Razz's page

Suit yourself. I don't think that rule applies in your case. In fact I think it rather ridiculous.

None of the examples attached to the rule even talk about the situation you are asking about. The rule is explicitly talking about walking into a narrow space between two physical barriers, among several other things that, according to physics, make these penalties absolutely out of place for your scenarios.

I just went over Squeezing rules earlier before seeing the replies here, and I'd have to say I agree. As long as the square is half-covered or less for the space you're taking up, it's considered squeezing. Anymore and the square is illegit. That's been solved for me now.

It just gets weird when a creature takes up a bigger space.

Also, thanks for the melee cover rule. I thought I read something different, but it does appear that the object has to be between the attacker and the defender for it to count.

I would like to see more monsters from the Cthulhu Mythos such as the shoggoth (now in the bestiary). I really like that kind of monsters.

Alien monsters can be a lot of fun. (not alien as in space invaders however)

A temptation devil ("just sign on the dotted line here and you will be rich for as long as you live")

Ok, we came upon a dilemma during gaming and it involves when you are allowed to enter a square.

Ok, so I remember reading in a rule book, not sure if it's the 3.5 PHB, D&D FAQ, or whatever (I can't find it now) but it stated if a square was partially taken up then it's ok to enter it.

I'll post a picture as an example:

Entering Partial Squares

So can a character enter a square marked in blue?

Or no?

Would there be some sort of penalties associated with this?

Also, according to the rules, standing in such a square actually provides cover to enemies attacking you in melee, since a line drawn from a character that passes through a solid object on ANY corner of a square provides cover. (which is odd, especially considering if the "cover" is "behind" your character)

Thanks for any feedback.

Improved Buckler Defense from Complete Warrior changes that, it actually makes bucklers more useful.

My wish list woould include more "Plane-touched" beside Aasimar, Gensai, and Tiefling. Specifically Law, Chaos and Energy (both Positive and Negative) plane touched type races.

I dunno if there is a similar thread, but here's the first if not.

I've heard word of Paizo doing a Bestiary II and, as far off as that is, I'd like to start a "Wish List" nice and early.

So, here're some things I'd like to see in Bestiary II:

---More Giants
---More Fey
---New Linnorms
---New Inevitables
---New Outsiders (azati, agathion, axiomites, angels, etc.)

But one set of creatures I'd like to see more of, and I think it'd be an interesting set of new dragons for Pathfinder, are new Arcane Dragons from Dragon Magazine #343. (or something similar, you guys can still use them right, or do your own version?) The Tome and Hex Dragons were in that, and it looked as if it was planned to be extended but the sudden end of Dragon's publication prevented that, it seems.

Razz wrote:

Let's not bring up my player's eldritch knight, because that character has turned out to be a way too powerful of a character that I don't think any psion can pull off at the same level he is.

The lack of a practised spellcaster feat in Pathfinder might change that a bit for campaigns that keep strictly to "core".

Half of Pathfinder is really being able to work with the WotC 3.5 books with little changes. They were adamant about backwards compatibility. So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books. So I do hope they keep in mind this fact, otherwise what was the point of strongly upholding the whole "3.5e compatible" if they're just going to do reprints of WotC's material? (unless the "reprint" is a Pathfinder version, like a Pathfinder version of the Ninja class, for example)

All I know is this, the Cavalier needs to be different and unique to the prestige class in Complete Warrior and the Knight in PHB2. It can have some similarities, but also still vastly different. Also, it's confusing between Cavalier PrC and Cavalier the Pathfinder Class, maybe if the Pathfinder Cavalier can be called something else, the Gallant or something?

As for the Oracle, I need something to replace the Favored Soul and this looks like it could be it. Except I believe it needs: Medium Armor proficiency, all good saves, and the option of choosing Channel Energy as an alternative class ability.

I dunno, the guys that did Tome of Horrors received permission from WotC to do their 1st volume (two of which, as mentioned before, are slaad lords but whatever). Is WotC now too hostile to ask for permission on specific other creatures everyone knows they probably won't ever bother with? The list is small, I am sure, but I'm sure there're a few jewels.

