|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
While it has been mentioned, words of power is a significant nerf to spellcasters.
Also, banning 3rd party spells isn't doing anyone any good, the most broken spells are from Paizo. In fact one of the best fixes would probably involve throwing out the weaker Pizo classes and replacing them with more powerful 3rd party versions and the melee feats with scaling feats.
Nope, the penalty is exactly what it says it is, and yes, it is kind of harsh. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it needs clarification.
You can still make use of the 2nd level spell slots, either with metamagic or just using higher slots for lower spells.
Personally, I really like this option. I wish there were a couple more specialist type casters available, but c'est la vie.
Another option is to play E8 (or E6).
Ok, one of the reasons no one is commenting is because you specifically state you don't care about optimization. As such, we have no basis on which to suggest either archetype. Also, neither one is particularly strong.
Is it a high price? Sure. Contingency auto-wins encounters. It should be a high price.
RAW can swing both ways. So we have to look into what else has been said on the topic. My memory (confirmed by the person who quoted JJ) is:
This is not 3.5, bonuses are not added in the most favorable order any longer, rather they are now added in the least favorable order. Ergo, the robe invalidates the feat and the animal companion is stuck at 11.
I normally wouldn't use JJ as a rules person, but I believe this has been confirmed by other people as well, though i don't have any proof of that.
Personally, my favorite builds involve some form of spell casting (or psionics, though not often divine casting). The only class I've ever actually played without some form of spell casting is the Taskshaper from Rite Publishing, such a good and versatile class. So, for me, it is all about having versatility and tricks, backed up with enough power to pull them off.
That said, I don't go for extreme power builds (like armies of simulacra or the half-elf oracle that spontaneously knows all spells on the sorcerer/wizard list and the cleric list).
There isn't actually a best build (or even group of best builds). There are optimal builds, but I wouldn't necessarily call those best, and even those are often debated (heavily). If you really want this thread to do well, you'd first have to define what you mean by best builds.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
It amounts to the same thing, you're wanting a campaign setting where other people can publish material for it. Defensive much?
2) I am. Foreven Worlds: Fessor Subsector was the first of many releases that I am doing in such a case. The Foreven license says that anyone using the license can refer to someone else's material in an OGL-like fashion. It goes further then that. Another company could all but copy and paste my text and (as long as it was referenced properly) publish everything I wrote. So I am doing exactly that. I am putting my money where my mouth is.
Now this is what I like to see. I wish the project well. :)
You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures.
If you have reach, you still have to reach into the energy field, which prevents the entrance of living things. Would you argue that someone surrounded by a hemisphere of stone could be hit by reach?
Edit: And I see the point was already made.
Contestants enter the arena:
Monk / Druid does all the showing off of his muscles, shapeshifts into something big and frightening, shows the crowd his teeth and hams it up.
Druid 20 casts anti-life shell.
Monk/Druid is utterly unable to do anything.
Druid 20 takes a nap.
Monk/Druid is crying in a corner, still unable to do anything.
Druid 20 wakes up, nice and refreshed.
Monk/Druid notices Druid 20 has awakened and tries to get his crying under control.
Druid 20 stretches and yawns big.
Druid 20 refreshes anti-life shell.
Monk/Druid loses it. Nice people with white shirts have to come and put him in a safe room.
Druid 20 wins by default. . .
If you think a universal campaign setting that other people can publish content for is such a money maker for the campaign creator, why don't you create it? Then everyone wins.
The way you're reading it is wrong. The entire amount of bonus damage comes from the feat, no algebra gymnastics necessary.
Why do you need to the rogue class? Why not just take a couple traits to give you say stealth and bluff (or whatever) as class skills, and let your high intelligence carry you through the rouge part?
[PFS] Is it safe for an offensive caster to have less then a 20 in their casting stat post racial in PFS?
If an archetype ever modifies the same class feature as another archetype you cannot take the two together. Even if they only overlap at the level 20 ability and you'll never get there, you cannot do it.
Neither archer nor weapon master will stack with another archetype.
I have not had a lot of experience with mythic so this is just my theory crafting:
For CR a typical Level 20 PC will be CR 20. A mythic 10, level 20 PC with npc wealth by level would be CR 24. Drop maybe 1 more point of CR for going from NPC wealth to no wealth, and he's still 3 CR above the norm, so in theory mythic is still more powerful. (And the general consensus is that each mythic tier is worth more than .5 levels.)
