Noticed there wasn't a set of rules for Medium Cats as Animal Companions. I Created one that I think fits well between the two types. It doesn't have the penalty of large size or the benefits of a small size, and the stats are in the middle of the two. Here's what I came up with:
Cat, Medium (Cougar, Puma, Mountain Lion, Panther)
Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 40 ft.; AC +1 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d3); Ability Scores Str 12, Dex 19, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 8; Special Attacks rake (1d3); Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.
7th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6 plus trip) , 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str +4, Dex 0, Con +2; Special Attacks: grab, pounce, rake (1d4).
Alternatively you could swap out one of the Special Attacks for Sprint, but keep in mind that specifically works best for a Cheetah. No other real world cat has that type of speed.
Comments about cat species:
A Puma, Cougar and Mountain Lion are actually all the same animal. Because they can also have a black variation, they are sometimes Panthers.
https://animalfactguide.com/animal-facts/cougar/
Technically a Panther is not a species of cat. Usually we think of the black variation of a Leopard (A Small Cat) but because they can actually be from any species you could have a black cougar; hence why I listed them.
https://nerdist.com/black-panthers-are-not-a-species-so-what-are-they/
Now if paizo makes pf3e 2 years later, then we should all be complaining, but I'll be happy if they make a new edition once per decade. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
I do agree with you. It has been 10 years and if it is another 10 years, then that's not so bad.
But, it still comes down to "why do they need to?" I've just not seen an explicable reason given yet that logically supersedes the "more money" explanation.
The minor adjustments to the rules thus far do not seem very important to me, but to be fair I haven't playtested it yet. I am going to pre-order the playtest and give it the same chance I gave 3rd Edition D&D.
I loved 3E. I hated 4E. So, maybe I'll love PF 2E, but at some point I have to ask myself, "Do I really care?"
Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.
OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).
I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.
Pathfinder is successful because Paizo promised the rules wouldn't change!
Can you point to this statement?
Thanks for sharing what you found. You know, I searched all through my e-mails with my friends from back when I was first promoting Pathfinder. I had repeatedly stated that the creators were saying they had no intention of changing the core rules. But, I did not find a specific quote from them. I know there were a lot of discussions both on forums and webcasts and in group discussions. The intention was clearly there. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a quote like that, but I'm pretty sure there is one out there, somewhere because it was a major selling point for PF.
The point of Pathfinder, after all, was to keep a Core system so that the constant edition changing wouldn't ruin anymore games. Pathfinder Society itself seemed to be based on that very idea, constant compatibility.
I realize, of course, that priorities change and there are fresh ideas out there that people want to try. That's nice, but it doesn't change the reason people bought into Pathfinder to begin with.
Do I think 2E will be terrible? No. I am hopeful it will be pretty good. Do I think 2E was necessary? Absolutely not. There is just no need for it. I've played RPGs since the early days and I can tell you that there is no such thing as the perfect system and one man's "fix" is another man's "folly".
I do think that Paizo didn't intend to create a 2nd edition when they started. It was in clear opposition of why they were making this system.
Do I think they are bad people for doing so? No, of course not. It's just a game and it's their business.
Again, I just don't think it is necessary and I think they are trying very hard to make it sound like it is.
There is no need for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. The rules work, and the material they have added is very well balanced.
Creating a new set of rules only creates a new set of problems.
Want proof? Check out every version of every other game system that created multiple editions.
examples:
D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
Shadowrun, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5
GURPS, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
and the list goes on...
Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.
They never said they would not create a 2nd Edition, but they did Imply it! If you were there for the early discussions, you will remember they founded Pathfinder on the idea that they were tired of the constant rules updates and changes (2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5) and wanted a system that wouldn't change the CORE rules. They bought the OGL with the stated intent to, Reprint and Retain the basic core system.
However, they never did say they wouldn't re-invent their own additions to the game. I am just surprised that they gave in to temptation and are doing it.
The arguments for a new edition are always the same;, "After years of playing we know what we need to fix.", "We have more experience and can do it better now.", "Players want something different now than they did when we first started.", "It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players.", "We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."
I have a response for every one of those:
"After years of playing we know what we need to fix."
