Evil_Wizards's page

Rouge is very good at jumping around and doing flips, all the sudden for the first time every he is shot into the air by a magical spell that grants him the ability to move in ways he has never done before. He might not be too good at it if you ask me.

... and same thing with a natural flyer: an albatros is good at flying, but have you have seen one make flic-flacs?

@ "Walking skill"
Acrobatics, Climb etc. already are a kind of "walking skill". They cover ground-based movement. Walking would be an Acrobatics check with an extremely low DC, if a check was ever necessary. There's even at least one case where you need to make to check just to walk: the grease spell.

But over the course of two days, I had two people shutting me down cold, without any discussion of the Pros and Cons.

I understood your post as a request for clarification, and that just isn't necessary - the rules are clear. If you wanted to discuss a change to the current rules, I apologize, that didn't appear to be the intention of your post to me.

Under that premise I even agree with you. Give Channeling a verbal component. In The Excorzist, it says: "The power of Christ commands you...", and that's fitting to D&D, too (fitting in whatever entity the cleric worships).

Granted, with the staff examples given in the DMG/PRPG, that can be a problem, as many of them combine very different spell levels into one item.
But as it's possible to create leaner, cleaner versions (e. g. a staff with only Fireball in it), that's not that big of a deal, I think.

And sorry if my previous answer sounded a bit snippy. Wasn't meant that way, but after reading it again, it sounds a bit unpleasant.

I only implied that there is a possibility of loosing your undead between encounters. Of course it's difficult to implement that in a playtest, and it wildly differs from campaign to campaign and adventure to adventure. So, I think you setup is pretty much okay in that regard (and most others, despite the inescapable-pit-of-death-discussion).

@ SirUrsa

It's a really, really easy fix. Just change "one slot of the highest level you can cast" to "highest level of spell in the staff".

It's an exploit, and it can be fixed with a change of under a dozens word. The change doesn't hurt anyone except those who'd want to take advantage of this error in the system.

So what's the big discussion for?

Why isn't this undead servant assumed to be at 'full' at the beginning of each encounter?

Healing undead is difficult for a wizard, as he doesn't have a spell for that. Getting good bodies isn't easy, either.

In that regard, the test is completely okay, or even favorable to the wizard: due to travelling and legal/social concerns, it's not unlikely to loose undead minions between encounters.

Important:
- Unbreaking the broken parts, esp. spells Gate, Planar Binding, Shapechange.
- Making some mechanics easier, e. g. Grapple, Trip-
- Clarifying the unclear parts, e. g. Minor/Major Creation, stacking unnamed boni from same/similar sources.
- Balancing the unbalanced, e. g. Animate Dead, Sneak Attack and all the other stuff whose power varies wildly depending on circumstances.
- Preserving the "feel" of D&D in contrast to creating a completely new game. Vancian magic, classes, levels and so on.

Not important
- Backwards compatibility except for aforementioned flair. All adventures and monsters are hand-crafted in our group anyhow.

So far, PRPG works on exactly the right spots. Some fixes are not the fixes I would have preferred, but hey, a fix is fix. Some things haven't been addressed yet, but it's a work in progress, so that's not a problem. So all I can say:

Stay on current course!

Channeling energy (PRPG, p. 59)
- is a supernatural ability,
- requires a standard action,
- requires the cleric to present his holy symbol.

Supernatural abilities (just as SLAs) don't have components, esp. no verbal component.

It can be used while silenced, no doubt about it, no need for clarification.

I'd say the power level is slightly elevated at lower levels, but the same or even lower at higher levels.

Classes and Races are more powerful, but several spells have been reduced in power; attribute boosters are more expensive due to the new slot restriction; and if you use the (optional) limit on buff spells, it'll really hurt the PCs in mid- to high levels.

I suggest 1:1. In lower levels, fights might get a less easier, but not so easy as to be boring. In higher levels, the reduction of magic and magic items really kicks in.

Wasn't there a consensus already that this rules is broken?

The 20th level Wizard would give his Staff of Meteor Swarm to his 1st level apprentice, as the apprentice only has to spend a 1st level spell to charge a 9th level staff.

Or an adventurer could buy a staff with a spell vastly superior to his own abilities, which he can recharge daily as long he's able to cast any spell at all. One level of wizard/bard/cleric/sorcer for 9th level spells. Uh-oh...

