Carson6412's page

One thing I noticed about those links is that the Numen table is missing the 'Maximum' column.

Hm! You are right! The friend I had been talking about created a character sheet (Added into the Folder) which has some auto-calculations involved. Because of that, at each level the minimum, par, and maximum numen are automatically changed for us. I didn't even notice that the 'Maximum' column had been removed!

There are two feat sections in the link. One is the one you have and the second is a table with different tabs for each section (kinda like the ones that PFSRD uses). It gives an easier overview to see what the feats do, but it isn't fully finished. If you have any suggestions to it, please let me know!

By the way, someone posted a somewhat more up-to-date version HERE. These are a lot further along than the Beta playtest rules that TOZ has up.

Whoa, I might be wrong, but I believe that is a link to my folder in Google Drive. Kinda crazy to stumble upon!

Anyways, got the files from Scavion's Profile while one of my good friends and I boiled down the feat list into an easier to reference doc (He did most, I only filled in the Strike and Domain feats and some editing. I'll need to get around to finishing the Metamagic ones.) I had placed them together to make it easier for my group see the rules.

Not sure how it ended up to you, but I am glad it did!

That trait would effectively give barbarians a +1 to attack and damage all the time, which definitely doesn't seem intentional to me. I wouldn't allow it, and by the rules it doesn't work.

Unless I am reading it wrong, wouldn't the trait only give barbarians a +1 to damage? And considering traits are supposed to be half a feat, a situational +1 to damage does not seem that over-powered.

If you are willing to go 3rd party and want something new and interesting, I would suggest Way of the Wicked. It is one of the only Evil campaigns which is designed to not descend into murderhobo-ness.

Considering that crossbows are already considered very weak and endless ammunition is a +2 enchantment, I would say that it would allow your character to make full attacks with the crossbow. Normally it holds 5 shots before the full-round reload right? Think of it as having unlimited shots before the reload.

I think he means, since you do not have a domain, you can choose whichever blessing that would fit for your character.

Alright, thank you all who have posted and have gotten me to clarify my question. Let me see if I can rephrase it so it makes more sense.

While an Alchemist's spells have all of the negatives of being a spell (being dispellable, provoking AOO, being magical enough to not be able to be shared, and being buffs the spell resistance does not matter), why, from a design/flavor standpoint, do they also not some of the positives (specifically working with Arcane Strike and crafting feats) when they have pseudo-caster levels? As, by definition, alchemy is "a power or process of transforming something common into something special" why did they remove the ability to make something common special (aka caster levels)? It gives off the feeling of being very oddly nerfed because it does the exact same thing, just slightly worse.

As for the idea that the flavor does not fit, I would think that creating and discovering different formulas to use as extracts sounds a lot more similar to spells from a spellbook then a sorcerer's spells. If any deserved to be a (SU) it should be them and not the Alchemist.

But, oh well. It seems as though it is just another .. *Sigh* very odd design choice by the devs. Hopefully they come up with an idea to fix this (as the FAQ said a year ago), but, unless it its errata to the class, I doubt the fix will be satisfactory.

Ok, so it is a supernatural effect. It just seems very odd to me.

Considering that the Alchemist's extracts still require an AOO (or at least most GM's will rule it this way), they do not have extracts which require or even use spell resistance (as most are buffs), and the writers had to go out of their way to give the Alchemist pseudo-caster levels, it just seems like an unnecessary distinction. As far as I can see, all it does it make Alchemist less Alchemic-y. I understand it from a rules stand point (kinda), but I don't get the design decision or the flavor reasons behind it.

Bard (or druid or paladin or wizard): I use magic to do things and with a bit of training (AKA a feat) I can use that magic to enhance weapons.

Alchemist: I can use magic to do thing and that magic is by definition "a power or process of transforming something common into something special" but I can not use that magic to enhance weapons.

Hello all.

I know there have been other threads about whether or not Alchemist count as magical, along with the FAQ, but I am at a loss at to figure out why. It seems to me that Alchemist are getting shafted on both sides. Sometimes they are considered magic when it is bad and others they are not when it is good.

Alchemist are considered magical when it comes to their extracts and bombs.

When an alchemist creates an extract or bomb, he infuses the concoction with a tiny fraction of his own magical power—this enables the creation of powerful effects, but also binds the effects to the creator.

