Lang Lorenz's page

So I have a returning player who decided to make a Bard.

I'm ecstatic, I've been wanting to see the new bard in action.

So he asks, "Why exactly can't bards keep more than one performance going at once?" I glibly reply that while Bards can generally maintain their performance as a free action, it ends (or begins coasting) when they cast a spell, use a wand, etc, including a new performance.

So then I look it up in Pathfinder, and can find no such thing.

So I check 3.5. And 3.0. I can't find it anywhere.

So... I'm fairly certain that this is the general consensus. And I'm typically pretty good at finding the rulings.. So what's the deal?

Did we all make it up? Is it just so obvious as to not need to be spelled out?

Given the new visual *and* auditory performances, there doesn't seem to be a reason to limit one of each going from being *possible*, though I'm requiring a move action at this point to maintain more than one.

3.5 RAW:

A Bard can indeed maintain Inspire Courage *and* start
Inspire Greatness for example - if I read it correctly.

It's the same in PF AFAICT.

LL

Lang Lorenz wrote:

Congrats, I have to agree 100%. The secrets of the 3.5 Loremaster
aren't very imaginative to say the least.
Plusses to saves, AC, attack, random feats?
Excuse me, what's that got to do with mastering lore??

Your secrets are waayy better for my taste!

Cheers
LL

Those secrets are way to much for the class. The Secret of a Loremaster should pretty much be on the power level of a Feat, not much higher than that.

Hmm, I think the secrets can be better than feats, at least the

I'd be more careful, if the class would focus on Evocation instead
of Divination.

LL

I very much like this alternative.
No matter what the final system will be,
I'll use this before I fiddle about with rage points. :-)

I'd like more power's at 4th level, because there
are few. How about:

Knockdown (Ex):
The barbarian can make one free trip attempt against one target
hit and damaged in melee this round.
This power is used as an immediate action after the attack roll
is made.

Pressing Attack (Ex):
The barbarian can make a 5 foot step as an immediate action,
if an opponent he hit that round makes a 5 foot step out of
his threat range.
This counts as an attack of opportunity for the barbarian.
He can't use this power, if he used up his attacks of
opportunity for the round.

For those who don't like the elemental stuff...
I'm thinking about something like the following at 12th level:

Nemain's Blessing (Su):
All of the barbarian's melee attacks become anarchic for one round.
They are considered chaotically aligned and thus bypass the corresponding damage reduction.
They each deal an extra 2d6 points of damage against all
of lawful alignment.
Additionally a barbarian selecting this power can smell
creatures of lawful alignment within 5 feet
of him with a successful Perception skill check while raging.
The DC depends on the strength of the aura:
Overwhelming DC 10, Strong DC 15, Moderate DC 20, Faint DC 25.
Modifiers to the Perception check (for example +10 DC for
wind, etc.) apply as usual.
A rage can only benefit from one blessing during any one round.

Inspired by Nemain, a celtic goddess of battle rage and chaos.
So the name isn't probably that good for Pathfinder...

Cheers

LL

Better secrets will go a long way in making the loremaster more interesting for players. I homebrewed a set for my last 3.5 game, and they seemed to work very well for my friend's PC. I understand that "rebuilt classes" are not what Paizo has in mind here, but I don't see this as a fundamentally different build, so I've listed them below.

<snip>

This replaces the secret ability of the core loremaster.

<snip>

Congrats, I have to agree 100%. The secrets of the 3.5 Loremaster

Your secrets are waayy better for my taste!

Cheers
LL

The thread focuses on the design of the shadow dancer's shade companion.

What are your thoughts and how would you like this feature changed if at all?

I would like to see the following changes, all made together for balance:

1. The shade has HP equal to the shadow dancer, being a true shadow of the character.
2. The shade's BAB and saving throw values are equal to the BAB and saving throw values of the shadow dancer, "dancing" parallel in combat just as a true shadow would.
3. The shadow dancer can dismiss the shade as a free action, summoning it back as a swift action. No Fortitude save (I always felt that was ridiculous since the shade is actually absorbed back into your shadow, making you feel more whole.).
4. If the shade is destroyed, the shadow dancer makes a DC 15 Fortitude save or takes 1d6 points of damage per level of shadow dancer, symbolizing the growing bond between the shadow dancer and the shade.
5. The shade must remain within 10 feet of the shadow dancer. A later feat can improve this range. At the end of each round that the shade moves outside the limit, the shadow dancer must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or take 1 point of damage per level of shadow dancer, representng the mental and physical strain on the shadow dancer.

I like the idea of the shadow being more /the/ shadow of the SD.

