kyrt-ryder's page

This is a re-post from elsewhere on the forum, but it has yet to be responded to (being buried under 140+posts in the given thread probably doesn't help) and I felt it was worth bringing up for discussion.

Something interesting I thought of. In Pathfinder there is at least one spell that prevents conflict (barring a saving throw of course.) And that is Sanctuary.

Now what I'm thinking, is what if the core of the NPC cities (and PC created cities willing to spend the resources necessary to maintain such a constructed spell) is protected by an area version, wherein people within it's boundaries literally can not attack one another.

When war is declared through the appropriate divine rituals, divine forces tear down this barrier to those nations on opposing sides (the declarers and those against whom declarations of war are made.) Outside of divinely sanctioned war, however, these city centers would be completely spelled against combat.

Thus, non-combat types would have a choice. Set up shop in the central part of town under the protective spell, or set up shop further out to the edges of town in the seedier areas, where it's easier to deal business with the bad people trying to skirt around the law, but where they could also fall victim to bad people.

As a final note, I could totally see such a constructed spell being powered by the surrounding populace (the more life energy available the stronger and larger it gets.) Thus as cities continued to expand, so too would the 'Zone of Sanctuary.'

Thoughts?

So I've been pretty involved in the discussion concerning Pathfinder Online and frequently run into the following position.

One thing I have noticed, in a Pathfinder or D&D before it, when the GM is running the “opposition” be they monsters with tusks and horns, or monsters clad in human form, the GM, the skilled ones, are managing the monsters to challenge the Player Characters.

When I have seen the “opposition” run by someone other then the GM, another player, they are run to win against the other players.

So I'm here to discuss this with my fellow players and GMs in general.

When I am GMing, the "opposition" are there to win to the best of their ability. There is absolutely no hand holding (except with new players still learning the ropes) no fudging (rolled in the open) and no mercy. These enemies are run to the fullest of their capabilities as dictated by their intelligence and personal tactics and will do EVERYTHING they can to succeed within their limitations (although there are, of course, times when they will favor a retreat rather than fight to the last HP.)

What do you guys think of such a GMing approach? Is it 'unfair' for a GM to use his characters in such a manner? Or do you favor the challenge of opposing characters played with all the desperation to succeed that they should have by virtue of the story.

Before anybody jumps on me saying I'm abusing my players, I would like to note that I, as the GM, am perfectly and totally neutral. I have no vested interest in anything except running the world how the world functions. I am not here trying to 'win' or creating challenges intended to kill them. Instead I am created a world with its own merits and the characters interact with it.

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

The more I read these threads, the more I fear our differences may be irreconcilable. That those in fear of a persistent world with a risk vs reward paradigm and interaction with other people who very well may be after what you hold dear will never yield on their position and will end up not playing what everyone is hoping will be an awesome game.

I know I envisioned Pathfinder Online as a persistent shared world, where everybody is in a single instance of the same world (perhaps using similar server technology to Eve, according to what I've heard of that game on the boards.) But if PvP can be turned off, that suddenly makes the game unfair to those who aren't hiding from everyone else (or worse, griefers who hide behind the inability to attack them to harass you in other ways.)

So does anybody (particularly Goblinworks Staff) have an idea of how to deal with this huge divide? Ignoring this segment of the market is frequently touted as a bad idea, though I can see reasons it might not be. Alternatively, perhaps alternate servers that are entirely isolated from eachother, such that they are independent worlds that develop apart from eachother (basically alternate universes of the River Kingdoms that starts from a common point in history before diverging.) Or something else entirely?

Safezones and consequences have thus far in discussions proven in-effective in garnering so much as a 'lets wait and see' from many people on that side of the fence, and I'm quite curious what can be done concerning them without breaking the game for the rest of us.

Alright, so on reading Janni Tempest I got confused. Here's the feat text.

It states that when you hit an opponent with an unarmed attack, you get a +4 bonus on checks to Bull Rush that opponent, as long as the combat maneuver is your next attack by the end of your turn. With Bullrush being a standard action, this seems impossible unless your unarmed attack was an Attack of Opportunity.

So there's something that's been on my mind for a few days, and now is the time for me to bring it forward for dsicussion.

The passage of time or - to be more specific - the day and night cycle, is a pretty important point for this game. A kingdom raising sandbox which uses use 'real time' with one day per day will run into one of two problems. Either things will have to develop much faster 'in game' than they should in regards to gathering resources and assembling fortifications and such, or these things will take FOREVER over the course of real time day by day labor.

My preferred solution is to bypass both of these issues entirely by implementing a faster cycling of time. In my mind, the ideal cycle is 8 hours, which delivers three 'days' per real day, and approximately one season per month.

Alternatively, a 12 hour (two 'days' per day) or 6 hour (four 'days' per day) are also viable (just not quite as good in my opinion :P)

Normally, I'm not a huge stickler for staying on-topic. The discussions in these forums tend to be fairly casual and laid back, but in the Pathfinder Online board we're running into a huge problem.

People open a topic to discuss solutions to a perceived problem in the MMO, and they are subsequently griefed by people who, rather than try to SOLVE that problem, harp on them over banning the whole subsystem they are discussing in the first place.

If we wanted to ban that stuff we would have already hopped on that banwagon in an appropriate thread >.>

So in summation, can we have an Off-Topic flag?

