Indi523's page

So someone decided they did not like alignment and convinced everyone else to leave it out of the game.

I know all the various arguments posted and it is what it is.

So I am trying to work without it and I got to tell you I ma finding the lack of alignment and discussions about why a creature tended toward this or that alignment to be part of a problem.

I noticed this most squarely when reading the monster core 2 which I picked up recently and perusing the dragons as well as the monster core 1. What is a Cinder dragon, what make it tick. What is the culture of Cinder dragons? Are they selfish, kind hearted, stern but fair, reckless and passionate. Ok, I can say its a red dragon replacement and then use that but should I. Maybe it is different or works better differently. Same with a horned dragon, primal aspect I get but what drives them. Sometimes the description on monsters for whatever reason is light on these aspects meaning I guess I have to fill that in.

Culture matters especially in fantasy because it is about the great conflict Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos. Alignment was a shorthand that helped to flesh all of that out.
Cinder Dragons are CE, Ok the are cruel and selfish like a red dragon, LE ok then they are ordered and believe in discipline and conquest, N, they are balanced and react as mother nature, their personality dormant until they erupt.

Sure, I agree that alignment did not force a creature to be one way or another unless it was from the outer planes are fixed that way but it was a good way to describe the culture of the creature I was adjudicating helping me to flesh out their culture when needed.

But we are not using that so..... there is unholy and holy tags which are part of the divine but other than that I am left a little perplexed and overwhelmed to find a zeitgeist for monsters on the fly.

Is there some kind of overall meta philosophy in the world to dictate peoples culturally that we should be using in place of it.

I am finding it hard to break the mold as it were without a mold to break to begin with. Any suggestions?

In line with some of the discussions brought up by others regarding spells and scrolls I have had a thought.

The Treasure Vault regarding scrolls as magic items classifies them by rank.

However, part of the value of a scroll cache found for Wizards at the very least is the individual spells found in the cases themselves.

Certain spells will appear to be more useful over others and others more powerful by virtue of what spells they were even compared to lower ranked spells in some cases.

Most GMs are intuitively aware of this which is why they make make finding mages who know certain spells harder to come by either because the spell is considered too esoteric or the mages who learn them are not keen on teaching them to just anyone.

Similar to a kung fu master who only teaches the more powerful techniques to a select few students he trusts so to might there be wizards that just will not teach powerful spells such as charms, teleports, cone of cold etc. to just anyone.

That being said how would be best create a scroll rarity system for designating how hard it is to find a scroll with certain spells over others.

If someone developed such a classification system or rules for making one that might be a useful tool for GMs and Players alike.

So the Wizard starts off with 10 cantrips which is a lot while other traditions have access to fewer.

Traditionally Wizards and Witches can use the Learn a Spell ability associated with their tradition skill to add spells to their list.

Normally they do this by gaining access to scrolls.

However, one cannot create a scroll from a cantrip. Thus, there are no scrolls with cantrips that one can learn from.

So, does this mean you cannot learn cantrips or are there other ways you can learn this ability such as being taught by a wizard that knows it, etc.

or are you set to the number shown in your class abilities for spells?

If you can learn a cantrip what would be the cost of it.

If you found another wizard's spell book for instance and got access to it could you use it to learn cantrips.

This is my idea to fit a homebrew world first adapted to Pathfinder 1.0 to the 2.0 setting. At issue are the fact that the eight schools are no more. The area these mages reside are the horselords, with five kingdoms merging from hundreds over the last few years in response to a organized threat of hobgoblin witchs and hags who destroyed the elven and hill dwarf homelands and now threaten the kingdoms. The Horselords rely on mounted warriors and centaurs for calvary, traditional human armies with several orc tribes civilizing themselves and joining the Kingdoms to avoid the Winter Witches as well as Mountain Dwarves and gnomes with clockwork vehicles and mechanical monstrosities fueled by arcane pitch (oil and tar that burns) and guncotton (gun powder). In this world in order to activate the power of the burning pitch or fire a weapon based on guncotton one must be a stonekin, blessed by elemental earth. This is for the most part dwarves, gnomes and a few other creatures only.

The Humans had mages which specialized in each school who were trained in arcane dueling. With the changes in Pathfinder wizards I was forced to rework this. Here is my shot at dueling magic schools and arcane thesis which tend to go together and would be what a traditional mage of the Octinity (This eight gods who are avatars of one God that make up the most prevalent church.

My original description was much more powerful. This is me toning it down. Hopefully it is balanced. The idea is a school of magic and a thesis that is taught specifically to train mages for spell duels, fighting with weapons and suing weapons as focus for spells while excelling in countering spells. Please let me know if this works, doesn't work, needs nerfing, buffing, etc.

