Cartigan's page

Scanning the playtest release and several posts about the "Make your own race" stuff, I'm getting one of those classic "bad feeling" feelings. The first clue was the very idea of "Make your own race!" after the Eidolon fiasco (that maelstrom is still going on*). The next was some of the completely absurd values of certain things (look at SLA cost for 0 level spells and Change Shape). Then a few of the people with good eyes have made the inevitable completely imbalanced, yet perfectly legal races that Paizo is going to try to "balance" around. Which I asked General Achbar about and you know what his response was (after the Eidolon fiasco).

I am getting the feeling that this is going to be an entirely new "Eidolon evolution" problem, but even worse since it isn't just one class but custom races playable by any class. Paizo just isn't good at getting balancing right, I'm sure there are a couple reasons for this but that's the short version. A book section dedicated to creating custom races is going to be a can of worms that can't be fixed and while not impinging on PFS is going to have a harmful impact on the game outside it.

I think the "Create your own race, for fun and profit!" needs to be tossed right the hell out right the hell now and they should just throw a some extra races in there to fill the space.

*Bet you didn't think I could work maelstrom into a sentence.

I'm not going to get into why this ability is an explicit replacement for Bardic Performance instead of that going away and this being added separately.

My question is on the ability itself. More specifically, the amount of the ability.

It says "He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier."
Pretty standard, right? Except at no point does it say it ever increases. At level 1, you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day and at level 20 you get it 4 + Cha rounds a day. As opposed to Bardic Performance that by level 20 you have 42 + Cha rounds per day to use it.

Should this increase like every other single class' defining rounds/level ability?

Is the Monk of the Empty Hand proficiency with improvised weapons? Or rather does he just not take penalties when using them?

Yes, I've seen this. (Will not go into how the last sentence makes me want to pound my head on my desk)

But that doesn't necessarily answer the question. Since Weapon Adept and Monk of the Empty Hand can overlap, can they synergize?
Additionally, does MotEH make "improvised weapon" a Monk weapon?

Another question: why do MotEH treat two-handed weapons as quarterstaves? Does that mean all two-handed weapons gain two ends in the hands of a MotEH? Can I hold a greatsword in the middle and use the pommel as a bludgeoning weapon and the other end as a slashing weapon?

Since the forum mods decided to be difficult instead of remotely helpful, I'm remaking this here.

In the many "OMG - Detect Magic/Create Water/every cantrip is the devil!" thread, all have failed to take into account or otherwise ignored a single, interesting bit of rules pertaining to Detect Magic.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).

From what the spell states, unless the magic aura is being generated specifically from an item or from/by a creature, there is no way to actually discern what the spell is. There is just a magical aura of some order of magnitude. Or that's how I am reading it. A spell without a target (like the Image line) would only ever be identified as a Magic Aura of a strength relative to its caster level. You could never deduce what kind of magic it was. Similarly, if someone shot up a room with a fireball and you walked past and used detect magic, you could discern magic happened there of a particular strength due to lingering aura, but you would never know what the magic was.

Chew on that thought.

In the many "OMG - Detect Magic/Create Water/every cantrip is the devil!" thread, all have failed to take into account or otherwise ignored a single, interesting bit of rules pertaining to Detect Magic.

3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.) If the aura emanates from a magic item, you can attempt to identify its properties (see Spellcraft).

From what the spell states, unless the magic aura is being generated specifically from an item or from/by a creature, there is no way to actually discern what the spell is. There is just a magical aura of some order of magnitude. Or that's how I am reading it. A spell without a target (like the Image line) would only ever be identified as a Magic Aura of a strength relative to its caster level. You could never deduce what kind of magic it was. Similarly, if someone shot up a room with a fireball and you walked past and used detect magic, you could discern magic happened there of a particular strength due to lingering aura, but you would never know what the magic was.

Chew on that thought.

The class ability says "An archivist can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps as per a rogue’s trapfinding ability"

A rogue gains a bonus to Disable Device equal to 1/2 his class level on disabling devices per Trapfinding. Is this the same for Bard on Magic Lore?

