L. A. DuBois's page

Slim Jim wrote:

A dwarven rogue with his highest stats in Con and Wis is quite playable.

That sounds like a character who'd have a hard time hitting enemies and be weak in the Dexterity skills we'd expect Rogues to be good at. Are there some build options that make this work?

Look, we're not talking min-maxing here. Even outside of combat, there's still plenty that most any character - but especially a rogue - can do to help a typical party. The character needn't be in the top 10% of characters or anything, just so long as they function. Let's say characters (not classes) who would fit low Tier 4 (capable of doing one thing well, even if suffering in other areas or being cripplingly overspecialized), if we bring in the idea of class tiers. Though even Tier 5 is great if you've got a fun story to tell.

Slim Jim wrote:

Rogue critic's flowchart:

[Query: Is somebody satisfied with their rogue?]-->[Yes.]-->[Bring this heretic before the tribunal!]

They’re just applying sense to some patent nonsense. It’s cool that your GM is giving you a customized kiddie mode to make your character seem good, I hope you appreciate him.

Please don't be a gatekeeping tryhard. Roleplaying games are about having fun with some friends. If you want to talk about what builds are or aren't most effective in some absolute sense, there are plenty of other threads for that. This is a thread for wacky and fun builds that specifically diverge from conventional wisdom and truisms for building characters. Naturally, the vast majority of these characters will be, in some way, markedly suboptimal. But, if a character was able to accomplish something fun in an actual game - or even just if the player had fun playing them, or is looking forward to an opportunity to play them - without being built around common stats, that's enough for them to be welcome in this thread, regardless of how that character might fare in a PFS game or Tomb of Horrors. (This comment was singled out, but it's kind of aimed at a few replies in this thread.)

TL;DR: Please don't insult other players, GMs, or playstyles in this thread.

P.S. I just noticed, amusingly enough, that one of the first hits in that link is a "dwarf rogue who doesn't suck" with 18 Con and a respectable Wis score... Heheh

@Wonderstell: Kudos for the poem!

One of the things that keeps me practically married to 3.5e/PF is the comparative freedom you have with your ability scores. Sure, clerics want to have good Wisdom, and barbarians want a healthy Con score, but just about every class can get something out of any of their ability scores.

The gold star of this is the rogue who can have builds centered around just about any of the six ability scores. Strength and Constitution rogues are your brutish thugs, bouncers, and other urban muscle who don't give one whit about propriety and civil tactics. Intelligence rogues are your skill monkeys and masterminds (at least until the investigator class came along). Wisdom rogues are sleuths, gamblers, and other shady characters who rely on their wits. And Charisma rogues are your charming rakes and suave charlatans. Now, sure, you could make a brutish thug who's a fighter or barbarian, or a charming rake who's a bard, but those would be very different characters from a rogue built around those stats. And, notably, unlike certain other versions of D&D and its spin-offs, can make use of them.

So, without further ado, have you made any characters built around unusual ability scores? Unusually high scores a class doesn't normally focus on, or unusually low scores that are normally that class's focus both count. For MAD classes, it's generally got to be a score that either isn't part of its normal MAD scores, or is built around only one of its MAD stats to the veritable exclusion of others (a monk with high Charisma as an example of the former, or a paladin with with high Wisdom but low - as in no more than say 13 - Charisma and Strength as an example of the former).

So, going ahead and saying that I haven't actually looked much into the playtest, largely due to the fact that my group is currently in the middle of a campaign, but I do think I have some to say, at least on the theory/design aspect of things, if not the specifics of the mechanics.

ryric wrote:

Everyone's great at Perception now by requirement, so you can't have oblivious guards or anyone else who is unaware of their surroundings. In PF1e if I wanted to do a stealth scenario, I made guards with a +1 Perception who take 10. Actual stealthy PCs autosucceed, and even Crag the Clunky needs about a 15 - and magical resources can be used to help the less able. In PF2e, every single PC has only about a 50/50 chance of sneaking, no matter the buffs, so for a 5 PC group it's 1 in 32 or so.

Sorry, but unless your guards are the same level as the party that's kinda bullcrap. You can still have guards with low enough Perception DCs to sneak by easily, you just need them to be lower level, which guards likely are.

Alternatively, "Oblivious" sounds like an awfully good reason to throw in a circumstance penalty...

The problem with this is that sneaking often (though admittedly not always) implies you're wanting to avoid a fight. Usually because the opponent is, if not outright dangerous, at least troublesome enough to make the PCs want to avoid fighting them entirely. While LG PCs wanting to sneak into the NG king's castle in order to grab some MacGuffin for the Greater Good would certainly have reason to sneak around low-level guards, the same cannot be said for those PCs trying to stealth their way into a LE tyrant's fortress, if you're simply relying on the guards being such low a level.

Of course, I'm sure there are ways to overcome this without much difficulty, but it would be nice to not need to handwave departures from the rules.

Keeping in mind that I don't like this answer:

Doesn't the NPCs-aren't-built-like-PCs feature of the playtest negate any assertion that a nth-level x can't do something anymore? Since, presumably, if they want an NPC to do it they'll just give them the ability to do it?

Seems like the only limitations the new ruleset technically puts are on the PC side of the narrative.

Oh dear... Are they actually doing this? Are NPCs/monsters now working distinctly differently from PCs? This is actually one of the biggest reasons I've been sticking to Pathfinder over both 4e and 5e, because I absolutely love the intercompatibility. NPCs, and to an extent even monsters*, can do anything a PC can do and vice versa, with only occasional exceptions. Like sure, even I'd give NPCs unique abilities the PCs could never have RAW access to, but it was very rare, and there was always some specific justification for it, like having used some offscreen ritual to absorb a metric ton of necrotic energy, or receiving a blessing from Desna.

It just added so much to the system's verisimilitude. Treating PCs differently from NPCs/monsters has always just felt... game-y to me. Of course, I realize I'm reading a lot of assumptions into two sentences, but if this is what's happening for 2e, I'm going from mildly excited to kind of scared... The ultimate point is that you can even take like a basilisk's stat block and fill out a PC character sheet with it. The fact that there was no fundamental mechanical bar preventing anyone or anything with six ability scores (or sometimes even five) from being played like a PC made it feel so much more like the players were a part of the world, even if, in practice, this rarely actually happened.

*In my experience, I've even found that most monsters can be made into PCs by treating their CR as being their starting level minus one (that is, a human with 3 levels in a PC class is a CR 2 creature, and so a CR 2 creature is roughly equivalent to a 3rd-level character). At least, outside of the hands of munchkins... It works far better than LA ever did, at the very least.

For the Teleport issue, maybe it’s time for a bit of WarCraft III(*) inspiration: Scroll of Town Portal. Classic style fast(*) Teleport would be way up your class tech tree if you have it at all, but it would be possible to use a lower level (slow) Teleport spell during down time to produce a magic item (Scroll fits best conceptually) that lets you Teleport quickly to a limited set of locations (that you would have had to prepare beforehand, in a way that is hard to conceal after the fact, using some ritual, or maybe even as part of casting the same spell in the process of making the magic item).

(snipped)

(*)No idea whether World of WarCraft continued with the same mechanic.

So I've actually been giving my parties what are basically hearthstones from WoW for pretty much this explicit purpose. That, and letting them be used as essentially magical walkie-talkies. They require a full-round action to use that provokes attacks of opportunity, so you don't want to use them in combat unless you have to, can only be used once per day, and can take you back to whatever single "hearth" you've attuned it to (and you can attune it to different "hearths" as you travel). A "hearth" being whatever semi-arbitrary place you feel is appropriate. I usually use taverns/inns, since that also provides some explanations for both the convenience of their location, and also an explanation that what makes a place a "hearth" is a ritual that requires daily upkeep, making it impractical at best for PCs to make whatever place they want into a "hearth". There's a handful of other rules on attuning them and stuff to make sure that players only use them as they are intended (like having there be no point in carrying multiple hearthstones, since in proximity they all become attuned - and therefore functionally identical - to each other), but that's the basic idea.

Of course, for campaigns that might require it, you can remove one or both features from it, but the walkie-talkie part helps justify the sort of semi-metagaming tabletalk I find every group indulges in on some level, so unless an adventure has a tone that would be specifically benefited by separated players being unable to communicate (like horror), it's a convenient handwave.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Character concepts are not Canon paizo stories.

(snipped)

PC builds aren't relevant to this thread, frankly.

We have to agree to disagree here. To me, a complete change in how an important part of the heroes of Golarion look, fight, and feel is a major change to the canon. RPGs are about the characters.