1. I'd start with 3 HD from Shadow and add 1 HD per SD above 3rd level.
The HD are d12 of course. They improve BAB, saves, skills,
and grant feats...
2. Add +1 at each even SD level to Dex, Cha, and Natural Armor
3. Dismiss ok. Summon should be standard first, maybe swift later at 7th
or 9th level?
4. Like Familiars and Animal companions it's bad enough to lose it,
I'd vote for no penalty at all. Regain it with a 24 hour ritual.
5. Good point. I'd simply make that 10 feet per SD level.
Here I like the option of moving away and suffering damage.

The shadow should get Evasion or Improved Evasion
just like the SD and be able to accompany him when
Shadow Jumping for free.

BTW, shouldn't /all/ Shadows ignore the SD once he obtains the
Shadow Companion., i.e. not attack him,
unless commanded by some third party?

LL

I hope this isn't a double post,
and trust the forum monster that it really ate my first post.
:-)

Disclaimer:
I have only seen a 3.x Shadowdancer in play for a short time.

My impression was and still is in PF, that the SD is a bit weak in play.
It's one of the best PrCs from a fluff POV, I really love the concept,
but the SD falls short in practice.

My biggest christmas wish for the SD is to give
Perform (dance) some meaning in the class. Being just a
PreReq and then forgetting about it is quite bland.

For example a class ability like the following:

Shadowdance(!) (Su):
When in an area of at least shadowy illumination the SD
can take a move action to increase the concealment miss
chance of attackers.
If the SD succeeds at a Perform (dance) check vs. DC 20
he may add a %-value equal to the number of points by which
he made his check.

Example at 10th char level with Dex 22:
13 (ranks) + 6 (Dex) + 6 (SF) = 25 + d20 => 35.5 avg.
which would give 15% add. concealment miss chance.

At 20th level with Dex 24:
23 (ranks) + 7 (Dex) + 6 (SF) = 36 + d20 => 46.5 avg.
which would give 26% add. concealment miss chance.

Other random ideas:

I think that the summoned Shadow should probably get a bit stronger
with SD levels and shouldn't cost XP in case of destruction.

Shadow Illusion is too weak. (I don't like it in the first place,
it's a bit besides the point IMHO.)

Shadow Jump is too weak too, I like the suggestion of
making it a move action (and later a swift action?)

Regarding sneak attack:
I'd give the SD a special ability called Shadow Attack.
Increasing damage by 1d6 every 3(?) levels, that stacks with
Sneak Attack if both apply.
Shadow Attack just requires that the SD is in an area of
shadowy illumination.

Last but not least:
Would it really be a game breaker to give the SD
Shadow Walk once per day at 10th level as a capstone
ability?

Well, just my 2 cp.

Cheers

LL

Sounds reasonable.

If even a goblin thinks dwarves should get it...

:-)

I know dwarves already get a load of plusses, but still...

Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks to
identify underground hazards, identify minerals, stones, or metals,
and determine slope or depth underground.

I consider house-ruling this, what do you think?

LL

I too like this ability.

Is it meant to allow no saving throw or is this an error?
It should be stated what kind of effect it is to answer
questions like "Are undead affected?" for example...
... it's almost certainly a mind-affecting enchantment,
or is it?
Other supernatural abilities don't have this info either?
What am I missing?

Does DoD stack with itself?
(The way it's written, it could be the case)
If yes, it's overpowered IMO.
Two rounds and two DoD later every affected enemy is
frightened without a save?

Apologies, if this has been discussed elsewhere...

LL

While regular D&D had this problem as well, I think Pathfinder with all the spell like abilities have made it more difficult. basically the question is: how do you "disarm" spellcasters?

So imagine a scenario where the party gets captured or wants to enter a peaceful town that does not allow weapons. All the fighter types have to check their swords and bows and other weapons, but what do you do with spellcasters? Taking away their holy symbols, spell books, and component pouches is a start, but you still have those spontaneous casters and at will abilities to worry about. Any ideas?

Peaceful town scenario:

1. The city guards are good at Sense Motive...
2. The registration allows better scrying if crimes are comitted
and the criminals flee.

IMHO it's extreme to demand visitors to drop all weapons,
armor, potential magical items, spell books components,
bonded items, familiars, ... did I miss anything?
A city at war or one which is more lawful than Azure City
perhaps... but some normal "peaceful city" shouldn't do this
on a regular basis.

Capture scenario:
A cheap way to deal with spellcasters is extremely bad (and
scarce) food. The /nauseated/ condition prevents spellcasting
and use of any abilites. You can only move, and that's prevented
by cells... :-)

Give prisoners a purge and then keep them hungry and nauseated.
Problem solved without being too cruel.

LL

I don't know if this has already come up but is anything being done to give the option of an unarmoured fighter.

Please point me to thread locations if there are any good ones but I think the fighter should be able to trade any number of the feats: Heavy Armour,Medium armour, light armour, shield proficiency for the feats, Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Two Weapon Fighting, point blank shot, precise shot( can't think of any others at the moment).

