Razz's page

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I have to admit, I did hate to deal with characters from Shou Lung that were "Samurai" and "ninja" when they were really Knights and mystically trained assassins. Plus people feel like if a class is named samurai, they have to have a katana as their main weapon, which again didn't seem quite right for Shou Lung.

Exactly! Unless a base class is intended to apply to a fairly narrow geographical region like Ninja and Samurai did, there is no reason to use those names.

In fact, in the "naming of the Magus thread", James and Erik expressed exactly that reservation when discounting several of the regional/national warrior nametypes. Why would this be any different?

My stance is solidifying. I call for new classes — there is a need — but they need broader names. Ninja and samurai both hail from such a tiny sliver of time and geography when compared to the rest of east Asia.

I'd have to disagree because the core classes do not emulate this at all. The Monk and the Paladin are the worst of the lot. The Monk is based off a fantasy-themed, supernatural version of the Shaolin monks. Yet it's scattered in a myriad of fantasy settings in D&D and Pathfinder from a Viking setting, to an Egyptian setting, or a Medieval Euro-setting, but still titled "Monk".

The same with Paladin. Paladins don't fit in with an Egyptian-like setting or even a Viking or Indian-flavored setting, but they still use them in such settings and are still called "Paladins". Though, of course, the DM is the one that probably enforces a different name.

The same would go for Samurai and Ninja. Changing the names to anything else takes away the attraction and the image. If a PC makes a Ninja but is in a Chinese-like setting, then it's up to the DM to remind them they're not called Ninja, but something else. No different than a DM telling a player you're not called a "Monk" in a Native American-like setting, or a "Paladin" when playing in an Egyptian-like setting.

I have to admit, I did hate to deal with characters from Shou Lung that were "Samurai" and "ninja" when they were really Knights and mystically trained assassins. Plus people feel like if a class is named samurai, they have to have a katana as their main weapon, which again didn't seem quite right for Shou Lung.

More of the fault of the players than the setting. There are "ninja" classed characters in Shou Lung, but yes, under a different name and culture, as briefly outline in the Kara-Tur supplements. In the movie Iron Monkey, the characters dressed and emulated ninja qualities, but just weren't called ninja. But I am sure the majority of the audience were ignorant enough to say "Oh, this movie has ninjas" despite it being set in China. LOL

WotC is partially to blame, too. Having already stated stealing ideas from MMOs like World of Warcraft (and, in previous months before that statement, saying they weren't emulating MMOs...oh the hypocrisy) in their designer blogs, articles, and in their 2 pre-4E release "Wizards Presents" books (Worlds&Monsters and Classes&Races), the situation is probably worse thanks to 4E. Which has a severely heavy influence of all sorts of MMO-style terms, gameplay, number-crunching, and heavy, tactical combat encounters.

I've just told my players that "you will gain a level every 4th session, from now to eternity" and they go with that. They plan ahead and know when they will advance and it allows them to ignore things like worrying about if they've gotten enough encounters in or if they wasted too much time roleplaying in town talking to commoners about selling loot etc. This way they just play naturally, without concern for meta elements like worrying if they've killed enough bad things to advance or not.

Works for me.

Either your players fly through encounters very quickly, or these players find themselves becoming 20th-level before they even get to their 3rd encounter. In 4 sessions, my players either just finished a combat encounter and have finally progressed the quest to an RP encounter, or they're in the middle of a 2nd combat encounter.

Zurai wrote:

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Here's your dunce cap, go sit in the corner.

This isn't a "boo hoo I don't get acid arrow" thread, it's a "what the hell was the logic used in making the spell list so I can expand it with 3rd party products" thread.

I don't quite get the hostility, either. Sure, it's Razz, who is not always easy to deal with, and depending on how you read the original post, you might read some hostility into it, but the original post really isn't anything like a whining thread. It's a request for explanation. Maybe a bit towards being a demand for explanation, but not that much really.