I have to agree with Starfox, here. The first thing I do when looking at a system is consider what kinds of character concepts it can create. Not builds, note. Concepts. Essentially, the fluff of the character. In tabletop RPGs, there is a certain inextricability to how the two are linked, but ultimately, you can't make a wizard if you can't cast spells. Now, of course, it's unreasonable to expect every build in 1e to be replicable in 2e, even once it is fully released, but as far as I can tell, we're just talking about core classes, here, which I think is a pretty reasonable minimum standard to meet. Now, like I said, I haven't delved extensively into the 2e rules, but I have read through the classes (since, again, considering the types of character concepts I can make is one of my main draws to a new system), and I have to agree. The 2e paladin feels a lot more like a simple variation on the fighter than the cleric/fighter gish it's pretty much always been. A perfectly fine variation on the fighter, as has been said, but... yeah, the specific focus on heavy armour feels weird, for one. Paladins don't have faith in their armour, their faith is their armour. Aside from that, while I, personally, don't feel as strongly about Starfox concerning things like the shift from spells to powers, I can still acknowledge their concerns.

Now, my major concern for 2e's class design is... See, my golden standard for concept flexibility is the fact that Pathfinder allows for dynamic building of a rogue based around any of the six ability scores. Even just with the core book, you can make any stat your highest and still build a solid rogue concept around that stat (arguable exception to Constitution, but I'd still say there's things you can do with that). There is literally nothing stopping you from making your Pathfinder rogue's dump stat Dexterity. No, it's not going to be the most powerful rogue, but there's still things you can do that will utilize your good stat(s), whatever that happens to be. Make your 5e rogue's dump stat Dex, on the other hand, and unless you've got a high Int and are going for Arcane Trickster, you may as well be playing a commoner. Aside from saves, there is literally no benefit to giving a fighter more than 8 Intelligence. I mean, sure, that's always been the quintessential fighter dump stat, but in 3e/PF you can at least do things with that extra Int, and with some creativity and a few extra books, you can probably even make a pretty respectable build for a fighter whose Intelligence is one of their highest stats. From my browsing, while 2e doesn't appear to have hit 5e or even 4e's point... It does seem to be creeping uncomfortably close to each class having One Stat to Rule Them All. Of course, this is still playtest material, and it's only my first impressions.

I'd like to reiterate before I go, however, that we're not talking about builds, here. Yes, builds aren't unrelated to this conversation, but that's simply because builds are what facilitate character concepts. I'm not talking about the builds in and of themselves. I'm specifically talking about how the ways we can build characters impact the stories we can tell with those characters. I acknowledge that things like which spells are cast at which levels or how many languages a character can speak without extra investment, and even how many dice a certain thing has you roll are all pretty unimportant because, by and large, they are quantitative things. Numbers can always be fudged in one direction or another, so long as the essence of the plot holds. What I - and I believe you - have been talking about throughout this are qualitative changes, or when the quantities involved become so large that they do qualitatively alter the underlying story.

On the teleport balance issue, what teleport needs in not a long casting time - it is a long arrival time. Star Trek and its transporter often have this issue - people are starting to flicker into existence, but it takes a while for them to stabilize. This need not be a huge amount of time, say 1 minute, and the teleportees all spend their first turn after arriving orienting themselves to the exclusion of all other action. If you add the teleportation arrival making noise and smelling ozone, this would stop scry-and fry and make teleport more useful for escape than for attack.

This is also pretty much how I feel about teleport in terms of what its problems are. The original intention behind the teleport spell, from its inception in D&D, is to be a convenient way to travel, and as an emergency escape pod. The abuse of the spell is when it's used to ambush people. 2e's fix doesn't really do much for the latter (as Captain Morgan mentioned in their first response), and definitely upsets the former. I don't even know it necessarily needs to be a full minute, just a couple rounds of "summoning sickness" would probably be enough to dissuade the tactic. Making it noisy/flashy would also help in cases where the PCs are using it as part of their stealth tactics. Bonus points for all of this being pretty in keeping with the vast majority of teleportation magic in fiction.

Pretty much since I started playing D&D back when 3.5e was first released, I've been building specific and often unusual character concepts. And just now, an interesting idea came to mind: could you make an effective assassin using a full-caster class, and if so how? I mean, in theory, full-progression spellcasters are the most versatile and arguably powerful characters in the game, but to be a proper assassin requires a very specific set of skills that don't immediately spring to mind for full casters.

Now, I'm gonna go monkey around with this myself (possibly in the morning since it's 1:00am right now), but in the meantime I thought I'd pose the question here as well. So here's the rules for this challenge:
1) Create a PFS-legal 12th level character using only a single full-progression spellcasting class.
2) Ignore equipment, aside from an optional weapon. Since magic items are pretty much equally accessible to all classes, including them would just clutter things up when the goal is just to see how the class would perform on its own merits.
3) In order to be a proper assassin, one must be able to reliably kill a specific given target before they are able to react much. At the very least, without being able to alert others or get help. An assassin should also be capable of doing this with no collateral damage (including extra killings) or witnesses.

Personally, I think I'm going to try for three different flavours with this to build:
A) Boring, But Practical: This type of assassin is simply reliable. Given ideal but typical circumstances (at night while the victim sleeps alone in their room or something, not while bound and unconscious in a private demiplane), they are most guaranteed to be able to off as wide a variety of targets as possible.
B) Beyond the Impossible: This type of assassin is able to kill someone and get away with it in an incredibly difficult situation, like while the target is surrounded by guards or is on a different continent. The entire assassination need not occur entirely under those circumstances, but it must start under them, and whatever remains may exist must be returned to wherever the target had been at that start before the assassin can escape. Don't know if this one will actually be possible to do, but I want to at least give it a shot.
C) Smoke and Shadows: This kind of assassin must be impossible to catch. They may not be able to kill any target, they may not be able to kill in any situation, but they cannot be tracked or discovered. No one knows who they are or how they do what they do. For bonus points, the Nameless One feat is off limits.

Giving the witch the wizard's bonded item would certainly work. I suppose in a pinch I could do the same for the shaman... I'd like to just swap out the familiar (well, spirit animal, before anyone comes in to correct me), though. Largely to maximize compatibility with other archetypes, but also because it's just the animal companion that's out of place. Everything else is perfectly fine as-is.

All right, sorry for so many back-to-back posts, but bit of an important update.
The original document I'd been working in seems to have gotten too large for Google Docs to handle (as best as I can figure), and has basically crashed. I managed to recover almost all of my work on it, and have created two new documents; one for spells (since spells took up about half the page count of the old one), and one for everything else.

(New) Pathfinder Rules Index

Pathfinder Spells Index

I've been working on this project some more lately, and have decided, more specifically, to start working on some adventures. There have been a few fairly significant changes to the original plan, which are:

• I will be designing the campaign adventures for E6 (for those unfamiliar with the variant: in short, the maximum character level is set at 6th, and characters gain bonus feats instead of levels from that point on - plenty of variations on this basic concept, though, so feel free to google them). Each expansion will be getting its own E6-scaled campaign.
  
• In tandem with this E6 approach, my plan is to either do away with or rework XP so that level growth is based on completing adventures, regardless of how many enemies were defeated or how tough they were. There will be two main types of adventures: questlines, in which a series of quests from a zone (or, occasionally, zones) will be adapted to form a unified adventure, and dungeons, in which an instance (either dungeon or raid) will be adapted to form an adventure. I intend for questline adventures to take one (and only one) whole session to complete, and for (very roughly)* every five bosses in an instance to comprise a session. It will then, in turn, take a number of sessions equal to your current level in order to level up. I'm messing around with some particulars for things like allowing lower leveled character to catch up to higher ones, but that's all less important.
  
• I'm setting aside the core rules for now (which I will still be making with full 20 levels of play in mind), and ignoring all of its spells and feats for now. I will add them back in or create new ones as turns out to be necessary while writing the adventures. Once I've finished writing the adventures, I will review these to see if any more should be added. Ditto for archetypes and the like (though the engineer is definitely staying). Additionally, I will only be using/referencing material from the books included in the PRD.
  
• For a shift to more specific changes, I'm switching out the engineer's cognatogen class feature for inspiration, and will be reworking his discoveries and schematic list.

It's been some time since I last wrote my own adventure, and I was much less experienced when I did, so I'd like some peer review to make sure I've made something decent. For this test run, I chose to adapt The Deadmines (dungeons being more easily defined than questlines), which will be made for a party of 3rd-level adventurers. My intention for dungeons is that they should be challenging, but not difficult. Success for an average party will require either thorough preparation or good resource management, but requiring both will be the purview of raids (questlines will be more casual "breather episodes"). That said, being the first dungeon, I intend for The Deadmines to not mean guaranteed failure for an ill-prepared party, but it should be hard enough that the party will know to prepare for future dungeons. Lastly, The Deadmines will be intended to last for two game sessions with the break occuring after Sneed is defeated. During these sorts of breaks in dungeons and raids, characters will be treated as having had an 8 hour rest (allowing healing, spell replenishment, and so on), but without any actual time passing in-game. The main reason for this being to allow for more challenging bosses (particularly the final one), but without undoing the players' progress up to this point, or otherwise creating plot holes for why the enemy hasn't taken advantage of the party's time sleeping.

