That Boxed Set has been sitting in my bookcase for years and years (as part of me being a sucker for 'super' moduled/adventures/campaigns) - unfortunately I never played or DMed it...
You are sooo missing out. I use it as the backdrop to my major home campaign even in the latest incarnation of PF. There is a conversion for 3E/3.5E and it will not take much effort to convert further to PF. I would love to run it again, but I am still breaking in my latest group and we are down players so I am holding out until we are stable since I will not be moving on anytime soon this time...
Male Duros DEX 4D, KNO 2D, MEC 4D, PER 2D, STR 3D, TEC 2D | Force Sensitive: Control 1D+1 Mercenary Pilot
Man, I am really starting to think that virtual dice roller hates me...you should have seen my PC results for another game. Nothing over 12 and it was the only one over 10!
Can we bring back called shots? I would love to be able sever tentacles, eye stalks, hydra heads(more easily), etc. strike vulnerable places on an armored enemy, construct, etc. and other tricks.
Please, no. From a player side, I am sure this looks all kinds of attractive, but on the DM side, it feels way too much of a [expletive] move to use it against the players, but, it has to cut both ways or it is just power gaming. Perhaps, it would be better that certain iconic creatures have a special rule in their entry, such as the hydra, that allows for such fancy maneuvers or the lopping off of excessive limbs?
Special Skills Control (Concentrate) 1D
Starship Intuition: Duros are, by their nature, extremely skilled star ship pilots and navigators. When a Duros character
is generated, 1D (no more) may be placed in the following skills, for which the character receives 2D of ability:
archaic starship piloting, astrogation, capital ship gunnery, capital ship shields, sensors, space transports,
starfighter piloting, starship gunnery, and starship shields. This bonus also applies to any specializations. If the
character wishes to have more than 2D in the skill listed, then the skill costs are normal from there on.
Delusions of Grandeur
Force Sensitive: Yes
Movement: 10/12
Character Points: 5
Force Points: 2
Credits: 800
Heavy Blaster Pistol with Standard Scope and Concealed Holster (900)
4 Spare Blaster Power Packs (100)
Utility Belt (500)
Blast Helmet (200)
Combat Jumpsuit (1000)
Sorry it took so long, busy week. To top it off, I broke a tooth tonight which has been quite distracting. GM, Please let me know if I messed something up, I will fix in a jif. I took a stab at the character point starting total from the example character above cause I did not see an entry in character gen. Also, did I understand correctly, this updated rule set uses target number instead of successes? Maybe I am just tired...
I hate it when they make perception a non-skill, you can no longer use things like skill focus, skilled kineticist(greater) utility wild talent, etc. on it plus some people like being bad at it (and other skills).
I disagree here, perception is not really something you can train yourself for in a traditional sense. You can hone your senses through actual use, but not through the practice of using them over and over (which is something you actually do everyday). Perception should never have been a skill IMO, but the skill system in general was still new and they needed a way to "find" things. Since Perception is not a skill, you can still have new traits or Feats to modify it, they just will not be called "skill focus" etc. this would be a way to differentiate those with "highly honed senses" from the rest of us normals.
I am just kicking of the mega-dungeon "Night Below". An Underdark 2E adventure.
And the true boss monsters and especially the long finale of Book 3 need either an army of NPC's and/or alliances, or wel-equipped smart players. I'm option for option 2.
That being said, where does one post his adventure logs on these forums these days? Been years since I posted on Paizo and a bit lost now :)
If you are designing against generalist characters, there would not be much work other than rebalancing certain encounters, but if you have optimized PCs and experienced players, you may need to re-optimize the bad guys a little more toward any weaknesses the party has. I understand many will find this tactic uncouth, but your setting up a challenge after all so fun can be had by all. Curb stomping everything after a certain level is mostly boring.
I look forward to reading your escapades in campaign journals under gamer life.
FYI, that box set is the cornerstone of my favorite campaign as the DM. I have added many things to it to keep the PCs from straight guessing what is really going on too early...something which will happen with an experienced crew. The last time I ran this, I did not make it to level 10 before we had to break up as I moved on to a new location in 3.5 years. Early on the books, you will not need to add much for XP, but later in the books you will. There is a 3(.5) conversion on ENworld last time I was on those boards, but that has been some years now, so...
