Ooh, even in this brief description, I see so much potential. Using mythic at first level could be interesting, but I imagine you could have it so that characters can only become mythic after 20th level in order to mimic epic levels. As has been mentioned, it could work quite nicely with E6, allowing advancement without necessarily allowing spells beyond 3rd level (depending on how mythic works out). I can even imagine using mythic characters to represent the Chosen in the Forgotten Realms.
I'm really looking forward to this.
Erik Mona wrote:
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing about these two characters.
One thing I'm wondering is whether any sort of "multipathing" (an analogue to multiclassing) in the mythic paths is possible. Could, for example, a magus be part archmage and part champion? Or a fighter be part champion and part warden?
Here's what I'd like to see:
Repeating some of the above suggestions, I'd love to see the following:
I recently placed an order (#1561853) of six items to be shipped. I just received two emails, each with the same order number, and each saying that a package is about to be sent. The first email said that one of the items is about to be shipped in a package, and the second email said the remaining five items are about to be shipped in a package.
Is there a reason for this? I'd much rather they all come in one package. If they've already been sent, I suppose there's nothing that can be done (although an explanation would be welcome), but since the emails said they're about to be sent, I thought I'd ask.
Archangel template?Intelligent ape?
I'm looking forward to this one!
a cavalier variant that has 0 to do with a horse at all.
That's like asking for a fighter that has nothing to do with combat. "Cavalier" literally means "horseman".
more like a dandy/Renaissance era cavalier and less the medieval archetype.
Even Don Quixote had Rocinante. ;-)
Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but I haven't seen it.
Apparently, Pathfinder and D&D are tied for the most amount of sales in an RPG.
Click here to see the report.
I'm pleased to see this, but not surprised. D&D has the name recognition, but Pathfinder has the solid quality behind it.
Certainly, although that's something I can easily do (and have done) myself. I'd like to see what sort of alternatives to channel energy the Paizo folks could cook up.
I'd like to see variants on the cleric, beyond changes or additions to the domains, to capture the feel of different faiths. For example, having less martial clerics for less martial deities, or sneakier clerics for sneaky deities. Part of this change in flavour can be accomplished by replacing the channel energy class feature with something else, I think.
james maissen wrote:
That's part of the tradeoff that I already addressed.
james maissen wrote:
Secondly, while crunching numbers and looking at averages and chances. You are assuming that getting the spell off on round 2 is as much of a success as getting the spell off at round 1. This is simply not true. People have brought up action economy, but evidently not tied it to the fact that rounds in combat are not created equal. Round 1 is far more important than round 2, as most combats are decided quite early.. it is a question of gaining advantage and pressing it or having it reversed. The effects of prior round's actions or inactions accumulate. If a spell is going to matter being able to cast it without fail is essential, that's why you won't see many wizards in mithril chain despite 10% being a low chance for failure. The 45% chance of failure for this is akin to the wizard being in platemail!
Yes, the effects of actions and inactions accumulate. But the preliminary analysis I did (along with that number crunching of some others) shows that the long term average is a bit better with Spell Combat. That would imply that the positive results would accumulate quicker.
james maissen wrote:
The penalty of -4 to hit is also VERY large. A ranger meanwhile using TWF or Rapid shot only suffers a -2 to hit, has full BAB, is nowhere as pressed for stats as the magus, as is guaranteed to get his second attack. If the ranger's TWF were more along the likes of -6 to hit (much like TWF without the feat) it would not be a great option. In fact people would debate whether it was worth using at all.
The TWF ranger only gets the -2 to hit if he's using a light weapon in his offhand. If he's using two one-handed weapons, his penalty will be at -4. I think being able to attack with a one-handed weapon and cast a spell at the same time is much more akin to using two one-handed weapons. The tradeoff seems reasonable to me.
james maissen wrote:
Lastly, we're arguing if the ability is better than nothing. That this is the main class ability will tell you that there is a great deal of weakness here. The class is giving up a much more detailed and expanding list (the wizard/sorcerer list), all the higher level (7-9) spells, and a better casting progression (wiz/sorc vs bard) for these class features. That one can argue that it is even close to not having any ability is insane.
