James F.D. Graham's page

It's a Skill Feat called "Recognize Spell", which lets you use a Reaction to try and Identify a spell being cast with one of the relevant skills.

Which is a serious problem because it takes up your reaction for the round - the one you wound need to use for your Counterspell feat.

I strongly disagree with this particular approach. First of all, this is like complaining that your 10th level party is no longer challenged by goblins. Growing more powerful isn't just a matter of having bigger numbers or fighting bigger monsters, it's about gaining more tools and abilities to handle a wide variety of challenges.

Thank you for saying this! I wholeheartedly agree.

Once a party has access to things like teleport and scry you, as the GM, have to start taking that into account. You have to stop planning adventures that can be circumvented by those spells and, eventually, you have to start planning adventures that require them.

You're talking about deontological (10 commandments) vs. Utilitarian (the greater good) thought. That's usually how I see the L/N/C axis. LG, NG, and CG are equally selfless in motive, but differ in what they see as permissible actions.

LG is concerned about not breaking the laws or the Divine Comandments.

NG is concerned about not tainting the inner compass of virtue.

CG is concerned with not sacrificing effectiveness for the greater good on the altar of some hide bound set of arbitrary rules.

In the end, they all want what is best for everyone, but they tend to differ on what they believe best is. LG thinks that everyone will be happy when order is maintained and justice is done. NG thinks that everyone will be happier when they become virtuous on the inside. CG believes that everyone will be happy when they have their freedoms in hand and a decent quality of life. It's a matter of priorities.

Sure, I guess.

All I was trying to say is that the Good/Evil axis determines what your character's morales, values, and beliefs are...and the Law/Chaos axis determines how willing you are to compromise them.

James F.D. Graham wrote:

...pineapple is delicious on pizza..

That is not lawful, that is plain evil

Alright... now the real debate can begin!

On a Cosmological scale, you could say the Law is fate or destiny.. while Chaos is random chance or free will.

On a more personal scale, I subscribe to the idea that the Law/Chaos axis is one of consistency.

Whatever your Lawful person thinks is "right", i.e. Don't steal, torture gets the job done, pineapple is delicious on pizza.. they continue to think that no matter how the circumstances change. (At least they try).

A Chaotic person is a little more flexible. Circumstances and situations can change what is the 'right' thing to do.

Maybe.
What do I know?

I really like the idea that a spellcaster ends up proficient at different levels in different schools.

A specialist might just be someone who chooses an extra level of proficiency in one school at the cost of being untrained in another?

Or maybe only a specialist can reach Legendary in their preferred school?

I'm excited to see how it works.

You said suggest anything so, I'm gonna say... Red Dragon.

Now hear me out:

At around 10th lvl, the party is pretty tough. They probably have access to a lot of resources and they probably geared up for dealing with the cold, the weather, the icy lake - all of it.

Bet they didn't prepare for the exact opposite.

Imagine their surprise when, while crossing the frozen lake, along comes a Red Dragon whose breath weapon not only burns.. but melts the ice they are standing on. Especially if it starts to refreeze immediately after.

I said Red Dragon, but really, any fire based creature would do the trick.

Just a thought outside the box.

My favourite exotic weapons are the ones that treat the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat as a means to 'unlock' abilities the weapon has.

Like the bastard sword becoming 1 handed or the hooked axe; which can be used as a battleaxe as a martial weapon but gains the disarm, performance, and trip qualities with EWP.

I'd like to see something like that for 2E. More than just "it's a *insert weapon here* but better", and certainly more than "it's a weapon from a far away place"

All these endless hypothetical discussions regarding invincible, ultimately prepared wizards who know every spell on their list, never lose initiative, know everything about every threat in the campaign and have unbeatable DCs has really soured me on the class.

I hear you.. but it makes me want to play one for fun and narrative purposes rather than as an experiment in game-breaking mechanics and meta-chess with the DM

I did this very thing one time for a Halloween one-shot.

The premise was a city was overrun by zombies. The players played all the regular townsfolk just trying to survive while the heroes were off somewhere else saving the day.

For me, I noticed each NPC class had an advantage:

Adept: Spell access
Aristocrat: The best gear/equipment (due to high starting wealth)
Expert: Best/most varied skills
Warrior: Best BAB

but wait, you ask, where is the Commoner? They don't have anything like that.

I saw that too and so I included the optional Hero Point system and said Commoners started with 1 extra and could have up to 5.