However, you need to realize how crippling no gear is to the majority of classes. Wizards can't have spell books or spell component pouches, and most classes miss out on getting weapons and armor, and without weapons they have to be concerned about their ability to penetrate all but the weakest DR.
I would expect monks (with druid friends), druids, and sorcerers to come out of the trade ok and most everyone else to lose out significantly. Of course this is very generally speaking, a punching build fighter might do alright, and a zen archer monk is going to come out of the trade wondering what it did to deserve this poverty stuff, but you get the idea.
Changing Man wrote:
When did expecting people to fulfill their promises become something to be looked down upon?
...So a Kickstarter I backed had an issue. The head writer got sever pneumonia, ended up in a drug induced coma in the hospital for the better part of a month, and then had to go to rehab to get his strength back. When he was able he did send a message explaining the delay.
You know, I can't help but notice everyone in this thread goes to the absolute worst case scenario for a kickstarter, but the very vast majority of the time a kickstarter falls behind it is not because of a worst case scenario, it is because they simply failed to properly plan ahead of time.
By your logic, he should have somehow added a few months to his delivery time "just in case"?
He should have added some time to his schedule, yes and the amount of time would be a percentage of the over all time of the project and also based on his general health. It probably wouldn't account for something that severe, but then getting something that severe is extremely small risk for the average person.
And I should, by rights be screaming for his head, because its "his issue" that he could have died? Instead I just shrug my shoulders, wish him a good recovery..and wait like a grown up.
Where have I ever said anyone should scream for anyone's head. Please, show me the post where I have said that. And if you can't, well then we can tell who the actual mature one is, it is the person who isn't doing strawman arguments.
If a writer has a child..or a spouse fall ill..maybe in addition to that, they have to work extra at their "real life" job to cover medical bills..the answer should be "well you should have thought about that before you started on a project"?
I can't help but think kickstarter must be awfully dangerous to a person's health. 75% of all kickstarter projects aren't delivered on time. If every one of those is because of a serious illness or death, that's so far beyond statistically probable I just don't know why people use it.
If I was working on a project, and a family member died..finishing the project would take the back burner for as long as I needed to deal with what needed to get done.
Do you have an actual job? One where you're paid to show up and do something? If so, why don't you try this argument on your employer, see what they say and get back with me.
If people decided that was not good enough..than I really don't need that money anyway,
Now there's something we can agree with. If a company can't fulfill its obligation it can return the money and no harm, no foul.
Tell me, do you feel the same way when someone at McDonalds asks you to pull forward and wait on an order then serves the person after you? Do you feel the same way when a hostess tells you there's a wait for a table but you can see a table clearly empty? Do you feel the same way when you drop your computer off at an IT shop and you're told it'll be a couple of days and a week later they still haven't fixed it?
If the answers to the above 3 questions are all honestly yes, then I'm impressed, give yourself a cookie.
However, expecting to get what you paid for, by the delivery date of a contract, is not cruel, evil, and lacking empathy, it is simply good business.
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
You can read more about it on the project's kickstarter page here. All the comments and the updates are available to read.
You're right. And by branching to a new thread it won't seem like I'm down on FMG (which I'm not). Good idea.
Thank you. This is basic project management. So maybe I should add that to my list of suggestions for all kickstarters; study up on project management.
First, giving the SNA extra feats defeats the purpose of this test.
Second, Chengar is correct for the most part. On his point #3 however, it is worth noting that the templates do not give the creatures a language any longer so you're still having difficulties communicating with them.
There's also another point, the summon monster list has been significantly expanded over time and some of those additions are just over powered for their level (like having a hell hound (CR3) on the SM II list). (This is, of course, assuming those additions are allowed.)
In my experience, a character with a notable weakness or low stat tends to be more memorable than Joe Average.
I couldn't agree more. What would Raistlin or Elric have been without their low constitutions?
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
It is perfectly acceptable to make feats, I don't disagree with that. I just disagree with you disparaging the rules appropriate way of doing it, and then suggesting a homebrew solution.
However, I will ask, what is the point of actually having requirements on feats if you just allow players to bypass them willy nilly by making other feats that do the same thing with different requirements?
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
So figuring out a way to accomplish something within the rules is power gaming, but just saying screw the rules and making stuff up that accomplishes the exact same thing with less cost, is perfectly acceptable?