Becasue the idea behind wizards (at least as I envision them) is that they have mastered magic through study of tomes of lore and/or apprentiships to other wizards. Through that study they would learn the arcane secrets of creating items.

Spontaneous casters and those that receive spells through divine means have not undergone this type of study and therefore would not qualify.

That would be the reason why Wizards get more feats than Sorcerers. But not why they should get even more feats.

The slightly increased number of feats in PRPG is already enough. Maybe shift the prerequisites around a little (e. g.: Craft Ring requires CL 12, but you don't get a feat at 12th level), but not give them away for free.

@ Giving them only to Universalists
Universalists are already very, very powerful compared to Specialists. Absolutely no need to make them even better.

Why would a Wizard waste time casting Fly or Haste when he can instead cast Fireball or Deep Slumber or other spells and take out the enemy himself?

Because he is not an egotist trying to prove his l33tn3ss, but a skilled and experienced team player who knows that casting Fly or Haste on the Fighter will be the better tactical choice.

The Wizard won't win the fight with a single Fireball - it'll need several other damage spells, using up valuable resources. If instead, he enables the Fighter to reach the target by casting Fly, or buffs the whole party with Haste, he'll unsure victory by using up just a single spell.

Fighters being dependant is a problem under two circumstances:
- The players are inexperienced / slow to learn tatcics.
- The players are essentially solo players. The Wizard tries to do everything himself, the Fighter doesn't like to accept help.

Both are somewhat common. Everybody starts as a beginner, and among the gamer = mostly male population, you're bound to have a lot of these guys unwilling or unable to ask for directions, cope with defeat or accept themselves as a mortal, thus fallible creature instead of the ub0r-cool movie character.

But both aren't good standards to tailor an RPG to.

How many of the party are going to be within 30' of the cleric when he's in melee with creatures? The squishies should be hanging back anyways.

Most fights begin with the party standing together. In an outdoor setting, the wizard might put some distance between him an the party, though it might even take a full move or two half-moves. In an indoor setting, there'll probably not be enough space to get 30 ft. away.

I don't say channeling is useless. But it's usefulness has strict limits, as you're always in danger to hurt/kill allies/neutrals. And even that needs a feat (Selective Channeling), as without that, I think a PC cleric will hardly - if ever - use channeling.

Negative Energy Channeling:
=> ability to convert spells into inflict spells (crap)
=> mediocre AoE-attack
=> -1 Feat (must have: Selective Channeling)

Positive Energy Channeling:
=> ability to convert spells into cure spells (nice)
=> medium power AoE-heal

From a balancing/optimization standpoint, IMO this clearly says:

Positive Channeling is just plain better than Negative Channeling.

And at higher levels, the Cleric should be pumping his Charisma anyways, since Turning is so good, and it affects how many times per day he can use it.

The problem remains the same. The reliance on a non-primary attribute limits the power of channeling.

A first level cleric planning on taking negative energy would simply take this. With a 16 Cha, he can decide not to affect the standard 3 friends he'd likely have (if they are even all in the area).

He needs Cha 16 for this trick. Using up points / good rolls on Charisma hurts in other areas (i. e. casting, carrying heavy armor, hit points, skill points etc.).

With Cha 15 or less, the cleric cannot exclude the whole standard 4-person-party, and will injure, possibly even kill one of his comrades, which makes the ability not entirely useless, but... problematic.

Also: Beware of Familiars and Animal Companions... or even innocent bystanders.

Maybe limiting the Extra Turning feat. [...] If you really want to limit it, you can not allow the feat to be chosen more than once.

I think that's already the case. It doesn't say in the feat description that you can take the feat multiple times, so the default rule (it not being allowed) should be applied.

I agree with Pneumonica. Just a sidenote:

Also, if you want to look at the history of D&D, energy drain spells have traditionally produced ghouls, not vampires. In 3.0 and 3.5, they removed these features, and they only reappear as occasional issues as special setting rules (like in Ravenloft).

In AD&D 2nd, Energy Drain and Finger of Death produced Juju-Zombies.

In D&D3.5, the "default undead" is a Wight:

A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

Note however, that only the "Create Spawn" ability gives control over the creature, so you can create Wights with (e. g.) Enervation, but cannot control them without some other spell/ability.

OR you get rid of the % garbage that's been stinking up the place since most of us stopped playing AD&D years ago and give them an AC bonus for being incorporeal.

