Search Posts
but since arcane is exclusively specified for PC classes there'd be no way of knowing that you could use it against the powers of a drow arachnomancer, say, but not a drow priest. Wow, I never noticed that little detail. Yeah, that'd put a wrench in the monkeyworks. I know I'd judge that on a case-by-case basis, but I can see a very strong argument for having needed to notate that in the official rules from Day 1. I hope WotC figures something out on that front. Hey! Maybe it'll be in D&D 4.5! /duck
I missed that brouhaha - back then it was too hard to read forums and not be able to speak out. What part of divine striker did people get upset about? The "divine" part. Most of the haters were a little too quick to point out that it made absolutely no sense to make a class called a MARTIAL artist into a DIVINE class. Even after it was explained several times that the "martial" part of the title "martial artist" was simply designating that the class was focused on unarmed combat, haters were still posting that by dint of their name MARTIAL artists HAD to be of the MARTIAL power source. It got so bad that I eventually gave up on my own thread. I like the way you're thinking on the power source, though, even if I've declared recently that I don't like tempting fate with "new" power sources until WotC defines it. Perhaps there will be mechanics to differentiate the power sources in the future. Who knows? *shrug*
Anyway, if I could delete my first two posts and replace them with something more in-between, I would. That would perhaps reflect my true opinion of the APG. I had a feeling that would be your final assessment once all the chips fell. I admit, I favor the APG so strongly that after I'd read your second post, my own kneejerk reaction would have been less than diplomatic. I caught myself, though, and simply asked you to compare it to the FH. It was a learning experience for me. That both books were written during the playtest period had affected their initial quality was something I failed to take into account. There is always going to be strengths and weaknesses to any book. And, for the record, I like your house-ruling of the Gusting Wind power.
Crimson-Hawk, there are links to some threads comparing the two books at the Goodman Games forums. Considering that both books were written during the playtest period, I think both your team [i]and Ari did a fantastic job, Tavis. Yes, there is going to be room for error. In fact, XRP scrambled real fast to post a two-page errata for their book once several editorial errors were discovered. Even a couple of powers got completely re-written in the errata due to the nature of the final 4E rules. I haven't been able to follow FH much, since (as you mention on the RPG.net forums) I heard of Ari's work much sooner and so I spent my money on his book rather than yours. But from what I saw on the druid preview, FH does look interesting. One thing that I do agree with on some people's assessments was Ari's lack of "taking risks." But I like that. He didn't make assumptions about the Primal or Ki power sources, which will make transitioning to the PHB2 much easier, imho. Admittedly, it did cause some fan backlash; when I deduced that Ari's martial artist was a divine striker and announced such on ENWorld, so much negativity ensued that I nearly vomited. FH, from what I hear, takes greater risks... the Primal (and perhaps the Ki) power sources are tapped and the class concepts are much closer to what the WotC versions are predicted to be. This might be better for people who want to create their characters now and then rewrite their stats later when the "official" versions come out. At some point, I'm going to get the money put on my GreenDot card so that I can get FH, if for no better reason than to have a counterpoint for the APG. For now, though, I still favor the AGP, since it fits very nicely into the source/role matrix I've constructed with other fan-based classes.
In your opinion, Jezred, how does the APG stack up against Goodman's Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fury, and Song?
Yeah, despite the fact that I've gone on to compile my own collection (based off of Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Player's Guide and including some other fan-based works), I still keep up with this document. Stormonu's gotta be given props for being the first to tackle and complete the "add the 3.5 stuff back in" task, even if it was because commercial publications were constrained by the October rule. That he then tackled the specialist wizards then equipment and monsters put him in a whole new ballpark.
We hit 14th-level in one of our bi-weekly campaigns. Wow! Even if I didn't have a child with one on the way, trying to get into a new house, and a wife who desires constant attention, I'd still have trouble keeping pace with your game!