As for feedback, I'd like thoughts from more experienced DMs on how difficult it would be for a 3rd-level party to run it, particularly keeping in mind various things I've said concerning balance and difficulty up to this point. I'd also like estimations on how long this would likely take to complete (and also whether those estimations are purely theoretical, based solely on time spent playing, or if they include allowances for out-of-character chat, looking up a couple of rules, and so on).
Lastly, I didn't really start playing WoW until halfway through Cataclysm, so I never actually got to run this version of the dungeon, myself (thanks to WoWpedia and Bradygames for allowing me to attempt this, anyway). As such, I'd love some feedback on how I adapted things to fit better into and make the most of it being a tabletop game rather than an MMO. I know I've diverted from how the actual dungeon plays out, but trust that any huge change (such as the Rhahk'zor encounter, the nature of the entrance - since I did include the tunnels leading up to the instance portal, not simply what's inside the instance itself - and so on) was intentional. I'd still like feedback on those adaptations, but please don't simply criticize it for not being exactly like the original. I'm going more for "in the spirit of" rather than "to the letter".
The Deadmines

voideternal wrote:

The underlying question seems to be: How often is a ranger's favored enemy supposed to apply from a game-balance point of view?

Is this PFS and did you choose FE humanoid(human)? Then the answer is a lot.

I think the real question here is, will it be a problem if the ranger has his favored enemy bonus active on virtually every opponent they face?

The answer is no. In fact, there is a spell that allows them to do exactly that, and while it's good, perhaps even great, it's certainly not game breaking.

But it does make the choice meaningless. There is no opportunity cost or trade-off, you either made the "right" choice (where your bonus affects everything) or you made the "wrong" one (where it affects nothing). From a non-power-gaming/optimization-concerned perspective, a ranger's favoured enemy bonus was not intended to affect everything or else there'd be no choice to be made when getting the class feature. That there is a choice required implies that some limitations are intended to exist, and that it should not affect the vast majority of enemies. If a given campaign concept does not easily allow for that to be the case using the rules-as-written, then house rules are needed to correct for this. I know that if I were playing a ranger, I would much rather have to choose FE (cleric) than FE (human) in a campaign that features only humans if for no other reason than that it makes my choice actually matter. (Incidentally, while I like aspects of PFS in theory, I am not a fan of its execution, so referencing it won't sway me.)

Might I suggest, if after all these posts you still think something should be done (which, personally, I do given that having this problem implies that you'll be having a lot of humanoid enemies in this campaign, and the ranger wasn't meant for his favoured enemy bonus to apply to 95% of a campaign's enemies - the entire reason it has to choose subtypes for the more widely used types), consider making rangers pick a character class in place of a humanoid subtype, so a ranger may take "Humanoid (druid)" or "Humanoid (rogue)" as their favoured enemy. Personally, I'm almost inclined to say that the hybrid classes from ACG could count as either of its constituent classes, just as an Outsider (Evil, Lawful) would count as Outsider (Evil) and Outsider (Lawful). I say "almost" because while, as a general rule, the hybrid classes tend to be better than either of the classes they combine, this isn't universally true, and I don't think the difference is quite enough to warrant it. That said, you may feel differently.

I still haven't worked out the mechanics but I'm thinking of a scaling blast that a wizard has access to to provide damage capability regularly. The idea is similar to a warlock's eldritch blast and is inspired by Zed from Legend of the Seeker (TV show, not the novels). Not sure if it should be based on spell points, a fatigue mechanic or just per day based off of Con. Of course my idea is so that wizards can do more thematic ritualistic magic with effects other than damage yet not sacrifice damage capability.

I wanna say one of Paizo's recent books or soon to be published books is actually going to have something resembling the 3.5e warlock in that regard. Renamed, of course. I'll go browsing through stuff to see if I can find it again.

EDIT: Turns out it is called the Warlock, and is an archetype of the Vigilante, both found in Ultimate Intrigue. It replaces what can be reductively equated to the ranger's combat style class feature - not something central to the class, but not insignificant either. Still, it may give you some ideas for how that sort of thing could work. Being an Ultimate book, I expect we'll see it added to the PRD in about 6 months or so.

Very cool. May I recommend, in that case, creating a couple of inmates who actually aren't insane but are merely being dismissed as such, particularly if the party is good, so that they have to decide whether or not they should bring them back to the asylum. The druid I mentioned in my previous post could be an example. Perhaps they have some legitimate grievance with the town (perhaps it cut down a holy grove to make way for some new houses or something, or hunters from the town shot his animal companion, mistaking it for a regular deer), and were thrown in the madhouse so that the town's elite wouldn't have to acknowledge any potential wrong-doing on their part.

Nobility could focus on nobles-by-birth, whose behavior may not be anything like 'noble' in word or deed, despite their high station. Protection could well extend to protectionism, a focus on the specific community and traditions of the faithful, and 'protecting' it from all those filthy outsiders of different races and languages and skin colors and nationalities.

Yeah, my mind was scratching at this sort of possibility, but I was doing this literally at midnight, so I was a bit too sleepy to be able to fully realize its mutterings. I was quite sad about skipping it, because, as I said, I knew there was very real potential for it. I just couldn't quite grasp it.

The good thing about the forum dice roller is you're not bound by availability real physical dice.

I didn't realize this forum had a dice roller. ^^; Still, I was using the old dice roller from the WotC site, so I'm still not bound to the availability of physical dice. Also, I don't like relying on editing a post as using the forum's dice roller would require, or just posting a roll followed by the fleshing out when I could just type it all up in a single post.

Anyway, now that it's morning, I'll do another.

NG Water, Protection, Animal, Earth. ...Well that's just boringly easy. It's essentially Poseidon if he wasn't a jerk. Ah well. Perhaps I can come up with something interesting if I randomly determine his subdomains, too. Fur, Feather, Purity, Solitude, Flotsam, and Ice. Well, colour me inspired.

Sinaa
The kindly old lady of the north, Sinaaq holds sway over the glaciers and frozen seas at the top of the world. She is at home in this lonely and foreboding place, still untouched by mortal hands, with only a few arctic animals for company. Her remoteness has led to her being forgotten by all but the oldest of arctic druid sects (some of whom have even forgotten her true divine nature and believe her to be a mere nature spirit or even just a powerful druid). But she is a beneficent deity who will lend her power to any who have true need of it, whether they know of her to ask or not, bringing icebergs and raft-worthy detritus to those who find themselves shipwrecked on her glacial coasts. Still, she can be a vengeful goddess, and will break off huge icebergs from her glaciers, and summon mighty tidal waves to sink those who have intentions to sully her pristine north. Unusually for a deity, she spends most of her time in a mortal form, usually that of an old Shoanti woman, walking along the beaches of snow, and with a small, warm hut that always happens to be just a few yards away when she turns to it. It has been so long since she has had any formal worshippers that the closest thing she has to a holy symbol is an ancient glyph meaning 'ice floe'. Her favoured weapon, such as it is, is the ulu, a utilitarian knife with a broad blade (treat as a dagger that cannot deal piercing damage).

1. Fair enough, it's all a matter of taste. I'm just saying that evil doesn't necessarily mean psychotic. There's tons of variety that rarely gets explored with how often evil gets banned, and it's generally just because GMs are afraid of PvP conflict.
2. But banning material is such a... crude and inelegant solution. I offered plenty of examples of house-ruled alternatives to simply banning things. I would hope someone in a "House Rule" forum would have recognized that.

...Honestly, I'm rather put out that all that work I put into my reply is being so summarily dismissed. Which, incidentally, is also what you're doing with your players for just laying down blanket bans.

...Well... That got away from me a bit. I don't think I've even seen a post this long on these forums before, let alone written one... Sorry about that. ^^;

There was lively discussion about E6 and its variants in a couple of other current threads that weren't actually devoted to the topic, so to help keep those threads on topic and also carry on the conversation, I've set up this thread for all sorts of E6/E7/E8 discussion.

Some quick basics for those who are new:

What is E6?
E6, short for Epic 6, is a variant of d20 systems (particularly D&D and Pathfinder) that puts a cap on character advancement at 6th level. After that point, characters are simply given extra feats every few thousand XP or so. There are as many ways to run this variant as there are GMs using it, including setting the cap at other levels (usually 8th, though 7th is fairly common in Pathfinder games, and some go into the low teens). These variants are referred to as E8, E7, and so on, with the number being whatever level you're stopping level growth at.

Why E6?
Well, the answer to this varies from group to group, but there are two main, recurring reasons for this - one fluff-based, and one crunch-based, though there is some overlap.

On the fluff side, E6 helps establish a low-magic world that can be very useful for running games with a classic Lord of the Rings style of fantasy, or Game of Thrones level of grittiness. It also cuts out a lot of high level spells that can be difficult for GMs to design satisfying adventures around without contriving some reason that every Big Bad Evil Guy has their entire fortress warded against scrying, teleportation, and similar abilities.

