lastknightleft's page

having said that, the dog I concede is in something I'd consider heavy armor, but none of the horses. And I've seen most of those armors before.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The 3rd pic(BTW which is awesome) would count as chain mail for the guy(maybe splint, but there is not much splint there} and prob splint for the horse

Cool, so we agree that heavy armor barding isn't silly, it's awesome! ;)

FWIW, I call it banded mail because the mail strips are parallel to the curvature of the horse's body. Splint mail is perpendicular to the curvature. That's why banded has better max dex and ACP.

I really applaud the creation of stat blocks for regions, I really do. But I just think they're better of in the chronicles books where you expect the stuff to be relevant to players and GMs, if there was an Osirion gazateer in the chronicles lines or isn't there a guide to darkmoon vale in the chronicles line? I think those things are perfect PERFECT, for stat blocks. and hey an evocitave description of a character can imply what kinds of feats and traits they have. If you describe the NPC as going into battle with her spiked chain weaving it in patterns meant to terrify and dazzle opponents then it's pretty obvious she's gonna have the feats exotic weapon proficiency spiked chain, and dazzling display, and i doubt there are many people who read a book about cheliax see feats for spiked chains in the book, read about her using a spiked chain and then say, I really doubt she'll take those feats :).

By the way, once again, no matter what you guys ultimately decide, I really have to applaud the effort you take to respond to us with your opinions. Just knowing that you know how I feel about the subject and take it into consideration really makes me trust that in the end you make the best decisions for your customers. Even when those decisions wind up being things I don't agree with (double damage against certain creature type smite, I'm looking at you! :D )

lastknightleft wrote:

Understanding it's a fantasy game and everything goes, I really do not want to see horses in heavy armor, it's just silly.

Silly? Try quite historically accurate.

Curses cannot be considered to use character level instead of class level - some of the abilities simply don't make sense. For example, the haunted curse grants free spells. Giving telekinesis to a Fighter 5/Oracle 5 would be a bit odd, particularly since there's no way to cast it.

Other abilities would make dipping extremely attractive, especially after 10th of 15th level. In most cases, the high-level benefits of curses dramatically outweigh the low-level penalties. Besides, picking up a single level of a class when you hit 15th shouldn't grant a whole host of abilities (let alone 6 spells). I'll admit that some curses are not nearly as attractive for high-level cherry picking, but there are enough that they should not be governed by character level.

The exception in my thought process it the Clouded Vision curse. I LOVE the concept, but that HURTS. Additionally, if your race already grants darkvision, you gain no benefit until 10th level. That is a long time to wait; prohibitively long if you're multi-class. I would argue that the progression of Clouded Vision should count all levels gained since the curse was applied (i.e. - since the first level of Oracle). I'll even go a step further and recommend some low-level benefit be added - at the very least for those characters who already have darkvision.

Yeah big addendum, I'm a huge fan of the companion line, I own every one of them. So don't think it's something I'm upset about and going to stop buying companions, but if I see something I dislike or would prefer to be done differently I'm going to tell you about it.

I'm the guy who brought it up when I noticed no traits in the osirion companion

I mean taking aside my earlier arguments because really I have great players that I can trust not to use spoilerific information. The stat blocks are just not going to see much use as is. Even players and DMs using them will probably have to either level them down or up, adjust their magic items. for me they require entire rewrites. I would enjoy the section much much more if all they had as far as stats went were Jemet Winderbole (CG halfling rogue 7) and then I can make him fit my world, hell even if my players take leadership and I was intent on using that character, I'd probably wind up having to take levels off of the character and spend time figuring out how much gear to strip to match his wealth by level since the player took leadership at 7 and the cohort has to be 2 levels lower. At that point it's just as easy for me to stat up a rouge 5 from scratch. So I'd much rather have the space wasted on the statblocks used for more personas, heck I bet you'd easily fit 2-3 more in the space you save.

That's an interesting idea. I'd be happy if the cavalier mount got bonus feats for armor proficiency. Making a full plate barding warhorse costs 3 feats for the mount to not take penalties from armor. Allowing the mount not to be slowed by armor similar to a fighter would be extra sweet on top of that!