*nods in agreement*

Incorporability is often unbalancing, as offense and defense against incorporeal opponents are almost completely unrelated to those against corporeal opponents.
Either eliminating the whole idea (pro: getting rid of the army of spectres/shadows hiding and travelling in the ground) or at least bring the combat abilities in line with others (DR or AC boni + bonus on attack rolls) (pro: no fluff/tactic change).

I find these backhanded comments about telekinesis rather insulting. A third of its text explicitly details throwing weapons, so I actually have weapons to throw, and it's only logical to throw weapons that might do damage rather than crap.

How do you handle attack roll penalties for using oversized weapons with Telekinesis?

The game is designed to be backward compatible with 3.5 rules, and Twilight armor is in two seperate books for 3.5 and thus basically a part of the game.

It's still a flawed basis. There's a lot of completely broken or overpowered stuff in D&D3.5. If you include things from outside core, any playtesting may be flawed due to the problems of these feats/spells/items.

As that wall spell, it's readied action to cast prismatic wall when attacked in melee by the opponent, which results in it punching seven flavours of pain.

That's a viable ruling, but one at least I don't share.

Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

The last sentence can be read in the way you appear to do. I'd say that "capable" does not mean "capable without regard for consequences".

Major Creation, when cast as a normal spell, has a casting time of 10 minutes. When cast through limited wish or as a spell-ike ability, has a casting time of one standard action.

True for Limited Wish:

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Not true for SLA:

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

So you have to burn a 7th level slot for the trap. And the question wether Major Creation allows to create items out of different materials remains unanswered.

A question, though: If you allow the creation of traps with Major Creation, what about creating Acid or Alchemist's Fire? The spell creates an awful lot of material: 1 cu. ft/level, that's about 27 liters per level. Assuming D&D acid weighs about 2 pounds per liter, you get the equivalent of 54 flasks of acid out of each cu. ft (neglecting the weight of the bottle itself). That's a whopping amount of (levelx54)x1d6 of acid damage, e. g. 540d6 at level 10.
Drop that on an opponent huge enough to actually be affected by it, and you can flush him down the drain afterwards.

It's alright for a wizard to have aces up his sleeve, but not the fighter?

IMHO it's perfectly fine, as the fighter carries the "normal" hand, while the wizard's powers are only called upon in times of dire need.

Compare it to two miners, one with a pick, one with explosives. Comparing the power of explosives to the power of the pick is pointless - you need both to build a mine.
Or an army with nuclear weapons and infantry. Of course the nuclear weapons are more powerful compared on a one-on-one basis. But we've experienced that nuclear weapons didn't make infantry obsolete, as you still need a way to deal with problems that don't justify the use of a nuke.

What's much more threatening to the fighter-vs-wizard-balance IMHO are the at-will damage dealing powers of some wizard schools. THAT's something that can make the fighter/rogue obsolete, if it proves too powerful, as it takes away the problem of strictly limited resources.
The wizard has always been great at defense, as long as he could use his spells (Stoneskin, Levitate/Fly/Overland Flight, Improved Invisibility) etc. But he often lacked long-lasting offensive capabilities to really make use of that. It's fine to be immune to melee grunts for a day. But when the only thing you can do to them after the first fight is fire at them with a crossbow... you wish yourself a good, strong fighter buddy.

Being able to do even just 5-20 points of damage each round for free changes that.

Comparing classes in single combat makes little sense to me. D&D is a team game, and the strengths of some classes depend on this. A rogue, for example, can use his sneak attack when paired with a fighter.

Using fully rested character for each fight and only checking who wins instead of how much resources were used up screws up the comparison. A wizard that uses up all his spells is SUPPOSED to win a fight that a lone fighter couldn't handle. The expendable resources (spells, potions, scrolls) are the ace up the party's sleeve, meant to help them when planning or luck fail and defeat is imminent. It's a last resort, though - the equivalent of an extra life, a smartbomb, a savegame. You cannot play a whole game just with this single ace, but have to rely on you other cards, too.

Reading the test, I get the impression you're favoring the wizard by very lenient use of some spells / rules.

Besides the Telekinesis cheese...:

+2 Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt

I think it would be better to test PRPG only with material available in PRPG/Core.

One is horrifically killed through a readied prismatic wall

How did this work exactly? If it was cast while the giant was moving, I think the giant could just stop or change his path to avoid the wall.