So my irl gaming group has slowly dissolved and I'm looking for another one. I tend to be a very experimental DM, who loves tweaking game systems and creating my own. As a player I love to get into the roleplay, but I will proudly admit I deliberately make effective characters.

I've mostly DM'd, so I'd prefer being a player but I swing both ways, so if anybody has a group, or needs one, let me know.

Alright guys, so I'm seeing a HUGE loss of interest in Pathfinder Online due to fear of 'griefing' due to the Open World PvP intended of the game as recently disclosed.

This thread is to discuss possible consequences for Griefing, both to let the developers crack our collective mind on possible solutions to this perceived problem, and to hopefully reassure the public that there are plenty of such solutions that could be used in the final product to set them at ease.

To start things off, I'll be quoting myself from another thread with one I came up with.

It shouldn't be too difficult to include something in the coding to grant a greater punishment to the aggressor than the victim in PvP. Those who are attacked should, of course, be set back far less than those who are doing the attacking.

Hell, to take it one step farther, Pathfinder Online could keep track of one's aggressive attacks (the times they assault another PC without being in War against them) and have them accumulate to a greater penalty when that PC eventually does die.

In that way, 'griefers' would have things much more difficult. Sooner or later they will bite off more than they can chew, and they will pay the time for every crime.

So I've been pondering this kind of combat round for a while, and figured it would be best to post my thoughts thus far, get feedback, and see if we can't hammer it out.

Initiative: A character's Base Attack Bonus is added to his initiative.

Actions: Characters with high BAB can take multiple actions per round. In addition, when taking an Action, a character can apply a -2 penalty to said action (-2 to his attack rolls, -2 penalty to his save DC, something along those lines) to move up to 1/2 his movement speed as part of the action (either immediately before or after performing said action.)

Additional actions are gained with every 4 points of BAB, and taken at -4 penalties to initiative. (So for example, a level 5 Fighter would act on his initiative and on his initiative -4)

Free Movement: Each character can move up to his movement speed each round without invoking a penalty. This movement can be split up as desired between actions.

Notes:

* Actions do NOT have reduced attack bonus like iterative attacks in normal play.

*Two Weapon Fighting is making an attack with each hand during an action (and attack of opportunity if these are retained.)

*Spontaneous Metamagic does not increase casting time.

Obviously there are going to be some problems with this system (such as how AoO's interact, spells, etc.) And I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on these and how it can be improved.

To throw out one possibility (which would need to be accounted for in spell design), higher level spells might require more than one action. (For example, spells of up to 4th level might only require one action, while spells of 5th through 8th level might require two actions, and spells of 9th level might require three)

Alright, so I'm preparing to launch into a pretty big homebrew project, crafting a 20 level fantasy game designed with strongly defined tiers of play. (4 level increments, culminating in lesser divinity from 17-20 and 9th level spells.)

This game will be heavily 3.X (Pathfinder included) inspired, drawing on as much material as possible for an extremely diverse gameplay experience.

Skills should be very powerful, to the point that a character's skills could be said to define him to a fair degree. 2 more skill points per level should really mean something.

Monster type classes is something else I intend to incorporate.

Tiers:
Heroic | levels 1-4
Epic | (literary sense) levels 5-8
Wuxia | levels 9-12
Super | (excluding the top tier super heroes of course) levels 13-16
Divine | levels 17-20

I'm starting to lose my focus, so I'll end this post here. I'm mostly looking to use this thread as a sounding board for ideas to flow both ways, since this homebrew game will be partly based on PF, and because I have some friends here who I hope join in. Anybody interested is welcome to respond.

Ok, I have to ask this since I've been seeing it mentioned so frequently.

Am I really the only person who sat down and read the Core Rule Book cover to cover after I bought it?

Everywhere I look now that the Beginner Box is being discussed people are talking about how the CRB 'isn't meant to be read cover to cover'... yet that's exactly what I did.

I agree it IS a reference document, but in my opinion giving something like this a full read-through helps you find those little rules you aren't likely to notice otherwise and see the game from more angles than just hitting the rules as you use them.

Upon reading my first printing CRB, I ran into a problem...

The exact same wording from the PHB was retained for spell trigger items, as opposed to causing them to match the spell's actual casting time if shorter.

I know for a fact what I'll be ruling in my games, but I have to ask, does anybody know why this was kept? It really hurts a ranger/Paladin/Bard's spell versatility and stamina to not be able to use wands to supplement their swift action spells and keep the swift action.

In another thread I saw talk about the 'Forgotten Realms Syndrome' where a setting is layered with high level people and the PC's feel overshadowed by them and occasionally get Deus Ex Machina'd by them.

I have to ask those of you have encountered this phenomenon (particularly those of you who have DMed it.)

Why? What was it like, what were the circumstances around it?

I ask because, as a DM myself I have a tendency to have 3E worlds with lots of high level people. Dozens of level twenties and it scales up from there as levels go down. None of these people interfere with the party unless the party seeks them out and meddle in their business.

These 'legendary figures' as you might call them are far too busy living their own lives, dealing with their own threats (many of whom are each-other) and staring down the face of divinity trying to figure out how to break into the next level and rise above their current power.

