Lumbo's page

I am still on board. Just working some crazy and varied hours.

And there are places where they flippantly turn a class on its head. Book of Vile Darkness, page 13. They talk about Vashar Clerics being ur-priests, who steal magic from the gods. Not some big, new rule. Not some section unto itself. Just a couple sentences in the middle of the 'Adventurers' section. That is, apparently, all the weight that completely reversing a class's flavor deserves. And Vashar Clerics default to being full-fledged ur-priests without the Ur-Priest prestige class, introduced in the same book.

Well what would Monte Cook know about the 3.x rules system? Wait, oh yeah he was only the LEAD designer for the system.

The problems I see with "GM fiat" are legacy issue from when the game was still in it's infancy. Don't get me wrong, E. Gary Gygax is a god in my country, but he had a very "me vs. them" mentality when it came to running his games. A lot of GM's that have played for a long time inherently have some of that attitude towards their game. That can cause problems.

I have to say my preferred style of GM to play with is very similar to what Kyrt espoused in his post. More of a neutral arbiter instead of a deity-like controller.

I have been a player more often than a GM, but I much prefer GMing most of the time. The caveat to that is that I am very much a "run the published adventure with very little modification" type of guy. For me GMing is more about playing with my friends while watching the brainchild of paizo's writing staff engross us all.

That's what i get for writing it up while at work in 15 minutes I guess. But Battle Cunning is always in effect, no swift action required. Also, a fire giant is going to kill any of these classes one on one in a toe to toe battle. In fact, using the elite array you're not getting better than 10d10+20 without being a barbarian or taking toughness and that still doesn't survive the dmg.

Survivability is not just about HPs. Higher AC lowers the giant's DPR.

Both of them sound interesting. So far we really don't have a full stealth type, so the inquisitor might be the better option. However, if you really want to go the legion devil (or tiefling) route, your welcome to.

We have a nernja don't we? That is a full stealth type is it not?

I think the solution is to write em up. If I can't decide then 1d3 it is! lol

Alrighty, so far the concept that is sticking my brain above all others is of a LE outsider that is charged by some infernal general to come to the material plane. While on the material plane his mission is to help evil souls shed their mortal coil (preferably through violence) to bolster the ranks of the infernal legions in the ceaseless battles of the Blood War!

As far as the outsider goes, my first thought was to use a custom PFRPG tiefling using the tables from Pathfinder #25. My second thought (what with all the crazy shenanigans going on here) was a legion devil (merregon) from Fiendish Codex II.

As for the class, pathfinder paladin all the way. Maybe with some changes to smite evil (less about killing dragons, undead, and outsiders and possibly a focus on humans!)

The only other concept swimming in my brain was a character based on "the operative" from the film Serenity. A cold, calculating, and utterly ruthless killer, but he is killing to help the great good. Not so much out of need to redeem himself (knowing full well that some of the things he does are irredeemable) but to ensure a better future. Race was undecided but the class would have been the inquisitor from the APG playtest.

EDIT: Dammit all, I just remembered that I always wanted to run a Deathmaster from the Dragon Compendium as well! Too many options in this free reign scenario!

Count me in. I will be working on my character concepts tonight and post some up tomorrow after I get home from work.

Lumbo wrote:

Maybe enough people yelling at WotC could persuade them to release it as a .pdf file.

It's a nice dream, but unlikely. However, rather than just saying that, let me explain why I think that.

They don't want to compete with themselves.

They fact is, RPG material is reusable. If they sell or allow the sale of a system other than one they're actively selling right now.. they're creating competition with themselves. They won't do that. They don't often lay the cards on the table and say that in clear terms, but that is what it amounts to.. Scott Rouse said as much once over on EnWorld one day. To paraphrase, 'We spent six figures developing this new system, and frankly we'd like to sell as much of it as we can. Doing anything that gets people playing some other game isn't in our interest.'

And for the record, from his perspective and that of his former employer, that is a common sense and logical business decision. That doesn't mean it doesn't also suck from the consumer's point of view.

They might make some money on selling older material, but they're afraid they would lose more sales on their newer game system.

