Cool with the PDF thing. But still, why no magic items?

We were going to have a rumble between the Prestige Classes and the Magic Items to see who got a chapter in the book.

Both gangs chickened out, so we use the space for other stuff.

Plus, the spellbooks are basically magic items. And that section rocks.*guitar shred*

Anyone Know if there is a pdf of just the companion sheet I bought the book from my local shop as always and would like to have decent companion sheets without having to cut the sheet out of the book to scan it.

Anyone Know if there is a pdf of just the companion sheet I bought the book from my local shop as always and would like to have decent companion sheets without having to cut the sheet out of the book to scan it.

Let me check with Erik if we're going to do that.

Slaanshgod wrote:

Anyone Know if there is a pdf of just the companion sheet I bought the book from my local shop as always and would like to have decent companion sheets without having to cut the sheet out of the book to scan it.

Let me check with Erik if we're going to do that.

yay

A less efficient way is to buy the PDF to be able to print a copy of the PDF.

;-)

I must say I am very impressed with the spell plagues. Finally some flavor for wizardly 'critical fails'. I have not explored the word spells yet but can't wait to see how they would fit. Excellent job. And thanks again.

On that companion sheet, what is the purpose of the "Summoner" column of checkboxes under equipped gear?

On that companion sheet, what is the purpose of the "Summoner" column of checkboxes under equipped gear?

Summoners and eidolons share the same gear slots, so you mark the ones the summoner is using so you don't accidentally put items in those slots on the eidolon.

I'm extremely disappointed in a broken promise made by the staff when the APG came out. It was stated they couldn't fit in the guidelines for adding new spells from other sources of magic (like 3PP or D&D products) to the spell lists of the new classes like Witch, Summoner, Magus, etc. And that it would definitely be in Ultimate Magic.

It's not... :|

Because what is ruining some of these classes for me is that I still have no idea how to look at a spell say, from Spell Compendium or Complete Mage, and nod and go "This is definitely a Witch spell." The same goes for Summoner, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and Magus.

This is why I HATE unique spell lists.

So what's the deal this time? Why can't we have solid guidelines on how you, the staff at Paizo, determine what makes a spell a Witch spell, a Summoner spell, etc.? Can we have a WE for it or something?

I'm extremely disappointed in a broken promise made by the staff when the APG came out. It was stated they couldn't fit in the guidelines for adding new spells from other sources of magic (like 3PP or D&D products) to the spell lists of the new classes like Witch, Summoner, Magus, etc. And that it would definitely be in Ultimate Magic.

It's not... :|

Actually, James Jacobs said that he strongly wanted such in the book. But that he couldn't guarantee it. Big difference.

I'm extremely disappointed in a broken promise made by the staff when the APG came out. It was stated they couldn't fit in the guidelines for adding new spells from other sources of magic (like 3PP or D&D products) to the spell lists of the new classes like Witch, Summoner, Magus, etc. And that it would definitely be in Ultimate Magic.

It's not... :|

If the person who had said "this is going in Ultimate Magic" had written that down in a note or email and given it to me, I would have put it on the outline for Ultimate Magic. Obviously, that didn't happen. So, I'm sorry.

I dont want to buy a pdf copy of a book i already bought for 40 dollars honestly. I unfortunately am not a rich man. I only really want the stuff I need to print in PDF format like character sheets and the companion sheet and maybe a spell list. I have a custom written spell list and using hero lab from lone wolf helps. I would buy a pdf with a character sheet set for the individual classes that is tailored to them and companions and a more comprehensive inventory and spell list. WoTC did something similar once and I would definitely pay $15-20 for a pdf like that it would be soo very nice. I had a friend of mine with a print shop make tons of the ones from D&D long ago on a nice quality paper for my players and would love getting something similar from paizo.

I think... I love wordcasting.

*threadjack

Then might I suggest you try playing Ars Magica? 20 years of design, a game world you know and can find countless sourcebooks about-- Mythic Europe!

We have a fanzine, even.