Wizard (Disparen Arcane Thesis)

The Disparen tradition focuses on wizard dueling which focuses on the Hexenklinger also know as the Arcane Blade or MageKnife. This is a weapon designed to be magical tool bonded to the wizard to prepare them for dueling. There are various types of weapons that the wizard can bond with which the wizard will train in both martial and magical combat. These weapons included in the training for this thesis are the Dancing Spear, Main Gauche. Short Sword, Staff, Sword Cane and Rapier. If selected, the weapon will count as a simple weapon for the wizard with this thesis. If they select a staff it will count as a finesse weapon. At 11th level, the Disparen Wizard may add a second type of weapon. Either of these weapons may be bonded to the Wizard at the beginning of the day. The second weapon will also
gain the benefit of weapon runes.

Each weapon chosen that may be bonded will benefit from the following two runes, A Weapon Potency Rune at +1 and a Spell Reservoir Rune which allows the wizard to cast a spell of a rank they can cast, but no more than 3rd rank. See the Active Channel Release, Safe Channel Release and description of the Spell Reservoir Rune. In addition to the spell that may be added into the Spell Reservoir Rune attained the Mage with this thesis may choose one cantrip which they add to the arcane weapon they bond with. This cantrip is a bonus which is added to the wizard's repertoire every day in addition to other cantrips he knows. Each day when spells are prepared that cantrip can be replaced by one the Wizard knows. The cantrip is considered part of the the spells known.

At 11th level the caster has a choice. Either bond a second weapon that can be used with the original or craft an alteration to the original weapon such that it can be transformed into another weapon. IF two weapons are chosen then both combine to form the Arcane Bond and thus the caster needs both weapons in hand to use the bonded effects.

Traditionally Disparen Mages are taught to either choose a rapier that can be changed into a staff or a dancing spear or to choose a combo of a rapier and a main gauche. If a second weapon is chosen then it will also have a +1 weapon potency rune and another spell reservoir rune however the Spell Counter bonded with the weapon requires both weapons. If a choice is made for a weapon that transforms then the weapon will have a +2 Potency rune and two Spell reservoir runes.

Note the weapon potency can by added to attempts to counterspell while the wizard holds this weapon. The weapon may be used as a focus to cast spells and if so the weapon potency can be added to the spellcasting to hit roll as well.

Arcane Bond

Note: a Wizard that takes the Disparen Arcane Thesis will ususally learn the Disparen Dueling Arcane School. When the wizard takes both the Disparen Arcane Thesis and Disparen Arcane School then the Arcane Bond ability is altered in this way. The bonded item of the wizard must be the weapon or weapons which are dedicated to the Wizard in their thesis. The wizard does not gain the drain bonded item free action but instead gains the free action Select Spell Counter. The wizard may at the time that they prepare spells choose one spell to be loaded into their Bonded item as the Spell Counter. These are the spell or spells loaded into the Spell Reservoir runes. Once per day you may use the spell loaded as the spell counter to fuel a counterspell feat attempt of a spell another wizard has cast. The first time that this is done the Spell Counter is not expended. The second time however the Bonded item drains the spell loaded into Reservoir Rune.

The Spell Counter must be a spell that can be utilized to counter the spell being cast. IF the wizard takes the clever counterspell feat then the number of spells that can be countered is increased.

Disparen Dueling Arcane School

Those who learn to use Mage Blades to fight in the wizard duels make the most of martial skill with weapons and the ability to use those weapons as arcane focuses for their magic. Each student of this school gains the Counterspell feat at first level if they do not know it. A student may also use the weapon as an arcane focus for their spells and can cast spells with an attack roll using the weapon,
gaining the ability to add the weapon potency bonus to their spell casting attack roil.

Spells: Shield, Telekinetic Projectile (Cantrip) Hydraulic Push, Mystic Armor, Runic Weapon, Sure Strike (1st) Blazing Bolt, Telekinetic Maneuver (2nd) Ghostly Weapon, Gravity Well, (3rd) Flicker, Weapon Storm (4th) Blink Charge (Secrets of Magic pg 98) Forceful Hand (SoM pg 106) (5th) Wall of Force, True Sight (6th) Project Image, True Target (7th) Disappearance, Summon Archmage (SoM pg 131 ) (8th) Falling Stars (9th)

School Spells: Initial Warding Sign Advanced Star Sign

Disparen Dueling Magic School

Warding Sign
Focus 1 - 2 Actions
Range 30' Target One Creature
Duration: One Minute
You place a sigil on your self or a willing creature and it glows with a dark violet magic. The sigil must be placed on armor if the character is wearing it or clothing if not wearing armor. If may be placed on a shield as well but will only be active when the character has a shield raised so this might not be an optimum choice. This sigil glows on the creature protected and is activated whenever they are targeted by as spell. The character will gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all saving throws from spells while the rune is in effect.