My group has hit an average of 2nd level as of last week. But, then again, we didn't start playing until about a month or so ago. We've been slowly getting into the new system and loving it. Encounters have been going great, since we play online using RPTools' MapTool; our DM has even set up power macros for all of us to help speed up play. The only glitch we've been hitting each week has been audio communication. While we can chat using MapTool's chat interface, we're trying to set it up to where we can also talk instead of type. But it keeps getting gummed up because of technical issues at the DM's end. Outside of that, we've managed to pull about two encounters a night (three at one point). We've been going through rounds so quickly it actually messed up one of our players. Our ranger's player was so used to us taking so long to finish a round in our tabletop 3.5 game that he's taken to playing Everquest or World of Warcraft while playing D&D... and this time around he didn't realize we had gone through three rounds before he flipped his window back over to our game to check our progress. Heh.
Well, he did improve on their work. Believe you me, I intended no disrespect when I pointed that fact out. Maybe I should have used better wording.
wow He put alot of work into that. He sure has put a lot of work into it. While he admits to lifting stuff directly from MalcolmN (druid) and Saric (bard), and I suspect he was "inspired" by others for the barbarian and necromancer, he's put so much of himself into this work I can't help but admire it. My only regret is that a lot of his efforts may be trumped by the Advanced Player's Guide from Expeditious Retreat. Thankfully, not the wizard schools issue, which is the heart of this thread. So Stormonu's work is still a worthwhile read.
I found a fan book named Races and Classes that had a lot of specialist wizards for 4E. Sadly, I have lost the link to it. That would be here! [link] And Stormonu would really, really like feedback on it. So please feel free to grab it and take a look. Still very much a WIP, but there's a lot of potential in it. And as Carl is pointing out, almost all of the specialists are fully written out.
In Kansas City, living on opposite ends can mean living in two different states :) Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! The two households in question are in the western outskirts of Kansas City, KS and near the northern end of Grandview, MO, respectively. I agree. With the table formatting you can even color code your powers for At-will, Encounter, Daily and Ritual with just a little html. We even color code saves, damage, healing, and other things to be easier. I haven't gotten that far into learning the system yet. In fact, my DM is having to set up my power macros for me. Heck, just this last Tuesday, I learned that you can type out a text message after a roll command. For instance: /roll 1d20+6 vs AC on the Goblin Skullcleaver. could possibly yield... <<1d20+6 = 12 + 6 = 18>> vs AC on the Goblin Skullcleaver. I'd've figured the extraneous text after the command would cause an error, not add flavor to the output. Forum avatars also make great tokens. We use vent and audacity to record our sessions as well. I never thought of using forum avatars. That's a good idea. I'd simply gotten used to using TokenTool and extracting tokens from my favorite DeviantArt.com artwork. We're still experimenting with voice. Admittedly, there's some technical difficulty at the DM's end that makes him either too soft to hear or too staticky to understand. We've tried Skype and Vent so far and neither panned out well. We're beginning to think we're better off without voice.
Go with RPtools! Its free. And it works on Linux Mac and PC That's what my 4E group is using right now. We're all local friends, but since getting to one another's house has become problematic (two households literally live at two opposite corners of the Kansas City metro area), we decided to give this a shot. Not only are we able to game productively on a weeknight, but we tend to get a lot farther in a session than in our Saturday night 3.5E get-together. I think the online format encourages us to focus more on the game and less on bragging to each other about our World of Warcraft or Everquest characters.
I guess I'm the odd man out. I love the concept of the Feywild and the Shadowfell, although I kinda wish they'd kept the "Great Wheel" cosmology rather than lump all of the elemental planes into one huge soup of a plane. It makes my Elmenar campaign slightly more interesting to write up in 4e. I liken the Feywild as the new "Positive Elemental Plane" that just happens to be a bit more "adventurer friendly." The same for the Shadowfell, being the new "adventurer-friendly Negative Elemental Plane." At least in that much, my other campaign setting, Lushei, is easier to write for. As for the original question posited by the OP, "why are there ogres," well.... My answer to that, as far as my worlds are concerned is, they've always been there. A bit simplistic, I know. But many settings assume certain races have been there since the dawn of time, molded by their patron deity during the creation of the world. For me, ogres are one of those races. To me, they would have been created at the same time (and most likely the same deity) as the orcs, goblinoids, and gnolls. Just my two cents worth.
