Colin Wyers's page

Paizo already publishes a sandbox. It's called the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. Need something extra to get you going? Get Modules.

People who want an adventure path want something else, though. The problem is that you, who do NOT like the adventure paths, are basically lecturing the rest of us on what we should want.

Now, I have no idea what the printed content of an adventure path looks like or how flexible they are - the DM would hardly appreciate that, of course. But I can say that the current AP that I'm playing (Council of Thieves) is some of the most fun I've had at the gaming table. So I for one don't see any reason for them to change what they're doing.

I remember one now.

Underpowered.

I was once told I had to bring something broken to the table in order to play a Healer(the argument was I couldn't nerf myself until I could break something).

If I want to to play something, it doesn't matter if others think it is underpowered.

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. I mean, sure, it doesn't matter if I, some random guy on a message board, thinks something is underpowered. If your DM or fellow party members think that the character you are considering is incapable of being a full contributor to the game, that's a problem, because you're hurting the enjoyment of others.

Remember - this is a collaborative effort. If the power level of your character is detracting from the enjoyment of others, that's when its a problem - and that's true regardless if you're making Superman or Jimmy Olsen.

And from what I've read, the Healer class (at least the one in the Minis Handbook) was so bad that it probably is too weak to contribute meaningfully to a lot of adventuring parties.

This is my first attempt at a homebrewed class, and its only about halfway finished - I did ten levels instead of twenty, figuring I should probably get some sort of feedback into how I was doing before I proceeded further.

To avoid having to try to type out a lengthy table - the Sage has a medium BAB progression, bad fort save and good reflex/will saves. I've given them a rogue's hit dice and weapon/armor proficiencies so far. And now, for the meat of it:

Class Skills

The sage's class skills are Acrobatics (Dex) , Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Skill Ranks per Level: 10 + Int modifier.

Class features:

Combat Insight

A sage is able to use his intellect to gain the advantage in combat. As a swift action, a sage can make a Perception check, DC 10 plus the opponent’s hit dice, to gain insight into an opponent’s weaknesses. If he succeeds, he gains a +1 insight bonus to attacks and damage rolls against that opponent. Combat Insight lasts until the opponent dies or the sage uses the ability on another opponent.

At fourth level, and every four levels after that, the bonus goes up by one.

Cunning

At second level, a sage may use his Intelligence bonus in place of his Wisdom bonus for any Wisdom-based skills.

Healer’s Touch

At third level, a sage can attempt to restore hit points to an ally who is stable but unconscious as a full-round action. The sage must succeed at a DC 15 Heal check in order to restore 1d6 hit points. For every five points by which the sage’s check exceeds the DC, he restores an additional 1d6 hit points.

Attuned Weapon

At fifth level, sage is able to make better use of his weapon through careful study. It takes 24 hours for a sage to attune to a chosen weapon, and requires success on a DC 20 Perception check. (If the weapon is magic, he must also succeed at a DC 15 Spellcraft check.) If the sage fails to attune, he cannot attempt to attune again for another 48 hours.
For any weapon to which he is attuned, a sage can add his Intelligence bonus instead of his Strength bonus (or his Dexterity bonus, for a ranged weapon).

A sage can be attuned to more than one weapon. If a weapon changes (a magical bonus is added, for instance) a sage must reattune to the weapon.

Insightful Defense

At sixth level, a sage gains a +1 insight bonus to AC and saves against an opponent by using Combat Insight.

Improved Cunning

At seventh level, a sage may use his Intelligence bonus in place of his Charisma bonus for any Charisma-based skills.

Flanking Insight

At ninth level, a sage provides an insight bonus to attack and damage to an ally with which he is flanking an opponent by using Combat Insight. That bonus is equal to two lower than his own bonus from combat insight.

Improved Attuned Weapon

At tenth level, the threat range on any weapon a sage is attuned to increases by one. This benefit stacks with Keen or Improved Critical.

And that's basically it so far. Please tell me what you think.

I really, really dislike proscribing certain alignments in character classes - the class is simply a mechanic used to fulfill a player's conception of what his character should be, and I don't like the idea of railroading players into a certain alignment if they want their character to be able to do certain things in combat (or railroading players into only certain kinds of combat roles depending on what alignment they want to portray).

On first blush, the Cavalier class strikes me as what I want the Paladin class to , ideally. I like the game rules to give me the mechanics to make a character happen and leave the ideals and motivations of a character up to me as much as possible.

