Ashoka's page

An old-school, paranoid and claustrophobic dungeon-crawl. Like Tomb of Horrors or something. Take some cues from movies like Alien, Das Boot, Diehard, Predator, Event Horizon -- movies with action, suspense and horror qualities.

Or...

Do a movie based on one of their more unique campaign settings, like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape or Spelljammer. Of course, then people will be looking for a campaign guide for that setting and since WotC apparently isn't planning to release campaign guides this won't happen.

But, really, how awesome would a Dark Sun or Planescape movie be?

I believe the "-ionic" part of "psionic" was originally meant to be a reference to bionic implants/augmentations that allowed one to access these psychic powers. I don't know how DSP describes their psionics, but you could go this direction. The "augmentations" don't have to be physical implants, either -- they could be something unexplainable from alien experimentation that had a profound evolutionary influence, creating certain individuals with innate "mind powers" that aren't quite the same as "psychic magic" or whatever. Mutants?

3. Low-magic: First thought might be "no way" but looking at the Dark Sun campaign, it's pretty clear that you can indeed run an entire 1-30 campaign with 4E and not have any magical items at your disposal. You have to use the Inherent bonus rules (which are fun) but it's possible. Heck I had intended to start out such a campaign using ONLY Martial characters with the 0-level rules (provided by Dungeon/Dragon mag) and go from there to 30th level. In doing so what you have to do is then cater the monsters to the story. Personally I think Low-Magic and Gritty sort of go hand-in-hand but that's me.

This is one of the things I love the most about 4e. You can literally have a bunch of guys walk up to Orcus and beat him to death with sticks and rocks that they found on the ground. (It's true that Orcus isn't the best built solo, but he's still hella tough.) No magic of any kind is necessary.

It's kinda gonzo, but it's also incredible awesome.

bugleyman wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

The 4E Rules Compendium was made available at dndclassics.com / DriveThruRPG / RPGNow before 5e was published, so your statement that they current D&D rules haven't been available for years is disingenuous.

I suppose you could count the Rules Compendium as an example of a current version of D&D being available electronically, except it doesn't contain the information required to actually play the game (no classes, powers, or races). So I don't. And I'm not even being disingenuous.

I know that this is pretty much the complete antithesis of 3.x/PFRPG, but character creation / advancement is NOT the game. The actual adventuring is the game. The Rules Compendium gives you everything you need for an actual game session.

Uh, no. As bulgeyman wrote, the RC has no classes, powers or races. It also has no monsters, traps, equipment, magic items, rituals, feats, themes, backgrounds... It's a (very good) collection and update of rules, that's all. If you took the PFCRB and removed all the feats, classes, races and spells, I doubt anyone would say that it "gives you everything you need for an actual game session."

Unless you have pregens and a self-contained prewritten adventure (like a starter kit). Or if you already used to other books to prepare that stuff in advance. In those cases, sure you don't need much more than the RC to run a session.

If you're performing and playing an instrument how are you to say the spell words or make the gestures without stopping the performance was my question. Or statement. Not sure which I made at this point but both are valid :D

You know, I actually agree with that in a lot of ways. I mean, when someone says they're gonna start a bardic performance, there are millions of ways you can choose to describe it. If for some reason I decide to say that I'm going to start singing and playing the lute, then that doesn't necessarily mesh with still being able to cast spells and make weapon attacks. But, the rules say you can attack and cast when using bardic performance, unless the GM houserules it. So, just find another way to describe and/or interpret the action of "bardic performance," such as those in the James Jacobs quotes or any of the other suggestions. Or houserule it. Or whatever. Good night!

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

CigarSmoker wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

stuff

So, you can sing two different words at the same time?

One of which is an arcane amalgam of consonants and vowels with odd inflections and tonal qualities, and the other is some single word that would inspire your comrades.
The mouth, tongue, and voice box...

more like his song now is being said in spell lingo, but keeping the tune, his dance changes to have the correct movements at the correct times.