Oh don't get me wrong, thematically fitting Paizo's daemons with WotC's yugoloths is easy. They're both similar enough, so no complaints really. Just using an example.

Yeah, as for Paizo being unique, I somewhat agree with that. I just take Pathfinder's "backwards-compatible, keep your game the same as before just with some new updates" to heart. And, to me, slaad, rilmani, modrons, and such were as "D&D" to me as the main 5 metallic dragons always being Gold, Silver, Copper, Bronze, and Brass (not this Adamatine and Iron crap 4E has going). So I use Paizo's stuff, like I said earlier, as either good substitutes or additions (new inevitables for Law plane, Proteans as primordial Limbo beings, Daemons as Yugoloths). Well, anything having to do with beyond the Material Plane anyway, I blame Planescape for that and it got worse when all campaigns followed the same theme, though I like that because it provides consistency (I lost a part of my soul seeing what they did with the cosmology in 4E).

I personally like to find ways to keep that theme, and I know a suggestion of mine won't be considered but the voice had to at least be heard. I will admit it's my fault for assuming Pathfinder was to be a carbon-copy of WotC's 3.5e, I knew better. Blame the hole 4E blasted in my favorite pasttime, honestly.

The curses for Oracle need some balance, since nothing they have is gamebreaking.

---Give them all good saves
---Give them the option of choosing Channel Energy for something else
---Give them Medium armor proficiency

Other than that, make sure there's a healthy amount of foci and it's almost perfect.

Razz wrote:

Also, give it ALL good saves like the Monk. For someone born with inner divine power, it should have "Outsider-like" saving throws, not just Will while the Cleric has two good saves.

Outsiders only get 2 good saves now in Pathfinder. Only monks and dragons get all good saves.

ok my entire post disappeared, weird. Now I just have to shorten it.

Cavalier: Needs to be different from WotC's Complete Warrior Cavalier prestige class. I had suggestions for more mounted abilities, like being able to add a template to it (imagine a Fire template steed!). Make it more of a class and not a prestige class. Needs to scream out "I am not a full class version of a PrC, not a non-divine Paladin and not a non-mounted Knight (from PHB2)"

Oracle: Grant a substitute ability, like how Paladin can choose between Bonded mount or weapon, and Wizard can either choose familiar or item. Oracle should have something to choose between Channel Energy and ???. Also give it proficiency with Medium armor. Also, give it ALL good saves like the Monk. For someone born with inner divine power, it should have "Outsider-like" saving throws, not just Will while the Cleric has two good saves.

That's my paraphrase, I had more than that, but my post never posted and I don't feel like re-typing all of it again.

Just to clarify things, no matter what cheese someone here finds that a psion can do, a wizard/sorcerer can do it just the same or even better. When you see the amount of spell combinations my players come up with for their characters, you begin to realize that a psion is perfectly balanced compared to what a wizard/sorcerer can pull off. Let's not bring up my player's eldritch knight, because that character has turned out to be a way too powerful of a character that I don't think any psion can pull off at the same level he is.

Callous Jack wrote:

Exactly. There a lot of immature and melodramatic gamers out there (and on these boards). No matter what Paizo does, many will still find reason to complain and possibly not buy their products. If they can't be patient and wait until the time, manpower and money are there to make a quality book, then I don' see why Paizo should worry about "customers" like that.

while I agree Paizo imo caanot just ignore any segment of the fanbase. 3.5 and to a certain extent Pathfinder is a niche market imo. Unlike 4E they do not have that large a pool of fans.

Meanwhile, the same folks stick with 3.5E or have signed onto Pathfinder with wild abandon. So I think it's safe to say Paizo has their fanbase as large as 4E (and I dare not say larger than 4E, only because I believe the ones that didn't go with Pathfinder just decided to stick with 3.5e or some earlier edition to do what WotC failed to do...which was remember their roots).