And in the end, I'd like to hear some insights into this as well, though I suspect the design process had a big part of "play it by ear" in it (some things just can't be tied down with numbers).

Thanks...I think? LOL

I mean, you nailed it. I wasn't whining on anything at all. I was just really curious why the funky, random, unthemed spell gets thrown in the mix of such a tightly-themed spell list for the class. It just seemed really funky, and I was curious if it was intentional, and if so, why? That way, maybe I could look over all my non-PF spells and see which "whacky" spells I could consider adding to the list.

Dunno if it's been asked, but:

[b]How is it Invisibility adds +20 to Stealth when it relies entirely on sight? A character shouldn't be harder for an enemy to hear them using Stealth since Invisibility only makes you lack the sight to notice them. This is why Listen and Spot should've been seperate Perception uses of the skill, or Hide, and Move Silently seperate uses of the Stealth skill

So I'm expanding the spell list for the Summoner in my games, pouring through each spell from the Spell Compendium, PHB2, Complete Book of Eldritch Might, Complete Mage, and a few others.

Now, I can see a repetitive theme going on. Spells that grant the summoner some protection, can enhance their eidolon and summoned creatures, conjuration spells, conjuration (creation) spells, teleportation, interdimensional, planar spells, a little bit of misdirection and physical enhancements.

Now I do not see anything that actually deals damage. Clearly not a "magic blaster" type. But then I see something whacky like Aqueous Orb. Ok, it's a Conjuration (Creation), fine. There's not many of those that deal damage. But then, why didn't it receive Acid Arrow as a spell? That's Conjuration (Creation). Which points out another whacky one, Acid Splash at 0-level. An acid spell, Conjuration...but no Acid Arrow spell?

Then I see one wayyyyy at 6th-level...Incendiary Cloud. What!? Just when I thought it didn't really receive any "cloud/fog/mist" conjuration spells, I see this thing pop out of no where!

James, someone...anyone...explain to me this process of choosing Summoner spells. I'd like to know if those were mistakes or was the Summoner intended to have more Conjuration damaging spells?

It's very simple for me.

Do what you want to psionics.

BUT

It better be backwards compatible. I better be able to integrate my Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic, Hyperconscious, and Dreamscarred Press books with the Pathfinder one. That's what really matters to me. (which obviously means it's best to keep the power point and augment systems)

If not, then it'll be one heck of a Paizo Fail first for me.

Is it an outsider or has the extraplanar subtype? Simple. Protection from Evil. It won't stop any spell-like abilities from affecting the NPC, except any mind-control effects, but it can't physically harm it either.

You may have to resort to non-Pathfinder spells, as in WotC 3.5e spells. I'm sure the cleric can find something in the Spell Compendium that could help.

Reading just the 1st post, I saw the problems already. First off, it was 6 characters, not the average 4. Next, with half of them at such high AC, you need more bruisers.

My shadow would've taken down at least one of them. First, they're incorporeal. I always have my incorporeals hide behind a wall or under the ground and reach out. This means the PCs have to ready an action to attack, and the incorporeal still gets cover bonus to AC. I am not sure, but this also means the incorporeal has a 50% miss chance since he can't see the opponent (but can sense who is adjacent to the object they're occupying I think). This is why you see some incorporeals given Blind Fight as a feat. Since it can fly, Flyby Attack is another great option. Swoop down and touch and move on. It would provoke an AoO probably, but at least it reduces the melee down to ranged only.

The shadow would've been intelligent enough to target the heavily armored ones. That Strength damage would decrease their encumberance limit. I've Ray of Enfeebled a full plate wearer once, their Strength dropped so low they were completely unable to move, I think only a 5 ft. square each round as a full-round action. And taking the full plate off takes minutes. So you can count on that guy being out the fight for good. It can move on to the others.

Even after the encounter, that CR 3 shadow just caused your members to use up some valuable resources. Healing for the Strength damage, spells being cast to make weapons magical, and force magic to take it down. It would've done a decent job. This is moot, though, if they're able to easily rest afterwards, but I am assuming they were facing one encounter after the next. Two of them would've made for a much more challenging encounter.

