Ganymede's page

I think it's worth noting that a chakram would also make a fine weapon for a Swashbuckler, as it is one-handed and slashing and therefore qualifies for Slashing Grace.

Is a chakram one-handed? Or is it light? Not to mention it can't work with precise strike (or precise throw since it's limited to thrown daggers and starknives). Otherwise I would completely agree.

This raises another question: would someone who took the feats to use a Chakram with all this be able to apply Martial Versatility to Slashing Grace to let it work with Daggers?

Prerequisites: Fighter level 4th, human.

Benefit: Choose one combat feat you know that applies to a specific weapon (e.g., Weapon Focus). You can use that feat with any weapon within the same weapon group.

Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each time it applies to a different feat.

Finally, I will say that if it not meant to be inclusive, that is dumb. That is all.

I recognize a majority of the material does not conform to Grod's Law:

"Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

There is a fundamental (and aggravating, by the way) reluctance to allow finesse fighters to add their dexterity to their damage rolls; however, excluding light weapons from benefiting from a feat simply "because" is not a good enough reason.

I am merely expressing that I am unsure as to whether they are INTENDING to use the term of art "One-Handed" or if they are using the short hand definition of the compound word to simply mean a weapon that one may wield in one hand (because a dagger is, in fact, wielded in one hand).

Is it certain that the meaning of the feat is meant to imply that only One-Handed weapons meet the requirement of Slashing Grace and not merely "weapons that are used in one hand [not-two-handed weapons]?"

I find the fact that they created the Flying Blade archetype (and restrained it to thrown daggers and starknives) extremely strange if so.

I wish that they had just written their material more clearly. It blows my mind how unclear everything seems to be.

Little bit of thread necromancy, but...

If they don't stack... then what level of effectiveness do you use? Since the character can have hexes from multiple sources do you:

a) use the class for which the hex was gained as its own personal scaling determinator
b) use the higher of the two levels (e.g. 3 witch/10 hexcrafter would mean hexes cast as if you were a 10th level witch)

B seems more believable, especially considering the Extra Hex feat which gives the character the hex, not any particular class. (Honestly, this feels like a stronger argument that hexcrafter and witch levels should stack completely.)

I have a lot of questions about this system... almost too many to enumerate, but it appears that the WoP magic system is almost unusable due to a minor oversight in stuff dealing with duration of effects. Can anyone give me some guidance on this stuff?

Here's an example:

Say you wanted to make a spell that did a little bit of fire damage and scared the target (a reasonable effect, to be sure).

Let's go with the first level examples of both, for simplicity's sake (info truncated for clarity).

Burning Flash (Fire)
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1

Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes

This effect word deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4). If the wordspell with this effect word has only a single target, it requires a ranged touch attack to hit and does not allow a saving throw.

+

Spook (Fear)
School necromancy [fear, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1

Duration 1d4 rounds
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance Yes

Target Restrictions selected

This effect word causes the target to become frightened for the duration. This word has no effect on targets with 5 or more Hit Dice.

Okay? Now, a spell with two level 1 effect words is a level 3 spell. So, in theory, the spell should look like this (i.e. this is the way we WANT the spell to work):

Burning Flash/Spook
School evocation [fire]; necromancy [fear, mind-affecting]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3

Duration instantaneous; 1d4 rounds
Saving Throw See text; Spell Resistance Yes

Target Restrictions selected

This effect word deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4); reflex save for half damage. If the wordspell with this effect word has only a single target, it requires a ranged touch attack to hit and does not allow a saving throw. This effect word causes the target to become frightened for the duration (1d4 rounds); a successful will save negates this effect. This word has no effect on targets with 5 or more Hit Dice.

Sounds fine, right? The problem here is the following:

"Multiple Effect Words and Duration: If a wordspell has more than one effect word, the shortest of all the effect words' durations is used for all of the effect words."

