BrokenShade's page

I would rather see a 'PrC' for Sorcerers that allows them to 'become' Wizards, and strike the Wizard from the game.

Brilliant, Kyrinn. That's the first time I've heard that suggestion, and it is a great one.

I do have a concern that there is no ability to "take away" from sorcerors to make up for the PrC ... and I wouldn't want to reduce their spells per day. So it might be hard to work, but it's a great idea. :D

In 3 and 3.5, Sorceror. In the many campaigns I played in, Wizard never compared.

The strange thing I found was that if I chose my Sorceror spells very very carefully (and I was the kind who did), I never ever found myself not knowing a spell and wishing I did.

To be fair, the one thing I may have missed out on were the skills a Wizard would have had - but I never missed them either. The lack of Intelligence was more than made up by the usefullness of really high Charisma.

And the number of spells a Sorceror has was just far too good to pass up.

I don't think this should be done. It is counterintuitive to have negative stats.

So only have positive stats, with a minimum of zero. It's easy enough.

Characters and creatures seldom use stats with negative stat bonuses, so replacing those negative bonuses with zeroes should work fine. ^_^

The Wisdom ability score is a hodge-podge of traits utterly non-sensically brought under one roof. Wisdom, as it exists in D&D or Pathfinder, represents at least the following four unconnected attributes:

Enlightened Insight
Common Sense
Physical Senses
Willpower

These traits have essentially nothing to do with one another.

I'm not so sure, and I think Wisdom fits each.

(1) If you are wise, you have enlightened insight and common sense.
(2) If you are wise, you use your physical senses better. Not that they are better, but you pay more attention to them ... and to what is going on around you.
(3) Wisdom is, as per the banana peel example in AD&D 1st, applied knowledge. This takes willpower. Doing the wise thing when others pressure you not to, takes willpower.

So all of these can - at least in the senses above - fit under Wisdom.

I just feel the need to express my frustration with the Wisdom ability score as written

Can't blame you there. ^_^

Prowress
Agility
Dexterity
Endurance
Perception
Willpower
Intelligence
Intuition
Charisma

the fact that an evil priest will kill his own minions and allies

... is just about as bad as the fact that a good priest will heal his own enemies and their minions. Really, neither is the end of the world. They just require judicious planning.

Perhaps there could be a feat that allows a cleric to channel the opposite type of energy.

This doesn't really fit with the way the cleric is designed and conceptualised, at all.

If good is not aligned with life and positive energy, and evil is not aligned with evil and negative energy, then where is the justification for a cleric to have turning or healing at all (as opposed to wizards for example)?

You're messing with a very basic tenet of D&D here. Which is fine for a house rule, I just really really wouldn't want it in Paizo's books.

I think it should be a perfect solution ...

As you can tell, I think it's quite the reverse. ^_^

its NOT about the Cleric... is about the god

That's a really good point, Montalve. I think that explains the why of it all perfectly. Evil gods just don't have wads of positive energy to spare. The evil cleric is actually lucky to get any healing at all! ^_^

Evil priests can prepare cure spells, so I think the answer to this question is "all of them".

Yes, evil gods do give out positive energy. Probably captured energy, which actually gives me story ideas. ^_^

There is no way they have as much of it as good gods though, and good clerics being the only ones to have a positive "channel energy" ability and spontaneous casting fits this very well indeed.

evil clerics are still going to want to heal

Sure they are. But they chose to align with evil (negative energy) and not positive energy. Such choices have consequences, and I like that the system shows this.

The consequences aren't even that bad. They just lead to playing a different, more evil, type of cleric. Which is supposedly the point - playing an evil cleric.

ok to let them turn and rebuke and

These ideas could end up being interesting - but why fix what isn't broken? ^_^

I think the idea is that evil Clerics are NPCs. And it is much more fun and appropriate to have evil NPCs damaging the party, than healing each other. It seems to work ok.

In general, an evil person is not considered someone who goes around healing others all the time. He's far too selfish for that.

They're powerful in exactly the way I describe, and I've seen this in any number of groups. I've even seen this in an AD&D game (it's just that in AD&D blasting was *also* effective).

Nope. They are not. I've seen exactly the opposite.

Save-or-lose spells lose their power in groups where the DM fudges his monsters' saves

I've never needed to do that. I don't believe in it. When the entire party goes down, which is almost never, they are usually captured or something similar. It just adds to the role playing. No need to fudge.

Save or "lose" spells? You haven't listed any yet.

No, they're very useful, because they take enemies out of the fight.