I think that still leaves the problem of 'everyone has to take the same skills for combat' all the time. Skills no one wants to take because they have to give up something else they cannot is not 'they are useless', but more 'they are used less'. The only way to demonstrate to folks the used less skills should not be ignored is to do what no one wants to do and make sure they come up in the game instead of glossing over them. But, that is viewed as "not fun". To me if everyone has the same relative skill set (cause some have more skills due to point divestment), then why even have them? Either the system as a whole must be considered and ignoring less used skills has setbacks that do come up, or there is no need to have the skills at all as they will just be another way the rogue is not as bad as everyone thinks it is with all those skill points. I do not have the answer, but at this point, I think the skill system needs a full redo. Perhaps even divorcing it from level advancement.
(I wrote the following and decided to give a disclaimer, it is a general statement and is not directed at anyone) It seems to me there is a large calling for consolidating everything into a smaller number of ability scores used, so they can concentrate in just one or maybe two ability scores to become ubermunchkin cause it is "unfun" to divest into a fully rounded character. This is reinforced by the idea to reduce the number of skill so they do not have a glaring weakness in that department. I see this issue as a people problem, not a system problem. All of the things I have read so far point to this being some of the reasons why many seek changes to the core rule set, so they can make super heroes out of their characters, without flaws or drawbacks cause that is just not "fun".
Maybe I am just having a crap day and do not realize it, but honestly, I think too many folks are loosing sight of the fix Pathfinder goal and are zeroing in on making another game goal. I need to stop ruminating here and get to preparing my Saturday game...
Having read a great deal of the things that folks are proposing as fixes, I am concerned with a general power creep for the game as a whole. It is a stated fact that the design team desires fix actions that boost lagging parts instead of taking away (or nerfing) them. As a DM, I am concerned about the changes I will need to do to the backend to also compensate for all the player boosts to keep up the challenges, something also stated by the design team that is not to be needed. I fully understand that not all encounters are supposed to be challenges, but my concerns stand and this is based off the amount of tinkering I already need to do from time to time, mostly, but not always, to boost the bad guys. I have been holding this reservation back for a long time because I figure any playtesting will show my concerns, but, the more I read, the more I see this becoming an issue.
One thing I'd like to see change is traps. While the skill system as a whole I'm assuming will have the math change some so finding and disarming traps isn't trivial at mid-high level, I'd like to see disarming traps be harder than finding them. It's boring to me to have 1 skill check to find a trap and another one to disarm it and be done. Having found a trap with a skill check, but not be able to easily disarm it opens up a lot more creative options on how to deal with, avoid, or otherwise disable a trap than a single boring skill check.
I agree, traps needs something. It seems like the whole system was wrote as if only for the trap monkey in the party as opposed to everyone. So, either you have an optimized trap finder and they are almost trivial, or someone with a lot of HP to walk in front and trap find the "hard" way.
Can you drop in and start that conversation? See what the others come up with?
I completely understand the issue with trying to keep up with the conversations. I clocked one day at over 1000 posts while I was away at work, and they were still going at it. I never recovered from trying to catch up after that. There are also several distractions in discussion which I have had to gloss over too. I will freely admit, that there is an effort to curb those into the proper channels, but sometimes the devs get on their soapbox too and you gotta ride it out. I will also freely admit, I thought it was a bit weird when the board was in its infancy, but I see why now. At least some folks are trying to self police it too, just does not always work.
Perhaps, when they get serious about feedback for some changes they can create specific channels for discussing those things before it goes to testing? Maybe that is just overkill. I really wanted to be a part of this because I agree PF needs a fix (hell, I started writing my own too), but I am not sure I agree with some of the direction they are leaning at taking. Not all, but some.
Anyway, K V, you got any more issues to look at (happy to bring them up on your behalf)? CDG does not come up enough in any of my games, so I do not have much of an opinion on it as is.