This is considered a negative because it "forces" you to spend a discovery on Infusion. With out it, your extracts are too magical to work on anyone else.

On the other hand, Alchemist are considered non-magical for the purposes of feats and item crafting.

Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?

As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item. The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.

It seems to me that there is little consistency regarding this. If Alchemist are magical, why can't they create magical items? If they are not magical, why does it specifically say they use their magical aura? Generally, feats and class abilities are consistent. They are ether magical (or whatever) for better or for worse or they are not, for better or for worse. What is the reason for the Alchemist to be so flip-floppy?

Good job to all who made it, I hope you guys have a great and successful game :D

So I thought I would through my character into the mix if there is still a chance :D

Milo Underfoot The Halfling Barbarian.

"I'm telling you, that is how it works. First, they ban something inconsequential, just to start off the process. Then, they take away something 'for the good of the people', that would be the recent ban on the Asmodeus religion. Next thing you know, they have everybody under their thumbs and no one will do anything about it at that point because they are too afraid to think."

Milo was a character I had made for another PBP Way of the Wicked Campaign. However, the GM disappeared after a only a few postings. We got as far as the second combat encounter. He was originally going to take the Desecration Trait and take the titan mauler class to wield a normal greatsword. While there has been a rules change disallowing this, I would ether like to ignore that (and use a normal greatsword instead of a small) or I'd like to make a dual-wielding halfling or ... something xD I am not sure exactly on the mechanics for him, just the personality and character. If you have any questions on him, or anything in his backstory/anything just let me know!

Woo! I can not wait to get started reading though this! It came just in time for my group as we are about to start our new campaign. Thank you Kirth and everyone who put time and effort into this amazing product!

I sustained an unfortunate concussion last weekend, but am swiftly on the mend, and will soon have the rules finalized. Still on track for this coming weekend (probably Sunday).

...
Interestingly, I gained the sickened and fatigued conditions. For several days, looking at a computer screen forced saves vs. nausea and exhaustion. So apparently the "Concussive Strike" feat is misnamed.

Careful Karth! One of my brothers suffered from a fairly nasty hit to the head from a high school baseball game and he was out for a good two weeks before he was back up to full. Take it slow and rest up. I'm sure the interwebs will understand :D

I have always been a fan of trying to shape at least NPC reactions as if they were real people who valued their lives ...(but I would probably choose their level of fear to fit with the current situation).

PAz

I've tried to do this as well, but it is always hard to when the choice is: suffer 1d6 of damage or loose a turn. IRL, a person would put out the fire. In game, a character would never try and do that.

For PCs on the other hand, requiring them to make a save or suffer a non-magical fear effect doesn't seem out of line... Certain classes, especially those that deal with physical pain as a part of their role (a normal person might freak out when they get stabbed, a fighter should not), might not have to make a save against fear while a squishy class (say wizard) might have to.

PAz

Now, I did take this into consideration when I was making the save. One one hand, a will save made sense. It would take a lot of mental effort to stop from freaking out. Plus, melee (like the fighters) have bravery to help, barbarians have their rage bonus to will, and Paladins have their immunity to fear. But on the other hand, the characters with the best will saves are the casters and having them be the most resilient to fire doesn't make much sense. So I went back and forth on keeping it a will save or trying to justify it as a Fort save. I think, with the bonuses that melee's get, the will save is better, but still not perfect.

I don't think that's reasonable for PCs or the NPCs they might fight. Ordinary civilians? Sure. PCs taking proportionately low damage from the fire? No.

PCs also don't suffer from penalties such as being ambushed in the bath (already have no armor, probably caught by surprise, in water or one a slippery surface, realistically they'd probably take penalties to hide their shame but in the game that just means they're ticked off).

In the rules, PCs (and NPCs) can suicidally charge through a Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier or attack someone protected by Flame Shield. There's no need to add these rules.

See, that is what I was trying to add to the fire, Danger. There are not extra penalties from getting attacked in a bath, because it is already incredibly dangerous. A fighter in the bath is without his armor, without his weapon, flat-footed, and prone. The situation is dire and the rules reflect that. The rules do not reflect fire very well though. Fire is very dangerous, but the rules for it are not.