Bardic performance is language dependent. So if you start saying weird words in your song you've stopped your performance and the bonuses for that end. Because what is says is important in the bardic performance, that's what is supposed to inspire this bonus in the other people around him.

spell words can still be in your language...

In fact the only language I think that is special is Draconic, in regards to magic, and can beat language dependent effects. fun combination.

I was under the impression that arcane spells had a 'language' all their own like the arcane writings made up in scrolls and spell books. Which is why you need a Read Magic spell to read a spell book or scroll.

But even still, if you're singing about the David killing the Giant and you throw in another verse of incantation words for your haste spell that's still going to break the performance while you cast.

And you're thinking Druidic not Draconic I think.

While I don't think that your argument is in any way illogical or wrong, I also think that it simply isn't supported by the rules (or at least my knowledge of the rules). In fact, somebody linked to a post by James Jacobs specifically saying, very clearly, that bardic performance does not interfere with spell casting of any kind.

I tend to think that bard spells and their components just work differently than with other arcane casters, such that they can be used at the same time as bardic performance. Bard spells may not even have to use a specific set of magic words -- maybe they can use whatever words the caster happens to be singing/orating. Whatever. I don't think there's anything saying that every class that can cast a specific spell has to do it in exactly the same way, so I go with whatever fits.

Oh, hey, sorry, Ash. I was looking at your name when I wrote my previous post—I meant to address the OP.

That's all cool. I replied before seeing this post, but there's no problems on my end.

Here, let me provide some constructive criticism.

Ashoka, you keep raising extreme examples like the "Perform (comedy)" bard doing a Seinfeld routine.

Most people have been raising examples like battle chants, or shouting advice, or magical music (which is, y'know, no different from any other verbal component), or inspiring his comrades in a "always have someone holding up the flag and bashing the enemy's skull in with the shaft" sort of way.

Maybe you should stop raising the "worst case scenario" bards as a serious argument. Any class can be played terribly if the GM doesn't know when to say no—just look at paladins! But that's no reason to ban the whole class from play.

Oh no, this isn't at all what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if anything came across like this.

The Seinfeld example came from somebody else and I was actually trying to support the idea that people should be allowed to play whatever type of bard they want. And stand-up isn't what I think of when I picture a bard doing some sort of performance-thing in combat, anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I picture stuff more like capoeira, war chants, inspiring speeches, religious recitations, tactical commands/advice, etc.

In the case of comedy, I've usually pictured it more like infuriating insults (or biting satire, if the enemy is intelligent enough to get that sort of thing) -- not necessarily ha-ha funny, per se, but using elements of humour. Kind of like various training scenes in movies, where the grizzled veteran is giving the young hero his first fighting lessons and keeps goading the young kid into making dumb mistakes and disregarding tactics, etc. Except more vicious and violent.

D&D the original D&D from the 1970's had bard as an odd sort of combination class. You would do X# of levels as a Thief, then as a Fighter and finally as a Druid. It was horrendously complex and a royal pain in the ass.

For AD&D they simplified the Bard to a single "Bard" class. It did a little of everything as I said and the spell casting was Wizard based with a max spell level of 6th. Because they could learn and cast any spell on the wizard list a bard was able to be more versatile in combat: filling a hole left by a downed party member or supplementing another party member's abilities in the field.

Yeah, I was thinking of the weird combo-class bard. Any idea why it was changed? Think it was it just the "increased combat versatility" you mention? Or do was it a flavour-thing (I don't remember specifically what the early druid was like)?

That might be in part because Bards probably have more in common with real life druids (from what little we know) than Druids do.

I don't know enough about it to really comment properly, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Though I personally kinda like 4e's magical maestro style Bard too.

I like it, too. It's sort of a different take on the idea. I would have liked a primal-powered version, too. Wait... is the Skald a primal bard?

the secret fire wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Fascinate doesn't use a Perform though. If I'm going to Fascinate a troll it's going to be by jingling my keys and waving them around. Or something else shiny, maybe a necklace.

