. Given the cost of adamantine (+5k gp for light armor) its not gonna take much to make characters only full suseptable to creatures of Colossal size since an Adamantine chain shirt (5,250 gp) will grant most classes DR 4/-.

The problem I see is that this system, while it tried to split the attack roll vs AC into attack roll vs Def what it fails to deal with is how Damage vs DR works. medium and small creatures will find it next impossible to hurt a 2nd level fighter in full-plate armor (DR 9/armor) unless they are using two handed weapons (which most natural weapon using creatures will struggle with).

I'm not trying to rule out the system, it has some potential compared to some I have seen in the past. But, with its favoratism towards size as a factor to determine DR effectiveness, doesnt work unless you tailor the game to the system. running this with most pre-written Modules or Adventure Paths will likely either kill off the party or make the game too easy.

Also I'd like to see clarification on how the DR works with Barbarians. As far as Im reading it Barkskin cast on a barbarian will grant increased DR #/- but what about if a barbarian wears a simple breastplate or a mithril full plate? would that make all 7th level barbarians instantly gain DR 7/- (for breastplate) or DR 10/- (for mithril full-plate)? or is it treated as a seperate DR like the skeleton DR/bludeoning example?

This thread seems slightly divided into two. those discussing crafting and its effects on characters wealth and power, and those discussing the games economy in relation to magic items.

Magic Item Crafting is often considered commonplace but rarely used by PCs. I have a really strong dislike for the magic item system in 3.5/PFRPG because its for the most part completely rigid. The fact that its based on the character progression (CL) with little regard to what exactly goes into making the magic item is dull and unimaginative. I have a completely revised magic item (and equipment) ruleset that is not tied into the leveling system or WBL. I also dropped the XP cost years ago.
Under my system "disposable" magic items are far more commonplace. the use of wands potions and scrolls is liking to many computer games like Diablo and my games often progress for extended durations because of this. no longer does the wizard or cleric stop play because hes out of spells, if hes produced enough disposable resources for the party they continue adventuring.
People who posted increasing the CL need to take a look at the disposable items and their effect on the lower game. wizards should be building their arsenal with scrolls in a similar way to how an archer restocks on arrows (my system also have a repair ruleset to provide a similar cost for weapons and armor).

Bottom line is the current system, while ok, is VERY structured and by default very subject to abuse. These rules are designed to aid the DM, not to be used by the players. Thats why it was part of the DMG in 3.0/3.5.

On the economy side, there's only one simple answer. Do what is right for YOUR campaign. Every campaign is different (in most of mine towns below a certain wealth level don't use coins at all but barter with goods instead) and the control of magic items is crucial to the balance of an economy.

One last word, if you want your campaign to be free of magic items created and sold by players simply don't allow them to be sold. unless you can find someone who can tell the difference between a masterwork, +1 and +5 suit of leather armor there likely to not buy it for more than just 150gp. :)

Rite Publishing wrote:
I am hard at work on making this a pdf/print bundle with the printable map packs, as the maps are what make this product great.

So does this product include the PDF like your website print/PDF bundle?

If yes, will it use the paizo download or do we have to register the purchase with you?
If no, will the print/PDF bundle(s) be added to pazio store in the future?

Now yo mention it i do recall something being said about that.

Its a shame they dont offer a unique deal, say "buy print version and get 75% off matching PDF." I think alot of people would buy into this. right now I couldnt warrent paying say $33.98 for the rival guide at only 64 pages.

Andrew Betts wrote:
Charles Scholz wrote:

I have a question.

Some third party source books have a print version and a PDF version. Sometimes when I buy the print version I get the PDF with it, but other times I do not. Is this a Paizo web-site problem, or is it the third party publisher forcing people to pay for both?
Print/PDF is only for Paizo subscriptions or bundles set up by the specific publishers.

to expand on this a little...

Will Paizo be offering bundle sets on their subscriptions in the future that includes the print and PDF?

I ask because I canceled all my subscriptions (adventure path, companions and modules) except the roleplaying game sub. My reason for subscribing is because I travel alot when roleplaying and the PDFs where more valuable to me than the print editions however the collector in me likes to display complete sets on my shelves :). I canceled due to moving house and taking on a larger mortgage but am coming close to be in a position to resubscribe to one or two more.

It would be great if pazio offered 1 year, 6 month, or 1 quarter deals on subscription back orders that included print and PDFs. it would be even beter if they offered 5+ back orders of your choice with PDFs because then I could resubscribe without worrying about doubling up.

I wouldnt even mind paying a little extra on the print version say 1 or 2 dollars if it included the PDF.