Razz wrote:

Personally, unless it's the rilmani, I'm not too interested in Paizo's version unless they keep them the same and just change the copyrighted name of "rilmani" to something else. Do the Bill Gates thing, pretty much.

That's a kind of pointless attitude, what if their better? Clearly the Rilmani didn't fly, so maybe this race will be far more engaging and actually warrant some use and attention, I don't think paizo would plan them out and have them boring, I don't just understand why anything except a Rilmani clone is suitable.

On the subject of other outsider races, I cannot wait to see what the proposed for Bestiary II true nuetral outsider race is!

Personally, unless it's the rilmani, I'm not too interested in Paizo's version unless they keep them the same and just change the copyrighted name of "rilmani" to something else. Do the Bill Gates thing, pretty much.

I'd rather see 3 volumes of "Books of the Exalted" after these 3 volumes of Books of the Damned. Archons, Elad---er--Azati, and Guardin---cough---Agathions. No room for Angels...hmm...maybe 4 volumes?

Two volumes on Law and Chaos would be sweet, for proteans and axiomites/inevitables.

Some people, such as myself, want my games to go past 20th-level. Not all of us see 20th-level as the limit, just a breaking point (like 5th level, and 10th-level feels like to us).

My group is heavily inspired by japanese anime and comic books, so yes, I'd like to run a very comic-book, anime-inspired, DBZ-action type game where my PCs can play characters that can take on a flight of great red wyrms, eat a tarrasque for breakfast, bring hell to Hell itself, or battle against Tiamat's avatar (and not her aspect). So an epic-level Pathfinder book would be just the key to acquire the ruleset a DM would need, and the game material a group of epic-level characters can scan through to build that sort of character. Sometimes my players don't get the kind of character they imagine unless they can take it to epic-level (due to multiclassing).

Fortunately, my games start, always, at 1st-level so the chances of my players (who make multiple characters frequently) actually attaining a set of epic level characters is far off. But, I am hoping, when that day comes that Paizo can support that style of gameplay for us. The sooner the better.

Surprised no one has come in to officially rule this already. But yet, I see they take the time to go an errata something that didn't need errata on another thread --- making Improved Natural Attack unavailable to monks. But they can't come in to simply state whether or not cover applies to CMD? ><

Razz wrote:

Now if all my Monk players were jotting that feat down onto their character sheets, that'd be a different story.

They would if:

• It was actually in the player's guide (it wasn't designed for players to take).
  
• They knew it stacks with both effects that increase size and the monk's normal unarmed strike progression. Various feats/spells that increase size or the monk's unarmed strike progression all benefit from this feat.
  
• They knew it's overall better than Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Specialization. Those feats are static; this feat continues to get better as you gain levels. It shouldn't be better than 2 feats with higher prereqs. Depending on what you stack with it, it can become 4 times better than Weapon Specialization at level 12.
  
• They understand there's no way to get rid of this feat. Other effects (monk's robe, enlarge person, polymorph) can be dispelled or otherwise removed.

So mostly it's a matter of ignorance. And of course, anyone who is trying to take feats to roleplay a specific character wouldn't take this feat. Anyone who takes this is trying to optimize damage output.

And Weapon Specialization is Fighter exclusive and opens a Fighter to other feat chains. (outside core books, I mean) Has nothing to do with Monks.

I don't see the feat as a game-breaking at all really.

The simplest and best way to judge a feat being too good has always been this: Does EVERY single player want it? If the answer is no, then your feat is halfway to being a balanced feat for your game.

I have DMed many Monk characters over the years, and I do show them that INA is eligible for them to take. So far, not one decided to do it as they wanted to invest a feat slot in something else to build their character and only ONE is considering it. It's nice, but not GREAT. And that shows a balanced feat.

Now if all my Monk players were jotting that feat down onto their character sheets, that'd be a different story. But they don't, and I honestly don't see many Monk players outside of my group that do have it (though this could be because most of them that I have talked to had no idea about INA and didn't know a Monk can legitly take it when they did know.)