Whether or not a use of a Bardic performance requires a Perform skill check is irrelevant; it is still a performance. The special effect is that the Bard is performing, which can be anything. If you want to jingle your keys to fascinate a troll, I'd say good, that's an appropriate way to achieve your ends, but there's nothing stopping you from creating the same effect with a Seinfeld routine, and that is just the problem.

No, you can't do it with a Seinfeld routine. You need both audible and visual components, so you can make the audible components a Seinfeld routine while the visual component is you waving a pendulum back and forth or something. Either way it doesn't matter, this is pure fluff. The only way to prevent this from happening is to restrict how the class is allowed to do things, heavily curtailing player freedom to refluff. Do you include the exact words and hand gestures for every spell? Is every longsword the exact same sword design, down to the hilt and handguard? Because that sounds boring as @#$%.

Yup. And if you insist on having only certain kinds of fluff, just talk to the players beforehand. If I find out that everybody else is fine with having a Seinfeld-style bard in the game but I still can't deal with it, then I probably need to either suck it up and adjust my plans for the campaign, or find a new table to GM.

And as to the bard casting as a wizard, I didn't think so. I thought he was originally based on the druid, which is why he still has cure light wounds on his list.

I don't have the books in front of me, but, yeah, I believe the casting was indeed based on the druid. It always seemed to evoke more of an arcane/wizard flavour for me, though. I actually think that the oratory/performance/music-magic thing suits more of a primalistic/druidic/nature-worship type of magic than a wizardy, arcane style. There are a lot of things I like about the 4e bard, but the implied emphasis on being wizard-like is not one of them. It doesn't bother me or wreck anything for me, though.

Ashoka wrote:

I also agree with others that there's some homophobia and sexism going on here. At least in the language used by the OP, if not in his actual attitude.

I don't think anyone mentioned sexism before you did... Where did that come from?

Sissy.

It doesn't quite carry the same weight as "b@!*+" or "pussy," but it's inherently sexist.

It's not explicitly sexist, but it basically says "too girly" and implies that femininity is not a desirable quality (especially in a male character). Wikipedia describes is as a "pejorative" term and talks about "sissyphobia" being a combination of homophobia and misogyny. I'm actually not sure if one can fully separate misogyny and homophobia.

But this probably isn't the right thread for this topic.

I also agree with others that there's some homophobia and sexism going on here. At least in the language used by the OP, if not in his actual attitude.

This is the phrase I use to describe my chief complaint with the bard, possibly the one that trumps all the others. The bard is a motivational speaker. The bard is a hero who is so good at telling other people that "they can do it!" that he becomes invaluable as a coach and leader. On a related note, the Mary Sue concept is baked right into the class: The bard is a master of skills, especially social skills, to the point where for all intents and purposes, everybody loves em'!

I don't think you know what "Mary Sue" means. My bard doesn't resemble myself at all (except that he's exceptionally handsome). He uses oratory and comedy -- definitely not my RL specialities. He's not even a musician (which I am).

Think about this; I want to play a stoic, tough guy character. And here he is, being told "You can do it! You're a winner!" by this sissy singer/dancer/speech giver and this stuff is giving my character bonuses in combat.

Obviously your character should refuse the buff. I don't think there are any rules requiring you to accept it. You don't want any bonuses? Fine, you're hobbling your own character, not mine. Don't be surprised when other people roll better than you.

The problem with this is that it lends itself to situations where characters in game give empowering speeches even though the player is inarticulate and unimaginative. Or a situation where my fighter is hyped up by the unerring spirit of the party cheerleader.

...
The flavor/mechanical implication is that the bard effects my character emotionally and has an intuitive ability to rally him to greater heights of valor. Shouldn't abilities like this happen through role playing in character? Why should the dice or the basic game mechanics tell me that you just gave an awesome performance and it effected me emotionally?

So, I guess you don't allow skill checks very often when you GM? Everything has to be done in RP, so if you can't describe how to pick a lock you can't do it. You can't RP knowledge local politics? No knowledge check allowed. Do casters have to RP their VSM components?