I wonder how the conversion of Throne of Bloodstone would go? The welcoming party to Orcus's layer consisted of one type V demon and 100 type III demons if I remember correctly. And you had to kill Tiamat to to win in the end.
I so want to do this, the conversion of the series I mean, but I fear PF rule set would not make it easy...At least with the mythic rule set, I could possibly go that route for the "high level" portion of the adventures. If only I did not have a day job...
That is quite the gift. Many of those individually would command excellent prices if still in good condition. I have been collecting game material for over 30 years and do not have everything on your list yet.
There are some conversions for a few of those to D&D 3.5 on the ENWorld site. They are a good start to get you in the ballpark for PF.
Happy to test it out for you if you go PF1. If you have not heard yet, Legendary Games is taking a stab at the next iteration of PF1 called Corefinder. They are in the early development stage at the time of this post.
The identification of items is not really designed to be a hurdle unless you are hiding cursed items on a regular basis.
Isn't everybody?
For weapons and armor, it is 3x the bonus or bonus equivalent. For other things, they will have to be looked up because it can vary for different reasons. Of course, if they get an unusual item (like a wand at a higher or lower caster level than default, it will list the caster level for you)
Hover and Wingover. Just a fly check away from not being a feat at all.
This is a true statement, but the feat is there so you do not have to make the check at all. It was designed specifically for creatures that will never get enough skill points in fly, but they need those tricks for their verisimilitude without having to worry about possible failure.
This is all your fault Lord Fyre. I found an old AD&D module and have started trying to convert it--"Against the Cult of the Reptile God."
General encounters aren't too hard so far--I err more on the side of choosing something for an appropriate CR than a "literal translation" so to speak. So this adventure calls for a spirit naga which is CR 9. But I decided the big bad should probably be no more than CR 6 or 7 at most, so I picked a lunar naga instead. Narratively it doesn't make much difference, and I can even write the lunar naga's peculiarities into the story.
I am finding however that I have to account for more save-or-die/suck sort of scenarios that have been excised from later editions and especially Pathfinder--for example, in this one, the naga apparently has a permanent charm ability. I haven't looked up the old monster manual entry to be sure, but I am pretty sure this is a standard monster trait in AD&D. Because it's totally fine to lose your whole team and end the campaign due to a few bad saving throws. Nagas' charm abilities are not permanent in Pathfinder (and probably not in 3.x either). I'm not going to change the naga's stats to make it permanent (especially since I don't like that kind of gameplay, personally), but I decided that the naga in this story had to put the charmed cultists in the adventure through a ritual to make them permanently charmed. This explains why the cultists remain loyal after a long period of time in this version of the story. (And the PCs could be subject to the ritual if they really mess things up.)
An interesting challenge is dealing with what is and isn't codified into the game mechanics. True to the spirit of AD&D there are very few suggested mechanics for, say, how the PCs gather information from local townsfolk, leaving it entirely up to the GM (and one GM might rely entirely on roleplay for how this works, while another might purely call for Charisma checks and not bear in mind roleplaying at all; a third might use a little bit of both)....
Hi! Two things, a conversion of this module to D&D 3.5 is available on Enworld conversion thread. May be a PF version as well, I do not recall. Second, I am very familiar with the module and the issue with the final encounter. Might I recommend creating an archtype to downplay some of the spell casting for some other benefit, increased DCs perhaps for its SU abilities? If memory serves, I think I took the same approach you did, but in other modules (tomb of the Lizard King) I had to do one of my suggestions above.
$25ish for 96 pages, not bad...will be looking into this shortly as there is no pressure until the book is available in print (not a fan of PDF at the table)...
I wish it were less, but print costs have gone up sharply in the last few years. That's life in the big city, alas.
Still, if you've ever seen an LG product, you know that's 96 pages JAM-PACKED with awesomeness! :)
Aw, you misunderstand me Sir, I thought it was a fair trade, not bad at all...
Okay, if we're dealing with a Wizard here, we'll need to do some work, but for working with Fireball, my Nuclear Sorcerer might be a good starting point.
The primary pieces of the puzzle are Fireball, Magic Trick (Fireball), and the interaction between Cluster Bomb and Concentrated Fire.