Trading a feat for a feat seems okay to me.

These could be used to represent a light weapon fighter, light two weapon fighter, archer or variation of the above.

This would need a rethink on the abilities as the characters armour training skill would be defunct but instead give him a dodge bonus maybe instead of the armour bonus which could be an interesting adjustment to the fighter.

What do people think?

Its just that a great number of players in my campaigns have built character to be musketeers, swashbucklers, sailors etc and I feel that the armour and shield feats are a bit of kick in the teeth for them as they never use them.

Isn't it just the Armor Training gained at third level,

I'd probably give them the Duelist's class feature instead:

Canny Defense (Ex)
When not wearing armor or using a shield, a duelist adds
1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class
level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while
wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed
or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses
this bonus.

(I would never use the Defense Bonus variant from d20.org
and wouldn't allow the player to apply the Armor Training's
AC bonus to their unarmoured AC. IMHO it's one of the
Monk's key features to have the best unarmoured AC.)

Cheers

LL

Lang:

The various means to speed ones movement while actually covering the distance traveled (fly and such, as compared to Teleport) are what make the "limited duration" really not all that limited.

The spell in itself isn't too terrible but combine it with Wind Walk and you have PC's able to fly to 500 feet above the tree tops and zip over land at amazing speeds while in gaseous form, all the while following the "invisible line" of Find the Path.

300 minutes is a long time to fly at 60mph- and if you are looking for a city you will probably find it, even in a large jungle. (yes I know 60mph isn't impressive to US, but to our characters it's the functional equivalent of warp 9. Zoom.)

-S

Gah, the forum ate my post again!

The Pathfinder version neither prevents what you describe above.

IMO FtP should be clarified on the "specified destination"
a la Teleport. Don't let people find things they don't even
know exist or haven't any idea how they look like or in which
current state (active city vs. ruins) they are etc.

The most direct physical route should be clarified as being
overland, proscribing flight. Hustling with Overland Flight might
be allowed.

Make the spell's destination bigger, i.e. it stops working
within 1000 yards of the target no matter how big it actually is.
The potential bickering about large or not could be avoided:
Large watchtower or small keep? Large or not so large lake?
One hunter's cabin is too small, how about five? Still not a camp?

LL

My players have started using it a lot lately, usually in conjunction with discern location or [locate object[/i] spells (since both provide location knowledge). This allows a group to travel directly to the location, bypassing any traps and most dangers.

My players are 19th-20th level, so this is not an issue. I would expect the characters to do be able to do this. I am just glad they did not figure it out earlier.

The problem with find the path is that it can short circuit a written adventure. For example, an adventure that requires the PCs to trek through a dense jungle to locate a lost city can be bypassed with one spell and the city's name. This is not a major problem for a DM building an adventure, but it can really screw up a published adventure.

I think think the Alpha 3 version is a step in the right direction while keeping the spell useful. Though I would a clear bonus to overland travel.

I don't get the "bypassed with one spell" bit.

To get along for one day you need three "Find the Path" spells,
I would say. That's 3 out of 4 6th level spells for a Clr or Drd
and 3 out of 5 for the Brd, assuming key ability below 22.
Even with higher scores, it's not a negligible part of 6th level
"spell power".
And you need them every day during the whole journey to the
lost city. Only if there's no other way to find it, you are forced
to use FtP, which you probably wouldn't otherwise.

A written adventure that assumes a group of high-level PCs
would get lost in a jungle is flawed adventure design IMO,
it's not FtP's fault.

IMHO the removal of sensing traps and the like is a big nerf.
I would use this spell version only if no other way could be
found to reach the destination or under extreme time pressure.

LL

I don't think Find the Path is problematic in the sense
of overpowered. In my experience it's used infrequently at best,
which is rather a sign for underpoweredness ;-)

Problematic is the wording "specified destination".
If I don't know a locale can I specify it? For
example: can I specify "the dwarf king's treasure vault"
without knowing if it exists at all?

The only fix needed is a definition of the
term "specified destination". If you must have seen the place
at least once (as in the spell description of Teleport),
abuse of the spell becomes difficult, i.e. you can't use it
to verify the existence of a locale (like the city of a
hidden civilization).

The "most direct physical route" restriction works against Teleport
and other such spells, while the duration of 10min/level
further limits the spell...and it doesn't show the guards.
Any clever villain (i.e. DM) will guard the most direct route
with the most guards (and fewer traps), if he knows the PCs like
to use this spell (or just to be sure).

Cheers
LL

Lang Lorenz wrote:

To "Ready an Action" you must first win Ini. Then you must

potentially /waste/ your action, which happens if nothing
triggers your readied action. Your casters regularly do this
on the freak chance that one of the enemies might be a caster
who has a SoD prepared and wants to cast it this round?
If he doesn't cast a spell but blasts you with a wand,
you just did nothing and have to ready again next round?