Did I say Inquisitor? I meant Bard. (the DM banned non-core classes - except for the guy he inexplicably let play a Summoner. I don't even)
Though he banned non-core classes, I am apparently allowed other non-core choices (I made a nuisance of myself quadruple checking this), that said..

I have a Half-Elf Archivist Bard with absurd stats (everyone was given very high stats because it was only a 3 person party - before I joined) so assume I qualify for anything stat wise.

So far at 2nd level...

• Archivist Bard archetype
  
• Taking Half-Elf Bard favored class bonuses of extra performances
  
• Took Extra Performance at first level
  
• Replaced Multitalented with Arcane Training since I am not looking at multiclassing
  
• Took Dangerously Curious and Focused Mind traits
  
• Used racial Skill Focus on Linguistics (which is actually more useful than one would think because one of the houserules is apparently I can't read languages I speak without a linguistics check)
  
• Primarily using a Shortbow for combat with a Longsword backup for melee
  
• Spells: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Message, Light, Mage Hand, Identify, Hideous Laughter, Feather Fall
  

I'm less sure about what spells and feats I want to go towards for a Bard than I am for an Inquisitor. I am taking suggestions on this.

I hear there is a Pathfinder game (being played by the crazy people aforementioned in the 'Things you may not know changed in PF' thread) and that it is just generally absurd (there are 3 PCs trying to do nonsensical multiclassing - a Rogue wanting to multiclass Wizard and a Monk/Witch - and 1 NPC Cleric 3x their level and the game is balanced for the high level).

In light of that, I thought I might come in and make a nuisance of myself. I want to play a Half-Orc Inquisitor that focuses on Intimidation and using a Heavy Repeating Crossbow.

Provided I am allowed, I plan to:
- replace Orc Ferocity with Sacred Tattoo (I wish 90% of the Orc racial traits didn't replace Orc Ferocity).
- take the Preacher archetype at 3rd level
- worship Pharasma and take the Heresy Inquisition

My clearest problem is going to be feats to both support crossbow combat and intimidation, since both of those are feat heavy purposes unto themselves. And figuring out where I will put my Orc +2 racial ability bonus at a distant second.

I am asking for help on the "my problem" items, and taking suggestions on the rest.

PS. I may make something else than an inquisitor, but leaning towards inquisitor.

Due to the large number of people, including the Creative Director at Paizo, who think traps should work differently based on what kind of trap they are in disagreement with the RAW, I have started this thread for you all to slug out how to implement a system into the game that allows for magic traps to be affected significantly differently by skills than mundane traps are.

I am playing Rise of the Runelords and my Ranger just got smashed into a pulp by the head of the giants in Hook Mountain. Literally - if I had been at full health, I would have ended at -37 after the full attack.

So what I need to do is either recreate my Ranger slightly better or create something else. Since we already have a Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid, and Bard, I'm leaning towards a Fighter. But a 'Combat Maneuvers' Fighter - focusing everything on wielding a flail and disarming and tripping. We are limited to 3.5 Core rules, basically Human only, and 28 point buy. Does anyone have any build advice. I will be remaking or making the new character at level 9.

I am probably going to straight change my Ranger's items for any new items I need, those being: +1 Shocking Longbow, 2x +1 Kukris, +3 Chain Shirt, +2 Gloves of Dexterity, Belt of Giant's Strength, Ring of Protection +1, Amulet of Protection +1

Improved Grapple worked differently in 3.5 but I seem to remember Grab was ruled to qualify you for Improved Grapple. Since everything is changed in Pathfinder and who knows whatever dev differences in thought, would Grab qualify you for Improved Grapple or Greater Grapple?

Locking threads because you disagree with the views expressed in them neither makes people agree with your views nor endears in them any goodwill for the purposes of agreeing with said views or for any other reason.

EDIT: Ah, website feedback. I missed that one. Thank you.