Mechanically, the range between 6th and 8th levels are also when the various classes are on the most even footing with each other. You're probably familiar with the concept of "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" - that is, early on, warrior-type classes are decidedly sturdier and more robust than mages who often have to nurse single-digit hit points for a couple levels, and have to be judicious about their limited spells per day, but warriors grow linearly in power while mages grow quadratically and around the mid-point, mages' spellcasting easily overtakes martial classes' abilities. 6th to 8th level is roughly the point at which this cross-over happens so every class can bring their A-game without anyone feeling eclipsed.

Blending the two, there are many spells that can end combat in just a couple of rounds regardless of how tough you've made your boss creature, leading to rather anti-climactic combat. Additionally, players' access to magic items is greatly restricted, allowing for only a few of the "best in slot" items that players are practically guaranteed to have at high levels, so characters are more likely to have varied equipment with interesting effects rather than all being decked out in standard stat-boosting gear.

Personally, something I particularly appreciate about E6 is the fact that a 6th-level character is decidedly more powerful than a 1st-level one, but a 1st-level character is still capable of helping out an otherwise 6th-level party. This allows for a number of things like players having alternate characters that can grow independently, and being able to quickly and easily introduce new players to an ongoing game without having to hand them a sheet with dozens of abilities they need to learn.

So how does this work, exactly?
Well, as I said, the basics are simply to stop characters from leveling up at whichever level you've decided is best, and award bonus feats instead at regular intervals (say, every 5000 XP or so), but for ideas on how you can alter this basic concept, check out the (sadly incomplete) P6 Codex. Note that this is a fan-made document, and that the only official rules of E6 are those I've already stated, and whatever else your table decides.

At that point, it's hard to justify every major city NOT having an airship port, adamantine golem guards, and dragon-riding knights.

Except that not everyone is an adventurer. Even in a full level 20 campaign, you can have a world where most people don't get any higher than level 3. Adventurers are usually the exception to various rules, anyway, and major villains are frequently adventurers, too (or at least more like adventurers than common folk). Consider Mogworld where a few characters like Baron Civious and Thaddeus (and almost no others) could easily be as high as 20th level characters due to extreme devotion and/or study, but where even the king of the most powerful kingdom in the world is maybe 5th level at absolute best since he's never really needed to do anything. Just because there are 20 (or more) levels of advancement in a setting doesn't mean that everyone is guaranteed to achieve those 20 levels.

Now, you can then ask the question of why what few high-level characters that do exist haven't taken over the rest of the world with their god-like powers, but if you can't come up with some sort of passable explanation for that, you're just not trying. Although, if nothing else, I imagine most players would accept it being due to the Law of Narrative Causality.

This is an (incomplete) project that I've been working on since about mid-Mists of Pandaria. It is, as it appears, a World of Warcraft campaign setting for Pathfinder. While I never fully shelved it, I've decided to resume working on it. While I have made a few changes this past week, I've learned of or noticed quite a lot I needed to change or fix, not to mention fill out.
Obviously, this is nowhere near a finished product at the moment, but in order to end up with something decent, I decided I would look to MW for assistance and advice.

I used the earlier Sword & Sorcery Warcraft RPG books made for D&D 3.5e as a starting point for various things (particularly feats and spells), but there are several aspects of that system I dislike, not to mention its being incomplete, non-canon, and (moreso in the revision than the original) not entirely compatible with Pathfinder.
I intend to fill this setting out as much as possible as a - likely life-long - side project, including adapting each zone in the game into an adventure. As such, my intent is to balance accuracy to the game with compatibility to Pathfinder, erring on the side of compatibility however, given that this is a campaign setting and not a subsystem or variant like the original Warcraft RPG.
I have attached a pair of PDFs that represent my work so far. One (“wow core”) holds the majority of the rules, and the other (“wow spells”) is where I'm working on all of the new spells.

--Overview of Core PDF--

wow core.pdf
wow spells.pdf

Casters don't need to be more powerful.

I've been mentioning things like reversing the DCs so that 0-level spells have base DCs of 19 and 9th-level spells DCs start at 10. If anything that's making them less powerful. (Which I'm not confident is a solution, but the point is that I'd rather increase early saves and reduce late saves before I increase saves across the board since obviously that would make casters into gods.)

As for ill omen, that's a witch-only spell, and I was rather focusing on sorcerer/wizard spells. Sorry, should've made that clear. And yes, I know that colour spray is better than magic missile at-level, but the point of my entire topic was that I felt low-level spells didn't scale well, as a general rule. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but only a few that you might as well populate all 9 or more spells/day slots with at high levels. Struggling with "illusion of choice" is a common problem in d20 and Pathfinder, and that more than class balance or anything like that is why I really started this thread.

Anyway, clearly the topic's getting nowhere. I guess save DCs are as functional as they can be short of an extensive overhaul to pretty much the entire casting system which just isn't worth it in my mind.

CWheezy, what false dichotomy? At worst, maybe you could say the last sentence was a bit strawman-y, or perhaps ad absurdum, but even those claims I'd dispute as it was pretty clearly a hyperbolic statement for effect and not meant to be taken seriously. As CampinCarl9127 said, it had to just be rules lawyers that were giving people a hard time over it. I don't really pay much attention to PFS since - while a cool idea - the need for a uniform experience hamstrings GM arbitration, which as I've said many times now is the heart and soul of tabletop RPGs. Regardless of how my profile may be filled out, I haven't been active since Season 1 or 2. So I obviously can't confirm or deny your claim about PFS inflicting a non-proficiency penalty on shield champion brawlers, but if that really is the case then it certainly doesn't win the format any favour or respect in my eyes.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. We're not here to talk about editting flubs, particularly for mechanics that actually do expand on what a character can do rather than restrict.

It took me a moment to understand what you were saying, but I guess your point is that shields are martial weapons while the shield champion is only proficient with simple weapons. To which my reply becomes how would you make the distinction? By writing shields twice in the proficiencies?
"A shield champion is proficient with all simple weapons, light shields, and heavy shields. She is also proficient with light armor, and with bucklers, light shields, and heavy shields."?
That would just strike me as weird and needlessly pedantic. I'd consider the weapon half of that proficiency pretty strongly implied already. Any GM that would actually rule otherwise is just trolling. May I be a bit contentious and ask if you're one of those people who corrects others when they say 'less' instead of 'fewer'?

...The Shield Champion archetype specifically says that it is "proficient with light armor, and with bucklers, light shields, and heavy shields". I'm reading it straight out of the book.
My only question is why did it write it that way rather than the standard "and with shields (except tower shields)"? I guess that means it isn't proficient with the madu and klar, but that's oddly specific... Perhaps because those are already also weapons, as I recall? But light and heavy shields are on the weapon table as well, so I don't really know how you'd differentiate... I'm kind of talking to myself at this point, so I'll just stop.

CampinCarl9127, I should clarify that generally, I see this to be the case, too. It always annoyed me that I could never make this guy until the brawler came out, because gauntlets aren't a monk weapon. And come on, that guy is clearly a monk. The things that I'm taking issue with in this thread I consider to definitely be the exception far more than the rule.

Diego Rossi, Catch-Off Guard removes that penalty as well. And for games I'm GMing, I'd probably let Catch-Off Guard allow you to use feats and abilities like Weapon Focus and fighter weapon training apply to the weapon when being improvised to deal alternate damage. As for magical bonuses and weapon damage... I'm kind of in a discussion about that with Paladin of Baha-who? right now. This post sums up my thoughts on the subject.

ElyasRavenwood, it is rather disappointing to see that sort of idea require so many feats that they start seriously biting into the character's combat effectiveness. I tend to favour taking flavour-based choices over mechanics-based ones, but I still want my character to not be a liability in combat. Personally, I might consider this sort of thing on a special basis with my player, and probably come up with a homebrew feat that only requires ...probably Combat Expertise and Weapon Focus (whip) that essentially grants you Improved Disarm/Trip/Steal, etc. and perhaps a few other effects while wielding a whip. Of course, I'd also understand if other GMs wouldn't even consider that since I could see it going terribly wrong in a power-gamer's hands.

Combat Monster, I think if I was running a more serious game then I'd require a feat, since that sort of thing actually would be fairly difficult if you didn't have phenomenal strength, but if it was a more laid-back or casual game, then I wouldn't require it - perhaps allowing the feat to let you do it with one hand or something - since that sort of thing does crop up fairly often in certain types of fiction (the Hulk, Astaroth from Soul Calibur, several large anime characters, and the occasional smaller one for comedic effect...).