For how long? And can you do anything about it while they are out of the fight? Often with your spells, it would seem you can't get to them or see them (through plant growth or solid fog for example). How stupid are the opponents you have been fighting anyway?

You're ignoring the fact that Overland Flight keeps you entirely or mostly safe from any creature that doesn't have flight or a strong ranged attack. That's more than you think--a lot more.

Really? How many groups of foes don't have ranged weapons, even if they don't have spells? Fighters or humanoids without bows or even spears? You have to be kidding! And you never face numbers of opponents with bows? The damage adds up, especially if they all target your rather puny armour class (yes, I saw the mage armour).

Coupled with Greater Invis it keeps you safe from damn near everything.

Except area effects. Which every evoker out there knows tons of. I just hope you don't face that puny sorceror you are so dismissive of. Go invisible first round, and eat a fireball. Round two, win initiative or take another. Oh, he has great initiative too? Goodbye. Oh, and that first fireball was save or die too for you too because you didn't have enought hit points? Oops for you.

That was a list of CR 10-11 core monsters, BTW

I see. And you left out ... what was it ... fighter, thief, cleric, mage and all their variations? You'll never meet them of course. And of course none of them could take you out in the air. Oh wait, you will meet them, and any of them could.

Again, are you kidding me? I don't even need to start looking at monster lists to show you are wrong.

It appears more and more as though you have had a very slanted role playing experience. But I guess we all do to some extent. So I'll leave it there, you're welcome to have the last word if you like. ^_^

LogicNinja, I've never seen things work out quite the way you refer to in practice (24 years of DMing similar systems here, usually DMing or playing in multiple groups at the same time, since Basic D&D).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that 3E spellcasters are the most powerful characters. But not in the way you describe.

All those save or "die" spells are ok, but not terribly useful. And that is even when the opponent fails their save, which he doesn't all the time (even under 3.0 which had higher DC bonuses for spell and greater spell focus).

Lets look at your level 10 Wizard ...
(1) Overland Flight - ok, useful utility. Not great for manouevering. Being in the air makes you a great target for all ranged attacks (until casting greater invisibility, which may or may not be first round, a slow start to combat that will cause extra damage to your party).
(2) Cloudkill - by the time you are level 10 most foes are at least 6hp. So you are doing 1-4 con points damage, pretty much never for more than one round, which ends up equivalent to doing almost no damage.
(3) Baleful Polymorph - a close range spell, and close range is likely to get you very dead. Fortitude save means its very weak against fighters, clerics, monks, and short range means its not good against wizards. So its for Rogues, which you have to see first. Marginally useful, but not that good.
(4) Walls of Stone - useful utility, if used intelligently. Not superb.
(5) Fear - even if they fail they run away and fight another day. Will saves mean this is for fighter types. Its not bad, but it doesn't do anything. Essentially what most of these spells do is take YOU out of the combat and require your fighter type friends to do the dirty work.
(6) Confusion - great spell when used effectively. I haven't seen it used effectively, and it's a great target for a dispel magic.
(7) Black Tentacles - yes, exceptionally powerful in this incarnation. Its only drawback is that it lasts for 10 rounds, and that your allies will be unable to enter the area to do serious damage.
(8) Solid Fog - cool utility spell. Nice barrier, nothing more.
(9) Greater Invisibility - focuses damage on your friends, who won't last as long.
(10) Ray of Enfeeblement - close range, only drops Strength a little. Very weak.

I could go on, but these spells are all the same. Your character build seems focused on control - with nothing to back it up. Perhaps your DMs have catered to your style, and perhaps you have used them exceptionally well. My guess is it's a combination. But in general, this build seems weak to me.

Hi again.

Why not have two sets of racial abilities per race, loosely based on which of the two favoured classes you choose. Then you could choose which of the two sets you wanted for your character.

There would always be the common abilities, of course, but for elves you could choose between e.g. spell penetration (Wizard) and weapon focus with a racially familiar weapon (Ranger).

It wouldn't help those choosing a class that was not favoured, but then that is the price you pay. Thoughts? ^_^

Hi everyone.

I was thinking of weapon familiarity and the problems it brings up, and then I had a thought. Why not ONLY give each race weapon familiarity with weapons that have their name in the title?

Then create those weapons, something like two per race, e.g. ...

For halflings the halfling skiprock and the halfling sling staff
For half orcs the orc greataxe orc double axe
For dwarves the dwarven warhammer and the dwarven waraxe
For elves the elfin sword and elfin bow.
For gnomes the gnomish pick and gnomish dart
For humans the manish pike and manish broadsword.
Half elves choose the race they were raised by, and are familiar with that race's weapons.