NO, after years of play you've realized there is no such thing as a perfect system and have fallen for the same argument you once fought against that a complete revision can fix the problems.
"We have more experience and can do it better now."
NO, what you did then was perfectly fine and what you're doing now is perfectly fine. To imply that nothing you did before was worth keeping makes me question your motives.
"Players want something different now than they did when we first started."
Not your current players. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have a solid fan base who are actively creating the next generation of a solid fan base. If you alienate them now, you will lose them.
"It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players."
If that were true you would be only improving the game, not rewriting it.
"We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."
Pathfinder is perfectly able to be learned by new players, and they even published materials for new players:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8osv?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Beginner-Box
I love Pathfinder. I love the creators. They have created a fabulous product. I don't like saying anything negative about them. But, they knew when they announced this what kind of a response they would get.
The only logical explanation for a 2nd Edition is this one:
They will make more money.
Is that bad? No. We don't want PAIZO to start having problems. We don't want them to sell their company to people who don't care like they care.
What do we want then?
We want Pathfinder's Core rules to stay the same. We don't want a closet full of $300+ worth of books to be nothing but kindling. We want all of our prior game experiences in Pathfinder to still fit the rules.
So, the real question is. Not, why shouldn't Paizo create 2E, but rather...
What can we do, PAIZO, to convince you to not change Pathfinder?
What made Pathfinder successful? Was it a unique game? No. It is a duplicate of the existing Fantasy Roleplaying genre. The campaign world is well written, but not significantly unique.
Was it a new game system? No. Paizo didn't invent the d20 game system. They purchased the rights to the OGL material from WotC.
So, why was it so successful? Is it better than 3.5, 4.0, 5.0? I would argue it is, but since it is a duplicate of 3.5, it really isn't in and of itself what made it successful.
Pathfinder is successful because Paizo promised the rules wouldn't change! Those who are serious gamers were sick of buying new editions and having to constantly re-write characters. We wanted continuity, not useless rule changes.
Now, lo and behold, Paizo is breaking its promise and creating a new edition.
So here's my question? Why should I buy-in to another edition?
The whole point was the character I wrote in 2009 should still be playable in 2059.
Paizo has done a great job producing new material and maintaining a strong player base.
Can they keep that momentum once they catch the "new edition syndrome"?
(Search didn't turn up a thread specifically on this)
I am confused about the Archmage.
The name:
The title "Archmage" is already in use in many places. Also, it implies to me someone who is at the epitome of their magical talents, and that is not the point of Mythic Characters.
I believe some better names might be: "Mythic Caster", "spellbinder", "Arcanist".
Concept:
The Archmage is described almost exactly like the Sorcerer; A person with an inborn ability to control magic. Clearly this is a step above that, but the description will need a little more work to clarify.
Arcane Spells:
Arcana:
While there are some cool Arcana, it seems like there is a missed opportunity for some more generic powers.
Generic Powers I would like to see:
The Archmage's Mythical Tier is added to all DCs for saving throws of spells cast by the Archmage. It is also added to the roll to overcome spell resistance.
The Archmage's Mythical Tier is added to the level of all spells when someone attempts to dispel them.
The Archmage's Mythical Tier is added to his level for his own attempts at dispelling a spell.
Arcane Surge:
Why no meta magic feats for this? They are allowed for everything else.
Mage Strike:
This is a martial ability, why grant it as a way of defining a natural magic user? I would eliminate this. Instead offer a true "arcane strike". This would make any weapon at least +1 (temporarily), grant +2d6 mythic damage and would increase the critical multiplier by 1. It would last a number of rounds equal to spell caster's tea.
Ok, this may have been covered already, but I couldn't find it. So, I will pose the points here.
Immortal:
To me the difference between a Mythic Hero and a Demigod is that a Mythic Hero can die. Yes, you have to complete a huge amount of quests to get there, but it is such an unbalancing power that it will very easily deter GMs from allowing Mythic Characters in their campaign for fear that they have an unstoppable hero on their hands.
There are also a lot of unexplained features of this power. Where do they appear? What happened to their equipment? Does the original body vanish? It is very MMORPG in style and I don't really like that.
