Etales's page

Organized Play Member. 63 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'm impressed how polite this discussion has remained even though some of you have very strong feelings either way. I appreciate that we're all being civilized here and I think that reflects on the caliber of player and GMs we have in Pathfinder Society. So thanks. :-)

I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.

Hypothetical Replay Rule
In the course of running a season of Pathfinder Society Organized Play, it sometimes becomes necessary to allow players or GMs to replay a scenario with a character that has already played simply so a table of four players can play a scenario. Often this has to do with a player missing a previous event where a scenario was run or has to do with new players wanting to get in on the action but unable to do so because everyone in a local group is playing higher level characters than the new players.

Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure that GMs and coordinators follow the most important (unspoken) rule of Pathfinder Society Organized Play: turn no one away.

Here's how they work:

1. First and foremost, replays are not mandatory for events that run two tables or less or for home games. GMs and coordinators at these events can choose to opt out of replay for any reason they see fit.

2. At any Pathfinder Society Organized Play event of more than three tables, replay must be an option, BUT it is only an option to make sure legal tables are able to muster. For example, if there are three players who have not played scenario #1 and one player who has and your only option to getting this table launched legally is to allow that one player to then replay #1, then this is a legal method of replay.

3. Replay is not intended for players to simply replay the same scenario repeatedly for credit. A Society group, for example, cannot play the same scenario 10 times just to level up a variety of characters.

4. Replay is not intended to

I agree,

this is well thought out & I am glad to be a part of a community of individuals who are commited to keeping the intengrity of the Pathfinder Society intact while making it as "new sheep friendly" as possible.

Liberty's Edge

Snow Crash wrote:

Hey, never played PFS before just homegames. Looking at playing a few sessions at GenConOz. I have a nice concept for a cleric of Pharasma but I am worried that he won't be terribly useful except as a support character. Little armour, just a dagger, no Str, more of a pure spell caster with a few social skills.

How important is it in PFS to be optimised and how much is character flavour? I know in RPGA you would just about get shot for coming to a con with a non combat orientaed character.

Here is my experience in way of example,

While a lot of the modules are 4-5 encounters and many of those are combat encounters there is a ton of opportunity for Role-playing & characters that would be considered non-optimized.
I think the overall tone is set by the players at the table & the GM running the Scenario. I recently attended Mini-Mega Con in Orlando, FL with 2 friends and the Three of us are all playing Halflings.

We are "Cayden's Low-Riders" composed of my Halfling Cleric, Brewer & part time Bartender "Padrin Fallowhide" of Cayden & his Riding Dog "Norm", Jurlaxle Underleaf, Paladin of Cayden, & his brave Dog steed Ambrosius, & Lelo Leafgallow, Locksmith, Scout, Finder of lost things & Storyteller astride his surly dog Tabernac! Not a single one of us is optimized/min-maxed but we succeeded in every mod & have a great time doing it.
So, have fun! They wont turn down the spells your cleric brings to the table.

Liberty's Edge

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

First of all, let me say this before I post my next question:


Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):

1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.

As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?

I'm genuinely curious

This is a tough question, and a good one.

Here's my take on it,

I vote replays with different characters perhaps with specific or limited Scenarios & here are the reasons why;

1)The gaming group I am a part of has 9 players. Of which, 4 can get together to play with any real frequency. This creates problems when participating in the PFS since it leaves many of them multiple levels behind the core players.

2)Before the Pathfinder Society I was the primary gamemaster and ran once a week. I rarely got an opportunity to play except at conventions,which were few and far between.

3)Now with the release of the core book and the PFS DM rewards I have players who are stepping up to run games and I finally get an opportunity to play. Since the core book was launched, we have been playing twice a week and have attended a convention and have already completed 16 scenarios.

4)Not all 9 players have been available and are now behind. We currently have no replay option to help them catch up as we will run out of lower tiered scenarios before we can get them caught up & cannot play new characters to help them catch up.

So, we will have to have Dungeon Masters rerun for no credit and hope we can field enough players to fill a table out of the 5 semi-available left.

I realize we culd play another RPG or a different Pathfinder game however, if the PFS is what we all want to play & had revitalized our gaming group, why should another game be the only option?

Thank you

Liberty's Edge

I am really excited about this one!

Liberty's Edge

evilvolus wrote:
Etales wrote:
I know this may be a silly question but, If I run a Scenario & thus get partial credit for a character of mine, do I fill out a sheet for him? Add him to the session sheet?

Thank you!

