Max Money's page

I understand that not every ability can or should be replicated thru feats hence the creation of base and prestige classes. But to say every archer based idea is best represented by feats rather than a class is nonsense. Granting something like precision damage, or as a full round action resolving a single ranged attack as a ranged touch attack, or whatever, shouldn't always come down to new feat creation.

Anyway, I see that this is going nowhere. I'll concede to disagree at this point (I hate that saying).

• What would it have for a primary ability score?
• Base attack and hit die?
• Saving throws?
• Skills and skill points per level?
• Armor and weapon proficiencies?
• Should it get bonus feats? If so, how many and how often?
• What kind of game mechanics would you give its new class abilities? How would you make them to keep folks from saying, "Well why didn't they just make this a feat (chain)?"

All the new classes they have proposed for the APG have their own unique game mechanics. They also have a distinct set of skills and saving throws that set them apart from being "just another...." The other part I think a lot of people miss is that Pathfinder was built to be compatible (with a bit of tweaking) with any and all 3.X material. Someone wants to play an archer class, how about fixing up the scout, with its skirmish class ability, with the ranged feats from "Complete Adventurer"?

Personally, it seems to me that you are trying to re-invent the wheel. However, I agree that we can respectfully disagree.

There could be 100+ ideas that would lend themselves for good non-spellcasters… Especially if stick to the concept that new classes are variations of the primary 4.

• Gladiator - A fighter for sure, possibly barbarian, ranger or even rogue. Look at Conan, Maximus and Caramon; all gladiators from different backgrounds.
• Sailor/mariner - A rogue, possibly ranger or fighter. Could be lumped in with swashbuckler depending on how it's played or the background involved.
• Assassin - Definitely a rogue with a concentration in poisons. Though it could be any class (caster or not) as an assassin is a hired killer.
• Marksman - A ranger is the closest, though could go fighter with feats focused in range combat. And with ray and range touch spells, it could be a caster as well.

It’s also silly when you think that 80% to 90% of the core fantasy worlds should be non spellcasters, but 80% to 90% of the class concepts are all spellcasters.

Actually for Pathfinder, it is more along the lines of 60% to 65% of the class concepts being spellcasters, as was pointed out earlier:

If you create a third category...

Full Caster: Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.

Secondary Casters: Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Summoner.

Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.

Personally, the hard part is to come up with a game mechanic idea that is still flexible enough to allow several different play styles or character concepts.

As the forum grognard, I'd like to point out that all (yes people, I did just say all) classes stem from the base four--cleric, fighter, rogue (originally thief) and wizard (originally magic-user). So when you look at the base four, half cast and half don't. All the other classes are variants or combinations of the four. Paladin is a fighter with some cleric thrown in, ranger was originally a nature-based fighter that could eventually cast cleric and magic-user spells, druid was a cleric that worshiped nature in place of a deity, etc.

So I have a question; what do you want a new non-caster to be able to do? There are only so many ways to kill a critter without spells really.

I think the swashbuckler idea is a style of play perfect for the Pathfinder rogue, especially in light of the increase in HD and the addition of rogue talents. As several have already pointed out, certain archetypes can be better done by using the classes already available (see ninja and samurai arguments above).

Finally, I applaud the folks at Pathfinder for coming up with different ideas for new classes. It would be like trying to re-invent the wheel for me, but they have come up with some very cool ideas. They are well-balanced with the original classes, not over-powering them or over-shadowing them in any way (at least as far as I can see so far). Thanks a ton.

The multicassing rules 3.0/3.5 are not good.They must change!

In AD&D1st &2nd,I played with tri-class FIGHTER/WIZARD/THIEF(6/6/7) and i stopped to play with because in 3/3.5 it's a 19th level!!!!
The monster above 15th lvl are immunize to fireball of 6d6 damage,my better save DC of my spells is 15.My thief 's features are useless.

It's like i played with 3PC of 6th level in a 19th party!