Twenty Dire Bears: He can fly, they can't. He can make large walls of stone to pen them in and fill it with cloudkills and acid fogs, and they can't.

How did the wizard trap 20 large creatures with Walls of Stone!? A single wall wouldn't be enough, even if the bears sat down in a nice 5x4 pattern. Several castings would give the bears opportunity to move around, so... how to catch them?

As an in-combat heal, turning is viable, but weak at level 20. 35 damage is nothing compared to what (mass) heal can do.

Many Domain abilities appear to require an action to activate, which IMO lessens their impact somewhat.

---

With the rebuking/controlling... *feels his button being pressed* I don't know, but I very much prefer the 5 Shadows my current 11th level cleric (with Phylactery of Rebuking) controls to any number of skeletons/zombies, even if I could heal them occasionally.

The cleric's ability to control undead is much, much weaker in PRPG compared to D&D3.5, as intelligent undead get saves every day (and after each turning attempt). This makes especially the nasty ones very, very dangerous to keep around. Keeping a group of Shadows is not only suicidal, but a danger to all around you, as an escaped Shadow is almost impossible to find/kill and can exterminate whole villages single-handedly, creating spawns in the process. So, keeping Shadows or other incorporeal/intelligent undead is a seriously unwise tactic in PRPG.

@ Smerg
Several issues:

- Extra Turning cannot be taking more than once in PRPG.

- Using up that number of feats and focussing on a non-casting attribute as a primary caster, you'd better get something worthy out of it.

- 10d6 with a save for half damage at level 20... come on. The fighter's doing more than that with a single blow, and with Great Cleave, he even has limited AoE-capabilities.

- Casters are strong against many weak creatures due to AoE. That's nothing new. The 20th level cleric could do 20d6 damage with Firestorm without spending a single feat on that and on an even greater area.

- Healing > damage. Most abilities to heal are weaker in numbers or more limited than those that deal damage (compare a morning star and cure light wounds at first level). Thus, if you have the choise between taking a healing or a damaging ability with the same numeric values, healing will be the better choice. With channeling, there's even a save of medium DC - so the healing is even greater in numeric value.
Imagine if the fighter could take a feat to heal with each blow instead of doing damage. Who wouldn't take that?

- Diversity and specialization. It's better to have a well balanced group filling several roles than pimping each character's way of dealing damage. The cleric's role includes healing; Wizards, Rogues, Fighters have better ways of dealing damage. Pimp a cleric's healing output instead of a mediocre AoE-attack, and you'll have a much stronger group.

- The attack wouldn't hurt undead or constructs. Healing, however, heals all your party members all the time.

- Without Selective Channeling, channeling negative energy would a really terrible ability. It would be practically unusable for anybody but stereotypical undead overlords.
Even in its current form, it's of dubious use, as you need a Charisma of at least 16 to protect the typical adventuring group from the effect, and that binds a lot of attribute points to a non-primary attribute. Putting these points into strength to carry your heavy armor, and using a morning star to bash people's heads in might be superior to boosting a rather weak attribute.

Fixified

Thanks. *feels stupid*

According to K's statement, ENWorld has to be added, too.

@ roguerouge
The wise man doesn't blame the rain for getting him wet. But he still values an umbrella.

4) Search merged with Perception. Aside from any kind of argument of whether it makes sense or not, the point is that it makes the skill too powerful, it´s like a must-take, one-of-the-most-important-skills-of-the-game; it allows you to notice strange happenings in a room, hear someone sneak up on you, find secret passages, spot someone hiding, find hidden treasures, find traps, etc. It should stand alone or merged with something else.

On the plus side:

Putting search into Disable Device and restricting it to purely mechanical analysis (traps, opening mechanism for secret door) would also have made sense. But some kind of merge is very good.

One might say that one has to have a certain "learning resistance" when getting banned/suspended from several forums for the same reasons.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8922

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1016146&page=3

[X] Remove spellcaster requirement from Craft (Alchemy].
[ ] Leave spellcaster requirement at Craft (Alchemy].