Liberty's Edge

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Assuming a character has enough PA/ Gold,

if they die, and it's either a TPK or the other players refuse to help Resurrect them (ouch!),
is it allowed for them to buy a Resurrection with their PA/ Gold ...


Quandary wrote:

For GMs gaining partial credit for scenarios they run,

does their chosen character gain access to the Chronicle equipment from these scenarios?
Edit: Yes.

I know this may be a silly question but, If I run a Scenario & thus get partial credit for a character of mine, do I fill out a sheet for him? Add him to the session sheet?


Liberty's Edge

Qstor wrote:

for plus +2 weapons does that include special abilities that are +1 like bane? So a PC could have a +1 bane undead longsword?



Hey all,

No official answer on this yet?

Liberty's Edge

Teresake wrote:

Looking at all the local PFSOP threads on here, I had an idea.

Until we get something available to more clearly advertise local events, I thought maybe we could create a google map and point out our information there?

I know people do the "whole where are you located" thing, so I guess it would be similar to that.

If you're organizing a Pathfinder Society in your area, or know of one, simply add it to the map with any play information you can provide, as well as a way to contact someone. (If this is a home game, I do NOT advise putting home address or phone information. Perhaps a common email address, or one created specifically for this purpose.)

I was thinking mostly of using it for US players, but it could definitely be used for international players as well.

Here is the link: Pathfinder Society Google Map

It is editable by anyone.

I hope this helps people find their way into a local game. Good luck!

This was a great idea!

Thank you!

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hello everyone,

I have one last assignment for all of you fanatical playtesters out there. In this thread, I would like to hear the ONE thing that you would change in the rules if you had the power to do so. Since I want to keep this thread nice and orderly.. here are the rules.

1. You can only post to this thread ONCE. If you post a second time, I will delete your post. This includes sock puppets.

2. Only ONE idea in a post. If you want to change channel energy, that is your one idea. Do not add domains to the pot as well. This means that if you want to talk about a class, you should probably limit it to one aspect about the class.

3. Don't bother commenting on someone else's post. I want to hear your idea.

4. Reread rule #1

5. I would like for all of the playtesters to post to this thread once with their idea. This is both an informal poll and a simple census of the current number of active playtesters.

6. EDIT: Please do not start any new threads to talk about specific ideas in this thread. Lets let folks post without having to worry about other comments and feedback. Just ideas... that is all I want.

Thanks for participating in this thread.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

{Ranger Class}Change the Combat Style Machanic to Rogue Style Talents.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:

...to people who have paizo.com accounts, and have their privacy settings set to "Paizo may send me information about Paizo products, services or events by email."

Specifically, good things come to people who have done that by tomorrow, February 19, at oh, noonish.

Feel free to spread the word on that.

Sounds promising.

Liberty's Edge

brock wrote:
LarsenSan wrote:
Let me say you this: this is a team-oriented RPG, not a PVP-oriented videogame. There's no point in trying to find a perfect balance. That would only kill all the fun.

A perfectly balanced game would be taking turns to flip a coin to find out who wins each combat - no fun for anyone.

More importantly - it is not possible to 'balance' the game without reducing it to that. I don't mean 'hard' I mean 'not possible'. There are indeed 'broken' bits of 3.5 that Jason is doing an excellent job of identifying and fixing. However we should not be striving to have all characters getting equal shares of the action all of the time or being equally useful all of the time - that way mediocrity and homogeneity lie.

LarsenSan wrote:
It's like I'd want to play in Cyberpunk with a guy without a single cybernetic implant and with only edge weapons, and pretend to be as capable as a guy with cybernetic-enhanced senses, reflexes and muscles wielding a pulse rifle and plasma grenades.

To me, that sounds like a fun character to play, but I certainly wouldn't complain when I turned into a dark shadow on a wall - that would have been the point of playing a deliberately out-of-theme character in that world.

Likewise, I wouldn't complain if my Paladin was blown to ashes by a single spell from an evil Necromancer while charging in to cover the retreat of a party who had been ambushed by him - he's a hurler of dark and potent magic for pities sake, of course he should be able to slay you with a single word! At least I'd bought the party a round of running.

I agree with you Brock,

Here is how I see it,
4th Ed. harshly leveled the playing field and turned Dungeons & Dragons into A "no child left behind" game. Everyone plays an equal part, with clearly defined & inflexible roles. So common are their abilities that they pretty much do the same damage/actions/effects with colorful descriptions added in to give the illusion of individuality to their "click powers".
That is why I don’t play it.
And, some folks may like that.
However, everyone should have fun when they sit down to play & hopefully the DM chooses to include house rules that tailor the flavor of the game to suit his player’s & his or her own tastes & style.