For the record, from Sage Advice:

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?

Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack. Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.

Just saw the post where it's been errata'd for Pathfinder. Not too keen on doing that. I see nothing wrong with someone using a feat slot just to increase their unarmed damage by one size category. Everything else has the ability to increase with just a feat. And the feat can only be taken once.

I guess I'll stick with the 3.5e official version of Improved Natural Attack.

Order Coleoptera wrote:

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Actually...

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.

I just looked at the upcoming releases. They appear to be going to do "race" books. Welcome back to the moronic days of 2e/3e splat book blot. Great chance for WotC to inject some sensibility into D&D after 3.x or so I thought 4e would be. I thought that the multi-PHB/DMG/MM's were quite a good idea to keep things in check - one per year, simple. Then of course the "powers" books were released, but grouped so things still weren't too overloading - but heading that way. But idea of races books just annoys 3 kinds of excretment out of me. UUURRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

Yeh, yeh I know - they need to make money, yada, yada... Doesn't make it any less annoying however.

In 1e you needed a bag to carry your books, in 2e you needed a compact car, in 3e you needed a station wagon, and now in 4e it looks like a semi would be a good investment.

S.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!

With the lineup of books I see coming, I can see that number doubling the 2nd year. Not including all the crazy, funky mechanics like Hybrid Characters and that new skill stuff coming in PHB3 and then Martial Power 2's Ritual-like martial abilities. Let's not forget Dragon Magazine adds a ton of crap. That's ridiculous. Is that what D&D will boil down to in about 5 years? Hundreds of thousands of...stuff?

2e was overload of fluff and 4e an overload of crunch...it seems only 1e and 3e had the perfect balance set. The odd-numbered editions seem to be doing great...maybe 5E will bring D&D back to normal again.

lastknightleft wrote:

You know that's pretty much what I'd figured, So when do we change the name of nagas to human snake?

The goblin snake should not be taken as a relation to nagas or suggest a monstrous trend common to all races. Nagas are their own distinct family with their own heritage and the goblin snake isn't meant to tread toward that, even if it has general similarities. New nagas, of which we have done at least one, are inspired by Indian myth and are meant to fit in with those existing breeds. Really, I'd liken the goblin/goblin snake relationship to that of drow and driders, a grotesquery brought about by a curse, magic, divine anger, or whatever have you that has breed true into the limited populations that survive today. As there's little published information on the creature, whether it's silly or not largely relies on how its presented and the capability of the GM.

I never understood why Overrun should be a Standard Action. It should be part of movement with a Move Action and given the possibility of mowing through more than one foe. I mean, if you're big and strong enough, you should be able to overrun through multiple opponents, shoving by or knocking down whatever stands in your way.

If you're in a 5-foot wide hall and 3 orcs block your way and you need to get to the other side in a hurry and can't tumble past them due to lack of skill, a burly warrior should be able to try and bulldoze past all of them. I was hoping Paizo would've fixed that. I'm glad they made Bull Rush like that (and I guess one could just use Bull Rush, but then what's the difference between Bull Rush and Overrun?)

For one, it's a fantasy game so I'm not worried about actual physics. As for moving up at full speed, as the last poster stated, if you have negligible weight than it should be no harder to fly up than horizontally. What about supernatural flyers, like beholders, also? The hummingbird can do it without much problem, either, a real life creature.

As for the DC, well if you look at most of the DCs for the flying maneuvers, they're all pretty low, only a poor and clumsy would have any real problems with it, an average with skill ranks can do well, and good and perfect need only a couple ranks to perform those maneuvers easily. Flying up should be the hardest, DC 25 is good for that.

I guess DC 20 or maybe 25 for something like that sounds good.

Um, what about hummingbirds? There are creatures in D&D that can fly at that kind of mobility, like will o' wisps I believe.

In 3.5E, a creature with Perfect maneuverability can fly up at normal speed. But in Pathfinder, it says you fly up at half speed and doesn't offer the skill check needed to fly up faster than that.