The fact that wizards and sorcerers have better spells at higher levels is irrelevant here, because the issue for the magus using Spell Casting is only a problem (or, at least, perceived to be a problem) at low levels. With Improved Spell Combat the penalties are reduced, and with Greater Spell Combat the penalties disappear. There's still the issue of having to make a concentration check for the spell in the first place (but keep in mind that a melee-based character will probably have to make concentrations checks often enough anyway), but that's a small price to pay for effectively doubling your actions for the round.
One of the other things you should consider is that if the spell is successful the first round, does the magus need to use spell combat the second? If you say no, then his numbers start to get significantly better using it.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good point to consider. Especially if the first use of Spell Combat finishes the fight.
Rather than just looking at the magus's chances to succeed in an attack and a casting in one round, let's look at how it averages over two rounds, then compare it to the case in which the magus attacks one round and casts a spell on the next round.
First I'm going to assume Str 18 and Int 16, and that the magus is 2nd level. He has a masterwork weapon and the Combat Casting feat (which I think should be a bonus feat at 1st level, but that's aside). We'll also assume that he's fighting something with AC 15 and casting a 1st level spell.
Using Spell Combat, he has a +2 to hit and a +7 to make his concentration check. That means that he has a 40% chance to his with his weapon (60% chance to miss) and a 55% chance to successfully cast his spell (45% chance to fail). Not great.
But what about over two rounds? He has a 36% chance to miss both attacks and about a 20% chance to fail with both spells. That means that his chance of hitting at least once is 64% (including a 16% chance of hitting twice), and his chance of casting a spell successfully at least once is about 80% (including about a 30% chance of casting two spells).
If he attacks one round, his bonus is +6, giving a 60% chance to hit. That's less than the 64% chance of hitting at least once when using Spell Combat for two rounds.
When it comes to the spell, it can be more tricky. It is not unreasonable to assume that he will still be in melee, so he could still be casting on the defensive. His concentration check will be at +9, giving a 65% chance of success, less than the 80% chance of casting at least one spell using Spell Combat for two round. It's not clear-cut, though, because he may be able to avoid having to cast on the defensive, and using Spell Combat for two rounds leaves open the possibility of two spell slots being wasted.
Nonetheless, I think this gives some better perspective. Spell Combat at low levels has some drawbacks, but not as bad as others have made out, I think. It seems balanced to me. Of course, I began assuming certain numbers, and if those are changed, the results may also change. I'll leave it to someone else to do those calculations.
Remember that you must be WIELDING your bonded weapon every time you want to cast without to do a concentration check (DC 20+spell level), so it could be annoying during some events like a diplomatic encounter or in front of a King...
It's those diplomatic situations that raises the concern for me. That leads me to prefer some other arcane bonded item over a weapon, which sucks because I like the flavour of an arcane bonded weapon. It also sucks for the arcane duelist (bard archetype) and the magus, since they have to use arcane bond with a weapon.
Does anyone see any issues arise if I houserule this one somehow? What if you only need to have your hand on it, but it can be in its sheath? What problems, if any, might arise from that?
I like that suggestion. Thanks.
I'm still not thrilled about hand of the apprentice, mostly in terms of flavour.
What do people think of replacing the universalist wizard's hand of the apprentice with an extra prepared spell of each level? Part of the reason I'm suggesting this is because hand of the apprentice uses a mundane weapon (albeit in a magical way), which doesn't fit my vision of a wizard. The other part is because the universalist seems lackluster compared to the specialists, and extra spells would adjust for that, I think.
Generic Villain wrote:
Hold on --- why are we getting a Magus when we have the Eldritch Knight in Pathfinder?