While the spell is active the person wearing the rune benefits as if his armor, clothing or armor has the spell watch rune. This means once per turn the receiver of the benefits of the rune gains a new save to a spell that was failed. If this spell is successful the spell will end with no effect.

Focus 4 Spell Sign

Focus - 2 Actions
Range: Self
Duration: Ten Minutes or until triggered three times.
Like the Warding Sign spell this creates a rune in the shape of a star sign on the Arcane Bond (weapon) of the wizard casting this spell. For the duration of this spell the Spell Counter used is altered by the magic of this spell. Whenever an attempt is made to counter a spell using the counterspell action the magic of this spell will form a temporary matrix which will other match and empower the countering of the spell as a reaction to a spell being cast at the desire of the holder of the star sign. The rune will flash a brilliant green color and after the third counter spell attempt this spell will end. This will not use up or alter the spell counter already loaded into the wizard's bonded dueling weapon.

If the attempt to counter a spell suing star sign was successful and the was spell countered was five ranks or more below the roll required to counter the spell or if the counteract\ result was a critical success and the rank of the spell was two or more below the level that can be countered then the wizard steals that spell. They regain a spell slot which has been already cast and they can either roll randomly among the spells of that level that they know and gain a spell slot with that spell cast or withing ten minutes take a minute to relearn any spell of the rank or less that they already know. IF the counteract attempt was a critical success they may roll twice among the spells they know and choose the one they like.

So I am going through the spell rules and spells for the remaster Player's Core and I see certain spells such as Globe of invulnerability or Anti Magic Cone seem to be no more and have not been renamed or changed.

Add to that Spell resistance is no longer part of the rules.

What abilities other than countermagic will protect from a spell being cast exist.

Why was this change made?

{Scratching my Head}

I am looking at how the summon spells are handled and noting a few items.

Aberrations (Entities) are occult though arcane does this too.
Elementals (Inner plane) are arcane and primal

Fiends are specifically Divine.

This spell however appears to be the Gods granting their servants the ability to control the denizens of their demesnes.

Are we going to get the ability to see Occultists and Arcane casters opening rifts to certain realms to invite a fiend or other denizen to come through and bargain with the caster for services which dates back to the old Cacodemon spell from 1at edition.

This is the chance to get a favor for a cost.

Will this perhaps be in ritual magic that will come out.

Or is access to creatures of the outer planes going to be specifically the bailiwick of a divine caster only.

Will we have a book scheduled to go over fiends, angels, etc.

Just Wondering!

I know this is due to the need to break away from that other game and this is why we do not see the old eight schools of magic before.

I do see there are some tags such as charm, mentalism etc. but no lists that sort spells according to which has what.

Here is the thing. In my homebrew world started under Pathfinder 1e I had a set of principalities that all adhered to sects of the same religion.

It was all centered around eight major gods each one tied to the old schools of magic. Each god was not based on the magic but his realms supported the magics such as the God of Locks and safe passage who represented Abjuration magic etc.

Any rate the spells and settings are settings are all tied to the spells being broken out into these eight categories.

Is there going to be some classification of spells available in future supplements where arcane magic is broken into one of a set number of classifications?

Is there some form a cheat sheet someone has done for making conversions with this?

Or is there a new classification that I could use and adapt instead?

I am not a fan of the Proficiency bonus adding the entire character level. This makes the ability to hit things at 20th level impossible for 1st level characters.

I don't want the other games no increase for level either which is an alternate rule in the GM CORE

I would like to change the bonus to 1/3rd the level rounded up or down as normal. Thus at 1st level the bonus is +0 while at second level the bonus is +1 (2/3rd =0.667 rounds up to 1 while 1/3 =0.333 rounds down to 0, etc.

This gives a bonus range from 1st to 20th level of +0 to +7 added to proficiency and makes having legendary proficiency the most important bonus at +8.

I like this range. Player to Player this works well as everyone recalculates there bonuses based in the new proficiency.

It may require certain adjustments for monsters or flat DCs since higher powered DC's will become harder but perhaps this is OK. Just normally accept high powered monsters are more powerful and guide the party to treat them as such. It would place many dragons outside the easy kill range of a normal group.

Do you all think this could work? What changes to DC's, monsters or other checks do you thing should be made to make this work and what good or bad do you see with this?