It seems to me that your arguing the opposite of what I said. I did not say they achieve the same thing via different routes. I don't think, by and large they achieve the same thing at all. This is made clear by my comparing the two classes and deciding that mechanically what the Warlord does is so far from what I'd like to do that I refused to play the class - but felt that the cleric was, mechanically, a great class and scooped it up. My friend on the other hand did not recognize this and played the class - once he realized, mechanically, how it played he said 'screw this' I hate this style of class - its... Wow, did the quote snip because it was that long? I need to learn to be more concise! By the by, I wanted to apologize to you, then, Jeremy. I misread what you had said. I hope you understand I meant no disrespect in my post. I had simply read the "It's the new cleric and I mean that in a bad way" statement and felt compelled to discuss why I disagreed.
edit: Um, wow, it helps to know there is already 8 pages to a thread before I respond to something on the first page.
I'm sorry to hear your opinion of the warlord. It seems to me that you focused a little too much on the actual mechanics of the abilities rather than the "flavor" or "special effect" of the abilities. The warlord is indeed an equal to the cleric in that they are both Leaders, which means they are both meant to heal and buff the party. So I guess it's natural to compare the two. However, they have different power sources (which right now I'll admit does seem merely cosmetic but I'll assume there will be items and abilities published later on which will make the power source of target effects important). They also go about their business in different ways. The cleric: "Kord, blessed be thy name and holy be thy works. For through you, we achieve great feats of strength, courage, and honor. I pray onto you, grant the gift of great strength unto my fighter companion, so that he may through your grace and blessing open this tomb door. The glory and honor of our mission shall reflect upon you, as it always has and always will. Praise be to you, my lord Kord." The warlord: "Okay, what we need here folks is a little bit of teamwork to get past this tomb door. Fighter, I'm going to need you to stand ready at the door itself to put your shoulder into it. Everything we're doing here is to aid you. Rogue? I need you to find a leverage point for some rope, because we're going to use this piece of timber to add some umph into what the fighter is doing. No, no, fighter, I need your feet placed just a little bit differently. Trust me, it'll make a world of difference and the cleric won't have to relocate your shoulder afterwards. Okay, people, everyone other than the fighter grab the rope and on my mark... one... two... three... HEAVE!" Both examples achieve the same result. The fighter is being granted a bonus to his strength for the purposes of pushing open a tomb door. However, the cleric is granting divine power through his prayer to his god, Kord. The warlord, however, is simply using good sound common sense, strategy, and the coordination of effort and strengths within the party to grant the fighter the same bonus. Healing, believe it or not, can be seen in the same light of comparison. While the cleric heals his ally through divine prayer to his god, the warlord acts as something of a "military cheerleader," using good, old-fashioned pep talk to convince his ally to overcome the pain and push forward with the fight. Same results, different methods. Plus, if you look carefully, the cleric and the warlord do indeed do different things for different people at different times. I can see where the line seems blurred, but the subtle differences do exist. And what's sad, all of these distinctions become even more important whenever you add an ARCANE leader (the artificer) into the mix. It saddens me that your friend couldn't find enjoyment in the warlord class. As you say, being the sole healer in a party sucks on many levels, especially if you run out of steam at critical moments. Having a backup healer can really help. And the warlord isn't really as bad at combat as some people seem to think.
We don't pay attention to Hawks that aren't Grey, anyway :P Yeah? Okay, whatever. Like anyone here is a fan of Oerth, anyway, you priggish brute! *ducks down the Dyvers, cast Mordenkainen's Mansion, and sets up a Mordenkainen's Hound just outside for good measure*
Well what would a witch do in your mind? Well, tossing away the fact that IRL the term "warlock" refers to an oathbreaking witch, I can actually see a fantasy gaming witch being very much a primal version of the arcane warlock. I'd imagine the differences would come from the use of primal implements and alchemical mixtures.
Heh, looks like my post killed this thread. Sorry about that, Horus. :-(
My home brews tend to have a heavy dose of nature and wilderness adventuring. I am not keen on urban campaigns or dungeon crawls. I may need to wait until march given the lack of druids and a primal power source. I might recommend these homebrewed versions of the druid and the barbarian until such a time that official versions are released.