Absolutely. Because 1) spells, even where they're not SoD, are incredibly dangerous; 2) Because devoted casters lose the majority of their threat when unable to cast. 3) Because there are typically OTHER party members to cause damage / kill the enemy.

Lang Lorenz wrote:

In the case of monsters it's a bit easier to be prepared,

because many monsters are known for their SoD ability.

Non-monstrous casters typically bear rather obvious signs, such as: Holy/Unholy symbols, spell-component pouches, being generally unarmored, holding wands, staves, scrolls...

Lang Lorenz wrote:

I think you are confusing your opinion with the truth here.
;-)

Lang Lorenz wrote:

And that's just my humble opinion, not correct or anything. :-)

Contrast:

Lang Lorenz wrote:

1. Nearly impossible to defend against except with high-level magic,
no amount of preparation or tactical skill will help you.

Where you call something "nearly impossible to defend against," and claim that "no amount of tactical skill will help you," when there exist many COMMON and WELL-KNOWN tactics that effectively deal with such situations, I feel confident in calling your "opinion" wrong.

Not every Holy or Unholy symbol is easily identified. They come in

What you describe as common and well-known tactics depends on
circumstances you set in favour of your opinion. Really, I can
avoid any SoD, if I stay at the inn instead of adventuring with
my buddies. A common and well-known tactic too.

Look at just the single "SoD" mechanic:
you roll too low once and die.
How can you defend against this "one roll death"?
Antimagic Shell, Prismatic Sphere, Mind Blank (vs. Weird)?
High-level magic, nothing else...

A readied action of "I cast Fireball if he casts" or whatever
gives you a chance that his casting of a SoD fails, but if he
manages to cast it despite the damage he took, we're back
where we started: one failed roll and you're dead.

It's not only the "one roll death threat" that bothers me,
but the unimaginative result "death" (of some SoD effects).
In the case of Weird it's caused by Fear and that's
good to know, so people immune to Fear are save.
If a successful save results in HP and Str damage, why doesn't
a failed save result in more of both? Why "death"?

3rd ed already changed Disintegrate from SoD (in 2nd ed) to
a damaging spell that disintegrates the victim if the damage
is more than the victim's current HP total. I think that's
the right direction to go.

Cheers

LL

Lang Lorenz wrote:

1. spell or spell-like
1. Nearly impossible to defend against except with high-level magic,
no amount of preparation or tactical skill will help you.
Against deadly monsters (dire lions, grappling ogres) and traps
there are tactics and defenses...

Incorrect. These are easy to defend against. Here's how: One or two characters ready action (fireball) or other powerful attack against caster/ability user to trigger when the foe casts/concentrates. Though granted in 3.x previous casting vulnerabilities have been largely axed and casters may occasionally get the jump on you, spells are still very possible to disrupt. It is not, in contrast, very easy to disrupt a melee attack.

Incorrect?

To "Ready an Action" you must first win Ini. Then you must
potentially /waste/ your action, which happens if nothing
triggers your readied action. Your casters regularly do this
on the freak chance that one of the enemies might be a caster
who has a SoD prepared and wants to cast it this round?
If he doesn't cast a spell but blasts you with a wand,
you just did nothing and have to ready again next round?

Most of the time the group gets hit with a SoD spell without
warning. There's a caster in the enemy ranks, he casts a spell
at a PC...SURPRISE...dude, you better save, it's SoD time...
:-/

In the case of monsters it's a bit easier to be prepared,
because many monsters are known for their SoD ability.

Melee attacks aren't SoD.
You have to close the distance, you have to hit and
you have to roll enough damage to kill.
This involves more than just one roll.

A vorpal throwing axe is perhaps close to a SoD spell.
Although you first need to roll a natural 20 and then
confirm the crit, so two rolls could kill.

And that's just my humble opinion, not correct or anything.
:-)

LL

I don't like "true" SoD effects which share the following attributes:
1. spell or spell-like
2. usable at range
3. resulting in /unspecified/ death (or other similar and permanent
condition)

Why?

1. Nearly impossible to defend against except with high-level magic,
no amount of preparation or tactical skill will help you.
Against deadly monsters (dire lions, grappling ogres) and traps
there are tactics and defenses...

2. If the user of the SoD-effect would have to touch a victim,
tactics can protect the most vulnerable targets; range allows
cherry-picking the weakest victim - and any monster/NPC with
better than low Int will pick the weakest victim - otherwise
it's bad luck who get's it.