That gets around all the problems with martial weapon familiarity for fighters, halfling familiarity with slings etc in a nice simple way.

Well, I personally would have liked rogue / sorceror, as those were the two classes I have seen for halflings. Halflings made the best sorcerors in 3E.

But thematically, I can see that bard fits better than sorceror does. Ranger, to me at least, does not.

And frankly neither gnomes nor halflings fit well into any fighting class due to the -2 strength penalty (even bow ranger, which really requires bows which give strength bonus to damage). So ranger doesn't really work. :(

I thought about this seriously, and couldn't think of a reason to replace sorceror with wizard or illusionist. Sorceror works just as well from the illusionist standpoint, and even seems to fit gnomes better.

Hopefully gnome sorcerors will choose illusionist spells slightly more often due to the +1DC. Maybe, maybe not. ^_^

And the sorceror / bard combination makes the most sense to me too.

Yes, I really like the two +2 bonuses instead of one. ^_^

I'm not sure what you mean by "the old books", but 1st edition had Tomes for Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

This is in context of Abilitiy bonuses for Race. By the old books, I meant 3E. In other words, no 3e race in the PHB gave a bonus to Int, Wis or Cha. ^_^

i always saw that putting to much Focus in Strengh and making it so important was to focus to much in combat (melee in particular) and taking steps back from roleplaying and smart solutions.

The focus on Strength compared to other physical statistics is in the game design, in that it gives bonuses to both attack and damage. This emphasises it relative to other physical stats - it never made combat the best option.

As is commonly known, fighter types were underpowered in 3E, and I never played them. It never stopped me from role playing or coming up with smart solutions either. :D

Changing which races gain which bonuses unfortunately does not change the innate imbalance between Strength, Dexterity and Constitution either. It just changes the races certain optimising players will choose.

and about fighters don't forget the Dwarf, his favored class is fighter, ok they got bonus to constitution, but if they can survive longer than a human or half-orc they mighet be able to kill them faster with the diference in strenght.

The Dwarf really is an exceptionally weak fighter, neither having Strength or the second best physical ability, Dexterity (in Pathfinder it works better for fighter types, and AC always worked out better than a few extra hp).

Strenght was important (and is important) not for the +1extra base attack in melee or the damage... but because COMBAT in generalis made to work around strenght... there are even bows who use it for ddamage, you have more strenght you can carry better armor and weapons, so a +2 in strenght is indeed important

So you are saying Strength is valuable for many reasons? I agree. By combat, I assume you mean armed combat as opposed to spell combat.

but literaly downgrading the feeling of all other attributes saying (because strenght is SO important, we need to take -4 attributes to you to compensate) was what made me so bitter about the old system.

I'm sad you felt that way. To me, because Strength really was overpowered compared to other physical stats it made sense. But paizo looks like they have a valid alternative to the old system. ^_^

I'm confused, you seem to say two seperate things here:

Yes, I do see your confusion. ^_^

I'm stating two points
(1) The stat bonus mechanism for race no longer emphasises Strength as a physical stat, and
(2) Strength is still by far the most powerful physical stat

So ...

(3) Races which gain Strength bonuses have now gained significantly in power.

Hopefully that clears up the confusion? ^_^
As has been pointed out, and I had not fully combined into my thinking

(4) Races which gained Int, Wis and Cha bonuses also gained significant power in a different way.

So the net effect seems to be to shift class race combinations in interesting ways. Not bad ways necessarily. Just interesting ways. ^_^

3E wizard was one of the strongest classes. O.O Much better than sorcerer because you had versatility, skill points, and the ability to actually use metamagic.

I found quite the reverse. ^_^

(1) Sorcerors had all the versatility they needed. I never ever found that there was a Wizard spell that I needed that I did not have access to. Then again I was exceptionally careful with my spell choice.
(2) Skill points never meant much as a sorceror - all the wizard really had were knowledge skills, which seemed to me to be a mechanic for the DM to solve your problems for you. I never needed that.
(3) Sorcerors are really the ones with the ability to use metamagic. Wizards actually have to prepare metamagic beforehand - which really cuts down on their exceptionally small number of spells per day.

On the other hand, the Sorceror never faced a situation without the spell he needed for it because he hadn't memorised it. And he had so many more spells to cast each day. :D

MisterSlanky wrote:

I was never a huge fan of this system simply because it was based on the concept that characters only fight, and strength by extension of this concept is THE most important statistic.

You beat me to saying it. It was a subtle nod that in a role-playing game, to some (most?) players (or maybe more apparently designers) there's nothing more important than those To Hit and Damage rolls.