I feel that trying to turn magic from a force to be reckoned with into a “minor inconvenience” which I feel the above listed changes & recovery save mechanics will do. This could in my opinion fundamentally damage the game.
Spellcasters are fundamentally dangerous unless you can reach them. That’s why they died so easy in 2nd Ed.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:

i've put up my Pathfinderized Arcane Legionary for people to rip apart. It's a gish type core class

Available here

Please let me know what you think.

This is a great class w/ a lot of potential

Liberty's Edge

Garrett Turner wrote:
Give unto me new improved, errata free copies! I demand it!

/Sign me!

I would love an updated copy for myself & We have only 2 books for 6 players in my group!

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:

I'll work on re-editing it and also putting the spellstalker up as well.

It's d8 as that a) fits the Pathfinder standard, b) matches the bard and c) matches the psychic warrior.

Thank you!

it is a solid class I am already looking to playtest it next time I get a chance to play.

Liberty's Edge

This is a great class & I am interested in trying it out.
Does anyone know what the Hit Die is?

My Search Fu failed....



Liberty's Edge

Eric Tillemans wrote:

The feature of discounting prices on magic items if the item has a skill requirment or some other restriction such as class or alignment is one that I feel is a problem. Here is the wording for the discount on page 20 of the magic item web enhancement:

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure,
reduce that number if either of the following conditions
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific
skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the
cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more
restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the
cost by 30%.

I don't feel this discount should exist - or perhaps if it does exist it should only reduce the resale price of the item, not the initial costs to create. Otherwise every time a player wants to create an item, he can make it have a class or alignment restriction and benefit from the 30% cost discount.


This, has in my experience been a metagaming tool used to lower the cost of items for min/maxy "Crafterbators".

I do like the idea of failed rolls producing quirks lol

Liberty's Edge

tasslehoff220 wrote:
Etales wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
At a +3 equivilent ability that grants DR 5/magic, it's pretty underpowered, since most enemies you'll be fighting can ignore it. The cheapest you can get this power is on a +4 equivilent armor, which sells for 16K more than the MW version. Comparing to the adamantine price for heavy armor of 15K, which grants 3/- DR, I'd suggest that changing the invulnerability quality to 5/adamantium would be a much better fit for the price. The numeric part of the DR is higher than that granted by adamantium, but it can be overcome. Would that be more balanced for the price?

I agree,

for the price point Invulnerability is not worth it.
*/Magic is almost never useful in my opinion.
As a gm I really disagree. I put my players up against alot of creatures that don't beat DR/ magic but virtually none that beat adamantine. Only creatures using weapons and dragons typically swing magic. Most aberations, undead, demons, and devils do not (some of the most popular monsters). Not to mention that no plants, animals, or constructs swing magic. Some undead swing magic or have magic weapons but most don't. Demons and devils swing evil but not magic (except for balors) Most of their weapons are non magical. Seriously, while I am sure youll be able to find exceptions, there are alot more in the other way. Magical beasts (despite the name) do not often swing magic. Sladdi don't. The point of it being magic is that there are so many things that don't swing magic but it is still beatable. Adamantine is really rare and if you start fighting alot of creatures with adamantine weapons, well then there is no point in it being adamantine in the first place then. The other great thing about invulnerable armor is that you can have it on light armor. Not everyone wears full plate. A barbarian or rogue could have invulnerable armor but adamantine woudl not work well for either.

Tasslehoff220, I respect your input.

this is from the Damage reduction secion of the SRD:

Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

So if the monster has DR/Magic is is a magic weapon with it's natural attacks. There are a lot of monsters with DR/magic. I seem to remember something about Monster Hit dice counting toward magic weapons but, I may be cross-editioning.

Liberty's Edge

Thraxus wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Prolly licensing.
True, Odin is pretty strict.

Agreed, and they should be a bit tougher if they are Odin's boys

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:
Currently, other than needing a different craft feat, there's not a big difference between a ring and a woundrous item. I don't have any suggestions, but I think it would be a good thing if rings somehow were different, similar to how staves are different from wands.

The Item creation feats from Arcana Evolved solve these issues quite well & they are OGL.

-Craft Single Use
-Craft Spell Completion
-Craft Arms & Armor
-Craft Continous

Vey easy to use & understand

Liberty's Edge

Aberrant Templar wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
The handy haversack is another item too cheap to be true, and in my experience, it's almost always bought as soon as the party can afford it. In addition to being cheaper than a bag of holding, it is superior to it since you can take items out without provoking AoOs and as a move action, all for 1000gp.