Now, I guarantee this has been covered in another thread... but here's the rub. This sentence (RAI, I'm sure was meant as a cure-all) is a big problem RAW because it places us against what does "instantaneous" mean, for instance. While the spell proposed above sounds reasonable, there are two alternative realities RAW (and the problem is, there's no way to truly discern which of the three are the true result).

The first alternative is that the spell deals 1d4/level fire damage and "spooks" the target instantaneously (having no real effect).

The second alternative here is that the spell deals 1d4/level fire damage and spooks the target for 1d4 rounds... read that again--both would occur for 1d4 rounds (essentially setting the target on fire for the duration).

What result?

Secondly, what save would be appropriate for the spell?

"Wordspell Saving Throws: The type of saving throw for a wordspell is determined by the highest-level effect word used that allows a saving throw. If the save is successful, it applies to both effect words, but the result for each word can vary based on the individual word. If the save fails, the target takes the full effect of both effect words. The save DC is equal to 10 + the wordspell's level (not the effect word's level) + the wordcaster's spellcasting ability score modifier (Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers). For example, if a 5th-level wordspell contains a 2nd-level effect word that allows a Reflex save for half and a 4th-level effect word that allows a Will save to negate, targets of the wordspell make a Will save with a DC of 15 + the caster's ability score modifier. If the save is successful, the target takes half the normal effect from the 2nd-level word and negates the 4th-level word. If the save fails, the target takes the full effect of both effect words."

This section is fine, but gives us no guidance as to the result if both effect words are the same level. RAI, this probably indicates that the caster may choose. RAW, however, is silent on the matter.

There are certainly more questions that I could easily posit, but I think this is a good place to start.

What in the world were they thinking by making the requirements for this feat character level 10 when the next feat in the tree is character level 11?

Is there some special way to take this feat that I'm just not seeing? I have a PC who wants to take it, but I can't see a feasible way to take the feats at the time they are clearly suggested (10th and 11th respectively). Thoughts?

Barring "don't like it, don't use it" arguments, I'm not a fan of exploding dice. HOWEVER, I think it makes a LOT of sense for firearms. True, a pistol shot could do a simple d8, but a really well-placed shot (or lucky shot) could easily do much more harm.

I'd rather see a +4 weapon enchantment that allowed a weapon to store multiple shots/powder per barrel rather than negating all chance of a misfire. I'd even allow it for crossbow bolts.

Or more interestingly, for each +1 purchased for this property the weapon can store 2 shots, max 8 additional shots.

Or something higher that enables gun use without reloading (or that allows you to reload quicker [perhaps as a free action if you have rapid reload] or something), similar to Epic Caine's ability in Warmachine. His rate of fire (or how many shots he can shoot before reloading) is infinite. That'd be a welcomed weapon enhancement.

1) Deadly Aim does not work with firearms when they are in range of a touch attack, correct? But it does work when the target is greater than one range increment away?

I understand that this is very rules lawyerly of me, but it doesn't say that within the first range increment the attacks made with guns are touch attacks. It says, instead, that they are resolved against the target's touch AC. "When firing upon a target within a firearm’s first range increment, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC." If they wanted it to mean "were touch attacks," they would say explicitly that. Since they are merely 'resolved against the target's touch AC,' I see nothing barring application of the Deadly Aim feat.

3) I take it that each weapon in Gun Training only gets the +1 to hit once, and that's it?

Looks like it. A "+1 to hit and +Dex to damage" one time bonus per gun type.

Something that I would like to mention, in regards to your second bullet (pun intended)... are we going to be seeing guns with a larger capacity than 1? As it stands, the most attacks the gunslinger is ever going to get is 2, and that's if they're a two-weapon fighter. This can, in no way, come anywhere close to any of the other classes as far as damage output is concerned.

I really like V.2 of the Magus. If what makes the book isn't too different from this I will definitely play it.

Overall, I agree.

I have to second the call for a ranged magus. (It doesn't have to necessarily be tied to archery...)