3. If the death condition is specified, there could be a defense.
Save or die from fear? Not the Paladin...etc

I'd even include "Flesh to Stone"! Being at max. hit points
without ability damage and loaded with protection spells,
you still die or get "stoned". Game over. Example:
A Basilisk (CR 5) turns one(?) of the PCs to stone.
The party needs a Wiz 11 to restore the poor fellow!?
They have to interrupt the adventure, travel back to town,
pay the local Wiz (if there is one of high enough level),
then travel back and continue. Annoying and un-fun.

This could be remedied with a monster redesign,
not giving low-CR monsters abilities against which
the PCs are basically helpless.

There's still no help against the fundamental problem
of SoD. The game turns into some kind of russian roulette.
The one failing his save loses. The actions of the PCs except
the caster of the SoD spells and their enemies are completely
futile, if the BBEG just fails his save *once*.
OTOH the fight might quickly become a TPK if an important,
crucial PC fails his save.

This randomness harms the PCs more than the monsters...
...as monsters are cheap. :-)

Example for a SoD spell redesigned to my taste:
Finger of Death
Duration: 1 round/2 caster levels
Fort save each round;
if failed take 3d6 + 1/caster level (maximum +25) and nauseated,
if successful only take half damage and sickened.

At 13th level that'd be 3d6+13 x 6 damage maximum = avg of 141,
plus no or reduced combat efficiency for 6 rounds.

LL

Wow, okay clearly you've never dealt with a player who doesn't care about hogging the spotlight, wait until you have a player who is always running with greater invisibility, and using Otto's irresistable dance.

Wait until the player's face contorts in horror, when he realises

BTW, Irresistible Dance has a verbal component.
You need to silence it to pull that stunt.
That's a 4th level slot plus a 9th level slot
to disable /one/ target for 1d4+1 rounds.
Against single targets it's a valuable (but not broken) tactic,
whereas a group of enemies will probably shield the dancer.
The cunning Wiz is still invisible but caught among his enemies...

Wait till a DM does it to the player and see how the player reacts. Spells that don't allow for a save and based on making a touch attack (which I don't know about you, but I only see a miss on one of those rolls 1 in maybe eight times) are pretty much fun killers.

Know thy enemy. High level PCs should know better

LL

MOVE THE BUMP. I'm talking here about the +2 on saves given at first level. A class with one good save gets a total +2 on saves (Fort+Will+Refx) at first level, but on average gains only +1 per level at each following level. A class with two good saves gets a +4 at level 1 but has on average +1.25 at each following level. A class with three good saves gets a +6 at first level but on average gains only +1.5 per level.

...

Instead, my suggestion is that we Move the Bump. Race is something that is picked only once, and at first level. If we want a bump, then add it to race. For example, maybe every race has an extra +2 on certain saves. Maybe elves get +1 on Will and Reflex. Dwarves get +2 on Fort. Humans can chose to put their +2 or +1/+1 wherever they want. One human PC might go with +2 Reflex; another +1 each on Will and Fort.

Thus, first level characters still get the bump. AND multiclass characters do not get the benefit of too many +2s by taking lots of first levels.

That's exactly what I would do. Move the bump to race!

Why not a bonus worth +3 for all races:

Human 3 x +1 or +2/+1 however they want
Dwarf +2 Fort and +1 Will,
Elf +2 Ref and +1 Will,
Gnome +1 Fort and +2 Ref
...

USE FRACTIONS. We need to not be shy about using halves and quarters! The math is not hard! And the alternative is the absurd example that cp gives above.

I propose that classes with good saves advance the good save by +0.5 every level. Classes with poor saves advance the poor save by +0.25 every level. Fractions of 0.25 round down; fractions of 0.5 and 0.75 round up.

...

When you multiclass conventionally, the granularity, the bumpiness, of the current non-fractional system creates artifacts like the Will +0 that cp has for a relatively high level PC. But the beauty of this solution is that lacking that granularity, you also lose the artifacts created by adding in too many +0s and not enough +1s. That's because, with my suggestion, we come closer to the design goal that All Levels Are Equal.

I like it. Let's hope you are heard. :-)

LL

IMHO many Charm effects are good when you get them,
BUT as they don't scale with caster level sooner or
later suck.

Possible fix could be making them HD-depending.

Example fix for Charm Person:
charms one creature of 1 HD plus 1 HD per 2 levels
(2 at 3rd, 3 at five,...) up to 6 HD at 11th level.
A save halves the HD. If the result still is above
the creatures HD, it's nonetheless charmed (maybe
for half the duration?).
Fireball can kill a victim on a successful save,
if half damage is enough (due to a high-level caster).

A high-HD creature OTOH can't be charmed by a
low-level spell, as a Fireball won't kill a
creature on a failed save, if it has
enough hit points.

Cheers,

LL

I haven't read every post of the thread,
so forgive me if I repeat what others wrote.

Anyway, here it comes:

Skills:
Add Diplomacy and Bluff, drop Ride and Swim.
There's been a thread on the issue.