Ok, let's pause for a moment. Most improved familiars can fly, many have some defensive spell like abilities, like invisibility or the like, and will benefit from the wizard's defensive buffs, keeping the familiar safe from most enemies isn't difficult at all. Beyond that, have you seen the difference between what happens if a familiar is killed vs. what happens if a bonded object is destroyed (or even just disarmed). That matters.
If a monster wanted to improve its action economy relative to the party, a nice opening move might be to kill all the really squishy party members that contribute to the PCs' action economy: the familiars. Isn't that what players would do to an NPC as well?
Yes and no. Tell me, what would you target if you were a swordsman, the little fluffy looking thing flying 20 feet off the ground by the guy at the very back of the group or the guy who just turned into a giant dragon at the front of the group, just a couple feet away from you?
Don't get me wrong, I like familiars more than arcane bonds. But I prefer familiars as advisors and scouts, rather than as combatants.
Something tells me you don't play a god style wizard.
Can we apply an action economy argument to the bonded object? Yes! The spontaneous spell it lets you cast is basically one free scroll every day, of exactly the right spell, at your full caster level. You basically "earn" 12.5*((level+1)/2)*level gp per day (the cost of a self-crafted scroll). And the action economy is better than a scroll, because you don't have to spend an action retrieving the "scroll".
Ok. First off, "saving" gold isn't action economy. Secondly, this isn't a fair comparison, it only ever comes up if the wizard absolutely has to have a spell he didn't otherwise prepare or is absolutely out of spell slots (more likely, but still not a position the wizard should get into).
Compare this to the level*200gp you pay every time your familiar gets killed because it made itself a valuable target in combat.
Instead of comparing the best case bonded object with the worst case familiar, let's compare the worst case for both.
Familiar dies, you are down a couple hundred gp per level, arcane bond is destroyed and you're a commoner with a few extra skills. I know which I'd pick.
My conclusion: Improved Familiar is good, but not so infinitely good that we don't need to seriously consider the alternative as well. And the Improved Arcane Bond, worth about 6 feats, is a strong argument to skip the familiar.
And I've already shown how your 6 feat theory is entirely wrong. You need to re-read that as I won't go back into that here.
Would every wizard that took arcane bond pick this feat up? Probably. It still isn't enough to make a significant number of wizards take arcane bonds over familiars, IMO.
First, be more careful with your quotes, don't act imply I said things I did not say.
One difference between being a publisher and a regular job is that publishers don't get sick leave.
Second, sure they do, they just have to schedule them into the project. Part of being an intelligent project head is being able to plan for things. You know that at some point, you will get ill, plan for it.
People do have multiple obligations and it's just not reasonable, logical, or fair to suggest a project can't have setbacks.
Of course a project can have setbacks, an intelligent project head will plan for them ahead of time, but even I'll admit that's not always perfect. However, running a year late on a project that was supposed to take 6 months isn't a setback, it is an out right failure, it is incompetence and it is probably legally actionable.
Kickstarters are not personal commissions. The project founder has a legal and ethical obligation to deliver, but the backers also have a legal and ethical obligation to be supportive and patient.
No they do not. They have a legal and ethical obligation to wait until the project completion date to receive their product, but pretty much nothing beyond that. The project head (that is the publisher) is the one who wrote the contract, he is the one upon whose shoulders fulfilling the contract rests upon, after all the backers have already fulfilled their legal obligation.
Again, I'll ask, how reasonable do you think the publishers would be if people took their projects and then didn't pay for a year or more. Do you think the publishers would continue to give that person (or group of people) products without demanding payment up front?
That is, in fact, the pledge they made when they backed the project: to support the success of the project.
They pledged financial support, which they fulfilled the moment the kickstarter ended.
I've had two good-sized projects make. One (Conquest of the Universe) is basically on schedule. The other (Do Not Approach) is far behind. It's not because I'm differently committed. It just has to do with what each project has required, and the resources I've had to put toward them.
And here you sit, making excuses and preaching at people you don't know on the internet. Such a good use of your time.
Thank you Jiggy, you are much kinder and more patient than I.
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
I don't believe only outsiders can be [good], but I believe only outsiders are [good] at this point. I could easily see a sainted being or creature gaining the subtype.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Only damage from good outsiders or holy/blessed/aligned weapons will defeat the regeneration.
When you say good outsiders, don't you mean creatures (outsiders) with the good subtype? Outsiders, AFAIK, are the only ones to have an alignment subtype, but their actual alignment doesn't matter.