Crimson-Hawk, any chance we can get to hear a little more about your proposal as well? Sorry for the lack of response. I've been working on wife faction while taking care of the baby. ;-) P.S. This post contains material that is Copyright © 1999-2008 by Dale W. Robbins. I have to protect myself here. ;-) The world I proposed is named Elmenar. It's a world that long ago was ravaged by a divine war between the 19 gods of the elements. In the aftermath of the war, the planet was left in an elementally chaotic (if still habitable) state. Elemental storms called siroccos occasionally rip across the land, while plants, animals, beasts, monsters, and even humanoids can exhibit a decidedly elemental bent (fire beholders, anyone?). Another aftermath of the war was the gods reorganizing themselves and putting themselves into a system of checks and balances they refer to as the Edict of Divinity. The gods of the four core elements (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water) form the Divine Council that moderates the rest of the gods. The positive energy elements (Positive, Lightning, Mineral, Radiance, and Steam) banded together as the Proton Lords. The negative energy elements (Negative, Vacuum, Dust, Ash, and Salt) banded together to form the Electron Lords. The neutral elements (Prime, Ice, Magma, Ooze, and Smoke) banded together to form the Neutron Lords. Several mortal kingdoms, most dedicated to a particular god, arose and settled into existence. And for ages they kept each other in check, preventing each other from disrupting mortal existence any further than they already had. That is until recently, when tiefling forces (originally troglodyte forces until 4e came out) out of the kingdoms of Negtoria engaged in a war of conquest across Neutronia and into Protania, intent on subjugating the entire world. The Negtorian forces are fielding demons and devils in their armies, but the good and unaligned gods are helpless to aid their mortal charges thanks to the Edict of Divinity. So it is up the PC heroes to rise up and aid the peoples of Neutronia and Protania against the tiefling forces while rooting out the source of their demonic aid and freeing the Proton and Neutron Lords against their devious Electron counterparts. The errors I made when submitting this proposal to the settings search were legion. The top ones I imagine include:
All in all, I jacked up my chances straight out of the gate. My hats off to Keith Baker for having the professionalism and insight to give WotC what they wanted and needed. ;-)
To everyone else, I found it interesting how often Eberron snd Golarion came up as opposed to some of the older settings (Homebrew aside). Any thoughts as to why that may be? Eberron has something of a bittersweet history with me. I initially hated it with a passion unknown to mankind. But that passion was petty. I hated it because I too had entered the settings search contest and didn't even make the quarter-finals, let alone the top three. Once I realized that I didn't need WotC to publish my worlds, I began to look at Eberron for what it was... an interesting look at core D&D concepts. Magic took a more active role in society in a more utilitarian, mechanical fasion, as opposed to the overflooded flights of fantasy that is the trademark of the Forgotten Realms. While I'm not keen about the "just barely civil" atmosphere of the post-War era, I was intrigued that even the monstrous humanoid races (orcs, goblinoids, et al) were treated as civilized beings with unique cultures that are a part of Khorvaire as opposed to mindless mobs that occasionally sweep down from the Spine of the World to overrun the Dales. And despite all of the subtle differences between Eberron and Toril (or Oerth or Krynn), Eberron still has everything that is a part of the D&D rules. That was a consideration I failed to give to my entry into the settings search contest. I learned that lesson the hard way. I'm also a geekish fanboy of Mystara who believe there is so much untapped potential in that world that WotC has stone-cold abandoned. That fans are allowed to develop the world in peace is both a blessing and a curse. While a lot of good ideas have flowed into Mystara since WotC dropped it, there is no one cohesive whole that defines the world. I mean, Pandius' Vault is the best attempt at a coordinated effort... and it's not even really intended to corral the ideas so much as to simply present them. Golarion is a new thing to me. I've downloaded to two free player's guides to the Pathfinder series, but that's the closest thing I've read to an introduction to Golarion. So I really can't give an opinion of the setting one way or another. Those are my thoughts anyway.
I have three homebrew settings that I plan on adapting to 4e. One is a very simplistic affair and mostly gives a name and some substance to the "default setting" alluded to in the core books. The other two are settings I've worked on for the last 18-20 years and both seem a perfect fit for 4e. Well, they will once the PHB2 comes out. LOL! Outside of that, I wouldn't mind playing in Eberron and Mystara.
I, too, have always loved Mystara. I firmly believe TSR/WotC shot itself in the foot when they chose never to revisit it. (The fact that similar fans exist for Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright nonewithstanding). There is way too much of it to develop to simply ignore it. I can't visit Pandius' Vault at work due to web blocking. What I'd like to see is a hardcover book for the setting... at least for the Known World. The Red Steel setting *might* warrant a follow-up volume. And maybe a third book for the rest of the setting (mostly idea seeds as to what lies in the lands not already covered). Of course, for some reason that I have yet to discover for myself, WotC will probably never do this.