/threadjack

-Ben.

bem,
gostei muito do novo livro, pricipalmente das palavras do poder, mas ainda apresenta falhas, principalmente com o personagem que mais gosto de jogar "o Monge" que seu pacote não foi nada agradável, então deixarei uma sugestão para quem saber os próximos livros, porque não criar um personegem com o combate dearmando do monge, bônus na CA, rajada de golpes,evasão, deslocamento, mas sem as outras habilidades e adicionar a capacidade de conjurar mais similar ao bardo,mas com magias voltadas para combate e elementos, não seria surreal nem desbalancearia o ambiente do mundo de pathfinder e seria uma boa variação para o personagem.
Outra solução para tornar o monge um personagem mais jogavel seria criar clases de préstigio especificas para ele.
Parabéns pelo belo novo trabalho e pensem um pouco sobre o que falei ok.
tchau!

<Google Translate>

well,
I liked the new book, mainly the words of power, but still has flaws, especially with the character I like to play "Monk"that his package was nothing nice, then leave a suggestion for those who know the next book, because not create a fight with personegem Dearmer monk's bonus to AC, flurry of blows, avoidance, displacement, but no other skills and add the ability to conjure up more similar to the bard, but with spells and combat-oriented elements, it would not be unbalanced or the surreal environment of pathfinder and the world would be a good variation for the character.
Another solution to make the monk a playable character would create more prestige clases specific to it.
Congratulations on the beautiful new work and think a bit about what I said ok.
bye!

</Google Translate>

My first scan of the forums and this thread came up negative on answers so I have a question on the Construct Armor modification.

The requirements are: Craft Construct, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, animate objects, the construct modified must be the same size as the creator

Everything looks good to me here until the size limitation. On reviewing the constructs in the various official bestiaries this limits the modification to Ice, wood and (God forbid) Carrion golems for medium sized creatures. This becomes even more of a problem when you bring in the kings of tinker, Gnomes.

My question is: Is this intended? Was this an oversight on sizing or is it expected that players will need to use the guidelines for making new constructs to 'downsize' the existing types?

Thanks!

Razz wrote:

I'm extremely disappointed in a broken promise made by the staff when the APG came out. It was stated they couldn't fit in the guidelines for adding new spells from other sources of magic (like 3PP or D&D products) to the spell lists of the new classes like Witch, Summoner, Magus, etc. And that it would definitely be in Ultimate Magic.

It's not... :|

Actually, James Jacobs said that he strongly wanted such in the book. But that he couldn't guarantee it. Big difference.

I'm sure it's only a couple of pages, at the most, don't see why it can't be posted on the website. I really need to know the mindset and process of pinpointing which spell should be on which spell list. With solid guidelines, I want to easily be able to point to a spell from another book and be confident I can allow it on the "Witch" spell list or the "Inquisitor" spell list, etc.

As of right now, I have managed to gauge what makes an Alchemist formula, Inquisitor spell, ; the two I have issues with is Summoner and Witch, moreso with Witch than Summoner (some spells I am confident belong on the Summoner list, like anything dealing with summoning monsters or teleportation and most planar spells). And the Magus is the most difficult, I don't even want to attempt figuring that one out.

I'm sure it's only a couple of pages, at the most, don't see why it can't be posted on the website. I really need to know the mindset and process of pinpointing which spell should be on which spell list. With solid guidelines, I want to easily be able to point to a spell from another book and be confident I can allow it on the "Witch" spell list or the "Inquisitor" spell list, etc.

Given that Sean K. Reynolds has already stated (in the discussion about the Sorcerer/Wizard school-based spell lists) that they do not have the available manpower (personpower ?) to add "web extras" of any sort, and Paizo won't do such unless they can do it in a way that meets their quality standards.. I *can* see why it can't be posted on the web site.

It occurs to me, though, that such things as "Guidelines for Adding 3rd Party Spells to Class Spell Lists" and "Sorcerer/Wizard Spells by School" might be good topics for the Wayfinder fan magazine to tackle. Another one might be determinign whether a class (new or 3rd party) is a "Good" or "Challenging" class for a Faction.