It's all about how well you know your character's limits and how well you know your monsters' strengths.

James Jacobs wrote:

Kvantum wrote:

December? Since when did this get pushed back - again? Seems like a bunch of books just got pushed back. Printer problems, or should we be concerned?

Since when it took us an additional week to get the book put together. Turns out, that one extra week was the one that moved it from November to December.

Doh. And originally wasn't this supposed to be an October release?

Yeah, it was. But it was pushed back for reasons already stated. However, I am sure the ToC was completed by October, so a release of the ToC this month would make sense and the actual book can continue to come out December.

I know, I can't seem to give up begging for it and weaseling some sort of persuasive argument to get it to us quicker. Gotta give me credit for the effort, though LOL

Yes, I am seriously disappointed this got pushed back 3 months from its original date of release.

I think to compensate for this, Paizo should just give us the ToC already to keep us interested and all ;)

So it wouldn't be combined? Like adding the 10th-level NPC treasure with the CR 4 treasure? I calculated it and your method grants less treasure than a CR 14 creature alone gives or a 14th-level NPC gear would give.

Looking at the core book and bestiary, I can see that Treasure gained is based on it being the Average Party Level equivalent to the CR of the monster and on Table 12-5 (page 399), and using one of the progression columns depending on the XP progression.

So, I have a CR 13 enemy against 11th-level PCs for a Fast XP/Medium Fantasy campaign, the Treasure total is 17,500gp.

If facing a CR 13 NPC, the treasure gained would be from a 14th-level NPC as seen on Table 14-9 (page 454). The treasure gained would be 34,800gp.

What if it's a creature with both monster HD and class levels? For example, I have a CR 3 outsider with 10 levels of Inquisitor, thus making it a CR 13 creature. But how do I determine its treasure? Does it use monster treasure from Table 12-5 or does it use NPC gear from Table 14-9?

TABLE OF CONTEEEEENTS! WHEN!?

I don't understand what was wrong with Spring Attack's original ruling?

You can move both before and after making a melee attack.

Making a move is a Move Action. Therefore, your Move Action is used up. Making a melee attack is, normally, a Standard Action. So your Standard Action is used up. Also, anything requiring a Standard Action in conjunction with a melee attack is legal. How is this confusing? Looks like Vital Strike would work perfectly with it, too, since it is a Standard Action attack. I can see Vital Strike being stated to be a Standard Action due to the fact they don't want AoO turning into Vital Strike attacks. It does lock it from being used in a Charge Attack, sadly. Less of a reason to Charge more often, it seems.

Making Spring Attack a Full-Round Action is only causing more harm with characters based on utilizing Spring Attack, and I am sticking with 3.5e version. It really does feel like Paizo is nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed.

** spoiler omitted **

Was there something wrong with barbarian/monks that they had to be effectively killed? One of my players is going to throw a fit (maybe even quitting) when he finds out that his orc barbarian/monk has had its balls cut off.

How exactly do you "forget" to rage? It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

EDIT: I know some of you are smirking at the very idea of a barbarian/monk, but the character was roleplayed quite well and is well-liked by the entire party. This is meant to be a serious discussion. I'm not just dicking around for fun.

Because raging is a primal act, calling upon forces that are both ancient and purely wild, sometimes spiritual, forces to empower you. Hence why some of the Barbarian powers are so over-the-top animalistic or, for a few, shaman-like.

That would take someone that can be in-tune with such a chaotic force. Therefore, possessing a Chaotic alignment. Someone who is Lawful is one that is always in-control of themselves, learning to use discipline and focus to channel their energy and mind instead of primal forces like Barbarians (hence why Monks can harness their ki). Being Lawful means you are no longer in harmony with those chaotic forces to harness them.