This is the biggest problem with 3.X multi-classing. The multi-class PC has hit points and saves comparable to a single-class PC, but the abilities are nearly useless by comparison.

The biggest gap is when you compare a fighter 20, fighter 10/ wizard 10 and wizard 20. For hit points, BAB and saves; the F 10/W 10 is between the single-class examples, but they get half the feats (which power a fighter) and half the spells at half the level. Even if the multi-class PC specializes in one school, they are still only half the caster of the single-class PC.

So my main issue is that multi-classing rules in 3.X severely penalize the PC who multi-classes no matter how you do it. In older editions, multi-classing put the PC a step behind single-class PC's, but 3.X hamstrings multi-classed PC's.

My suggestion would be this:

• Average the HD, BAB, and saving throws (rounding all fractions down).
• Dock XP -20% for multi-classing for two class combinations and -40% for 3 class combinations.
• Allow class features from all classes at every level.

I'm in total agreement with you here. However, that is easy to do for an experienced DM like you, me and most people from around here. But a novice DM lacks this sort of judgment, not by lack of common sense or lack of maturity (although it is sometimes the case) but by lack of experience and first-hand knowledge of the available items. If the RPG market is developing (which I think it is), then more novice DMs will try on the game. Guidelines from those who have more experience (aka the designers) can only be helpful.

It is my personal opinion that this kind of thing has its place in the Core Book(s).

'findel

Guidelines are a great thing to have, especially for this sort of situation. A brief chart and a few paragraphs to give the idea would go a long way to relieve the kind of problems that started this thread.

There are a few ways to take care of this situation.

One way is to make sure items are priced properly. This is the first part to availability--can I afford it? Once all the magic items are priced correctly, then the loot issue needs to be addressed.

How are you, the DM, dishing out treasure? Is it gold, gear or magic items? How much are you handing out at a pop? The books with monsters in them have rather high levels of loot distribution and can get out of hand pretty quickly. So much so that low level parties have vast piles of gold they're sitting on. So the DM should have a handle on the treasure dispensing.

The DM also sets the level of magic in the game. If the party marches into the capital city and shops around for a +4 brilliant energy defender blade, they might not find one. Just because it's in the book and it's cool is no reason to hand one out in your game. Sometimes a DM has to say "No."

These last two points are actually in the works, as noted by his comments on various threads I have seen, by Mr. Bulmahn and company. If I remember correctly, he has mentioned that he would like some more examples and DM support in the Pathfinder book for just this sort of thing.

Lots of snide answers

Sounds like someone has been under the tyrannical thumb a self-centered spellcaster by that little rant. I would rather not have the entire game be ruined because of one person's bad experiences.

I've said my piece, and I'm done with this thread.

Max Money wrote:

This is a game of teamwork and mutual fun.

QFT

However, I must point out that sometimes Force Cage and Wall of Force go so far as to make teamwork pointless if either a disintegrate or a rod of cancelation are unavailable...

And if that is the case, the players can cry "Cheese!" or "WTF!" or what ever comes to mind at the DM for putting you in that situation in the first place. This game is not a competition between the players and the DM. This kind of problem is an encounter-building issue, not a problem with the spells.

To be blunt: it says Armor Training, not Armor shield & Training.

"Whenever he is wearing armor, he gains an additional +1 armor bonus
to his armor class, reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a
minimum of 0), and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus
allowed by his armor by 1"
There is no wording of shields. And shileds don't have a maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.
So running around naked with a shiled won't give you the bonus, neighter will you get a reduces the armor check penalty on the shiled.
...IMHO :-)

That is an interesting line of thought. I had not looked at the mechanics of a shield (i.e. no Dex bonus for shields) until now. A shield would not get all the bonuses included in the class feature. Thank you for that point.

But what about the other questions? :-P

Any who....

Back to the topic at hand; bracers of armor can be made with the craft arms and armor feat, aye or nay?

Can you add shield enchantments to bracers of armor, aye or nay?