Those articles were just advice and should be edition neutral. That is different than requesting a reprint of Complete Arcane or some other book.

Hell, they could just slap new art on it and resell it every time that crank out a new edition.

If memory serves, the Dungeoncraft articles by Monte Cook and later everyone's favorite kobold, Wolfgang Bauer we pretty much just advice columns lacking any really edition specific material.

Maybe enough people yelling at WotC could persuade them to release it as a .pdf file.

Lumbo wrote:

No, class mechanics are built into the class. By saying that mechanics dictate tradition you are saying that since all 5th level fighters receive the weapon training class ability, that every single fighter was trained in the same manner. You are tying fluff to mechanics again.

I showed what was needed to pull fluff from the classes, do not blame me for it being built in. I did not build it into the classes. You may ignore it in your game, but it is a built in thing.

A magical tradition learns and casts spells the same way. By default all wizards learn and cast spells the same way. Know arcana covers magical traditions.

If you do not like it, feel free to change it in your world, but by default it's there

You have shown that you can use knowledge checks to discern magical tradition and that the classes have baseline requirements.

Those two observations do not mean that all casters that take levels in a certain class share the same "traditions." Mechanics do not equal traditions.

Because they do in your narrow setting does make it universal. I am not saying that you are wrong to have it work that way in your world, but you are wrong by saying that your assumptions apply universally.

Lumbo wrote:

Everything you just said is an assumption based on your personal game world. Nowhere in the rules is any of what you said supported. It is fine that you define "magical traditions" in such a way for your game, but to claim that your statements are universal when there is absolutely ZERO basis within the rules is a farce.

Ok i'll bit

By default

1> How does a wizard cast his spells? does he need a spell books? Does he have to memeorize them? Does he have a set spell list?
2> A druid? does he have set restrictions on what items he may use? does he have a set spell list? Is he or is he not restricted in weapons? Al, and set ability?
3> clerics? do they not all have a set base of ablitys ? Do they have a set spell list? Do they have a set number of domains that can not change based on god/ philosophy? Do they all have channel?
4> Bards, do they not all have a set way bardic performance works, though the performance skill?, do they not have a set spell list? Do not all bards have the same restricted ablitys all other bards have?

Sorry guys it is built into the class

No, class mechanics are built into the class. By saying that mechanics dictate tradition you are saying that since all 5th level fighters receive the weapon training class ability, that every single fighter was trained in the same manner.

You are tying fluff to mechanics again. Which is fine for your game world, but your assumptions are not universal. House rules never are.

Zurai wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I think the main disconnect there was he was seeing "tradition" and not "magical tradition" which is not the same thing.

"Magical" is an adjective to the noun "tradition". It modifies and describes it, making it more specific. What kind of tradition? A magical tradition. This is elementary school level stuff. Adjectives do not change the base meaning of the noun, they merely increase the specificity of it. A <foo> tradition is still a tradition.

You really need to do some research into just what a Magical tradition is man. It covers way more then a simple custom here and there. It covers almost every aspect of how you do magic, how you cast, your rights, even how you dress, what you eat and in some case what you can and can not touch or use.

Because you can not be bothered to look up just what it is, does not mean it does not exist.

I told you the steps you needed to take to strip all of the trapping out of the caster classes. If you do not wish to take such steps it's not my issue

Everything you just said is an assumption based on your personal game world. Nowhere in the rules is any of what you said supported. It is fine that you define "magical traditions" in such a way for your game, but to claim that your statements are universal when there is absolutely ZERO basis within the rules is a farce.

I am rather fond of the idea of teleporting into the tomb of some goodly martyr or hero or some other such thing and hide it there.

Lumbo wrote:

That is a SPELLCRAFT check to identify a spell, not knowledge arcana. Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell, nowhere in the skill description does it say you can discern anything other than that.

