Estrosiath's page

If this edition goes through as is, even though I have been playing magic casters since the first edition of dungeons, I suppose I will have to stop. Might be the edition that actually has to stop me playing fantasy tabletop RPGS completely (and I have been playing for 29 years).

I am just in awe at the fact that even Paizo seems to be taking "balance" into account, as if Pathfinder had become some sort of MMORPG or Moba game where people whine that x is overpowered.

Summon monster? Gutted. Read the concentration rules. Good luck using making use of the summoned monster, and also enjoy the tasty one minute max duration.

Enchantment school? I mean... Not sure what to even say. It's gone.

Everything has a shorter duration or a lessened effect. And going with the "unlimited" cantrip as a sort of band aid is, in my opinion, a terrible imitation of the 5th edition.

I thought the objective of a new edition was to improve upon precedent work, like Pathfinder had with the sorry mess that was 3,5. Instead, they decide to radically change everything for the sake of changing. And they don't even simplify anything.

Numerous other things also flabbergast me - no more smite for paladins. Rangers looking... Well, less than useful to be polite. I suppose they will sell new books and that it will be sufficient to keep Paizo afloat for a new more years, but I am so disappoint by what I see, I honestly expected a lot more from such a great company.

Good evening, fellow rule lawyers.

The feat goblin gunslinger reads:
You have learned how to fire the big guns.
Prerequisites: Goblin.
Benefit: You can wield Medium firearms without taking the penalty for an inappropriately sized weapon.
Normal: You take a –2 penalty when using an inappropriately sized weapon.

Now, I am aware that some exceedingly stupid people abused the paragraph of the firearms rule that said “The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it.”, by going around lugging large firearms on small characters and other such nonsense, which forced Paizo to produce the following errata:

The text of the rule is, “The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it.” The intent of that rule was to prevent a Medium character from using a Small rifle as a one-handed pistol; it wasn’t intended to let a Medium character use a Large, Huge, Gargantuan, or Colossal two-handed firearm as a two-handed weapon. Just like with non-firearms, a creature cannot wield a weapon that’s far too big or small for it. Specifically in the case of firearms, a Medium character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Large or larger creature, and a Small character can’t use a two-handed firearm sized for a Medium or larger creature.

Now, my question is as follows (please read carefully before answering...)

Given the feat and the following errata, the goblin gunslinger feat is literally useless.

All it would do, as things stand, is to allow a small goblin to wield a medium sized pistol two handed, and fire it with no penalties.

The problem here is that a medium pistol deals 1d8 damage, whereas a small sized musket deals 1d10 (and also needs to be wielded two-handed).

Please take into account that although goblins are seen as "comical relief", the other goblin racial feats are not useless, quite far from it.

To me it seems like the original feat intended for goblins to be able to use medium sized firearms with no penalties - and thus be able to wield a medium sized musket (the increase in damage is 1d10 ---> 1d12, hardly anything to write home about) two-handed with no penalties, to emphasize their destructive nature. What do you think?

I would of course welcome an official errata of said feat. As it stands, I would really like to be able to keep my medium musket for the fun of it, but am prepared to give up that op extra 1d2 damage dice for other feats.

Thank you for your help.

Edit: I am aware of other board posts about this. I did, however, bring some more reasoning to the table.

Does anyone have them, and/or have any suggestions on how to build them correctly?

Sleep is 1st level and affects 4 HD
Deep Slumber is 3rd level and affects 10 HD

Eternal rest as a level 5 spell that affects between 15 to 25 HDs? Should "successive" spells all have a 2 level leap and affect further HDs? Or was the sleep line discontinued because it was deemed too powerful to continue?

Thanks for any and all help :)

Anyone know of a good PF compatible supplement that offers one? I am starting to tire of the Vancian system. Thanks a lot for any and all help!

So.
Now we have the Core Rulebook, 2 Bestiaries, the APG as well as Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. And after, we will see a "beginners' set" (not needed IMO, but I suppose it's a good commercial move).

Could we please have, as the next hardcover book, the epic level one? I do not really see anything left to do apart from that (and psionics, but I would say more people will use the Epic level rules than the psionic ones, especially since mind flayers are not included in PFRG).

I know some people prefer low level options. But nowadays, you have a ton of them, yet absolutely nothing about epic level adventures. I do not think it is too much to ask (and pay for), especially when you see that answers about this from official posters started very early on, and yet we still have heard nothing concrete about it.