And while this is true, it is entirely a cop out. Expecting people to fulfill their portion of a contract (that they themselves wrote), on time, is not unreasonable. If I was a year late on something I was turning in for my job, well, I'd never have an opportunity to be a year late.
I wonder, how many people would stick up for people if this situation were reversed, how many people would be like "Oh, take my product, it doesn't matter if you haven't paid on it for a year, here, have another product." After all, backers have stuff come up in their lives as well.
And as a final side note, if I was working long hours, for very little pay and I was all that burned out, I'd find another job.
Scott has some wonderful information for you, but he mentions one thing I really want to touch on (and not just for you, but for all 3pp).
Little Red Goblin Games wrote:
Make your own company (please make an LLC or something)
This. So much this. Kickstarter is a contract. You are legally liable. A man has had his life ruined, was driven to bankruptcy in fact, by a failed kickstarter. Do not let that happen to you. Protect yourself. If you make a company a failed kickstarter (with or without a lawsuit) may be enough to ruin it, but at least you won't have to worry about your house, your wages, etc.
I'm going to take this point by point.
Unless you have been on the publishing side of things you have NO idea.
This is very false. One does not have to be in a field to know something of it. Or multiple somethings of it. Second, this isn't just a publishing issue, this is a legal issue. Third, don't get defensive, I'm not casting stones, I'm here to help, at least one individual has been driven to bankruptcy because of kickstarter. I don't want to see that happen to anyone here.
Very few of the 3rd PP make 100% of their living..paying for their homes, food, cars, medical..on gaming. So you have to juggle a job..as well as whatever part you may have in the project..writing, editing, art, layout..whatever. Despite what it may seem sometimes, its not at all easy..all the more so on a multi-book project. Do things get behind..of course..you get sick. Work takes up more time than expected. Parts of the project need to be tweeked to meet expectation of the people that pay for it..because if its not good than you lose money.
Ok, I'm going to address this all together, because it is basically one point. Know what you're doing before you take other people's money to do it. Period, full stop, end of discussion. Schedule time for this, and if, for some reason, you planned so poorly that you didn't schedule time for this let people know. Give them updates. Communicate. That goes a long way.
And sometimes you have totake a breather just not to burn out.
Great, do that on your own time, don't do it on time other people are paying you for.
So whaile (sic) publishing is "REAL LIFE" as you put it..if my choice is being homeless and not feeding my family to get the project out on time..or letting people wait so I can have a "real life" as well as produce a good product, then so be it.
Here you are creating a false dilemma. Failing to live up to your legal obligations is much more likely to make you be homeless than meeting them. If you can't uphold your end of a contract, don't ever sign the contract, it is that simple.
If you're serious about considering a kickstarter, publish something (or even better, several somethings) first. That will get your name out there, it will let people know your style, your quality, and all the other things that matter. There's plenty more to do before you kickstart something, but that's an important first step.
Improved familiar allows you to break action economy, that is worth much more than you allare giving it credit for. Beyond that a scaling resistance bonus is not even close to worth a feat because craft wondrous item exists. And spell resistance is often considered a draw back rather than a boon. And no one takes the feat that grants a spell slot. And while a familiar may be easier to take away (which is debatable) an arcane bond that is taken away is much MUCH more painful.
While the question has been answered, I want to point out that despite gaining access to some otherwise arcane spells via domains, the domain spells are not arcane, they are divine (even if normally the spell is only available on arcane list).
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that if someone does a kickstarter (or preorders) they have a legal (and a moral) obligation to uphold their end of the bargain. I'm not saying FMG hasn't done so, quite honestly, I don't know if they have or not, I don't pick up many adventures so I didn't back their kickstarter. But I am going to point out that it is an obligation and it is real life, and that excuses like publishing isn't "real life" are entirely bogus and shouldn't be accepted.
If "real life" has a significant chance of getting in the way, don't accept money before the product is complete. And this isn't just about FMG, this is any publisher.
Well, let's hope it is temporary. Sometimes real life tends to interfere in gaming. Let's hope we hear something soon...
When you are a for profit publisher gaming is your "real life".
Personally, I'm curious. To those who are saying IDing the spell isn't proof that the results of that spell are not an illusion, are you playing an illusionist by any chance (or any character who relies significantly on illusions)?
Just because an archetype does not specifically state "this modifies X class feature" does not mean it does not modify X class feature. Is the spells class feature for an oath paladin different than a non-oath paladin? Yes. Ergo, it has been modified.