Sighting current rules (aka Pathfinder) earns extra points if you explain your vote, but please keep it short and sweet.

I mentioned it above that at times it takes spells to beat spells. A wall of force is a short duration spell (max of 20 rounds) that can only be a flat, vertical wall (not a ceiling, floor or ramp) and because of these limitations happens to be impenetrable to physical means. Even permanency does not make it really permanent. There are ways to destroy them, brute force is not one of them. This is a case where you need to work smarter not harder not to beat the holy heck out of a spell with the nerf-stick.

-----

This is a game of teamwork and mutual fun.

In a team, there are members that can often do things that others members cannot. This does not make the other members useless. A team working together will always beat a group of individuals. Like in basketball, a zone defense will beat man-to-man every time. Mages have cool spells and warriors deal tons of damage. Together they can do just about anything; individually, they can be beat.

That being said, if one party member is not being a team player or the DM is making things difficult for some in the party and not others, then you need to speak up and voice your displeasure. This is a game after all. If you aren't having fun, things either need to change or you need to find a new game.

Max Money wrote:

• Can you use the improved shield bash feat or any of the other feats involving shields with an animated shield?

You couldn't make a bash with it unless it was also enchanted as a dancing weapon. Any feats that don't involve attacking with shields would still work, though, since you count as wielding the shield.

Max Money wrote:

• Can you use the weapon focus feat or any other weapon based feat with a dancing weapon of the appropriate type?

Yes, you are wielding the weapon.

Max Money wrote:

• How does the fighter’s class ability of armor training apply to an animated shield?

I don't know about this, but if armor training affects shields normally, then yes. I would say it doesn't, however.

Max Money wrote:

• How does the fighter’s class ability of weapon training apply to dancing weapons?

If the weapon is from the the fighters group, then he gets the bonus.

The only difference between a weapon that it is dancing and a weapon that is wielded is it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon.

The only difference between an animated shield and one wielded is that both the character's hands are free.

Could you point out in the book (or pdf) what section supports your answers please.

Armor training: Does it include shields? If so, how is the bonus calculated?

Example: Fighter 7 with Dex-16 has chain shirt and light steel shield for standard AC: 18.

• Does said fighter get +2 for the chain shirt AND +2 for the light steel shield changing AC to 22? (Subsequently, the Max Dex Bonus, or MDB, for the chain shirt would be +6 with no change to the shield, and an Armor Check Penalty, or ACP, of +0 for the chain shirt and light steel shield.)
• Or...
• Does said fighter get +2 as a class bonus to AC for an AC of 20? (This would change only the MDB and ACP of the armor and not effect the shield's stats in any way.)

Armor mastery is the highest form or armor training and DOES mention the shield. This is probably aquestion for errata.

The armor training class feature SPECIFICALLY states "WEARING" armor.

Bracers are NOT "Wearing" any armor. They are in lieu of armor.

I would agree this needs some errata as nothing in either the armor training or armor mastery class features says that mastery is the highest form of armor training at all.

However, I will agree to disagree with you on the "wearing" argument as supported by my points listed above.

"As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon. In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items...."

The block is from the discription of dancing. It states:
1. It attacks using the BAB of the one who loosed it.
2. It cannot make attacks of Opportunity, and the person who loosed it is not considered armed by the weapon.
3. It is considered wielded or attended by the creature using it for all maneuvers and effets.

So the wizard (assuming he is not proficient) would take a -5 penalty to attacking with the sword, therefore the sword takes a -5 penalty while attack when released by the wizard, because attack is a maneuver, and it is treated as wielded by the wizard for all maneuvers.

At least that's my take on it.

In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items.

Notice how it says "that target items" at the end. Does this refer to weapon focus or improved sunder? Does weapon focus even target a weapon? You can target an opponent's weapon with improved sunder or improved disarm just as you can use disintegrate to destroy a weapon.