I actually have to disagree. ^_^

In the 3E PHB, the hierarchy was
Most powerful: +2 Int, +2 Wis, +2 Cha (these bonuses were never granted)
Less powerful: +2 Str (only the half orc, and he paid big for it)
Much less powerful: +2 Dex, +2 Con

The power of +2 Str was double the bonus for +2 Dex or +2 Con ... and that is what is gone now.

I suspect the effect will be more to
(1) move Thieves from playing Halflngs and Elves to playing Humans and Half Elves instead
(2) move Fighters from playing Dwarves and Elves to playing Half Elves - humans and half orcs were and still are a good option
(3) move Wizards to playing Elves (never saw any wizards anyway)
(4) move Sorcerors to playing gnomes (halflings always were a great option)
(5) move Clerics from playing anything else to playing Dwarves

I'm not unhappy with the changes. I just feel that they are more significant than they appear on the surface.

I guess it makes sense in that the only stats which ever got a boost in the old books were Strength, Dexterity and Constitution.
In that Context, Strength was more powerful. Now there are boosts to mental and social stats in Pathfinder ... which are clearly as powerful as a Strength boost.

Previously, the most effective fighters were half orcs - which few people seemed to play because of the drawbacks. So effectively, all races were viable as fighters.
Now, Humans and half elves (and the now more viable half orcs) will be the prime fighters in most groups.

Also previously, any race could be any type of spellcaster. The playing field was wide open, with no race having Int or Cha or Wis bonuses. It's not quite so wide open anymore, though humans and half elves will now not only appear in games but can be any class when they do. ^_^

It seems very cool to me that Elves now have +2 Intelligence and Spell penetration. I've never seen the point in playing a 3E wizard (always play Sorcerors) but with another extra feat via this spell penetration boost, the Wizard class is beginning to be a little more viable again.

I might suggest that this bonus works in an Elf's favour when someone tries to dispell on of the Elf's spells, too.

Hi everyone.

One thing I noticed is that Strength is no longer as valuable in terms of a racial bonus. As per the DMG race creation rules, a bonus of +2 Strength needed to be paid for with TWO penalties of -2 on other stats. This is no longer the case in Pathfinder.

This significantly increases the power of Humans, Half Elves and Half Orcs (who also effectively gained a +2 stat bonus due to this). To the point where players might actually start playing humans and half elves at last ... all with a +2 Strength bonus for race, of course. ^_^

Hi.

Looking at favoured classes by race, I like the fact that there are now multiple favoured classes by race. It just makes sense.

The one thing I don't understand is why one has to choose one of the two favoured classes at 1st level.
If a Dwarf Fighter wants to take a level of Cleric, why should he not get the favoured class bonus for the Cleric level too?

Instead of requiring the choice, I suggest making both of them favoured classes full stop.

Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo

I've played a halfling thief who threw darts, and this bonus really helped. It's part of the reason I designed the character. 20 Dex, +1 attack bonus for size and the +1 thrown attack bonus for being a halfling made him incredibly accurate.

This is an ability I've never forgotten, and you are taking away a very cute (albeit small) niche from my favourite race. ^_^

Please don't cut this.

As for the racial hatred and training - it kind of falls in with Ranger favoured enemies to me. If you're keeping it for Rangers, why cut it for dwarves and gnomes? ^_^

This is just an idea I have been toying with for some time now. As everyone knows, there is no love for multiclassing of spellcasting classes (with the exceptions of certain prestige classes).

Agreed, there isn't. I think there is a simpler and better solution though (I saw it elsewhere on this forum):

When you multiclass base classes, you gain all class abilities (like feats, spellcaster level, spell progression, monk powers) for half the levels in the alternate classes round down.

So a Figher 10 Wizard 10 "schmo" ^_^ would e.g. now have spells per day, caster level etc. as a level 15 Wizard and all the bonus feats and class abilities he would from progressing to level 15 as a fighter.

It looks quite well balanced, to me.

Arcane Lock is just a way to safe a few goldpieces. DC20 that's a simple Lock. That's a 50% chance for a 1st lvl Rogue with a Dex of 18 - without spending a feat.

Yes - when you cast the spell on something without a lock.

In 3E the DC would be +10 to a normal door (and there was not that much as option to boost ones ability to go beyond that at lvl 1 through 4).

And it still is ... +10 to a lock's difficulty, if there already is a lock.

It makes sense to me. ^_^

As long as we're on the topic of magic, I'm still nonplussed with the changes to the Darkness and Deeper Darkness spells. The idea that a second level spell can be countered by a torch?

This needs clarification. It all hinges on what "see normally" means.