Let's hold off on the comparisons until we see what the magus actually does. After all, the cavalier is certainly a nice addition to the game, despite already having the fighter and the paladin.
There are two kinds of warrior-mages that I like. There's the person with two skill sets - he can fight the way a fighter fights, and he can cast spells the way a wizard (or sorcerer) does. Because this involves two skill sets, multiclassing (with the eldritch knight prestige class) works well. But then there's the warrior-mage who engages in hand-to-hand combat and uses magic to enhance those combat skills. She fights, but not using the methods of the fighter, and she casts spells, but not the sort of spells a wizard casts. There's definitely room in Pathfinder for this.
I'm hoping that the magus will be like the second type of warrior-mage.
You can't have the eidolon look like a specific individual.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Thanks for the response. I have to admit, though, I'm not sure if it works. According to the criteria James gave, an eidolon can look like a centaur or a dragon, yet they're both native to the material plane. It's a cool idea, but it doesn't quite explain it in the way I'm looking for.
However, you've given me an idea. Perhaps any given campaign can have a very limited set of creatures that an eidolon can look like. The GM and players should discuss this so that everyone can play what they want. Then the GM can come up with a different story for each of the forms allowed. For example, let's start with genies and dragons. Perhaps the eidolons that look like genies come from elemental spirits, while the ones that look like dragons are all aspects of Io (or Bahamut, or Tiamat, or whatever), and no other types of eidolons are allowed. But you can still be flexible. Let's say that a new player wants an eidolon that looks like a demon. There are two ways to go. Either you can say that the eidolon is based on a corrupted elemental spirit (somewhat like the 4e story about demons), or some new outsiders (the demons) have made their own bonds with summoners. What I like about this is that it explains why no eidolons look like humans or horses (none of them are based on this sort of identity), yet it doesn't have to explain why everything but those creature types are allowed (you're working with a limited set at any one time).
Thanks for helping spark that idea, Chris. :)
James Jacobs wrote:
By the way, I didn't mention it in my last post, but I found those two points above to be helpful. Thanks again.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's important PURELY as a way to keep the eidolon's flavor from drifting into the territory of other classes.
Well, that's a good explanation for why that rule was put there. Thanks for that bit of insight.
Still, I'd like some reason within the context of the game. Just as characters don't talk about how many hit points and feats they have, they also wouldn't talk about the flavour of their classes. So how would the characters themselves (or knowledgeable NPCs) explain it? It's cool that it's open for GMs to figure out on their own, but I'm a little stumped. If anyone has suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
I figured that it would be about preventing you from hiding the fact that you got one. I'm just not sure why that's so important. Perhaps it would depend on the details of the campaign. Then again, if that were an issue, you could always stipulate that summoners and their eidolons are common enough such that when people see the symbol on their foreheads, they recognize them for what they are.
More importantly, though, I'm wondering what sort of in-game explanation can be given. That's what I'm having a much harder time with.
I like your suggestion, though, of adding extraordinary features. I suppose that if they're subtle enough but still exotic (like blue hair or red eyes or a slightly metallic sheen to the skin), then it would fit some of the ideas I have.
In describing the summoner's eidolon, the APG says that "The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature." What counts as a "fantastical creature"? Does this mean that I can't have an eidolon that looks like a human or a horse? What about an elf? In the real world, we consider elves fantastical, but do they count as such in a fantasy world? But if we're thinking in terms of a fantasy world, what does count as fantastical? And if we do assume that an eidolon cannot look like a human, what would be the reason behind this?
And, yes, family is genetics.
The two are not equivalent.
First, you are confusing between words as they are used in everyday English and as they are operationalized in the context of a game. For example, in the game, confused means, among other things, "A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies." This is not how we normally use the word "confused" in English, but it's the label (legitimately) given to a specific condition in the game. Likewise, the word "bloodline" need not mean exactly the same thing as the word typically does in English.
