Majesticmoose's page

So as my group levels, besides skill focus and general class based abilities, are there any major skill boosting assets or abilities that I should steer them toward?

Currently my advice is (from the skills they are focusing on, such as perception for the mystic) max ranks, start with at least a 14 plus level boosts, and at least the secondary attribute enhancement ( so if the player has access to a mk2, the skill stat should be at least the mk1).

So far this has kept the players about par. Mystic has been +7 at level 1, +12 at lvl 3, and +15 at 5th. Is on track to be +36 by level 20.

Am I missing any obvious or critical options?

Thanks!

For Goat Lord:
How did you feel about combat maneuver use, or related options such as the stand still feat? I find my players rarely consider anything like that a viable option, and the +8 difficulty seems to make it almost impossible. I know there are ways to get around it (especially for grapple) but since your group seemed savy with skill and overall stat mod stacking, did it seem like those options were used, or ever considered?

I think there is a realignment of perception in star finder as to what a good to hit chance should be. Based on the arrays in AA, it looks like if your fighting a CR equivalent enemy, your odds should be in the 50/50 range for any action. This is actually very similar to the old Wizards Saga SW game.

I think something to bear in mind is that IMO you should often be facing enemies at a CR -2 for most non-boss fights. If you're using the arrays as a guidepost, then based on the stats you have outlined above you should be rocking 60%+ odds in most combats. The harder fights may mean you need teamwork and the full BAB classes get their shine.

One thing I'm noticing in your various spreads: Primary attack stats should always be at least a 14 at level 1 and should be at least 24 by level 20. And weapon focus should always be selected for the 3/4 classes. At level 20 these two guidelines should land you a minimum 24 to hit, and if you are facing off against a CR 18 creature you should have 60%+ chance against most EAC.

Again, just my opinion, but i think the funamental flaw in a lot of the discussions I see is that equal CR equivalent comparisons are the only ones worth looking at. Using AP7 one of the first combats encountered at level 1 is against 3 CR 1/2 cadets. Your operative with 16 dex would be hitting their EAC of 11 about 60% of the time. The next encounter is 3 CR 1/3 creatures, easily hitable. I think CR equivalent fights or harder really are boss/mini-boss fights and should not be the standard for an average fight.

Denara Taladas wrote:

I tried preordering the Starfinder core rulebook, GM screen, and first adventure path, but the store software shows me as getting billed separate shipping for each item. Will I be billed separate shipping for each item? Or is there a way to combine shipments?

Looks like this is a coding/product set up issue which we are investigating.

I just pre ordered several items and am having the same issue. do you have an update, as I'd rather not have 7 packages for 7 items.

So I was inspired by Exalted and the White Haired Witch template/archtype and have been brewing this over the last two days. It's rough, but I'm looking for specific commentary.

For this divine trait, the "primary stat" is chosen at the time of purchase

Supernal Kinetics (Su)

I: The godling gains a limitted form of telekinesis powered by his outsider heritage. Utilizing this telekinesis requires a swift action to activate, and it remains activated until the end of the godling's next turn. During this time the godling glows faintly with alien light, and any use of the ability is obvious to on-lookers. This unearthly light reduces any concealment the godling benefits from by one step, regardless of the concealment's source.

Using the telekinesis requires the use of a hand, and it has a range of 10ft. The godling's effective strength for lifting objects is equal to a strength score equivalent to half the godling's primary stat. Any weight lifted counts against the godling's encumbrance and can swiftly reduce a godling to immobile. While levitated, the godling can move an object anywhere within range as a standard action. The godling can wield a weapon within range and doing so uses the godling's primary stat for to-hit and damage, but any attacks with it are made at a -4 penalty.

The telekineses can be used offensively as a primary natural attack, with a melee reach of 10 ft and deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage. The attack is modified by the primary stat modifier for to-hit and damage. The telekinesis can also be used to initiate combat manuevers. Combat Manuevers initated this way never provoke Attacks of Opportunity, modifies the CMB check with the godling's primary stat modifier, and the godling does not suffer size penalties to his CMB. If the godling grapples an enemy with his telekinesis, the godling does not gain the grappled condition. The grapple ends if the target is outside the range of the telekinesis.

II: The telekinesis improves in the following ways:
-The effective strength score of the telekinesis improves to 3/4 the primary stat.
-The damage of the telekinetic attack increases to 1d6, and can now deal bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage at the godling's option. The damage type should be declared before the attack is resolved.
-the telekinesis gains the constrict extraordinary ability. If a grapple check with telekinesis is successful the target immediately takes damage as if successfuly struck with the telekinesis melee attack.
-The godling now takes only a -2 penalty when weilding weapons with the telekinesis ability.
-The godling has started to learn how to shape raw matter with this supernal kinetic. The godling is considered to always have tools for all craft skills, diable device, and any applicable proffession and performance skills. This can be the godling forging raw ore into smelted metals, form the smelted metal into a blade, and tempered into qulaity arms. The need for raw materials remains, and crafting still takes the same amount of time.