..because it is the common, everyman who always does the greatest/most heroic things in these stories.

Anyway, just some thoughts

Hey folks, looking for some brainstorming from the collective here.

Long story short: A powerful entity (fey/fiend/genie) decides to empower the wishing well of a small thorp or hamlet so that it actually grants wishes.

The adventure here is that the PCs discover this and have to fix things but what I need help with is, coming up with a large variety of wishes made by the locals that have already come to pass. Or will come to pass as the PCs investigate

So please, give me what you got:

Who made the wish?
What was it?
and of course... how does it go wrong?

Thanks

Disguise

Well, what comes to my mind is this:

Objects have the lowest CHA. They have none. (OK.. technically, 0 is the lowest but you know what I mean).

Low Charisma doesn't mean annoying/awful personality, it means no personality.

Have your Warforged be slightly robot like. He doesn't speak unless spoken to, he doesn't have opinions - just facts. That kind of thing.

Basically, be bland.

Of course, that might not be that much fun, so maybe be 'bland' but in a way that makes the rest of the group laugh. Maybe be the straight man to all the jokes, or be obtuse about social norms.. that kind of thing.

The biggest thing about low CHA is, in my opinion, is that you aren't the centre of attention, you're not in the spotlight. You are the one that everyone ignores when the high CHA person is in the room.

A bad personality can still be a strong personality and that is what Charisma is; the measure of your personality's strength.

I just recently stopped playing a rogue with the counterfeit mage archetype.

He was a gnome, for the SLA's. He took feats like Arcane Talent and Bookish Rogue. Had lots of UMD and spent all his money on wands, potions, and putting spells into his own spellbook.

He was ok at low levels, but as the campaign progressed to the mid-level range.. he really started to suffer. After all, there is only so much you can do with cantrips and 1st level spells.

But he was one of the most fun characters I've ever played. He kept up the ruse of being an 'archmage' for the entire campaign. Didn't even tell the other PCs until the last session.

Hey folks,

So today, as I was developing a Bard character for an upcoming game, I fell down the rabbit hole regarding maintaining a bardic performance vs. instruments that require 1 or 2 hands to use.

Basically, if your Bard uses an instrument that requires the use of their hands (flute, violin, etc) then:

1. By RAW they can still cast spells or attack because by RAW, maintaining a performance only requires a free action - no other requirements are mentioned.

2. But logically, this makes no sense because if your hands are occupied, how are you holding a weapon?

Now, I like the logical consistency of option 2 but I realize that it creates a disparity; no Bard would choose such an instrument over something like singing or oratory since those require no hands.

So, I'd like to come up with a benefit that makes those instruments worthwhile. Here is what I thought of:

If a Bard uses an instrument that requires both hands to start and maintain a bardic performance, they can also start and maintain a different bardic performance using a performance that requires no hands (probably the aforementioned singing or oratory).

Is it strong? Yeah maybe.. but we are talking about giving up your attacks here, so it should be good. The only issue is of course, running two performances eats up a bard's rounds per day of performance pretty quickly.

Anyway, it's a rough brainstorm I had and would very much like some input on.

Thanks

Ever watch Gremlins? or Gremlins II?

In my opinion, those are Paizo's goblins. Right down to a similar appearance.

If you watch them, you'll see that they think violence is funny, even if it happens to one of their own. Hell, even if it happens to themselves - they still laugh (before dying).

They also have no real concept of self-preservation. They don't ever think twice about doing dangerous things, no matter how lethal the consequences.

So, during your festival, have them do dangerously stupid things.
If your worried the PCs are about to lose - have one attack another and fight amongst themselves (lethally).
Have one drink an alchemist fire, cause she thinks its a potion and then have the rest spend a round laughing uncontrollably at the result.

and if your worried about the 'rating' of their antics - just keep them focused on property damage and mayhem rather than vicious attacks on people/animals.

Hope this helps

It doesn't even have to be 'boss fights' either!

The Moyster Manual 5 back in 3.5 had a few monsters who changed their role/attacks once they were reduced to 1/2 hp.

The one I can remember was a magma golem of some kind. Basically, molten rock inside a suit of armour. It started as a tough but slow baddie that did some fire damage but after enough hits it changed to become faster, with a fire aura. The idea being as it got hurt, the armour cracked and more magma was exposed.

....something like that. I haven't looked in a long time.