However, even if you assume that "bloodline" in the game must mean the same as the typical word does in English, then you are still mistaken. I have the same last name as my father. This is due to my bloodline, but genetics has nothing to do with it. There is no gene for last names. What we inherit from our parents is partly genetic, partly social, etc. An example from fantasy literature that can easily be interpreted as a "sorcerer bloodline" is found in Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone. Elric can perform magic because of a pact that his ancestors made with the Lords of Chaos and other supernatural beings (not because his ancestors mated with any of them). They help him out (i.e., allow him to use magic) because of his bloodline, because he's a member of a specific family, not because of any genetic factor. Presumably, if a family with a completely different genetic makeup had the same pact, members of that family would also be able to use the magic.
Thanks for the replies. Dark Markets looks good, I'll pick that up.
I did have Paizo products specifically in mind, yes. I've got Tales of the Caliphate Nights, GURPS Arabian Nights, and all of the Al-Qadim products (and Dragon articles), but I like the flavour I've seen from Paizo so far, so I was wondering what else they had.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Just the other day, I was thinking that I hope you never sell. I've seen the changes in TSR and WotC when the people running those companies changed.
If you actually read what I wrote, I was making a comparison in how useful and on-topic such comments are. I did not claim that anyone made a comment about baseball in this thread.
As Laurefindel said, Pathfinder is more like a set of knives. It does all the things that 3.5 did (and more), and I have often used 3.5 with low magic and even no magic games. It was perfectly playable, and the modifications were pretty easy.
Knight who says Neek! wrote:
Good for you. Ignore the nay-sayers. Given that you've said you want to use Pathfinder, telling you to use another system is about as useful and on-topic as someone coming to these boards to tell us that we should be playing baseball instead of RPGs. Do people really not get that?
Knight who says Neek! wrote:
If someone really wants to start as a commoner, how about letting them take a few extra levels to balance things out? Proficiency with the longbow can be had with a feat, which isn't so bad with the extra levels.
And for those espousing another NPC book...my question to you is this: What do you really want it to cover that the NPC Guide, GameMastery Guide, and upcoming Rival Guide don't have covered? And don't forget the couple of NPCs that come in each Player's Companion volume as well. Other than an NPC Guide II that coveres the new APG classes (and maybe delayed to cover the Magus and any new classes that Ultimate Combat introduces), I really cannot understand why anyone would prefer it to a new Bestiary.
Turning the question back on you, with all the monsters being published, do you really need any more? Sure, it may be nice to have more variety... and that's why some people want more NPCs. Having more stat blocks makes it more likely that you'll have the sort of NPC you want without having to work out the details yourself - same with having more monsters. All those NPCs can give you ideas that you may not have thought of - just as having extra monsters can. Same reasoning in both cases.
If you've ever played "Darklands" before (it's a computer game), just make your game more like that. If you haven't, download it and DOSbox. And play it. It's awesome.
I remember this! The booklet that came with it describes a fabulous medieval setting. I should try to find where I have that stored.
3.rd (almos) no Female ps's remember woman had very few rights in medival europe.
There have been women in the Middle Ages who rose to positions of prominence. Joan of Arc is only one example. That they may have been rare (or that you want to make them rare in your world) is no reason to restrict the PCs this way. Adventurers were also very rare, but it would be ludicrous to use that as an excuse to restrict the PCs to playing serfs. PCs are supposed to be exceptional.
You might want to check out the Kingdoms of Legends World Guide. It uses the Pathfinder rules to create a pseudo-historical setting. You can find it at this link.
Knight who says Neek! wrote:
* Either all humans or have the fantasy races linked up to real cultures. For example our stereotype Orc Barbarian is now a Mongol, and the Elves are all Celts.
A stereotype orc barbarian should, at most, be identified with a stereotype of a Mongol.
Incidentally, I believe Tolkien once likened orcs (in appearance) to Mongols in one of his letters.