Finally, it takes away the excitement of gaming. If you can just respawn and charge back in, what's to keep you from conquering the world? There has to be some chance of failure. It is best to always leave death on the table.
My recommendations:
A. Replace it with
Undying: The hero stops aging and begins regenerating all injures at a rate of 2/mythic tier/hour. This will regrow limbs and possibly bring the character back to life (if wounds are not fire or acid).
B. Reduce Mythic Tier by 1
When the character returns to life he loses 1 Mythic Tier.
After all, it took performing great feats to achieve this power. Dying should set you back. Yes, this means he may lose the power of Immortality, and have to regain it.
The problem comes from the inherent action efficiency that is spell casting. If a Caster and a Martial both get a full-round worths of actions, they are both at full power. If both only get a Standard action, the caster is at full power, while the martial is reduced to a single strike.
That caster is going to be able to dominate battlefields (even more so than normal) because he'd be able to cast, at minimum, 2 spells each round if he so chose to do so. A martial character would only be getting a single extra attack.
In the end, limiting the Mythic Creatures to only gaining extra Standard Actions is gimping the martial characters, and empowering the casters.
Now, I don't subscribe tot he Melee/Caster Power struggle, but I do see where the pause for concern is. If people are going to be getting extra actions, they're actions should be equally potent to both all forms of plays, instead of just one faction getting a...
I see where your coming from on that. Your point, though, relies on the spellcaster assuming the correct feats to cast multiple spells in a round. There are, likewise, feats that allow martial characters to make full-attack-actions while flying around like a rocket. :)
So, I think in the end it comes down to the individual characters. It isn't really any different then how BAB works already.
To be clear, though, I wouldn't replace the Amazing Initiative ability. I would just limit it to an additional standard action (not a full round of actions). Because a Standard Action doesn't result in a full-attack action, granting an extra standard action would be a great boon to spell casters but not as much to a fighter.
Base Attack Bonus is one of those untouchable functions at the core of the Pathfinder system.
So what better time to manipulate it than in Mythic Tiers?
It seems to me that everyone is always looking for ways to get an extra attack during a full-attack action, without granting an all out free for all. Hence, under the right auspice (mythic powers) a simple BAB bonus could really make all the difference.
Hence, I suggest the following rule:
Mythic Characters get a base attack bonus increase of +1 every even Tier . This would eventually result in 1 additional attack during a full-round attack action.
Force of Will (Ex): At 7th tier, you can exert your will to cause events to unfold as you would like. As an immediate action, you can expend one use of mythic power to reroll any d20 roll you have made, or force any nonmythic creature to reroll any d20 roll. You can use this ability after the results are revealed, but the roller must take the results of the second roll, even if it is worse.
My concern here is that, by allowing this to occur -after- the first roll, you are taking out-of-character knowledge for making in-character decisions. It is almost a precognitive ability. If that is the intent, ok, but please state that in the description.
If, though, it is intended to allow the character to influence the luck/fate/destiny of another, I would rather see the mechanics reflect that (without a precognitive aspect).
This would then require the player to state the intent to do so BEFORE the die is rolled by the game master (or other character).
The result would then be a modification to the roll. Thus, rather than a reroll, it would apply either a -2/tier penalty or take +2/tier bonus (like True Strike). Or, it could be a flat -20/+20 mod. Or, if you really want to make this extraordinary, cause that action's die roll to be automatically treated as a natural 1 or a natural 20. The result being either extraordinary failure or extraordinary success.
To me, this is more like influencing fate and destiny by will, and less like changing the future.
I'm starting to think the standard action is unfairly favorable towards casters, so 1 is probably the best choice. Metis's suggestion s interesting too, and worth thinking more about.
I have a suggestion that I'll repost else-where that might resolve that.
I think that Mythic Characters should get a base attack bonus increase of +1 every even Tier (edited to use correct word). This would eventually result in 1 additional attack during a full-round attack action.
Having read Mr. Bulmahn's post I now realize that I am not the only one who had this thought. I'm reposting my other post here and will edit it to simplify my thoughts:
I suggest:
The
+2 initiative per Tier.
Once per hour, the Mythic hero may use of a Mythic Power to gain an additional standard-action at the end of the round, after all other actions have been taken.
