Crossover-Chronicler's page

I have a long list; I know there's no way they'll all be converted to Pathfinder. Here are some favorites off the top of my head:

Archmage/Hierophant/Archpsion (all more or less variations on the same thing, so it might be possible to collapse them into a single very generalized class).

Thaumaturgist (DMG - summoning specialist); probably needs relatively little conversion after the relevant spells are adjusted.

Drunken Master (Complete Warrior/Sword & Fist); probably needs relatively little conversion

Master of Chains (Sword & Fist)

Lasher (Sword & Fist)

Master of Many Forms (Complete Adventurer); I don't know how well this class would do under the new Wild Shape rules, but it's always been a path I favored for druids.

Warshaper (Complete Warrior); probably needs relatively little conversion

Mindspy (Complete Warrior - hopefully with adjustments to make it psionics-friendly when & if psionic rules come out for PFRPG)

Ur-Priest/Blighter (Complete Divine - possibly with a fix to resolve the qualification requirements and the "level 9 spells in 10 levels" thing)

Malconvoker (Complete Scoundrel - a nonevil summoner who tricks fiends into service)

Frost Mage (Frostburn); probably needs relatively little conversion, other than the related spells.

Black Flame Zealot (Complete Divine); probably needs relatively little conversion

Fist of Raziel (Book of Exalted Deeds); probably needs relatively little conversion.

Cancer Mage (Book of Vile Darkness); probably needs relatively little conversion.

Psionic Prestige Classes:

Pyrokineticist; probably needs relatively little conversion, depending on how the psionics rules play out.

Elocater (despite some dumb stuff some players tried to pull with it, "scorn earth" remains a delightful element of style).

The current Epic Level rules are a mess.

The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math.

So if Paizo does an "Epic Level" book, it will probably be a complete re-do. With that in mind, I'm very curious to hear what people think about the idea of play beyond level 20.

What are you looking for conceptually?

Characters whose capabilities can be called "epic." The ability to save or doom cities, or even nations, with the power an epic character has achieved.

The sense that an epic character has moved into a new field of play, with interesting and meaningful epic challenges.

An answer to this question: with possible heroes of epic power waiting in the wings, why do non-epic heroes end up having to save the world?

Paths for divine ascension, and other ways to satisfactorily "retire" an epic character that doesn't involve character death or a contrived "Well, I guess I'm done now."

What are you looking for mechanically?

An "open-ended" system. I'd like to see more than just another 10 or 20 levels of playability stacked on top of the current set or levels, unless achieving level 30 or 40 (or whatever) actually removes the hero from the setting somehow.

Related to that (and as noted above), rules for eventual divine ascension (a lure often used to tempt PCs in my games), with the possible option of play as a at least a demideity on its way to full divinity.

If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try?

I'm not particularly skeptical. What I would like to see, however, are guidelines for epic progression that can be applied to additional classes and prestige classes without waiting for such a progression to be published. Also, epic progressions for at least the most common prestige classes. I can do the extra work myself if I need to, but it would be convenient.

Any deal breakers?

Very little about the epic rules actively turned me off. I would be disappointed, however, if epic rules were not compatible with previous levels of play; a 21st level character is still only a level higher than a 20th level character, for example. By the same token, I'd prefer if reaching epic level did have substantial (if balanced) rewards.

So I'm asking you:

What does Psionics mean to you?

To me, psionics are a special set of magical powers, evoked through an act of will or mental sensitivity and affinity, rather than the incantations and recipes used by spellcasters. They're another set of powers to add diversity and flavor to a fantasy setting.

I'm a "recent" convert to psionic fandom, as I absolutely despised them in my 2e days, and gradually grew to accept and then enjoy them in my 3e and 3.5e days. From a perspective of both flavor and balance I don't see much value in the "psionics and magic are different and do not interact" approach.

How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?

Backwards-compatibility with the D&D 3e or 3.5e is a good start; I disliked most previous incrnations of psionics intensely, and part of what convinced me to give them another chance were options such as the Pyrokineticist, Soulknife, and Fist of Zuoken/Psionic Fist.

The other part of what convinced me was a system that made psionic characters comparable to other "spellcasters." Transparency between powers and spells is also a plus - I like it when psionic charm and charm person work functionally the same, and the same idea goes for Telekinesis, ESP, Dominate, and others.