A cavalier's mount gets light armor proficiency in place of share spells.

That's it, finito, done.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

I am looking into an ability that grants them a reduction or elimination to their ACP for the Ride skill, but giving them armor training like a fighter is probably out. There is enough cross pollination between these classes as it is.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Well it doesn't have to be necessarily same as the Fighter's Armor Training, but a small class feature (as Armor Training is one) that reward the Cavalier for wearing medium/heavy armor in addition to a forthcoming ability that apply reduction to ACP when involving the Ride Skill.

lastknightleft wrote:

Oh I get it, so it's okay to be inferior because its the only official option, gotcha.

Look, the Oracle as a class may be underpowered or inferior to others, maybe you need more bonuses for the penalty, or maybe something that different can't be done. What I like about the curse is the hard choice it would make to multi-class. Maybe this choice is too hard, maybe not, but making it character level vs class level invites level dipping at high levels that shouldn't just be ignored.

lastknightleft wrote:

Arabian Horse Lord...

I really like this. I'd love to hear how it works out!

By the way I think you had your camel take Nimble moves twice at 5th and 8th so you should be able to get Acrobatic Steps at 8th and another feat at 10th!

Yeah I seriously wish I was a player in a weekly game instead of a DM (violently opposed to the notion of DMPCs) I don't really care for play by posts usually, but if it's the only way to show that this class is capable of more than just your standard medieval knight, like people seem to shoehorn it into, then I'll go at it with gusto and have a blast while it lasts.

And you seem hung up on the fact that the Oracle class has a different mechanic in it. Indeed it is a penalty and at the same time gives you a bonus. You get a little more of a bonus at 5th and then again at 10th and 15th. If someone doesn't want to stick with a class long enough to get those bonuses to offset the penalty, than that is their choice...just like choosing to multi-class off of cleric and not getting any more of the domain powers or any other class specific features.

Somehow it's okay that you can dip a sorcerer and take no drawbacks, but the divine version is somehow overpowered because how? this is a balance issue, the drawback isn't balanced if you don't stay in the class. There's a difference between making multi-classing a less optimal option, which it is because of spell levels, the revelations and everything else, and outright actively discouraging it, which this does.

lastknightleft wrote:

oh what other class has a feature that imparts a drawback, is it the monk? or the sorcerer? enlighten me please.

It is a class specific feature, whether other classes have the same thing or not. You get some unique powers and at higher level the bonuses you get start to outweigh the drawback.

lastknightleft wrote:

oh yeah, cause there isn't a favored soul, or a shaman, Oracle is the only spontaneous divine class out there.

None of those are Pathfinder classes. This is a Pathfinder specific class, and you shouldn't assume that any game will allow any previous 3.5 splat book class.

lastknightleft wrote:

yishaysho wrote:

I've started a new game on RPoL to playtest the new classes and pathfinder as a whole. Come and take a look!

http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=4&ti=22155&date=1258630699

I posted my interest, but I'm warning you my goal is to see how variable the class is to alternate concepts basically I want to create an arabian horse lord as a cavalier, He'll either ride a horse or camel, be lightly armored and focused on mobility, use a longspear as a lance, and when in melee two weapon fight with a saber and short sword.

That is an ambitious idea and sounds more than a little feat heavy. I'd love to see the build once you get it worked out.

At second level I would get mounted combat and the camel would get mobility.

At 3rd I'd get ride by attack.

5th would be Spirited charge while the Camel (who i would put his 4th level ability score increase into intelligence) would take nimble moves.

6th would be Vital Strike

7th would be Weapon Finesse (my dex at this point will probably have a good lead on my str)

8th would be acrobatic step for the camel.

9th I'm thinking wind stance

10th is a non-build feat something that we'll see how the game is going and plug in what is needed. The camel gets spring attack (so that he can spit on people as he charges towards them).

11th is improved Vital Strike.

That's about where I'm gonna stop planning cause I'll take where the game leads me from there.