You can make an argument for the Wall of Flames or Blade Barrier or Flame Shield. It makes sense that you would avoid running into a wall of fire and the game mechanics reinforce that that is a bad idea. But, most characters have no mechanical reason to worry about fire. This is why I wanted to add something to it. The two ideas I could come up with were a fear effect or a way of scaling damage based on the targets HD. The HD thing seemed the wrong way to go, so I just put in what made sense. People freak out when they are on fire, now the rules can reflect that.

In Pathfinder, fire does 1d6 of damage per round. This translates pretty well into real life. People who get caught on fire run around for a good half-minute before collapsing. The tougher person in the town, like a town guard, would last around 5 rounds which falls inline with the real life example. But, in real life, catching fire is horrifying. People run around in a panic and make very poor decisions. The game does not reflect this at all.

What I propose, is to add a fear effect onto catching fire. Fire would cause the target to automatically become shaken and then the target would have to make a Will Save (DC=10+double the fire damage taken) to avoid being panicked.

This would keep fire a bit more realistic and dangerous, keep it reverent at higher levels, and prevent people from being tempted to leave themselves on fire.

Thoughts or ideas on this?

Honestly I do not see the issue with the cover. Have you never gone to the beach? Or a swimming pool? People are far more skimpy dressed there then a women in a dress.

Although, my views might be tinted from my years of high school swimming. I guess when you spend 4+ hours with people in swimsuits, your views on skimpy-ness might get a little skewed.

If you had a BAB of +6 to get that extra attack, I would allow a character to drop their weapons and pull out a scythe to attempt an amazing crit finish. The problem is, if you miss (which is likely because it would be at a -5 + a -2 from the TWF) you are left standing with you secondary weapon. It seems very powerful in a very specific circumstance, but not usable enough to be broken. In the next round, all of the feats that you spent on getting to that point, (Butterfly Sting, TWF, Improved Crit) would be useless as those weapons are laying on the floor instead of in your hands.

Sounds like an interesting thing for an NPC to do though!

and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn

I believe the way it works is like this:

1. You crit a creature.
2. You decide to forgo the crit
3. You then hit with your next attack
4. This attack is now turned into a crit

So no, your attacks are not going to automatically hit because the feat requires you to hit before it can be counted as a crit. Now, because you are your own ally, you could have a high-threat range weapon in one hand and a high-crit weapon in another to make a bunch of crits and have all of them do high damage, but it would still be worse then a THF taking advantage of the free crit.

There is a fundamental problem with this attack. Monsters (and PC's) scale in two separate ways, AC and HP. Unless you are boosting your character's CHR, this power will have a hard time scaling with just the AC. By looking at the average monster AC for level 10, your attack should be hitting around 40% of the time. This is not too terrible, but it will get worse over time. Now the damning part of the Rage Power is the fact that it does not scale with HP. From the first level that it is available till level 20, it only does 1d4+CHR (average 4.5). At level 2, that is about 26% of a monster's HP. At level 10, that drops way down to about 3.5% of a monster's HP. At level 20, it drops to an irrelevant 1.2%.

With no way of increasing the damage (beyond a few points from a headband of charisma), this damage will quickly become meaningless unless your GM runs your game with minions (enemies with 1 HP).

Now, the normal spirit token rage power is alright, but it can be replaced (to a greater extent) by a minor Cloak of Displacement.

IMHO, the spirit totem powers are very cool and flavorful, but they do not add to combat effectiveness at higher levels.

None of that matters. Fighters don't need to depend on more than one ability: Strength.

You keep saying this ... But I feel as though that isn't true in the slightest. A fighter needs high Str for obvious reasons. A fighter also needs high Dex to make use of his armor training. A fighter also needs high Con to stay standing during melee. A fighter also needs decent Wis to help his terrible Will saves.

Want to be skillful? Pump Intelligence.

Want to be a leader/face? Pump Charisma.

If you want the fighter to do anything else besides fighting then they are unable to do that without needing 5/6 of the attributes. Compared to an actual SAD class (the Wizard), the fighter is very MAD indeed!

You could always take 11 levels of Two-Weapon Warrior plus two levels of Titan Mauler to dual-wield Greatswords at a -4 penalty insted of a -6. (Or ask your GM to let you take the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat.)