Still, the concept is one of my favourites and would love to see a few more such creatures in Pathfinder.

Well, raise dead has a time limit of days, while the resurrection spells work in decades.

Any line of succession would have to have some kind of time limit. Imagine if someone raised a king or queen from over a century ago.. would the current ruler be expected to step aside?

I have seen, and agree with, the idea that once a person in a hereditary position dies, their place in the line of succession is over. Even if they come back, they don't get to jump back in.

Of course, it could totally depend on the political landscape of a given nation. A fascist dictator might very well adopt a policy that they are always the ruler and in case of death - it is mandated that they be raised.

As for criminals, you could make a case that a person sentenced to death and is then executed has paid their debt to society. If they have some manner of coming back after then they are considered to have a clean slate in regards to that crime.

Again, given nations or kingdoms could all have very different ideas.

EDIT: Whoops! Somehow I got onto the idea that this was about lines of succession and the passing of crowns.

The idea is still sound though, even when talking about inheritances of money, land, or belongings.

It's 'complicated' but I have an 'age drag coefficient' so to speak. At the beginning, they age the equivalent of one to one up to say age twelve, then they start slowing down relative to humans and aging less year to year so the elf is functionally, say, fifteen when the human is 20, twenty when the human is thirty - then the curve keeps increasing to match the aging effects landmarks.

So when on the young end the aging is roughly similar but diverges rapidly the older they get.

So you avoid the long helpless period, but what you do have is an extended 'flighty adolescence'

This is exactly how I do it too. You are not alone!

If you do the math, a mile works out to be exactly 6,000 feet.

Math:

Of course, as a Canadian it's all academic to me.

I am currently co-leading a western themed campaign where we took firearm availability to the max - advanced guns are everywhere and considered the norm.

It certainly changes the way the game is played. For instance, combat isn't really about melee fighting any more - it's all run for cover and shoot outs. Lots of holding actions until the other guy peeks out to take a shot and then shooting first. Which is very much in line with the western feel we were going for.

We were a little worried about the lethality of it all what with x4 crits and resolving around touch AC pretty much all the time so we fiddled with the rules a bit:

Characters have a 'firearm AC' that starts as their touch AC as per normal but can be modified in various ways.
- Anything that grants a force based armour bonus (mage armour, bracers of armour, etc) still works.
- Classes that normally gained proficiency with medium or heavy armours now get a +1 or +2 'grit' bonus to their firearm AC. Same with light and heavy shields.
- Some special materials like adamantine or mithral are considered 'bullet-proof' so armour made from them apply.

The only other real piece of advice I can offer is to track ammo.
I know a lot of people don't bother tracking mundane arrows, bolts, sling stones, or what have you in a standard fantasy campaign and that's fine - I don't really either but I think it is an important part of firearms to keep track of how many shots a character has left.

Hope this helps.

Hmmm, very interesting stuff.

I, too, have been looking at the Unchained Monk and trying to decide what kind of tweaks I'd impose. Your list is a very good springboard.

1. I am with you 100% on this one. However, I can also agree that all good saves, full BAB and matching d10 HD is too much. So for me, I am keeping their HD at d8. I know that breaks the cardinal BAB to HD ratio but as you said, the Barbarian breaks it too - it doesn't have to be the only class that does.

2. So far, I have no problem with the ki pool size. That may change once I see it in play but for now, I'm fine with it. I do like the idea of a recharge ability though.

3-4. Yeah, I can buy these arguments.

5. I'm afraid I don't see the big deal. 4 ki points vs. 1/day? Is the 'travesty' just part of your 'not enough ki' opinion?

6. The idea seems solid but you're wrong about every other class working this way. The Ranger's combat style is a selection from a few thematic feats. I'm of two minds really - your right that the list is disjointed and without room for growth but at the same time, picking up feats without meeting prereqs is not half bad.
Maybe meet in the middle with "Pick a bonus style feat without meeting the prereqs"? Except for other style feats, so you don't have people picking the final style feat in the chain from the get-go.

7. Eh, again we probably disagree here because of the ki pool thing. Though I do agree the Quinggong stuff should only work with ki in the pool.

8. Ditto here I think, unless there are other reasons?

9. Formless Mastery, whew... what a can of worms eh? I get what they were going for - someone with no styles gaining a surprise upper hand on someone who does, and I like the idea, but your right - it is so situational. It also doesn't work if you make the bonus feats 'style feats only'.