Was that omitted or intended?

RAW says no, but all common sense says yes.

The problem is, I don't think Cover has a named bonus to the AC it provides, does it? Unless it's just "cover bonus". It'd make more sense if it was a "circumstantial bonus", actually.

I see a split line between this. Maybe James or someone can help us with this?

I haven't seen it anywhere, but does Cover bonus to AC also apply to CMD? Sounds like it'd make sense it would.

We came upon a weird problem with Invisibility during play and I was wondering if someone here can help us solve it.

Normally, you must use Acrobatics to tumble or use Overrun to go through an enemy square. But what if you're Invisible? (and the enemy is unaware of you being there invisible to being with) Can you move through them normally?

Now what happens if it tries to move through your space without any knowledge of you being there? Does it just stop and automatically bump into the invisible creature? Or does it pass freely?

Had this problem come up when one of my players, invisible, was trying to move past a Large Ogre Zombie in his way. The argument was he should've been able to walk through, but no ruling says that. We kinda had to go with the Acrobatics check. Then the zombie, unaware, was time to move and it needed to move through the square he was occupying, leading to the next dilemma.

Any thoughts?

From my experience DMing psionics in my 3E/3.5E games, I have come to see that my players truly feel like they are playing a psionic character. Something vastly different from the Sorcerer, Cleric, Wizard, and yet still it's own niche. There is the massive flexibility in manifesting your power, the Astral Plane, ectoplasm, and crystal theme, the way psionic focus works and how it's tied to the psionic feats which lets you do some cool sci-fi/Matrix-style/Shounen-anime/badass stunts and maneuvers, and then there is the flexibility of taking this stuff and expanding it further (like what WotC did with Incarnum and Tome of Magic). I think the biggest problem with psionics is the fact no one wants to deal with a new ruleset and that it needs more abilities that are PSIONIC ONLY. Too many psionic powers convert to spells and vice versa, there has to either be a line drawn somewhere (like psionicists can do Enchantment type stuff way better than anyone else, for example) But isn't some of the fun of playing a TTRPG is to, once in awhile, invite something brand new and exciting to the table when things get kinda stale after making the 5th Fighter, the 12th Wizard, and the 30th Rogue character?

And I thought the XPH did that perfectly. Honestly, what is there so much of to remember!? I can spell out the entire sub-system right here in one paragraph:

Psionics can be transparent or separate from magic, your choice. Psionic powers work like spells. They don't have somatic, component, or verbal components. You use power points, each power costing a specific amount of power points. You can increase or change the strength of a power by adding more power points into it. Can only use as many points as manifester level. Psionic characters can acquire psionic focus, which powers special psionic abilities through prestige class abilities and feats. Some require you to keep the focus on, others to expend it.

That's really all there is to it. After reading some of the reasons for the dislike or hatred of it, I still don't understand.

Agreed. Spring Attack is still a Move Action, so you only get one attack, regardless.

Umm, hedges offer concealment and all you need is concealment to make Stealth checks. Also, if the dog and farmer are asleep, they're blind, which gives enemies concealment---which means you can make Stealth checks!

What I find funny is someone just bringing a tower shield. They offer cover (which is useful for Stealth) so you can walk around and make Stealth checks with a tower shield...assuming you can get around that hefty check penalty.

I have yet to see what is so wrong with the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic? I have been DMing 3E with psionics for years and I have the full effect of:

1) It is different and feels different and is well-balanced with the magic system.

2) My players are happy (and actually feel like they are playing a psionicist and not being a wizard with enchantment spells and no somatics, verbal, or components...they can see through that crap easily) and all of them, at some point, has made a psionic character and it was never unbalanced in the slightest.

Can someone point out what is so wrong with 3.5e psionics? I've been using them since first published and I've never encountered any problems (well in 3.0, a few, but not 3.5 psionics).

I'm creating a combat Rogue. The conception of the character isn't a thief, but more of a scout: useful in combat with groups. I don't care about traps or locks, or anything like that. (I would post my character to this thread, but it's been closed.) My constraints are 20 points and 6th level, but don't let that constrain you in your comments.