I'm extremely disappointed in a broken promise made by the staff when the APG came out. It was stated they couldn't fit in the guidelines for adding new spells from other sources of magic (like 3PP or D&D products) to the spell lists of the new classes like Witch, Summoner, Magus, etc. And that it would definitely be in Ultimate Magic.

It's not... :|

Because what is ruining some of these classes for me is that I still have no idea how to look at a spell say, from Spell Compendium or Complete Mage, and nod and go "This is definitely a Witch spell." The same goes for Summoner, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and Magus.

This is why I HATE unique spell lists.

So what's the deal this time? Why can't we have solid guidelines on how you, the staff at Paizo, determine what makes a spell a Witch spell, a Summoner spell, etc.? Can we have a WE for it or something?

It is not Paizo's position to do this though. Sean mentioned down thread from you in reply, that it was not included for one reason or other.

I would suggest though when you say they "promised" something you might want to link to that particular posting. Otherwise I for one would not believe something like that, especially one that makes a promise like you mention above with Pazio including something from a 3rd party product or even from WotC, because it is not part of their purview.

I would suggest though when you say they "promised" something you might want to link to that particular posting. Otherwise I for one would not believe something like that, especially one that makes a promise like you mention above with Pazio including something from a 3rd party product or even from WotC, because it is not part of their purview.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/paizo/aPGOneMajorDisappointmentWheresTheSpellListGUIDELINES&page=2#8 4

Zurai wrote:

What gets me isn't the 99% comment, it's this one:

James Jacobs wrote:

Spell lists are staying for some of the classes as a result. It's our responsibility to show GMs how to expand them if they want, just as it's our responsibility to periodically support them with new spells.

Which is why Erik and I and Jason just finished talking about making sure these guidelines get into Ultimate Magic.

This time, I'm 99.9994% sure.

For the reference.

Still waiting for amazon to ship my book ;(. Really would like to get a chance to read some of this stuff. Think I've learned my lesson next time I bite the bullet and spend a few extra bucks to get it at least in the month it's released hehe.

Overall I loved the book but there were a couple things that bugged me.

I had thought that there was supposed to be a Druid archtype that subbed Vermin Shape for Beast Shape in the Wild Shape feature. Not that big a deal, and easily enough house ruled.

Almost all of the Oracle archtypes replace the majority of your mystery spells and set a number of your revelations. I like the idea of a Planar Oracle of Fire, but what's the point if I can't throw out a fireball? I would have preffered a little less restrictive archtypes.

There was also a lack of support for the Aquatic Summoner Eidolon. The three main base forms have form specific evolutions, but Aquatic got ripped off here. There's also nothing saying that Aquatic can acess specific evolutions. As written, you cannot give your Aquatic Eidolon the Mount evolution. That saddened me.

The special spellbooks were pretty cool, but there were no guidelines to creating them.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

However, when all was said and done, I enjoyed the book greatly.

The Magus was balenced perfectly. Issues that came up in beta playtest were solved brilliantly.

The Vivisectionist made my day. I love melee alchemists, and trading off a feature I never used for one I will rocked.

Ranger traps seemed a bit out of place as a magic substitution instead of a magic variant in a book entitled "Ultimate Magic," but they're awesome neverless.

Pig familiar. Nuff said.

James Jacobs wrote:

Zurai wrote:

What gets me isn't the 99% comment, it's this one:

James Jacobs wrote:

Spell lists are staying for some of the classes as a result. It's our responsibility to show GMs how to expand them if they want, just as it's our responsibility to periodically support them with new spells.

Which is why Erik and I and Jason just finished talking about making sure these guidelines get into Ultimate Magic.

This time, I'm 99.9994% sure.

For the reference.

So I take it that .0006% fail rate happened at Paizo? Amazing... >.>

I have another couple of questions after going through the book and seeing the alternate channel abilities that specifically deal with the 'Forge' version.