I think Paizo members need to play a lot of Final Fantasy (especially Tactics) and watch a lot of anime. Then maybe they will get a good idea of how to make a Samurai and Ninja class while mixing a bit of historical stuff in it.

Who else makes the best fantasy Samurai and Ninja but Japan themselves? Enlighten yourselves, Paizo! :D

I think a new class makes a perfectly good organizing principle for a character's special powers. A class can even be flexible, containing widely varied special powers for a number of different character types (like the Cleric or the Sorcerer).

To that end, I think "ninja" class that contained weird families of powers to choose from based on your clan or whatever, would be neat. I'm thinking that Ninja Scroll type ninjas fit the setting a lot better than any ultra-historical version would, just because weird supernatural powers are the status quo.

Likewise, a Samurai class could very easily serve as an organizing principle for a matrial class with a few Paladin- or Ranger-level supernatural options thrown in. Again, giving a choice for a bunch of new powers makes sense.

Yes there are people out there who want everything from these classes. I say ignore them, but at least a flexible class construction with something akin to domains/bloodlines will give those people the option of getting the ninja/samurai that's right for them.

For my part, making these classes historically accurate is a pointless trap. They should only be as accurate as the super-powered fiction of those cultures, because Pathfinder is a game about superpowers (and fighters are just Batman).

That's just my opinion. I'm not a huge ninja fan, but I see plenty of crazy powers in oriental fiction, so a campaign setting there should be totally doable.

You hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly how I feel a fantasy Samurai and Ninja should be portrayed in a game setting such as D&D or Pathfinder. I can imagine a Samurai with ki abilities similar to the Monk's but geared towards combat and willpower, and definitely daisho abilities, along with staple stuff like Mounted Combat for free, etc.. A Ninja, likewise, that'd be awesome with the different clans, like a Shadow Clan or a Fire Clan, etc.

I hope Paizo saw your post, because that has to be the best post I've ever seen written on how the Samurai and Ninja of the game should be crafted.

Heathansson wrote:

meh....I want a ninja class that's not a "rogue in a ninja suit."

Why not? That's what a ninja is. The black pajamas are entirely a creation of Noh theater, where stagehands wore black uniforms to represent being "unseen." Ninja characters wore similar outfits, then took off their hoods to represent "appearing out of nowhere." Almost all of the huge lore about shadow warriors comes from Noh theater and later things; originally, shinobi were just spies and assassins with the occasional hint of minor mystical powers. Sounds like a rogue with minor magic (and maybe major magic) to me. Even if you take later black-clad, super-jumping, weird-powers ninjas... That's a monk with maxed-out Stealth. Or a rogue or monk with the shadowdancer prestige class.

A rogue reflects a ninja in the same way that it can reflect a pirate, a mobster, a street thug, a spy... You see where I'm going with this. We don't need a separate ninja class. If there's some sort of class archetype to represent a specific cultural thing, that's fine. But a new class is going too far, as would be a sub-class. There's no need. The existing rules work just fine.

Jeremy Puckett

No, that's what a HISTORICAL ninja is.

We're talking fantasy ninja when we ask for a Ninja class. No, not a Rogue/Sorcerer or Monk/Sorcerer. We want something that's a mixture of monk and rogue without resorting to all the multiclassing. It needs to be unique. It needs to also have staple ninja abilities that neither the rogue nor the monk grants.

Now, I don't mean Naruto ninja, what I do mean is something close to the ninja WotC produced in Complete Adventurer, if not a lot better.

Also, according to your logic, we have no need for a Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Ranger, or Paladin.

A Barbarian can just be a Fighter with a tribal background.
A Bard can be a Rogue/Sorcerer with ranks in Perform.
A Monk can be a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer with Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
A Ranger can be a Fighter/Druid with TWF or Archery feats and maxed out Survival.
A Paladin can be a Cleric/Fighter.

However, all of them are their own class with very unique and distinct abilities. A Ninja can be the same thing

Nice pics, but they mean nothing without being next to a ToC ;)

Gorbacz wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Justin Franklin wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Number 3 is deffo Mercane/Arcane.