No, they don't get any extra spells. Same thing for domains. The SLAs replace the bonus slots. Okay, Universalists get the SLAs for free, but you know what I mean. ;-)

What I find curios, too: Diviners only had to choose one prohibited school in standard 3.5, to make up for their somewhat lacking bonus spell selection.
If this is seen to be balanced, then in PRPG, Diviners should get some sugar, too:
- either buff divination spells or
- or give them only one prohibited school
- or buff their powers (except for two first level powers, they're are even substandard, I think).

The third option would be best, I think, as option a.) is difficult to implement and option b.) always felt like an admission of design failure.

*deleted*

After some consideration, I'll better hold my piece on this.

Universalists outshine the Evoker in Evoking, I think. Free Metamagic (even only some levels/day) is a bit "über".

About scaling of powers over levels, I've argued the same thing here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/racesClasses/domainSchoolAbilitiesDiminishingInUsefulnes s

and Uncle Monkey here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/combatMagic/schoolAndDomainPowers

Flaming Sphere: With a movement rate of 30 ft. and Reflex negates on damage, this spell is easy to outrun/outmanuever and avoid damage. It should probably move at least 50 ft. a round and have a save of Reflex half.

Helping Hand: As written, I'd rather just use the 1st level spell, Message and tell someone how to find me. The "time to locate" table should be scrapped - this is a magic spell, the hand should just magically manifest at the location of the spell's target. It would also be nice if the spell compels the target to follow the hand if they fail a Will save - but restrict the hand to directing the target along the safest route to the caster, and if the intention is to ambush/attack the target it automatically fails (no sending it to the hideout of the BBEG and forcing him to come to you).

Taken from here:

Archade has written up a proposal for a new Reincarnate here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/revisedReincarnate

SirUrza argues that Sleep and Deep Slumber should affect the creature in the centre of its effect first, instead of affecting those with the lowest HD first, here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/changeSleepDeepSlumberPlease

Stephen Klauk has updated Permanency here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/permanentSpells

Robert Brambley shows a problem with Polymorph: huge creatures get a Strength bonus by changing into smaller creatures, vice versa for tiny ones and Dexterity.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/combatMagic/hugePolymorphLoopholeVariousPages

K proposed to make Scry being blocked by dungeons walls; the discussion can be enjoyed here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/scryAndDieSolution

Stephen Klauk suggests making Simulacrum, Clone and possibly Animate Dead/Create Undead Item creation feats here:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/moveSimulacrumAndCloneToItemCreationCraftGolemA ndPerhapsUndead

There's at least a dozen threats with various spells and proposed fixes. Perhaps we can try to centralize that for ease of reading, either by quoting or by linking.

(Lesser/Greater) Planar Binding/Ally
Possible problems:
- HD =/= CR =/= usefulness (e. g. Lantern Archon, Efreet)
- abuse of templates (summon a half-fiend-half-dragon-paragon ogre)
- body source for undead creation (animate aforementioned ogre)

Possible fixes:
- limit to CR
- only creatures from Summon Monster can be called
- make Binding a variant use of Summon Monster (calling for 24 h instead of summoning for some rounds)
- costly material component

Animate Dead / Necromancy
Possible problems:
- Limitation to HD has little relation to usefulness of Undead (e. g.: Necromancer 5 animates Pit Fiend Skeleton)
- High-level necromancers have little use for Skeletons/Zombies and no practical mean of controlling other undead

Possible fix:
- give Skeleton/Zombie template meaninful CRs, then tie limits of Animate Dead to CR
- make undead created with Create (Greater) Undead fall under the animation control limit
- limit HD of creatable undead to Caster Level for skeletons, Caster Level x 2 for zombies; remove limit of 20 HD for skeletons/zombies
- Make Animate Dead & Create Undead an Item Creation Feat, discussed here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/newRules/moveSimulacrumAndCloneToItemCreationCraftGolemA ndPerhapsUndead

Rope Trick
Possible problems:
- very powerful for 2nd level spell (compare to Leomund's huts)

Possible fix:
- reduce duration to 10 min./level
- move to level 4 or 5
- costly material component or focus

---

Animated Shield
Possible problems:
- screws balance between one- and two-handed weapons/two-weapon-fighting

Possible fix:
- remove item

Bag of Holding & Teleport
Possible problems:
- Bag of Holding can be used to practically increase capacity of Teleport spells (army climbs into bag, wizard takes bag, teleports, army climbs out of bag)

Possible fix:
- Creatures cannot enter Bag of Holding
- Teleport limit counts creatures inside carried equipment

Actually, the cohort of my current character has an Imp as an Improved Familiar. The Imp is so powerful in scouting that the party rogue complained about being overshadowed by the sidekick's sidekick.