If two mythic characters choose to use this ability, the actions occur in order of initiative.
If someone chose to delay their action, it must be taken BEFORE the mythic character's bonus standard action; else they are delaying into the next round as normal.
Just my thoughts,
Ken
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Hey there all,
I have been feeling for a while now that Amazing Initiative (pg 6) is perhaps too good in its current form, and can lead to some problems when it comes to tracking initiative.
Great work everyone. An especial congratulations for those I didn't vote for, because you can't please all the people all the time but you clearly pleased most of the people most of the time :)
The comment "compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item" suggests that magical items have to be designed to take into consideration the "Table: Character Wealth by Level".
That's exactly right. You should always consider the final price you've calculated for a wondrous item...as compared to what level a PC would likely need to be to have the gold on hand to acquire it...and then compare that item (and any DCs for its abilities) to the power of the monsters and adversaries they'd be facing (i.e., CR-appropriate monsters, NPCs, etc.). If those monsters and NPCs can routinely (and easily) beat the DCs of your item's powers, you've designed and/or priced it wrong. Wondrous items need to pretty much come into play at points in a PC's adventuring career where they would be useful and potent. Otherwise, it's just an item no one would bother wasting money on...since it wouldn't impact any encounters where it would see use.
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:
Maybe I'm "old school", but I thought of that chart as just a guideline. But, I can understand using it as a ruler for corebook magical items. I just didn't realize that was part of the magical item creation rules and so didn't reference it.
This is part of the "art" of wondrous item pricing and why it's important to compare your designs to items that already exist in the game. Those items have already been priced appropriately for the CR and PC wealth level where they would ordinarily come into play. That's why you'll find more than a few items in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that break the rules according to the wondrous item pricing table.
Remember: The most important element of pricing a wondrous item isn't the pricing table under crafting wondrous items. Instead, it's the comparison. However, I've always found the best route is to price it according to the table first. Then, go back and compare. If something seems out of whack, that's when you start adjusting it down or up to...
Awesome advice Neil!!! Thank you so much. I now have a much better understanding of how to look at pricing.
Just a personal note, giving out magical items for me (since I started playing the classic fantasy RPG that we all know, back in 1983) has been a sort of art. Knowing when and what to give at what times, based on what's coming in the adventure, what abilities the characters have and what I want them to be able to do; are all part of knowing the game system and being a good GM.
One adjustment I've had trouble struggling with in Pathfinder is the concept that characters can actually purchase magical items. I don't do it in my own campaign world, but it has a real factor in game design. This, obviously, is why pricing magical items is so important. I didn't get that before. Your advice really helps with that.
1) Gladiators are a character concept I've always liked. Sure, they're not a common character, but most Archetypes are pretty specific. What more, almost every campaign world has them somewhere.
2) A simple design: I know, that's usually a problem, but in this case I feel like he kept it short and to the point. There's not fluff, but the abilities are straight forwards and useful, as they should be a for a fighter. Fighter's just don't need a lot of fancy abilities. That's one of the reasons why people play Fighters, because they are "straight and to the point".
3)Armor and Weapons: Instead of trying to get all crazy with offering abilities with different types of armor and using a wide variety of weapons, he focused on the fact that Gladiators didn't really specialize in armor. It was more for show and instead they were all about showmanship.
There are some abilities I don't like, or know about. The bonus to morale for taking down an enemy. That could have been something with more show.
Maybe I just have a soft spot for this concept, but I like it.
HOWEVER, if someone wanted to design a Gladiator with all kinds of fancy moves and style, I would make it a Bard archetype. I'd drop spell casting and beaf up combat skills, and have him be all about showmanship in the arena. I'd also give him all kinds of intimidate benefits, so outside of the arena he can scare off enemies just by going "bloody carnage" on his first opponent.
NOTE: I read all archetypes before voting, but didn't get all comments posted before voting. I'm now finishing my comments.
Campaign specific, but overlooking that...
The concept of a fighter who focuses on wearing spiked armor. This is a good concept.
Unfortunately, I think you missed an important point.
For Retaliatory Strike and Grasping Barbs, how many times per round can he do this?