Alright, so here's my problem. I finally have a wizard player who decided to give the summoning spells a try. I concur wholeheartedly that without augment summoning, these aren't going to perform all that great in battle. My problem, is the massive reduction in effectiveness I'm seeing, compared to my own summoning endeavors in 3.5.

Lets take the Ape for example (one of the bread and butter Summon Monster III choices from 3.5)

3.5 Ape Notable points include: 29 hit points (37 with augment summoning), +7 (+9) to hit, 1d6+5 (1d6+7) damage

Pathfinder Summoned Ape Notable points include: 19 hit points (25 with augment summoning), +3 (+5) to hit, 1d6+3 (1d6+5) damage.

Notice how in every case except damage (in which case it comes out equal) the ape is entirely inferior to it's 3.5 counterpart? Now contrast this to the increased power in Pathfinder base classes and it's no wonder I haven't seen someone try summoning normally in Pathfinder yet.

Is there something I'm missing here (besides the improved smite, which is situation [and probably not helped by my tendency to game in very shades-of-grey settings]) or has summoning really gone from a decent tactic that was difficult to excel in to something not worth the whole round casting to bother with?

Totally considering house-ruling Summon Monster to be a Standard Action cast now (Though I'd like to see some discussion before I make a final decision.)

I'm well aware of the general rules principle, but I wanted to ask for clarity.

Can Intensified Spell be stacked multiple times on the same spell?

(Also to those of you who know me, sorry I vanished, things have gotten pretty chaotic.)

Alright, I've come to the conclusion that the Critical Effect Feats are underpowered by my standards. So this thread is for discussing their revision. What follows is a basic outline for my thoughts on 'fixing them.'

1: Make sure the effects are really worthwhile. Stagger is fairly good, but it's somewhat situational, with great effect on targets with lots of attacks, but very little effect on a caster (and an effect somewhere inbetween on a single attacker like a T-Rex.) Meanwhile, Deafening really sucks, imposing a 20% spell failure chance on a caster, and that's only with verbal component spells. Stunning is very strong.

2: Kill prerequisites. Players pay feats for these abilities already. There's nothing wrong with enabling these from the beginning.

3: Make high crit modifier weapons just as valuable as high crit range weapons.

4: Make them work reliably. To do this, I'm scrapping the 'crit' requirement entirely, and instead these are effects a character with the feat can choose to force a save against on a hit.

Fortitude Save DC= 10+1/2 BAB (Flurry BAB counts, even if not flurrying)+(number of sneak attack dice rolled)+attacking stat (typically strength or dex)

Weapons gain a bonus to this DC equal to the weapon's critical multiplier's increase x2 (x2 weapons get +2, x3 weapons get +4, x4 weapons get +6)

On a critical hit, these effects take place automatically.

I need to leave it here for the moment. Please feel free to post your thoughts, I'll be posting specific feats a little later.

Edit: Fixed Save DC a bit.

I'm aware there's a similar thread active, but it's discussing a device for more than just pdf's, so I felt I should open a new thread rather than insert this discussion into that one.

I've spent the last few days seeking out a good, reliable Ereader for use with the gaming PDF's I've purchased, and frankly I've run into MANY that just didn't seem up to the task.

And then, I found this video and I'm wondering what all of you guys' thoughts on it are. Any input from people with better tech-savvy than myself, or personal experience with the device would be greatly appreciated.

Alright, so here's my problem. As the rules currently stand, Meteor Swarm (the iconic 'Ultimate Blast' spell) really sucks for dealing structural damage and/or trying to blow up a low level army.

So here are some ideas (some are more generic and will help all evocations rather than just Meteor Swarm, while others are specifically for the spell.)

1: remove the 'half damage' to objects aspect from energy attacks, and ignore hardness to especially vulnerable materials (in my case, I'm going with Fire-Wood/cloth, Acid: Metal, Lightning-Wood/stone, Cold... ok, I've got no idea for cold. Crystaline stuff for Sound.

2: remove SR from all blasting spells.

3: Rebuild Meteor Swarm, my initial attempt is below.

Meteor Swarm

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 9

Casting Time 1 round

Components Verbal, Somatic, Special Component

Special Component This spell must be cast with line of sight to the sky, and line of effect between the sky and the intended target.

Range insanely long (10 miles + 1 mile/level)

Area up to five miles, see text

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw none or Reflex half, see text

Effect: This spell creates up to five meteors per caster level, each of which deals 1d6/caster level bludgeoning damage to any target it strikes, and releases an explosion that deals 1d6/caster level fire damage. For every two explosions who's area overlaps a given target, they take an additional 1d6/caster level fire damage, to a maximum of 3d6 per caster level fire damage to the same target. A caster can not target a creature smaller than Large with a meteor, which requires a ranged touch attack.

Note: in the case of structures, deal damage to the outer wall from the bludgeoning damage first. If the wall breaks from the bludgeoning damage, deal the explosion damage internally. If multiple meteors target the same structure, assume they target it as efficiently as possible, either following in a line through the roof to blow up the interior of a tall building, or spread out across a wider building.

The following details explain casting nuances for this spell:

Target single Collossal or larger target: With this spell, one can send up to ten meteors crashing into the collosal target. (Special note: In this case, add an additional 1d6/caster level fire damage)

Target single Gargantuan or larger target: With this spell, one can send up to five of the meteorites crashing into the same target if it is Gargantuan or larger, dealing massive damage to the great beast.