The first alternate class was obviously the Anti-Paladin. It, of course, being a Paladin that ... was not a Paladin. That's cool; I understood that. But with the advent of Ultimate Combat and an obvious expansion upon the alternate class concept (ie, "a base class, but not a base class"), I just don't get it. The only one of them that I remotely understand as an "alternate class" is the Samurai - an Asian Knight. You obviously can't be both an Eastern and Western Knight. But the Gunslinger is a Fighter that isn't a Fighter? And the Ninja is a Rogue that isn't a Rogue? Why? How? Why isn't the Gunslinger a Ranger that isn't a Ranger? Or the Ninja a Monk that isn't a Monk?

Both classes could and should stand on their own as base classes, not as faux base classes. I'm not sure if Paizo is steeping themselves in nostalgia from 1E and 2E they seriously need to divorce themselves from (regardless if it is applicable here) or if they are trying to implement some sort stopgap against multi-classing after declaring "class alignment restrictions are stupid." And from the looks of things, trying to make things an "alternate" class is going to hamstring what they can and can't do with full classes that don't fit the logical and thematic mold of that declaration. Not to mention introduce balance issues.

Am I alone in feeling that the "alternate base class" design philosophy needs to be more concrete as well as much rarer as it appears they are leaning towards? Perhaps a better explanation of what is trying to actually be achieved is in order.

Like Gunslinger, but about Samurais.

Mount: I'm not a big fan of the Samurai being an "alternate cavalier." Especially since there seems to be some shoe-horning to make it both be a cavalier and be different enough for anyone to cave. As a Cavalier class alternative, I guess it makes sense to have a Mount. But in general, the class isn't very "mount"y and I think it could benefit from a split between mounted combat and unmounted combat specialization.

Weapon Expertise: Couple issues here. It is stated it stacks with Fighter levels but doesn't specify whether or not Samurai levels count as Fighter levels for the purpose of meeting pre-requisites for use with Weapon Expertise weapons. I really think they could do more with this. Like make the Samurai a weapon's expert (perhaps an alternative to a mounted combatant), as they level, they get better with their chosen Asian weaponry?

Mounted Archer: This is really the second issue to Weapon Expertise. Why have mounted archery? A longbow may not even be your chosen weapon to be an expert with, so this just looks thrown in here. This was part of the problem with the 3.5 Knight – no one could decide if it was mounted combatant or not and that hurt when giving it abilities.

Banner: What slot does a Banner take up? Maybe this is covered somewhere and I just don't know.

Most of the rest of the class is more flavor than anything else. I suppose it's good for fighting a dragon or lich to the death while the rest of the party runs like ninnies.

It would be nice if challenge penalties and bonuses increased in a manner to make them relevant throughout the life of the Samurai (as short as it shall be). There is no general benefit to declaring a challenge until 12th level and then it is dismissible. And it is mostly just an NPC class ability, especially the Ronin Challenge “bonus.”

EDIT: Minor changes.

Of course play testing is the preferred method for finding issue with mechanics, but there seem a few that could themselves present a problem.

Of course most of these have to do with Deeds.

Gunslinger Initiative: This isn't really as bothersome as some and is mostly a disagreement, but it doesn't seem much of a deed - you have 1 Grit, you get bonus Initiative and a special, but entirely pointless use, of Quick Draw. I say entirely pointless because if you have Quick Draw (a requirement for the "deed") you are already drawing as a free action and since it is only offered at initiative (ie, you don't get the bonus when surprised) you really gain nothing. Effectively all you get from this is a free bonus to initiative checks almost all the time. I can't put my finger on the problem, but the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.

Pistol Whip: This represents a much more troublesome ability. Spent a point and get to use a firearm as a bludgeoning weapon you are proficient with? Great idea. On hit, try to knock target prone? Not so much. Do you get an attempt to knock a target prone with a normal hit from every other bludgeoning weapon? Maybe on a crit or at the expense of another grit.
And is this the same CMB as for a Trip attack? Do they get bonuses for being extra sturdy or anything similar?

These both go together really.