Yep spellcraft tells you the spell, which then you use know to ID the traditions, very simple

The know check would be DC 10 or 15, 20 if the casting type was rare 30 if no one had seen them before

Arbitrarily simple because you deem it so. The DCs listed for knowledge arcana are not trivial. Therefore I think it is fair to say that the check for "heritage" should be as difficult or tougher than those listed.

ok you need 15+ spell level to ID a spell as it is being cast

CLW is DC 16

Level 1 wizard lets say 16 int.
1 rank spell craft,+3 class +3 INT=7 I need to roll a 9 or take 10

Magic traditions would be common in most worlds say DC 10, maybe uncommon so DC 15

Level 1 wizard lets say 16 int.
1 rank know arcana, +3 class+3 INT= +7 I need a 3 or an 8 an most it would be DC 20 meaning I would need a 13 unless it was something unseen anywhere

That is a SPELLCRAFT check to identify a spell, not knowledge arcana. Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell, nowhere in the skill description does it say you can discern anything other than that.

Knowledge arcana is the only skill that can be used to determine "magical heritage."

Lumbo wrote:

Bards get cure light, is that mystically then a divine spell for that arcane class?

Maybe not but a knowledge check, arcana will tell the player your casting style

Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level
Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level

Now just by watching a spell like cure light wounds being cast at someone other than you, I think it is safe to assume that since there would be no effect in place, finding out the "magical tradition" (which is a use of the skill), you would have a pretty high base DC + spell level.

Doesn't sound likely to me until some pretty high levels.

Zurai wrote:

The RULES do not say that druids and clerics cast spells differently, nor that wizards and sorcerers cast spells differently. A Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana check does not allow you to determine which class cast the spell in question, it simply allows you to identify the spell. Heck, the rules don't even allow you to determine whether it was arcane or divine.

Nice to know you house ruled cure light wounds for arcane casters then. As well they can't tell, and cast the very same way. So it must be on the arcane list and can learn it.

Bards get cure light, is that mystically then a divine spell for that arcane class?

I never said look, I said tell. And yes they can tell, unless you change it.

Player:I make the DC 15 to know what spell it is
GM: Its divine favor
Player : I roll know arcanea
GM: It is not an arcane spell
Player; I roll know religion for what traditions...yay nat 20!
GM: The man before you displayed casting motions and ability of a paladin

Since when does a natural 20 on a skill check mean anything? Natural 20's are automatic successes on saving throws and attacks only. As natural 1s are only automatic failures on others. Just sayin'

Zurai wrote:

Caineach wrote:

I'm not saying that in many games they aren't interchangable.

Actually, that's precisely what you said:

Caineach wrote:

VV, on your point that you can use a Psion and call yourself a "wizard", every other "wizard" who you meet who uses the wizard class would know you are different. You cast spells differently, you have different spells, and you can't train eachother.

And every wizard knows that every sorc casts spells differently than them.

That is your OPINION. There is absolutely nothing in the text of the game that says that. Sorcerers and Wizards receive the their magic from different sources, not once is there any mention they they cast differently.

Your are being argumentative for no other reason than the fact that you can't admit that someone doesn't make the same inferences about gameplay as you and your group.

This has gotten tedious, nobody in this thread is willing to bend and we just keep getting the same points rehashed over and over again. Nothing new has been said for several pages.

Viletta has great points in her argument and I prefer her way of looking at the game.

Seeker on the other hand just goes about his game differently and with more of a Gygaxian feel. The fact that I think his view is archaic does not invalidate it. The fact that he has players in his game should tell you all that they must not be offended by his world's restrictions.

Seriously, we know whom agrees with whom here, I think it is time to let this thread go the way of the buffalo.

Under the play test instructions for Summoner it is stated that they cannot use magic items (unless it has changed in the past few weeks). You will need to recalculate DPR without that +3 amulet of mighty fists. Out of the 10th level character's budget of 62,000 gp the summoner spent 45,000 gp on the amulet for the Eidolon, making the Summoner even squishier than normal.

A Summoner can of course easily bestow a greater magic fang on his Eidolon - however, it takes one spell for each natural weapon to retain that +3 to hit and damage for each of the 6 natural weapons. This is impossible as the Eidolon's pet summoner has a 16 Cha for a total of 4 3rd level spell slots per day - although one could presume for DPR calculations that the Summoner burned his 1 4th level spell slot for the day on greater magic weapon as well, but this still leaves one natural weapon short of the +3 enhancement bonus...