The fun thing being I'm always gonna end the round with the camel spitting in someone's face lol

on an unrelated note, a deaf multiclassed oracle/any other spellcaster can cast all spells as if modified by the silent spell feat, not just the oracle spells, am I correct?

lastknightleft wrote:

If there was some significant power behind the class that warranted the curse being based off oracle level, I'd be okay with it, but there isn't anything I can see that says that he should take a permanent penalty with no gain for god forbid wanting to play a spontaneous theurge.

In otherwords give me a fair reason the curse should be based off of Oracle level?

Other than that is the way every other class works on class specific abilities?

You mention that he is getting a permanent penalty for no gain, yet you stress he wants a spontaneous Theurge, I believe he is getting something by having that curse. If he doesn't want the curse then he'll have to take cleric and lose the spontaneous divine casting. Seems like a tough decision and one should have those when multiclassing.

lastknightleft wrote:

Right now honestly favored soul is a better class for him it has less flavor and didn't grant him anything, but at least it didn't arbitrarily weaken him for no real gain.

So I guess he has a tough decision again, does he go for flavor, or does he go for the best output in number crunching.

The cavalier as written screams Arthurian Knight.

Unfortunately, that's about the only concept that it fits. It just seems to be too specialized from a roleplay perspective.

Added to that, there really isn't any new mechanic that warrants the creation of a new class.

Challenge = repackaged sneak attack
Banners = bardic music variants

Oaths are new, but hardly enough to base a class on.

Its been stated that this class was intended to fill the role of the battlefield leader, and the class as written can do that. But so can the fighter, paladin, cleric, or bard.

I think a better implementation would have been to add feats that make it easier for those classes to fill that role.

A feat to allow a player to pick up a mount. (Similar to whats been proposed for the Cavalier)

Feats to allow a character to focus on battlefield leadership. A rally feat to counter an ally's failed fear save for example.

Even the knightly orders would be better represented as feat chains. (Does the Order of the Shield not admit fighters or paladins?)

I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.

Surkin

Then there's the medieval knight, who is all about taking on a single foe at a time, who wades in heavily armored with sword and shield, targeting a single foe as comfortable off his horse in one on one melee as on. a true knight in the arthurian mold This one has your more classic knight oaths of purity and protection and is an order of the lion knight.

Then there's rogue/cavalier, who may or may not be multiclassed. his schtick is fighting dirty, charging in on his mount and then jumping clear so that the horse makes a big distraction and provides a flank of it's own while he stacks his sneak attack and flanking. he'll probably wind up in mithral medium armor, and stick to a single weapon with vital strike so that he can tumble clear from any sticky situations and move quickly on foot so that he doesn't get surrounded, for him it's obviously oaths of greed and vengence, and of coarse order of the dragon.

You're telling me those three characters sound similar in theme and playstyle?

lastknightleft wrote:

So do you not allow drow because they come across as evil demon worshiping bastards? I'm just trying to get the line that's drawn that says okay so the impression I get from the general race means your character has to be that way. And the idea that I can be a goblin inventor but not a gnome inventor, makes sense?

actually in various games i have played in yes. Drow have been banned from the campaign as pcs. in others, it was dwarves or elves. In another it was humans. All depends on the campaign, players and GM. I dont have a problem with a player or GM saying "I dont like such and such race/class/nationality/religion...can we not have those in the game?" As long as everyone agrees, i dont see an issue.

You don't have to do anything. I've known people who have played blind (and not just limited vision, either) characters for no mechanical benefit whatsoever. If lame fits his character, that's fine. It's not a very strong curse. He won't be any slower than a cleric would be, since a cleric would be in medium armor and thus have its speed reduced to exactly what his is.

In otherwords give me a fair reason the curse should be based off of Oracle level?

Right now honestly favored soul is a better class for him it has less flavor and didn't grant him anything, but at least it didn't arbitrarily weaken him for no real gain. But there's a simple fix, make the curse based off of character level instead and suddenly its still a fair and balanced feature.