III: The telekinesis ability improves in the following ways:
-The godling no longer radiates light and the effect is no longer obvious with a succesful bluff check (opposed by sense motive of observers). When active, the godling's concealment is no longer affected. If used in combat, the effect is still obvious.
-The range of the telekinesis and the reach of the Telkinesis Primary natural attack increase by 5 feet.
-Once per round the Godling may make a bluff check as a free action opposed by a target's sense motive. If succesful, the target is considered flat-footed by the next telekinetic attack or Combat manuever. Once attempted against a target, that target can not be affected by this ability for the rest of the day.
-The godling uses the full primary stat as the equivalent strength score to lift objects with the telekinesis.
-The telekinesis is now considered always active, no longer requiring a swift action to activate.

IV: The telekinesis ability iproves in the following ways:
-When used in place of normal tools, the godling gains a +2 bonus to the applicable skill checks. In addition, the affected skills now take half the time to complete.
-The Telekinesis attack deals both force damage and either budgeoning, slashing or piercing.
-The range of the ability and natural attack increases by 5ft.
-When the godling initiates a Combat manuever with telekinesis the target loses any size bonuses to it's CMD against that combat manuever.

Whew. Anyone still reading after all that?

TwoWolves wrote:

I have yet to see a Borders, Barnes & Noble or a Books-a-Million carry only D&D and no Pathfinder products. Claiming that somehow excluding these retailers from the equation unfairly helps Paizo's numbers is a non-starter in my book.

Yeah, claiming that would be silly.

What I would say is that these "polls" that ICV runs are very dubious. For a lot of reasons.

Certainly good job PF, the line is working very well, and I am very impressed with the quality of product that comes out.

But we as an audience do not know how accurate these polls are at all.

First off, few companies, especially big comanies, ever release sales information this specific. So borders (RIP) and B&N, and othe rlarge sellers are probably excluded. Same with Amazon (though at least they have some indicators on individual page).

And from one smaller FLGS to another, opinions can vary. A lot. Up until the most recent product, My FLGS that I sometimes work for couldn't keep new 4e products on the shelves. And they had sold through most all of teh PF supplies, so they weren't really selling any PF because of poor ordering. So our sales aren't really representative of any accurate demand.

Again, I like PF work and dig the quality, and I agree that it probably is #1 right now (whoo) but I wouldn't put too much stock into these quarterly reports. I'd pay attention to the enies, the origins, etc. that's a populartity contest too, but one with a much broader base.

*Two copper left on table*

Edit: Oh! There is no indicator at all of the international sales for any of this. So...yeah. Very dubious of these "guess who's number 1 today..."

This archtype looks like someone watched The Forbidden Kingdom one afternoon and decided that Li Bing Bing was called a witch, had white hair, and could grapple and trip people with her hair, and decided this would make an awesome...

You know...

The white haired witch is a common trope in chinese and Mainland northern and eastern mythology and legend. That it ended up the forbidden kingdom...

By cultural comparison, your statement applied to a western counterpart is, "it's like they saw dragonheart, and thought this 'dragon' thing would be cool in a table top RPG..."

Hate the archtype. Don't hate the cultural inspiration. :)

Has anyone played Guilty Gear X? I saw this archtype and thoguht about trying to use it to make that russian girl who fought with her hair.

What if in a PF official Psionics, part of the mystique/advantage was that the psionic powers were not 100% transparent?

Now I realize this sounds BAD at first, but stay with me.

IF a Psi book (official one) comes out, it won't have much in the way of supplemental materials. The total official pathfinder Psi writings would likely be limitted to:

-Psi options book
-Companion piece for the region I can't rememebr the name
-Regional Primer

Because of this, Psionics will likely have some of the smallest possibility for rules hacks. If 90%of arcane casting feats can't be combined, the spell/power lists are restricted so that all the option combinations are reasonably predictable then unique advantages of psionics can be granted.

Advantages like ignoring some spell resistance. this could be something like treat all spell resistance as 5,10, X points lower when rolling you caster level check for spells.

An advantage could be not being affected by a globe of invulnerability or similar style spell.

Potentially even avoiding dispell and anti-magic fields.

Now this could all be balanced against lower effect levels. Blast damage reduced, durations reduced. Increased spell levels for mass buffs.

What I see is a magic type that is specifically immune /resistant to regular magic, but is also simply less effective in a normal circumstance.