Target single Huge or larger target: With this spell, one can send up to three of the meteorites crashing into the same Huge target.

Target single large target: With this spell, one can specifically target a single meteor crashing into the large target.

These values also apply to structures.

As a final option, a caster can choose a 'carpet bomb' option, in which they designate a target, and the meteors strike equally around all of those targets, with the intent of devastating an army.
Meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell that is extremely destructive. When you cast it, a massive meteorite appears in the sky above the target, and explodes, sending large (12 foot diameter) meteors cascading through the sky, enshrouded in flames.

If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Fire resistance is only applied once, no matter how many overlapping meteors apply. However, DR applies to each Meteor.

(Sorry it's so sloppy, I'm tired and being rushed. I already know it needs revision, but I'm looking for thoughts and critique.)

Alright guys. I'm somewhat of a Shannara nerd, and I got the brilliant idea to build a setting for it with Pathfinder/3.5. Doing so is going to require a bunch of work, and I'm requesting the help of the community to do so.

A small list of things we need.

A new caster class (Shannara Druid) to cover both sides. (Perhaps we can start with the witch as a foundation and start tweaking from there.)

We need to choose a time period. Myself I'm favoring the later period during the Federation vs Free-born war. Most likely after Khyber Elissidel restores the Druid order, and they branch out into widespread circulation (and, no doubt, some end up breaking off from the order and serving their own ends.) However that's just one possibility, if there are any other ideas I would love to hear them.

Highlights of the four lands, races, cultural differences, etc.

Racial Specs for the Troll (I know half-orc kind of works for this, but Trolls are more physically oriented while Pathfinder half-orcs are more versatile.)

Some creatures. Shrikes and War Shrikes, (PF already has Rocs, although we might need to scale them back because I expect this to be a low level setting) and a bunch of others. Many MM creatures can be left as is, but some of them will need to be axed or modified (Fae I'm looking at you.)

Set a level cap for the setting. I'm thinking somewhere between 5 and 8, but I'm not sure.

For the time being I need to leave, please brainstorm, Shannara fans. Lets see what we can come up with. (Also by all means feel free to present ideas unrelated to what I've covered in this post.)

Alright, in the vein of the other threads going on concerning how a DM has done this or that, or a player, or whatnot, here is a thread to present, analyse, discuss, and review various GM styles.

I know that some people struggle with the task of GMing, and haven't yet hit they're 'groove' so to speak. My hope is that this thread will present various different ways and approaches to GMing, both for casual entertaining conversation, and as a means for GM's to examine other ways to run games, and perhaps see something they'd like to try for themselves.

Mine is going to take me a while to write up, so I'll start on that now. I'm curious to see what all of you guys have to offer :)

You can cast a single target spell with a range of touch - so why ever prepare/cast spells with the "personal" target word? In my experience, you can cast touch range spells on yourself, so preparing a spell with the "personal" word seems more limiting.

My assumption is that you can't use single target spells on yourself, but there isn't anything in the text that spells this out explicitly. This might be something to clarify.

You can use single target spells on yourself. The difference, is frequently 'self only' spells are spells the game designers felt were too good to be applied to non-casters.

Ok, this subject came up in another thread. I know how I intend to rule it for my campaigns (in the most favorable way possible in this case, because it's primarily a monk bonus, and I feel monks need the help) but I want to know what the community feels as a whole.

This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks (IE no keen.) Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses.

Source Pathfinder #10 22
Price +1 bonus
Description
A weapon with the guided property allows its wielder to use his instinct when striking blows with it. Attacks from a guided weapon generally don’t strike hard, but they strike at precisely the right moment to maximize damage if in the hands of a particularly wise wielder. A character who attacks with a guided weapon modifies his attack rolls and weapon damage rolls with his Wisdom modifier, not his Strength modifier.

These weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch.

Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks.

Drawback: You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you’re casting).

Note: Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can you their Monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.

Now, this is my logic.

Amulet of Mighty Fists allows one to place magical enhancements that affect their unarmed strikes. In this case, we choose guided. (Bare in mind that doing so DOES prevent [or significantly increase the cost of] the use of an Amulet of Natural armor, except in campaigns that use the MIC item combining rules)

Brass Knuckles attacks ARE unarmed strikes, as per the description. All the brass knuckles do is make the unarmed damage lethal and allow one to enhance it magically.

Logically speaking, both the Amulet and the Brass knuckles can be enhanced, and both will affect the unarmed strikes made with the Brass Knuckles. Two instances of the same enhancement won't stack (including enhancement bonuses) but, for example, One could have a Guided Amulet, and +X Brass Knuckles, and both would work.

Your thoughts?

This subject got brought up in another thread, so I'm opening this one to discuss it in depth. I will note that I've only seen the anime, but that the Manga incorporates far higher levels of combat, where Guts is facing down demon lords of sorts. Both Manga and Anime voices are appreciated in this discussion.

WARNING! THIS THREAD LIKELY WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS! With that out of the way, by all means feel free to discuss the plot freely within the context of the discussion.

Alright, so I'm about to jump into a high level campaign (We start play at level 16), and the GM gave us full permission to play any creature we wanted, and to use the "Monsters as PC's" Guidelines in the Bestiary as rules (including the CR buyoff aspect.)