Also, for Grasping Barbs, does the Impaler HAVE to grapple the attacker? I could see someone using that against him. "Quick throw the kobold at the Impaler. AHA! Now he's grappling the Kobld, get him!!!"
Ok, why "Varisian"? I mean, that immediately requires this to be campaign specific. Just "Carver" is good enough for me.
I like most of the abilities, though I wonder why you didn't just Slashing Knife into Weapon Finesse. I also would have liked to see the use of Dex for damage rather than strength.
While this is a good concept, it's an old one. I know that we probably need a Paladin focused on fighting undead, but that's almost a gimme in later books. I thought your ability choices were very obvious, and there was little done creatively here.
Having an Evangelical preacher I can see where you are coming from on this. I live in the Bible Belt and there are as many Evangelists as there are Charltans.
That said, though, I would have liked to see this a cleric Archetype, or even a Religious Bard. That's a concept I've considered developing myself. Exchange arcane abilities for divine abilities, and you have thi concept.
I really like this and the abilities associated with it. I don't know if it'll make it into my 8 count vote, but good work.
Sorry, I just can't get past the concept on this one.
How does a Grave Robber fit into a campaign with other player characters?
How does a Grave Robber have varied adventures that continue to improve his grave robbing abilities at higher levels?
Why would a Grave Robber leave his lowly terrible job as a Grave Robber and still want to be a Grave Robber?
This concept just doesn't seem playable. It's an NPC concept.
A Crypt Thief? That's a good idea. Make it into an Archetype that combines your ideas above with those of the person who hunts out rare and valuable ancient artifacts and relics.
NOTE: I read all archetypes before voting, but didn't get all comments posted before voting. I'm now finishing my comments.
It's probably not fair, but as I've had such little experience with Monks, I really just don't feel I can give this one a proper analysis.
I'm not keen on the idea that any character can read someone else's surface thoughts at will (30 seconds is short out of combat) without any limit to the number of times per day. I think that should have been limited more.
Ride the Current: I like that. This really would be a cool ability for any class. Would make a nice feat.
Ready an Action, by its nature, should always be stated ahead of time.
But, compared to other Monk abilities...I just don't know.
This one had a lot of potential, but didn't quite live up to its promises. I think Metallurgist would have been a better idea and expounding on that idea would have been best.
If he could have eventually turned lead into gold as a standard ability of the archetype, then I think it could have had potential. That would be powerful, especially in campaigns where gold truly runs the game balance. However, it could have been well thought out with the current systems.
Not one of my favorites, though I applaud your attempt at an Alchemist.
Very nice. Though this somewhat feels like a variation on the Paladin, making it a Cavalier makes it that much more interesting. The abilities seem pretty good. The dodge is questionable, but on one can think of everything.
All in all I really like this one and would want to play one.
The Tactician seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure that this archetype succeeds in the expectations of that name.
I really expected to see some cool "tactical" abilities to this archetype. Instead it seems most of these are just general bonuSes gained by making a Knowledge History check during combat.
The Intercept doesn't seem very tactical either, but rather a form of protection offered to nearby allies.
Conceptually, this seems like a good idea. I think there is a place for a Denouncer in the game. However, the execution unfortunately falls short of both game balance (as pointed out) and the concept.
I simply think you could have created more unique abilities focused on the concept of Denouncing sin. Forced Repentence seems so specific and I don't think it fits the concept as well as you think. A denouncer doesn't strike me as someone trying to convert people to the faith. He seems instead to simply be striking down the sinners, until those he hasn't gotten to yet repent before he does.
I completely concur with everything the judges said on this one.
This feels like an attempt to maximize the wizard's ability in combat, using wands as a trade off for abilities that may not have been significantly important before.
I feel it's too front loaded, tempting players to just pick up a level in this for the extra oomf they would get.
I think it has potential, but balance is key and this doesn't feel balanced. I would have spread out the abilities more, and focused more on being a wand-master.
A free wand at 1st level is WAY too much to give in exchange for Arane Bond. I would have much rather seen a unique use of Arcane Bond with a wand.
Finally, this feels like it would be better suited as a form of Prestige Class. You wouldn't really become specialized in the use of wands until higher level when you were able to possess a few of them.