Peter Stewart wrote:

Beckett wrote:

I don't know, unlike normal, I think a Straight Oracle 10/Sorcerer 10 might work pretty well, as is.

*Sprays drink all over computer screen*

Seriously? Um... yeah. Good luck with that one. Let me guess, you're one of the DM's who feels the Mystic Theurge is overpowered?

Not at all. But I specifically didn't say Mystic Theurge. As is, the Oracle and Sorcerer both work very similarly, both have exactly the same stat priorities (or close depending on your build preference), can benefit from almost all feats they might take for one class or the other, and can out spellcast the Mystic Theurge in a way.

Right now what we know is that the curse is a total bone the player to a multiclass character. Since it's based off of Oracle level, and since he'll be going into a PrC he gets the hey you're boned without ever getting the hey here's some nice stuff to make up for it. I've already suggested that the curse abilities be based off of character level. Right now he has lots of utility spells to help out, he likes focusing on damage and fire spells, so he spends most of his time casting flaming sphere and magic missiles and cure light wounds where it is needed. But in no way is he overpowering. As the other player stated, he could be casting third level spells right now and by the time he gets his third level spells a straight oracle or sorcerer would have 5th level spells, now he's the only caster in the group as of right now so he doesn't get outshined by anyone, like he would if there was a full caster in the party.

I've started a new game on RPoL to playtest the new classes and pathfinder as a whole. Come and take a look!

http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=4&ti=22155&date=1258630699

lastknightleft wrote:

So basically my gnome alchemist character would have been out (tinker)
My gnome sorcerer would be out (tinker), and my gnome bard would be out (tinker) remind me not to join your table. I love tinker gnomes, I spend hours coming up with inventions for them, drawing (pseudo-b.s.) schematics and maxing crafts to create them. The gnome inventor is one of my favorite archtypes to play always with new inventions each time, my bard was gonna have a dart launching flute, my alchemist had all sorts of slings and crossbows designed around delivering alchemical death (way before I found 3.5 equivalents of my inventions) and my battle socerer had steam powered weaponry. I actually find golarion gnomes somewhat bland, I loved dragonlance gnomes luckily the obsessive trait usually allows me to talk my DM into letting my gnomes obsess over gadgetry, but apparently I'd be banned at your table.

Most likely would be out in any of my group's games, Last. We'd probably let an Iron Kingdoms Goblin into a game long before we did a Krynn Gnome. Partially because the Goblin Bodgers come across as far far more competent to us and the usual image of Krynn Gnomes is a well-meaning but often largely incompetent inventor who is more a threat to himself and those around him than the enemy.

-Weylin

One person's spoiler is another person's player-friendly flavor, honestly. We aim to make the contents of the Companions player-friendly but still have enough information in them that they actually feel like they're set in Golarion. Frankly, when my PCs take enough interest in a game I'm running and actually seek out information on the world I'm running... I'm delighted. And since I have control of the world, if they accidently find out something I think is a spoiler, I either change the way it works in my game, ask the player to keep that info separate from his character's knowledge, or (usually) just roll with it.

Don't get me wrong a statblock for the personas in the chronicles line and I would've cheered them and encouraged them. I just don't feel the limited use they'll be (that can't be easily covered without an actual statblock) necessitates them in the companions. And that's not to say don't detail people that can be used as cohorts and contacts, just don't stat them up and use that space free'd up for more generally useful stuff.

FYI the elven queen in the Elves book and the Ruby Prince in the Osirion book predate our conscious shift in the Companion line to be player-oriented. They are the examples of the sort of information players should NOT have in a player-oriented book: game stats on NPCs that, conceivably, the PCs may oppose in a combat situation.

So take a curse that doesn't have a big drawback, like Tongues. Tongues can be almost completely overcome if even one or two party members takes whichever language he speaks in during combat. He still won't be able to understand anything an enemy says in combat, but how often does that really matter anyway? He can still understand enemies throwing down their weapons in surrender, etc.

If he really insists on sticking with the Lame curse, that's another weak one, too, just not quite as weak. Have him buy a pair of boots of striding and springing and voila, he's back to 30' speed.