What about as a player? Do you wave your hands around and say some nonsense every time you cast a spell? Have you ever made a Diplomacy or Intimidate check? Why didn't you just RP it? What's the point of any check or skill system if this is how you play the game?

I don't mean to attack you personally, but that all sounds more nonsensical than an oratory/comedy bard being able to affect creatures that don't speak the same language.

Have you ever done any LARPing? I haven't, but it sounds closer to the "everything must be done through RP" idea you're proposing.

Considering that Pathfinder's system assumes readily available magic (in pretty large quantities too) why is it important that a purely non-magical hero be able to compete?

This thread has brought me to the realization that a non-magical hero goes against the system's inherent assumptions. Like someone said upthread, it's "arguing against the ubiquity of magic in a high magic setting." It would be cool to play something like that, but that's not what PF was built for. It might be possible if you spend enough time searching through books and experimenting with different builds and combos -- but that whole process is basically working against the system. Trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Like wanting a linebacker the same size as myself (I'm small) or a hockey player that doesn't use a stick. You're not breaking rules by doing those things or pursuing those goals, but you're trying to do something the system wasn't designed for. You need houserules or 3PP or something.

Same goes for a lot of other games. I missed the beginning of 4e, but it seems like they started with the same high magic assumption. However, once they brought in the Inherent Bonuses it became possible to actually build a party of completely non-magical characters carrying mundane equipment that could take on Orcus or any other superpower. I'm not saying it would necessarily be easy, but a party of 5 or 6 level 30 "pure" martials armed with clubs and thrown rocks would at least have a chance against even the most powerful foes. (I realize that magical powers, or abilities that appear to probably be magical, are hard to avoid when you look at epic destinies, but few things are directly called out as "magic" either mechanically or flavour-wise.) It's an absurd concept in relation to PF and other D&D editions -- but then again, the whole fantasy thing is absurd to varying degrees -- but within the context of a different game, it can make sense and be completely consistent (the setting obviously has something to do with establishing consistency, too).

I really enjoy PF and I'm not complaining about it or trying to badmouth it. It just took me a while to realize why it doesn't work with certain things that I like and that if I want some of those things in the game, I'll have to figure it out on my own (until they release a new sourcebook that does it for me). I'm not going to stop playing it or buying books, though. I'll just look elsewhere when I want to escape the high magic ubiquity.

In fact, if this character type was created would he not then easily become overpowered by decking himself out with magic items and buff spells?

Definitely possible. But if Paizo wanted to make a class like that, they could probably work balancing mechanics into the design. Like developing the power to hit insubstantial creatures without magic at higher levels, but only doing half-damage or something (that's probably a bad example because I'm not a designer nor a PF expert).

Thaine wrote:

So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.

I keep hoping that Paizo will put out a non-Caster craft-monkey in a similar vein as the Alchemist.

I do realize, however, that that idea runs afoul of the "PFS doesn't allow Crafting" idea.

Perhaps an Artificer would be something akin to a hybrid between the Alchemist and Summoner - a non-magic-half-caster like the Alchemist, with a Contraption that gets progressively more and more ludicrous, ala an Eidolon. The Extracts would probably be things like Mending, Animate Objects, etc. that largely focus around items & objects.

That sounds crazy awesome.

Ashoka wrote:

I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times. I'm not sure if Superman has ever won in a head-to-head battle against Batman. (Even when Bats didn't "win," that was usually part of his strategy and so he still "won" by not winning, if that makes any sense.) Of course he needs help or some kinda gadget to win -- because that is his schtick. That is his "superpower." I'd like a character class with similar powers.

Can you offer some examples? I'm seeing this repeated a lot in this thread but I can't recall anytime batman has beaten superman in a head to head battle in canon.

TDKR by Frank Millar is the usual suspect but that was only once and is not canon. Other then that the only time I can think of is the tower of babel arc, if you count a stolen plan with months of prep-time used in a trap a head to head fight. I think of it more as a symbolic victory for batman.

Not sure about superman wins but off the top of my head he thrashed batman in the maxwell lord arc and again in their first meeting in the New 52. So that's at least two.