We're playing with 20 point buy, and pretty much all of 3rd Edition splat material is open to us (except Incarnum lol) There are a fair number of houserules in play, I'll do my best to mention them when they come up.

So... I flipped through the Bestiary and an epic concept came to me. A Copper Dragon Gish.

Thus...

Arathos, the Young Copper Dragon CR 6(bought down from CR 8), Fighter 1 Abjurant Champion 5, Eldritch Knight 4 (he's determined to sacrifice the access to Fighter only feats and fighter bonus feat ability of the Eldritch Knight prestige class, in exchange for a 'Channel Spell' ability, similar to that of the Duskblade. Additionally, he's houseruled away the lost caster level at level 1, on the condition that the character has at least one level in some non-casting Full BAB class, such as fighter)

Channel Spell: As part of the attack, an Eldritch Knight can channel a spell that deals HP damage into his weapon, inflicting the spells damage in addition to the weapon's damage should the attack hit. If the attack misses the spell is lost with no effect. If the spell offered a saving throw other than reflex (such as the fortitude save offered by disintegrate), the target is still allowed that saving throw.

Special: In the case of Cleave/Great Cleave/Whirlwind attack a Touch Spell so Channeled lasts throughout the entire attack.

Channel Touch Spells: At 10th level an Eldritch Knight gains the ability to hold the charge of a Touch Spell for longer than other spells. Touch Spells channeled into his weapon last until the beginning of his next turn. (This replaces Spell Critical)

His build details are blow

I would appreciate any opinions/advice on potential changes. The Gold Fullblade was part of his father's treasure that the old man never used, and is a large part of why he took up adventuring.

I've been considering taking flyby attack in place of Arcane Strike (PF) for the synergy with Vital Strike and a big weapon, but I have no idea what the party composition is going to be like at this point. It's possible I could be the most melee oriented character there.

(For those wondering, I'm working on a pretty kickass backstory for him, but I have to go for now, so I'll be posting that later. And yes, I've already checked with my GM, I am allowed to use both edition's Arcane Strikes if I wish.)

And yes, he wears Mithril Fullplate. The Sword is obviously for charges/standard actions/whirlwind attacks. He will occasionally full attack with it as a normal Fighter, but when it gets REALLY serious, he'll drop it and go hardcore with the natural attack routine.

Hey guys, it's me. I'm getting ready to run a heavily revised PF campaign in a week or two, we'll be playing at least once a week, but if the group can arrange to meet online more often than that then I'd be happy to run it more often.

It'll be a completely open sandbox, where your characters are free to do whatever they wish according to their personalities and backstories. Feel free to be an Evil SOB if that's what the character is, but also be warned the party might gank you if you piss them off too much.

I'll get the material posted online somewhere as soon as I'm able, but for now I'm opening this thread to discuss the characters that want to play.

So far the only character that is certain is a Paladin, incase you guys were hoping to avoid doubling up on classes. Don't worry about roles though, the game really won't care about roles, and if I've done my job well on the revisions, a party should be roughly as effective with a Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin as it would with a Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric.

So... lets start discussing things and see how the characters come together. (Also I will note, that generally speaking we will be creating the world together as we play, and that usually the only parts that are designed before play starts is the home towns/regions of the PC's)

We'll be doing this on Windows Live Messenger (which has a dice roller available for it, don't feel like linking it right now because I'm really tired, I'll get it up soon though), so if you don't have it but this campaign idea appeals to you feel free to join the discussion, and if you end up really wanting to play then I'd suggest you download it lol.

Alright, so right now I'm rereading through the series (on Blood of the Fold, book three) and I still can not make heads or tails of how the bulk of those who speak on these forums concerning the story have so many issues with it.

From the comments I've read, I almost get the impression most of those speakers here consider anybody who reads and enjoys the Sword of Truth to either be stupid or 'not mature readers' or some such.

Personally, I find it to be one of the better modern fantasy out there, and I'm flying through the series on my re-read, unable to put it down. I should probably be sleeping right now, and let my eyes rest, but I saw some more commentary and it confused me, so I wanted to get inside the heads of you guys and see what you think concerning this book series.

Hey guys, it's me again.

Right now on the boards there's a pretty sweeping debate concerning character creation and campaign restrictions, and I'd like an opportunity to prove it wrong and show how deep and meaningful a game can be that starts from scratch.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to make a PC here, I'll help out.

I'm going to leave the rules as they are, but point out that everything ever published for 3.X is open for discussion (Including APG playtest classes), though WotC books and Pathfinder 3rd parties will be more likely than 3.0/3.5 third party material.

If you guys like, I'd be happy to run you in a game once the PC's are complete. No you don't need to be a happy party that knows eachother or any of that, you are all indidividuals, people first. Any party that forms will form organically.

Hey guys, Kyrt here.

I've seen a fair bit of buzz around the forums lately regarding the wheel of time the fantasy novel series, and the d20 game it spawned.

I've got a few ideas on how to make the spellcasting work better and more true to the series, but I'm only one man.

If anybody here is interested in helping out, reply here. At some point soon I'll be posting the actual analasys and development thread in the homebrew section.

I realize I've been doing a great deal of complaining about the nature of monks as combatants lately, and I decided it was time to put up or shut up, so here I am, putting up a proposed fix for those of you who care.