It's a thought... Probably wouldn't work though.

@Majesticmoose

You didn't read up high enough in the description. It is at the end of that top chunk of writing,

eeps. YOu're corect. My apologies.

Wow, that is not really nearly as explicit as it should be. that should be it's own paragraph IMO. Oh well. Sufficiently chastized. :)

Hmm. Well, there goes my plan for a quick-draw zweihander attack. Dang it all.

Why is that?

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Nothing about not being able to draw two-handed weapons with your free action on a move.

Quick Draw (Combat)

You can draw weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Nothing here preventing you from drawing a two handed weapon.

Weapon Expertise (Ex): At 3rd level, a samurai gains an unparalleled expertise with his chosen weapons. At 3rd level, the samurai selects either the katana, longbow, naginata, or wakizashi. The samurai can draw the selected weapon as a free action as if he had the Quick Draw feat. In addition, whenever he threatens a critical hit with the selected weapon, he gains a +2 bonus on the confirmation roll. Finally, his samurai levels stack with any fighter levels he possesses for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites for feats that specifically select his chosen weapon, such as Weapon Specialization.

Other than the Zwei-hander not being on the available list of weapons, nothing here prevents the drawn/quickdrawn weapon from being weilded two-handed.

A sword saint can perform a lightning quick iaijutsu strike against the target of his challenge to inflict devastating wounds while drawing his sword. After the sword saint has challenged a foe but before he has attacked the target of his challenge, he may choose to use his iaijutsu strike as a full-round action, making an attack roll with his weapon as normal. In order to use this ability, the sword saint’s weapon must be sheathed at the start of his turn. If he successfully hits his opponent with an iaijutsu strike, his attack deals an additional +1d6 points of damage. This bonus damage increases by an additional +1d6 at 3rd level and every two levels thereafter to a maximum of +10d6 damage at 19th level. Any extra damage as a result of a successful iaijutsu strike is not multiplied by a critical hit.

After making an iaijutsu strike, a sword saint takes a –4 penalty to his AC until his next turn, but his weapon is now drawn and he may continually to fight normally. Regardless of whether he hits his opponent with the iaijutsu strike, a sword saint cannot use this ability on the same foe more than once per day.

Nothing in this prevents you from using iaijutsu strike with two handed katanas, or swords of anykind.

So I see no reason why you could not Iaijutsu strike with a zwei-hander RAW. Certainly in historical context it would be odd, but hey, Galorian ain't really a historical world in'n'it?

You'd have to have Quick Draw, because it takes a move action to free your weapon.

If you're using a full-round action, you can't draw the sword...no move action available!

i.e., no Quick Draw, no iajitsu.

==Aelryinth

Just because this shouldn't need to be pointed out but apparently needs to be pointed out...sigh

A sword saint can perform a lightning quick iaijutsu strike against the target of his challenge to inflict devastating wounds while drawing his sword. After the sword saint has challenged a foe but before he has attacked the target of his challenge, he may choose to use his iaijutsu strike as a full-round action, making an attack roll with his weapon as normal. In order to use this ability, the sword saint’s weapon must be sheathed at the start of his turn. If he successfully hits his opponent with an iaijutsu strike, his attack deals an additional +1d6 points of damage. This bonus damage increases by an additional +1d6 at 3rd level and every two levels thereafter to a maximum of +10d6 damage at 19th level. Any extra damage as a result of a successful iaijutsu strike is not multiplied by a critical hit.

After making an iaijutsu strike, a sword saint takes a –4 penalty to his AC until his next turn, but his weapon is now drawn and he may continually to fight normally. Regardless of whether he hits his opponent with the iaijutsu strike, a sword saint cannot use this ability on the same foe more than once per day.

Now... please look at the bolded parts, then look here, as I have slightly rearranged the order of this ability, hopefully increasing clarity.

In order to use this ability, the sword saint’s weapon must be sheathed at the start of his turn....he may choose to use his iaijutsu strike as a full-round action, making an attack roll with his weapon as normal... After making an iaijutsu strike...his weapon is now drawn and he may continually to fight normally.

So the rules for the weapon are it must be sheathed, then as a full round you may make an attack as normal and after the attack your weapon is unsheathed and in hand ["drawn"]. Hence, to go from sheathed, mak an attack, and end in the drawn staatus, the weapon must be drawn as part of the strike.

if that's still not clear, RAW, let me know.

That is one of the reasons why I feel that though rogue feels like a natural base class to get into shadow dancer, the lack of sneak attack progression more kind of supports other classes like the simple fighter - which I took here - better.