Here is a first blush idea: The 1st lvl bonus feat has to be style feat opener OR this Formless Mastery. From there, the other bonus feats can be more style feats OR combat feats for the 'formless' (or maybe a select list...)

10. I agree with you that head butt needs a change. I don't really like the -8 either especially because head butt uses CMB vs CMD which already includes modifiers for size. Although, I will admit that it means larger creatures have an easier time butting smaller ones which isn't exactly true IRL (how does an Ogre stoop so low to butt a halfing?)

Anyway, my biggest issue with head butt is this: If it works you stagger the opponent. Monks already have Stunning Fist - they already have a means to disrupt a targets action economy - why do they need this slightly different one? It seems redundant. I'm not sure what else would work as well thematically though.

The other thing is, the head butt strike says "the monk must attack with a head butt to use this strike" but head butt is not one of the listed attack forms under flurry of blows. It's a typo I am sure but I think a neat benefit to head butt would be to let it be usable after any type of strike. Hands, feet, elbows, knees, it doesn't matter which you use - you can always try a head butt after. Gives it something unique that makes it worth taking.

Likewise. I'm ok with Elbow Smash being nonlethal. Otherwise it's just another attack for your flurry of blows and thus, a no brainer to take. Now it does carry a -5 penalty and I don't think it needs both. Personally, I would drop the penalty and keep the nonlethal but you may want to go the other way around.

And last, I don't see why flying kick needs a boost with the 10ft minimum. Could you explain your reasoning?

Anyway, just some thoughts. This is good stuff!

I once had the party face off against a deadly assassin whose main 'shtick' was using a ring of x-ray vision and +2 brilliant energy shuriken to hit his targets from behind closed doors/through walls, etc.

It was fun.

It was also, as The black raven says, total houserules. I didn't mind, and neither did my players but only because we all agreed that for a +4 enhancement, brilliant energy could use a little boost.

Ok hate to say this and it is gonna annoy people, most likely. If you're bad at it, learn and improve. Being able to communicate is key to living in society anyways.

Anyway, gaming examples. I am bad at RTS games and things like DOTA. Should I be given a free pass because I am bad at it or be allowed to use some kind of cheat/trainer program? Or should I have to actually learn how to play them better? Magic:the Gathering. New guy sits at a tournament with a deck he bought and, while knowing how the game rules go, he is not good at strategy and resource management. Should everyone just go easy on him or just let him win, or should he take the loss and learn from it?

When people just give you a pass in these social things, you'll never learn to do better.

Back when I was new and we played 2nd edition, we never used social rolls (don't remember if there were any) and we had to actually talk out scenes like we were talking to real people. We had to make reasonable arguments, convincing threats, etc... and over time, with being really bad at it at first, we actually got better. This helped a lot both with in-game social interaction and real life social interaction.

So again, if you just want to skip the social stuff in a storytelling game, tough. Learn and improve, don't sit and stagnate. Imagine how boring a book would be if all the dialog was replaced with the characters shouting "Diplomacy!" or "Bluff" instead of actually saying something. Sometimes also, being bad socially can be really entertaining. Flaws are fun too.

Edit: It is almost like saying if I am bad at basic tactics and strategy in combat scenes, you should not punish me for standing in the open and firing my bow at or in melee instead of being smart about it and firing from any cover that is available like a pillar. You know, "just because I am bad at tactical combat doesn't mean I should be penalized for dumb tactics. Just make it easier for me because I don't want to learn from mistakes." Sounds kinda...

Well, my first question is since I am pretty bad at magic and spellcasting.. do I have to improve that too for myself before my Wizard can?

Man, that is an awesome question!

Gut reaction from me says Deflect Arrows works but the bomb has to go somewhere and so you work that out ala the missed splash weapon table.

Snatch Arrows works too but since you catch it there is no miss table roll. Instead it just doesn't work.
I would not let you throw it back with any success - most Alchemist class features are built to work for the Alchemist only. I'd take my cue from that.

but that is total instinct on my part. There may very well be rules that provide a different answer.

Two stories:

1. Started up a campaign with some friends who played, but never with me. One player was very new to the game, and had only really played one character before - an elven paladin.

In my game she rolled up an elven rogue and away we went. At some point in the adventure, I can't really remember what it was.. but I had something hit them with a mass fear effect.