While I most certainly agree that the Handy Haversack is a little on the cheap side, I should point out that the smallest Bag of Holding can hold twice as much weight-wise than the entire Haversack. It can also fit objects over three times larger than what you can put in the largest part of the Haversack.

The main part of the Handy Haversack has a lot of space inside, but 80 lbs can fill up really fast. Great for things you may need in a pinch on an adventure, but if you plan on looting a dungeon then you can't beat a couple Bags of Holding.

And the cost helps those Small characters that can barely carry thier weapons & armor.

Liberty's Edge

Laurefindel wrote:

Magic Items can be powerful. They definitively add a lot to the character's resources during and adventure, and never mind during an encounter.

For an adventurer with lots of money and the right basin of population (a big enough city to allow big transactions to occur), there is no way of knowing which items should be easy to find and which might require more "digging" and potentially shady dealings.

DMs are not in a better situation, as they have to know every magic item in order to dictate its availability according to its campaign, and to the level of magic accessibility he or she desires.

Could there be an AVAILABILITY descriptor, or line for magic items, such as Common, Rare, Extremely Rare, Illegal etc. Even if the tag does not convey any mechanical modifiers, a common reference to the availability to magic items would be welcome (from my parts anyway).

Campaign settings and adventure site could alter this descriptor according to different locations, such as boot of elvencraft being common rather than rare in an elven city, or carpets of flying being rare rather than extremely rare in [insert 1001-night inspired country].


I like this Idea.

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:
At a +3 equivilent ability that grants DR 5/magic, it's pretty underpowered, since most enemies you'll be fighting can ignore it. The cheapest you can get this power is on a +4 equivilent armor, which sells for 16K more than the MW version. Comparing to the adamantine price for heavy armor of 15K, which grants 3/- DR, I'd suggest that changing the invulnerability quality to 5/adamantium would be a much better fit for the price. The numeric part of the DR is higher than that granted by adamantium, but it can be overcome. Would that be more balanced for the price?

I agree,

for the price point Invulnerability is not worth it.
*/Magic is almost never useful in my opinion.

Liberty's Edge

quest-master wrote:

Vorpal - A +5 bonus for an effect that occurs only on a natural roll of 20. An effect that insta-kills the target, no saving throw allowed.

I have never seen anybody play with this and if I ever got it, I would trade for something else, even if the something else was much weaker.

It can make an encounter end anti-climatically with a single lucky roll, especially if it was the first attack made (leaving a taste of disappointment in the other players' mouths).

It's a huge amount of investment for an effect that occurs infrequently.

There are many types of opponents that aren't killed by this.

I think it needs a make over.

Here are some possible changes;

1. Make keen property a prerequisite for Vorpal, making Vorpal act as a keen weapon.
2. Make Vorpal a +3 property that includes keen. Or maybe higher if a change includes any or all of the following. Intermediate properties could be created between keen and vorpal as well.
3. Vorpal automatically confirms a threat.
4. Vorpal deals maximum damage on a critical hit.
5. Vorpal ignores damage reduction and item hardness.
6. Vorpal includes piercing weapons (if current effect is changed to any of #1 - 5)

Let the head rolling be when the enemy's hit points is dropped to automatic death amount. Let the DM describe the enemy's death in a cinematic fashion instead of a game mechanic doing so.

What do you guys think about this? Do you prefer Vorpal as is or do you want some changes that make sense?

Vorpal is one of those "Sacred Cows" that has yet to find it's way to it's final reward. Items that do hit location based damage in an abstract hit point based system do not work.

If it remains, I really like:
3. Vorpal automatically confirms a threat.
4. Vorpal deals maximum damage on a critical hi

Just my 2 cents

Liberty's Edge

Eric Tillemans wrote:

Animated shields are broken. They make the 1 handed weapon as an option at high levels irrelevant and allow two handed fighters the best of both worlds - good defense and good offense. I also hate the flavor - the idea of a shield floating around and blocking things for a warrior type like Conan just doesn't float my boat.

My worse nightmare is a character weilding a spiked chain and utlizing an animated shield. Oh the pain! Make it stop!


This is a metagaming tool & really should have a time limit if nothing else, Like a dancing weapon does.

Liberty's Edge

Good Afternoon,

I have been Dungeon Mastering and playing RPGs for a long time & since the advent of 3.0 and forward I have not seen anything tank a game faster then a wondrous item made from scratch by players.

Understanding the reality of "Rule 0"

1) Is Pathfinder doing anything to address this?

2) Are there some spells that should not be made into unlimited use items? (I.E. Mnemonic Enhancer,Disintegrate,Heal...) Etc..