Do note that this depends on your GM being lenient and saying that you can apply Magic Trick before Mythic (not too unreasonable, I would hope).
At CL 20, you're throwing 10 2d6- 10-foot fireballs. Throw them all at the same place, and it deals 30d6 to a 5-foot radius sphere. With Mythic, this would hopefully increase to 30d10. But we're just getting started.
Widen means each of those mini-fireballs is doubled in size, and the damage jumps up to 5d10 each, or 50d10 total. Now, we take Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, and Spell Perfection, pulling us up to 65d10. If we're an Exploiter Wizard, Potent Magic pulls us up to 70d10. Wild Arcana gives you 75d10, Elemental Bond boosts us to 100d10, and Channel Power + Empowered effectively doubles that.
Of course, that's just with a Wizard. A Sorcerer loses Potent Magic, but could be Crossblooded and with the capstone ability of Unique Bloodline, plus Blood Havoc as a bloodline power could get +4 damage/dice, for a base total of 95d10+380, at the low cost of 3 Mythic Power and a 3rd-level spell slot. Up it to a 4th level to Maximize it, a 5th level to Empower it as well, and an extra Mythic Power to deal a grand total of 1710+95d10 damage in a 5-foot radius.
Not to nitpic, as I have an interest in this exercise, but I am having trouble following some of these numbers. For example, Widen Spell does not give any extra damage dice:
Widen Spell wrote:
Benefit: You can alter a burst, emanation, or spread-shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell’s area increase by 100%.
Level Increase: +3 (a widened spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.)
and you show that both Potent Magic and Wild Arcana as a +5D (whatever) increase, when they both have an effect of adding only 2 caster levels each.
Finally, there is no demonstration of breaking the die cap of the spell for Fireball at 10D (whatever). For example, Intensify Spell.
Male Human Paladin (Holy Guide/Warrior of Holy Light) 8/Arcanist 4 |AC 19(23) T 12 FF 17(21) | HP 52/68 | F+13 R+10 W+12 | Init +3 | Perception +8 | Reservoir 0/10 | Smite 0/3 | LoH 4/14 | Spells: 1st 2/5 2nd 1/3 | +4 vs Fear & Charm within 10'
I was really hoping I could lean on the Jester to corral the group along for this side trek to bring them near the Oracle as I think his talents will lend well to such a task, but in the interest of moving things along, I can try using a couple of light spells cast on a ball or something (look, pretty sparkly, come with me and we can play). Harkon does not spend much time around young folk...
That is quite the acrobatics number to survive all those +2s. Using the rule you quoted, strictly speaking, B is the result. However, it is not out of the bounds of credulity for a DM to rule A.
Benefit: A rogue with this talent may treat her initiative roll as a 20 for a surprise round, regardless of her initiative, but she may only take an attack action with a ranged weapon. Her normal initiative roll is used in subsequent rounds. If two or more rogues possess this talent, their initiative determines the order in which they act, but they all go before any other creature. If a rogue is prevented from acting in the surprise round, this talent has no effect.
As I read this there is no specific language that says the rogue always gets a surprise round. I lack the time to research, but if memory serves there is a talent, feat, trait, or something that does allow the possessor to get a surprise round every time. Rogues have many ways to achieve surprise to be granted action within a surprise round, so maybe the author assumed that would be the case more often than not. RAW, I do not see automatic surprise round in this talent.
I will also add that with the language of this talent, the rogue can take another action in the surprise round as normal by disregarding this talent should they choose to do something other than make a ranged attack. They would just function normally as in any other surprise round they are allowed to act in.
Bolded to direct my question better, I was under the impression there was a limitation of only 8 hours a day toward crafting magic items. Accelerating progress within that time was permissible with a +5 DC but no more than double the rate.
Crafting Magic Items wrote:
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit.
Here is the reference for my understanding, once again bolded for ease.
