HansiIsMyGod's page

I don't think there is a specific ruling that defines positive or negative energies tied to Necromancy in Pathfinder, only vague references.

Why is a Contagion spell considered to be "negative energy" spell, or any energy spell for that matter?

Positive/Negative energies are mechanically only tied to magical healing and inflict spells.

Alignment system, albeit a little complicated, is an interesting concept and is not supposed to relate to real life fully.

Alignment is fundamentally objective, not subjective.

Example: A Lawful Evil ruler might be considered benevolent by his subjects. He might even consider himself working for the cause of greater good and freedom but he is ultimately aligned to the forces of evil and law (or more precisely order like tetrasodium suggests).

Alignment is an abstraction of morality and ethics given substance.

This means that your characters are not supposed to be "epitomes" of alignments or be characterized by descriptive alignment texts. A Lawful Evil aligned character is not necessarily a tyrant or a villain (subjective concepts), just like a Chaotic Good character is not necessarily a freedom fighter (subjective once again). The confusion stems from alignment description blocks in role playing books which were traditionally presented poorly, as abstract concept are usually somewhat hard to explain.

According to what you have described as I am not really familiar with a Dexter as a character I would judge Dexter as Neutral Evil.

In traditional D&D fantasy, good, evil, law or chaos are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the multiverse/existence, so they are objective rather than subjective definitions of character behavior.

In other words, in Pathfinder, killing is not evil and dexter's is not a good example I think.

For a player, alignment should be a guideline and I don't feel it's an overly important aspect of the game anyway.

Likes:

1. Combat maneuvers.
2. d20 system compatibility
3. Skills.
3. Reworked base classes.
4. Artwork.
5. Adventure Paths.
6. Paizo staff activity on the boards.
7. Classes are not forced into roles.
8. Races (except half-orc)
9. Monsters revisited series
10. Less power creep than 3/3.5

Dislikes:

1. Death is a very easy problem to solve. It shouldn't be so.
2. Golarion. Too much of a kitchen sink / theme park. Not believable enough to me and it feels like a disassociated world into which every fantasy cliche is implemented for the sake of having it there.
ie - This is the land of the faeries and brave knights, next to is the land of gothic horror and somewhere nearby is the land of super science from outer space. Sorry, but I just don't consider that a pinnacle of fantasy world design.
3. Last few splatbooks (UM and UC) are honestly not good enough. Most of the material is either boring or not worth considering, unlike APG which was excellent.
4. Overall even more bloated than 3.5 in some cases. Archetypes are getting old fast.
5. Many whiners on the boards. ;)

One thing I always find funny is how many folks on the boards will say something along the lines of "This Metamagic Feat is total crud and needs to be changes. I would never ever ever use it. But I do like it in a meta magic rod." (Not targeting anyone specific as I have seen this many times.) :)

So what they are saying is they like the feat... they just do not like casting it in a higher level slot. Perhaps situational metamagic feats are intended to be used in small situations with preparation or as a kicker with a rod.

This is like saying a spell is terrible and you would never memorize it other then getting it on a scroll for when you do need it.

When you need it you need it. You can have a rod or scroll with it handy for those times where it will work. OR you can camp for the night and get it ready for the big fight or whatever the next day.

Just my two bits, and yes this spell does not do very much for fireball... but wall of fire or acid fog would like it very much.

That's because metamagic rods are perhaps too good for what they do. Metamagic rods also don't use class specific resources. Feats do.

I would prefer almost any other metamagic rod to burning spell rod if I was forced to make a choice.

This feat has really no situational use and you are never gonna really need it, or want it unless it's for free - hence metamagic rods argument. Would you use a high level spell slot to enhance Wall of Fire with burning spell? I hope not. ;)

It's situational and terrible. Using metamagic to enhance damage of spells is terrible anyway, unless you have rods, so... :)

Interesting fact: the spell cold ice blast form the very same book goes directly against this design principle. Functionally, the spell is identical to a quickened cone of cold, in fact it is even better as it has no components whatsoever. And it's outrageously "cheap", being a 6th-level spell only, when the quickened cone of cold would be 9th level. And on top of that, it's available to clerics. For the first time I'm wondering, what were they thinking?