3) Arcana Evolved gave an additional multiplier on certain Spells depending on the power level of the spell.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Liberty's Edge

Skester wrote:

One of my guys came up with this. I'm not to sure to allow it. Am I misreading the rules, or is it "possible"

Holy Symbol of Curing.
Use-activated spell (so it takes a standard action) - Cure Light
Wounds, cast at level 1. 2000gp
No body slot affinity. x2

So for 4000 gold, you basically have an unlimited wand of cure light wounds.


It is possible,by the rules

however what I would ask myself is...

1) Do you want this in your game?
2) Will it unbalance your game?
3) Does it invalidate clerics?
4) If this Item can be made for so little money why do clerics exist? Will the temples of your world allow these to exist when it could cut into their "healing services" (Collection plate?)

But, that's just my 2 cents.
Personally, I am not a fan of items like this personally. It is far to easy to throw off game balance once with even low level spells when they become "at will" abilities.

Liberty's Edge

The group I play with uses the following house rules for Massive Damage.

They work very well in play.

The massive damage rule presented in the Player's Handbook is designed for games of heroic fantasy. It maintains the remote possibility that a single blow from a mighty opponent can kill a character, regardless of the character's actual hit points.

Each player should record his character's massive damage threshold somewhere on the character sheet (to avoid mid-battle calculations), and the DM may want to add massive damage threshold values to monster and NPC statistics blocks for the same reason.

A massive damage threshold is equal to 1/2 of the maximum hit points
for the level and hit die type of the creature.

Whenever a character takes damage from a single hit that equals or exceeds this value, he must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save (modified by any excessive damage – see scaling the saving throw) or suffer the effects of being overwhelmed by a massively damaging attack.
For example:
A 5th-level fighter has a massive damage threshold of 25 points (one-half of 5 x d10)
A 15 HD fire giant has a massive damage threshold of 75 points (one-half of 15 x d10)
And a 21 HD White Dragon has a massive damage threshold of 105 points (one-half of 21 x d10)
A character that fails the saving throw is immediately reduced to at least -1 (or less) hit points. A character who fails his Fortitude save against massive damage rolls a 1d10 to determine his negative hit point total. A roll of 1 to 9 indicates that the character is dying (at -1 hp on a 1, -2 hp on a 2. and so forth). A roll of a 10 leaves the character with -10 hit points, which means he is dead.

For every 5 points of damage dealt by an attack in excess of a character's massive damage threshold, increase the Fortitude save DC by 1. This rule functions the same regardless of the threshold you choose to use.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:

I've been part of more then one campaign that went downhill due to over summoning by the caster, and I'm playing a conjurer with augment summons right now, and it is hard to resist flooding every battlefield with summoned creatures.

While ideally it is a matter of player etiquette not to take an undue amount of time and space with summons, when it comes time for your character to shine, game time has a way of passing differently for different players. Also what works great in a three person party (especially without a fighter type) may wreck the game for a larger group.

Perhaps limiting the number of summoning spells that can be active to two? Or even one?

I really think this needs to be part of the rules because a mid-to-high level caster can put enough complex creatures into play that the game just slows to a crawl.

Also, can Summon Swarm ramp up to one swarm per 5 caster levels or something...

I have not had that much trouble with Summoned Monsters even with the broketastic Scared Lands Summoner I ran. lol

What about Summoning Spells that summon more powerful creatures but only one at a time. Perhaps with a longer duration?

Also, What about a HD limitation? 2hd per caster level or some such?

Just my 2 cents

Liberty's Edge

Dan Albee wrote:

Well, Monte cook has moved on from game design (mostly), but is listed as a 'design consultant' for PFRPG Beta. This means Jason chats with Monte about the project from time time I guess...

As I find myself (and see and feel many others) becoming more and more excited about PFRPG and the opportunity to see an advancement to the 3.5 system I think to myself "Self, wouldn't it be just great if Monte Cook came on board as a co-author with Jason Buhlman!!?"

Monte- Help make the version of D&D that heralded a golden age of gaming (with the OGL) for the original fantasy rpg be the absolute best it can be!!

Let us raise our voices to storm, post to my petition, and summon Monte from retirement to join the REVOLUTION!!!! (full time.. :)

One last time......


Arcana Unearthed (Evolved) is one one shining example of his talent, dedication & creativity. He should be a bigger part of the wonderful evolution that is Pathfinder.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Roman wrote:
I would like to ask what if anything is Pathfinder RPG doing to mitigate the dependence on magic items that manifests at high levels. I think this is an important issue that could and should be addressed at least to some extent.