This question is regarding the suggestion in the GM Core that you can remove levels from the Proficiency bonus in second edition. They suggest if you do this just add the +2/4/6//8 from the level of the skill or ability and not the level. To do so you should changed untrained to -2 instead of 0.

Fair enough but I like some variation by level I just don't want it to be a 19 point variance from level 1 to level 20. Every starting guy with a javelin should have some chance to hit through dumb luck.

I am thinking of adding the level divided by three rounded as normal. So at first level this is 1/3 or 0.33 which rounds to 0 while at level 2 this is 0.67 that rounds to 1. This way you add a number from 0 to 7 to the proficiency bonus. This makes the few skills and attacks that go to legendary that much more meaningful because the +8 bonus for the legendary status for the skill or roll is higher than the +7 bonus for the level.

I think this could still work. You could use monster stats from the books as is just so long as you understand by not nerfing their values for the monster stats make all the monsters a little tougher.

I don't know, does anyone thing that will work?

Hello

I purchased the 1e Ultimate Campaign Guide tonight and the website glitched. Had issues entering the data and somehow when I got the bank info to work they charged my 19.99 11 times and reveresed it five times.

Despite this I do not see the purchase available for download.

Could someone send me a private message or answer my email, I need to get this fixed ASAP. Please!

Ok

So ever since 3rd edition they went to this prepared spells every day business that streamlined how spells worked. This changed some of the dynamics of being a wizard greatly, specifically the need to guard your spell books.

In first edition based on your intelligence you had a minimum number of spells and a max. This was the spells you could know well enough to cast. IF you wanted to learn a new spell you had a percentage die roll which allowed you to learn a spell from a scroll. If you failed you had to wait until you leveled up to try again. IF you however were at your maximum int4elligence you had to unlearn a spell in order to get the new one. Once you were above 18 intelligence (bsck then only through a tome magic item) you had no more maximums.

You still had to have the spells in your spell book and you had to have access to your spell book to prepare them.

At the time different gaming groups played the rules two different ways. Either the spells per day was the spell slots you could learn and the spell range was the minimum spells you learned automatically on getting access to that level of spells and the max the number you knew. Option A

OR..... The Spells per day was the spells you learned in your book automatically as you leveled and the range say 9 to 18 for wizards was the number of spells you cast every level. This method however was not how it read in the book but many people where I gamed played it as if it was. Option B

Any rate the game made you spend I believe 15 minutes per level of the spell memorizing it and you had to be in a period at rest when you did it.

Once you cast a spell you had to spend that time to memorize a slot. You could do multiple memorizations of the same spell but had to spend the time in game.

This meant that a wizard that had cast all his spells who was at say 7th level or greater could take a full day of memorizing to a week to get maximum spells depending on whether the GM used option A or B.

This made casting a spell a hard choice for a wizard especially if several encounters were going to be played out in a dungeon where there would not be appropriate setting to comfortably rest and thus would not be able to regain spells. If he cast every spell he knew then it could take weeks to reup all his spells and get them back. This is why option B was not overpowered.

The other thing was that it was much easier to lose spells. IF you took damage in combat in the segment range you were casting the spell I.e. as you were casting you lost the spell, period. IT did not go off and you lost the spell slot. So If the wizard got a 4 in the initiative (a d10 roll because there were 10 segments in a round) then on segment 4, 5, 6 or 7 if they were hit they would lose the fireball spell that took 3 segments to cast. This is why wands and staves were prized, the charge went off immediately.

The other thing was that a loss of a spell book was devastating. The wizard no longer could memorize the spells he knew without a copy of it. He could write down a copy of a spell he knew to a scroll or another spell book and use that to rememorize so there were ways to recover from the loss however if he did not have a spell memorized at the time it was lost until he could get another copy of the spell. Since he knew it he did not have to make the percentage roll to cast it.

This meant that if you captured a wizard and did not bind his hands and mouth he was dangerous as there were spells with no components. Essentially the captors would spend all day torturing the wizard demanding he speak a spell component then punching him as he was doing this to force the loss of a spell. A tedious and not usually effective tactic but it was tried.

So while there are benefits to adjudicating this the easy way there is a loss in how wizards are supposed to be in the spirit of true original ADnD and I was wondering how some of that could be restored.

Back then wizards spent a lot of money on their spell books placing magical protections guarding it from being opened, making it resistant to damage. and hiding it. (One method was a Mordencain's Pocket creating a dimensional space tied to an innocuous object.) They other thing was there were multiple copies of books. Players would have a travelling copy of there spell book and a traditional one that stayed in his domicile and many wizards had 3rd or even 4th secret spell books stashed as back ups just in case.