Yeah, that has been discussed at length on boards. Some people think Cone of Cold is outrageously bad anyway so its not a big deal, others don't like as it goes against design principles. Sean Reynolds said that they will be looking at that spell because most likely it's not written as it should be.

Mastering magic is imo the best chapter of Ultimate Magic which is not that great book really. I am under the impression that Designing Spells under chapter 2 was written by someone who doesn't have the best grasp on spells.

Some controversial and/or redundant suggestions include:

*It doesn't really matter what school spell belongs too. Even citing that conjurations should deal the same damage as evocations. Very simplistic approach, which I don't like at all.

*Saying that Burning Hands is better than Sleep because it affects more squares.

*Glorification of Magic Missile as the best 1st level spell. The game has changed a lot since magic missile was staple fire and forget spell.

*Claiming that fireball deals large amounts of damage and that gaining that spell changes paradigm of the game.

*Referencing traditional kill spells like they didn't get changed. According to UM, Finger of Death, Slay Living and Disintegrate kill creatures outright.

HansiIsMyGod wrote:

White necromancy

Is that anything like white slavery?

Because I know nothing about that... <_<

Cure Light Wounds
(Necromancy)

Range: Touch Components: V, S
Duration: Permanent Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: Creature touched Saving Throw: None

Hello everyone;

We are gonna start a new game and I'd like to try and build an overall effective alchemist. I was considering a very thematic character using a Reanimator archetype (UM) but under casual observation it seemed to be a quite underwhelming option with too many drawbacks. If you can give an advice for reanimator I would be grateful.

Usually I tend to play pure arcane caster types. This time though, I wanted to try something with a twist. Alchemist seems interesting enough albeit not nearly as powerful as typical arcane caster. It seems to be a very focused support class that doesn't really excel at it's focus. If I am wrong, please enlighten me. ;)

The two options I am looking at right now are Chirurgeon and Reanimator, both from Ultimate Magic.

As this is my first Alchemist character I need help with a lot of stuff, so I have some questions.

*Will alchemist work well in carrion crown ap?
*Should I focus on bomb discoveries or not?
*What feats besides Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot should I consider a must? Is Skill Focus: umd a good choice?
*Is an alchemist able to fill the big boots of a primary "arcane" caster?
*How to allocate stats? Should I max out int or not? What are the most important attributes besides Intelligence?
*What race works best in combination with an alchemist class?

Thanks a lot.

White necromancy is an old concept that was used a lot in the ye old days of dnd when Necromancy spells also healed wounds and protected. For the record, it made a lot more sense than Conjuration[healing].

Nowadays white necromancy is mostly a redundant concept as there are very few necromancy spells that could actually thematically be considered "white".

Pathfinder sort of supports white necromancy ideal but mechanically the system failed to deliver an alternative to classic 'dark' necromancy.

There is a Wizard specialist alternative in APG - Life, but it kinda sucks a lot.

Classic application of necromancy would probably be viewed with scorn, fear and a lot of prejudice. Raising undead, draining life, bestowing curses and spreading all sorts of diseases would be most definitely considered a wicked pastime whether these spells are [evil] or not.

Here you go. A picture of the strapped shield.

Strapped Shield

Should you be able to disarm that with no penalties? Should you be able to disarm that at all?

The rule you've quoted refers to the caster level not spell level.

That means - Activating both spells from a CL:17 scroll would require a DC:18 caster level check.

Don't forget you can summon elementals from bestiary 2 also. Some of them have some nice abilities.

Power over Undead (Su): You receive Command Undead
or Turn Undead as a bonus feat. You can channel energy
a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence
modifier, but only to use the selected feat. You can take
other feats to add to this ability, such as Extra Channel
and Improved Channel, but not feats that alter this ability,
such as Elemental Channel and Alignment Channel. The
DC to save against these feats is equal to 10 + 1/2 your
wizard level + your Charisma modifier. At 20th level,
undead cannot add their channel resistance to the save
against this ability.