William Sinclair wrote:

Razz wrote:

William Sinclair wrote:

underling wrote:

clever way to rub in that you have yours already. Grrr. Amazon better ship before the November 12th date on their site.

Oh no, I just have the PDF. The book won't be here for another few days.

Since you have the PDF book, what're the new linnorms might I ask?

As per the index in the preview: Crag, Ice, and Tarn. None of the standard ones, but at least they're in there.

Actually.. they ARE the standard ones for Pathfinder. The linnorms from Monster Manual II are not open content, but the idea of a linnorm as a serpentine dragon comes from real-world mythology. We were able to do new linnorms from the ground up, but weren't able to grandfather in the MM2 versions.

Not that we can't simply use the MM2 ones for Pathfinder, but it's strange to think they can lock you out altogether from developing your own version of those types of linnorms?

underling wrote:

clever way to rub in that you have yours already. Grrr. Amazon better ship before the November 12th date on their site.

Oh no, I just have the PDF. The book won't be here for another few days.

What fans do with monsters for their home games, including updating illithids and beholders to work for Pathifnder, is their business.

But once you post conversions like this in a public place, such as online in messageboards, you open yourself up to legal action from WotC since you're encroaching on their IP. Same thing would happen if you drew a Mickey Mouse comic strip and put it online... Disney would come by your place and ask you to stop.

As a result, we certainly don't want or need Pathfinderized beholders or mind flayers showing up on these boards.

How does public domain work? I've heard of it, not sure on its specifics. Isn't Mickey Mouse public domain now? Something about after 50 years or so...I guess I should just look it up, eh? I do have the Internet *lol*

Razz wrote:

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

If you want your head to explode, dwell on this.. The slaad lord of entropy and slaad lord of insanity are in the Tome of Horrors revised and are open content...

Psionics is another form of power. It is not *just* 'a third form of magic' to me. Yes, it has been broken and improperly built and used before, but that's not the nature of my response here. I could share how I feel it could be improved, but that's not my focus either. My focus is on "Why is it here?"

To me, psionics represent a departure from the traditional 'swords and sorcery' model. It is an extension of fantasy, as people play PNP games to indulge in fantasy. Therefore, people want multiple ways to engage their imaginations.

It's the same reason that a lot of things that weren't essential to PNP games have been added. Why new worlds are built. New supplements. Etc, ad infinitum.

Psionics scratch an itch that some people have, while remaining optional.

Simply put, it's a matter of demand. Someone, a long time ago, asked for psionics. The designers provided. And we've had them ever since.

Can psionics be done with magic? Essentially, yes. Is it extra fluff? Yes.

Does that address the concern while remaining on topic?

And to further validate that, there's a double standard. Magic is thrown in sci-fi settings all the time. Final Fantasy, for example, is just one of the many. Is anyone complaining about their sci-fi being tainted by magic or asking "Why is magic here?" Not really.

It's that line of reasoning why I have yet to see a solid, Oriental Adventures setting. We have tons of material on Euro-medieval fantasy but for once I'd like to see a company start producing solid, fun, and excellent works of Oriental-medieval fantasy (I hope Pathfinder can do this, or a 3rd Party, cause WotC never will and it'd be for $e anyway).

Which leads to another point---Monks. Clearly an exotic, Eastern, mystical influence that has no place being side-by-side with knights, wizards, and barbarians. Complaints from anyone? A little. But every fantasy-themed setting has a ki channeling martial arts master springing into action. Even a hardcore Euro-fantasy setting like Final Fantasy Tactics throws in the Monk, Samurai and Ninja classes. (And yet we hear people say "Why the need for a Samurai and Ninja class?" which mirrors exactly what's happening here...though that can be for another discussion.)

Jared Ouimette wrote:

Because casting a spell and praying to a god and using the innate power of your mind are all equally awesome ways of killing people?