Do we really need more classes very few people will ever use (cue the Gunslinger)? I do not mean to insult the good people of Paizo, since they have done such an amazing job most of the time, but I have to admit that one truly had me boggled. From all my years of playing RPGs, I have seen precious few people ever wanting to use guns in a fantasy setting, and many, many more being virulently opposed to their existence, much less to their use.

Yes, some people will tell me "It is an option, do not use it if you do not like it!". But I think those people are also familiar with this strange affliction: feeling compelled to use official content, regardless of contempt.

I know I may sound somewhat childish, or even whiny, but this has been a pet peeve of mine ever since the absolutely abysmal ELH Wizard published and then promptly forgot about. Probably one of the worst products ever published, with extremely little thought and effort put into. Which is why I have such high expectations for its replacement.

Thank you for your time.

PS: I have to admit I really want to see Tar-Baphon statted.

Hi... Is there any way of knowing the date when this was shipped? I looked everywhere (as you might imagine, I had been eagerly awaiting this), but could not find any e-mail telling me it had been shipped.

Thanks a lot!

Hi, I was just wondering if someone official (or someone who knows the official line) could answer a couple of questions for me:
1. Progressing after 20th level, spellcasters gain access to one new "Spell level" every odd level. Does having a high intelligence grant access to bonus spells of levels 10th and above?
2. Is there such a thing as a "quasi-deity" in PF? By that, I mean a being with divine rank 0 (or the equivalent). I know PF is backwards compatible, but in my campaign we only use PF material, and nothing else (there is a good reason why the old material had to be revised, after all...).

Thanks a lot for your help!

Up until the Magus, I was simply awed by what Paizo had done with classes. The Core revision was amazing, and the ones from the APG were excellent addition (which I hope will however be supported over time, not just created and then left in a void with no additional feats/options like the ones from the Complete books were in the 3.5 edition).

The Magus? Not so. The Magus is basically, as it is right now, much too weak. Let me elaborate:

In a group, even nowadays, you have four main functions in D and D:

Meat shield: the guy that makes sure the melee bad guys cannot just walk up to the others and start wacking them.
Healer: Self-explanatory
Skill Monkey: Disarm, knowledge, you know you need them at some time (except if your players metagame like crazy, and even then...)
Arcane caster: Too many reasons why you need one.

The Magus cannot fill any of these positions. All the classes up to now could. The Summoner can fill the arcane caster spot, the cavalier the meatshield one, the inquisitor the healer one, etc...

The Magus, as it is now, is incredibly weak and lackluster. It has no "THIS IS MY SIGNATURE ABILITY" like the other classes do. The ones it has are laughable. The Capstone is a joke. It has to burn its spell slots (of which it's not going to have that many to begin with, since it can't just put too much in intelligence) to be even remotely competitive.

I truly, fervently hope (haven't been disappointed so far) that it sees some improvements before it is too late. As of right now, it's much worse than an EK.

My solutions:

- Make it into an analogy of paladin/cleric: both classes rock. Really think hard about how you went about with those.
- Add a lot of touch spells that do not require saving throws to his list (they will probably be in the book, but still). Intelligence will never be as high as the wizard, and it needs to use its feats for melee combat, not to increase his spell DC.
- Combat casting as a bonus feat at first.
- Maybe a bonus to concentration rolls made to cast defensively based on his level?
- Generally add more buffs (using other classes' lists) to his list. As mentioned previously: attack spells that require a saving throw will not be his priority.
- Give him an ability that lets him cast buffs as a free action a limited number of times per day: otherwise by the time he is done buffing himself, combat will be over. Quickened spell is nice, but he gains that at 15th level, much too late. And it is only one time per day. This needs to be gained early on: 2nd level, with one additional time for every third level after that.
- Capstone needs to be changed: at the moment I have no idea at the top of my mind, but look at the others: abilities that kill instanly, permanently summoned monsters, twin eidolons. Its power needs to be revised ten times upwards.
- It needs to be customizable. Do not force them into melee; the class is already going to be fighting the EK for a spot, might as well make it fight the AA for one as well. It needs to be able to use its abilities when using a bow, a sword or a halberd. Not just in melee (of course with range should come a reduction in power of its abilities; after all going into melee is very dangerous for casters nowadays)
- The Arcana all need to be x numbers of times per day depending on level. Also, level limitations need be revised downwards on almost everything
- Spellstrike is OK, but get rid of all penalties. He only has 3/4 BAB... Taking into consideration that he will need to spend points on Str, Dex, Con AND Int, he already has a lower chance to hit anything right off the bat.
a. If you give him -4 and -2 there and there he will never hit or be able to concentrate on his spell worth anything.
b. He simply does not have enough spell per days to go wasting them.