Are they open? I had assumed they weren't...

If they are though, yeah, that can't be anything but.

edit-Just checked. They're open. There's no way that guy is not a mercane.

Yep, Mercanes are in the SRD.

You know what this means, right?

MERCANE VS WITCHWYRD PITCHOFF

Are the funky mercenary hippos open ? Griffs or whateverer they were called ? Spelljammer surely did birth several odd monsters :)

Giff, hell yeah!

Man I wish, but I don't think anyone tagged 'em while the window was open to do so.

Shame if that's the case. If flintlock-wielding militaristic hippomen don't put a smile on your face, you, sir, are dead inside and have forgotten what it means to love.

Someone did update 'em for 3rd Edition though.

No need, they updated the Giffs to 3.5e in one of the Dragon Magazine issues, the one with the campaign settings in the Spelljammer article.

It's quite simple...why not make it both a Prepared AND a Spontaneous caster?

Did everyone forget about the Spirit Shaman from 3.5e Complete Divine?!

It had access to the Druid spell list. But, each day, it had to choose which spells it would "prepare" from the list. Thereafter, it can spontaneously cast those spells until they decide to change the spells around the next day.

So why not make the Magus do the same thing? Use a special Magus spellbook, prepare their spells, and the spells they prepare can be cast spontaneously, until they change their options the next time they prepare spells?

I've never given a penalty to Escape Artist when escaping grapples/pins. What's the point? I thought the idea of Escape Artist was to be skillful at escaping? Sounds like some characters either need to always keep Escape Artist maxed or stick with their CMB.

What's the other use for Escape Artist? Squeezing through tight spaces? You know you get Dex. penalties in cramped spaces, too, right? So, in effect, you're always taking a penalty on Escape Artist now in the game? Doesn't sound right to me.

You guys do realize ALMOST no one wanted to play a Cleric in 1e and 2e. There wasn't anything going for it other than being a battery pack and a scarecrow for the undead, right? What you're asking for is returning the Cleric back to the role they were before. Which means less people wanting to play Clerics, and more people being forced to play Clerics.

Thanks to 3E, Clerics can adapt to many roles. Don't expect them to be as varied or blasting like Wizards, but they have a fair share of different things to do now. But, even in 3E/Pathfinder, it feels like playing a Cleric still shoehorns you into performing almost like a 1e/2e Cleric.

To this day, after DMing since 3E first arrived over a dozen of my buddies over the years, not ONE has made a Cleric. The closest I have seen is Favored Soul, and he made sure NOT to pick healing spells and has geared his character into a melee buff, for himself and others. It's because it still has that baggage leftover from 1e/2e. What it has now, at least, makes it more enticing to get into.

If you folks are considering weakening the Cleric by dropping full casting or weakening BAB, you're just going to end up perpetuating it back to what it was in 1e/2e. And then, no one will want to play it, instead you'll have a disgruntled player being forced to play one for "team unity".

There isn't a song in any part of the world from any time frame where someone sang it continuously. Ever. During the pause, performer mutters "ala peanut butter and jelly" and the doohicky goes off.

When I click the Loop button on my MP3 player, they sing until the battery dies, which is about 4 hours. ;)

Ok, in 3.5e, when a bard used an audible performance, he couldn't activate command word items or cast verbal spells, etc.

Did this change in Pathfinder? If a Bard is using bardic performance and is singing, can he still cast a verbal spell or use a command word activated magic item without breaking the performance?

I remember 3.5e had it where the mount stayed 2 hours/paladin level.

Now, Pathfinder Paladin has it where you also summon the steed, even more than once per day, but how long does it last? What's the point of using it more than once if it can stay forever? Can it be dismissed as if it were extraplanar?

The rules on it seem very vague.

Wait till April. You'll have more Eidolon stuff to play with

The OP has a point.