What? No. That interpretation of Weapon Versatility makes even less sense. Use the pommel of a dagger as an improvised sap, sure. That's more-or-less what I'd been doing already. But without some supernatural voodoo, how could you possibly deal bludgeoning damage with a dagger's blade? The flat of a dagger's blade would be hard pressed to even do 1 damage, let alone 1d4. Or if you're still using the pommel, why would you suddenly get a 19-20 threat range? Why would the weapon's flaming enchantment or whatever suddenly be able to affect the pommel without affecting before? Yes, this is a fantasy game with supernatural elements, but that sort of thing would be more the purview of a spell. Feats - especially combat feats that require no supernatural prerequisite - are for things that are at least cinematically possible with mundane skill and dedicated practice.

CWheezy, I don't think that it's that necessary, though. Most of the feats aren't like that so cutting out the one or two in a book that has them isn't really losing much, even from a word/dollar standpoint. And certainly, even if an extra feat or two feels necessary, it could be padded out even more with that Normal entry explaining how the action would work without the feat, which would still be fairly easy since it would usually just amount to saying something like "A character without this feat takes a -4 penalty on this check."

Paulicus, that is very likely the biggest reason. At least for deciding [u]when[/u] to make a new edition.

Daniel Myhre, I'd have to disagree, at least with looking at the bombs. I'd consider it a hard sell to say that bombs are much more powerful than a rogue's sneak attack. The AoE is pretty small to begin with - you'd be hard pressed to hit more than two or three creatures with a single bomb at low levels, especially if you don't want to accidentally hit your group's fighter or something - not to mention that the splash damage is the minimum amount of damage the bomb can deal, which can be further halved if the target makes the - at low levels - relatively easy save. And on top of all that, default bombs deal fire damage which is the #1 most commonly resisted energy type in the game. Not to mention that you can only throw so many bombs per day, which can very easily lead to the player hoarding their bombs, hoping for more ideal times to use them (usually when there's more than one or two creatures they can hit). Of course, these are limitations that I'm sure would be fairly easy for a munchkin to overcome, as seems to be implied with the rest of your post, but reigning in power-gamers is kind of also the duty of the GM. It's sort of like the gunslinger, I suppose. In ideal circumstances, it can be devastating, but due to its specialization and certain not-immediately-apparent limitations, it manages to be kept in check in practice.

Although, I should probably throw in a disclaimer here that most of the games I run tend not to get beyond 6th to 12th level or so, and I had a very role-play focused group. Perhaps the biggest headache I ever had to deal with among my players was one who wanted to play a packmaster with all 1st-level companions. Certainly not an over-powered build by any stretch, but I just was NOT going to deal with that many combatants so I limited them to two (it was already a fairly large group, and two other players chose pet classes).

Crimeo, that example was just an extreme example of how the rules in the book could be used to handle things that the authors couldn't possibly account for. In actuality, most of the sorts of situations are things closer to the Weapon Versatility thing we were just talking about. I don't expect any feat to be added that covers chandelier swinging, but it represents the uncharted "here there be dragons" areas that I would argue are beneficial for the rules to not actually cover, and how that contrasts with all these additional feats and class features that end up charting those waters.

Well yeah. As I ...implied in my original post, doing things that the rules don't even mention is the biggest advantage that tabeltop games have. The trouble is when supplements come in and add feats and what-not that do end up covering these uncovered areas. Like imagine if, in your example, Paizo puts out a new Occult supplement that adds a feat or class feature for aerokinetics that explicitly says "Kineticists with this ability may use their aerokinesis to grant a ship an enhancement bonus to its speed equal to... blah blah blah. This ability is usable for 10 minutes per point of Constitution bonus." or something. Previously, you'd have said that this ability is something that any aerokineticist can attempt, but now the rules say that you have to have this feat, or archetype, etc. before you can do this.

Great point, Dasrak. I've always been of the mind that Disguise checks have a sort of gradient of difficult that's more nuanced than they seem to be treated. For example, it would take negligible effort for a half-elf to look human or vice-versa, and it almost certainly be easier for an elf to look like a human of similar ethnicity than for a Garundi to look Chelaxian. A short enough Ulfen should be easier to disguise as a dwarf, and an androgynous woman should have no trouble disguising herself as a man. But you couldn't possibly expect to balance all of those possibilities with a finite number of traits and feats that the player would have to choose between and sacrifice other more useful abilities for the sake of more accurately representing their character. Basically, I think that Disguise should have explicitly advocated for more GM arbitration. I mean, that sort of thing probably is the single strongest advantage that tabletop games have over computer games, after all.

At the very least, the devs could have included that Normal entry at the end of the feat describing how the activity works if you try doing it without the feat rather than just leaving it out thereby strongly implying that without the feat the action is completely impossible. I mean at this point, it would seem like pole vaulting or diving would be completely impossible to attempt without a feat.

I mean, I would like to reiterate that I really love Pathfinder as a whole and by-and-large think that everyone at Paizo does a great job, but... I guess that's what makes me want to voice my criticisms all the more. Being so close to greatness makes the flaws stand out all the more, I suppose.

Now I wonder about the relationship between that FAQ and Weapon Versatility. The two overlap quite a bit to the extent that I'd say it requires a judgment call. Either the FAQ is valid, which implies that no special training is required to deal alternate damage with a weapon, rendering useless a feat that can only be used with weapons for which you have Weapon Focus, or you can take the feat as the valid ruling (due to it being published in a book), negating what the FAQ says...

Incidentally, now that Weapon Versatility exists, I actually prefer how it handles the ability over what I had come up with, but then that brings back to the original problem of feats that grant abilities that should probably be doable without them.

This is something that's been on my mind for some time, but now that I've about finished an index of every Paizo feat, trait, and spell (the ones on places like d20pfsrd are actually missing a few, even from books I'd consider somewhat core-ish), it's really been bugging me.

One of the things that really sparked my love for tabletop roleplaying was when I first got the 3.5e Dungeon Master's Guide and was reading through it (I just might be one of the few people to have read that thing cover-to-cover, simply because it was my introduction to tabletop and I didn't know anything about it before). Somewhere in there, relatively early on was an attempt to describe how tabletop roleplaying let you do anything you can imagine by describing how you might adjudicate something ridiculous like a monk jumping over a banister, grabbing a chandelier, and swinging across to kick someone in the face. (IIRC, I believe it suggested a Jump check to reach the chandelier, a touch attack to grab it, possibly with a Reflex save in there somewhere, followed by a charge attack). After reading that, I was sold. I could go on about how much that one paragraph shaped me as a GM and my preferences and opinions on various systems, but let's go ahead and fast-forward to now.

It was something I started to notice in 3.5e, but either it wasn't as pronounced, or I simply didn't have as large a sample of splatbooks, but there are a lot of feats, spells, quite a few class features, and I think one or two traits that - thanks, if nothing else, to RAI, severely limit that sort of freedom. Normally, RAI seems to me to be something that allows things beyond the written rules. For example, if you can regularly chuck balls of fire, then being able to create a lighter-sized flame to light a candle or perhaps even a torch seems like it would be a negligible use of your ability that you could do any time.

First off, let me say that in general I kind of love rule bloat (with only mild exaggeration). I love having more spells, classes, and feats to pick between since it gives me more ideas and more accurate ways of representing the characters in my head. But sometimes, these new rules actually end up limiting what a player can do rather than expand their capabilities. Prime examples for me are things like the feats Antagonize, Call Out, Warning Shot, especially Blinding Flash, and perhaps even Kinetic Leap and Kinetic Counter. These are all actions that had there not been these feats, I would have considered perfectly reasonable actions for characters to attempt. I may not have used the exact same rules, but it would have been close enough to render the feat useless. For example, the basic effect of Xenoglossy - being able to communicate without a shared language - is something I would have thought would practically be the main purpose of the Linguistics skill (along with deciphering ancient text or coded messages). The actions of Dazzling Display I would have allowed, but probably to provide a bonus to the usual Intimidate check instead. By the way, this is not an extensive list, just the ones I was able to remember easily.

But since there are these explicit rules, it strongly implies that characters without these feats are not able to do these things at all. For example, I used a house rule for years that if you're proficient with a weapon, you can take a non-proficiency penalty for an attack to deal different damage with it. Using a spear like a quarterstaff to deal bludgeoning damage, or stabbing with a longsword to deal piercing damage. It seemed reasonable to me, having taken fencing and a few other weapon-focused martial arts to expect someone who actually used weapons on a daily basis to be able to do these sorts of things with minimal effort, and the non-proficiency penalty was really just a token attempt at maintaining the game's original balance. But Weapon Versatility has a very similar effect, implicitly locking that ability away.

I've been working on an engineer variant for a while, and I finally have something semi-finalized and ready for review.

First, a quick overview of my logic in building the class. If you're not interested, it should be obvious where the class mechanics begin. It should be noted that I've abbreviated most of the class feature entries, stripping them of fluff and often not mentioning rules that are identical to the original equivalent ability.