Versatile Channeler

Does this feat allow Necromancers to heal allies if they channel negative energy or not ? Can you take this feat at level one and channel opposite energy ? I guess not.

This is a continuation of my question and I hope I will get an answer to this. :)

If you get the opportunity to lead the way for Golarion based CRPG would you like it to be arguably more mature, heavy story driven and atmospheric game more reminiscent to the critically acclaimed classics such as Planescape: Torment or more appealing to the masses, easier to understand and play game that would probably sell better, such as Dragon Age ?

You should consider removing secondary effects from first level versions if you want to keep them in line with already published material.

These spells are already more powerful than a shocking grasp, which is a normal touch 1d6/level with no secondary effect. Granted, shocking grasp is a bad spell but keeping it in line with what's already there is a good idea.

I agree with Cheapy. Orb of sound should be given to bards.

Will paizo be doing 'hard cover' in depth book of the outsiders or golarion specific subjects, similar to Fiendish Codex and Draconomicon from wotc ?

Is there a chance we are going to see a computer rpg based on Pathfinder rpg and is that even possible ?

People wants the fighter being good at what he does. "taunt" enemies to pull them away from squishies could be a good thing, if well made (I already wrote what I think about the feat).

Fighter have poor defenses, barring AC. Unbelievably poor, in an high level magical world. This has not been addressed yet.

Melees generally have poor use of immediate actions. Fighter have few skills.

All these things are completely mundane, or "badass extraordinary" if well made (did someone remember the magic parry of Levistus, in the BoVD?). And all these things make fighters more interesting and well rounded.

Taunt enemies ala mmorpg in my best intended/honest opinion has no place in a role playing game.

And yeah, I agree that fighters should have somewhat improved defenses against magical attacks but I think that's another subject really.

All that being said, fighters are a very good combat oriented class across all levels. I don't mind improving on that class' options at all but not with feats like this.

Cartigan wrote:

I read that as 100% "non-casters can't have nice things."

Well, read it however you like, I suppose. That's not what I intended, though. I am fully aware of the martial-caster disparity in the game and I'd love to see it change. But dominating other people's free will is simply not what fighters are known for.

Make fighters better = Increase their Maneuverability/Threat Range/Damage/Durability/Reaction Time, etc. through things like training, schooling, increased athletic regimen.

Make fighters better =/= Give them magical abilities that aren't magic and just say "It Works!"

Fighters are already the best at what they are designed for. That would be - killing stuff and taking punishment.

People want fighters to get cool magical stuff - like creating demiplanes, teleporting around and charming persons obviously because that make spell casters much more cool.

(yeah I am sarcastic)

In my opinion you should first consult your players and see whether they would enjoy a more difficult game.

The skill of being a great GM is in many ways linked to making most encounters memorable and challenging, perhaps in different ways.

That said I would much rather play a difficult game with some realism involved to a classic game. I just like that play style.

For example, I've enjoyed the lethality of 2nd edition immensely even though I disliked the system.

In order to preserve the difficulty aspect of your game your players will need to be challenged constantly and die occasionally (i strongly believe in this), and I think you need to strike the fine balance in doing that. It's no fun if players die all the time for all the stupid reasons, but at the same time threat to their characters must also be real and ever present.

Talk to your players and be prepared to challenge them more often. My players enjoy lethal, less heroic and more gritty campaigns. I think such campaigns work great mainly because players feel that they achieved real success when they advance in levels or finish a difficult campaign. In short, it's much more rewarding but it won't work for everyone.

Try Pathfinder modules. They are standalone adventures and are shorter than adventure paths.

Crypt of the Everflame is an introductory and short pf adventure that will help your transition. It's designed to help you understand some of the most basic pathfinder changes with sidebars that specifically explain how a certain rule is different from 3.5.

Crypt of the Everflame

For the most part though Pathfinder RPG plays like D&D 3.5.

You would need to get a good read of the rulebook in order to get the understanding of the changes. There are many small changes you can easily overlook. In fact many people that play pathfinder sometimes miss the small changes and are not aware they are still using old 3.5 rule.