Nice work though! :)

Straight from the Summoner update post on the Round 2 playtest forums (emphasis mine)

Eidolons and Equipment

Eidolons are limited in the amount of gear and equipment they can use. Their forms tend to shift over time, making certain types of gear impossible to use properly. Eidolons with the proper training and the limbs (arms) evolution can wield weapons. They suffer the normal penalties for wielding more than one weapon, regardless of the number of arms they possess. Eidolons cannot wear armor, due to their shifting form, but those that take the proper feat can use a shield. Eidolons can use some magic items. Each eidolon can wear up to two rings, if it has the limbs (arms) evolution. Each eidolon can wear a single magic item in the following slots: eyes, head, neck, and shoulders. An eidolon with the limbs (arms) evolution or the tentacle evolution can drink potions.

Any magic items possessed by the eidolon fall to the ground when the eidolon is sent back to its home plane, regardless of the reason. If this includes cursed items, the items immediately return to the eidolon when it is summoned again.

stuff

The DPR formula for figuring damage that is not multiplied on a critical is h(d+s)+(tchd)

h= chance to hit expressed as %
d= average damage per hit
s= damage not multiplied on a crit
t= chance to threaten expressed as %
c= threat multiplier (x2=1, x3=2, etc etc)

Using this formula, I calculate the Eidolon's DPR as 122.18, while I figured the summoner's as 19.86 (don't know why we got a different figure there) for a total DPR of 142.04

Lumbo wrote:

Loopy wrote:

You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.

Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.

That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.

Why would I ever bother using combat spells with UMD? I'm talking about things like teleport, speak with dead, illusions. Spells that are usefull, but you have stuff to do in combat as a fighter.

A lvl 10 fighter has greater than 50/50 chance of using a scroll of 5th lvl or lower spending 1 feat and having a 10 charisma. If he doesn't have the intelligence or wisdom it gets a little harder, needing to roll a 14 to emulate ability scores as well on a seprate check. As he gains levels from there, it gets easier.

Like Loopy said, I wouldn't use this in a ballanced party, but its certainly doable. Rogue faces can do it even better, but the feat matters more to them.

I didn't mean the spells had to be combat spells, i meant the fighter that could use the utility spells needed to remain viable in combat.

EDIT: Is a 50/50 chance of using said spells really replicating the wizards ability? and to get the 15 INT emulated he would need a 14 or better with the same feat allotment and 10 CHA

When the wand runs out Mr. Fishy steals a new one. Mr. Fishy is a ROGUE.

Can you make a wizard that can rip a trolls arm off? 10th level elite array.

I can make a 10th level wizard that casts hold monster against the troll's weakest save, or cast beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off if that's more what you were looking for, or summon monster V bringin forth a celestial dire lion or other such critter.

You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.

Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.

That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.

Lumbo wrote:

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Lumbo wrote:

While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.

That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!

Really? If the character has a 1 in 10 billion chance of ending any encounter with a single action, then they are strictly better than the characters that have 0 chance?

That is where "statistically significant" comes into play. Yes, the chance exists, but the probability is too low to be statistically significant. If the peasant has the Ex ability to cause anything to die just by wishing it, but needed to roll 5 nat 20's consecutively, that would NOT make him better than a Monk, who gets no such ability.

Your situation has no mechanical basis within the game, whereas a wizard's options being nigh on limitless are a mechanical part of the game.

Use Magic Device and Skill focus. An Expertise Fighter will be very good at this.

Sure, if you have ridiculous high ability scores. To pull this off with a Fighter you are going to need charisma for the UMD checks, intelligence for the skill points and so you don't need to use the emulate ability score feature of UMD on lower level scrolls, and then strength, dex, and con. Sure, you can forgo some strength in favor of a ranged build, but if scrolls are going to be your schtick, you might as well play a wizard since it can emulate the fighter's forte much better than the reverse.