Covering Shot: I really see what they are trying to go for here, but I feel it's too strong and doesn't make sense. A miss causes a creature to be entangled? I can totally see how going for an established condition is the best way to go, but I just can't see it working. Some one gets shot at, so they move at half-speed, take a penalty to attack rolls and a penalty to Dex? Wouldn't that be the result of getting shot at regardless, hit or mess? Especially hit. Hell, wouldn't that be the result of getting hit ever?“Oh no, he shot at me. I wish he would have hit me instead so I wouldn't be afflicted by all these horrible conditions.”

Startling Shot: There are two differences between this and Covering Shot. (1) This causes the opponent to become flat-footed (2) It always occurs (as long as you have 1 grit). That just makes Covering Shot make less sense. When missed, he will be so scared that he loses his Dex bonus but maybe not so scared that his movement isn't hampered? I know what they are trying to do for both of these, but I just can't see it.

Since the idea of Covering Shot appears to be to distract the target, I would say have the Gunslinger spend a grit point and fire, but automatically miss the target (or hit some arbitrary AC) and THAT causes the target to become Entangled for a round. Similarly, I don't like Startling Shot being automatic flat-footed one a miss as long as you have a grit. I guess it isn't as much of a big deal at 15th level, but still. I can't think of much else at the moment to do with it.

Targeting: The problem I see with this is everyone is almost always going to choose Torso as soon as they get this ability. Assuming they have the grit points to spend. Now that I think about it (luckily) does this or does this not stack with Improved Critical?

And Scoot Unattended Object just confuses the hell out of me.

Yes, I know this is the first round of beta, but if it isn't critiqued now, then when?

No, I haven't playtested it, I don't have the opportunity to do so. This is just an assessment of abilities as they look.

First, summary.
Given a 3/4 BAB, the class does not appear to be meant to be a front-line fighting class. However, since all of its class abilities are designed for it to be in melee combat at all times, it puts it in 3/4th line combat like the Rogue as opposed to the Cleric, Bard, Summoner, Druid, Inquisitor, or Alchemist. That leaves the class being required to be a competent melee combatant in addition to being a competent caster. However being required to be competent at both leaves it lacking in both arenas. The Magus has two defining abilities: Spell Strike and Spell Combat. To use Spell Strike as effectively as possible, the Magus must focus on Strength or Dexterity. To use Spell Combat anywhere near effectively, the Magus must focus on Intelligence as much as a primary caster. This leaves the Magus even more MAD (MADder if you would) than the notoriously MAD Monk. What's more is that to be effective in both class abilities, the Magus is feat taxed. Due to the changes in Concentration, Combat Casting is practically required and in an attempt to limit MAD as much as possible, Weapon Finesse is also practically required.

The class promises much and attempts to fulfill the community's long held wish for a combat caster, but the technical details of trying to balance it and work it into the system are currently seriously hampering it.
EDIT: Also, I am of the opinion that this class doesn't truly come into its own until mid to upper levels which, if I recall correctly, is counter to the way many Pathfinder players have stated they prefer to play.

Further posts will address abilities and hopefully head off potential errata.

In an elaboration from an unrelated thread.

I have seen the point made that the spells Create Water and Purify Food and Drink are game breaking in that they 'invalidate' challenges introduced by the DM. To steal some examples, challenges like lacking water in the desert or finding food during a famine (unless everyone turned to cannibalism I'm not seeing how the spell even works in the case of famine, but let's move on) and/or plague (is it a food plague? anyway).

Sure, these are valid challenges based on DM experience and knowledge of the world at large. The problem is that world at large is often our non-magical world. One must take into account that Pathfinder/D&D is a world where magic does exist - including the ability to magically generate water or magically cleanse water and food. However, if we continue along the path that water in the desert or that rotting food is the only food in a siege/famine are challenges, then any solution, regardless of how it is conceived, is a solution to the challenge.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short).

Overcoming the challenge should garner an award, not disappointment or anger from the DM about challenges being solved by basic magic spells. One should familiarize themself with the most obvious solutions when contriving a challenge and if the possible solutions are oversimple, then that simple solution should be factored into the common thread of the adventure and not treated as a challenge. The challenge should be shifted one over such that the solution isn't as simple. A desert challenge should take into account that Create Water is a cantrip and shift the actual challenge to the fact a desert is extremely hot. Endure Elements or other precautions should be all but necessary to stay alive. That is a challenge that is not as easy to overcome. And in the case of plague, why are the PCs themselves not at risk? Because the challenge is not overcomeable at low levels? Does Purify Food and Drink remove parasites? Again, is that not overcomeable at low levels?