The most obvious one is damage reduction rule I think.

That is interesting, because I considered both of those options, but there was something that stopped me in each case. With the orbs of fire, I wanted to distinguish it from the acid orbs. (Which, when I originally wrote them, were a Reflex save instead of a Fortitude save.) So I figured I would just up the damage die. As for force orbs, I did not want to invalidate the Toppling Spell metamagic feat from Ultimate Magic, which is very similar. That said, I still kind of like those ideas. Anybody else want to chime in on these thoughts?

Catching on fire is a nice mechanic that never gets used in spells. So, even though environmental rules state that you usually don't catch fire from instantaneous spells you can make an exception here.

Orb of Fire
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one orb of fire
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial; Spell Resistance yes
You blast your target with a small orb of fire, making a ranged touch attack that deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6). Targets struck by Orb of Fire must immediately make a reflex save (dc = spell dc) or catch on fire taking additional 1d6 points of fire damage per round on their turn. The fire lasts for 1 round per caster level, maximum 10 rounds. Targets that catch on fire are also dazzled.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

----------------------------------

Since catching on fire is pretty weak I've added another minor effect - dazzled. It even makes sense. :)

You might wanna consider not adding this mechanic to a first level version though.

Actually I think that well optimized party will mop the floor with him.

Dual scimitar wielding Paladin with improved critical or some similar build and support cast of characters. +40 damage per strike (+80 on critical) only from smite evil bonus. Huge bonuses on each attack from smite evil, huge saves... Never underestimate optimized paladins. xD

I was hoping the people here who are more knowledgeable than me will hear my ideas and see the nuggets of win burried in my posts and help turn this ok-controller and blaster into a powerhouse.

You have some good ideas and you've definitely improved on classic blasters but I don't see nuggets of win because blasters are just not winners. Actually I am not sure whether you can turn any sort of a blaster into a powerhouse, but I might be wrong. Winning in something non-blaster casters do. :)

The problem is partially enhanced by typical blaster feats being usually underpowered or feats that work both ways are usually better suited for controllers.

Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, Widen Spell are all questionable assets at best for your wizard, while the newest pure blast UM addition, Burning Spell, is so ridiculously weak it's not even worth considering. There is not much love for blasters unfortunately.

It's kinda obvious where the love goes, intentionally or unintentionally.

That said you should play what you enjoy the most. If that is a blaster so be it and I hope you can make something out of it. I've given up some time ago.

If you want to create the most effective blaster there is you are doing pretty good actually. Just don't be sad if he's not as effective as a God wizard or whatever we call it now and don't expect him to be a powerhouse.

Burning Spell ? That's a useless feat if ever there was one, even when used on damage over rounds spell. Toppling missiles are nice though.

Still, I am under the impression that you are trying hard to create under powered controller. If you look at it all of your nice effects have nothing to do with damage. :)

The concept is nice and can work to some extent but overuse of metamagic feats will make your dcs too low.

Dazing spell is good but it works best on damage over rounds spells. Dazing toppling magic missile is 4 th level right ? With a dc of 11(12) + casting modifier. At that point you are obviously much better casting Confusion or Fear as attack spells, but I am digressing too much. :)

I'd prefer if you kept old 3.5 material out of your build because it won't do any justice to making a Pathfinder optimized blaster.

How are you planning to make your blasts effective at levels 10+ ? Do you consider using metamagic rods or not ? There is a big difference.

The good thing with this build is that I see magic missiles somewhat usable even at higher levels.

This can be completely wrong but can't you just advance normal skeleton for example as cleric advances in levels ?

So in AD&D Blasting not only was good, it was your only effective option.

Now, with 3.0/3.5/PF, we have the exact opposite. Not only are SoS/SoD spells good, they are your only effective option.

Evocation needs serious help. It's atrocious. At low levels it's okay, but by level 6/7, it starts to really fall off.

I think that sods are overrated. In fact, I would call them almost as atrocious as evocations and I am talking about traditional sods like Finger of Death. Suffocation could be considered a sod but it's strength is in the secondary effect mostly.