Me: "Everyone roll a Will save please."
Player: "Not me, elves are immune to fear."
Me: "What?"

Turns out, that for the entire time she played that first game, and right up until this point in mine, she believed it was being an elf that made her immune to fear, not being a paladin.

2. More recent campaign. One player is experienced and he is playing a rogue sniper type. He has invested in the Climb skill so he can get to perches quickly and easily. Second player is a first timer, she is playing a bard with more focus on social skills.

Me: "You eventually reach the canyon wall, you can climb it, which would be faster, but going around would certainly be easier"
Player 1: "I'll climb.. shoot! I got a 9"
Player 2" "Me too! I got 17!"
Me "Ok, the bard starts making her way up while the rogue.. you're having an off day"
Player 1 "Lemme try again... dang! a 7"
Player 2 "I got an 18.. can I keep going?"
Player 1 "How are you beating me!? How many ranks do you have?"
Player 2 "I'm supposed to add my ranks to this roll?"
Player 1 "...I'm going around."

I always figure the Law/Chaos axis to be less about following/breaking laws or even having/not having codes and more about internal consistency.

Given a choice, a Lawful character will choose an option. Given the choice a second time, they will choose the same option again.

What the choice is doesn't matter - that is what the Good/Evil axis determines. Heal/Harm, Go/Stay, Save/Sacrifice, Keep/Donate.. whatever.

The more lawful they are, the less likely they are to deviate from the choice.

Example using your character:

Would you burn down a building to root out the bad guy? The answer is yes.

Would you do it if the building wasn't abandoned?
Would you do it if there was a risk it could spread to non-involved buildings?
Would you do it if MAYBE there were innocents inside?
Would you do it if you KNEW there were innocents inside?
Would you do it if your friends were inside?
Your family?
etc.

A Lawful person would tend to keep answering yes. Insofar as it did not conflict with the other half of their alignment mind you.. a Good person would probably stop sooner on that list than an Evil one.

And of course, that list is just a few off the top of my head.. you can get really nuanced about it if you want.. "My friends ARE inside but they know I use this tactic and said it was ok but that was before we learned there might be an orphanage near by.." or whatever.

I also think that no sane person would ever be so Lawful that they would never EVER deviate. Nor could a person be so Chaotic that they had no morals at all and determined every action by chance.

So I guess.. for me.. to determine your alignment. Figure out your morals (Good/Evil) then figure out how flexible they are (Law/Chaos).

Just some thoughts.

Mistah J wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Any alignment can be played Stupid. No sense singling out Chaotic Stupid.

Very true.

..but you don't see many threads about the issues with "Neutral Stupid"

Neutral stupid is ...

"Well, I helped save this orphanage from burning down, now I have to go find another one to burn down so I stay neutral"

ha ha.. a good one!

Another classic:

"Well, there are 6 of us and 4 of them now so I have to switch sides!"

I'm not saying it is not possible.. just that it doesn't come up as often as the other two.

Pretty sure that is true. Like 99.99% sure.

That being said. There is no obligation to go down the TWF road just because you are using a weapon that CAN be used as a double weapon.

Consider the fact that, as a staff magus, you will be using your quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon so as to benefit from spell combat.

You can't use the quarterstaff as a double weapon when wielding it with one hand via the Quarterstaff Master feat.

So why bother enchant both ends? Just enchant one and go to town with that.

On the other hand, you may want to be a TWF staff magus who just switches from round to round between extra attacks and spell combat.

In that case, use things like magic weapon, greater magic weapon, or even your Arcane Pool to give temporary boosts. Maybe you spend the gold to enchant one end and then boost the other when you need it. Maybe you boost both ends while saving to enchant them at the same time later.

I hope this helps - I know it is unsolicited advice - that is why I wrote it after the actual answer to your question

I had a fighter who named his sword "Miss Caroline"

Man.. I can't remember who said it.. or when, but I am reminded of the old RPG saying:

"Physics is a houserule."

Mistah J wrote:

- Spell DCs are 10 +1/2 caster level + stat modifier.

I've thought about doing this. How's it working out for your group? I suppose it determines how powerful your group is compared to someone else's, though.

Well, we really like it!

Mainly, for 3 reasons:

1) Marginally less bookkeeping: all a caster's spells have the same DC rather than 10 + spell level + stat modifier. It is a tiny benefit, but having one DC is a lot simpler.