Agreed. Fighter and cavalier and ranger seem like nice fits for the class, even though they relly on heavier armor. Their BAB gain before jumping into SD is a boon to the effectiveness of the class, they gain a lot of battlefield superiority out of being able to teleport via shadow step. With mithral breastplate they can make use of evasion...

Not that it's perfect. Ranger probably would be better, but hey. Not every character needs to be optomized eh?

I am not upset. I was just not going to debate hyperbole.

Could you explain how the above post applied to anything I said?

It's not hyperbole. It's the difference between difference and differance.

Read Jacques Derrida's Work on deconstructionist linguistic theory (or refresh yourself if you already have). It's not hyperbole to assume that truck=SUV to some people since the symbol and the object are not objectively linked, but subjective to the value system of the person makign the linkage in their head, not the person providing the symbol.

ergo, Showing the basic deconstructionist dilemma between SUV/Truck and Cast/utilize is not hyperbole or obtuseness or any other derogotive designator that can be applied, it is a fundamental difference [or is it differance ? ;)] in teh nature of communication.

Your application of the RAW and RAI are confirmed via the original dev's comments, so rest assured no one is arguing your interpretation as being "right."

OTOH, the disenter's interpretations are valid w/o the context of the dev's comments vis a vis their frame of reference is not distinguishing, and so it is the responsibility of the communicator (the person providing the answer) to educate their frame of reference (preferably with dev comments specific to the example as above) so that communication, true communication, occurs.

:)

about mindthrust:
Keep in mind the original (XPH) mindthrust was save for NO damage.

That combined with the mind-affecting meant that there was a possible chance that your action would simply be for naught.

Adding that back in and keeping the damage on the higher side will help seperate this spell from others and will prevent it from being over powering.

Read the Devs blog (but not all the posts, just the designers Blog) and they admit that they have proposed these new rules on stealth etc to allow Stealth getting SA.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/september/v5748dyo5lcml?Stealth-Playtest-R ound-TwoUniversal-Monster

I am going to cut & paste a few sections:
"Speaking of hidden, while we have kept the invisible condition, and have even strengthened the wording on that condition a bit, we have also created a lesser, connected condition called hidden. You gain the hidden condition when you benefit from Stealth..." "Conditions
Hidden: You are difficult to detect but you not invisible. A hidden creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)....."
Indeed you are right but even in 3.5= "The rules don’t come right out and say this," but they FAQed it there. In PF Stealth and Perception are different skills. You can houserule it if you like, but the designers have made it very clear it is not RAW currently.
There's no condition currently called Hidden and under current PF RAW only Invisible make foes lose their DEX.

The dev’s blog is very clear. They are *proposing* to ADD “hidden” as a condition that makes foes lose their DEX. Which means that it currently does NOT do so. If it did do so, there’d be no need for the rules change.

This is a personal interpretation, but one that I think is important.

Unaware is just that, completely, totally, and blissfully unaware. If you get attacked from an ambush at red lobster, then that makes you flat-footed/denied dex. You simply were not cognisent that an attack was possible.

However, after the first round, you are aware that attacks may be coming. You may not be able to see the attacker, so any ability that requires LOS is negated. You may be flanked, etc. but you are aware that attacks are coming. It's a bit like trying to find hidden creatures. your perception check may not tell you where they are, but you will know once combat begins that they are there.

The rules need to be very clear on this, and sadly PF hasn't stepped up. Most D20 games are very muddy on this water, but especially in games where SA and equivalent abilities come to play, it can be critical to character effectiveness.

FWIW, I have long house ruled that if you beat a perception check by a large enough margin you effectively count the target as unaware, since they are simply looking in the wrong place for you. This way there are varying shades of success not an all or nothing.

But from what I understand of SA classes I say let them have their SA. I really don't think it's so imbalancing that suddenly other classes aren't fun. YMMV

Metamorphosis: I probably wouldn't have even tried this route, except for James Jacobs statements in previous threads. Personally, I like the power point system, but I do see how it can be abused. And it certainly fits Pathfinder to try and use the same mechanics (if a different name) and a different theme. Keep on trucking, I know I won't show up at house and confiscate your 3.5 and Dreamscarred Psionics stuff. lol

Kelsey: I seriously doubt that Paizo will change their basic mechanism for spells to power points. Plus, as 3.5's Unearthed Arcana showed (with their experiment in spell points), it is hard to do a prepared caster like a cleric, druid, or wizard with spell points.

Master Arminas

One thin about your mindmage write up that tweaks me is that there are still some words that could be reflavored for a more psionic feel with out rewriting mechanics.

changing mentalist spells to psionic spells.
Even referencing arcane spell failure in the aromor prof section.

When doing a write up such as this, for flavor reasons, give the spells and class features unique names that mimic or include spell effects.

For instance, it's not greater mage hand but minor telekinesis.