I believe signature spells was first given in 2nd which allowed one to know a spell and memorize it without a spell book. This way the wizard always had access to the spell.

Despite the problems the prepare your spells every day thing solved there was a lot of great roleplaying regarding this method back in the day. If faced with a powerful wizard (called mages then) you had to not only defeat the wizard but many times find and destroy his spell books as well. If you managed to get hold of an enemy wizards spell book that was a real jackpot worth more sometimes than any magic item.

In the system as the rules define it now spell books are an after thought. Something you give the wizard after the adventure to see if any spells in it are useful and then discarded. Certainly the party would never consider the second and other copies and hunt them down.

To me this is a loss but I don't see an easy way to tweak the current rules to make it feel more like this. I don't know!

Hi just wondering.

Will the GM guide have zero level base characters or will they have NPC classes that are weaker to flesh out the normal NPCs such as the tailor, blacksmith, farmer peasant, nobleman, etc. that are not Player character level?

For instance the town guard would be a warrior with light and medium armor and simple weapons and maybe one or two advanced such as say a Halberd. He is not a trained fighter in all weapons but has some level of combat training etc.

Likewise there could be an apothecary class which is similar to an alchemist but only certain basic things like making sunrods or anti plague poulstices and maybe some contrips and spells but limited to utility or very base healing. MAybe even knows spells that are a lesser version of the ones PC's get etc.

Right now if I want to make a base human guard I just make a first level fighter etc.. This is fine but not necessarily the best method to go with this.

Ok so looking at the classes I notice that no matter who you are you gain trained in unarmed combat.

I see the reasoning behind this, every adventurer must learn to throw a punch but classes apply to more than adventurers and there are some classes where the power is not in combat but spells. AS such these guys would be the book nerds who ended up getting the swirlies in school only to later on get back at the bullies with itching powder or clumsy cantrips (prestidigitation I guess. Just a metaphor).

It seems to me there are certain classes where the weapons combat is rushed. OK wizard you may be in a place where you are out of spells so here is how to handle a staff. Learning to fight at a basic level with weapons does not necessarily mean knowing how to throw a punch.

AS such what do we think about a house rule that takes trained in unarmed combat from Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards. The idea being that these individuals rely heavily on spells and weapons and are not true warriors. The classes still retain unarmored defense.

As I see it the only penalty is that with an unarmed blow they have a +0 attack for proficiency. They can still throw a punch just won't be good with it. If there are other penalties then this needs to be waved to make this work.

To compensate if one takes a weapon proficiency feat along with whatever level of weapons they upgrade to (simple in the case of wizards, martial, etc.) they also gained trained in unarmed combat. This signifies the time taken to study weapons included basic hand to hand fighting,

I think this is Ok because spell attacks use the Spell Attack feature not unarmed.

Maybe give the player another cantrip to make up for it. I don't know, players that get nerfed usually want something in return. Understandable.

Perhaps give the player the option. They add one more cantrip known and able to be prepared to cast each day in exchange for losing trained in unarmed combat. At least then it is the players choice and the DM can feel free to have court wizards and clerics that never leave the castle grounds not have it. That would be more fair.

Ok so I have a build for a character I really like and it seems to problematic to do in 2e.

Essentially the background is he is a half orc, tall and strong (at least 16 and definitely highest stat with the next best stat being dex). The background is he is a gladiator who grew up in the pits. This was a fairly even multiclass character build starting out as fighter and the next level rogue and then repeating in that order. The character learned to fight bare handed because many times he was not given a weapon and forced to fight armed opponents. Eventually he picked up the spiked chain as an exotic weapon early on for the spectacle of the weapon.

The only weapons the character used were his hands, a spiked chain and a sling although he learned to fight with all the others in order to combat those styles in the arena.

So Starting as a fighter his first feat was Unarmed Combat as his beginning feat and Exotic Weapon Proficiency Spiked Chain as his fighter feat. From that point on he chose the combat reflexes rogue talent, weapon specialization in unarmed and then spiked chain, improved trip and as he leveled up rogue talents that provided combat feats or combat abilities and fighter feat that complemented his fighting style.

The idea was that he was not a monk but learned to fight with his hands unarmed and used his strength and weapon proficiency to make up for the d3 or d4 damage.

Now for this build to work unarmed combat was a must as he needed to not have the negative penalty to do lethal damage.

Right now 2e has no real way to do this. To come close you have to archetype as a monk first and cannot add rogue until 8th level which is completely contrary to the character concept. He was a rogue because the pit taught him by necessity to fight dirty. I think if I remember improved feint was on the list to eventually get. He did not take any levels of monk because he was the opposite of what a monk would be. He was a bare knuckled grindy cage fighter relying on wits and rage.