B and this is the big one) you shouldn't have to take specific curses just because your character wants to have levels in another class, heck people are complaining that lame screws dwarves, I personally don't think that having one curse you can't take if your one race is that big a deal, yet that's okay but saying basically okay, you have to take one of the lesser curses even if they don't fit your character concept because the others have way to big a drawback for your multiclassing build that's just dandy?

lastknightleft wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Pathfinder intentionally discourages "dipping".

Actually it doesn't just discourage dipping, it kills multi-class, the character is a sorcerer/oracle going for theurge, the most levels he's going to have in oracle is 4, that's not a dip, but it's not enough to make his curse not royally bone him with no benefit.

In fact most multiclassed characters I know tend to take a PrC to balance their non-synergistic features. The curse as I said hurts that idea.

How is this any different from a Sorcerer multiclassing? Or a Cleric? The bloodline abilities and the domain abilities both stop progressing with other classes. Same with a wizard's school powers. The Curses not progressing is just another bit of the same.

Pathfinder intentionally discourages "dipping".

In fact most multiclassed characters I know tend to take a PrC to balance their non-synergistic features. The curse as I said hurts that idea.

The lack of growth of the Foci benefits is more than enough to discourage dipping and one I have no problem with in fact when talking to my player I even told him that in my opinion the revelations should be based off of oracle level and the curse off of character level, but that as written I understood it all to be off of character level, but now I know it's because I didn't catch that rule in the multiclassing section.

lastknightleft wrote:

So I have a player in my game who is a sorcerer 4/Oracle 2 and has gone with the flame foci and the lame curse. By my reading of the oracle, the curse and the revelations he already has are based off of total level (only the saves seem to be based off of oracle level). So an he has immunity to fatigue and if he has fire breath he deals 6d4 with a save of (+3 Cha) 14. Just wanted to make sure that was intentional.

I do think that it is good though because it makes an oracle decent when multiclassed the curse especially can't be based off of Oracle level, that would instantly kill any multi-classing so well done.

The player was a bit disappointed because he originally had favored soul levels so his saves took a massive hit. But he does like the Burning magic revalation which is the one he ultimately chose. Unfortunately they had suffered heavily from disease so we didn't get to any combat this session, roleplaying the reactions of the greatful populace.

Unless otherwise noted, class abilities are based off levels in that class. This is discussed on page 31 of the core rulebook, in the last paragraph of the Multiclassing section.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Oh by the way while my initial impression of the curses was negative, I've definitely come around. I think they're just dandy, but yeah, that's one feature that needs to be based off of character level, not class level.

My player was talking about it, if the curses aren't based off of character level, he'll be switching his mutliclass back to favored soul, even though he thinks the oracle is better flavor wise.

Next session we'll be able to report how he fares in combat situations, by the way he went with the lame curse.

Oh, and they'll be traveling with a fighter 1/warrior1 and a cavalier 1/ Warrior 1, NPCs for the next few sessions (i use a system of NPC level buyout that will eventually just have them being fighter 2 and cavalier 2) So we'll be able to report how a fighter and a cavalier with the same equipment work.

Thanks, Zombieneighbours! Thanks for the linkage, Vic! And thanks for making this whole thing happen, Qwilion!

EDIT: The link just takes me to the main store page, though. Might just be on my end, but...

FURTHER EDIT: I'm Ashton Sperry, the aforementioned artist, by the way. Just preventing confusion. :)

Ahhh, yes my dark influence spreads Mwuah haha haha ha! Glad to see you're really killing it with these minis :)

Seriously while flame worked well enough for my player I can't help but feel that none of the foci really fit his character.

is this one of those don't think about... things?

There's no reason why you as a GM can't use those NPCs for other purposes. And you can work with your players to create your own stats for feats, spells, and traits, too; the point of these sort of books is that it provides these things so you don't have to.

As for leaving the stats out, the Persona section has always included full stats on one or more characters.

By the way, even if we disagree on stuff I really appreciate you guys weighing in. it seems like people don't really use this section of the board much so I was kinda worried, and yet here I am actually talking with two of the people who actually had a hand in the product. It's part of the reason I became such a Paizite.