I too have been using Dragons to terrifying effect for about the same amount of time. The best thing I find is to create a theme for the dragon, breath weapon is awesome, flight is its dominant arena for fighting, etc. and go to town making a player character for the DM that will give the PCs hell. It does little to research for hints on this because all dragons fly, or use breath weapons, etc. What the PCs cannot gather is how much of something a dragon is optimized for until they encounter it at least once. Always try to think out of the box too, just like PCs. Pump up an intimidate skill once or twice and make them cower not from fear, but from respect in the dragons presence, even though they are trying to fight it and take its loot. how many times have PCs tried to use skills to their advantage against unoptimized NPCs?
If you make a mistake and the PCs are having too easy a time of it, run away. Maybe they just found your fake lair and there is not much there to loot and while they spent valuable time searching for it, the dragon escaped to the real lair and is recuperating and thinking about how to improve its dismal performance before taking them on again. There are so many things to make them challenging without using Dbag tricks or using stuff to make them better which the PCs will get to keep after they defeat one. I am always open to assist rookie DMs, so send a message with you plea for help and I will be happy to assist...
I is running Slumbering Tsar these days...no one was interested in testing out the Dungeon of Graves...cowards...errr... smart players... Anyway, to answer your original question:
If you are okay doing your own converting, I believe the 3.5 set of three PDFs are available free (or at least they have been giving them away on the last couple of kickstarter campaigns). Bear in mind this thing has been converted from edition to edition, so there are a couple of things that did not translate as well as they were originally intended (darkness spell ambush, I am looking at you!). The original book(s) are a minimum of level five just to get through the front door (so to speak). In answer, they developed the Expansion, which includes something called the Mouth of Doom, which lets the PCs start off at first level without TPKing on the first encounter. It may or may not also contain a couple o side entrances to the main dungeon too. There are also some one off dungeon levels that are nice to have, but nowhere near critical for the (what passes for a) story line and certain pathfinder expanded rules, such as kingdom building, horror (surprisingly), and others are not supported by content as is, so you will have to find conversion points to integrate it all. Between the main book and the expansion, there is a good deal of fleshed out above ground material so you do not need to do a lot of random encounters initially. Most of the addendums, like the specific RA bestiary are not worth your effort as it is nothing more than extracts from the main book or expansions. If you decide to make it a campaign, then as mentioned it can be placed in borderland provinces, but it is actually not that far from Bard's Gate in the lost lands and there are a couple of full on adventures that are located nearby, including Slumbering Tsar. In fact if you check out their discord (tenkar's tavern) someone recently posted a map that shows where the different published works are in the area. Finally, the Tome of Horrors books mentioned above are nice to have, but are in excess of 600 pages combined, so it is a heavy lift and not really necessary since the stats for anything other than pathfinder bestiary monsters have full stats in the books (at least once, so the tomes can help with page flipping). Got any specific questions? Spoiler requests (PM me)?
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
I am afraid the base rule is clear that you can make a full attack with ranged weapons as specified after the qualifiers for double movement and running. The rule you are referring to in mounted skirmisher is referring to the basic rule for modification:
APG print 2 wrote:
Mounted Skirmisher (Combat)
You are adept at attacking from upon a swift moving steed.
Prerequisites: Ride rank 14, Mounted Combat, Trick Riding.
Benefit: If your mount moves its speed or less, you can still take a full-attack action. Normal: If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only take an attack action.
As it is modifying the base rule, you apply t the base rule which can be so modified. As there is a difference in the base rule between melee attacks and ranged attacks in reference to the full attack action, this poorly worded feat is only modifying the melee portion of the base rule as it is the only portion of the rule that can be logically modified by the relevant statements. At no time does it specify that it is changing the base rule itself (i.e. errata). I have bolded the specific passages for ease of reference.
Many of them are part of another move or standard action and do not require any additional actions. Best part is that if you cast a spell as your standard action for the round and have some form of an additional standard action, you can still use many exploits that require one because they are not spell casting.
Just because something can be split apart does not mean the components can be combined to create what was split apart. As far as I am aware of nowhere in the rules does it say that you can combine a move action with a standard action to get a full round action. If there is a rule that lets you combine actions it would probably the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.
I understand your position, but you are not actually arguing against mine. I am stating that there is no actual splitting going on. There are three options, full round, standard and move (however, there is mention that you do not actually have to take both in the same round, at which point it is forfeited, but the option to choose remains), and no action. I am saying there is no splitting of actions to begin with.