There you go. Hope that helped. Constructive criticism (read: point out an issue and give a solution, not just point out a problem) is welcome.

I was wondering what my fellow DMs do in dealing with this kind of summoned monster. Do you stick with the spell list offered by the MM? Or do you give your players some kind of leeway as to what spells their creatures has memorized when it arrives?

Thanks a lot for the help.

Hi guys, back from a long hiatus, and making a PC.

I have a question that has been nagging me. I seem to remember crossbows dealing their damage (1d8 for light, 1d10 for heavy) regardless of the strength bonus or penalty of their user. Am I correct? Or did I just conjure up this rule from some weird corner of my mind?

Thanks a lot for the help :)

Hi. Just a short question. Jason clarified the two claws attacks for the bidepal eidolon are primary attacks. The "Bite" evolution says that is also a primary attack. Am I correct in assuming that all three attacks are primary then (and not that an obscure rule says if I take a bite attack the claws become secondary)?

Because a bipedal eidolon with a bite, two claws, increased strength and power attack does well at first level then. :)

Hi, I just wanted to thank the Paizo team for the great amount of work they have been doing. The summoner is a great class. I think it needs a bit of work, and I suggest the following things, based on playtesting experience:

- The SM SLA is fine appropriate as "updated" by Jason at lower levels, but at higher levels summons need to be buffed prior to an encounter if they want to survive and influence the fight. Either that, or the summoner must carry a LOT of rods of least quicken spell. I personally suggest a full-time casting but a one-minute duration per level.

- The eidolon is too good at fighting (can really steal the spotlight for melees), and too weak at using magic. The amount of additional attacks you can add is just out of this world.

- The eidolon, at lower levels (read: when the summoner does not have access to extend metamagic rods) has a really low AC, unless you take a serpentine eidolon with improved natural ac AND improved dex. Mage armor lasts one hour per level, maybe enough for two encounters if you are lucky. And the summoner doesn't really have that many spells to waste to begin with.

I suggest:

- 1/2 BAB
- SLAs with a full-round casting time, a duration of one round, and NO limit to how many you can have out at a time (otherwise you discourage people from actually maxing their main casting statistic... and at the end of the day the summoner has a lot of SLAs left).
- Raise the cost of extra attacks available to the eidolon, OR put a soft limit to how many arms/tentacles/claws he can have
- Reduce the evolution point cost for spell-like abilities for the eidolon, and improve his charisma/wisdom. Otherwise he remains limited to spells with no saves or utility spells, and if you use your eidolon for that you are gimping yourself.
- Consider banning spells like wish/miracle, etc... for SLAs for Eidolons.

I just wanted to thank Paizo for the work they did on the Beta version. As far as I am concerned (and my DM agrees), they did a perfect job. Took care of all the REAL issues (as far as we are concerned, that is), and did such a brilliant job at it that it almost unbelievable.
- Made all the basic classes great all the way to the 20th level. Added many interesting mechanics for classes like the barbarian and the paladin. I don't think they are that hard to take care of.
- Went over feats brilliantly - finally fighters will have different styles, because of the limits on feats usage like Power Attack, Expertise, etc...
- Tackled the issue with too many attacks with feats like devastating blow and vital strike
- Took care of the REAL problems with clerics. Thank god, no more clerics being better than fighters at what fighters do.
- Solved the Polymorph issue brilliantly.
- Also solved the "save or die" conundrum brilliantly. Still deadly, but no longer likely to kill enemies with a ton of hps instantly.
- Streamlined fighting maneuvers with the CMB.
- Managed the CR issue brilliantly as well.
- Thanks to the power-up of basic classes, also made NPC creation much faster. My DM now hardly ever needs to factor in PrCs into the equation for most of his NPCs, which saves him a great deal of time.

That's it, I guess. I can hardly pile more praise on you guys, and yet you deserve more. I just hope they can come up with something as good for the epic levels (unsure if they are even going to try, but I for one would love it).

Well... I like 99% of Pathfinder, but I think the changes to Cleave and Great Cleave were not needed.