I do wish Pathfinder would come out with multiclass feats like those found in 3.5e.

The feats Ascetic Knight (Monk and Paladin), Ascetic Psion (Monk and Psion), Ascetic Rogue (Monk and Rogue), Devoted Performer (Bard and Paladin), Devoted Inquisitor (Paladin and Rogue), Sacred Outlaw (Cleric and Rogue) are just some of the feats released that allowed the class levels to stack together for specific abilities from each class.

If Pathfinder were to release multiclass feats like those, I believe they'd establish a good middleground when it comes to multiclassing. Burning feats to make certain classes sync together as you level sounds like a fine trade-off.

Yeah, Shield blocks magic missile. It's definitely an oversight, I sometimes forget that, too.

Yeah, they have it where when using Flurry of Blows, it's assumed you're using ALL your body parts to land whatever hit you can, knees, elbows, headbutts, fists, tail, etc.

I still use 3.5e's method, however. In 3.5e, you used your Flurry of Blows as a "primary" attack. You can still use an "off-hand" attack and get another Unarmed Strike in and take TWF penalties (and, of course, build off of it with ITWF and GTWF). Then, if you had natural attacks, you were allowed to use those as "secondary attacks" and take the usual penalties for attacking with secondary natural weapons. Using FoB used up ONE of your "hand" attacks, so if you had two claws or four claws, or only 4 tentacles, or whatever, one is used for the FoB.

It's all spelled out in Sage Advice FAQ on their website. Made stuff like Marilith Monks or Mind Flayer monks pretty lethal.

Which meant, yes, using a Marilith Monk 1 as an example, she'd use up one of her 6 arms to do a FoB at -2 penalty to all attacks. Having Multiweapon Fighting for free, she'd be able to use all her other arms for an extra attack, at no additional penalty (and get even further with Improved and Greater Multiweapon Attack feats). In addition, she can then take -5 penalty (or -2 with Multiattack feat) to throw in her tail attack.

Marilith Monk with all those feats, on a Full Attack, can get off 21 attacks.

I had a friend with a LN Druid/Monk that planned on wildshaping into animals and using FoB for Unarmed Strikes, followed by secondary attacks with bite or claws in animal form.

Razz wrote:

How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.

That honestly is a really terrible idea, the spell list is both to help the magues{his levels do not match the wiz/sorc} and a sort of check to make sure he doesn't brake a spell not meant to work with powers a wizard does not have.

Well either the Magus gets that, a huge swath of special abilities, or a full BAB, or it's just going to be a really lame class to play. I honestly can't see why anyone would not choose Duskblade or an Eldritch Knight over the current state the Magus is in.

Well, the Duskblade had full BAB, and it wasn't overpowered at all compared to the other classes. They had a severely limited spell selection, though: weapon buffs, touch spells, small cone spells, ray spells, and very few utility and movement spells. Though, unlike the Magus, it can spontaneously cast spells. The Magus has the drawback of needing to prepare his spells.

Does the Magus have a wider spell selection? Actually, it's being given it's own spell list (I detest unique spell lists, but whatever).

Personally, we have the Eldritch Knight PrC, and that's only losing a couple of BAB and having access to ALL Wizard spells. Whereas the Magus has a specific set of spells.

How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.

In all seriousness, what are these? Will we be getting them as a Bestiary 2 Bonus, just like Bestiary 1 Bonus?

The Magus class...great, something that'll step on the Duskblade's toes...and Eldritch Knight's. And hasn't the whole "be a warrior/spellcaster mix" gish thing been done to death!?

Hold on --- why are we getting a Magus when we have the Eldritch Knight in Pathfinder?

My biggest problem with Pathfinder skills was always the Stealth skill. That was something they should've kept separate as Hide and Move Silently. Because I encounter the same exact problems with it.

My largest one --- Invisibility.

How the hell does Invisibility grant a +20 bonus to Stealth for not being seen AND HEARD?! Does invisibility muffle sound as well?