Weapons:
Don't add Ninja and Samurai weapons!

Instead add the missing (chinese) elemental weapons:
Metal: Sabre=Scimitar, Water: Longsword, Fire: Spear
(he already has Earth: empty hand, Wood: Quarterstaff)

Others like Lajatang and Three-piece-rod should perhaps
expand the list of oriental monks instead of being core.

Giving all simple weapons is a good idea too,
makes him prof. with unarmed strike... ;)

AC Bonus:
Should start with +1 IMHO.

Unarmed Strike:
Allow Dex to hit with UAS and monk weapons
(if Weapon Finesse isn't dropped altogether)

Unarmed Damage:
Special monk weapons should do their weapon damage
or the monk's UA damage, whatever is greater.

Ki pool:
Should be 1 point per level. Some uses could cost
more, if need be. Would be more "streamlined" IMO.

Slow Fall:
At least drop the "next to a wall" restriction.
Don't make DMs think about pit traps which increase in
diameter from top to bottom... :)

Quivering Palm (Su):
IMHO the Monk should have to determine the timelag
at the moment he uses the ability.
It should be usable more than once per week and have
a Ki point cost.

As I like options over SoD powers, I'd allow the Monk
to determine the effect. Some examples:
- Death: as before. Maybe add some damage on successful save?
- Ki Shutdown: Str, Dex and Con reduced to 1 on a failed save (and some temp. penalty on successful save?)
- Living Coma: victim becomes unconcious for 1 month(week?) per monk level.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon (Ex):
I think this ability should be replaced by something else.
It's lame for a 17th level "power" and what's its purpose conceptually anyway?
I'd seriously consider "Fly" at this point - with a Ki point cost of course.

Perfect Self:
I'd give at least DR 20/magic, 10 hp damage is insignificant at this point.

Finally I would love to see the ability to control the body's weight with Ki.
The wording could be tricky, but the monk should be able to run across water
or quicksand, and balance on the tip of a bending bamboo tree (ala Tiger and Dragon).
OTOH he should be able to increase his weight to become almost immovable.

Maybe insert this at 11th level additionally?

Thanks for reading all this...

Cheers

LL

I like that idea, it also opens up some tactical situations. and I am glad that you see where I am coming from. I understand that some people see combat manuevers as something that are going to be so difficult anyways picking up this feat is overkill, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unfairly advantaged to the defender. I wouldn't even have as much of an issue if you had to take this feat and name a manuever, against this manuever you gain +4 and then have to choose the feat again if they wanted to defend against other manuevers.

On second thought though that still urks me cause two characters one that trains in offense in a manuever and one who trains in defense should cancel each other out, not give the defender the advantage.

IMHO working against all Improved /Foo/ isn't unbalanced

One Ftr is attacked by three Ftrs. Each attacking Ftr
chose a different Improved /Foo/. So the poor defender
has to blow /3/ feats to get a bonus vs. the CMs of the
attackers. And if he is tripped, disarmed or his weapon
sundered he's in big trouble, I dare say. :-)

It reminds me of Dodge, which gave +1 vs. /one/ opponent
in 3.5...which is severly underpowered against multiple
attackers with, say, Weapon Focus IMO.

I don't know if DCT should give +4 or maybe (only) +3,
but it must be effective vs. all CM to be balanced.

Maybe a combination would be a compromise?
Add a +1 defense bonus to each Improved /Foo/ and
reduce DCT to a +3 (or even +2?) bonus vs all of them.

Cheers
LL

Jason has admitted that DCs based on skill checks are a bad idea (since it's easy to get a +10 bonus on a skill check and it should be extremely hard to get a +10 bonus on spell DCs, for instance). No doubt it will get changed to something more tractable Real Soon Now.

Well, the save DC could be changed to

LL

Lang Lorenz wrote:

Why Bluff?

This is taken from the common chinese martial arts tactic of creating distractions to gain an advantage. A monk who has a good charisma might choose to use bluff to feint in combat as a part of his combat tactics.

<slaps forehead>

On second thought its embarrassingly obvious.
It's needed for (Improved) Feint, which is
quite appropriate for drunken and monkey
style kung fu.

LL

Why Bluff?

Anyway, if you think he gets too much skills
with Diplomacy, Heal, and Knowedge(religion),
just drop Ride and Swim.

Ride? On a horse? To be slower?
Because "The journey is the reward."? :)

And Swim? I can't recall a single Eastern
with swimming Monks. If they encounter water,
they run across it's surface or even fight on it.
That's an /ability/ worth considering IMO.

LL

IMHO the biggest problem of familiars is that
they suffer from the "Order of the Stick"-syndrom.

I would remove any bonus for the caster from familiars!
Instead let the familiar be(come) a personality, more like
an NPC under the players (and DMs) control.