Fantasy Flight Games has a neat treatise on this very subject in their Wildscapes book I think is almost perfectly compatible with the PF ranger class. Might give it a look-see.
Poor Kave99, In his own mind, it seemed a legitimate question. Then KaeYoss and Fletch were more than willing to point out how incredible, utterly STUPID Kave was to even think the question. Gods, I love this community! :-D P.S. I love that Go-Bot! Especially when they gave her a female persona in the cartoon. That rocked! --Dale W. Robbins
Great! Who's up for a game of Champions? ME! Oh! Oh! Pick me! I've even got a superhero campaign I've published in Digital Hero we can... Oh, wait. Um... *fades into the shadows*
Touche, monsieur Fool. Touche. ;)
So you are trying to encourage only Clerics and Paladins to care about alignment? You're getting around today, aren't you, Fool? I'm pretty sure these are only example powers to show how alignment can be made to matter on a system mechanical level. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to straight-jacket such capabilities into the the classes that the examples appear for. There's nothing wrong with making fighter, warlord, or even rogue exploits that give the PC and/or his allies certain advantages depending on their opponent's alignment. And if you want to play a traditional style ranger, I'm pretty sure he can stand to have a few powers like that, as well. The possibilities are endless, if you put your mind to it. And I'm pretty sure the OP knows this quite well.
Oh and thanks for granting permission to fling poo. Now if we could just work on your proviso. I honestly don't think Doombunny was so much granting us permission to fling poo (we're going to do that anyway whether he likes it or not), but rather encouraging us to fling it at the people who really deserve the poo flung at them. You might consider actually reading his actual intentions before making assumptions about his sanctimonious superiority complex.
I'm surprised that there are people out there who think there's even a market for used gaming books. I guess my opinion on the matter is colored by the fact that I live in Kansas City, which is already notorious for it's lack of brick-and-mortar support of the RPG sub-culture. Heck, even Books-A-Million and Barnes & Nobles each have a cursory RPG section at best (the latter only devotes a shelf and a half on the material). There's a used book and comic book store near Independence that used to deal heavily in used gaming material, but I haven't been able to go there in years so I don't know what its status is. Be it as it may, I have absolutely no faith in being able to get more than US$0.50 out of any single one of my used game books. So I just keep mine, not out of nostalgia, but out of the fact that it's not worth my time and effort to try to sell them. --Dale W. Robbins
Not actually commenting on your post (don't look at ENworld boards much) but personally I hate the term "nerd rage". At the risk of hijacking this thread further, I hate the word "antidisestablishmentarianism," but they still had a little boy use it in a recent Dairy Queen commercial. Grrr! Seriously, though. It's all semantics. Why is it even important? I remember being on a World of Warcraft forum and someone going absolutely ballistic because he hated everyone using the term "toon" to designate a character in the game. I nearly fell out of the chair laughing at the dude. ----- More in tune with the actual subject of the thread, I've been enjoying what's been picked in that new feature so far. The converted monster list that was posted today is most helpful, even if they're favoring heroic tier character challenges so far. I'm personally looking forward to whatever else gets picked. --Dale W. Robbins
TFAD, I wanted to thank you for the support you gave me on my "Psychic Bloodline" thread. Since your efforts here far more completely handles the "problem" I was trying to solve in my thread, I am most definately interested and supportive of what you're doing here. I look forward to what you have in store for us. Thank you so much for your hard work! --Dale W. Robbins
As for JSL's post: The druid is indeed an unknown quantity at the moment and is jacking up the Primal matrix quite nicely. As David pointed out, the druid is rumored to be "hybrid." I've braced myself on that point, as it is already a biting contention with 4e detractors that D&D now feels too much like WoW. Giving the druid a "hybrid" role only adds fuel to that fire. As many already know, the druid in WoW can be a defender, a striker, or a leader as need be, though she can't be *quite* as good as a fighter, a rogue, or a priest, respectively. (Trust me, I know, I have a 70 druid in WoW and I love playing every second of that toon.) So, yeah, I can see 4e saying something like "If you take this wildshape path, you can make a decent defender. If you take this other wildshape path, you can make a decent striker. If you focus more on spells and rituals, you can make a decent leader. You just can't outclass a fighter, rogue, or cleric on any of these." I chose to put the Druid in the "striker" role