Knight who says Neek! wrote:
Most priests are NPC Experts not Clerics. Your Cleric becomes the equivalent of a legendary Saint.
Or you could have clerics be the elite members of the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller.
Other than that, I like the ideas of using E6 (or least limiting NPCs that way, assuming your PCs won't abuse their power), restricting wizardry to Byzantium and the Islamic world, and having arms and armour be granted by a liege.
I hadn't looked at that yet. I just assumed it was specific NPCs for Golarion. Having just check out the description, it's likely that I'll pick this up. Thanks. :)
I would love to see a book of NPCs. Here are some things I'd like to see in it.
Short stat-blocks of NPCs of all classes (including APG classes and the NPC classes) from levels 1 to about 6. No info on race included in the stat-blocks, but have simple templates to add those details (which should include goblins, orcs, etc.). These would be used if you want the stats for some random NPC (e.g., the PCs attack someone and the DM hadn't anticipated needing the stats). Only low level NPCs here, because higher level NPCs should not be quite so generic.
NPCs with a whole page devoted to them. These would be fleshed out more, perhaps have interesting options like multiclassing, and have a short description.
I'd also like to see the iconics represented in such a book. A full page for each, or perhaps even two, to provide room for stats at several levels.
I'd happily copy/paste/print some Oracle archetypes for house rules until 2012 or 2013 when we see an Ultimate book for the holy types. :)
You may not have to wait that long. I think I've read a post in which one of the Paizo staff stated that there will only be the two Ultimate books. That means that if they present archetypes, you'll find oracle archetypes in Ultimate Magic. That's what I'm hoping for. :)
Very good point. You can deal with that by having the revelations always be based off the same stat used for spellcasting. So, for example, if a life oracle chooses to use Wisdom for spellcasting and also takes the channel revelation, she'd be able to use it a number of times per day equal to 1 + her Wisdom (rather than Charisma) modifier.
There's another issue that comes up with the lore mystery, though. One of its revelations is mental acuity, which grants an inherent bonus to Intelligence. If the lore oracle uses Intelligence for spellcasting, this could be overpowered. I suppose I'd handle that by having the bonus apply to Wisdom, if Intelligence is used for spellcasting. The lore keeper revelation also needs work. Maybe the simplest way of handling the lore oracle, if I still want to change the stat for spellcasting, would be to just change it to Wisdom rather than Intelligence.
Thanks for drawing my attention to this issue. I'll need to look at each revelation carefully before deciding whether the make these changes.
There already are three wisdom divine casters I like how oracle goes over to the paladin side with charisma. The inner contemplation works for some of the oracle mysteries but for others it does not fit like battle, bone, or fire. People do not choose to become an oracle it is forced upon them and is a source of conflict. It is the oracle’s will of personality that allows them to become powerful. Charisma fits the oracle as their primary attribute in my opinion.
As I said, I'm reflavouring the oracles so that they are not merely chosen by the gods. While I'm not making these changes for a Dragonlance campaign, if your familiar with the Dragonlance mystic, that's kinda the flavour I'm going for. It's based on an inner power that's independent of the gods. Some of them are healers, some have ties with nature, some are Dark Knights, etc. Force of personality (Charisma) is a perfect fit for some, but others are more quiet contemplatives (Wisdom).
You're right about inner contemplation not working for oracles of battle, bone, or flame. Now that you mention it, I think I would lean towards only using Wisdom with some specific mysteries.
The problem with reducing them to a full arcane caster hit die is it makes the oracle class less attractive. the cleric/oracle spell lists lacks the versatility of the sorcerer/wizard and the majority of cleric/oracle spells are touch which makes a low hit point and low armor caster close to the fighting a liability in comparison to an armored cleric. Divine casters do not require the complex gestures that arcane casters have. Giving a divine class spell failure is a bit much.