Yeah, you caught me, I'm not a huge fan of DC and I can't offer a lot of specific examples. There's Red Son, but I think that's only a temporary victory for Bats. It's also a Superman book and not canon, I guess. More knowledgeable friends have said the same thing (but I didn't ask them for examples). Somebody also posted a pic of him beating Darkseid and he's bested some other high powered enemies. But I'm just going to bow to your superior knowledge of the specifics and shut up for now.

On Topic: It seems like the least magical we can get and still remain competitive is with liberal use of items. Even in our examples of famous literary characters they all had assistance of advanced magical or technical gadgets. So with that in mind it looks like an artificer of some type is the way to go.

Sounds pretty good.

Ashoka wrote:

I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times.

I've seen those matchups. DC determines who wins in their fights by whose popular, not what's realistic based on power levels. It would be fairly easy for superman to sit in space and blast batman with an orbital strike as soon as he saw him with his telescopic x ray vision.

But he doesn't. Because batman's more popular, and thus was predetermined to win the fights.

Hmm.. I think that I both agree and disagree with that. I think it's more complicated than that. Writers don't roll dice to determine where the story goes and the characters aren't being controlled by other people, so comparisons between fiction and RPGs don't always work very well. They are two forms of entertainment that achieve similar goals in different ways and using different media. The audiences are also very different. Also, not only are the PCs the "main characters" just like Batman -- and therefore mostly "predetermined to win" or to at least have a good chance of winning -- I furthermore agree with the Dungeon World philosophy that the GM should be the PCs biggest fans. PCs would basically then be the "most popular" characters in the story.

I mean, the hero always wins -- especially in fiction. When you're reading LOTR you wonder "how will these feeble hobbits ever defeat the dark lord?" you don't wonder if they're going to defeat the dark lord. When Luke is getting his ass kicked at the end of Jedi, you don't say "oh no, the emperor is going to win!" you say "I wonder how the emperor will be defeated now?" I know there are lots of examples of antiheroes and heroes that don't completely win in the end, as well as lots of heroes that don't live. There are also cliffhangers that make you wait until the next episode to see the hero win. There are also stories that tell of the victories of villains. But there are very few stories where the hero just outright fails, because that wouldn't be an entertaining story for many people unless it had something else going for it (like a profound lesson or insight or some artistic quality, etc).

I have to imagine that most people here complaining about the ubiquity of magic in a high-magic game would have detested Jackie Chan Adventures, considering one of Uncle's favorite mantras was "Magic must defeat Magic".

Also, for the Batman example - Batman has the use of insane amounts of technology. And we all know Clarke's take on technology...

Well, there are insane amounts of technology in PF (I don't think Batman ever had a graviton reactor or an extinction wave device). That argument against a technological hero sounds similar to arguing against the ubiquity of magic in a high magic world.

Also, Clarke's law (and Niven's corollary) states that magic and high technology are indistinguishable, not equivalent and not "the same." TV looks like magic to a caveman (or a native of Golarion), but it isn't magic no matter what. OTOH, a scrying mirror looks like high technology, but it isn't -- it's magic. The may look the same but one is affected by antimagic and the other is affected by an EMP. And if technology=magic in PF... well, levers and pulleys and wedges are technology and I don't think anybody counts them as magic.

I can understand if people aren't happy with the Batman or MacGyver examples. But I don't know why a technologist/tinker/inventor is so hard to do (and why some people seem to think it doesn't fit fantasy). Ignore the pop culture references and look at the description I gave in my previous post. It's almost an alchemist, but not quite.

And while he is a major help during Crisis-level events, keep in mind that he is the least directly-effective of all the Justice League.

Batman is effectively a Brawler/Cavalier: he is phenomenal at tactics, strategy, and split-second analysis; he's the go-to commander during a conflict, while Superman is the face, especially for PR stuff.