2) It keeps low-level spells alive: Since the DC scales with level, those 1st and 2nd level spells keep being useful, which means they actually get used at higher levels instead of forgotten, or considered useless.

3) We found that, under the original system, the saving throws of monsters/npcs scaled much faster than spell DCs. Casters had a hard time actually getting the full effect of their spells. The houserule fixes that without going way overboard - spell DCs actually pace pretty evenly with saves now.

Of course, that last one is the most likely to vary. I'm sure there are lots of ways to trick out a spell DC, just as there are ways to boost saves, plus choice of monsters/magic items and everything else.

But I highly recommend it!

Another thought: actively condemn the 'Indy' style Archaeologist - those guys ruin the reputation of respectable professionals like yourself. They are all a bunch of ninny's who think that, because they can out run a boulder and can tell rubies from garnets that they somehow qualify as experts in these matters.

By actively calling out what you want to avoid, you help others associate you as NOT it.

What do they call that? Hanging a lampshade on it? something? I'm not going to TV tropes to find out.. I have too much to do today.

Yes, it's another one!

This is my take on that very popular subject: the artificer/engineer style class.
=======

TINKER
Note: The Tinker is an alternate class for the Alchemist base class.

Alignment: Any
Hit Die: d8
Starting Wealth: 3d6 x 10gp (average 105gp). In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10gp or less.

CLASS SKILLS
The tinker’s class skills are Appraise (Int), Craft (any) (Int), Disable Device (Dex), Fly (Dex), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis), Use Magic Device (Cha)

Skill ranks per level: 4 + Int modifier.

BAB: As Alchemist
Good Saves: Fort, Ref

Special abilities by level
1.Bomb 1d6, catch off-guard, master craftsman, tinkering, trapfinding
2.Innovation, jury-rigging
3.Bomb 2d6, trap sense +1, swift crafting
4.Innovation
5.Bomb 3d6
6.Innovation, trap sense +2
7.Bomb 4d6
8.Innovation, swift disabling
9.Bomb 5d6, trap sense +3
10.Innovation, trap mastery
11.Bomb 6d6
12.Innovation, trap sense +4
13.Bomb 7d6
14.Innovation, rapid construction
15.Bomb 8d6, trap sense +5
16.Innovation, rapid disabling
17.Bomb 9d6
18.Innovation, trap sense +6, rapid crafting
19.Bomb 10d6
20.Great Innovation

Contraptions by level
1. 1
4. 2
7. 3
10. 4
13. 5
16. 6
19. 7

CLASS FEATURES

Weapon and Armour Proficiency: The Tinker is proficient with all simple weapons and bombs. They are proficient with light armour but not with shields.

Bombs (Su)
As the alchemist class feature.

Catch Off-Guard (Ex)
All Tinkers gain the Catch Off-Guard feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.

Contraptions (Su)
Tinkers have the ability to create special items that blur the line between magic and technology. These contraptions are magical devices that emulate spells and though a tinker is limited in the number he can create, their wide selection and ability to be switched-out easily means the tinker is a master of versatility.

A contraption is a magic item that effectively lets a tinker ‘cast’ a certain spell. All contraptions are use-activated magic items that require one hand to use. The caster level of a contraption is equal to the level of the tinker and the save DC is equal to 10 + ½ the tinker’s level + the tinker’s Int. modifier.

At 1st level, the tinker chooses 3 schools of magic to provide him with the blueprints for his contraptions. The tinker can make an item that produces the effect of any spell from that school provided his caster level is at least equal to the caster level required to cast that spell.

A contraption takes time to build. Creating one requires 1 hour per level of the spell being produced (minimum 1 hour). This time need not be continuous but a contraption will not function until it is completed. A contraption lasts until it is destroyed or the tinker dismantles it (which takes 1 hour). A 1st level a Tinker can have 1 contraption. At 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter (7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th), the Tinker may build another contraption.

A contraption can be used without consequence a number of times per day equal to 1 plus 1 more for every 4 tinker levels. It can be used beyond this limit but doing so requires a Use Magic Device check each additional time it is activated (DC equal to 15 +1 per previous check). On a failed check, the contraption does not function and is destroyed.

Only a tinker may use the contraptions he creates. If another creature attempts to use a tinker’s contraption, it does not function and is destroyed instead.