That's why I added the extra skill points and the extra revelations. Do you think that's not a reasonable trade? I find the revelations to be pretty good, better than the class abilities of clerics, sorcerers, and wizards, especially since oracles get so many of them. My martially weak oracles would get even more.
One thing I love about the oracle is that it is a very versatile class. A battle oracle and a life oracle, for example, feel very different, yet use the same base class. That, in my mind, is great class design.
However, I must admit that I would like there to be a little more variation. Further, there are some aspects of the class itself that I'm not happy with. I wanted to share my ideas on this, and I welcome constructive feedback.
First of all, I really dislike the oracle's curses. The idea is an interesting one, but I don't like the implementation, and I don't like the fact that every oracle (and only oracles, for that matter) must be burdened with them. Part of the reason is that I want to reflavour oracles for my campaign - rather than being selected/burdened by the gods, an oracle's power comes from contemplation and drawing on one's inner power, and nothing about that suggests they must be cursed. I know, I could work curses into this flavour, but I don't want to. This issue with the curses doesn't worry me too much, however, because I think class would work perfectly fine if I simply removed the curse entirely, both the curse itself and its associated benefits.
Second, while using Charisma for spellcasting works, I also like the idea of having oracles use Wisdom for spellcasting. This is tied to the idea of their power coming from inner contemplation, which I associate with Wisdom. As with the curses, I see no problem with simply making the switch. However, in this case, I'd like a little variety, so I may allow the player to choose which stat will be used in spellcasting. This choice would be made during character creation, and once chosen, it can never be changed. Or, I may decide that certain oracle mysteries use Charisma while others use Wisdom (and I may, in fact, have the lore mystery use Intelligence). I understand that some stats can be more advantageous in some ways, but given that all stats have their uses, I'm not overly worried about this. If you disagree, I'm happy to hear why. FWIW, I've also considered having the sorcerer cast with Intelligence (or at least having sorcerers with the arcane bloodline use Intelligence).
There's one more way that I'd like more variation among oracles, and that's in combat ability. While I can understand why many oracles would wear armour and engage in melee, I picture oracles of life and lore to be less martial. (Again, I can see why they could be more martially inclined, but I like having the option that they are not.) So, I propose that oracles have the option of making the following changes. First, drop all armour and shield proficiency. Next, reduce BAB to the poor progression, and reduce HD to d6. I'm toying with the idea of giving them spell failure in armour, but I'm not sure about that yet. To balance out these losses, I would increase their skill points to 6 + Int modifier per level, and I would give them a revelation every odd level (so, in addition to the ones they already get, they also get revelations at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17). I may require this change for some mysteries and disallow it for others, rather than making it the player's choice (although in either case, the battle oracle would not be allowed this option). As before, this feels a reasonable change to me, but I'd be happy to hear reasons why people may disagree.
Jason Nelson wrote:
I'm glad to hear that the APG was designed this way. This is good game design. Thinking outside the box is valuable when people are limited by the box, but ignoring what's in the box, as Jason shows, is equally limiting.
Jason Nelson wrote:
The archivist is the super-deluxe "knowledge bard" - they get more and better lore-type powers and (amusingly) have the ability to bore people to sleep with a pedantic lecture or baffle them into confusion with highfalutin mumbo-jumbo.
I so want to play one of these.
OT Facebook rant: The thing that gets me about Facebook is that it doesn't seem possible to delete your account. Our nephew signed my husband up for Facebook, and when he got sick of fielding friend requests, he went in to try and cancel the account. Yet still whenever I get one of those "So-and-so wants you to join Facebook and see their pictures" e-mails, in the "other people you might know on Facebook" my husband's supposedly-erased account appears. (And how do they know I know those people when I'm not even on Facebook? Creepy.)
Yes, there's a difference between deactivating your account and deleting it. And they don't make it easy to figure out how to delete it. Here's a link to an article that tells you what you need to know about your privacy settings, and at the end it gives a link to where you can delete your account - or so it says, I haven't tried it.