So it seems that this build is not doable in 2e which is too bad! Am I right however. Is there some other way to do this and no I don't mean gauntlets. It seems unarmed attack proficiency or whatever it is called (can't remember) is now a monk only class feature.

If this is correct will future supplements address this.

The monsters are great and well done but the way the bestiary is written it leaves not ability for a GM to adjust things. Monsters such as the Derro for instance have three set different types which appear to be classes but there is no distinction that say the MAgister is a 6th level sorcerer with an occult bloodline or that the strangler is a rogue etc. The stats are set at a certain power level with set abilities and there is no distinction as to which are class add ons and which are part of the monsters natural ability. This means that the GM cannot easily upgrade the creature for higher levels or take the base creature and add a class such as say for the SKUM in the Algothu entries.

It is not apparent how to add ancestries or backgrounds or whether not at al nor whether one just adds a level of say fighter. I know the book states you can just adject stats but half the ease of making a fight adequate for whatever level party with whatever level monster there was, was t.he ability to add levels to the creature.

The prior system the first bestiary had rules for upgrading and adding classes to monsters especially pointing out which monsters could be upgraded this way and which were better not. It also had advice for how this affected the CR of the encounter.

For whatever reason these rules in any form do not exist in the original bestiary. I don't find that helpful at all. I can make changes but it is more difficult to then adjudicate the real CR. I am not sure why this was done. Also there are no monster only feats at all such as fly by. Curious as to why they wnet this way?

OK so games systems are becoming dumbed down and it is not to my taste because I like complex rules. I understand the need to make them workable but I like the diversity one gets in choice that complexities bring and simplifying of necessity removes. I am an old school gamer who liked Rolemaster. Actually not true the game I liked was Spacemaster, the Rolemaster space opera variant. This was the game that had a board game released for their combat rules that had three levels of complexity, simple, reasonable and expert. The expert rules introduced three dimensional space so ships had a position on the grid as well a height factor either negative, zero or positive that represented how many grid cells up or down it was. To move or determine range to fire you had to measure with a ruler the number of grid cells (centimeters) the ship was on the map and then use that number and its height to calculate the actual distance to be moved or to the ship using the Pythagorean theorem. IF I would have found people that would play this level of the game I would play it. So this shows my bias.

Overtime however I realized that playable games had to balance out my nerdy math tastes with rules that were more easy to play (especially of there are rule arguments) so I never let this bother me much. Every iteration of games since maybe the mid 90's seemed to get more and more dumbed down to the point that it affected playability by limiting options in my view. This version of pathfinder is no different in that respect although unlike fourth edition D&D it does not seem so bad to me. But that is another rant you probably don't want to hear either.

Now at the time I was told that this was being done because a certain group of gamers did not like complexity because they found it too hard and were therefore not playing the games as much as another group of gamers.

My first question is why do that group of gamers find complexity too hard. there is nothing about that group that makes them stupid.

The answer to this is Yes they can figure it out but they don't want to so we have to change it.

To which my reply was well I don't want it changed even if that group does not like it because I like the complexity

To which I was told that this made me a bad person for thinking a certain group of people were stupid and the game is not for me.

To which I responded Oo a oh Kayyy! then.

Now I only mention this version of the argument which I am sure you have seen iterations of online to explain this to you since many may feel the need to assume this argument has any meaning to ho3w I feel.

I am an old school gamer and quite frankly I don't have any clue to what people are getting on about no matter which side of that argument they are on. I am not a millennial so I don't get it. Oh well! So feel comfortable in the knowledge that nothing here is to trigger anyone because I don't even know how the bomb works and could not find it if you showed it to me. Nor am I inclined to learn.

That being said I have an issue with the skill system and ideas how to fix it that are hopefully not going to involve the Pythagorean theorem.

The problem is they wanted to dumb down the skill system so that you had a few choices to make and there was less calculation of where points go and who gets them. While this does reduce the paperwork level of the game it really flies against the idea behind how skills would work IRL. One can choose to be trained in a skill or not. If they are not trained they only have their stat bonus. If they are however the skill raises with each level the character receives automatically and all skills raise at this rate. You cannot master a skill until 7th level or become legendary until 15th and since you only get skill raises through class leveling it limits the number of skills one can master or better. This is fine however it means my character cannot take a few points into a skill any more just to be "familiar" with the subject. Best I can do is the feat that allows me to get half my level in every untrained skill but that is not my intention. I may want my character not to have any knowledge of some topics and a little on one or two That system automatically raises my knowledge based on level not matter what the skill.