The Negative Energy 'Forge' option allows the cleric to channel against metal constructs and unattended metal objects (in case you need to piss off the local armory).

Now DR does not apply to the supernatural types of damage created by channeling and SR is useless so Constructs take it full in the face.

My first question is: Do items get their Hardness rating against channeled energy? As hardness is a measure of physical resiliency much like DR I would think not but I wanted to see if that could be confirmed.

Second and a bit more broad of a question: The rules state that the alternate channeling receives reduced healing or damage. They also state that the Will roll against the effect can only negate any additional penalties and not reduce the damage further.

So if like 'Forge' you get enhanced damage against metal constructs and unattended metal objects, is the enhanced damage considered the 'additional penalty'? Does the construct make a roll and if successful remove the enhanced effect or does it count as straight damage and fall under the inability to reduce damage further? Also, if the construct is able to make a roll to remove the enhanced portion, does the damage default to half damage or to regular full damage? I would assume half damage but again would like to see what others think.

Thanks for anyone who has thoughts or references on this.

Unlike DR, hardness applies against any damage to an object (see p. 173 in the Core Rulebook). "When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage."

Energy attacks normally deal only half damage to objects, but it's a judgment call as to whether these kinds of channeled energy (yes, it says energy right in the name of it) that stipulate specifically causing damage to constructs and objects (which often have hardness rather than DR) should be halved.

Another way to have developed the powers could have been to use the rule on p. 174 about "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" which would have doubled damage... but then is that double half or half double?

It is a funny corner case. I'd probably rule it as follows, and for the sake of argument we'll pretend your cleric is 1st level and does 1d6 channel damage with negative energy:

Half damage to living creatures (1d6 x 0.5), save for half.

+50% damage to metal constructs and unattended metal objects = (1d6 x 1.5), save for half; by rule, hardness is applied AFTER the saving throw

Hey i just wanted to Say i LOVE the ultimate magic. i thought that the Magus was a Perfect blend of magic/melee which i have not felt from many class's i seen.i LOVE the Words of power System and i Really hope you can expend on it.and over all it is a pretty great book i am looking forward to Ultimate combat

I have a question/criticism.

Let me start off by saying UM rocks my socks off, I LOVE the expanded options for all the previous classes, and the Magus is the latest iteration of one of my old favorite archetypes.

That being said, I am extremely disappointed by the words of power section. When I first started reading it it sounded amazing, like a beautiful, flowing reincarnation of the Truthspeaker from 3.5 DnD. But I am only 3 hours into my first play through of one and the magic is already long gone.

It seems like a more complicated and more restrictive version of playing a regular caster, with the locks on target/effect combos and the lack of freedom and choices for everything except sorcerer/wizard giving the impression of something half-finished.

Now the rest of the book more than makes up for the price of my subscription, but I was SO excited by this that the disappointment feels huge. I've read through the playtest posts, and saw some really good suggestions about having a base spell for an effect that scales with level, allowing room for a larger variety of spells.

I'd REALLY like to see cleric's domains, sorcerer's bloodlines, and the like grant access to more wordspell options rather than just making them into awkward half-word casters. The Fire domain should give you the full line of flame spells, the fae bloodlines should give you illusion and charm words, the witch's Agility Patron should give body enhancements and such. So many of those such class abilities look to me like they would translate quite easily into word bonuses that cement the transformation into a truly unique combination, as opposed to how it feels now.

Also, I couldn't find clarification in the book about how to treat race/feat abilities that give bonuses to certain spell schools and keywords. It seems like it would not be hard to draw a line between most of them and words descriptors, but I'd like some confirmation for my DM. Maybe I missed it, I have just started playing, but I feel like the words of power deserve their own book, not just a chapter.

Also, I couldn't find clarification in the book about how to treat race/feat abilities that give bonuses to certain spell schools and keywords.

If you clarify what you mean by this, I'll point Jason at your reply (he wrote WOP so he's the best person to answer questions about it).

Who's the best person to answer questions about Antagonize?