Weylin wrote:

Kender were and are vermin to me ;)

Too many players I knew took them as an excuse to be monumentally annoying. Same with Krynn Gnomes.

-Weylin

I'm not fond of Kender myself and you are correct no one ever played them as anything other than extremely annoying characters.
Like I said the PfRPG gnomes are not my favorite, because they remind of the Kender, but I still like them better than the older version of gnomes. Which is why I lifted the ban... for now.
Fortunately no one in my current group ever wants to play a gnome. They all tend to play more exotic races, which is ok with me.

Denim N Leather wrote:

Title says it all -- how long can you hold your action in combat?

By RAW 1 round maximum. At which point you would have lost your action for the previous round and be back to your original init in the new round.

So I have a player in my game who is a sorcerer 4/Oracle 2 and has gone with the flame foci and the lame curse. By my reading of the oracle, the curse and the revelations he already has are based off of total level (only the saves seem to be based off of oracle level). So an he has immunity to fatigue and if he has fire breath he deals 6d4 with a save of (+3 Cha) 14. Just wanted to make sure that was intentional.

I do think that it is good though because it makes an oracle decent when multiclassed the curse especially can't be based off of Oracle level, that would instantly kill any multi-classing so well done.

The player was a bit disappointed because he originally had favored soul levels so his saves took a massive hit. But he does like the Burning magic revalation which is the one he ultimately chose. Unfortunately they had suffered heavily from disease so we didn't get to any combat this session, roleplaying the reactions of the greatful populace.

And those NPCs also have a section on what you'd have to do to their gear to elevate them from NPC-level gear to PC-level equipment, so if a player needed a new PC you could easily provide them with several pregenerated ready-to-play PCs.

But as James said, the main focus of that section is to provide fully-statted hirelings or cohorts for PCs. And unless you make a habit of keeping strange secrets about the cohorts (for which the PC spent a feat), the player ought to be aware of what the cohort can do, and thus they need the cohort's stat block.

Not saying it's a waste of space for everyone, just for me personally. Although I'd much rather persona's left stats out of it then you could fit in even more people than just four.

w0nkothesane wrote:

My Human Fighter 1 x20 is going to have 31 feats and rock your puny Fighter 20's butt.

Yeah, but that Will save is going to be the end of you.

So... Fiery Gaze + Obscuring Mist + Bow = win?

As far as I can tell this would allow you to use ranged attacks against enemies within the aoe of obscuring mist without penalty. I would also give you the bonuses labeled under invisibility as you can still see your target, but they can't see you if you are further than 10' away( but only if they are inside the obscuring mist too. It turns obscuring mist into a quasi-Improved Invisibility. Except the duration is 1 min/level and you are confined to a 20ft radius fog cloud.

Since when are players supposed to have NPC statblocks? I don't consider that player friendly at all, I consider that a quick way to an annoying conversation when my NPCs don't stick to the stat block, please tell me this was a one time mistake in the cheliax book and that we aren't going to be seeing NPC stat blocks in future companions.

I would never allow this, gods do not share. You are devoted to your god, not him and that guy over there.

With that said I would allow a cleric to worship a pathaion, or maybe husband/wife or brother/sister combos if it fit

I'd allow a cleric to worship two like minded gods, but I wouldn't allow a multiclassed cleric/cleric, you'd just be cleric with 1 domain from each diety.

Hmm, well right now my table is comprised of three straight guys, my wife was at one point bi, but now that we're married she identifies as straight (since the only person she's having sex with is me :) ). My first gaming table was me, my two lesbian roomates, and a straight guy. I've worked for and with a transgendered individual, and I've worked with a wiccan. In fact the only thing on your list that would make me uncomfortable is your admittance of being a furry, I'd probably ask you not to talk about that or bring it up. And honestly once I got comfortable with you I'd spend a good amount of time making fun (in a good natured way) of you for it (making fun of my friends is pretty much standard, I don't make fun of people I don't like, they aren't worth thinking of).