(Also, I do think that "law" and "chaos" are being misinterpreted here. They aren't personal ethical choices, they are a specific ideal for how the world should be - an allegiance to chaos means a belief in self-determination and free will, for instance. One can belong to an order or fulfil an oath and still be in accordance with a chaotic alignment, so long as they came to it of their own personal volition. Nor does chaos necessarily mean self-intrest - else why could one be chaotic good, and choose to sacrifice self-interest in the name of a higher ideal?)

Deyvantius wrote:

So my group was just subjected to a TPK at the hands of a dracolisk and so we are starting a new campaign at Level 6.

Would I be wrong to ask my DM since I am playing a Druid that I be allowed to craft my own magic items before play begins.

This would essentially allow me to have a +2 set of armor and weapon rather than a +1

Not really game breaking, but I think if it was me I'd probably decline the request. The wealth levels reflect the value of your gear, not what you paid for it. You could just as easily say you made the magic items, but it wouldn't save you any money. But hey, you could ask and see what he said. But I don't think it would be fair to the other PCs.

In order to create magic items yourself you have to expend feat slots. In other words, you are less powerful (in some regards) than a similar spellcaster who took, say, a metamagic feat instead.

What balances this is that you are expected to have more (and better) magical items than a spellcaster who used that feat for something else. The costs are not LOWER, they are DIFFERENT.

That said, there are also typically XP costs involved. You'll want to discuss with your DM how he would handle those before you make those decisions, less you end up making a fifth-level character instead of a sixth.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Colin Wyers wrote:

The default assumption of D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) is one of player character exceptionalism. This isn't to say that it's the only way to play (the rules are flexible enough to allow a lot of things to occur), but it's the base assumption.

This is why PCs get access to PC classes, while the vast majority of the non-PCs get... NPC classes. (Yes, there are some exceptional NPCs, and they use PC classes. But you can't spell "exceptional" without "exception.")

An adventurer can become something that most of the common folk can only dream of. They are different from the moment of their conception. Call it destiny. Or call a spade a spade - most people play fantasy RPGs so they can be the stars of the story; Rosencratz and Guildenstern the RPG is going to fill a minor niche at best.

For what it's worth, I don't follow that subscription at all. In my worlds the bulk of the population have PC classes, and even those that don't level over time, such that most people you encounter will be at least level 2, if not upwards of 6-12.

Mine as well.

Honest query for those who play this way - so farmhands, blacksmiths and tanners all have ranks in PC classes (I'm presuming fighter and rogue)?

Colin Wyers wrote:

The default assumption of D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) is one of player character exceptionalism. This isn't to say that it's the only way to play (the rules are flexible enough to allow a lot of things to occur), but it's the base assumption.

This is why PCs get access to PC classes, while the vast majority of the non-PCs get... NPC classes. (Yes, there are some exceptional NPCs, and they use PC classes. But you can't spell "exceptional" without "exception.")

An adventurer can become something that most of the common folk can only dream of. They are different from the moment of their conception. Call it destiny. Or call a spade a spade - most people play fantasy RPGs so they can be the stars of the story; Rosencratz and Guildenstern the RPG is going to fill a minor niche at best.

For what it's worth, I don't follow that subscription at all. In my worlds the bulk of the population have PC classes, and even those that don't level over time, such that most people you encounter will be at least level 2, if not upwards of 6-12.

Right out of the 3.5 DMG:

The Player's Handbook extensively describes adventurers. But what about the rest of the world? Surely not everyone's a fighter, rogue or wizard.

The basic assumptions of D&D (etc.) is that the majority of people are commoners, and that the player characters are distinct from them - they're adventurers. They're, in other words, protagonists.

If you want to mix it up - yes, feel free to do so. The rules will allow you to do so. But that's the "base" assumption behind how the game was constructed.

The default assumption of D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) is one of player character exceptionalism. This isn't to say that it's the only way to play (the rules are flexible enough to allow a lot of things to occur), but it's the base assumption.

This is why PCs get access to PC classes, while the vast majority of the non-PCs get... NPC classes. (Yes, there are some exceptional NPCs, and they use PC classes. But you can't spell "exceptional" without "exception.")

An adventurer can become something that most of the common folk can only dream of. They are different from the moment of their conception. Call it destiny. Or call a spade a spade - most people play fantasy RPGs so they can be the stars of the story; Rosencratz and Guildenstern the RPG is going to fill a minor niche at best.