It's pretty clear that the normal lights and light spells counter the darkness. And that the darkness counters a light spell and normal lights.

So what does "see normally" mean? I read it to mean as if there were
(1) No darkness spell
(2) No lights or light spell.

So in a deep dark dungeon, seeing normally is seeing nothing.
Wheras in daylight, seeing normally is seeing everything.

This is what I would want the darkness spell to do, and what I think (or hope) it is intended to do. ^_^

Then again, it does make me wonder why Darkness isn't a cantrip the way light is!

Power attack now tops out very low

Well, it's not hard to get up to a Strength bonus of +9 by about level 8, and +11 by level 16. So I wouldn't say it tops out too low.

and Combat expertise is useless unless you are a pure caster who has a very high INT

I've never ever seen anyone use the Combat Expertise feat under any rule set, nor have I ever seriously considered taking it. It's just not that powerful anyway.

honestly I liked the way it was

I can't blame you there. :D

Conceptually though, a power attack does require strength. And less conceptually, Combat Expertise should still relate to Intelligence ... or even Dexterity.

I would suggest the feats be changed to the following:

Power Attack (Combat)
Prerequisite: Str 12
Benefit: Add an amount equal to your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (in addition to the normal damage modifier from a high Strength score). Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round.
If your attacks are made with a two-handed weapon, add an amount equal to double your Strength modifier to your melee damage rolls for 1 round (the penalty remains the same).

Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense at the expense of your accuracy.
Prerequisites: Int 12 or Dex 12
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon.
Add an amount equal to the greater of your Intelligence of Dexterity modifier as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for 1 round. Subtract the same amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round.

That would make more sense to me, shifting Dexterity from attack to defence, or using Intelligence to do the same.

Just my two cents worth. ^_^

It does seem to say one use, one target, hit points equal to level ...

Attempting multiple doses of healing at the same time would be attempting to "use" multiple doses at the same time, which would fall foul of the maximum healing per "use".

I think I prefer the Pathfinder healing - the paladin is a lesser healer, and shouldn't ever be able to outclass the Cleric in single shot healing at any given level. Pathfinder fixes that (admittedly minor) problem, while making the paladin's healing scale better.

Hmm, good point.

Yes, it is a good point. Pun intended? ^_^

Then again, he will never really be attacked by Good so it's pretty much a DR5/- in that case.

I might go for a DR5/Neutral. What do you think about that? ^_^

The more i think about this, the more i think Ki Pool, Barbarian Rage points should be more like the Rogue Talents or Fighter Feats

I like math, but i like simplicity better.

Hmm. I disagree, this is about as simple as it gets.

The barbarian always had to count the number of rounds for rage - that is all you still need to do now. You can do more if you choose, but you don't have to.

And the Monk always had use per day limits on his spell like abilities. He now joins those use per day limits into one pool - which is simpler. One number of uses to keep track of, instead of many.

The math is simpler than feats too - they allow bonuses and subtractions to attack rolls etc, which must often be chosen and added on at the time of the attack. Which is more math! ^_^

Looking over the Ki Pool concept ... My point being, at 4th level, you get the option of getting 2-6 extra attacks depending on your Wisdom score

I don't think so. It says ONE extra attack for 1 point, so you can't get more than one extra attack per round this way.

Adding a +4 for 2-6 rounds and going on full defensive yielding +8 to AC makes a good defense and will rival a fighter

Cool. Losing all your attacks is a very steep price to pay for that. No problem here.

or adding an extra 20' of movement to his 10' extra at 4th level gives him a double move (60' if he is medium) and an attack in a round.

Again, no problem.

I just think they should be Ki Feats,like Fighters get Bonus feats which goes along with a martial attack mechanic. or even like Ki strikes per day and/or encounter (a spells in memory like chart mechanic) if having a feat is too powerful.

You're missing out on the beauty of this system. I saw it, and loved it immediately. You get OPTIONS! And Monks have always been about having options. :D

Frankly, this is a vast improvement on the way the monk and barbarian used to be.

Those are my thoughts ... ^_^

Hi there.

In the Alpha page 52, Designer Notes Presige Skills section, it states "Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks,
you can qualify for the prestige class if you meet that number
of ranks –3 if you also have the skill as a class skill. If you do
not have the skill as a class skill, you must possess double
that number of ranks."

I would suggest changing that to "Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks, you can qualify for the prestige class if your ranks plus class skill bonus at least equal that number of ranks."

That requires the same number of skill ranks for class skills, but seems to make more sense for cross class skills. It's also more consistent with the general +3 equivalence theme.

Just my two cents worth. ^_^
BrokenShade