Not a bad idea, but I think you would have been better served to get really creative with the abilities. You could have given him more ability in discerning the location of treasure, not so much from the mechanics of hidden doors but from the "logical hidding places" earned from experience. That may have been your intent, but it came off as just an increased perception for secret doors. You could also have granted a form of detect magic, or even the ability to "Sniff out gold".
I don't like replacing Rogue Talents, and I especially don't like this particular character losing uncanny dodge, as it seems really important for a teasure seeker. I would have gone with eliminating some sneak attack benefit, since it's less important for this style character.
Break Curse is good.....DETECT CURSE is better! Just a thought.
A good concept, could have used some more creative elements.
Thank you for taking time to review my submission.
Here are my thoughts on the responses.
Quote:
*..."fire ball" is not a spell.
I didn't realize I put a space in there. Fireball, obviously, is a spell. I think the comment was rather that there was an accidental space. It's funny the little things you miss no matter how many times you review something you wrote.
Quote:
*...DCs are really low for all abilities for an 80,000 gp item
I totally agree and was confounded by the rules on DCs for magical items. I was very surprised by the limit of items to have a DC based on the lowest level and attribute able to create the item. I didn't want to violate the rules to make the item more realistic, though, so I left them as they would be. I didn't like it though. Maybe there is a rule I missed somewhere though.
Quote:
*...This is really just a SAK.
Argh, confounded by SAK. I thought I was following the guidelines in the Auto-Reject advice. So, after you posted I went back and read them again, thoroughly, and I understand now the mistakes I made.
Basically, even though all the functions of my item came from a common theme (Smoke and Flame), there were too many of them.
Perhaps if I had just stuck with one or two of the primary abilities, I would have done better.
IE:
I could have just made it a Pipe of Smoke (better name would be here) with these powers
Smoke Cloud : Three times per day, the user may blow a 20-foot radius smoke cloud as per the pyrotechnics spell feature (Fortitude DC 13).
Smoke Form : Three times per day, the user may transform himself and all his gear (including the pipe) into smoke as per the gaseous form spell, filling a 10 foot square, except that winds are only half as effective against it, and anyone caught within chokes as per Smoke Cloud.
Then I would have had more room to customize those functions to make them less like the relative spells.
Quote:
*...The use time for this is wonky, as it says you need a full-round to pack and light it, but then it doesn't say how long it burns afterwards.
Okay, big hole there. Didn't even occur to me that I had left that out of the final draft. Hence the importance of another set of eyes reading your item before you submit (shakes fist in mocking anger at "lazy" friends).
Quote:
*...Pricing is off.
Ok, I worked for hours on pricing, and apparently still got it wrong. I have a college degree, took calculus, can add big numbers in my head, and work in finance. Soooo....how the heck do I keep getting this wrong?
My total was 77,709. I rounded up to 80,000 based on comparable items in the book (placed it between the Greater Horn of Blasting and Helm of Brilliance).
Maybe later, after the contests have ended, someone can go over these rules for us and explain what we're doing wrong.
Quote:
*...the DCs are inappropriately low compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item.
The comment "compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item" suggests that magical items have to be designed to take into consideration the "Table: Character Wealth by Level".
Maybe I'm "old school", but I thought of that chart as just a guideline. But, I can understand using it as a ruler for corebook magical items. I just didn't realize that was part of the magical item creation rules and so didn't reference it. If I had, I would have tried to restrict it down to 6th-8th level range, I suppose, which would have constricted my choice of spell-like abilities and may have actually saved my item.
I think the main point of that comment, though, was the DCs, which again were based on the rules. There must be a legitimate way around that. I know in the past people have been cited for giving an item a higher casting level or a higher attribute modifier than the minimum level to create the item.
IN SUMMARY:
1) Space in the spell name "fireball"
2) Left off duration of the item's use
3) Too many functions, should have just focused on a couple
4) Set DCs higher (review rules to figure out how)
5) Figure out how the heck woundrous item pricing really works
Thanks again!!