Something that can elegantly flow into arcane archer would be amazing. (or for those games that allows the guns (that are in the world already, albeit extremely rare) allowing a gun mage type magus)

Also: perhaps a magus focused around fighting other casters (which is termed by us as the Spellbinder) -- focuses on the abilities like the Dispelling Strike and Counterstrike features. [For a D&D equivalent look towards Occult Slayer, Suel Arcanamach, or even Spellthief. Other examples are the Chantry's Templars from DragonAge and the Rune Knight class from Final Fantasy IV (Celes Chere).]

One thing that really worries me about the overabundance of saves that are required is that a words of power caster is nearly hands-down useless against anything with Evasion. We need the no-save rays/touch spells in some manner!

I don't know if I'm posting in the appropriate area, but I'll give it a shot.

To ease in the problems with cross-checking between tables, and to allow a full spell-list to be more viable, would it be acceptable to remove the minimum spell level requirements to cast certain effects?

For example fire blast (which is wizard/sorcerer 3) (which of course does 1d6/level fire damage, save for half). I see clear reason why a single target spell (costing 6 points) would not be a legal second level spell when the second level word cost limit is 7. Perhaps this is an oversight on my part, but as a 5th level wizard (therefore being eligible to learn the fire blast word), would it truly be unreasonable for such a caster to limit the target parameters to create a lower level spell than fireball? (I think we can all agree that more targets, generally, equals a higher level spell. Why can this equation not work in the opposite?)

The system as it is sticks the second level spells to always do Mass 5d6 fire. I believe it would also be reasonable to do 10d6 fire to a single target.

Also, in case my other post was in a similarly improper place:
Is is possible for a Words of Power spell to have multiple targets (such as the four ten foot areas) for a spell (such as druid's vampiric sting which deals damage to a touched target and then heals the caster the same amount of HP)?

That is all. I love the system so far!

It just doesn't make any sense for me that you could be casting a fireball and healing spell in the same spell. If you are essentially casting 2 different spells you should have separate targets. But having 1 spell do multiple vastly different things seems silly to me.

The definition of vastly different is really determinative here.

I agree that casting a fireball and healing spell is nonsensical. But what about spells (and effects) that are more stream-lined logistically? Are there not legacy spells (for example the Druid's Vampiric sting) that deal damage to a target and then heal that much HP to the caster? There are also spells such as the druid spell Stormtower (I believe) which create what I was speaking of earlier, that is a wind wall-type barrier, the ability to fly for the caster, and the ability to do lightning damage to x targets.

The problem with remaining thematically similar lies in the fact that such a ruling would be near impossible to write into the rules. Where does the line exist between acceptable and unacceptable?

I like your other post suggesting one primary effect word with secondary effects being added to the mix (your example of a cone of cold also (I believe) slowing and reducing visibility). It's wonderful. But how would that affect the ability to do two different types of damage that exists as it is in the playtest? For example 10d6 fire and 10d6 lightning damage in a 60-ft line. (Of course the spell would be of a higher level, to suit the new damage capabilities.)

I would suggest then the addition of the third "wackier" abilities, but perhaps not necessarily limiting the capabilities that are already in place.

Yes, it is essentially casting 2 different spells. But Meteor Swarm is essentially casting two fireballs.

For the reasons mentioned above, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

The way it is currently set up, the flavor of the spells created by words of power seem to be very... wacky.

I would see words of power as modifying and customizing a main effect rather than just sticking a bunch of random words together to make a spell that fries your enemies and allows you to see magic auras.

I'd probably have a target word, a set of primary effects of which you can only have 1 per spell, and a list of secondary effects that you can add as you see fit. This way you can't have really wacky spells that do completely unrelated things. At that point you are pretty much casting 2 spells at once and you might as well allow separate targets.

For instance, using my proposed change, you could cast a spell with a primary effect of <cold damage> and a secondary effect of <slow> and <decreased visibility> in a small cone.

Seems this change would allow for a more cohesive magic system than the current throw words into a cauldron and stir until you have a big goopy mess.