Anyone?

Ok, here's another question on the Holy Vindicator's Shield ability. It says the character channels energy into the shield as a standard action. Does it expend a use of Channel Energy, or is this ability unlimited? I assume it does expend a use of Channel Energy, but it doesn't specify.

Also, when is Paizo releasing an APG clarification/errata file? It's long overdue I think.

Feat Practiced Spellcaster doesn't exist in Pathfinder, only the Magic Trait: "Magical Knack" which gives +2 BONUS to caster level (this bonus doesn't raise caster level above current Hit Dice).

Why is this being stated so much more often lately on these boards? Did everyone forget one of the main designs of Pathfinder was to be backwards compatible, particularly with, well, WotC's 3.5e books?

Razz wrote:

It states the the sacred/profane bonus lasts for 24 hours or until the vindicator is struck in combat.

Struck how? Does it end when someone damages him physically, such as with a melee or ranged attack? Or any attack that targets AC, for that matter (like ray spells and such).

Or is it struck by ANYTHING? As in if he is hit by a magic missile or lightning bolt, would the Vindicator Shield ability end?

Thanks.

I'd consider it when he took hit point damage or ability score damage.

Yeah, that's the problem. I see two different answers for this:

1) When his AC is targeted and he is struck

or

2) Whenever an enemy damages him, whether via an arrow, sword, or lightning bolt, etc.

Which is it, that's unclear.

Look up the item Belt of Battle. That alone is reason enough to not let everything in 3.5 go.

Um, what's wrong with belt of battle? 12k item that only grants one, maybe two extra actions in a round, out of the dozens of rounds and actions that happen during an adventure?

I think people's labeling of "broken" is horribly skewed. To the point where if someone in 3.5e took levels of their favored class to avoid multiclass XP penalty is OMG BROKEN! AGGHH!! (even though it's CLEARLY what it was meant for and is spelled out)

It states the the sacred/profane bonus lasts for 24 hours or until the vindicator is struck in combat.

Struck how? Does it end when someone damages him physically, such as with a melee or ranged attack? Or any attack that targets AC, for that matter (like ray spells and such).

Or is it struck by ANYTHING? As in if he is hit by a magic missile or lightning bolt, would the Vindicator Shield ability end?

Thanks.

Awesome, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't running this wrong my whole D&D 3.0/3.5/pathfinder career.

I must have skipped over the multiple attack section on pg. 184.

There is a way around it. Take the Dual Strike feat from Complete Adventurer. Allows two attacks with one standard action, with a -4 to attack (-10 if the off-hand weapon isn't a light weapon).

I'm wondering how many people are using pathfinder b/c the 3.5 material just got broken and out of hand! I just had a player join the party assuming they would create a PC with the Pathfinder rules. Instead I got a PC that used every single book in 3.5!! All those messed up subraces, crazy feats, and broken spells! Ect..ect...ect...Thoughts please!

One, nothing in an RPG is broken unless the GM allows it to be or is just not creative enough to punish PCs with broken monsters to lay the smackdown on them. In my games, I've made sure to let a PC know "Sure, have 100 Strength. The monster you're fighting now has 500 Strength."

It let's them realize, very quickly, that playing a Tabletop RPG just to "break" things is stupid, boring, and unfair to everyone but yourself. They're in the wrong game. Find something else.

Even with Pathfinder material, you can probably find some pretty nasty combinations. They're inevitable. My groups tend to have a lot of players with gish-like characters. My answer? A lot of spellcasters with dispel magic solves the problem quickly. You just have to be one step ahead.

Of course, it's no fun undermining everything a PC does. But there has to be a line drawn. Once established, and respected, things are fine.

Second thing, there's always Rule Zero. If a PC wants a combination too broken, don't ban a feat or spell. Ban the combination itself.

I run a 3.5e/Pathfinder hybrid. Things are fine. My only problem is finding "duplicates" in both systems, where two feats are too similiar or two spells. Other than that, everything is gravy.