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.
D20PRSRD Mythic Haste: wrote:
Affected creatures gain an additional move action each round. The movement speed increase changes to 50 feet, to a maximum of three times the creature’s normal speed for that movement type.
Augmented (3rd): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the movement speed increase changes to 70 feet, with no limit based on the creature’s normal speed. If an affected creature moves at least 30 feet on its turn, it can travel across liquid as if the liquid were solid. If the liquid deals damage on contact, the creature takes only half damage from moving across it.
As I am unable to edit my original posting, so here is some additional data. I apologize for the misanswer I provided this morning, I was interrupted early on and had actually forgotten that I had not yet copied the additional data then came back to this and provided an answer based on what I had already copied. Sounds silly, but we all have our off days...
D20PFSRD Amazing Initiative wrote:
Amazing Initiative (Ex)
At 2nd tier, you gain a bonus on initiative checks equal to your mythic tier. In addition, as a free action on your turn, you can expend one use of mythic power to take an additional standard action during that turn. This additional standard action can’t be used to cast a spell. You can’t gain an extra action in this way more than once per round.
I still get an answer of no. Amazing initiative provides for an additional standard action as a free action. While there is no limit on the number of free actions (other than what the DM decides is too much talking, or other arbitration), they are still separate and distinct things within the framework of a round. Couple this with AI specifically calling out that you cannot cast a spell with this additional standard action further reinforces that it is not a true standard action.
A full round action is a thing one can do as one of three options for a round (the other two being taking a standard action and a move action and the third is taking no actions at all). The two abilities above provide for a separate additional standard action and move action respectively but provide no such rule which allows them to be combined to form a full round action.
I will stipulate that mythic haste does provide for a massive amount of movement if the free standard action from AI were to be used to move as that would be empowered by the spell as well since it does not differentiate where the movement comes from, only that all movement is augmented.
No. Please review this quote from the spell description which covers the part about the standard action portion of the spell:
D20PFSRD Haste wrote:
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
The language here is specific to allowing an extra attack, not a standard action and under no circumstances does it allow anything but a single extra attack and only when the full attack action is used.
When reviewing the Mythic Haste entry, it provides no benefit to this half of the spell, it only expands the move portion of the spell, even when augmented. RAW, there is no wiggle room for interpretation for this question. The full spell text below:
D20PFSRD Haste wrote:
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature’s modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject’s normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don’t stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.
D20PRSRD Mythic Haste wrote:
Affected creatures gain an additional move action each round. The movement speed increase changes to 50 feet, to a maximum of three times the creature’s normal speed for that movement type.
Augmented (3rd): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the movement speed increase changes to 70 feet, with no limit based on the creature’s normal speed. If an affected creature moves at least 30 feet on its turn, it can travel across liquid as if the liquid were solid. If the liquid deals damage on contact, the creature takes only half damage from moving across it.
Believe it or not, my current group was just introduced to Pathfinder and the downtime ruleset. They want to take off in it, like start their own monopoly take off...just so they can sell the stuff they find adventuring at full price (yes, I know it does not work like that, but that was their plan)...So, this book, Ultimate Armies (for when I have all I need to convert the Bloodstone series) and Trade and Caravans would be well received by this little group...
I tried them and didn't like them, in my opinion they are unnecessary as they obstruct the table and get knocked over a lot.
A D20 placed besides a mini to show how high in squares it is, is more manageable.
I tried them and I do like them. They do break kinda easily, so I am always on the lookout for replacement (parts). Interested in letting them go? I will pay the shipping...
Sorry gang, but this is answered in the CRB under channeling heading in the Cleric class section:
CRB wrote:
A neutral cleric of a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).
I’ve got *tonnes* of weird snippets. I pulled that one from an FAQ I’ve got buried in some files. I think it originally appeared in a Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine, but I’m not sure.
Dude, you are my geek hero...feel free to quote me on that...