These are changes or additions to the monk class, everything else is as written in the Corerulebook/PRD

Of course I'm open to discussion and happy to change things if people change my mind :)

I was looking over the rules and something peculiar struck me.

A character interested in charging (be that character a gish, a wildshaped druid, or a full on melee character) might be able to legitimately get two charges in a turn without abusing shadow pouncing or battle jump.

We all know the clause 'when a character is only able to make a standard action, he can make a charge attack with a movement limit equal to his normal speed.'

Now, what I was wondering, is if one were to cast Celerity (ironic how that spell manages to fit into a wand, and rules compendium shifted wand casting to match the listed casting times) that with that standard action (completely separate from his normal turn) he could charge, and unleash his particular brand of charging doom a second time during a given turn, after his actual turn has ended.

I recently saw an RP invitation for Google Wave, but I haven't really read much about the product (I'm looking it up right now) but I have to ask, what does it contribute to roleplaying? What's appealing about it?

If any of you have any experience using it could you share some about your experiences?

Hey guys, I've recently been doing some recruiting from various roleplaying connection sites, and there's something I've run into.

People in some places have an extreme hatred of Play by Post as a medium in general, but this seems doubly so for diceless PbP's.

You see, I run a role playing game (NOT a campaign, this uses an entirely different format) via Play by Post, and I've playing and running them for about 11 years now, and I don't really understand the hatred.

So... can anybody shine a light on that perspective? (If there's interest I'll set up a recruitment thread in gamer connection to let you guys check out the details on Masaru)

Alright guys, so I've been watching some of the debates on the forums, and it seems to me that some of the opposing views concerning these two classes is tied to how people view the classes in the story of the game.

To me personally, the wizard is a student of magic. He studies his musty tomes, commits himself to long hours straining to acquire the mathematical formulae necessary to harness the arcane energies of the universe.

The Sorcerer, on the other hand, IS magic. He's a living, breathing, expression of arcana. The Wizard is more versatile in that every day he can choose to prepare different spells for any situation, and can adapt to any challenge, but the Sorcerer is meant to be more overtly forceful, with more spells per day, and a certain list of powers that are an expression of who they are.

At no point in my analogy is there room for the Sorcerer to develop his spell levels more slowly than the Wizard. Infact, there is some logic to reverse it, but that would only put the Wizard in the poor unfortunate place the Sorcerer was for all of 3.X, and that's not cool.

Hey guys, all the talk of the upcoming alchemist class got me thinking of alchemy of a different kind.

How would YOU build an alchemist, based on the Full Metal Alchemist manga and/or anime.

So far I'm thinking Psionics or Incarnum, possibly some hybrid of the two.

And for the record, I have no problem if this thread ended up coming with a homebrewed class. Infact that'd be pretty cool :)

Hey guys, it's me. I finally quit procrastinating and am getting this thread set up for discussion of the game out of character (and for discussing other things as a group, should you guys have something you want to talk about.)

Anyways, I'm going to go to bed in a while, unless one of you mugs manages to get a post up before I do. Here's hoping there's at least one waiting for me in the morning if you don't lol.

OOC: Alright ladies, listen up. After a long time preparing, I'm finally ready to start this game. A few words of warning before it begins, this campaign is going to be very open flow, characters (and of course, those playing them) are encouraged to be as creative and inventive as they wish, your free spirit is crucial to the enjoyment of this campaign.

If there is something your character wants to do, by all means, do it. If your character hates a party member, then he hates the party member and will do whatever he would realistically do (whether that is work with the member and plot his doom, kill him in cold blood, try to turn him into your slave, whatever)

You guys are to never, ever, EVER, feel as though I'm pushing or pulling you in a given direction, I expect independent creativity and roleplaying from you guys. Go all out, hold nothing back. Lets make this the best campaign any of us have ever been in.

(Also, as a side note, I'd appreciate it if you guys would roleplay a little more depth than your probably used to, including your characters actions, his thoughts, his words, how he affects the environment, and the environment's reactions to him. Feel free to use NPC's that I haven't expressly controlled in minor ways to enrich the story.)

Now that the entry is overwith, it seems that the half-orc is the first available player. That means you get to choose where you start out and what your after pal, so start yourself off and lets see where this leads.

To those who come after, you have a choice. You could be in an area near him and end up coming into contact, or start roleplaying entirely independently of him and eventually come into contact, your choice, I'll handle each of you regardless.

One final note, start your posts with your roleplaying, and if you need to make an out of character commentary of any sort (tied to the post of course, we will have an OOC thread for casual discussion) then please make an OOC: tag at the bottom, with whatever needs to be said. Have fun guys.

(Bet this is the first time a GM let you guys open things up with free reign, isn't it lol.)

Hey guys, it's me, Lucian.

Since our beloved PbP has unfortunately seemed to stall, I felt it appropriate we establish a discussion thread to hash things out and keep it flowing.

First step, is getting word from the boss. Second step maybe a commitment from everybody to post at least once a day?

Over the course of my time here, I've really fallen in love with the forum, there are alot of really cool, helpful, friendly people here, staff and fans alike. But there's always been one thing missing from it's functionality. Private messaging.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wished I had the option available, to be able to discuss matters without involving the entirity of the community, to be able to exchange email addresses without leaving them in the open where anyone could have them, etc etc.