Typical sods are easy for most monsters to ignore it's not even worth memorizing them and they are generally available at high level.

What is a chance of cr 13+ monster to be affected by Finger of Death for example ?

A 13th level wizard with an int of 25 and greater spell focus necromancy would have a dc of 26 if I am not wrong. At that point monsters have spell resistance and fort saves approaching 20s. Even if you can affect it through those defenses you still need to kill the thing with hit point damage in most cases and your spell damage will most likely not kill it. That would be your used high level ability you can cast a few times per day. Not a good tradeof.

Compared to that you can use your area save or suck which affects will save and will save is when it comes to most monsters much lower than fortitude save or you can use your single target spell that disables a monster even if it succeeds on it's save if it allows a save at all.

Save or suck and buffing is the bread and butter of casters I think, not save or die.

I would suggest against sandbox aps such as kingmaker and serpent's skull because they require feats of gm improvisation to make them great and imo only experienced gms are able to tackle that well.

Sandbox adventures can be very bland and boring if ran purely as written.

I've heard Rise of the Runelords is nice but I can't really comment on that as I don't own it.

Purple Dragon Knight is right but what would happen if you cast cloudkill first and in the following round try to trap someone who is still in the area of a cloudkill?

Would this split the spell in two areas ? One that normally moves away from caster and the other one that is trapped in sphere with the creature ?

My try ..

Paladin (Party face. Very hard to kill and stop due to high saves and lay on hands. Preferably falchion based or twf. Destroys evil creatures.:))

Rogue (Skill monkey and support damage)

Witch (battlefield control and Support healing)

Wizard Enchanter (aura that reduces saves, battlefield control and buffing/summoning... )

I like the ideas but you should check how this affects non spellcasters. Martial classes rely somewhat on diverse magic items to be more efficient. Eliminating magic items might hurt them more than it does spellcasters.

Also if spells are harder to obtain, it will impact wizards the most of all casting classes. That means that divine casters will pull ahead and sorcerer might be a better choice than a wizard.

It's useless compare with AD&D in a vacuum.

In AD&D other spells made you get older or had similar drawbacks. Do you see drawbacks in PF casting?

Yeah I agree mostly. I still remember old Haste that used to age all affected for 1 year. :) It was funny how humans were affected more adversely than elves for example.

On the other hand Evocations are the only spells that can be compared to what they used to be as there were no negative effects to most of them and they largely remained the same.

Granted, the casting was a more dangerous business if DM wanted to put a pressure on you but the defensive spells were much more powerful than they are in pathfinder. Remember stoneskin that blocked all physical damage ? Or Invisibility that lasted for 24 h?

Probably the worst thing about prestige classes, besides them being silly and imbalanced, were the requirements.

"You have to be killed by the devil if you want to be the devil summoner. ?"

That said, I wouldn't mind prestige classes if they are well designed and prestigious.

But please no more generic prestige classes. In fact no more classes that shouldn't be classes at all. Barbarian comes to my mind. :)

Instantaneous means that the spell lasts an instant and takes effect immediately. A debilitating or beneficial effect caused by the spell could last longer.

Instantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

For example - Fireball.

Another example - Contagion

Yet another example - Feeblemind
This is a very good one because it means that the spell crushes mental abilities instantly and the debilitating effect persists yet the spell itself is not permanent which means it cannot be dispelled. In this case usually there is a special way to heal or remove the effect of the spell

This idea that spellcasters must be more powerful and better then fighters is truly bizarre.

In basically no fantasy or fiction or mythology ever is it claimed or even shown outright that spellcasters are "better" then martial classes. If anything, martial classes - who are 99/100 times the protagonists - mow through wizards like it ain't no thang.

In traditional fantasy, martial characters are staple or protagonists because traditional fantasy tries to relate to real life and real people. In other words in traditional fantasy little guy is overcoming a big bully by leaps of faith, luck, skill or any other method that would not be applicable in a real life situation. Antagonists, or big bullies, are portrayed as beings with supernatural or magical powers, to illustrate their perceived superiority over normal people and disassociation with the normal flow of life. Protagonists are more martial mainly because normal people relate naturally to 'earthly' characters compared to antagonists who are usually 'otherwordly'.