Sorcerers are in effect using personal power to access arcane spells. There is no reason you couldn't call it mental powers instead of arcane for a certain type of casters, you could even make that a bloodline effect. But why does it need a new spell list or new rules? Can you not accomplish making a psionic character with existing lists?

For all that it matters in Pathfinder you really have only one type of magic, Clerics and Druids call their uses for it divnine and Wizards and their ilk call it Arcane, but in effect it all follows the same rules. There is no reason I could not create a world of no gods but still have "Clerics" and call them White Mages, and use the existing cleric spell lists as their spell lists. Same magic, different use in that situation.

So if all you want to do is call existing spells "Psionic" go for it. But I am asking do you think there is a need for a completely different spell list and structure for this new magic type?

Sometimes the only way to make something feel different is to make it different by giving it its own set of rulings and mechanics, it's own sub-system. All the while making sure it meshes with existing material and mechanics so it doesn't feel like you're using two very different rule-sets for the same game.

The Sorcerer thing fails on so many levels. Psionicists use no gestures, components, or arcane phrases, for one. The Bloodline abilities do not work for Psionicists at all. Neither do the skill set. And so on.

The Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic have done wonders to show you a 3rd system can be done in a way to make it work perfectly. The Mind's Eye articles on the D&D Website. Let's not also forget Malhavoc's Hyperconscious and Dreamscarred Press have developed even more material to make psionics very unique, different, and truly worth the 3rd subsystem of supernatural powers.

That is such an odd list of monsters to hold back. The beholder and mind flayer are understandable. Along with githzerai and githyanki. But the slaad? That one seems really out of place, I didn't think WotC was so interested in them despite the fact they hardly do anything with them and I know others that can do a much better job.

And yeah, it is surprising how many they DIDN'T hold back---Balor, Pit Fiend, Inevitables, Formians, Angels, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin, Otyugh, Roper, Drow Elves, all the Dragons, Rakshasa and so on. No complaints here though LOL

Razz wrote:

My whole problem is there is no justification to waste a feat slot on this, moreso for a player than an NPC. Not many players are stupid, I'm bound to have one of mine catch this flaw and throw it in my face one day (especially since on of them plays a Favored Soul and switched the bonus feats for Channel Energy and takes Divine feats).

Fortunately, there's more than one feat to choose from. This feat's in the game mostly to appease folks who wanted an option to have turning work the way it did in every previous edition of the game... if it feels "stupid" to one person, that person can simply ignore it in favor of the many, many other feats in the game, while the person who thinks it's a cool feat still gets to use it in HIS game.

There's a design flaw in it being the way it is now. For flavor, yes, someone choosing to Turn Undead instead of dealing damage makes sense. But then your fellow players are clawing your back when those same undead return later on and you begin to realize just damaging them and killing them off was the better idea to begin with. Feats are supposed to enhance or provide an equal alternative, not a downgrade.

Personally, I've decided to allow the feat to harm AND turn the undead. (so that the undead that haven't been killed now run off in terror on a failed saved, half damage and no fleeing on a success).

But that's the fun of it all! When else are you gonna use squeezing rules. Any encounters, of course, should grant extra XP to the PCs.

There's a number of feats I've seen before that enhance fighting while squeezing, even a few prestige classes, so I think it's assumed that PCs are going to find themselves in situations often, being a dungeon-delving game and all.

Cool, thanks everyone.

For some reason it's no spelled clearly at all in the section about Combat Maneuvers. It talks about using your CMB, along with bonuses received from the weapon you use in the Combat Maneuver. But it doesn't say what weapons can be used in which CM. I doubt you can use a rapier during an overrun, I'm assuming unarmed strike? The same goes for Trip, can't really use a dagger for a trip attack. Maybe a shield for a bull rush, but a light crossbow? Like I said, none of this is clear whereas the D20 SRD states what types of weapons are used (or not used) for such maneuvers.

Whatever happened to spiked chains, guisarmes, and other hook-like or whip-like weapons having the ability to use the weapon to trip?