That's not to say we need XYZ spell, PSionic (as that did always irritate me in the 3.5 days).charm person, psionic is a sort of filelr that we can avoid with this method of psionic class design.

I feel like you class is a bit too narrow for a base class archtype but it's headed in the right direction.

There's two cents for you. :)

Sure, he could fudge the module so we could head to the beach, but he's playing the modules straight.

Plus, that's how most fantasy literature is written too. Long strings of combat with very little break until some major plot point is achieved, then perhaps a significant break in the action.

And playing as if the characters are actual sentient humanoids, the party has made powerful enemies and those enemies won't take the day off either.

Staves seem to me to be useful for a very specific style of play. Take a long break on the beach, charge everything up in comfort, then go off on a four or five day "adventure" and take another two week break.

If anything belies verisimilitude, it's that type of play.

First: are they multiple modules run back to back? Because most modules I know definitely allow for breaks. It just seems odd that the modules would not let a character rest for 3 full levels. No judgement passed, honest.

Second: As far as most fantasy Lit goes... Lord of the Rings, the most stuff-walking-est, Beach-resting-est, Time-goes-a-flying-est book series ever, and that basically defines fantasy lit.

Tertiary (or primary, depending on your POV): Staves are priced highly because they are rechargable. Say there was a staff of cure light wounds. Only ten charges, but it's rechargable. While that may be expensive at low levels, over the course of a career that savings would add up.

Or the staff-o-fire balls. Sure, you probably don't need 5 fireballs, but now you never need to memorize fireball again until you run out of charges in the staff.

Plus, sorcerors, if they can use staves (IDK if that's possible) would get a huge kick out of them. Versatility for the win, bankable spell slots, all for the low cost of something sorcerors trade in, excess slots.

But I agree, it's be nice if staves had a more direct contribution to spell casting and a less "fill in the gaps" aspect.

Not that it matters, since it appears that I am a minority of one on this issue in Paizo's boards, but I thought Jar Jar Binks was quite possibly the worst character in an otherwise good movie I've ever seen. And, I hate the archetype of the utterly idiotic clutz who somehow always manages to be effective, in spite of their total stupidity and carelessness (and maybe senility as well). Now, the person who pretends to be careless and incompetent, but actually does know what he/she is doing and is a good at pulling off the act-- more palatable to me; but I refuse to buy into the "oxygen thief becomes a hero in spite of himself" myth.

Well, I was exagerating a bit, and I'm not a huge fan of Jar Jar (the clone wars cartoons make him a touch funnier) but my point is that what it takes to RP a character is a modest and almost IMO irelevant amount of character investment to give you the mechanical expressions of your role playing.

Take the person who wants to be sexy (guy, girl, pot bellied pig... doesn't matter). They can either:
--think that they are sexy. whether they are or not makes little difference to me as a GM, and I may or may not take it into account during a game.
--Put ranks in diplomacy/bluff/intimidation/ etc. What they don't put ranks in informs you of what kind of attractive they are. If they don't place ranks in diplomacy, then they are the kind of sexy that puts people off. Many "she" wears skirts that offend the Priest, or "he" tries to give the damsel the smoulder (points if you get the reference).

If they don't put ranks in bluff they could a sort un attractive that they are not able to manipulate. Could be a girl who is inately sexy until she tries, or a guy who is pretty but always looks away when he lies.

IF they put ranks in all three skills (plus what ever else) they could be like the elf queen that escapes my memory. Terrifying to look upon, simply an "Angelina Jolie" (if you dig girls like her, meh to me) who is apparently one of those people who is just pretty. In person. She simply radiates.

Feats and things that enhance this part of the character are not necisarily cheap power grabs but ways to ehance the players desire to play the character they want.

Wow. this went long. sorry. I guess I don't blame the feats and options for bad player imagination. they are players, and even the best players are still far more casual than a GM, so they will often default to what's written rather than reflavour and invent. that's not bad, it just is what it is.

Points to you if you're still reading. :)

This reminds me of the clone wars episode where Jar Jar actually single handedly rescues senator Padme from the clutches of some bad guys with what amounted to a lot of dumb luck, some clumsily executed (yet bravely heroic) actions, accidentally being mistaken as a Jedi and then rolling with it, and then sicking a giant monster on the badguys, somewhat on accident.

That gnome alchemist with point blank shot, dual wielding alchemist fires at 1d6+5 damage, and chucking them left and right? Could easily be a half-senile gnome, who is thematically rummaging threw his bags and throwing stuff. "Now where is that vial!?" *tosses random junk and goblins explode* "I know I left my cooking list in here somewhere!?" *orcs burn to cinders* "How ever will I remember to pick up my...oh, my word...I...I found it!" *pulls out a bomb wrapped in a shopping list*...