1) This is for my group's upcoming campaign which is (probably) going to include a new skill, Use Technological Device. It's essentially Use Magic Device for tech-y things as was an early addition. Now that I have the Technology Guide, I may be removing it.
2) Replacing extracts are gadgets. They work mostly the same way, mechanically, except that they are not limited to being used on the engineer, himself. To balance this, a fair number of the transformative and major buffs have been removed making the engineer more of a blaster and debuffer than the alchemist. Additionally, there is no equivalent to the infusion discovery, so only the engineer whose gadget it is may ever use it.
3) Most choices of spells and abilities were done for fluff reasons. I removed abilities that were more potion-like or clearly alchemy-based (bombs aside), and kept/replaced them with spells and abilities that could conceivably be created by some sort of semi-magical gizmo. Vestigial arm, for example, represents an advanced mechanical prosthetic implanted into the engineer's body rather than a cultivated mutation.
4) An engineering equivalent of instant alchemy to carry on from swift engineering struck me as both beyond the reach of suspended disbelief and definitely overpowered, given the much broader applications it would have, in comparison. I decided not to replace it with anything partially as a safeguard to keep from risking the engineer becoming overpowered, and also because I just couldn't think of anything.

HD: d8
BAB: Average
Saves: Fort, Ref

CLASS SKILLS
The engineer'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), Use Magic Device (Cha), Use Technological Device (Int).
Skill Ranks per Level: 4 + Int modifier

CLASS FEATURES
The following are class features of the engineer.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Engineers are proficient with all simple weapons, firearms, and bombs. They are also proficient with light armor, but not with shields.
Gadgetry (Su): Engineers prepare their spells by crafting a number of gadgets out of their collections of spare parts, and then “casts” his spells by triggering the gadget.
When using Craft (mechanical) to create a technological item, an engineer gains a competence bonus equal to his class level on the Craft (mechanical) check. In addition, an engineer can use Craft (mechanical) to identify technological items as if using technomancy. He must hold the item for 1 round to make such a check.
A gadget immediately becomes inert if it leaves the engineer's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an engineer cannot pass out his gadgets for allies to use.
Formulae are renamed to schematics.
An engineer may qualify for the technomancer prestige class as if he could cast arcane spells equal to the highest level of gadgets he can use.
Bomb (Su): As the alchemist ability.
Cognatogen (Su): At 1st level, an engineer learns how to create a cognatogen, as per the cognatogen discovery.
Technologist (Ex): At 1st level, engineers receive Technologist (from Technology Guide) as a bonus feat.
Throw Anything (Ex): All engineers gain the Throw Anything feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. An engineer adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.
Discovery (Su): As the alchemist ability.
An engineer may choose from the following discoveries: acid bomb*, alchemical simulacrum (UM), blinding bomb (UM), concussive bomb*, confusion bomb*, delayed bomb, demolition charge* (DHB), dispelling bomb, directed bomb (MM), doppelganger simulacrum (UM), elemental mutagen (MM), explosive bomb*, fast bombs, fire brand (ARG), force bomb*, frost bomb*, grand cognatogen (UM), grand mutagen, greater alchemical simulacrum (UM), greater cognatogen (UM), greater mutagen, inferno bomb*, madness bomb, mutagen (UM), precise bombs, rocket bomb (ARG), scrap bomb (ARG), shock bomb*, smoke bomb*, spontaneous healing (UM), sticky bomb, stink bomb*, strafe bomb (UM), sunlight bomb* (UM), tanglefoot bomb* (UM), vestigial arm (UM), wings (UM)
Bonus Feat: An engineer may select Skill Focus (Craft [mechanical], Disable Device, Knowledge [engineering], or Use Technological Device), or any technological feat. This discovery may be selected multiple times, selecting a different feat each time.
Combat Inspiration (Ex): When an engineer uses inspiration on an attack roll or saving throw, he expends one use of inspiration instead of two. An engineer must be at least 9th level to select this talent.
Combine Gadgets: When the engineer creates a gadget, he can place two schematics into one gadget. When the gadget is consumed, both schematics take effect. This gadget has a level two levels higher than the highest-level schematics placed in the gadget. An engineer must be at least 8th level before selecting this discovery.
Eidetic Recollection (Su): An engineer can always choose to take 10 on any of his Knowledge checks, even if he's in immediate danger or distracted. An engineer may expend one use of inspiration to take 20 on a Knowledge skill check even if he's in immediate danger or distracted. An engineer must be at least 11th level to select this talent.
Grit (Ex): An engineer with this talent gains the Amateur Gunslinger feat and one grit feat of his choice. He must fulfill the prerequisites of the grit feat in order to choose it.
Inspiration (Ex): An engineer with this discovery gains a small inspiration pool. This inspiration is similar to an investigator's inspiration pool, except that he can only use his inspiration ability when attempting Craft (mechanical), Disable Device, Knowledge (engineering), or Use Technological Device checks without expending uses of inspiration, provided he's trained in the skill. The engineer gains a number of inspiration points equal to his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1). These inspiration points replenish at the start of each day. If he already has an inspiration pool, or gains an inspiration pool later, he gains half his Intelligence bonus (minimum 1) as bonus inspiration points to his inspiration pool.
Lucky Glitch (Ex): Whenever an engineer triggers a glitch when using a technological item, he rolls twice and can choose which of the two glitch effects actually occurs. An engineer always adds his level to rolls to determine what kind of glitch occurs, and treats rolls of over 100 as l00.
Parachute (Ex): The engineer creates a reusable parachute pack. As a standard action, the engineer may deploy this parachute to slow his falling (as the feather fall spell, but lasting until he lands). Upon landing, the parachute automatically winds back up into its pack. For one round after landing, the engineer is treated as flat-footed and his movement speed is halved.
Nimble (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, as the gunslinger ability.
Trapfinding (Ex): At 2nd level, as the rogue ability.
Swift Engineering (Ex): At 3rd level, an engineer can create technological items with astounding speed. It takes an engineer half the normal amount of time to create technological items.
Jury-Rig (Ex): At 6th level, as a standard action, an engineer can remove the broken condition from a single technological device he is currently holding. The broken condition returns after a number of charges (including shots of a firearm) have been spent equal to the engineer's Intelligence modifier, or twice that number of rounds have passed, whichever occurs first (minimum 1 round or charge).
Persistent Cognatogen (Su): At 14th level, the effects of a cognatogen last for 1 hour per level.
Grand Discovery (Su): I haven't yet come up with a lot of options for the engineer's equivalent of this ability.
Awakened Intellect: The engineer's constant exposure to strange chemicals has expanded his mind. His Intelligence score permanently increases by 2 points.
True Inspiration: The engineer can use inspiration on all skill checks – even ones he isn't trained in – and all ability checks without spending inspiration.
In addition, whenever he expends inspiration on an ability check, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check, he adds 2d6 rather than 1d6 to the result. An engineer must possess the inspiration discovery before selecting this discovery.
True Cognatogen: The engineer's cognatogen now grants a +8 natural armor bonus and a +8 alchemical bonus to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The engineer takes a –2 penalty to his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as long as the cognatogen persists. An engineer must possess the grand cognatogen discovery before selecting this discovery.

ENGINEER GADGETS
Engineers gain access to the following gadgets. While most of these spells are found in the Core Rulebook, those with superscripts are drawn from other sources.