I really didn't understand the idea behind making Cleave and Great Cleave weaker. They are feats that see a lot of use at the early levels, and gradually lose their usefulness as you go up. Now great cleave is very much useless, unless you happen to be facing lots of weak enemies (which honestly isn't the case very often) lined up. In order for Great Cleave to be worth using as it, you need to be facing (at high levels of fighters) at LEAST 5 enemies, all close together, since as a 16th level fighter you have 4 attacks per round.

How often does that happen? Not very often. I think they shoud be brought back to the way things were before.

Ah, also CMB... Well. I understand wanting to simply the mechanics, and I definitely salute the effort, but did they playtest it?

I did a quick check... Tried to pitch a plain fire giant (CR 10) against a human level 10 fighter (who started with 18 strength, put two points in strength at level ups, and owns a +4 to strength item, and has one of the improved xxx feats).
CMB of the fighter: 19.
DC to do anything to the giant: 37 (15 base + 11 BAB + 10 strength + 1 size)

Now, only being able to do anything to the giant on a 18+ I think is rather extreme. Either you lower the base of the CMB check to 10, or put the improved xxx feats back to granting a +4 bonus. I understand they are getting rid of the combat feats (thank god - it's useless trying to strengthen the fighters, and granting them tons of feats, if you then make their most interesting abilities usable once per round), but the CMB mechanic is a good idea. Just not the way it is right now.

Oh, and although I salute the fix to Power Attack, by the gods, the Expertise one is probably one of the worst mistakes of the edition. Even if you do not take into account the fact the suggested point buy system is murder, even with the 25 points suggested for epic play, do you know many fighters of any kind that have high intelligence?

Not every feat needs to have paralellism... Limiting PA to Strength or BAB is fine, but Expertise shouldn't be limited this way. If there really MUST be a limit (I personally don't see why...), it ought to be at most 1/2 the BAB of the character using it.

Thoughts?

Hi again.

I noticed something else - in the list of revised spells, there was no mention of Phantasmal killer. I'm sure it must have slipped through your fingers, but since you modified all the other instant kill spells, it would not make much sense to keep a level 4 spell that can achieve things a level 7 can no longer do...

As such, I would propose something along the lines of - fail both saving throws, take CL x 10 damage (like finger of death) - fail only one, take 3d6+ 1/CL damage.

But regardless of whether you take my method or not, please change it. ;)

Thanks.

Hi, a friend of mine pointed out a major problem within the system.

If you let the result of a perform check set the DC for saving throws against bardic abilities, such as deadly performance, you absolutely need to either point out that spells/magic items that add bonuses to the perform check do not work on such a roll, or either change the way those spells/magic items function. Otherwise a 20th level bard is an absolute death machine, much worse than any pre-pathfinder necromancer could have ever hoped to be.

This is also true for skills like Acrobatics, which actually provide bonuses in battles, like not getting hit by AoO. The modification you did was very much in the right direction (it is now harder to move through the threatened area of opponents with high BABs), but it is rendered useless if you can easily obtain items that grant up to +30 to the check.

This also holds true for classes who gain a lot of skill points per level - it supposed to give them an edge over the others in a certain way, but if you keep the price of a +10 magic item the way it is now, their advantages are easily nullified. Same deal if you keep the level/duration of spells that grant bonuses to abilities at the same level.

Spells/Magic items like that ensure that feats like Skill focus, which grants a modest +3, are almost never taken by spellcasters, unless they are needed to reach a prestige class. And it is my opinion that "Waste a feat" should not be a pre-req for any PrC - I'd like every feat to be useful, although I realize some will remain more useful than others.

Case in point, glibness vs Skill focus Bluff - +30 vs +3.

I would also like to point out that I prefer the skill system where no class has a set of skills set in stone. Much better, in my opinion, to have a system where every character picks which skill he has learned. I see no reason to limit access to skills based on class.

I just wanted to thank the writers and realisators of Pathfinder RPG. You have done an amazing work, and it shows, even if only in the Alpha. You have plugged many of the most glaring holes in the rules, and fixed most of the problems. The improvements of the game are crystal-clear - if the beta version proves to be better even than the Alpha, you will in effect have produced a system that will in essence be immortal (and, in my honest opinion, much better than the 4th).

Again, I salute you!

All that's left is to tone down some of the most powerful schools (enchantment), and you'll be done.