So, instead of a boring +3 to some skill, the familiar should
have some skills of its own.

Same with Alertness: the Wiz gets +2 to Appraise because he's got
a Toad? Better give appropriate skills w. ranks and racial boni
to the familiar directly.

And Speak with Master should probably be 1st level then ...
... Gol*cough*den Com*cough*pass ...
... together with a higher Int score of the familiar.
Probably start at 4 + Wiz Int Mod (and increase with levels)?

I'm not sure if a familiar is really less "powerful" than a bonded
object. An idea to improve power slightly:

Give the familiar a number of spells it knows, but can't cast.
It's a kind of living spellbook so to speak.
The Wiz is able to prepare these spells just as if they were
written in his spellbook, if the familiar is there at
preparation time.
I suggest 2 1st level spells and one spell of each level above.

LL

Regarding effects like "Paralyze": stay...
...but it's true that removing one or more PCs for minutes from a combat
can be the difference between TPK and victory.

So, I'd include a save each round after a failed initial save,
that allows to act as if disabled and with some additional big penalties.

Regarding effects like "Finger of Death": don't stay

At least make it save or dying.

Otherwise combats at high level depend too much on luck.

How about the following idea:
When you fail your save against such effects you drop to
a number of hp = -20 + your level.

LL

The word Chivalry is derived from the french Cheval (horse) and Chevalier (horseman or knight). In spanish Caballería (chivalry) and Caballero (knight or chevalier) share the same root - Caballo (horse).

English is one of the few languages that have disassociated the mounted warrior (knight) from his steed, but in most other languages the two words are closely related.

Yep, in German it's "Ritter" related to "Reiter" which means "Rider"

LL

Ftr should have more SP IMHO. He should get 4.
Or maybe add a rule that 2+racial is the minimum
even if your Int mod is negative?

Clr, Pal, and Wiz should stay at 2.

Brb, Drd, Sor 4 ok.

Rog 8 could probably even go down to 6,
because many of his skills got broader,
i.e. old skills combined into new ones.
This could affect Rng and Brd SP...

LL

Count my vote *for* iterative attacks!

If you need too much time, roll colored dice for
attacks and damage simultaneously. For example:
1. attack: Red d20 + red damage die
2. attack: Orange d20 + orange damage die
3. attack: Yellow d20 + yellow damage die
4. attack: White d20 + white damage die

You roll 8 dice all at once and know with one look
what's happening.
Not that time-consuming or difficult...

Close combat battles with 5' steps and full attacks
are hardly too static. Using movement to get tactical
advantages like cover, flanking, AoO for fleeing foes
is much fun IMHO. Without iterative attacks you can't
attack, step and attack again (unless you're fighting
two-weapon style).

Being able to attack more than once in a round of
6 seconds (!) seems realistic for experienced adventurers.

Against multiple opponents the math of one attack with
additional damage dice and/or a bonus to hit is *not* the
same as iterative attacks...

LL

... totally belong in fantasy.

Oh, you're back! Great. Now read it and see how it may not be *called* psionics, but basically it's a high-magic and high-psionic world and has zero to do with sci-fi.

Zero to do with SF???

Wikipedia says:
"Dzur, the latest Dragaeran book, was published in early
August 2006 by Tor Books. It has been selected as
*a Sci-Fi Essential Book* as part of an arrangement
between Tor and the Sci-Fi Channel."

<shrug>

I wouldn't probably like the books if they mix fantasy with
psionics...

I'm a fan of Merlin, Gandalf, Elric, Schmendrick,
Harold Shea, Belgarath, even Rincewind...

Real wizards in real fantasy ;-)

It's all a matter of taste of course...

Cheers

LL

...don't belong into fantasy. Full stop. :-)

Wannabe jedi knights and quasi-sorcerers with unbalanced powers?

Power Word: BAH!

I love Star Wars and E.E. Doc Smith' Lensmen stories,
that's how and where I like psi powers. For me they've
always been an aspect of science fiction.

LL

I'm still seriously considering abandoning ability scores anyway and just using modifiers.

Ouch. I wouldn't do that. The Ability scores of 3-18 are one

Odd ability scores being prerequisites for Feats is, IMO, a bug, not a feature. Does the Fighter *really* need to have a 13 Intelligence to pull back on his offense and fight better defensively via Expertise?

He can pull back on his offense and fight defensively without the feat,

'Cause he's gonna be a *weaker* Fighter if he has to blow his point-buy on stuff like that, no wonder he has to fight defensively!

There are some other combat feats that require Int 13+,

LL

Lang Lorenz wrote:

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Just a thought. Maybe Paizo should include intermediate (inter) saves to help power down/up the classes. This would be a poor save, but an additional increase of +1 at level 1, 10, and 19; bringing it to 9 max at level 20. There has been attempts to do the similar with some classes like the scout and swashbuckler, so this is not unheard of.