Plus, and I can't overstress this enough... EPIC BASKET WEAVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Finn K

I guess I have trouble with the point of view that feats need to have story and character themes behind them to be "valid" choices.

For instance, If my character is a clumsy Gnomish Basket Weaver I can create my character as a rogue. I would of course take craft baskets to make this complete (and I doubt I'd put more than a point or two, as few campaigns need epic basket weaving).

The sneak attack is entirely accidental, my stealth is happenstance, and everything about my character could be very JAR JAR Binks. But I would take feats that provide a mechanical benefit because I want my terribly unheroic character to be epic and effective.

Literature is full of characters of this nature, and the feats on the page only tell you what the character can do, not how they do it.

Certainyl many players have a powergaming, munchkinizing streak to them, but realistically, whether they are combat feats or skill feats or any kind of feat, feats and character options don't tell a person how their character is played. It's just that some people try to gain unfair advantage. It has very little to do with "roleplaying" IMO.

Has anyone every tried a life-based (hp, CON, etc) spell casting system, like in the Inheritance series? I kind of like the idea that casters must provide the energy for the spell by sapping energy from their own body or from some other source of energy. I could see how it would work better as a literary element than a game mechanic, but has anyone ever tried it? How did it go?

I played a lot of STar Wars RPG (OCR/RCR) and they used hp(VP really but eh) to "cast" force skills and powers.

Problem here is you get some really unintuitive character builds.

For instance, since casters use HP to power spells, and they have the lowest HP of classes you either have to:
bump HP of caster
OR
Make spells cost very little HP

Also Healing Magic has to be reworked, because otherwise you gain infinite healing loops and resource management goes *poof*

Problem with bumping up caster HP is that suddenly classes like Magus, inquisitor, etc begin getting WAY WAY WAY too many HP compared to the tanker classes like fighter. Infact, Paladins and clerics become rediculous HP sacks.

Problem with making Spells cost very little HP is that taking levels in high HP classes gives you a huge boost to casting power, aswell as making casters even more fragile than normal, really lessening the power of classes like ranger and inquisitor and druid.

IME IF (big if) you want to use "health" based casting, use a seperate subdual damage, similar to the 3e subdual. This way as spells are cast, they deal a sort of virtual damage, and truly powerful spells can deal damage direct to HP, but it lessens that impacts. However healing magic still needs a good once over (often casting damage can not be healed with magic, and most all healing spells deal direct damage).

IMO it requires so much work that it really is no good. YMMV.

Maybe the best way to say this is that the Paizo Products, specifically the core, APG UC/UM and (likely) Species book are all default.

W/o Play experience I'm strongly, strongly leaning to Supergenius Games as being default as well. Maybe not the base classes so much, but the godling material is really good (which, yeah, are base classes, but so awesome) and the books like bonus magus arcana and the extra grit mechanics are really awesome.

I actually really love the "asian" themed material, as I find the classes to have special places. I just see them more wholisitcally, and do not require them to be "asian."

However, I had really bad 3pp experiences at the dawn of 3e, and that's a hrad bias to get over.

So on the list of ways to build:

Crane wing stance
Duelist
Cast spells
One handed Archtype (APG?)

Those are mix an matchable to an extent as well.

Any other options that shine to give a one handed/no shield style a boost, ot feat combinations that make this shine over other styles?

The campaign I've been running for the last couple of years is very human-centric. Even elves get raised eyebrows and "Oh I've never met an elf before" in some places.

However, I do allow any core race, which is why the party is over 1/2 composed of elves right now. :P

I just can't get into the kind of campaign where every trip to the tavern looks like an explosion in Jim Henson's creature shop. I've never been able to build a world that makes narrative sense with a bajillion sentient races all rubbing elbows relatively peacefully.

Yeah, the fraggle rock effect is a bit troublesome. Most of my campaigns are human centric, with a couple holdout cultures.

However, I will absolutely let a player play a race not in the core. I personally am very fond of Aasimar/tieflings, and the genasi equivalents in PF. But they are very much uncommon, and often the characters birth and origin will have some of my input for the character to fit into the world.

Different races are fine, but I don't want every town to be the cantina in mos eisley unless I'm playign star wars, and even then...

AC is going to rise through enchanting his main armor, picking up items that grant shield bonii, and buffs, mostly.

Ok, so there is no special feat or character options to boost that AC. I can see dodge being useful, but not any more so for this kind of build.

hmm...

Wield the one handed weapon with two hands.

Your killing me smalls. :)

@weables
So, help me with the AC. short of magic items, how do you see your AC best rising with this character?