Lumbo wrote:

While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.

That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!

Really? If the character has a 1 in 10 billion chance of ending any encounter with a single action, then they are strictly better than the characters that have 0 chance?

That is where "statistically significant" comes into play. Yes, the chance exists, but the probability is too low to be statistically significant. If the peasant has the Ex ability to cause anything to die just by wishing it, but needed to roll 5 nat 20's consecutively, that would NOT make him better than a Monk, who gets no such ability.

Your situation has no mechanical basis within the game, whereas a wizard's options being nigh on limitless are a mechanical part of the game.

Can any given pure caster supply the perfect spell for any occasion? Sure. Can I also win the lottery? Heck, yeah! Probabilities??

And I know the the prob a caster will have the right spell is much greater than the chance to win the lotto, but the principle applies. With a large number of uncontrolled variables, the REAL question is: "Are the variables being controlled for in the tiering experiment statistically significant, and if so, to how many standard deviations?"

While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.

That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!

The bottom line is, taking magic items out of the game means that parties, no matter their make up, cannot face level appropriate challenges past level 3 or so.

Does this mean the game is unplayable? Certainly not, but as previously stated, it is going to widen the gap between martial classes (specifically fighters, rogues, and monks) and any class with innate magic related class abilities.

Will fighting level 15 goblin warriors be boring? To some people, but I am willing to bet that fighting demons would be boring to others.

And to be quite honest, the OP asked "Where does a lack of magic items begin to affect CR?" Not "can you remove magic items from the game entirely and still play it?"

I wasn't happy with Druid Dan. Made a couple quick changes - most notably - I had him use greater magic fang (over and over again)

Beyond that, I switched the Amulet of Mighty Fists (now redundant) to do flaming damage instead (for an extra 1d6 on attacks).

Hopefully I did the math right - I showed my work, so if it's wrong, it should be easy to correct.

His base damage increased to 64.13 per round.

Note that he can get more than this on a charge (due to pounce and rake)

I'm not going to have time to plug in the numbers for a charging attack damage - but I expect it should be pretty sweet.

Check for errors - I'm rushing like a madman this morningl.

** spoiler omitted **...

Some of your math was off in both detrimental and beneficial areas (as you said, you were rushing). Based on the fixed math, the DPR on a charge round should be ~124.59.

The formula is hd+tchd. This can be expressed as hd(1+tc), and we'll do that to simplify the arithmatic. Without a ki, the damage is:

2(.55)(17.5)(1+[2][.05]) + 2(.3)(17.5)(1+[2][.05])

21.175 + 11.55

Melvin 1.1 does an average of ~32.73 DPR.

When he pops a ki, it adds an additional (.55)(17.5)(1+[2][.05]) damage, or ~10.59 damage, for a total of ~43.31 DPR.

According to your guidelines, shouldn't the value of his crit multiplier be 1 instead of 2, and his crit chance be 10% since he threatens on a 19 or 20?

I know the answer would be the same, but I really want to make sure I am doing this right before I go posting anything.

For every one of these that I try to recalculate, my math comes up wrong.

Could you please plug the numbers into your equation so I can see where my math is faulty, say for the 2hand weapon fighter since it only gets 2 attacks.

Thanks in advance

While I think the idea of giving the summoner unique spells for "arming" his eidolon is a neat concept, I think that comparing the situation to the problems with polymorph in 3.5 is a little far fetched.

As you stated, the power creep in the new monster released throughout the span of 3.5 directly contributed to the issues with the polymorph line. I don't see the anywhere near the proliferation of over powered magic items. There were 5 monster manuals released over the course of 3rd edition, then you have to add in the various "specialized" monster books like Libris Mortis, Draconomicon et al.

While there may be issues with the power of the eidolon, and they may be related to it's ability use magic items. I just don't think the comparison to the polymorph issue is a fair one.

Forgive me if this has been addressed before.

Does take the size scaling evolutions automatically scale the reach to 10 and 15 ft. for large and huge respectively? Or would one still need to invest in the reach evolutions?

Thanks!