1st-Level Engineer Gadgets: alarm, ant haulAPG, anticipate perilUM, blurred movementACG, body capacitanceACG, bomber's eyeAPG, breakAPG, burning hands, chill touch, color spray, corrosive touchUM, crafter's fortuneAPG, cure light wounds, dancing lantern, detect radiationTG, detect secret doors, detect undead, disguise self, ear-piercing screamUM, endure elements, enlarge person, expeditious excavationAPG, expeditious retreat, firebellyISG, flare burstAPG, floating disc, gravity bowAPG, grease, heightened awarenessACG, hold portal, hydraulic pushAPG, hypnotism, identify, interrogationUM, invisibility alarmACG, jump, jury-rigUC, keen sensesAPG, long armACG, longshotUC, mage armor, magic missile, memory lapseAPG, monkey fishACG, negate aromaAPG, obscuring mist, polypurpose panaceaUM, ray of sickeningUM, ray of enfeeblement, reduce person, shield, shock shieldUC, shocking grasp, silent image, sleep, snapdragon fireworksUM, stunning barrierACG, targeted bomb admixtureUC, technomancyTG, thunderstompACG, touch of gracelessnessAPG, touch of the seaAPG, true strike, unseen servant, vanishAPG, ventriloquism, vocal alterationUM
2nd-Level Engineer Gadgets: ablative barrierUC, acid arrow, acute sensesUM, aid, air stepACG, ant haul (communal)UC, arrow eruptionAPG, barkskin, bestow weapon proficiencyUC, blood armorACG, blood transcriptionUM, blur, bullet shieldUC, bullet wardACG, buoyancyACG, burning gazeAPG, certain gripUC, continual flame, cure moderate wounds, darkness, darkvision, daze monster, defensive shockUM, delay poison, detect thoughts, elemental touchAPG, euphoric cloudACG, fire breathAPG, flaming sphere, focused scrutinyACG, fog cloud, frigid touchUM, frost fallUC, glideAPG, glitterdust, gust of wind, haunting mistsUM, hypnotic pattern, invisibility, kinetic reverberationUC, knock, levitate, light prisonISG, magic siege engineUC, make whole, mirror image, molten orbACG, protection from arrows, pyrotechnics, reloading handsUC, resist energy, returning weaponUC, ricochet shotUC, scorching ray, see invisibility, shadow bomb admixtureUC, shatter, sonic screamACG, spider climb, time shudderACG, touch injectionUC, twisted spaceUC, undetectable alignment, web
3rd-Level Engineer Gadgets: anchored stepACG, arcane sight, aura sightACG, burrowUM, burst of speedUC, cure serious wounds, darkvision (communal)UC, daylight, deep slumber, delay poison (communal)UC, disable constructACG, dischargeTG, dispel magic, displacement, draconic reservoirAPG, elemental auraAPG, endure elements (communal)UC, fireball, flame arrow, fly, force punchUM, haste, hold person, hydraulic torrentAPG, invisibility sphere, irradiateTG, keen edge, lightning bolt, lightning lash bomb admixtureUC, locate weaknessUC, marionette possessionUM, nauseating trailACG, nondetection, pain strikeAPG, pellet blastUC, pierce disguiseACG, protection from arrows (communal)UC, protection from energy, ray of exhaustion, rechargeTG, resinous skinUC , resist energy (communal)UC, seek thoughtsAPG, shrink item, silver dartsACG, slow, spider climb (communal)UC, stinking cloud, stunning barrier (greater)ACG, thorn bodyAPG, thunderstomp (greater)ACG, water breathing
4th-Level Engineer Gadgets: air walk, air walk (communal)UC, arcane eye, ball lightningAPG, caustic bloodISG, confusion, cure critical wounds, darkvision (greater)UM, dazeUM, detonateAPG, dragon's breathAPG, echolocationUM, enchantment foilACG, enervation, eyes of the voidACG, fire shield, fire trap, flaming sphere (greater)ACG, freedom of movement, globe of invulnerability (lesser), invisibility (greater), locate creature, magic circle against technologyTG, magic siege engine (greater)UC, make whole (greater)TG, malfunctionUM, neutralize poison, resilient sphere, scrying, secure shelter, shout, solid fog, spell immunity, stoneskin, unbearable brightnessACG, universal formulaAPG, vitriolic mistUM, wall of fire
5th-Level Engineer Gadgets: acidic sprayUM, baleful polymorph, blight, cloudkill, cone of cold, contact other plane, corrosive consumptionUM, destroy robotTG, elude timeAPG, energy siege shotUC, hammer of mendingISG, hold monster, icy prisonUM, languid bomb admixtureUC, lightning arcUM, magic jar, overland flight, pain strike (mass)APG, planar adaptationAPG, prying eyes, rapid repairUM, sending, sonic thrustUM, spell resistance, stoneskin (communal)UC, teleport, unbreakable constructUM, wall of soundUM, wall of force, waves of fatigue
6th-Level Engineer Gadgets: acid fog, analyze dweomer, antimagic field, caging bomb admixtureUC, chain lightning, discharge (greater)TG, disintegrate, dispel magic (greater), energy siege shot (greater)TG, freezing sphere, globe of invulnerability, heal, mislead, programmed image, transformation, true seeing

Farastu wrote:

Are there any other rules that could make combat more cinematic/descriptive/generally interesting that I should look into?

Best thing I've found is to make things up on the go. When a player wants to do something cool you work with them and reward them for it. Probably not the most helpful or direct thing to say, but its worth mentioning. I've played with plenty of GMs who are totally by the books or even punish you for trying to do something that doesn't have an attached mechanic. I've been told stealing stunt mechanics from other games works too, though that's hit or miss and has been from biased sources. A lot of what I've seen involves investment, and to be honest when someone wants to do something like flip a table they don't want to have to take a feat to do it.

In the 3.5e core books there was an example of a player wanting to jump up to grab a chandelier and swing over to double-kick an opponent in the face. That's pretty cinematic and can be done with just a little on-the-fly GMing - Acrobatics to reach the chandelier, modified grapple to grab it, and "two-handed" unarmed attack with a charge for the swinging kick. That's what's so great about tabletop games over computer RPGs. Not everything has to be spelled out in the rules, and there's tons of room for improvisation.

I think that if you want to optimize at something other than combat you have to tell us what you want to do.

I get the impression they aren't planning on doing anything. Just wanting to see what kinds of ideas people come up with and perhaps use one for a later campaign.

One of the character's I've been wanting to play is basically an optimized build for knowledge. He's an android bard with the archivist archetype (GM permission, naturally) and his backstory is that he was built to be a living encyclopaedia. Depending on character creation rules, he can start play with as many as a dozen languages known.

Besides that, I'm just not a fan of shallow enemies, even if they are mainly enemies. Depth has more stories in them.

It is a very common adage that a story is only as good/interesting as its villain.

This (and similar things) have always been a house rule for me ever since I started DMing in 3.5e.

As to Pupsocket's comment, I merely point out that it is a very common cinematic technique for fighting with spears, to occasionally swing the weapon around and whack someone with the butt end. Also, it doesn't take more than a second to shift grips for anyone decently trained with a weapon. And to preemptively counter any comments about cinematic not being realistic, I only point out that this is a fantasy roleplaying game. You left realistic at the door the moment someone makes an ordinary rock glow like a lantern. What matters is verisimilitude.

@Bruunwald: I think you're being a bit too sensitive. It reminds me of a time a friend of mine commented on a guy's name in a mobile phone game. The name was Drow...something, and my friend said "Oh, like Drizzt?" and the guy got upset and gave him a history lesson on Norse and Celtic mythology explaining that drow were centuries older than Drizzt. The trouble is, my friend already knew this - it's just that Drizzt is the most likely source that a random person will encounter the use of "drow".

Anyway,

Orks

They love their dakka.

Okay, an actual contribution:

Tower Orcs

These orcs have an intellect and magical ability that rivals even elves. However, they have a more brutish appearance and under-developed vocal cords that don't allow them to speak in anything other than grunts and growls. Finding common orcs to be too feral and civilized races too intolerant, they seclude themselves in arcane towers and other remote places to study their Art in peace.

Imagine a horde of goblin raiders riding the air currents on boulders they caught with a net!

(Especially Pathfinder goblins) O_o... Pure. Awesome.

@xorial: Thanks, I'll check it out if I can scrounge up the spare cash. Downside of being a poor college student. ^^'

...I tried to kind of reference the whole "in SPAAAACE!" thing with the title. Not sure it worked. Anywho...

In my spare time, I've decided to start making a campaign setting for the Pathfinder system that is largely based on Floating Continents and related tropes. The idea primarily arose as a way to give airships more inherent purpose than simply Rule of Cool and as a convenient and stylish way to get around the world. If the oceans are replaced with open sky, airships become the best method of transportation. While this is where the idea began, I definitely hope and intend for it to go well beyond this. What would a world suspended in the clouds be like?

Naturally, this will necessitate more robust rules for airship travel, construction, piloting, etc. The basic ideas are already starting to accrete like a new-born planet. Inspiration is being drawn primarily from settings like Eberron, Spelljammer, Final Fantasy (particularly FF XII's city of Bhujerba), Hayao Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle (and probably Castle in the Sky, but I haven't seen that one yet - it is on my too watch list this week, however), Allods Online, and Skies of Arcadia.

In terms of overall tone, while of course I aim to create as versatile a setting as possible, I intend for the default tone to hover somewhere between classic Final Fantasy and Miyazaki movies. A sense of idealism and wonder more than the gritty world of Eberron or the silliness of Spelljammer.(Let it be known that in spite of this, these are two of my favourite campaign settings throughout all of tabletop gaming.) Technologically, it will be somewhere between Golarion and Eberron but leaning more towards the Golarion end of things. The setting is at roughly the same level as Golarion, they just had to develop a little further along certain paths in order to thrive.

As for the floating continents themselves, the largest (and rarest) will probably max out at around the size of Australia or Europe - mostly just to support large seas and perhaps even an Underdark analogue. Maybe one that's comparable to Africa or South America in size. The majority of islands range between Ireland and Ireland plus Great Britain in size. All floating miles above the Mists which rumours say hides another inhospitable world full of terrible monsters. The main purpose of this is to provide an explanation for gravity's universal "down", and so that people who do fall off of skyships or continents don't just fall forever which would mean that they could always be rescued, providing one could find them. As for why the landmasses float... I haven't nailed that down yet, and wouldn't be against just handwaving it if I can't come up with something.