Beyond that unless I want to take a feat that requires once I get past say 8th level there is no reason to ever be more than trained. The trained gives me +2 with +2 more each level more so the difference between legendary and trained is only +6 yet my level is more than that from 7th on. To me this is problematic. It means in the end once someone gets to 15th level being legendary in a skill is not that much superior to those who are only trained but still 15th level. I don't like this.

So my fix is this. Change the bonus to the skill levels exponential instead of cumulative.

Untrained 0^2 or 0
Trained 1^2 or 1
Expert 2^2 or 4
Master 3^2 or 9
Legendary 4^2 or 16

Then reduce the level bonus to half level for Expert and Master with no level bonus for trained and full level bonus for legendary (maybe but maybe van stay at half). The feat is now one fourth level add.

If this gives to few skills then give two skill raises out each level the character gets a skill raise with the caveat that it requires both raises to go from expert to master or master to legendary. This will allow the characters to get more skills they like to expert.

This is somewhat more complex which I know nowadays is the big no no but not stubbornly so and it does make the variance between skill training levels (untrained, trained, e)xpert, master, legendary) somewhat more prevalent.

So I am finally looking at my second favorite class to play the fighter and honestly they nerfed them too. The number of attacks is less and the feats are much weaker. Power attack gives you an extra damage die but it counts as two actions and you get multiple attack penalties. Seems to me you are better off swinging twice as that will give you your STR modifier and statistically you are more likely to hit at least once. This gets fixed at 6th level with another feat in that you don't have the multiple attack penalty but it still takes two actions meaning you could still make two strikes.

S power attack was the go to damage feat for fighters nerfing it does hurt them. Overall it seems the took feats everyone could take and instead just made them only for the fighter but overall it seems they toned down the feats.

I don't know maybe this is good too.

However, one thing is certain the days of a fighter with power attack and a few other choice feats charging the giant with a feat giving them a full attack and leveling it with over 200 points of damage in one round is gone too.

I don't know yet, what have they upped for the fighter that gives them more benefits.

So this is my idea for a campaign.

The party starts out as members of a circus troupe. They are all experienced newbies. They can be any race or class but not repeat classes. So only one Bard, one Rogue etc, The way to start characters as being similar I would limit the backgrounds to the following list:

Acrobat (Trapeze Artist)
Animal Whisperer (Lion Tamer)
Artisan (Tent Builder and Design)
Charlatan (Side show barker)
Entertainer (Clown)
Fortune Teller (Spiritualist)
Laborer (Tent Raiser)
Merchant (Master of Ceremonies)
Teamster (Animal Hustler)
Street Urchin (Little boy or girl that ran away and joined the circus)

The party would not see themselves as "adventurers". Instead they would go from town setting up shop to entertain and would you know it they would always find themselves having to save the town from some monster or problem every week..

It would start out as a "monster of the week" serial show and eventually would have a running plot line with recurring villians and goals.

At second level members can multiclass as normal but for them the Bard Dedication would be a free feat if they want to take it. They still have to pay for other Bard archetype feats and cannot take an additional Bard acrchetype feat at 2nd level and must take a class feat. Also they still can't take a 3rd dedication until they have two other Bard Dedication feats and must meet the Bard Prerequisites. Characters do not have to take the Bard Dedication if they do not want to. I am considering those that don't should be able to take one of the following for free instead ( breath control, feather step, fleet or Experienced Professional).

Lastly every party member gains the Skill Lore: Circus for free.

What do you guys think.

Obviously this will work better when they eventually release all the unusual races that they have in 1e but still cool idea right!

I know the general assumption is that they have been or that martials are elevated to be on par with them and there are many discussions on that topic already. This is a specific question in 2e in my Wizard truly less powerful than he was in 1e?

Many people point to the fact that certain spells have durations reduced and I think overall this might be true however to me this is not so great a disadvantage in combat. Most combats I have played in rarely go more than 10 rounds. It may take three hours to adjudicate those 10 rounds but by that time one side or the other has won. Thus unless a spell is reduced in duration to less than a minute I don't think it affects combat all that much.

Now certain spells useful outside combat (OC) this could be a real limiting factor. So I guess it is all on perspective.
.
I will say the current spell list seems to limit the overall reach of a wizard. They do not have a lot of spells that buff their own physical attacks and this is a major problem for people that had builds which relied on it. Party wise though many buffs are given to the Bard and Divine/Primal Casters so there is opportunity for a wizard like everyone else to benefit from this.