This is a complex question, but rest assured, we're working on the solution to combat the dreaded "Christmas Tree Effect." One way we're doing this is by limiting the number of body slots that can be used for stat-boosting items. But that's only a band-aid, really...

The big thing we're working on to address this is to give the base classes more abilities at high level, and to create more balanced high-level foes for these characters to fight against. To a large extent, the need for so many high-level magic items is created by the fact that a high-level character in 3.5 that doesn't have the items simply doesn't have the staying power against foes with super high AC scores and impossible-to-save-against DCs for their abilities.

By balancing these monsters better, by giving high-level characters more options, and by adjusting pricing on some items, we're hoping to mitigate the magic item bloat.

In the end, of course, each game should have the amount of magic items the GM wants in the campaign, but by reducing the NEED for things like stat boosters and cloaks of resistance and whatnot, we hope to not only reduce the need for this dependance on magic items, but also get some of the more unusual and fun magic items back into "regular rotation" in the game.

Thank you, I am so glad this is being addressed and I look forward to seeing how you Pathfinder folks spin it to make it work.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
I posted my arcane legionary base class awhile ago, and no one commented. The fluff suffers from typical Matthew-to-English difficulties, but I stand by the mechanics. Some might think it a bit too weak.

I really like this!

What is the Hit Die?
D6? D8?

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
I'd suggest DC 30 or 35 strength check.

At least 35. An iron door is DC 28 to bust in, and shoving yourself bodily through a Wall of Force should be way harder than that.

Edit: How about DC 25 + Caster Level? That way it scales.

Also, the Wall of Force description says that if it is somehow broken, it fails, so it really does become a break DC.

The Eldritch Wall Spells from Aracna Unearthed/Evolved (Which is OGL) Solve this. The lesser wall has a flat 10 hp/level. The higher level one has I think 20 per level. They have the Sphere spells as well.

For your consideration.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Lecen of Mitran wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Yep, the Battle Sorcerer is OGL. So I was wondering if a brief table or note could be made to this variant to allow us an armored caster type. Personally I think adding shields to being ignored would go a long way.

Perhaps this, or the pathfinder version, same template could be applied to the wizard class as well?

Anyone else with me on this one?

It would be nice to se a Pathfinder updated variant. I am on it.
Considering the power level of the new Sorcerer, I would say the use of shield with out Arcane Spell chance failure and using a weapon for semantic components would be nice. That way they can use a Sword and board if they want.

I'm with you

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:

In July we officially kick off the Pathfinder RPG with the release of the Pathfinder Bestiary. The massive Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook follows in August, but beyond that we have not yet announced additional rules support for the game.

That support IS coming, and we're in the process of finalizing what form it will take.

The current plan is to release between 2-3 hardcover rulebooks per year, including additional Pathfinder Bestiaries.

What form would you like these books to take? Would you be interested in subscribing to such a line, provided the books cost somewhere around $35 a pop?

What titles/ideas would you like to see us explore?

We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?

Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?


-Yes, I would subscribe for that price range.
-Additional Core classes, Races as long as you guys continued to Balance them with the core.
-Cultural explorations or theme books ala Oriental adventures & Al Qadim Arabian Adventures book -Style (yes I know these are not OGL).
-A Re-designed Psionics book.

Yes, I am tired of Presige classes.

Liberty's Edge

What Psionics means to me:

1.) I love Psionics, conceptually, flavorwise and feel it has a place in fantasy gaming.

just not Dungeons & Dragons Psionics.

2.)I would like to see a system that integrates with the Arcane & Divine Spellcasting systems without feeling like it was "bolted on" or a far better alternative which, in my opinion it is now as written.

3.)Since AD&D First Edition when Psionics was in the appendix in the back of the players Handbook it has been a "bolt on" I.M.H.O.

You folks have done a great job making Pathfinder backwards compatable however, in this case I think "broken" is "broken" and 3.0 3.5 Psionics is "broken".

4.) I would not buy a Psionics book unless the system worked with rather then against the existing Magic rules. The point system does not work alongside the Slot based system.

I am sure I am in the Minority with this oppinion & It is only my desire to answer your question not to start trouble.
Thank you

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Dispel magic can be one of the most disruptive spells to cast in the middle of a combat. I have been thinking for a while about altering this spell to something a bit more user friendly.

For example, you might change the spell so that its casting time varies. The targeted dispel might remain a standard action to cast, but the area dispel might take 1 minute.

This keeps the versatility, but removes some of the time sink that occurs when this spell is cast.


Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

What about removing the Dispel check completely & just giving targeted opponent/opponents a Saving Throw?