EDIT: A little bit of random info that I came across on Ravenloft suggests the Mists bit is probably a little too similar to ignore. It was just something I came up with to quickly solve the issue mentioned above, and I actually had more of Final Fantasy IX in mind when I did that. I suppose I'll come up with another solution to that problem... Note that aside from this, the only thing I actually know about Ravenloft is that it's a horror setting. I don't even really know the particulars of it's Mist so it might not be as similar as I think.

Another thing I intend to do with the airships is aim to have as much variety in their construction as Spelljammer (but more sensible shapes, of course) - sleek elven ships made of wood and powered by sails and arcane magic, sturdy dwarven ironclads that use bound fire elementals, and even ships made of bone that run on the trapped souls of the dead. On the other hand, I want to avoid adding in too many mechanics - particularly the kind that would require additions to character sheets. Aside from maybe adding a skill or two (probably Pilot, and nothing else if I can help it), I'd like the default character sheet to be able to record everything necessary for a character. I only mention this because quite a few settings (particularly fan-made ones) add numerous skills and mechanics that, in my opinion, just result in mucking things up.

So anyway, this is the basic outline of where I'm starting from. I haven't the foggiest notion of how to proceed from here (beyond probably making a map of the world - as much as one can be made for a world that consists of potentially wandering landmasses). Comments, suggestions, questions on anything are more than welcome.

From what I gather, the slave trade is quite strong in Golarion (unusually so for a fantasy setting) and being someone who simply loves experimentation with roleplay, an ex-slave was simply a matter of time for me. My concept involves a very bitter man who escaped slavery and has become a monk, vowing to do all he can to rid the Inner Sea of slavery. Sadly, though there is lots of talk about where slave markets exist in various sourcebooks, there is very little information on slave life - one of the things I was most disappointed to find lacking in the Osirion book.
While my first instinct was to have him be a labourer who worked on massive construction projects (like, say the pyramids) it seems to be implied that those days have largely passed in Osirion.

So basically, what are your thoughts and assumptions (or comments from Paizo staff *hopeful grin*) on the subject.

By the way, I am already aware that slaves - representing a sizable investment on behalf of their owners - were, in general, much better taken care of than many people are inclined to believe. What I'm more interested in is the specifics of Osiran slave life. In particular what kinds of manual labour would one expect a slave to perform, who might own them in terms of rank and nobility, and how the latter might affect the former.

I don't have much to complain about at all with most of... everything. :p
I'd actually disagree with several points that the OP suggested. In particular:
I think monks are fine and if anything only need a simple (official) way to enchant their unarmed strikes. I see so many threads from both 3.5e and PF that ask about methods to do this other than house ruling the amulet of mighty fists to allow for more than just enhancement bonuses.
Rogues are fine, no need to mess with them.
I don't have much practical experience with metamagic or non-core (haven't gotten around to playing more than a couple of levels as any non-core classes) so I can't really voice much opinion there. I do think it'd be good to have a horseless option for samurai, though. A small selection would be superb.

As for my own suggestions, I think there needs to be some (possibly fundamental) changes to prestige classes (and multiclassing in general). The treat for sticking with a base class for 20 levels is great, but it does its job too well, in my opinion. I've only multiclassed once or twice since I started PF and that was because 1) I had a very specific concept in mind that needed to multiclass, and 2) I knew the campaign wasn't intended to last to level 20 anyway. In 3.5e, I found multiclassing troublesome enough simply from the opportunity cost. Unless planned at just the right moment, and going from and to the right classes, you take a hit to BAB, and saves if nothing else, not to mention multiclass spellcasters having to hold off on getting more powerful spells. Practically the only viable options for spellcasters to multiclass into are prestige classes that grant spell levels. It may just be me looking at the "master-of-none" part of the "jack-of-all-trades," but I just don't feel that multiclassing is as viable an option as it sh/could be.
...No idea how to fix it, though. ^^'

Now, all of that said, I don't think Pathfinder needs a new edition or even a full revision. The errata, updates, sourcebooks, and so on I feel do a very suitable job in keeping the game going as is without need of major revision.

Well, as I had said, I notice that when giving players free reign over such things, we'll end up with a disproportionate number of extremes - particularly of extremely tall characters.

Naturally, race would be taken into account - an elf would rarely (if ever) be a hulking brute, and it would be difficult to get a wispy half-orc. My goal in suggesting the system is to try to reinforce the racial norms, and ideally there would be minimal variation. Even with maxed out Str and Con, an elf would only look like a fit (real-world) actor.

But to answer your concerns, perhaps a combination would be possible. The base build is determined by stats, but have sliders that can be used to have a character appear a couple points higher or lower.

As for complications, there are many MMOs that provide options for things like height and build via slider bars. My suggestion is to merely automate them (now, only to a certain degree) which I don't think would be significantly more troublesome. If anything, it is the first part that would be more difficult. That said, I have no real experience in programming, so GW feel free to correct me. ^^'

My two cents, I'm a huge fan of this idea and I think there is definitely a better than decent chance for this to become one of my favourite games of all time.
However, I really don't like PvP. This is just a personal opinion, though and I don't think that the game should have no PvP options - even I enjoy the occasional duel with a friend - but I strongly suggest having separate PvP and non-PvP servers. On the former, PvP combat is allowed at any time, anywhere or however such things are normally handled while on the latter, PvP is limited to duels, players who have voluntarily flagged themselves for it, etc.
If you really want PvP to be, for lack of a better word, mandatory then I'd suggest looking at one of the few games I do like that doesn't have separate PvP and non-PvP servers, Pirates of the Burning Sea. More than that, PvP is one of the primary aspects of the game. Still, there is plenty else to do and it can be avoided for those who do not want it with varying degrees of ease.

Basically, in no way will I enjoy a game - no matter how great it may be in every other manner - if I have to constantly be on the lookout for attacks at any time, because I play games to relax and MMOs to relax with friends, and that sort of atmosphere makes it very difficult to do so.

EDIT: Perhaps I'm being a bit too pessimistic here. I should say, I highly doubt that I will enjoy a game that has few to no restrictions on PvP. There are four games in which I have experienced PvP: World of Warcraft (on PvE and RP servers, so battlegrounds and other instanced events) which I didn't like simply because I sucked at it, DC Universe Online (the one game in which I tried a PvP server) where I hated not being able to level up past 5, due to getting killed every time I was trying to just mind my own business and explore/quest/grind, Runescape where I tried PvP exactly twice and never did it again because losing all my stuff was b+@&*$#s, and Pirates of the Burning Sea which I actually enjoyed. It can be annoying, but there's also a certain degree of excitement when on a low level character and you have to either risk going through dangerous PvP zones (which provides a more direct excitement of trying to avoid certain death) or take long routes around them (which lends excitement due to things constantly changing). Still, there is Runescape's problem of losing investments, but it is mediated in several ways, one of which being that certain kinds of items can't be lost.

I think that telepathy should only be granted at 15th level with a 30' or 60' range. Only one target can be spoken to at a time (or maybe one target per Cha modifier). Perhaps at lower levels the mute is granted an empathy ability similar to that of intelligent magic items, though. That could help expand RP ability, but even so I'd still suggest that only skilled roleplayers should try playing a mute.

Looking over the entry in JR, I do think that it balances surprisingly well. I'm suspicious of allowing telepathic bond so early, but for a 5th or 10th level bonus I don't think it would hurt much.

Froze_man's proposal is a bit too heavy handed with the telepathy. The spell failure idea is intriguing however, though I can't say I'm fully comfortable with the idea at the moment. When I tried 'brewing my own mute progression, I actually looked to Deaf first for inspiration. Really, the only things that fit from it are the Silent Spell bit and +3 to (all) Perception checks. If you can't do much but sit there and observe then it's only natural you'd get good at doing that. So, how's this sound?

You cannot speak in any intelligible language. Comprehend languages, tongues and other similar abilities have no effect on making you're attempts at verbal communication understood. You cast all of your spells as if they were modified by the Silent Spell feat. This does not increase their level or casting time.

At 5th level, you receive a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks. You also gain the ability to communicate empathically with anyone that you are touching. This empathic communication can only convey emotions and urges, or very simple ideas. It does not allow verbal communication.

At 10th level, your empathy ability can be used to communicate with anyone in a (30/60 foot) radius. You may also communicate telepathically with any one individual that you are touching as long as you both share a language. A telepathic bond (as the spell) may be formed with one specific creature per day by taking a full-round action to establish the connection which lasts for 24 hours, or until a new bond is formed. You must touch the target in order to establish the connection.

At 15th level, you may communicate telepathically with any single creature in a (30/60 foot) radius. Once per day, you may use sending as a spell-like ability.

Sunrods unless everyone in the party has darkvision. Just like torches, but better. And worth the price difference, since its still chump change.

Oh, and a hat. Hyu cannot have a goot plan if hyu do not know where hyu hat is. ;)

Oh, and I got my DM to add in 4e's bracers of infinite knives. Even if their mundane they have so many uses. Plus, no need for Sleight of Hand checks when guards search you for weapons. ^^