Wizards do still have access to the one major advantage of their class which was scrolls. Now it requires Expert in Crafting and a 2nd level Magical Crafting feat so it may take longer for a Wizard to be able to use downtime to stock up on scrolls just in case. This does weaken the wizard at lower levels and is a big factor.

On the plus side the cantrips are much more powerful affecting multiple targets (Electric Zap) or doing extra affects sometimes even if the target saves. The damage is at least 1d4 plus Intelligence Modifier so they are more damaging. That means a wizard who is saving spells for real fights is more effective in combat and not trying to wade into battle with a staff. This is not a small advantage as these cantrips are unlimited.

What I do like is that in order to be completely unaffected by a spell a target has to make a critical success. This makes casting that control spell somewhat less frustrating if the monster saves. At least it does something.

Overall the wizard casts less spell levels per day from one on however those spells do seem somewhat more powerful. Burning hands is a healthy 2d6 damage and shocking grasp is 2d12. This is a bump in power level that can make up for it. Wizards will rely heavily on cantrips until the enemy is corralled into the most effective use for their spells and then they will judiciously use them for maximizing effect. This means wizards will be required to play more tactically sound and not just spam spells every round because why not! To me this is more in line with how I envision a fantasy wizard to have to be. Intelligence and cunning being key. But does that weaken them... I don't really know yet, have not decided.

Some changes I love. Charm spells! It is not readily apparent to the target you tried to cast a spell on them unless they critically succeed. This is a good fix and I like it. Plus more powerful.

Mage Armor is a real let down. It almost seems useless to choose this spell unless you need it to craft magic armor and even then you don't take it, you find it in game and buy it when you have the feat to do that. Plus it is one combat in length so I see that as weakening wizards but then again they can take a feat and wear armor eventually and this no longer hampers spell casting. I am not sure I like that. The unarmored wizard is something I liked form the inception fo AD&D but I can live with it. I think however the shield spell is better. I do however find it awfully strange that the fighter can now block magic missile spells with his shield but the wizard cannot with his spell. That just seems wrong!

The only issue I had that they did not seem to fix was the raising your buff spells problem. Wizards have access to many utility and defensive spells that are great in battle but have to cast each one, one by one prepping for battle and forget it if you are ambushed and the fight is ongoing. I always felt there should be some feat or ability that wizards could start off with (maybe sorcerers or other spellcasters too not sure) where spells could be cast into a vessel of some sort or the bonded item and with an action or two released and the magics activated. Thus one could immediately react and get one to three or more, depending on how powerful they let the ability be, spells that turn on. Afterward the caster could reassign magic but that would take time, etc.

I don't know. Not familiar enough with the changes to make an informed decision but overall I am not conviced my favorite class has been nerfed. It may be the fighters are now more powerful than they were in comparison to me but that is a separate argument not related to the question "Did my wizard become less powerful?"

So anyone with ideas regarding this. Let me know what you think?

Cheers!

OK so I am trying to see how certain concepts flesh out in 2e.

One is the concept of the Eldritch Knight. This is a knight in full plate armor casting wizard spells. The character is an elf. Now in 1e this had to be done with still spell feat with one or two levels sacrificed to Cavalier.

In 2e the build is more straight forward. Play a Wizard class with an Elf Heritage. Choose the elven weapons feat as your 1st level weapons and you get access to longswords and long bows. Then at 2nd level choose the Champion Dedication to get access to armor, assume at 1st level you were an apprentice or squire and at 2nd you graduate to squire or knight I guess. With the 3rd general feat take ride and wala you can call yourself an eldritch knight.

Now the thing about the Eldritch Knight was using spells to accentuate melee. There is a feat a wizard can take that allows an extra d6 on a strike if you recently cast a spell since the last round.

The rules for targeting now say nothing about allowing touch spells or other to channel through a melee attack. It is all a touch attack to I guess no stabby with sword release shocking grasp. Oh well!

The book states there are specific rare spells which utilize a weapon to deliver the spell however I could not find them.

I really am disappointed that the authors did not have a better index to establish that rules are different from the way it worked before i.e. stating spells cannot be cast through a weapon or unarmed attack that does damage which was an option before. They lifted the cast spells in armor restriction as well except for druids but never mentioned this.

Does anyone know if there are rules for activating spells through a weapon I missed or which spells utilize an attack?

Also Mage Armor gives an item bonus to AC. Does this stack with worn armor or is it just armor. The description seems vague.?

Lastly are there spells that buff attack better than Magic Weapon. This is only +1 and has not heighten capabilities. So I don't see how one cast cast a spell on the fly to get better attacks.?

Just trying to figure 2e out!