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
That name doesn't sound romantic at all........... unless your into sheep.

That will be the welsh happy then :) :) :) :)

mdt wrote:
That's what GM's are for, to ask how the illiterate barbarian managed to get a degree in alchemy then toss it to the side and make friends with an extra world entitity.

Last I remember barbarians wheren't illiterate in Pathfinder...


Ok firstly im not a historian, metalsmith, weaponsmith or Mr. Smith but peoples love of the katana over other swords is completely fictional.

China (warring states 400 BC) was full of untold wonder not seen by western eyes. the great wall created almost a completely seperate world almost and the way they did things where almost alien.

however, this didnt make them superior.

What the D&D system lacks is a robust and balanced weapon identification system. there shouldnt be greatswords, longswords, shortswords, and bastardswords mixed in with wakizashi, katanas, zweihanders, or other culturally named weapons. swords should be categorised by length, shape and the number of cutting edges.

Weapons should also be broken down into construction quality. not only in its manufacture but also in the materials used.

This is where the Katana and Bastard Sword differ and I refer to my warring states comment above... The chinese used quenching techniques to create steel in 400BC but records show Steel has been crafted since 1400BC in Africa using a completely different method. Chinese steel was considered weaker but more flexible and was common in many armor plate of the time) The japanese used the same techniques as the chinese for most steel production but the construction technique used in japanese swords (katanas) mixed iron with charcoal (Tamahagane) to add strength to the blade. such conscruction required a great deal of skill just to get the ore composition correct even before it was worked into a weapon. The actual construction of a Katana takes many days and this creates the masterwork hypothasis.

Now for game purposes there should be little to no difference between a katana or a bastard sword. the only difference is that 90% of katanas should be masterwork when found outside of their native land. My personal preference is that there should actually be a second level of masterwork which stacks on top of the first - this way you have 3 types of Bastard Sword. The typical bastard sword, a masterwork bastard sword and a truely masterwork bastard sword (Katana). Only then do you give the historic and highly skilled crafting techniques of the samurai sword makers art its true recognition.

For me though I like to think that all katanas are in fact magical - the skill convertied to Ki and infused into the weapon when crafted.

AlanM wrote:
Zexsudel wrote:
Question regarding this sub-class idea. Do your levels in the sub-class count as levels in the main class? Meaning is a 5th level gunslinger a 5th level fighter regarding feat prerequisites and such?

"When a character takes a level in one of these classes, he cannot later take levels in the other version of that class. For example, when a character takes levels of ninja, he cannot later take levels of rogue. For the purposes of prerequisites or other effects, each of these alternate classes counts as the class that it is related to."


Ok some people seem to be misreading the prologue and expanding it into a Sub-Class system...

Lets expand the text a little to shed some light on how I read it (designers are more than happy to elaborate of cause).

Original Text: "When a character takes a level in one of these classes, he cannot later take levels in the other version of that class. For example, when a character takes levels of ninja, he cannot later take levels of rogue. For the purposes of prerequisites or other effects, each of these alternate classes counts as the class that it is related to."

Expanded Text: "When a character takes a level in gunslinger, ninja, or the samurai classes, he cannot later take levels in the other version of that class. For example, when a character takes levels of ninja, he cannot later take levels of rogue. For the purposes of prerequisites or other effects, each of these alternate classes counts as the class that it is related to."

Ok its a small adjustment but it does give the following scenario...

a campaign starts in the inner sea. a player chooses to play a rogue, he ventures till level 5 and then the campaign moves to the east. he encounters a ninja and the GM offers up the class as a new selection. the rogue levels to 6 but instead takes a ninja level (1) he now is a rogue 5/ninja 1 but in doing so must continue training as a ninja, he can no longer return to rogue. since this is a sub class his sneak attacks stack, and it does not count as a traditional multiclass (ie the character retains his bonus hit point/skill point).

Now what does this mean in the grand scheme of things.
Well to me I looked at these classes as a change in the flavor of the game.

In the middle east ninja's and samurai's would be commonplace while rogues and cavaliers would be strangers and uncommon.

In the wild west a gunslinger would be the combat form of choice thus making a traditional sword and broad, heavily armored fighter unusual and out of place.

While I could see peoples arguments for mixing it up to make some super fighter/gunslinger, I feel by doing so you lose the uniqueness of these classes and there overall impact of a game setting. This can become traumatic for a GM who wants such oddities to remain mysterious.