Traditional fantasy has a story to tell and that one is usually - stand up to your would be superiors, a little guy can stand up, compete and even beat an obviously superior antagonist. It is a symbolic message that's bean retold as long as humanity exists.

In the most common example, the Lord of the Rings, that's more than obvious.

Imagine you're playing a game based on greek/roman myth, and everyone gets to be heroes similar to Ajax or Hercules or Odysseus. Now imagine someone claims they want to be Zeus. Guess what? That's the guy who thinks wizards should just automatically be better then anyone else.

Your opinion is bad. And you are wrong.

Hercules is a demigod. Ajax is a half god, descendant of zeus. Greeks portrayed their heroes as half gods to explain their superhuman abilities unlike martial heroes from traditional fantasy who are more down to earth, which is a trait of christian culture but that's another discussion and I am pretty sure that was just a senseless rant.

I don't think wizards should be automatically better than everyone else, I just think that fighters should stay martial and wizards should stay "magical".

In fact, fighter is one of my favourite classes and I like how the game plays.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strategy-games.html

You can likely just scroll down to the part where he discusses starcraft. There exists a balance point other than homogeneity.

Pathfinder is not a competitive game. Starcraft is. Besides you are comparing a computer game to a role playing game.

Perceived balance in a role playing game is pretty much of no importance because players are not competing amongst themselves, or at least they shouldn't be. The relative balance is important though in a sense that every class should be good at what it is designed for. A monk is a good example of a game design failure, while a fighter is not.

In other words, what is important is for everyone to have a spotlight. Does a wizard steal your fighters show or not ? Is fighter able to be the groups frontline hardest hitting combatant? Is rogue able to be sneaky and deadly at the same time ? etc ... Those should be the primary concerns of this system.

Yes wizards are much more versatile and fighters are much more focused.
To be honest, I prefer it that way. I prefer rangers being woodland skirmishers to rangers being some silly incarnation of newest computer game trends and game balance crusades.

One of the biggest issues with 3.x was well played casters obsoleting non-casters. Some people around here might have heard of the tier system, for those who have not: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=qvl9769e49o3vs4 eqdovgnq2k2&topic=5293

It's imo too harsh to say obsoleting. No class is obsolete. Casters at higher levels are fundamentally more powerful, but that's how the game was designed since like 1st edition I think.

This is the metric by which I am judging balance. As you can see, non-casters typically occupy the lower tiers while casters occupy the upper tiers. PF has made some strides towards closing this imbalance, however, the gap none-the-less remains.

Now for the current state of affairs in PF (magus unranked due to inexperience, though I suspect tier 3):
Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch
Tier 2: Sorcerer, Oracle
Tier 3: Rogue, Bard, Summoner, Alchemist
Tier 4: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Inquisitor
Tier 5: Monk

This system is crap btw. It's overly simplistic in it's form.

Now some builds may adjust things a bit such as blaster sorcerers dropping down a few tiers, while the evolutionist summoner moves up to tier 2. In short, PF brought up most of the non-casters up a tier. For the sake of this post, I don't really care about any fine tuning to the rankings, what does matter is that there is a huge difference between what a wizard can do and what a fighter can do.

This system is crap btw. It's overly simplistic in it's form and ugly in it's presentation. Blaster sorcerer is not above the fighter using any metric system. You are generally right though, a cleric is more 'powerful' than the fighter.

There is a huge difference between a wizard and a fighter because that's how the classes were designed. The fighter is the master of combat and wizard is the master of magic. I prefer them that way, thank you.

Once a fighter gets abilities comparable to spells by making skill checks and swinging swords that will be the day day I will stop playing this game.

Keep my master of arms and combat outside of magic.

Svipdag wrote:

But an Int 7 isn't 70 IQ. A Str 7 can still lift 5 stone (32KG) above their head, or walk indefinately with a 5 stone (32 KG) pack.