At any rate, why does the simplicity of a spell invalidate the challenge. The challenge should either take into account the ease of use of possible solutions or accept any and all solutions as valid. One cannot get angry that the challenge is too easily solved without having taken into account the ease of use of all solutions. And what's more, if the solution is considered too easy, why is the solution attacked and not the challenge? One must either accept that it isn't really a challenge at that point. Why is the first thought to demonize the spell instead of reconsider the challenge itself?

...in the Styes.

So our group is taking a break from RotRL to run through The Styes. Our party does not consist of the aforementioned characters. I am trying to decide which of them to play and intend to stat all of them up to cover any position some one else in our group misses. The party is likely to consist of a Human Barbarian of monstrous design, a Dread Necromancer of some ridiculous race, a nonspecific healer (probably a Cleric, but maybe a Binder spec'd in healing; I don't know how to do that but the guy who said he would play healer likes Binders), and an unknown 5th party members (not me).

We are starting at level 8, with 28 pt buy, and will be afforded the wealth of a 4th level party in a very specific manner: a +1 armor, +1 weapon, Minor magic item, 4 Cure Moderate Wounds potions, an unspecific number of MW weaponsm, and 2d8 gold on hand.

The classes I am looking at are:
-Beguiler 5/Mindbender 3
-Factotum 8
-Archivist 8
-Focused Specialist Conjurer Wizard 3/Master Specialist Conjurer 5 (with the Rapid Summoning and Enhanced Summoning Conjurer varients from UA)

I am probably going to use a Human for the race because the only race with an Int bonus without an LA I can think of is the Gray Elf. Though I suppose I could make Gray Elf Dragonborn of Bahamut...
The Archivist may not be played because of the aforementioned "maybe healer" but I want all these stat'd up just in case.

Does anyone have any recommendations on which to choose if I get the chance and what feats would be good (especially for the Factotum and Mindbender [other than Mindsight])?

Coming from the Summoner rule exception thread, I was lead to look into monster stat blocks and the applications of certain feats to certain abilities. The details are thus:
In 3.5, anything that was offensive was a special attack: Ex, Su, and Sp abilities. This was the point of the Ability Focus feat which added +2 to the DCs for "special attacks." This also bolstered classes that got special abilities from class levels (as far as I can tell). Metamagic (and assumingly other spell focused feats like Augment Summoning and Spell Focus) only applied to spells (per Skip Williams).

Now in Pathfinder, the stat blocks are written out differently. SLAs seem to have their own section separate from Special Attacks. But what does this make SLAs? If offensive SLAs are not special attacks, they are not subject to Ability Focus, which was copied verbatim from 3.5. But, unless a rule exception is going to be errata'd in, they are not subject to Spell Focus, etc.

The questions are as follows:

• Are SLAs now their own section of monster abilities?
  
• Are SLAs no longer special attacks or qualities?
  
• Are Supernatural abilities now separate from special attacks and qualities?
  
• Are spell-like abilities subject to metamagic and spell-only non-metamagic feats?
  

I figured I might restart my character gen project for Pathfinder. Is there anyone with C#, XML, or related software knowledge who would be interested in helping or providing suggestions for design?

This being about Hunter's Bond. Hunter's Bond provides two choice that are as bad as all the Ranger replacement abilities in 3.5 Sure, they improved the animal companion, but if you don't want one you get a horrible ability to give your buddies an extra +1 to +3 atk and dmg Wis times a day?

Why is the Hunter's Bond significantly weaker than the Paladin or Wizard's choice? Ranger needs a new optional ability that improves the Ranger just like the weapon bond or intelligent weapon does for the Paladin and Wizard, respectively. The team bond does not help the Ranger and only minimally benefits the team.

Is there some plan in future books to help the Ranger out?