Finally, there's "flavor". A magical hypnotic gaze and a psionic one should feel different, even if they're mechanically identical. An increase in number of possible psionic encounters and items (so that psionics don't feel as "added on") is a good start. Likewise, though there are some obvious crossover spells/powers (telekinesis, ESP, some force effects, mind control effects), psionic characters should be more than "wizards who don't use components," and neither should be clearly superior to the other.

What is an absolute deal-breaker?

A return to psionics as written in First or Second Edition AD&D.

Any system that severely limits the interaction between psionics and magic, requiring spell/power slots be filled up with redundant "detect/dispel magic" and "detect/dispel psionics" variants, as well as goofball "psionicist protected by an anti-magic field" tactics. It was one of my biggest headaches in 2e; that, and "psionic combat" prompted me to ban psionics from my games altogether until something better came along.

This seems like an odd debate to me.

IMNSHO, the ruleset should not be tied to ANY setting. While I think it's great (and necessary) that Pathfinder have its own default setting, I see nothing wrong with accommodating the other 3.X sources from which it took its form. Pathfinder Eberron should be as simple as importing the content for that setting, as should Pathfinder Forgotten Realms.

I find this especially vital because the apparent backwards-compatibility with 3.5e (and 3e?) sources is a big draw for me; I like importing stuff from various supplements, and I have a big stockpile of 3rd edition books that are begging to be put to use again.

Also, why does this debate seem to only address which published settings will be honored? Are homebrew settings really that uncommon? I can't remember the last time I ran a game in an unaltered published setting (unless you count my experiments in 4e, but there are only the bare bones of a world there, as of yet, so I was free to make most of it up as I went).

As previously stated, though this is a chance for an unique RPG, that's not really what it's there for. It looks like more of an inheritor of D&D and the d20 systems, and that's more or less what I'm hoping for. That's not to say I want it to be Eberron or Greyhawk or the Realms, but that like previous versions I'd like it to be able to accomodate all of those things.

flynnster wrote:

Letting the player attempt to add her CHA bonus to BAB? Oh come on. Grow a pair and tell the player that they made a decision and twisting game mechanics won't cover poor decision making.

You should also drop-kick her in the head for good measure.

I respectfully disagree.

Basing attack bonuses on Charisma with a feat is, for a primary warrior, ultimately a choice only in style. Sure, such a feat is awesome for the Bard or Sorcerer (who have other assets based on Charisma) and even the Paladin - but a Barbarian? If you based physical attractiveness on Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, you'd have a similar result. All it really does is alter skill priorities, and bring the character more in line with the chosen concept. And you're prioritizing Charisma and blowing a feat to accomplish part of what you could normally do by prioritizing Strength and spending the feat on something more useful (as I understand it described here, you don't base damage on Cha).

There are all sorts of other limitors one also could apply to keep the feat from exceeding its value (teh armor limitation for one, possible alignment or class limitations for another).

Of course, the problem could be just as easily solved by simply declaring the character to be gorgeous but boring or abrasive. But that doesn't mean that the feat-based solution is somehow wrong - ro deserving of a drop-kick.

Is it really favoritism to show preference to the one person who will be remaining with you after the gaming group has gone home? The one person who share your bed with you? The one person who knows where all sharp/dangerous objects are in the house? The one who has access to your checking account?

Most importantly: the one you'd like to make snuggle bunnies with while picturing her PC in your head (and, dare you dream, get to dress up as said character for some real "role-playing")?

Favoritism = survival. Preference = snuggle bunnies.

Not married? Withhold your opinion until you have experience to qualify it please.

Yes, that's favoritism; it's showing preference to a "favorite." You can try to justify the motives for that favoritism all you like, but in the end that justification doesn't change what it is, nor its effects on the other players.

If anyone I was in a relationship with expected to be handed victories in a game - be it D&D, Pathfinder, Monopoly, or chess - and actually started a fight when I didn't cave, I'd probably laugh it off and wait 'til one of us developed a better sense of perspective. After all, why should I (and not my companion) be the one to give in? Given that, isn't simply equal treatment more reasonable?

Last time I brought my S.O. into a roleplaying game, we were both PCs and we spent half the game trying to bait or kill one another. And we had a great time doing it. It's a game, not a referendum o your feelings for each other. While a game isn't worth damaging your relationship over, IMO it's the partner who expects special treatment who's threatening the relationship over something as trivial as a game, not the person who's just playing the game.

And I don't have to have marched down the aisle to have opinions or experience with relationships.