because I'm rigid and I can't wrap my brain around the barbarian being anything but a defender. I agree the shaman should be a leader... calling upon spirits to aid you and your party reeks of "leader" in my book. And a sorcerer could just as easily be a striker or a controller, as can druids. Ultimately, I decided druids would probably make better strikers and sorcerers would make better controllers. However, your assessment of the reverse is just as viable. As for the necromancer, it's interesting. I was going off of the my understanding of definitions. A leader, if I understand correctly, uses his powers to aid himself and his party or hinder his enemies in combat. A striker, on the other hand, uses his powers to inflict quick-burst yet extensive damage. The question is, which does the necromancer do? Now that I think about it, I could see an illusionist as a leader, because of that very definition. He can't heal others, but he can create shadow items to aid his party members and use perception-altering illusions to hinder his enemies. That leaves us with the question as to what a necromancer is... does he use his minions for quick-burst strikes or for area control and damage? The world may never know... I do like the idea of the hexblade as a defender and a shadowdancer as a striker, though, so perhaps necromancers as controllers to fill the missing slot?
You are absolutely right on all points, David. Then again, what's to stop us fans from filling up those slots for ourselves? ;-) It would be interesting what someone did to create a martial controller. Perhaps that would be an interesting concept for a swashbuckler... someone with light armor at best, tackling legions of minion rank foes with their sharp rapier and sharper wit, disorienting them with their dazzling displays of martial prowess and then laying them low in threes and fours. I'd like to see more of people's ideas and opinions on such things, myself.
Since I can only access Paizo's boards at work (as opposed to Gleemax and ENWorld), I'm posting this here for everyone's consideration. Basically, I'm building a "matrix" or roles and power sources so that I can see how the classes fit into the "grand scheme of things" in D&D 4e. Please be advised that if a class is NOT in the 2008 PHB, how I've fit them into this matrix is based purely on MY OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS as influenced by the personal opinions of others on Gleemax and ENWorld. If there are people who disagree with what I've postulated, please by all means pipe up. That's what these boards are for! :) ----- MARTIAL
ARCANE
DIVINE
PRIMAL
PSIONIC
KI
SHADOW
At the moment, I'm more interested in seeing the second Player's Handbook from WotC before I worry about anything third-party. The 4e system is a good system when taken by itself (as opposed to being compared to 3e), but WotC shot itself in the foot by not including the barbarian, bard, druid, monk, or sorcerer. I need those classes back in the game, and I know for a fact that I'm not the loudest proponent of that sentiment. That having been said, I'll welcome any third-party supplement that gives PCs more options. More races, more powers for existing classes, and more fully-fleshed-out classes would all be welcome in my game, should they be balanced and well thought out.
I think the separate book is still the best option - closed-minded DMs and people just have to be bribed/extorted into using the stuff. :D Hehe! Too true, too true.
I've been extensively playtesting 4E for some months now as one of the official playtesters. I've also been doing a regular game with my playtest group for a couple of months now. Quite simple, 4th Edition doesn't feel very much like D&D anymore. It's not a terrible game by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not D&D.So the NDA has been lifted fully and you can talk about anything now? Must be a big relief. Um, okay, KaeYoss, what was the point in that? (Assuming you were indeed being as caustically sarcastic as I think you were.) Did he say something to which you took offense?
I agree totally with you on this, Dennis, except for one detail: Paizo's not including psionics in the core rulebook nor do they plan on expounding on psionics anytime in the foreseeable future. Therein lies the lynchpin that holds my tactic here in place. Certainly, someone who knows what they're doing and has an extensive d20 System library should be able to pick up the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook and the Expanded Psionics Handbook and run with it. What I'm doing here is trying to convince Paizo to provide a "quick fix" for those people who come into this anew and don't want to dole out another $30 for the full psionics rules (and do not have the know-how to look it up in the SRD). Besides, with the advent of D&D4e, the Expanded Psionics Handbook is technically out of print (though I'm sure used book stores will have an influx of copies here shortly). I'm probably reacting to this a bit too defensively. But I'm trying to provide SOMETHING that will hopefully make it into the core rulebook and I feel vindicated in my efforts.