I concur.

I just thought of something, and it may have been covered by other posts.

Is it possible to have a spell that, for example, would cast inflict light (to a single target) and cast cure light (to the caster)? Or other similar thoughts?

Like: would spells that create "hurricane gusts of wind," perhaps a lightning storm (a la electric fireball or call lightning), and allow the caster to fly be possible (albeit at a higher level)? Because from what I'm understanding, such a spell would (under the current rules) create the winds and deal the damage to the targets, and then imbue those same targets with the ability to fly.

Is that understandable?

(I realize it is a danger, but before there is an argument about subverting the action economy, there are legacy spells that allow the caster to fly and shoot lightning bolts at the same time, not to mention simpler spells such as vampiric touch. More bang for my turn is not what is being sought...)

In a way, neither specifically.

I find it hard to believe that such a "magical reservoir" can not be empty, but not allow a character to cast other level spells. It's hard to quantify without using analogies that use numbers (which the Vancian system does not). But, for example, exactly how many second level spells would equate to a third level spell slot? The Vancian magic system simply states that there is no number, regardless of how high, of second level spell power that can equate to a third level spell.

I find that highly dubious.

On another note, I greatly dislike the flavor of the smartest characters in the game having to reread the same 20 pages of the same book each day to prepare their spells. (True, this is a highly glossed over, minute detail... but still.)

And I agree with a few of the previous posters' comments, even the dissenting ones, especially Evil Lincoln's argument concerning dovetailing systems.

However, if Pathfinder move away from [vancian] magic, I'll move away from Pathfinder.

The point of alternate systems (in my opinion) is not to completely replace the ones that exist, simply to allow both to exist. I'm not suggesting doing away the Vancian magic system-- just, if there's going to be a different spellcasting system, make it adhere less to Jack Vance's concepts. :)

And that's not to say that I particularly like the spell-points system (although I have not been able to play a game using them before).

I, for one, would like to take a step away from the spell slot system.

I have no constructive way to suggest this, I just thought you'd like to know. As an alternate magic system (and I really like Words of Power so far, don't get me wrong)... I don't know... doesn't feel too DRASTICALLY different other than allowing the player to craft their own spells (at the beginning of the day, or on the fly) instead of using the legacy ones. Again, I LOVE this concept, but is there anyway way we can take just one more step distant from Jack Vance's system?

The only thing that I can see, right off the bat (that other people haven't addressed) is that I think we should get rid of the level requirements for casting the words.

Keep the costs, that's fine, and feel free to keep the levels there for learning the word.

But if I can make spell cheap enough to fit into a first level slot, although the effects might be 2nd level... it's just kinda disappointing. This will fix the problems that people are having with the barrier spells too.

Also: I don't know if it's already planned, but I would add a couple more interesting effect words (like maybe rings? or four 10-ft squares) I don't know. The barriers always being lines is limiting. (Or at least make it so they don't have to start directly from the caster's square.)

The damage scale appears to be fine. Most of these spells, however, seem to fail horribly when up against a rogue. Almost every spell is reflex/half. Which of course, evasion eats right through. I'm not necessarily saying add more No Save spells, but is there anyway around this?

Finally, I know that this is no where close to all of the words that are going to be released, but I would like to see words that can do things that legacy spells CANNOT normally do. And I don't mean simply weird damage types, just new effects.

And I see a lot people saying that wizards are mostly going to ignore this, I primarily play wizard and I think it's very interesting (I can see an almost scientific-flavored approach to this type of casting).

Quick question: how do classes that allow you to learn spells from other spell lists play into this magic system? I'm assuming you get to learn an effect word that is normally barred to your class, but I'm unclear.

I will second the opinion that the cost allotments for each casting level might need to be raised just a little bit.

I'll continue to look at the system, just wanted to throw in my two cents so far.

P.S. I'd like to see some of the other classes getting play in these too (I don't recall seeing any of the APG classes getting any love).