On smaller fights, Batman can be on the front lines. But once Kryptonian-level beings or up get involved, Batman is in the back calling the shots, with the heavy hitters like Manhunter, Superman, Wonder Woman, or Green Lantern leading the charge. Batman is too squishy to directly tussle with enemies who can send SUPERMAN flying.

I don't want to nitpick too much, but Batman has actually defeated Superman and many other cosmic-level supers many times. I'm not sure if Superman has ever won in a head-to-head battle against Batman. (Even when Bats didn't "win," that was usually part of his strategy and so he still "won" by not winning, if that makes any sense.) Of course he needs help or some kinda gadget to win -- because that is his schtick. That is his "superpower." I'd like a character class with similar powers.

I realize that this is more an issue with me wanting a class that doesn't exist, yet. Actually, I don't think I've seen a class like this in any fantasy game (at least not anything in the D&D/PF lineage). An alchemist combined with aspects of a warlord, an artificer, and a bard. It's a new idea to me, but the more I think about it the more I really like the potential of this class and wish it was available in a game that I played.

I'll stop complaining now. I'll just wait for Paizo to make me a new character.

First, this:

I mean, the setting says magic is *real*. Any opposition to it is like being opposed to technology in a modern or futuristic setting. A hypothetical anti-magic character, by hating magic, hates the way the world works.

Yeah, that was a dumb thing for me to try to bring into the equation. If anything, he'd be anti-sword not anti-magic.

He used modern science. I mean I'm going off of some pretty dusty memories but I remember a LOT of his toys and tricks were either using modern manufactured products or exploiting weaknesses of modern manufactured products. Simple example: he makes a sound-effect that sounds like the fire of automatic weapons to cause bad guys to shoot at things in this one episode. That only works because they have guns themselves and know what guns are. Dude with a crossbow would definitely be distracted, but he wouldn't think "gunfire! panic!" because he doesn't know what guns are. Another example; he sabotaged a missile launch by jamming a leather coat (or something?) into the air-intake of it's jet engine. This worked because there was a missile with a jet engine. A world where magic is standard (and has discrete rules to how it works) would reasonably have magic (and alchemy) tricks and workarounds.

To me, this doesn't really present a problem. The "how does he do it?" is mostly a question of flavour and RP, the way I see it. It's like spell components and other things -- it doesn't really matter what he does to the cannon to stop it from working, the important part is that if he's adjacent to an enemy, he can use a power/invention/improvisation to force it to miss fire. Same with an improvised flashbang (it's just a distraction or temporary blindness/deafness or something). The "how" is something that can be flavoured and figured out in-game; the mechanics are what's missing for me.

I'm picturing a character that carries around a backpack full of materials and things. At the beginning of combat, he backs up a couple steps, starts pulling things out of his backpack, maybe picks up something from the environment, then spends a full round crafting something. Next round he uses that thing (maybe it gives a buff/debuff, maybe it's offensive, maybe it's defensive, whatever). Some things would take shorter to create, some things longer. Some things would only be one use, others might last the whole encounter. Sometimes he'd have to get up close to affect something, other times it could be ranged or area. Outside of combat, he'd be doing similar things. Basically "building" things to do the equivalent of spells, skills and stuff.

I think that in many ways, it would look very similar to a reflavoured wizard -- although some bard-alchemist combo might be a better starting place. Actually, if the Technic Scavenger Rogue archetype was expanded into a full non-rogue class, it would probably be really close. The 5e tinker gnome subrace also has similar flavour to what I'm thinking of, but it's features look basically useless.

Only if you don't want it to. Sufficiently Analyzed Magic = Science after all.

Except, that would mean that technology and magic are susceptible to the same things. That would mean that antimagic disrupts scientific devices (like wheels and levers and pulleys.. and guns) and that science should be able to get around magic DR. Also means that detect magic would give you crazy results because it also functions as "detect science." But, I'm just being silly and I realize this just is an analogy (ie, sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from science, and vice versa -- it doesn't mean that they actually are the same thing).