My suggestions to applications.

Mainly give these to cleric/druid

Good Will
Inter Fort

I would also suggest Inter Reflex for fighters.

These are minor, but can do a bit to help balance things out.

Does anyone else think this might be a good idea?

Yes, but ...

I'd use the following:

Good = 2 + floor(0.5*level)
Medium = 1 + floor(0.4*level)
Poor = 0 + floor(0.3*level)

Another option just occured to me:

Change the classes to give medium and poor saves
and improve them depending on race!

Example: Dwarf gets improved Fort,
Ftr gets Fort and Ref medium, Will poor
so the dwarven Ftr ends up with Fort good, Ref medium
and Will poor.
An elf Ftr (with improved Ref) gets Fort medium,
Ref good and Will poor.

Naturally humans may choose which save gets improved...

Whaddya think?

LL

PS: I'd like a change of PrC entry req. to min. saves instead
of BAB...

That sounds really extreme with the race determination, but I don't know if that might work or not. It does sound interesting.

I'm a big fan of making race more important. :)

LL

Just a thought. Maybe Paizo should include intermediate (inter) saves to help power down/up the classes. This would be a poor save, but an additional increase of +1 at level 1, 10, and 19; bringing it to 9 max at level 20. There has been attempts to do the similar with some classes like the scout and swashbuckler, so this is not unheard of.

My suggestions to applications.

Mainly give these to cleric/druid

Good Will
Inter Fort

I would also suggest Inter Reflex for fighters.

These are minor, but can do a bit to help balance things out.

Does anyone else think this might be a good idea?

Yes, but ...

I'd use the following:

Good = 2 + floor(0.5*level)
Medium = 1 + floor(0.4*level)
Poor = 0 + floor(0.3*level)

Another option just occured to me:

Change the classes to give medium and poor saves
and improve them depending on race!

Example: Dwarf gets improved Fort,
Ftr gets Fort and Ref medium, Will poor
so the dwarven Ftr ends up with Fort good, Ref medium
and Will poor.
An elf Ftr (with improved Ref) gets Fort medium,
Ref good and Will poor.

Naturally humans may choose which save gets improved...

Whaddya think?

LL

PS: I'd like a change of PrC entry req. to min. saves instead
of BAB...

My .02$...

I like the idea, however, I would modify it a bit...

Based on your initial class... Only classes that know all martial weapons should be allowed to pick an exotic weapon; all other classes, a martial one.

Sounds okay. Would be equal to a bonus feat MWP or EWP.

But maybe exotic weapons are gone for good
and this discussion is futile? :)

LL

Just had a quick question for anybody who can answer. Also sorry for doing a new thread on this but i simply couldnt' find much info on this after much searching. Maybe I just would like an official answer lol. Anyways, this free weapon proficiency for humans. I don't believe it was clarified anywhere on whether this was going to be from the simple and martial weapon groups or if it included exotic weapons as well. Does anybody know for absolutely sure what weapon group(s) this spans. Thank you in advance :D

Exotic would be a bit much IMO...

LL

As to the original post in this thread. I hear your concerns about Paladins of non-LG alignments. For this to work, I feel that they would need to be specific classes. This is something we have tossed around the design pit a number of times (primarily in reference to the Hellknight). I am not sure that this solution is right for the core paladin. This may be a bigger sacred cow for me than it is for others.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Yes!

Paladins should be LG always. Other classes plus fallen palladins
are okay, but the Pal *is* LG!
To me the Pal was always the rightous and good knight.
Heath Ledger in Knight's Tale is a better example than
Lancelot for paladinesque LG behaviour BTW.

That said I'd drop healing (LOH and healing spells) and focus
more on the mount, mounted combat and fighting evil.
This would reduce overlap with Clr as a side effect...
...Remove Disease doesn't fit this concept too.
Give him mounted feats and better skills, more Smite Evil perhaps etc.

I'd drop TU too and replace it with an aura of positive
energy that functions at will. Start and stop as a free action.
Would be more in line with his Aura of Good and Aura of Courage.

Caster level should be better than 1/2, better would be 2/3
or a flat -3, i.e. start at 1st CL at Pal level 4.
And give him spells of level 0 through 4th level.

Just my 2 (or more?) cents...

Cheers
LL

I would like a method that achieves three goals:

1. Let 1st level PCs survive (longer). It's okay if the
Wiz goes down on a crit of a greatsword, but dying
(less than -9 hp) from full health with one hit should
be very rare.
2. No fixed hp at 1st level. Each 1st level Ftr with Con 16
starts with 13 hp? Boring. Some randomness should be present.
3. Race should make a difference. The more the better.

So...

1st level hp = Con score + d[6,8,10,12] (class) + [4,6,8] (racial)

is an easy solution. :-)

LL