I am currently playing in a hybrid 3.0/3.5 game where it is done this way & it streamlines gameplay quite a bit.

Liberty's Edge

James Hunnicutt wrote:
selios wrote:
I think that the metamagic mastery should be limited as least for spells the wizard can cast as per the standard rules (can't cast a maximized fireball if he can't cast a 6th level spell).


Magic of Faerun had a PrC called incantatrix with an ability similar to Metamagic Mastery, and WotC issued an official errata along these lines. (And I've seen a lot of gripes that the Divine Metamagic feat from CD should be similarly limited.)

Yeah, Twin-spelled/zmaximized/Split Ray modified Ray of Enfeeblement.

No Save, Had a 40 Strength? Now it's 1
Now that does require a Maximized metamagic rod but how hard is that to get for a 17th level Wizard?

I also had 3 of my players when reading the Beta say they would not play anything else but a generalist.

Liberty's Edge

WeyrleaderZor wrote:
Etales wrote:
Majuba wrote:

I have no problem with "Quickened Channeling" if it takes 4-5 uses to activate it. Same for 3 uses and "Empower Channeling".

Extra Smite sure, Extra Spell and Slot are a bit silly but no objection (as long as the spell slot doesn't scale up automatically).

But NO on Speed Burst. If you want that take a half dozen levels of Psychic Warrior and take Hustle.

Majuba, if you don't mind me asking,

-Why should increased mobility be yet another advantage Psionic classes only have?
Also why should quickened channeling require that many uses?

Thank you

I don't think this is a very fair comparison or question. It's like asking "Why should only Wizards/Sorcerers (or other arcane casters) be able to cast fireball?". It automatically assumes that something unique and special to those classes should be universally available to all classes.

Without various uniquely exclusive abilities (or other unique feature(s)) to differentiate and identify the classes from one another what's the point of having different classes at all? I realize that I have made a very general assumption and over simplification of your question, but I feel the implications of what you're questioning (if "corrected" as a general rule to all abilities and classes) could be devastating to the individuality and uniqueness of the classes.

I do agree with your questioning of why the Quicken Channeling should require so many additional uses. It should be, IMHO, comparable to the level adjustment of Quickened spellcasting.

Thank you for your response WeyrleaderZor,

Speed burst is a general feat from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved that in my experiece allowed characters increased mobility regardless of character class.
Since Psionics is not a part of pathfinder and I believe Speed burst is OGL (published by Malhavoc press) to be completely candid I did not consider what Psyhic warriors or Psions can do. Much like abilities from other non OGL Prestige Classes or "splat books".

Thank you again for your response.

Liberty's Edge

Asgetrion wrote:

There are already literally dozens of threads about new feats -- and what's even worse, they're often about a single idea that the poster wants to get comments on. It's become hard to keep up with all that's going on, and good ideas tend to get lost in this jumble of threads (and there are feats posted on General Discussion threads, too). Therefore I thought of starting this thread so that *ALL* new ideas for feats could be found in one place. Not to mention that it would also be far easier for Jason & the other Paizonians to sort through ideas when as much of the information as only possible is to be found on one thread.

Feel free to post all sorts of feats here (i.e. Combat feats as well). PLEASE DO NOT POST "TWEAKS" OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PF BETA FEATS HERE -- I will start a new thread for them!

Reposted at Asgetrion's request.

Mass Spell
Your mastery of Spellcasting allows you to affect more of your allies with your spells.
Prerequisite: Spellcaster level 6, Chain Spell
Benefit: You may cast any non-personal ,harmless spell that affects a single creature on a number of additional allies equal to one per 2 caster levels. All creatures targeted must be within a 30' radius. Casting a Mass Spell uses a Spell slot 4 levels higher than the original.

Note: If a Mass version of a Spell already exists all specifics of that spell supersede the Mass Spell feat.

Feedback is appreciated

Thank you!

Liberty's Edge

Galnörag wrote:

This is a War Weaver ability from Heroes of Battle, essentially. The PRC required you to give up 1 caster level to get the eldrich tapestry.

Which you wove 1+caster stat bonus + yourself into. You could cast spells into that weave that were non-personal/harmless. So Fly, Bull Strength, Mage Armour etc. You were restricted to PRC Level, so at War Weaver 1, Level 1 spells, up to Level 5 spells.

The range of the spells didn't change, so if it was touch, you had to be touching all recipients. You could exclude people who were in your weave from receiving the spell, or they would be excluded if out of range.

You had to spend n times the material components and xp of the spell, where n was the actually number of recipients.