Master Craftsman (Ex)
A tinkers gains the Master Craftsman feat at 1st level as a bonus feat even if he does not meet the prerequisites. Instead of choosing a Craft of Profession skill, the tinker gains the +2 bonus granted by the feat to his Use Magic Device skill and uses it to determine his effective caster level.

Tinkering (Ex)
At 1st level, a Tinker gains a pool of Tinker Points equal to 4 + his Intelligence modifier. At each level after 1st, he gains an additional 2 Tinker Points. These points can be spent to modify gear and equipment, making them perform better in a number of ways.

It takes 10 minutes per Tinker Point spent to modify an item. These points remain spent until the item is destroyed or the tinker dismantles it (which takes 1 minute).

Only a tinker can use equipment he has modified with Tinker Points. If another creature attempts to use such an item, it automatically malfunctions (see below).

A tinker can:
- Spend 1 Tinker Point to have an item grant a +1 circumstance bonus to one skill (chosen by the tinker at the time of creation). A single item can grant a maximum bonus to one skill equal to 5 + the tinker’s level.
- Spend 1 Tinker Point to reduce the armour check penalty of a suit of armour or shield by 1 (cannot reduce the penalty below 0).
- Spend 2 Tinker Points to grant an item a +1 enhancement bonus to attack rolls made with it (maximum bonus +5).
- Spend 2 Tinker Points to make an item grant a +1 enhancement bonus to AC (maximum bonus +5)
- Spend 3 Tinker Points to make an item grant a +1 resistance bonus to one save, chosen by the tinker at the time of creation (maximum bonus +5)
- Spend 3 Tinker Points to grant an item a +1 enhancement bonus to damage rolls made with it (maximum bonus +5).
A single item can be modified in multiple ways. As long as the tinker has the Tinker Points to spend, he can give an item any combination of benefits.

Malfunctions
Every item modified by a tinker has a complexity rating equal to the number of Tinker Points spent in its creation divided by 5.

- If the natural result of your skill or attack roll falls within the complexity value of the item or weapon, it malfunctions. A weapon that has an existing misfire value adds that to the complexity rating.
- In the case of armour, if the natural result of a roll to confirm a critical hit against the wearer is equal to 21 - the complexity, the armour malfunctions.
- In the case of saves, if the natural result of the saving throw falls within the complexity value, it malfunctions.

When a device malfunctions, the item immediately gains the broken condition and you fail the skill check or miss with the attack (even if you would normally succeed or hit).

All benefits a malfunctioning item grants are also reduced by half (rounded down, minimum 0) in addition to the regular penalties for being broken. If a malfunctioning device malfunctions a second time, it is destroyed.

Trapfinding (Ex)
As the Rogue class feature.

Innovations (Su)
At 2nd level, and every even level thereafter (up to 18th level) a tinker devises a brilliant mechanical innovation. Unless otherwise noted, a tinker cannot select an individual innovation more than once. Some innovations can only be selected if the tinker has met certain prerequisites, such as other innovations.
The DC for any saving throw called for by an innovation is equal to 10 +1/2 the tinker’s level + the tinker’s intelligence modifier.
Bomb innovations marked with an asterisk do not stack. Only one such innovation can be applied to an individual bomb.

Jury-rigging (Ex)
At 2nd level a tinker can, as a full-round action, remove the broken condition from one item he is holding for 1d4 rounds. The item does not regain any hit points but otherwise functions normally. At the end of the duration, the item regains the broken condition. If an item under the effects of a jury-rigging has the broken condition when the duration ends, it is destroyed. A tinker cannot use this ability on an item already under the effect of a jury-rigging.

Swift Crafting (Ex)
Starting at 3rd level, a tinker can craft items much more efficiently than a typical artisan. It takes a tinker half the normal amount of time to create a non-magical item when using the Craft skill.

Trap Sense (Ex)
As the rogue class feature.

Swift Disabling (Ex)
It takes a tinker half the normal amount of time to use the Disable Device skill. An action that normally takes 1 round (such as opening a lock) can now be done as a standard action.

Trap Mastery (Ex)
A tinker never accidentally sets off a trap he is trying to disable, no matter by how much he fails his Disable Device check. In addition, whenever he comes within 10 feet of a trap, he receives an immediate Perception check to notice the trap.

Swift Construction (Ex)
At 14th level, a tinker reduces the amount of time it takes to build his devices. Items modified by Tinker Points now take 1 minute per point spent to complete and it is a full-round action to dismantle one. Contraptions now only require 10 minutes per spell level to build and be dismantled in 10 minutes.