Carson6412 wrote:

Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy.

Just a nitpick, but they aren't related to a deity. Its pretty easy to be a druid. "You revering nature?" "Yes?" "Carry on then!".

Carson6412 wrote:

Barbarian: Can not be lawful. So as long as I make sure to break the law every once and a while or at least think about not doing something just because it is a law I'd be fine. As a raging hulk, that sounds pretty easy to do.

Don't even have to break laws, just don't care deeply about them. Biggest problem is that you might have trouble being a guy who reveres traditions and totems, and that for some reason other classes that can rage can be lawful. At least your more literate than previous editions.

"A druid can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one)." "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities"

Ahh you are right! I misread that to mean, "Don't piss off your deity", just like the Cleric. But, apparently you do not lose your abilities for acting against them, weird.

As for the barbarian thing, that was just the quickest example of not becoming lawful I could think about. Either way, all of them have it easy compared to the Paladin.

I see no mention of Inquistors yet, I would have thought that they were a close second behind Paladins for falling

Yep, I totally forgot about them. But, they have it easier then the Clerics. As an Inquisitor, you are suppose to break the rules to hunt down your enemies ( Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church.). As long as you don't start ignoring the bad because of bribes or condemning the wrong people, (An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability.) you are golden.

Because the rest of the classes do not have a specific set of rules for the class. It is really easy to justify almost any discussion based off of your own alignment.

Barbarian: Can not be lawful. So as long as I make sure to break the law every once and a while or at least think about not doing something just because it is a law I'd be fine. As a raging hulk, that sounds pretty easy to do.

Monk: Just make sure to reinforce the fact that your character meditates each day and that should counter most Chaotic things that you do. That and don't go out of your way to break laws.

Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy.

Clerics: This can be a little harder as people like to choose deities that have good domains. But, once again, there are no hard and fast rules for grossly violating the code of conduct. So if you are worshiping Desna, don't get slaves. If you are worshiping Gorum, don't try to stop nations from fighting with each other.

Paladin: Now this is easy to fall from. All others have been vague about what it takes. Paladins, on the other hand, " A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features. " This is hard and fast. The first Evil act you do and you lose everything. The Code is strict "a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Meaning there are solid lines in the sand that they can not cross.

For other classes to fall, they need to not only be constantly breaking their code enough to change alignment, but they can also justify most actions to fit in with their character. For Paladins, there is no second chance, there is not justifying. There is only the first mistake and then the fall.

I would say just have a few high-level orcs shooting or attacking the players. Each hit against them "kills" off an orc or two. The few javelins that the orcs toss will have a solid chance of hitting the players. Describe the attacks as a waves of javelins flying at them. The party is able to dodge all but two or three and these javelins are the ones that are actually thrown.

Hello Kirth,

Your rule set seems to be very interesting and well though out! I am very interested in checking out the most recent rules and being added to the list.

If you want to avoid the Cha penalty, you could take the Forgemaster cleric archetype, which replaces Channel Energy with some Int-based rune powers, and gets Heavy Armor Proficiency for free.

Does the Forgemaster gain Heavy Armor Proficiency for free? I can not find that anywhere.

The change was not needed in my opinion.

From everyone I've ever played with, everyone I've ever talked to, and from the common conscientious on the board, it seems as though most melees use a Two-Handed fighting style. If this feat was truly over-powered, wouldn't more people use it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be little reason to take a fighting style other then TH'ed. TWF takes a bunch of feats and stat requirements to do about the same damage (but less accurately). Sword and board bumps up your AC by a bit, but significantly drops a character's attack power. A one-handed fighter suffered from the same negatives as the S&B, but they at least had something fun and interesting to back up the drop in damage.

I get that some options are better then others, but it just seems like anything that works slightly better then TH fighting gets nerfed or requires a huge investment to function.

Please no to the good=Identical.

THe bow and the crossbow feels the same, but crossbows sucks.

For onces I would prefer that the crossbow were indeed diferent than bows. They do the exact same thing 99% of cases, but the crossbow just do less damage.

I feel the same way. I am totally fine with the bow being the best DPR-wise, but the other options should be able to do something special.

How about making composite crossbows? But instead of adding to damage, each composite point would allow the crossbow to ignore 2 points of DR?