Razz wrote:

Savage Species, page 39, Surrogate Spellcasting.

Wis 13, nonhumanoid or nonhumanlike form
Can substitue verbal and somatic components for whatever form you are (in your case, unicorn neighs and hoof thrusting/stomping)

Problem solved.

If you can talk a DM into letting you use Savage species which is 3.0. BUt then you might as well just take the feral template in all its brokenness (+1 la my at-dollar sign-dollar sign)

I don't understand why anyone would not allow a 3.0 feat to be used in 3.5 if the feat in question works just fine in a 3.5e game without any tweaking at all, which the Surrogate Spellcasting feat clearly is. It's the same edition, after all.

Also Savage Species is technically 3.5e. It was released a couple of months prior to 3.5e release and the designers specifically said that it was definitely geared with 3.5e statistics in mind, but hadn't fully made the transition in a few areas to avoid confusion.

To the OP, see if your DM will let you take Surrogate Spellcasting. It's the feat you're looking for, easy requirements for a unicorn also, and can be taken at 1st level.

Savage Species, page 39, Surrogate Spellcasting.

Wis 13, nonhumanoid or nonhumanlike form
Can substitue verbal and somatic components for whatever form you are (in your case, unicorn neighs and hoof thrusting/stomping)

Problem solved.

I wish Paizo would come out with more prestige classes or feats that help out with multiclassing, like how the Eldritch Knight does or the multiclass feats from 3.5e were.

General Stacking for size goes 1d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6

While I disagree with it, it has offically been ruled that Improved Natural Attack does nto work with monk unarmed strike in Pathfinder. This also means that Strong Jaw would not work for monks.

Which is one stupid ruling. I didn't like the idea of "Well, what Monk wouldn't take this?" thought process Paizo had. You can do that with hundreds of other abilities, but they snag this one in particular?

Of the many monks I've DMed, only one bothered to take the feat. And that was because they couldn't figure out what else to take. There are much more important feats Monks can take besides INA.

I appreciate the advice you all gave and I believe I'll continue playing for the fact that I don't feel it has changed my faith in anyway. I understand that it is just a game.

There is no conflict. I am a Christian, too, well, sort of (not a religious fan, very spiritual, but I follow New Testament teachings, and not Old). And it hasn't made me want to kill my dad to gain his inheritance or attack cars at night thinking the headlights were will o' wisps.

The people that did those horrible events all had one thing in common --- a mental disorder and/or drug habit. When they profiled the victims/perps, it was on the list of what they did before killing/suicide. Even though drug abuse was on the list, for some strange reason, that was skipped. Instead, the attack went to D&D. Mainly because the very demographic that displayed such symptoms of behavior and drug abuse, also happened to be the same demographic that played D&D.

A coincidence, really.

So, the blame went to D&D. The churches ate it up, disregarding the fact that there was either heavy drug abuse or a mental disorder to begin with, prior to the gaming.

It's not different than a gun. If you gave a gun to a level-headed, stable, rational person, no one is going to get murdered. At least not without one heck of a good reason (legit self-defense comes to mind). If you gave it to someone mentally unstable or on drugs, expect there to be dire consequences. Is it the gun's fault? No. The gun shouldn't have been given to the person in that state in the first place. The one to blame is the one that ignored the person's state and gave them the gun anyway. Same with kids and videogames, if your child has issues, the worst thing you can do is let them just escape into video gaming. Then they get addicted or attempt to commit acts similiar to the game, and then all the blame goes on the video game where the blame truly shouldn't be.

The 90s came along, and the blame went to video games. Mortal Kombat was the first, then came GTA in the new millenium, and so on. I dunno what the churches are blaming now as the largest scapegoat, I think they ran out of things to blame and are now pointing fingers at everything they've pointed at in the past already.

Also, your therapist overstepped his bounds. I suggest getting a new one. They're supposed to give unbiased advice, untainted by their own personal views.