Are wrote:

I had a thought for what the capstone ability of the Magus could be that would make me more likely to want to go all the way in the class, and came up with this:

Reflecting the likeness between Spell Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting, how about making the capstone ability similar to Improved Two-Weapon Fighting? That is, when using Spell Combat at 20th level, you can cast 2 spells instead of the normal 1.

I'm not sure how balanced it would be, though (it would probably need some penalties), but it would certainly be something that would be an "awe factor" when talking about the Magus class.

I had the same idea when commenting on the magus HERE.

However with SmiloDan's concern about using too many spells in a day mine utilizes the existing spells energy and effectively gives you a chance of recasting the spell on the same or even a second target (although with a much higher DC). It does require a little tweeking of the existing spell combat rules however.

graywulfe wrote:
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.

I dont want to offend here Graywulfe, I 100% understand where your coming from with the roleplaying / rollplaying stance, however, this is a Playtest. The sole purpose of these posts and suggestions is to find loopholes, broken mechanics, and ultimately fine tune a potentially "roll-playing" class and turn it into a balanced "role-playing" class.

The designers have obviously envisioned the magus as a duel wielder with no thought for 2-handed or ranged fighting styles that incorporate magic. as a result the class is prevented from using those styles with its core ability.

The same occured with the cavalier during playtest, although in reverse. Precision based damage to be added to challenges (my guess is to mimic the cavaliers flavour for jousts and duels), however people jumped on this extra damage and applied it to two weapon fighting which produced much more damage per round. The lack of foresight and open ended nature of precision damage made every cavalier a two-weapon fighting machine. The precision based damage was ultimately dropped in favor of adding class level to damage.

Cartigan wrote:
Quijenoth wrote:
The Magus grants the class the unique ability to cast a spell while fighting as part of a full round action without the need for quicken spell to turn the spell into a swift action or a Still spell to avoid the empty hand dependancy This is effectively 2 effects.
Except you can NEVER not only use one hand. If you Still all your spells, you can STILL not use Spell Combat except with one-handed weapons.

Exactly! Spell Combat is the ability to use one handed or light weapons only. Its not "pretending" to be the still spell feat.

Dont get me wrong, I agree there needs to be "Other" options for the class and the Spell Combat ability as a class defining ability is "pigeon-holed" as you like to call it.

My concern is that, not only is the class handicapped with his choice of weapons, hes also handicapped in his spell choice AND spell level (6th max) making metamagic feats less appealing to a class that would benefit greatly from them. The strength in the class should be his focus on weilding a weapon and a spell at the same time. he should have far greater access to damaging spells to compensate for the loss of 2 handed weapons.

The book also needs to consider new wizard sorcerer spells that are designed for the magus in mind but that would benefit any other melee casters too.

Someone also mentioned something about crit multipliers and increased threat range and a magus could sure use a way to increase the potential crits on spells he casts while using spell combat.

As a whole the class falls short in every category it tries to emulate - be that the role of the fighter or the role of the mage. compared alongside the rogue or bard and again the class ends up falling short by not covering enough areas as the others do. yes he may do more damage than a bard or rogue but he lacks the skills to fill that roll in a party. The magus is yet another "5th-Wheel" that wont find his way into the average party makeup.

Kaisoku wrote:

I don't think anyone was arguing that this could have been done before, without making a new rule.

What I'm arguing is that restricting it to one-handed melee weapons or lighter makes this as restrictive as a prestige class (Duelist to be specific), such that we now have a base class that only allows for a very specific build concept.
No arcane archer Magus types. No zweihander Magus types. No ranged combat focus at all Magus types, not even throwing a weapon. No Monk/Magus combos (for an arcane fist like combination).

I'd rather have less powers than "must be melee, onehanded, or cut out a major class ability". No other base class has such a specific restriction on method of combat.

Thats a valid point but then no other class tries to bridge the gap of a gish class into a "new" base class like the magus does either (with perhaps the exception of the bard).

If you look at my suggested changes on the "Better late than never..." post the magus becomes more of a melee character than a wizard/fighter gish by effectively limiting him to evocation spells while increasing his BAB to match a fighter.

I don't think its the spell combat ability that restricts multi-classing though, more like the limited capability it has been presented in with this first printing. By using the TWF mechanic without actually applying logical combat rules you are handicapping the class into that style of combat. if however you took the ability, as an improvement on a new "Special Action" rule then the magus would have regained some multi-classing validity. interraction with unarmed strike needs to be clearly written, not hinted at, and spell combat from the magus "should" encourage a broader specialisation similar to that of a ranger selecting his combat style. The result would create different styles of magus meaning in a single party you could have a twf magus alongside a ranged magus and even a 2hf magus.

1 to 50 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.