Ken
Pipe of Smoke and Flame:
Pipe of Smoke and Flame Aura moderate evocation; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 80,000 gp; Weight -
Description
This smoking pipe’s bowl is cut from a red dragon’s bone and carved to appear as a dragon’s head. Filling and lighting a pipe takes a full-round action. While smoking the pipe and for one hour thereafter, the user gains resist energy (fire) 10. By drawing on the pipe and blowing smoke as a standard action, the user can perform any one of the following spell-like abilities:
Haze: The user can blow smoke into the face of another person to cloud his mind as per the daze spell (Will DC 11 negates), except that the range is 5 feet.
Obscure: The user can blow smoke around him, creating a concealing haze as per the obscuring mist spell, except that winds are only half as effective in dispersing the smoke and fire has no affect.
Smoke Cloud : Three times per day, the user may blow a 20-foot radius smoke cloud as per the pyrotechnics spell feature (Fortitude DC 13).
Smoke Form : Three times per day, the user may transform himself and all his gear (including the pipe) into smoke as per the gaseous form spell, filling a 10 foot square, except that winds are only half as effective against it, and anyone caught within chokes as per Smoke Cloud.
Dragon's Breath : Once per day, the user can breathe a 30-foot cone of fire as a per a young red dragon’s breath weapon, dealing 6d10 points of fire damage (Reflex DC 14 half).
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, daze, fire ball, gaseous form, obscuring mist, pyrotechnics, resist energy; Cost 40,000 gp
Quote:
*..."fire ball" is not a spell.
*...This is really just a SAK.
*...DCs are really low for all abilities for an 80,000 gp item
*...The use time for this is wonky, as it says you need a full-round to pack and light it, but then it doesn't say how long it burns afterwards.
*...This one's simply trying to do too much. Reject.
*...Agreed. SIAC and a SAK for sure.
*...Pricing is off.
*...A failure in properly referencing a spell name in the template and the DCs are inappropriately low compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item.
The concept is good, but the execution didn't work. I think you needed more space to develop this and more time to work on it. Plus, eliminating hexes from the witch doesn't really work, since that is a core power of the witch. I think you could have done better with more time.
Joel, I thought you did a very good job with this archetype.
The name "Hedge Wizard" is a funny choice, but more clever than some other names already in the game (Drunken Brute, Drunken Brawler).
For the most part you stuck to your theme. I think the ony place you varied was in the use of Sympathetic Magic. That is honestly best suited for a whole new system of magic, rather than a single ability. I thought you could have used that space for more nature connected wizardly abilities.
I also thought you could have differentiated this Archetype from the druid by implying that the wizard exploits the powers of nature rather than tries to harmonize with them. Not in an anti-naturalist way, but rather just a more practical approach. IE: There's a significant difference between an Environmentalist and an Environmenal Scientist.
All in all, though, I thought your idea was unique, well-portrayed, not too powerful, interesting enough to draw the attention of players, but not so specific as to deter them.
I didn't get much of a "feel" for this concept. It seemed like it was going to start out doing a major "no-no", which is play with time. Then it didn't. Instead it became a Precognitive-Postcognitive concept. That's a fair idea for an Oracle, but not all the abilities worked in that direction and the overall concept wasnt't described that way.
I think you failed in your attempt, but with revisions you could have a successful concept.
Change the name,
Drop the curse,
come up with some abilities that suggest precognition (just be sure not to force the GM to actually predict the future),
come up with more postcognitive abilities (again, not forcing the GM to have to create events on the spur of the moment).
Finally, remember that there are a lot of divination spells that accomplish these functions in a very effective way.
I agree with the judges in that it is too specific, being for a particular race, but for what it is, it is well done.
There are some mechanical issues, as the others pointed out, but I think when you look at it from an aesthetic point of view it is a very neat archetype and not overly powerful. Yes, some are just retoolings, but that's the case for some of the standard Archetypes too.
Interestingly, this made me WANT to play a Tengu.
Unfortunately, I think getting this specific is what hurt you. Because many won't have the option to play Tengu, I don't see this being a very popular archetype.
Good job for what it is, but I'm not sure it qualifies for RPG Superstar.
WOW! This guy gets three UBER level abilities by 3rd level by sacrificing some minor, albeit useful, flavor abilities granted the rogue. Way too powerful.
What more, a murderer Archetype seems a little too much for me. That seems a role a character plays in an evil campaign, rather than being worth a devoted Archetype, which suggests its a commonly desired character style.