@Fnipernackle,
What I am about to say is in no way a denunciation of your idea, but here are some ideas for why I think things are the way they are vis a vis clerics:
1. spell casting less than wizards. Likely due to a separation of duties when it comes to the adventuring party. The big crossover was in buffs (I really dislike the term, but it gets my point across). Does it need to stay this way, not so much, but the largest difference was that a cleric always had access to their full spell list, while a wizard had to learn/find most of theirs after the initial allotment, which cost money.
2. Druids, similar to the cleric, full access to list, but the main stay was the difference in spells as the druid focused on summoning and nature related spells, as fit their niche and they had shape changing instead of healing/turning. Again, I see no reason why druids cannot really get more spells.
3. Do not knock channel energy, it is area effect and applies offensively or defensively. Used properly, it is a game changer compared to the versions before they had it (when all they could do was either scare away undead or disintegrate them if high enough level).
4. Oracles are not so much my forte, they are relatively new to me, so I will leave comparisons of them to someone with a better understanding. What I do know is they are the divine answer to the sorcerer class which is why they have less spells and more abilities (even if they lack the mainstay divine abilities of clerics).
5. Paladins and lay on hands is a vestige from the time before Paladins could use healing spells, that was their form of healing until their spells came online, but even then, they lagged so far behind what a cleric could do, it was not worth spending those limited spells on healing when they did have the lay on hands ability, so they got to use those spells for other things. They were a cleric that was far closer to the holy fighter spectrum than the spell casting spectrum. This is why their spells come online so late and so slowly. Further, the lay on hands ability is abysmal in comparison to the cleric channel energy, even if the channel only affected one character instead of all in a burst. It felt more like an emergency stabilization than actual healing.
Anyway, just some thoughts to help bring perspective to why things are separate as they are (or at least that was my goal). Do clerics need changes? In my experienced opinion, I do not think so, but I am also not opposed to hearing your solution and see how it would fit in with everything else out there. Honestly, I think clerics are one of the more solid classes available.
What I would like to see tackled first would be some of the rules inconsistencies that have been earmarked along the way that the rules designers have refused to acknowledge/fix. I know someone out there has been keeping track...
Also, I think the only thing 4E got right was skill challenges (do not get me wrong, they still need a lot of work to bring into this system, but the concept was solid). Rogue Genius Games has a PDF called Skill Challenge Handbook, but I am not sure it is a definitive source.
I am not very familiar with the jargon include in every Pathfinder book, but are we allowed to make changes and updates to share? I remember with the 3.5 it was a big deal to do that, only changes made could be used by the person/group that made the changes (I believe the term used was personal use). Some of you may remember Demonslye from these boards who dropped off because of issues such as this. He was REAL good at making conversions.
I, too, have looked at various aspects of the new edition and while there are some nuggets in there that look nice, it seems too much of a 4.5 clone (new term I just coined which means somewhere between fourth and fifth editions) to me and I did not like either of those editions.
If point one of my post is not an issue and we can truly share our changes, than I am definitely in, however, I will not initially be available for much because of new home/job requirements which are sucking up all my free time (I can barely prep for my weekly game as it is and it shows, I am personally embarrassed by that). I even had to put my master's degree on hold for the year.
Arcanists are fun. Lazy GMs don't like them because the exploits side step ALL of the conventional rules regarding magic. It's not so bad once one makes the effort to understand them.
I am the Arcanist that vexed Brother Fen so much and in my opinion, Arcanist is THE best arcane casting class, ever. So the bad guy is in the face of the spell caster eh? Dimension slide away...or cast a touch spell, dimension slide in and b~!#% slap that bad guy with no worries about reach...now if only Dimension Slide could bring along a friend...maybe one day...
Oh, the bad guy has high spell resistance (hehe, used this a lot) then potent magic the caster level and through some meta mixing of spell penetration in there and it is a bad day for the bad guy without changing the casting time of the spell...oh yeah!
I did not have enough time to read this whole thread, but I recall another thread on the boards not long ago that talked about 0 level characters and we speculated about how that could be done in PF. After reading through the quick character gen formula, it can be done easily in PF2 by just not taking a class yet for a 0 level adventure at the end of which you earn your class level.
I am still not a fan of the roll-less stat generation though...