---

The ability to acquire animal familiars is... dubious. But it enables you to get one of the greatest feats in the game: improved Familiar.

There are many hidden qualities in Familiar Imps:

- Imps get a really respectable AC. They start out at 20, and funnily, the AC boni for regular familiars apply to them, too. Mage Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Mithral Buckler/Shield Spell, Dex booster and you'll easily hit 30. They don't have armor proficiency, but if you really want to spend some money, give him a mithral chain shirt+x.

- Share Spell allows to cast "Target: You" on your familiar. False Life, Shield, True Strike, Contigengcy, Blink, Fire Shield, Mirror Image, Shapechange you get the picture.
Share Spell also allows to cast spells on him that work on you, but not on outsiders. I think that's only useful for Enlarge Person in Core, but I'd bet there are other uses.

- Imps, as outsiders, have MWP and hands. Thus, they can use shortbows, which makes them flying, hart-to-hit, fast-healing and possibly invisble. Pretty much the miniature stealth combat drone of the medieval age.

- Familiars can use your skills. Not very useful for something without hands, but... think of what good can be done with Use Magic Device. Give your familiar a wand, and he gets an even better combat drone.

- They have a Dex-dmg-poison with a respectable DC. For calculating the Save DC, you use the creature's Hit Dice. A familiar can use the wizard's HD for any purpose, which apparently includes the Save DC. Also, a Con booster is nice here. In the end, the poison will have a Save DC similar to your spells, and does damage to an attribute that's often very weak in monsters (e. g. dragons, giants). Hitting is a problem, but flanking, invisibility and the Wizard's BAB can help with that.

- They can cast Commune. Okay, that's not hard to notice, but the sheer adventure-corrupting power of an xp-cost-free commune just deserves mentioning.

- Imps, as outsiders, don't have to sleep. As they're completely loyal and can make themselves invisible, they are near perfect sentries.

- Imps are reaaaaally strong. Although being only two feet tall and weighing eight pounds, they can arm-wrestle with an average human. Okay, more of a curiousity but a hidden power.

If you pump some money into your imp, he can be a competent combatant. He won't outdamage the rogue or outtank the fighter, but hey, he's only a class feature. ;-)

The Lifedrinker and the Lyre of Building are, I think, examples of working restrictions. The Holy Avenger... well... good PC's don't feel the restriction at all. Ever.

The Lifedrinker can AFAIK only be safely wielded by Undead (rare among PC's, but achievable through Shapechange - better forms are, though), Warforged from Eberron (IMHO a result of their overpowerdness, not the axe's) or when protected by Death Ward (or some other spell), which has only a short duration.
The Lyre of Building requires Perform (String Instruments), which besides from bards, few PC's have or need, and Bards need a break anyhow. A non-bard can buy some ranks in Perform, slap on a Circlet of Persuasion and get a decent chance to use the Lyre, but that are investments that really compensate for a discount.

Ouch.. that seems rather harsh. While I'm not in favor of the OP's idea, this seems to take it to far in the other direction.

Ehm. I obviously didn't phrase it understandably. *curses his fading knowledge of this language*

There is no alteration in the distance you can actually move. It's only a different way to count. In the official rules, there's a problem to count 0.5 squares. If you double all costs and allowances, the 0.5 becomes a 1. That's all - a counting trick for those who don't like to count half numbers.

There's an easy fix to counting 2-1-2 or half squares:

Double all movement allowances and costs. There're only full square costs then.

In my 2nd Ed AD&D group, there was a common answer to all spell attacks:

"I throw myself on the ground, shielding my sword with my body!"

It was better to get killed then to loose your weapon, due to the lack of means to repair items, whereas the dead could be raised with a flick of the wrist.

Boosting repair options is a GOOD thing. A really good thing.

I think it's pretty much okay right now.

A little fixing for the multiclassing aspect might be wise, altough taking even a single level of another to get better items is tough for a primary caster. The Mystic Theurg really profits, but on the other hand, he doesn't get all the Domain and Schools powers in PRPG, so a little boost in power isn't unbalanced.

I especially like that it gives Wizards the opportunity to craft Staffs. Staffs are the traditional "weapon" for wizards in D&D and fiction, but in D&D3.5, you can't craft them until very high levels - and those don't get played too often, anyhow.