So... is there any chance maybe we could get a private messaging feature guys?

Hey guys, it's me, your friendly neighborhood Kyrt... ok, that was corny. Anyways, I'm getting ready to run a campaign I've been working on since I picked up my Pathfinder Core Rulebook from my FLG two months ago (closer to 6 weeks I suppose)

You see, I've always wanted my game to have a closer balance, where non-casters and casters are both equally awesome at high levels, where the game is a heck of a ride all the way through. But as most of you know, 3.5, and to a somewhat lesser extent Pathfinder, surrender world changing power to casters and don't give non-casters enough. I've done alot of work to change that.

I'm here to run a campaign using these modified pathfinder rules (which I'll distribute electronically and help my players design their characters if desired), and show you guys a good time.

Before you sign in though, you should know what your in for, so below is a small blurb about my style.

I'm an EXTREMELY spontaneous GM, I literally plan nothing ahead of time, instead relying on wit, insight, memory, and creativity to see me through. Everything that ever happens in game, from the people encounterred, to the buildings visited, to the dangers faced, it all evolves in the moment.

I expect my players to contribute creatively, when they want to do something or when they get an impression about something I've described I want you guys to flesh it out with what you see in your mind, to help me bring it to life. And never ever ever withhold a question, the only bad question is one not asked.

So... are you in?

Hey guys, it's me. This is a homebrew rule I've been contemplating for use in my game, and I'm curious what you guys think of it.

In core, a 'high jump' is nothing but the deffinition of how high a given jump check takes you. It's no higher than a long-jump goes, just part of the same result.

My rule, in order to squeak a little more variety into this particular use of acrobatics is as follows.

High Jump: When making a jump check with the acrobatics skill, make the check as normal, and consult the table for distances. A high jump jumps 50% higher than the listed jump height, but only traverses 1/2 as far laterally.

It just makes sense to me, a high jump should be a jump that focuses it's energies into maximizing height, at the cost of potential distance covered. (And, if you notice, the cost to potential distance is more than the increased leap height.)

Hey guys, it's me looking for a little advice.

You see, I'm somewhat of a balance fanatic, and I've seen several people on the forums point out issues between the domains. I haven't actually had a player use cleric since the playtest, so haven't really had the impetus to examine these, and I'm wondering what the Paizo community had to say about them.

Hey there. I've been reading alot of great reviews on the various adventure paths, on how great the stories are and deep the plots and such, and I've had an epiphany.

You see, in my campaigns there is no pre-designed plot, the plot develops and evolves entirely as I and the players roleplay the game, everything is entirely spur of the moment and pure creativity based, one encounter will lead down a line of logic and series of adventures, and so on, building a plot and eventually generating resolution of that plot one way or another. It's as much a surprise to me as to the players when the villain reveals itself etc.

Anyways... I've been thinking about the AP's, and longing to get to play or run one, and I realized that I wouldn't have to run them straight out of the books.

You see, I've always been one to absorb the information presented me, to be able to file it away for further use and apply and modify it as need be. So below is my idea for a way to incorporate AP's into my campaign, in your comments please assume that I am capable of doing so.

My idea, is to purchase the various adventure paths, and read them serveral times until I can commit their contents, NPC's, plot hooks etc to memory. Then, during our Sandbox sessions, when the PC's provoke something that would set them off on one of the AP's, for example hiring passage on a ship might lead to Crimson Tides or some such, then the AP can just evolve out of that, with me adjusting the difficulties and enemy abilities to the party level, bring some Paizo adventure design into the campaign.

Your thoughts on the idea? Would you enjoy such a situation? I've heard some GM's complain about players seeing them work out of a module book and try to 'cheat' so to speak, there deffinitely would be no threat of that here.

The Subject presents the general concept of this thread, though I'm open to more generalized discussion on people's thoughts on the book as well.

As an aside, and not meaning anything offensive by this, I find it amusing how often people say they have issues with the spell compendium.

I'm curious, what issues do people have with the book, and why do, or do not, they think it's a balanced source of spells for play?

Alright, I've been reading all the issues with the barbarian, and watching the one at my table fall unconscious and deep into the redzone, and I started thinking to myself. "Why am I still using this PF rule? I houseruled 3.5 for years for rage to grant temporary HP, I knew losing the HP at the end of rage was bad, but here I am just waiting for it to kill one of my PC's in a situation where she deserves to live."

So anyway, I sat down and came up with this tweak to the Pathfinder Barbarian, I hope you guys like it. I've playtested it through levels 6-10 (and she JUST hit 11 and had one fight!) and I can say it plays beautifully, she's an expert meatshield and the enemy(ies) have to focus on her to bring her down, but she makes them focus by bringing alot of damage and battlefield control to the table.

(An important note before I continue, in my games the lunge feat increases genuine reach, representing a strategic combatant's ability to 'lunge' into an opening provoked by an opponent even if they are a fair distance. Yes I've studied a fair amount of fencing lol)

Without further ado, the Barbarian patch.

There you have it. Fairly simple to implement and it makes a huge difference on how the barbarian functions. Finally it's the bloody take everything they have and keep fighting beast I always envisioned. (For those who've seen Kingdom of Heaven, I think of the big german with the beard who served with the main character's old man as my iconic barbarian. I guess the LotR equivalent is the guy who ate a ton of arrows in fellowship of the ring.)