:-p

I'll get to that when I'm ready to start sorting through all those errata posts. Short answer: obviously this shouldn't allow you to force an archer or spellcaster to abandon their primary attack type and instead make a melee attack against you.

Thanks, Sean - you are the man.

When you do (if you do) read through the whole Antagonize thread, please don't hate me afterward. I was arguing with Cartigan and got mad and lashed out a few times. I apologize for anything I might have said in that thread that might cause any ill-will.

I really do love basically all the stuff you guys come up with.

Thanks, Sean - you are the man.

When you do (if you do) read through the whole Antagonize thread, please don't hate me afterward. I was arguing with Cartigan and got mad and lashed out a few times. I apologize for anything I might have said in that thread that might cause any ill-will.

I really do love basically all the stuff you guys come up with.

Not Guilty by way of Temporary insanity.

Jeremiziah wrote:

Thanks, Sean - you are the man.

When you do (if you do) read through the whole Antagonize thread, please don't hate me afterward. I was arguing with Cartigan and got mad and lashed out a few times. I apologize for anything I might have said in that thread that might cause any ill-will.

I really do love basically all the stuff you guys come up with.

Not Guilty by way of Temporary insanity.

Someone must have used Antagonize on him.

(ducks)

When my group runs Carrion Crown I already have my idea based on something from UM and the Bestiary 2. A Sanguine (Undead) bloodline Dhampyre sorceress, at war to keep what remains of her humanity. Spells will be chosen to mimic vampire powers from the game and myth.

Granted, this won't be until the entire AP is out, as our GM was a bit peeved that the map packs come out AFTER the things is done (and will never run an AP before everything is out ever again), but it looks like an interesting concept.

I think I already know the very unfortunate answer to this question, but here goes: "A crossblooded sorcerer has one fewer spell known at each level (including cantrips) than is presented on" the table in the CR. Thus at 4th level (and each level at which he gains a new spell level), those spell slots are... wasted?
Oh, wait... For use with metamagic-enhanced spells? did I just answer my own question?

I think I already know the very unfortunate answer to this question, but here goes: "A crossblooded sorcerer has one fewer spell known at each level (including cantrips) than is presented on" the table in the CR. Thus at 4th level (and each level at which he gains a new spell level), those spell slots are... wasted?

Oh, wait... For use with metamagic-enhanced spells? did I just answer my own question?

I'd say so :)

I'm sure there's other uses for spell slots as well, but that's the most obvious one.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Slaanshgod wrote:

Anyone Know if there is a pdf of just the companion sheet I bought the book from my local shop as always and would like to have decent companion sheets without having to cut the sheet out of the book to scan it.

Let me check with Erik if we're going to do that.

yay

Sean I am wondering if you have heard if you have tracked down whether they are doing a companion pdf or not?

Sunos wrote:

Also, I couldn't find clarification in the book about how to treat race/feat abilities that give bonuses to certain spell schools and keywords.

If you clarify what you mean by this, I'll point Jason at your reply (he wrote WOP so he's the best person to answer questions about it).

That would be awesome! I'm happy to clarify: The gnome alternate racial trait Magical Linguist:

"Magical Linguist: Gnomes study languages in both their mundane and supernatural manifestations. Gnomes with this racial trait add +1 to the DC of spells they cast with the language-dependent descriptor or those that create glyphs, symbols, or other magical writings. They gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against such spells. Gnomes with a Charisma of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day—arcane mark, comprehend languages, message, read magic. The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome’s level. This racial trait replaces the gnome magic and illusion resistance racial Traits."

Does that apply to all words of power, being entirely language-based spells?

Or an ability that, say, increased the caster level of all your fire spells, would that give you an extra spell level on fire effect words to wrap in metas and the like? One of our groups periodic DMs feels that anything that effects spells doesn't apply to WoP.

Also, about the domains issue, we house ruled it so that most domain powers stay the same, but we try to find WoP to replace the domain spells, is there an official conversion for this sort of thing?