I've also been doing some rethinking on the bonus spell list, particularly for those people asking for some telekinetic lovin'. Even I have to admit now that there is some redundancy in the list on charm-like effects. So I've looked things over and would like to present this for consideration. Bonus Spells: charm person (3rd), detect thoughts (5th), levitate (7th), charm monster (9th), telepathic bond (11th), dominate person (13th), greater teleport (15th), mass charm monster (17th), dominate monster (19th). I also added greater teleport as a nod to psychoportation fans out there.
Using names for the bloodline's abilities that are verbatim actual psionic powers means that when those powers do get used by an honest to goodness psion, they'll have to be reworked to comply with the sorcerer (since he came "first," and therefore sets precedent) and they aren't exactly an accurate description of the powers as it stands. I've actually been muddling around with this issue in my head for the last couple of days and I agree with your reasoning on the matter. Let's change "Mind Thrust" to "Telekinetic Attack" and "Id Insinuation" to "Mind Scramble." As for the issue of making a psion-wannabe who is arcane, that's just something I resigned myself to because ALL sorcerers cast arcane spells, regardless of bloodline. I knew going into this that this wasn't going to please everyone. Nothing in game design can ever possibly do that. But, as I've mentioned before, I'm banking on the fact that it might be easier to beg for 3/4 of a column of space than it will be to beg for enough space to make the psion a viable class. It is important, though, to somehow emphasize that this is an arcane spellcasting bloodline and not true psionics. I just want something like this in the core rules since it's been established that psionics are not making it into the core rules.
Instead of Combat Casting, give Skill Focus (Spellcraft). Instead of a conditional +4, you get a +3 in every situation. More bang for your feat purchasing buck. I'm a concept gamer, not a power gamer. You are correct on the efficiency of Skill Focus versus Combat Casting overall, but that smacks too much of munchkinism in my book. And I hate munchkinism almost as much as I hate senseless comedy movies.
I can't explain why, but "mind witch" doesn't set well with me. Maybe it's because we're naming the bloodline, not the occupation. Maybe that's just me. As for the limit on Telekinetic Flight... concentration in and of itself is a limitation. Look at the Draconic bloodline. They can summon their wings at will. Just to say, though, I did read and consider these suggestions seriously before responding to them. I just felt these were a couple of issues I needed to stand my ground on. I'm dreading the day when the "psionics don't belong in a fantasy game" crowd comes stomping into this thread to have their say... LOL
And that'll teach me to actually read all of the rules involved. Thanks for all of the sharp eyes! Replace Negotiator with Skill Focus (Sense Motive). Replace Eschew Material Components with Combat Casting. Keep this up! This isn't just mine, this is ours!
The Negotiator feat has been removed from pathfinder; you may want to add Skill Focus (Diplomacy). You're absolutely right. I paid no attention to the Designer's Notes: Missing Feats sidebar on page 68 of AR3. I'm not sure if I want Skill Focus (Diplomacy) or Skill Focus (Sense Motive) though. Decisions, decisions.
Thanks for all of the suggestions. I've taken them all seriously, including Stormcrowe's. Trust me, if I believed for a moment that Paizo would include enough actual psionics rules to make the psion class viable, I wouldn't waste time with this. As it stands, it'll be easier to ask for an additional 3/4 of a column worth of text for the Sorcerer than to try to include true psionics. As for the other suggesions thus far, here's a slightly revised version of my entry... PSYCHIC
Class Skill: Sense Motive.
Once again, thank you for all of the suggestions and criticisms.
Because I feel that psionics can have a very real role in some fantasy campaigns, and I also feel that injecting a "psionic" like character into the PFRPG should take up as little room as possible, I would like to suggest the following bloodline for the Sorcerer class... the Psychic bloodline! PSYCHIC
Class Skill: Sense Motive.
Any and all criticisms and suggestions are welcome!
Why don't you stop being angry, houserule the Concentration skill back into your game, and be done with it? While I agree there is definately a need for a separate Concentration skill, I won't go out of my way making those who disagree with me feel less than equal to me due to their opinion.
|