Its an interesting point about the HP of a commoner with a con 7 however. Average commoner 4 HP, -2 con would give them 2 HP. Bear in mind this is the average however for a human over 53 years old (-3 to str, dex and con in total when old).

NPC classes have average hp (2.5 for a commoner) -2 =.5 (minimum of 1).

The average human Int is 10, the average iq is 100.

Commoner hd is d6 I think.

Average human IQ is 100, but, int 17 does not represent an IQ of 170 mainly because statistically it's a lot higher occurrence to have int 17 through rolls(3d6 based - if we presume all people generate int that way) than it is to have an IQ of 170 in actual human population. IQ in human population does not progress linearly.

I've long wondered why the Greatsword/Two-handed got toned down. I hope people don't get the idea that I'm anti-3rd/Pathfinder.

booger=boy

But it wasn't toned down. What they did was remove "damage vs large creatures" table because it was silly. It applies to all weapons not just greatsword and the damage is actually higher for gs than it was prior - 2d6 vs 1d10.

booger=boy wrote:

nooo! A dagger was never better than a Two handed sword. A dagger was a wimps weapon, something a magic user had to use. I never saw a fighter armed with a dagger and a shield.

In Angband (which is based on old D&D stuff as far as I heard), small speedy weapons like daggers can be much better than big weapons since they can do 5+ attacks a round...

err..
I hope that the following question is not too OT but:

Is there any website where I get to know old editions of D&D? Something like the SRD? Old editions are quite hard to find on the market and I want to get a feeling for the evolution of the product
(To be clear about this: bascially I'm asking if WotC or other license owners gave out some of that old stuff or if they made demo rulebooks, I'm not asking about illegal sources)

hmm... I think you might be able to find some books on the Amazon for example but they are probably very expensive.

If I remember correctly there was a software that assisted in character creation and had several AD&D books in electronic format. Pretty much all of the essentials. PHB, DMG, Monster MAnual and a few more. You might be able to obtain it somewhere, I am not sure where though. It was named Core Rules or something like that. Published in late 90s.

]

+1 to this.

"Ranged effect that makes you automatically lose your next turn, even if you save, unless you are immune to mind-affecting or have SR I can't beat" = too good for a 4th level spell.

I think the base effect is plenty bad enough (save or else stab yourself for 1 rd/level) for 4th level, even with "Will negates." It's still a full-on take-out effect. IMO the "you lose a turn even if you save" is overkill.

What if it was a full round casting time ? Still too good ? I think it is I am just looking for another opinion.

pathfindnders,

in the mists of time, maybe further back than Paizoids even know about there were big weapons that did alot of damage. Take the two handed sword for instance. A great big sword, which I believe is the Greatsword today, that did 3-18 points of damage per hit. What does it do today? About 50% less. How can you kill a dragon with such a thing?

Today I peer back and wonder, what happened? If I'm dreaming up a fighter these days it doesn't seem to include the good ol two-hander anymore. Its become an expensive weapon to avoid.

Why did we have to give up its might?
booger=boy

When did a two handed sword deal 3d6 points of damage ? Before 3rd edition it was 1d10.

And also a fighter wielding two handed weapon is one of the biggest damage dealers in the game.

While it is true that fireball has stayed the same since AD&D, the wizard casting it is FAR superior to the magic-user of yore.

AD&D Magic-user casts fireball, and he is out of 3rd level spells. 17.5 damage.

Pathfinder wizard casts fireball. 17.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for high intelligence.
35 damage
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for being an evocation specialist.
52.5 damage.
Then he casts it again because he gets a bonus spell for having a bonded object, and he is out of 3rd level spells.
70 damage.

While i partially agree with you i am right now looking at the great wyrm White Dragon from A&D 2nd edition.

AD&D Great Wyrm White hit points: 19d8
Pathfinder Great Wyrm White Hit points: 25d12 + 200

AD&D Fireball: 1d6/level max 10d6
Pathfinder Fireball: 1d6/level max 10d6

And we didn't even start talking about round economy. It is much better to deal relatively same amount of damage in round than it is in 2 rounds.