Has there been any update on this book, last I heard it was ganked from this website due to issues with public use art. I was really interested in this book so I'm curious if it's back or at least what the status is on it coming back.

lastknightleft wrote:

I do admit disappointment to hear that they aren't going to be making anything for the core rules that wouldn't fit into golarion, that's a bit disenheartening. but it's their product, I'll just have to live with the disappointment.

A more accurate way of saying that is that there's not anything on our 2010 schedule of rulebooks that wouldn't fit well into Golarion. In 2011, who can say? I firmly believe that if the Pathfinder rules continue to exceed our expectations we'll very swiftly be branching out into new content that's not necessarily going to be officially supported by Golarion stuff (but that COULD go in there since it'll use the same basic rules).

The thing to remember is this: We're only a couple months into the new game's life cycle. As recently as the start of August we were still unsure if the game was going to be a success. It could have totally bombed, at which point we would be disappointed but would still have the Golarion stuff to support the company. In other words, Golarion is a proven success already and it's something we can trust to support us because it's got a lot of fans already.

Now, the GOOD news is that the Pathfinder RPG is VASTLY exceeding our expectations. To the point where it's very difficult to keep the book on store shelves, and we're scrambling to reprint as fast as possible (it was really scary, in fact, ordering a reprint of a book that hadn't actually sold to any customers yet back in early August!). Now that we're pretty convinced that the game's a success, and that it'll be able to support itself, we can start to think about doing stuff that's more fringe... like psionics rules, or a Savage Species book, or whatever. But at the same time we've already got our entire schedule for 2010 locked down with folks writing stuff already. The biz moves slowly.

till combat ends

Selgard wrote:

Couldn't read lips be somewhat adequately covered by a point in Linquistics(read lips).

I mean, I know it isn't quite a language in and of itself..
but it would provide a mechanical way to cover it.

-S

You would need Linguistics (Read Lips: Common), Linguistics (Read Lips: Draconic), etc etc. Not really very viable. Also consider that reading lips isn't just an automatic thing; if someone talks with a heavy accent, their lip movements are distorted. If someone isn't facing you directly, it's much harder to read their lips. If someone isn't in good lighting, it's much harder to read their lips. If someone has an alternate facial structure (bird-people, cat-people, dragons, etc etc), it's almost impossible.

Lame Dwarven Oracles are the suck. Not only do they have their speed reduced to 10ft (they aren't small, so they don't get the reduced speed reduction), but they don't gain any further benefit from the ability to not reduce their speed further from heavy loads (as they already have that as a dwarf).

1) Change the wording of the speed so that it isn't size dependent, and is strictly a function of the creatures base speed.

2) Maybe throw lame dwarven oracles a bone in exchange for the heavy load ability. Maybe let them offset the speed penalty when they are moving across stone (not earthen) surfaces.

lastknightleft wrote:

Wow, way to show you know absolutely nothing about hearing impairments. I'll give you the combat issue, but the can't communicate with anyone who doesn't know a non-verbal language, you might want to learn a bit about hearing impairments before you make statements like that.

Wow, way to show you can't make an argument with anything but insults. You might want to learn a bit about debating before you make statements like that.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Truth be told... (snip) Thoughts.

Jason Bulmahn

I'd strongly vote for CHA - not so much because it is the most logical for this class (though it is a strong contender) - but because CHA could use a bit more representation as a vital stat across the board, in my opinion. It also makes for some interesting multi-class combos... I'm tempted to try a Sorcerous Oracle to see how it plays. :)

Best regards to you and the team - keep up the great work!

As these classes are no longer going for the backwards compatibility with these classes, why does the oracle use Cha for spellcasting? It annoys me no end that almost all spontaneous casters use charisma. It doesn't fit in with the fluff given, unlike Sorcerer. Divine casters use WIS, arcane INT but all spontaneous use CHA? Sorry think a bit out of the box; to me rather than having the willpower/strength of personality that Sorcerers have to battle the power within them Wisdom.. being sensitive and open to many different powers.. makes more sense.