Besides being defensive, what can you accomplish with this style that is harder for the other styles to replicate (THW is mostly straight damage, TWF gives some damage, crit seeking and some crowd control with lunge, sword and board often is defense and positioning).

And yeah, thank you for reminding me of that fighter archtype jiggy. but does finesse/dervish help with combat manuevers? otherwise I would think TWF would be better for the high dex characters.

I was noticing magus, and how that class seems built for this.

What about for non-casters though?

What can be done with this fighting style.

I dislike sword and board, and often TWF is too much hassle.

Are there any advantages to this style, feats that can increase the effectiveness?

I'm sure Combat manuevers factor in here well, but is that the only major advantage?

Wiggz wrote:

WhipShire wrote:

Well I love my 3.5 classes...

Barbarian - 4 / Fist of the Forest - 3 / War Hulk - 10 / Hulking hurler - 3

Nothing like it in the world... a true pain in the *rse for a DM though.

Well, if we're going 3.5. then my all-time favorite character (for RP and all-around @ss;kicking) has got to be my 1/2 Orc Barbarian 1 (whirling Frenzy option)/Warshaper 4/Druid 5+ (Shapeshifter option). Far and away the toughest melee combatant I've ever run AND the ability to cast Summon Nature's Ally, self-buffs and heals and various other spells almost at will. I used to solo adventures with him all the time since the shapeshifting abilities and spellcasting ability gave him non-combat versatility that made a party cumbersome.

Awe Warshaper... now that 5 levels of Goodness in one nice little package!

One of the worst exploits in 3.5 was the fact that changelings were shapechanger subtype. So they automatically qualified as warshapers with almost no effort.

One of the most fearsome characters I ever made was a changeling swashbuckler/warshaper/some prestigeclass that made you a full doppleganger/prc from complete warrior that made your cha another attack/defense stat.

It was amazing, not just for the out of combat skills and utility of being a freakin doppleganger, but it had crazy attack damage because it had multiple stats that added to damage, and defense, so an item that added to all those stats was doubly effective.

Fun too, but a touch irritating to the DM.

I have a rogue player in my old group. And of course he fought like a fighter, but was a rogue. every... time... sigh...

I'm sure I have my own UGH worthy characters though. I think I have a bit too much star wars on the brain. Not because I need lightsabers or the "force" but because I really like sword weilding melee style characters that have a smattering of arcane/magic/supernatural power. This gets me into trouble because I tend to muddy the waters of my characters a bit, multi-classing to fit the role I want to be, even if it's a touch impracticle.

Example: for one game I played a warlock (thank god for that class) and it was roughly based on an anime character named Vaan that was an accomplished sword fighter and had some minor magical powers (maybe major, depending on your view of the character). So I took the warlock option that let me use my eldritch blast with melee attacks and I could fire them off and the DM and I made up some custome invocations to make the character like what I envisioned.

But other times I'd be playign a fighter, then slide into PSion, or wilder, or sorcerer. I'd probably end up playing a magus quite a bit if I liked the fluff more.

But I've been trying to branch out and expand lately. Time will tell.

and lord knows many of my characters have a sort of dispassionate chaotic view of the world around them, making the reactions of many of my characters seem the same, even if they are different. that and my intense personal need to make marginally funny jokes.

I would be in the Pro-Psionics camp, but i tire of power points as well.

WhatI would like to see is either a version of psionics that resembled the eldritch and adept godlings from Supergenius games OR the Warlocks from 3.5

Still keep the various themes that make psionics different, which to me are augmentation, the focus, and the more mental aspects of them. But take a cue from the eldritch godling where casting the "spells" is so inate that it doesn't provoke AoO or doesn't require somatics ever. There is an ascendency that lets you trade in a spell slot to deal direct damage/build a wall/heal/mentally control/etc... Giving psionics a sort of versatility.

Alternatively, the warlock, with it's innate blasting power and various abilities usable at will could give Psionics a very different flavor. BAB, scaling, and number of abilities could be used to build different classes, along with different kinds of "tatlents" or class abilities, similar to sorceror bloodlines. Hell, if there was a sorceror variant that could be transitioned from vancian to at-will in a balanced manner with the same themes of what makes Psionics great I would consider that a win.

I would just say that if Psionics are to be done, do them right. I like what dreamscarred did, but it still feels like it's clinging to the 3e mentality and not pushing far enough into makign the classes more unique. But that could just be me.

A gnome with clouded eyes, Short Round the Oracle of Bone is an impetuous thing. He is an odd little fellow. Perfectly silver tongued he was once tasked to bring a certain girl back to a lord. She had run off and when teh group encountered her he approached her as only a knee high being can. The girl had agreed to come with the group, until another party member belived that if she could reach for her freedom she should, stupidly convincing the girl that she needed to strike out on her own.