Even now, I don't know any PC wizard who uses a (magic or non-magic) staff, and with the free MWP humans get in Pathfinder, the situation will swing even more to swords and other "fighter stuff" in wizards' hands.

Of course, this could also be fixed by just lowering the really weird CL requirements for Craft Staff and Forge Ring (compare to Craft Wondrous Item, which can pretty much emulate both).

---

Looking at Gnome Ninja's price calculation, I wonder: A Staff cannot be created with a Caster Level below 8. Normally, that's not a problem, as the feat requires a CL >> 8. But what CL does a Bonded Item Staff have?

Can a 1st level wizard give it a CL of...

a.) 1, circumventing the CL minimum, or
b.) 8, due to the feat emulation?

Both, I think, are pretty weird, as option a.) allows the creation or really cheap Staffs with a CL of 1 (it uses the user's own CL, anyhow) and b.) gives quite boost in CL at low levels (at the price of increased cost, of course).

Personally, I prefer fewer, but more powerful items. Iconic heroes have iconic items - and that means FEW items.

Arthur isn't known for this Bracers of Swordmanship, Belt of Strength, Boots of Haste and a Longsword+1 (Human Bane), but for one single sword (okay, and the fitting sheath). Siegfried, Conan (the movie-Conan), Luke Skywalker (Yes, I count him as a fantasy hero) only have a special sword. Gandalf is a bit better equipped with (again) a sword, a staff and a ring (though he doesn't mention the latter much).

Items are easier to remember, easier to give an identity to if they are few in number.

Some known heroes carry much more stuff around, of course. Frodo's magic items include a ring, a chain shirt, a short sword, a cloak, a vial of starlight and a rope. These, however, are each awarded at a significant event, and symbolize his (transformational) journey.
This isn't usually true for magic items in D&D, as many are found as more or less random treasure, created in a few days by the party's casters or even bought in a shop. Thus, they don't really represent anything.

Adding incentive or lowering the cost of adding more abilities to one item would help to create iconic items, I think. Of course, there still needs to be good design, as simply adding the wanted abilities to random items will just feel silly (Greataxe+1, Aberration Bane, +5 to Profession (Brewer)).
I don't really know yet how to encourage "good" item design, but I'd probably start like that:

Adding additional abilities has no increased cost if the added ability fits the theme of the current abilities, as decided by the DM.
Possible themes include:
- Air: Lightning damage/protection, Flying, Dexterity, Initiative
- Earth: Acid damage/protection, Natural Armor, Damage Reduction, Strength, Constitution, Saves
- Fire: Fire damage/protection, Charisma, Destructive Power
- Water: Cold damage/protection, Wisdom, Swimming, Water Walking
- Interaction: Wisdom, Charisma, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive
- Protection: Armor Enhancement AC, Energy Resistace, Saves
- Magic: Caster Level, Intelligence, Spell Penetration, Save DC's, Spell Slots
- Necromancy: Channelling negative energy, Wisdom, Charisma, Intimidate
- Healing: Channeling positive energy, Wisdom, Charisma, Heal
- Battle: Weapon Enhancement, Deflection AC

I'd also get rid of Body Slot affinities when a theme is involved, I think.

@ Anry
There has been no change in slots from standard D&D3.5 to PRPG - check the SRD, it's always been this way. All things in one line refer to the same slot (e. g. gloves and gauntlets compete for the "hands" slot). Also notice the rarley used vest(ment) and shirt* slots.

Armor occupies the same slot as a robe, I'd say.

*Anybody remember the awesomeness of Hawaiian shirts in Nethack?

With the 50% discount and emulation of all item creation feats, the Bonded Item is very, very powerful:
- You can have a Staff at low levels - imagine throwing 10+ Fireballs in a day at 5th level. You'll have to recharge it, sure, but it's an immense boost to your combat potential.
- You can create Rings at an early level. Most rings in Core are a bit sucky or require cleric spells (Spell Storing, Protection), but it may still be interesting, depending on what books you use.
- You can put each and every enchantment in one Ring/Amulet. Even with the +50% penalty for wrong slot and +50% penalty for multiple abilities, you still are at the cost level of a regular item - but they all use only one slot!