Interesting tangent: in Numeria (robots and technology country) the local "superstitious barbarian tribes who distrust strange things and deny them" are INCREDIBLY magic-friendly, because magic is something they can trust and duplicate. Magic is practiced by their cousins and neighbors and is perfectly acceptable/understandable. It is the evils of technology, practiced by the oppressive overlords of the Technic League, that they distrust and hate.

That sounds incredibly full of potential. I must learn more...

Didn't he not carry guns because he was never actually looking for or expecting a violent adventure? I'm asking because I don't remember, but I was under the impression he was always kind of "dragged into" the various adventures and excitement that were his everyday life.

I was young when I watched the show and I don't think they ever really got deep into the "why" of the adventures and stuff. However, he did work for some sort of secret agency and was sent on specific missions (but almost always as an explicit non-combatant). The gun-thing is one of the only things I actually remember: When Mac was a kid, his friend (or brother?) got shot (or shot himself?) and died right in front of him. I think he felt guilty about it.

But this does bring up an important point that makes Macgyver a poor example to work with: the show was very non-violent and non-lethal. Mac never killed anybody and almost always used indirect non-lethal methods. That makes for an interesting and unique action TV show, but it doesn't work when the whole point of the game is to kill things and take their stuff (along with some RP, etc). Batman (or an unarmoured Tony Stark?) might be a better example because he and his gadgets are explicitly not magic and not super.

I still think it's a shame that I haven't come across a (mostly) non-magical tinker/inventor/technologist class or archetype. Artificer is almost what I'm thinking, but it's still magic at its core. With all the PF books they've released, I'm surprised this doesn't really fit anywhere.

Kthulhu wrote:

I'd love to have an explicitly non-magical class based on sparks from the Girl Genius webcomic...but with every special ability tagged (Ex)... not (Su) or SLA.

What's wrong with the Alchemist?

Does that (Su) next to Mutagen and Bombs bother you so much that you can't just imagine it as a purely-biological or mechanical thing?

I'm not getting all the hate for the Supernatural tag. Supernatural things include stuff like ghosts and psychics; personally, I wouldn't put things like that into the realm of "magic" persay - more like a third, "weird" state between magic and mundane.

Why does it bother people so much to have fantasy elements in a fantasy game?

Alchemists are awesome. I think the point about Su abilities is that they can be disrupted by antimagic. It doesn't matter how you reskin anything -- unless you change the rules, those Su things are "magic" by definition, according to the game's rules. No hate on this end, it's just frustrating that these things that are, like you say, "a third state somewhere between magic and mundane" are actually magic by definition.

Macguyver...his biggest problem is he's totally a different genre character.

True. The main thing I thought about was that he never had to deal with fantastic creatures/problems. But, I don't think that "usin' yer noggin' to win by building something crazy" is outside of the fantasy genre. He crafted things, he didn't program computers.

Most of his tricks and toys and cool moves are based on science (twisted and inaccurate though it be) and technology in a science and technology world.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk -- and I'm no PF expert -- but didn't Paizo just release a Technology Guide? Aren't there guns and robots and things in Golarion? Don't the laws of physics and the scientific method work on Golarion? They have cyber-soldiers, powered armour, temporal accelerators, fission reactors and AIs. MacGyver should be able to fit in perfectly.

There was a bit in the beginning of this thread about "no cross-genre stuff" for a reason, ain't no way you're making Goku from DBZ in Pathfinder because they don't do "blows up planets by sneezing."

MacGyver isn't cross-genre unless you make him (or, maybe if the game was set in the Stone Age... except he could still craft things to solve almost any problem). He builds things. How cross-genre is that? He's not much different than some dwarven or gnomish stereotypes.

But MacGuyver's things, from what little I remember back in the 80s and 90s when I watched it, were all vaguely in the realm of a skilled Archaeologist (no singing) bard. The one thing is there's no escaping having spells, which only some 3rd party martial-sounding archetypes don't do. Alternatively you could roll Rogue, but they always have Sneak Attack, which he wasn't known for. Not really.

Actually, re-skin the bard spells or alchemist infusions as "crazy improvisation guy making crazy improvised stuff" might work best. Just always focus on buffs, support, and utility spells/tricks/skills.