Slaanshgod wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Slaanshgod wrote:

Anyone Know if there is a pdf of just the companion sheet I bought the book from my local shop as always and would like to have decent companion sheets without having to cut the sheet out of the book to scan it.

Let me check with Erik if we're going to do that.

yay

Sean I am wondering if you have heard if you have tracked down whether they are doing a companion pdf or not?

This is by no means an official reply, but since just about all of the other worksheets in the core book line are in the Community Use package of worksheets, it seems highly likely to me that this will be added at least there.

I noticed that the Metal school for Wizards school power Shrapenal Blast is all sorts of messed up; a 8th lvl power getting a boost at 5th and every five thereafter. What is it supposed to read?

I do really like folks who drop 2-star reviews of UM, say that they loved the APG and whatever else, but guess what? UM is their only review :)

Thanks, Sean - you are the man.

When you do (if you do) read through the whole Antagonize thread, please don't hate me afterward. I was arguing with Cartigan and got mad and lashed out a few times. I apologize for anything I might have said in that thread that might cause any ill-will.

I really do love basically all the stuff you guys come up with.

Well Cartigan is the Poster Boy for the Antagonize feat

The Cook People hex on page 82 states:

"Using this hex or knowingly eating its food is an evil act."

Philosophical question: Isn't it a little odd that we play a game where it is important to specifically point out that eating people is wrong? Do the writers/editors feel it necessary to include that sentence because they think we might not realize it's wrong because we are sociopaths? Or is it because the rest of the game is so morally ambiguous that they think we need clarification in this particular circumstance?

Killing people is only wrong when you're an NPC, tho.

Killing people is only wrong when you're an NPC, tho.

I was in a game where a PC was executed for killing an NPC. We (I was a Thief, he was a Fighter -- both 1st level) were walking through a residential district in the city at night. Suddenly he walks over and knocks on a door. I'm like "what the H3ll?". Some poor smuck answers and he kills him with his sword. Curiosity he said. I ran immediately. I could hear the wife shreiking for the watch and the neighbors shouting. I ran faster than him, lost him (and them) and climbed up on a flat warehouse roof. I later slid down and swam down a canal. Snuck out, dried off and sauntered into the inn in the morning. They caught him. Sold all his goods and gave the money to the widow. I liked the method of execution too. They lined up a half dozen archers outside the town walls and told him he could go free if he made it to a certain point. They gave him a running start and then the bowmen made him look like a pincushion. It was instructive too. Hundreds of people watched from the city walls. We laid bets on how far he'd get. I didn't win anything, but it was none the less a good day :)

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Killing people is only wrong when you're an NPC, tho.

I was in a game where a PC was executed for killing an NPC. We (I was a Thief, he was a Fighter -- both 1st level) were walking through a residential district in the city at night. Suddenly he walks over and knocks on a door. I'm like "what the H3ll?". Some poor smuck answers and he kills him with his sword. Curiosity he said. I ran immediately. I could hear the wife shreiking for the watch and the neighbors shouting. I ran faster than him, lost him (and them) and climbed up on a flat warehouse roof. I later slid down and swam down a canal. Snuck out, dried off and sauntered into the inn in the morning. They caught him. Sold all his goods and gave the money to the widow. I liked the method of execution too. They lined up a half dozen archers outside the town walls and told him he could go free if he made it to a certain point. They gave him a running start and then the bowmen made him look like a pincushion. It was instructive too. Hundreds of people watched from the city walls. We laid bets on how far he'd get. I didn't win anything, but it was none the less a good day :)

That's a great way to put an end to immersion-destroying idiocy, at least :)

I'll get to that when I'm ready to start sorting through all those errata posts. Short answer: obviously this shouldn't allow you to force an archer or spellcaster to abandon their primary attack type and instead make a melee attack against you.

And thus a question which spawned a gigantic thread and exceptional trolling by some of the usual suspects was rendered moot. Hooray! :)

I've got a homebrew thread moving for Mystic Motif, which got cut, and will likely not come back. Please give your thoughts:
Here

Thanks,
-will

Page 17. I will call him Samuel L. Alchemist.