So, basically, a Bonded Item gives you
a.) additional spell reserves (Staff),
b.) almost unlimited slots (Ring/Amulet) or
c.) a little combination of both if you add powers (e. g. Armor AC, Deflection AC, Energy Resistance, Strength) to a Staff.

---

Because you still need to cast the spells necessary for enchanting, it's not really good as a one level dip unless you want to spend a lot of money on scrolls.
There might however be a loophole with cooperative creation, as IIRC only one of several characters cooperating to create item needs to have all the prerequisites. Gets a little exploity in that area, though.

It gets a bit weird when you add a level of Wizard to a Cleric. Weapons/Rings for half price is really, really good for Clerics, and nothing in the rules stops him from using his cleric spells / caster level to enchant his bonded item.

Hi!

What kind of action if any does activating the Domain powers, especially the 8th level ones, take?

In the SRD, under "Monster Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities", it says:

"Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise."

Under "Domains" (PRPG, p. 69), it also says:

"Unless otherwise noted, these abilities are activated by
using a standard action."

Thus, using one of these abilities requires a standard action. But is this intentional?

Most 1st level abilities state that it takes a standard action (complete list below*) or melee touch attack to activate them, but except for the Rune and Weather Domains, there's no such thing for the 8th level powers.

Is this...

... a pure redundancy in those cases where it's stated explicitly?
(=> Remove either the abstract rule under "Domains" or the mentioning in the ability descriptions.)

... a hint that those without an action type stated are supposed to be able to be activated freely?
(=> Clarify that.)

From a design standpoint, I'd suppose that some powers were better as free actions, e. g. the Strength Domain's 8th level strength-check bonus , as the need to spend an action forbids the use on "passive" checks, i. e. those initiated/planned not by you, or the Protection Domain's 8th level Feat power, as spending a standard action seems pretty "expensive" for such a relatively minor effect.

*Air Domain (p. 69), 1st level power,
Animal Domain (p. 70), 1st level power,
Community Domain (p. 71), 1st level power,
Earth Domain (p. 72), 1st level power,
Fire Domain (p. 73), 1st level power,
Glory Domain (p. 73), 1st level power,
Good Domain (p. 73), 1st level power,
Healing Domain (p. 73), 1st level power,
Law Domain (p. 74), 1st level power,
Liberation Domain (p. 74), 1st level power,
LuckDomain (p. 75), 1st level power,
Magic Domain (p. 75), 1st level power,
Nobility Domain (p. 76), 1st level power,
Protection Domain (p. 76), 1st level power,
Rune Domain (p. 77), 1st AND 8th level power,
Strength Domain (p. 77), 1st level power,
Water Domain (p. 78), 1st level power,
Weather Domain (p. 79), 1st level AND 8th level power.

Hi!

Ability Focus is a Feat increasing the DC for any special attack by +2. As Channel Energy can do damage, it is an attack. Thus, Ability Focus (Channel Energy) should be possible.

From a balancing standpoint, I'd say that's okay. However, this duplicates Improved Turning, which does exactly the same.

This has four possible consequences:

- Remove Improved Turning; a reference to Ability Focus might be good, then.

or

- Forbid Ability Focus (Channel Energy).

or

- Allow both to be bought. A clarification might be wise.

or

- Change the effect of Improved Turning (+1d6 heal/dmg, for example), as there already is a Feat to increase its DC.

A fighter type might coat this fullplate with "a thin sheath of lead". That'll certainly be bad for the armor's stats, but it's dirt cheap and should render him immune to Scry as long as he wears it.

Hi!

Currently, Charisma is used to calculate the Save DC's for SLAs gained by Wizard Schools / Cleric Domains (PRPG, p. 65, 69).

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the casting attribute, i. e. intelligence/wisdom?

They're usable unlimited times per day, I'd say.

I agree with Psychic Robot. I'd let it all add up.

For future reference:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061222a

The Sage Advice on Spawn hierarchies with a controlled master undead.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070511a

The Sage Advice on summoned monster being able to create new spawns.

To answer Evil_Wizard's question (which K must have missed), I don't believe it says anything about losing PrC powers in the SRD; I think it says so somewhere in the Complete Warrior splatbook. So I don't think it's possible for Paizo to remove something from the Core Rules when it's not in the Core Rules to begin with.

I just came across the Sage Advice on that confirming this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080410a

Btw., they say BAB, HD and so on still work.