Please let me know what you guys think, and have fun with it. (Just an fyi, we also have a fighter in the party, and he's not being outshone, and is glad to have a barbarian to help eat the punishment that the monsters are dishing out.)

Hey guys, I just wanted to start a bit of a discussion on something that's always perplexed me.

Why are so many GM's fan of the video-game like "Boss Fights" at the end of an adventure. Play through the level, beat the minions and mini-bosses, complete the puzzles, and beat the BBEG (aka Boss) at the end of the level.

It's just not a style I've ever used, in the campaigns I run every encounter is of equal difficulty, every encounter pushes my players hard, whether it's a swarm (and I mean swarm) of npc's maybe their CR -2, or a pair of enemies their CR +2, every time they run into trouble its intense and breathtaking. There aren't any extra special fights that signify the end of an adventure, and heck there are times the mastermind behind events isn't even a combatant but a slithering manipulative worm who had champions and armies (and some monsters but mostly intelligent ones, I've never really been a fan of using monsters as beast-like encounters) at his command but once faced with the point of a sword snivels and begs for mercy.

Anyways, my little personal story aside, why do so many people favor the BBEG method?

Hey guys, I've been looking over my campaign ideas, and looking over the ranger class, and I came to a realization. They fair 'ok' against their best favored enemy, maybe their second best, but they tend to not really bring their force to bare against their lesser favored enemies.

As such, I'm implementing this houserule (and would like to hear feedback from you guys.)

Part 1: Changed progression. Rather than gaining an additional one at fifth level and every 5th level thereafter, I am having my rangers gain extra favored enemies every 4 levels. (1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 to be specific), the reasoning, is that 20th level almost never sees any play, and 17th level is the level all the primary casters (sorcerer's are houseruled to proper spell level progression in my game) gain 9th level spells so an extra kick up there is appreciated.

Part 2: Rangers no longer have 'weaker' favored enemies, each favored enemy gained has the maximum favored enemy bonus available at that level. (For example at level 9 he will have three favored enemies that each grant +6 to all appropriate bonuses.)

Part 3: Rangers gain a bonus on all saves caused by their favored enemy's (poison, traps crafted by a favored enemy, spell save DC's, everything) equal to 1/2 their current favored enemy bonus.

There is one final part I want to add but I won't until I've had a chance to playtest the first, but I'm still going to lay it down for review.

Part 4: Rangers choose a Type to specialize against (no subtypes in this part), additionally, they choose a preferred prey subtype. Against the preferred subtype they're favored enemy bonuses are as normal, against all others of the type they gain 1/2 (round down as normal)

Feat(that coordinates with Part 4, prereqs undetermined and irrelevant at this point): Master Hunter- Choose one favored Enemy type that you posses, now all creatures of that type are considered your preferred prey. This feat may be taken more than once, it's effects don't stack, each time you take this feat it applies to a different favored enemy type.

I don't know for certain the intent behind it, but I can state with complete certainty (though I am only human so if somebody proves me wrong, my bad lmao) that the wording of Vital Strike is telling you only weapon damage dice get multiplied and giving examples of bonuses that do not get multiplied.

Alright guys, the shadow dancer is a class that... frankly... can't really be playtested any more than it already has in our experience in 3.5E. Simple truth, its almost exactly the same class, with the only noteworthy differences being availiable skills and the tweak to the saves that's been made. On that vein, I'm going to bring up a few points, and hope we can discuss them. Without an actual change the Shadow Dancer (a class who's fluff and concept I absolutely adore, but who has been next to worthless in the games I and one of my players have attempted them in)

1- Shadow Handicap: The undead shade a shadow dancer can summon is very little more than a Handicap. Its weak to the point that it can expect to die quite easily, and the shadow dancer is not even able to dismiss it willfully without losing XP. As it stands, a shadow dancer is better off without ever summoning this shade, and as a result one of their class features is wasted space.

2- Shadow Crash: The shadow jump feature is very cool, but also very non-effective. We picture shadow-dancers leaping along the shadows and striking unseen. This needs to be adressed, because as it stands, shadow jump will either Jump the shadow dancer into the frying pan without being able to attack or take any other actions, or its just a method of running away. (Furthermore, the nature of this ability seems to encourage archery based shadow-dancers, which conflicts very badly with the concept and fluff of the class)

3- Shadow Illusion: its an interesting ability to have, but once per day? How much effective use out of that is a shadow-dancer going to get? Really it doesn't seem to benefit them at all except in rare, extreme circumstances.

4- Dipping: Currently all the good things a typical character might want, hide-in-plain-sight, darkvision, evasion, uncanny dodge (or improved uncanny dodge if they already posess uncanny dodge) are all in the first two levels, and after that there isn't alot of point to the class except perhaps as a night-time scout.

I've got some ideas rolling around in my head regarding these concerns, but I've made this post long enough, so I'll leave it and see what others have to say, and add my piece a while later. I'd love to playtest the Pathfinder Shadowdancer, but as I said, so far there isn't one, just a transplanted 3.5 Shadowdancer.

(Sorry there's already a thread on this, but I already had it typed up and tried to submit, and for some reason it failed.)