One quick punch with a spiked guantlet later the girl was unconscious and loaded up on a wagon, boudn for her father with quite the argument with his traveling companion.

Short Round's temperment is contagious as well, calling down murderous comands in his enemies and disrupting enemy formations. His cross bow is reasonably accurate within his field of vision, and his touch of death (done as Bart Simpsons whiney pinky touch of death a la 1990) errupts copious bleeding wounds from his mysteries linked to the Path of Bone. Lately Short Round has been donning tri corner hats and taking aliking to leather over coats, but who knows what the future holds.

What would be the downside of allowing 2 weapon attacks on a standard action with an additional penalty?

Is it something that at high levels would be disasterous since static bonuses climb, or would that be an acceptable option as well?

There is little point in having an easy non-plot encounter. that's just time lost at a game table IMO.

I'm personally of the camp that all encounters need a purpose in the larger plot, even if not fully apparent at the time they occur.

Though, I would say that if you do use a non-plot enocunter as an obstacle (perfectly reasonable if not my cup-o-tea) make sure it is challanging enought to be an obstacle and not just a time sink. Place it in the story so that it can actually be meaningful on player resources as the Plot progresses. Even if it's not related to the plot, make it meaningful to the story.

My best example of what is wrong with non-plot encounters is a scene from Star Wars episode II where Obi-wan is on Geonosis and as he is heading... somewhere... plot related he's ATTACK BY A GIANT LIZARD!!!111!111!!

And he kills it with 1... or 2...strokes and the story moves forward. This was in the novel, and was a deleted scene from the film IIRC, and as I read this in the book i had a very WTF?!?! moment.

and I see giant lizard encounters often in adventures that are not wel thought out.

Take that as you will.

And a power that's haste like is a good example of what I'm asking about. At a cetain level in the game haste is just a factor of combat. So would unlimited uses of it break the game anymore than 5+ uses?

An example of an invocation I always thought was really powerful was a lesser invo that allowed at-will dimension dooring AND left a mirror image behind where you jumped away. That seemed very powerful in it's own way, especially because a wizard/sorc would only have dimension door at that level.

I personally think telekinesis is a great spell, but not so good that as an invocation it needs to be dark. but besides it's raw utility is there some aspect of spamming that power tha makes it "broken" or problematic?

So I asked a while back, but can't find my own thread, and I phrased it poorly, so I'll try again.

When designing things like invocations and infinite/at-will spell uses (whether supernatural, spell like, etc.) what are some of the pitfalls to look out for when ranking them?

I'll offer up my prime example: if you were to offer telekinesis as an invocation, what level of invocation would it be, and why?

for those that don't know about invocations, they are basically at-will spell like abilities. the least ones are spell levels 1 and 2, and often combine aspects of multiple spells into a single one.
Least are levels 3 and 4.
greater are levels 5 and 6.
Dark are typically odd, as they range anywhere from level 5-9, but are often unique abilities that do not replicate a spell.

I know that as magic items go, 5uses per day is the same in price as at-will, but there is also some "common sense" applications to this, haste being one of the most obvious.

I welcome ideas, especially about telekinesis, but any feed back is appreciated. Thanks all.

This is not as ridiculous a question as it sounds.

This is not a power gaming question, or an attempt to bypass rules. I am not a player in anyone's game.

According to the item creation rules, IIRC, an item with a magic ability usable 5 times per day is equivalent to an item that has unlimited used per day. So as written, a fire ball "gun" that has infinite use per day is the same as 5 uses per day.

Having said that, clearly there are exploitations. Mage armor built into a wondrous item could be made for infinite uses per day for only 2000 gp IIRC (sorry AFB ATM), maybe only 1000, but bracers of armor cost considerably more.

So as the "average spell" goes (meaning nominally useful spell, not the actual average spell, create water and 'scribble message' don't count), what is the value of an infinite use of any given spell for a character?

By value, I don't mean strictly gp. I also mean in terms of character resources. I'm being somewhat vague because I would like people to respond with their opinions and not be constrained too much, but please feel free to define you values and definitions as need be for your points.

I should say I'm mostly concerned with sorc/wiz spells, but all spells are up for discussion here.

One example: in the 3.0 days the savage species book had the ghaele's as a class-style progression. around level 8 the gheale characters could cast cure light wounds at-will. This always seemed terribly unbalanced to me, but the ghaele did have some serious disadvantages. This is a similar kind of situation that I am contemplating.

Thanks for your time folks.

Owen, long time fan of your d20 work. Nice to see that you're still at it. Product looks good too, though I'll be honest I don't really play summoners, so I may not appreciate some of the minutia.

Good job. :)