At level 5 of the PRC everything's range got bumped one, so touch -> short, short -> med, med -> long, and long stayed long.

Only levels 2-5 increase your spell caster ability, there was also a neat feature called quintessential weaving or something like that, where you could cast spells into the weave and hold them until you were ready and release them as a free action. Letting you pre-buff and then not start the effect until round 1 of combat.

It is a pretty crunchy PRC, and if you were to make a mass meta magic feat I think it would have to have the same restrictions:
- 1+caster+caster stat number of targets,
- added use of material/xp,
- +4 caster level,
- and not effect range/area

If you wanted to add range/area you would need the enlarge/extend feats as well.

I am unfamiliar with that PRC, I did not design the feat to emulate a class ability. I tried to balance it against the Mass spells in the PHB. I really don't put much weight in PRC abilities for balance.

Thanks though!

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:

I have no problem with "Quickened Channeling" if it takes 4-5 uses to activate it. Same for 3 uses and "Empower Channeling".

Extra Smite sure, Extra Spell and Slot are a bit silly but no objection (as long as the spell slot doesn't scale up automatically).

But NO on Speed Burst. If you want that take a half dozen levels of Psychic Warrior and take Hustle.

Majuba, if you don't mind me asking,

-Why should increased mobility be yet another advantage Psionic classes only have?
Also why should quickened channeling require that many uses?

Thank you

Liberty's Edge

DivineAspect wrote:
Please add a line to the Sling stating that you can use a sling to deliver Alchemists Fire or other equivalent items, such as oil, holy water, tanglefoot bags, etc.

Yeah, I love this idea. I had a Halfling Thief in 2nd edition who used his sling to launch small clay spheres full of Alchemist Fire, Hot pepper, etc.

He was a blast!

Liberty's Edge

Honorable Rogue wrote:

Just expanding on the idea that Halflings are good with slings I came up with...

Halfling Staff Sling: Cost -, Dmg (S) 1d6, Dmg (M) 1d8, Critical x2, Range Increment 80 ft., Weight 4 lbs., Type Bludgeoning. Your Strength modifier applies to damage rolls when you use a halfling staff sling, just as it does for all thrown weapons. The halfling staff sling is a two-handed weapon. Apply 1 1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage rolls for attacks with this weapon. Loading a halfling staff sling is a move equivalent action that requires two hands and provokes an attack of opportunity. You can hurl bullets or flasks with a halfling staff sling, but usually stones are used. When using bullets an attack deals damage as if the weapon were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. If using a flask, or attacking a target closer than 40 ft., you suffer a -1 penalty on attack rolls (the penalties are cumulative). With the sling stowed, the weapon functions as a quarterstaff.

It's simple, cheap, has historic roots and I guess larger races could theoretically use the standard halfling staff sling as an exotic, 1-handed, extended range sling or they could use an appropriately sized one normally.


Just say no to the Hoopak.....


Liberty's Edge

The Wraith wrote:
Add also Extra Smite (or the equivalent, if the Smite Evil would be changed in the end).


I forgot that one.
Thank you

Liberty's Edge

rkraus2 wrote:

Mass fly isn't four levels higher than fly, to name an example.

Is Mass spell -really- as good as quicken spell? I have some doubts.

It's a great feat, don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliant. I'm just not sure about the +4, that seems high to me.

That means that Mass Aid is as good as Heroes Feast, or that Mass Levitate is as good as Shadow Walk.

The reason for the 4 level bump is an effort to lean to the more powerful mass spells (Mass Deathward is 8th in the SC)

Do you all think that keeping it +4 and making it affect one target per caster level would help?

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:

Personally, I think traps should be detectable by everyone, not just rogues - just like tracking has become something you can do without the feat.

Instead, grant rogues a bonus to his perception checks to notice traps, or give them an automatic roll (like elves and secret doors).

Monte Cook did just that in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Any class can find Traps if they invet the skillpoints. It has never caused a balance issue in the multiple AU/AE games I have run & played in.

Liberty's Edge

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

I agree with almost all of this. I don't think all of these suggestions should be implemented, likely any single one would be a huge help.

Agreed, Ranger & Paladin Spellcasting are too little, too late.

has anyone given any thought or testing to giving Rangers (and Paladins) Bard casting progression?
Just a thought.

Liberty's Edge

Sprith wrote:
Still waiting on answer *Bump*

They are swift actions I believe

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Yes, please!

Maybe a different level adjustment if the base spell is "personal" vs. "creature touched"?

Thank you for your reply, we playtested that & making Personal Spells Massed is a nightmare. Mass Divine Power anyone?


1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>