Yeah, Archaeologist could probably be forced to fit the concept. This might be the closest possible for a PC. He'd still have a bunch of useless class features, though (because MacGyver's inventions weren't susceptible to antimagic, so spells and things don't work with the concept. It's like how he refused to use guns -- in PF he'd refuse to use magic... well, that analogy doesn't quite work but still...)

There is the Spark class from Terah, Ashoka. I had a spark/barbarian whose entire arsenal was based on biological engineering upon a very miserable newt named Jeremy. It might require a teensy bit of flavoring, but the "mad scientist" shtick matches your idea pretty well. And it's a fun class, too (if crazy complicated).

Wow. I couldn't actually find a full write-up because I'm not going to buy the book just to see a single class, but that looks like a really, really cool class (or concept, at least). Never heard of Terah before. Thanks for sharing.

Ashoka wrote:

Honest question: How do you make MacGyver in PF?

He may have "worked magic" with bubble gum and duct tape, but he didn't actually use magic. He also didn't use guns, didn't carry weapons and wasn't really a viable combatant (unless you gave him some gum).

I can see a bard maybe being able to get a similar flavour (and a wizard, I guess, if you ignore the magic) but that ain't MacGyver.

Maybe one of the new technology archetypes? Something like an artificer might work...?

Simply having a high-enough INT and Craft would allow for absurd things. An Expert NPC could do that.

I once had a Barbarian (back in 3.5) that took Craft (Woodworking) to make barrels... one time, to save the party money, I cut down a tree to craft it into a pretty-simple cart... and rolled a natural 20. The result was high enough that I ended up crafting a Masterwork Carriage in a matter of hours.

Ah, of course! Insanely high INT and a billion Craft skills. Thanks!

I'm still not sure how I'd build him as a PC, though. It seems like his only class feature should be training in Craft skills, but you can't trade features for extra skills (so MacGyver would end up having a bunch of features he never used, like Bardic Inspiration or spells or whatever).

Honest question: How do you make MacGyver in PF?

He may have "worked magic" with bubble gum and duct tape, but he didn't actually use magic. He also didn't use guns, didn't carry weapons and wasn't really a viable combatant (unless you gave him some gum).

I can see a bard maybe being able to get a similar flavour (and a wizard, I guess, if you ignore the magic) but that ain't MacGyver.

Maybe one of the new technology archetypes? Something like an artificer might work...?

Hi everybody,

I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the continuation of 4e materials. While I also really enjoy PF and am looking forward to experimenting with 5e when it comes out, right now my gaming is mostly focussed on 4e. I've got a lot of material that I've been working on (completed to varying degrees) and I've been thinking that I'd like to share some of my work with people.

I'm not thinking that I'm going to "break into the industry" with this stuff or anything, I'm more just wondering how many people would even bother with new material that says its for 4e (whether or not it's free). Of course, making money would be great but I'm thinking more about a posting my stuff on a blog and/or putting free pdfs out there.

So, what do peoples think:
* Is there interest for more 4e material, specifically adventures or APs?
* Would a new campaign setting have any appeal?
* What about a game engine that emulates (and improves) 4e?

I know that there is at least one fanzine dedicated to 4e out there (and it's awesome), but I don't known how much interest it actually gets. I also know that there are a few fan-made 4e clones in the works, but nothing that seems to be making a huge amount of progress.

I'm looking for opinions mainly from 4e players/DMs, but I welcome comments from anyone that plays RPGs and/or knows anything about the industry. I'd also love to hear from anybody in a similar position (with any system).

Thanks

PS: Here's another general question for anybody... What system do you think is the best for getting exposure as an independent RPG writer? I don't necessarily mean "getting published and paid" but more of getting noticed and eventually (a looong time down the road) maybe getting published or paid. PF and 5e are obviously the big guys, but what about 13th Age, Savage Worlds, 4e, 3.x, et al? Is it best to avoid thinking too much about 5e until it comes out, we see what its deal is and whether it's popular?

Thanks, again