Conceptually I like this character. You have to keep in mind with reading it that they are still a bard in all other respects. It's just a few different abilities.
I think Sickening Doubts is powerful, but so is Dirge of Doom.
Verbal Dodge isn't well explained. I think I have an idea what you're getting at, but you didn't explain it.
I don't think I'll vote for this one, simply because I don't find it to be exciting enough.
There are a number of issues with this. I'm sure the judges have covered most of it. I'll summarize my thoughts.
1) GM's Nightmare: This character would complicate combat so much I wouldn't want to GM for it.
2) Abilties are too powerful: So many of these are based solely on a succesful hit, that they'd be constantly in play. Increasing rounds of rage can get out of hand.
3) Loss of important abilities: I wouldn't want to sacrifice the many abilities lost for these benefits.
4) Nothing makes sense: Very few of the abilities are logical. The effects aren't very well explained. It seems like you're picking effects that have the penalties you want to imply to save word space, not because they make sense.
It's a cool idea that has some execution problems.
First, I DO really like the one big trade off concept. I was surprised you replaced BOTH Channel Energy and Spontaneous Casting. I don't think that was a smart move, because inevitably a cleric wants at least one of those two abilities.
I do think it's balanced.
I think you should have "typed" the damage. That seems important to me, even if it varies by deity.
Does the energy get discharged even if he misses?
I think the increased effects with more uses of the power is cool, though I wonder if it would use up the ability too quickly for what amounts to an action that requirs: 1) a succesful hit, 2) Damage inflicted, 3) Saving throw failed. I think you could have just increased the effect without the additional use of the ability.
Weapon specialization? Not even the Paladin gets that. I think you're opening this class up to abuse (able to take feats normally limited to fighters).
Over all it strikes me as less powerful than the Paladin in Melee, but more powerful than the Cleric. So, I like it.
However, my big beaf with it is formatting. It's all over the place in the description. Many lines are confusing and out of logical order.
I give you big kudos for style. I have played with variations on lunar druids in my own campaign world, though I never got into Lycanthropy.
I think it's a good concept but there are parts that aren't executed well.
1) The profanity of Silver: This SCREAMS werewolves, but doesn't explain why. Of course, neither do werewolves in the game, so that's probably campaign specific. My moon god has no problem with silver, so this wouldn't work in my campaign world.
2) Call forth the Furious: Cool. I like that. It gives some extra power to the summoned monsters. The only thing I would have done was limit the types of monsters, maybe to just wolf type creatures, and werewolves at higher levels.
3) Wild Shape Limitation: Good idea, but not limiting enough, especially for the other benefits gained. Probably should have just switched Wild Shape entirely for natural lycanthropy.
4) Lunar Howl: This is a neat trick, but could be hugely powerful against a really big crowd. Say you were facing an army, you could howl in front of them and the cascading effect could hit thousands.
Finally, you described the character as being able to "shed the wonder of the moon before beast and man alike." I don't see any abilities like that here.
All-in-all a good concept but I think it needs more work.
You filled a needed niche. You kept it simple. You didn't make it too specific.
I would have dropped the world specific references in the intro, just because it isn't relevant to Pathfinder RPG, just Golorian. No harm there though.
Almost all of the abilities sound really good and seem balanced on first review.
My biggest concerns are:
Quicker Than the Eye (Ex): At 2nd level, a knife fighter gains a bonus equal to 1/2 his fighter level to all initiative checks. This ability replaces bravery.
This seems to be a bit too powerful at higher levels (+10 at 20th). I would have bumped it to the 3rd level and increased it every 3 levels (+6 at 18th).
Cut and Run (Ex): At 6th level, as a full-round action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity, a knife fighter can make a combat maneuver check to hamper an opponent by targeting tendons in vulnerable locations, such as the wrist or hamstring. If it succeeds, the target is staggered for one round and the knife fighter can then make a normal move without provoking an attack of opportunity from the target. This ability replaces the bonus feat at 6th level.
I probably would have done something different with this, but your system works. I however, feel it has some room for abuse. I can't quite put my finger on it at this moment, but I think it's there.
Well done and I really hope this one moves forwards to the next round.