Rapid Disabling (Ex)
A tinker can now use the Disable Device skill with blinding speed. Any action that normally takes 1 round can now be done as a move action. Any other action can be completed as a full-round action.

Rapid Crafting (Su)
At 18th level, a tinker can produce items both mundane and magical at an incredible pace. When making Craft checks to create non-magical items, the tinker compares his check result x the DC to the price of the item in gp instead of sp. When crafting magical items, a tinker takes 1 day for each 2,000 gp in its price.

Grand Innovation (Su)
At 20th level, a tinker develops a grand innovations. He immediately learns to normal innovations, but also learns a third innovation chosen from the list of grand innovations. These represent the pinnacle of ingenuity, the spark of pure genius that most tinkers spend their whole lives striving to achieve.
=====

-All the innovations are in the post below.

There it is!
Feel free to comment and make suggestions. It is not quite done yet.. I'm not thrilled with how the tinker points class feature interacts with armour and shields and I could always use more innovations so I am totally looking for feedback.

I think most serials killers would have a hard time being lawful, given they kill freely without consideration for the law.

Chaotic doesn't mean disorganized, it is more in reference to the deference to the laws of the government.

I disagree fully!

For me, Lawful/Chaos isn't about how well a character can follow the rules:

"I'm Lawful Good! How can I be expected to follow the rules of this kingdom if they insist on human sacrifice?!"

"I'm Lawful Evil! I'm a slimy, moustache-twirling lawyer type who uses loopholes in contracts.. just like every other LE person"

"I'm Lawful Neutral! I follow 'my own code' which means I can do whatever I want, whenever I want and it's totally allowed by my alignment!"

.. these are hyperbole of course.. but they illustrate what I don't like about it.

For me, the Law/Chaos axis is about consistency. A Lawful person will, given the same set of circumstances, act the same way every time. A very lawful person will attempt to act the same way.. no matter the circumstances. Their chaotic counterpart will change what they do depending on each situation.. or maybe just on a whim.

Lawful people can be: dependable, trustworthy, resolute. However they can also be predictable, stubborn, or static.

Chaotic people can be: adaptable, dynamic, or free-spirited. They can also be unreliable, flighty, or indecisive.

I always use the same example when I bring this up:

Is it ok to kill one person to save another?

Whether you (or your character) think the answer is yes or no is part of being Good or Evil. What makes you (or them) Lawful or Chaotic is how often the answer changes when you do this:

Is it ok to kill one person to save ten? a hundred? a million?
What if the one was a child? What if the one was your child?

A Lawful character tries to stick to the same answer as much as possible.

..so I guess this is all to explain why I think a serial killer is a Lawful Evil person. They are, in fact they MUST BE, consistent every time they kill. They follow a pattern - same method, same victim type, same ritual.

just some thoughts.

The next wizard I am going to play is going to seriously consider a viper familiar. Since its HD are treated as the same as my wizard's, the DC for its poison will continue to grow.

I posted a thread in the house rules section earlier to talk about a slightly different approach to Law vs. Chaos.

If you will indulge me, I'll re-post it here:

For me, Law vs. Chaos can be thought of as Predictability vs. Unpredictibility or as Consistency vs. Compromise. Let me explain with an example:

Take the following question: "Would you sacrifice one person in order to save ten?"
Now for this, the answer you (or your character) would give doesn't matter – that is for debates on good vs evil. For our purposes, let's just say a character says no.

What if we change the question to: "Would you sacrifice one person in order to save one hundred?"
or "Would you sacrifice ten people to save one thousand?" or "Would you sacrifice one thousand to save ten million?"

The questions above are all really examples of the same question: "Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?" I propose that a character's alignment on the Law/Chaos axis determines if and when their answer changes.

So take our hypothetical character who said no at the beginning. If they were Lawful, their answer of 'no' wouldn't change (or at the very least, be resistant to change). A Chaotic person though would let the circumstances dictate their response.

Of course, my hypothetical character above is someone who has taken Lawful to the absolute extreme; someone who never, ever compromises. The counterpart to that would be someone so Chaotic that they could never make a decision because they always compromised and I think both would be unplayable.

Taken at a reasonable level though, this system creates a neat dynamic in which the Good/Evil axis determines what your character's morals and beliefs are, and the Law/Chaos axis determines how you adhere to them.