I was thinking of balancing blast spells by somehow implementing primary casting modifier into spell damage. In a similar way a melee character uses a strength modifier just halved initially, and multiplied by spell level. It's a simple semi solution and worth a shot I think. Damage over time would gain half the modifier.

For example a sorcerer with 18 charisma.
1st level: Magic Missile 1d4 + 2 (average 4.5)
2nd level: Burning Hands 2d4 + 4 (average 9)
3rd level: Fireball 5d6 + 6 (average 23.5)
5th level: Cone of Cold 9d6 + 10 (40 average)
6th level: Chain lighting 11d6 + 12
8th level: Horrid Wilting 15d6 + 16

A sorcerer with 26 charisma
1st level: Magic Missile 1d4 + 4 (average 6.5)
2nd level: Burning Hands 2d4 + 8 (average 13)
3rd level: Fireball 5d6 + 12 (average 29.5)
5th level: Cone of Cold 9d6 + 20 (50 average)
6th level: Chain lighting 11d6 + 24
8th level: Horrid Wilting 15d6 + 32

Another issue I can think of is that it just heals undead too much as it doesn't follow the standard cure/inflict framework. Perhaps add a secondary effect to it and lower the damage.

SHADOW OF DEATH
Necromancy
Level: sorcerer/wizard 5

Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Target: All creatures in a 30f radius burst centered on yourself
Duration: instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial; Spell Resistance: yes

This spell turns your body into a conduit of negative energy inflicting 3d8+1/level points of negative energy damage (maximum +15) and causing living creatures affected by it to gain 1 temporary negative level. Negative levels stack. Successful will save halves the damage but does not prevent negative levels from occurring.
Undead creatures affected by this spell are instead healed and gain 5 temporary hit points for each negative level. Temporary hit points do not stack.
Negative levels caused by this spell are temporary and fade after one hour.

Necromancy Spell, 5th level, Arcane.

Reflex:Half SR:yes Target: all creatures in10ft radius burst plus 5 feet per 2 caster levels.
This spell turns your body into a conduit of negative energy, allowing you to strike at multiple foes 1d8/caster level negative energy damage. (maximum 15d8) and on casting the wielder takes 1d6/2 caster levels negative energy damage

Do you think it works, too strong or weak?

Negative energy usually utilizes a will save mechanic. Change ref half to will half and it should be ok. Making it a will based spell will make it slightly less efficient against most monsters, so keep that in mind.

I think that the damage you take is too high for such a spell. I would rarely, if ever, cast a burst damaging spell that's centered on caster unless (in this case) my companions are undead, and I would definitely never cast it if I take so much damage from it.

It can be a nice spell if your companions are undead, and the caster is undead, perhaps even too good. Otherwise I would most likely never use it.

So a 10 foot cone dealing 1d3 damage is overpowered ? Really you guys are funny sometimes. :)

4 players is my optimal number. I won't go above 5. Even when you have 5 players it takes a toll on role playing and slows the game down.

Which is why I ask this question: Should Noble be an archetype, template, or stand alone class? My vote used to be for template, but with PF's archetype options, I think that would be the best choice, IMHO.

imo neither of those. Noble is just a title and should have no effect on your character class.

Edit: It's a good candidate for a trait in my opinion.

Noble: You gain +2 on Diplomacy and start with some equipment or more gold.

Well, there's the issue that it can act as a permanent buff with a standard action casting time and no expensive material components, or as a good ol'-fashioned 3.5 save-or-die. I know that flesh to stone has the same problem (either the monster is removed from the fight or you've wasted the spell), but PAO can work on creatures that aren't made of flesh as well as those that are immune to petrification. In one game I was in, the BBEG was turned into a sheet of paper, which was then set on fire. This was after a creature in the preceding encounter failed a save to the cleric's destruction spell but still managed not to die until the invisible TWF rogue full-attacked it. This understandably irked the cleric.

What's problem with save or dies ? I never really understood it. It's not like sods are the best option for casters anyway.

but yeah, this spell needs some work. I am not sure what should be done honestly. If we want for this spell to remain true to it's name and not be overpowered it's gonna take a lot of brainstorming and testing.