It also states it can "attack on its own." This is why I asked what the bonus to hit would be since it is not as though the owner was wielding it. By saying that the person is not considered armed makes it sound like it does not matter if the owner is proficient or not.

The BAB part I mentioned in my example, which I understand. Notice the +5 for BAB in both instances. By the way, the penalty for non-proficiency is only -4 as shown on pages 85, 91, & 94 under the Normal section of the Exotic, Martial and Simple Weapon Proficiency feats in the Feats chapter as well as page 99 under the Weapon section in the Equipment chapter.

The fighters basis is he is an equipment monger (weapons and armor)

His class feature of weapon and armor training, are meant to represent that he is better with that commonly available equipment that any other.
Armor training is exactly that, training with armor. NOT a nat bonus to AC, NOT skill in dodging weapons or attacks, NOT a magical or innate bonus. ONLY that when he wears armor (or uses a shield) to can optimize that equipment to get better results from it than others.

A fighter does not do better damage with his fists or biting when he uses weapon training, its only with the weapons he has chosen to work with.

Armor training doesnt worked naked, or with bracers or rings of protection or under the spell mage armor.

Armor training says nothing of using a shield to gain the bonus (I posted the class ability above).

The fighter does actually gain the benefits of weapon training with his fists. Unarmed strike is listed under the Close category in the Weapon Training class feature (Pathfinder RPG - BETA, page 28). I would say bite fits as well since it is an unarmed strike.

Bracers says as if "wearing armor" in the description. +1 bracers would be like wearing padded armor, +4 bracers like chain shirt or scale and +8 bracers like full plate. Granted it's armor with no maximum Dex bonus, no armor check penalty, no arcane spell failure and little weight. The bonus received would be minimal at best. A bonus only higher level fighters would get. Doesn't seem like a huge issue to me or is there something I'm missing?

What is unclear from these enchantment descriptions is if feats or class abilities apply to the enchanted items or how exactly they apply. What I mean is this:

• Can you use the improved shield bash feat or any of the other feats involving shields with an animated shield?
• Can you use the weapon focus feat or any other weapon based feat with a dancing weapon of the appropriate type?
• How does the fighter’s class ability of armor training apply to an animated shield?
• How does the fighter’s class ability of weapon training apply to dancing weapons?

And one question that is unclear to me is how exactly a dancing weapon works. Does it just dance on its own using the owner's BAB or does it take penalties for the owner not being proficient in said weapon?
Example: A wizard 10 finds a +1 dancing longsword. Would it have a +6 to hit when dancing (BAB +5, +1 magic) or a +2 to hit when dancing (BAB +5, +1 magic, -4 non-proficient)?

Thank you KaeYoss.

I guess the thing that sticks out to me is that the description says wrist or arm guards, and historically, bracers were the European equivalent of the Japanese kote which are both considered armor.

-----

I would say that Bracers of Armor do count as armor for the purposes of the Fighter ability, since it does say in it's description that it acts as though the person is wearing armor; the Armor Training feature says that it applies when he's wearing armor.

Thank you for that. At least I know someone else is reading this the same way as me.

HOWEVER, I think that using Bracers of Armor in lieu of actual armor is a pretty stupid idea for a fighter. That's a lot of AC that the character's throwing away, after all.

Not sure I follow you on this part. Bracers of armor +8 and full plate armor both grant an armor bonus of +8. Unless you mean it would be throwing away the chance of getting +5 full plate which grants +13 to armor versus the bracers which top out at +8, then I would agree.

Weapon and armor proficiencies granted by class are considered the equivalent of having the feats.

Another discussion for another thread. (I seriously would like to discuss this point as well.)

Magic bracers are not armor. They do not appear on in the equipment section as armor nor in the magic item section as armor. They are wondrous items, not armor.

Devil's advocate here--what about a ring of force shield?

If the fighter's armor training didn't specify that it applies only when the fighter is wearing armor I would agree with you and say it should be renamed to defensive training. but it specifically states that it is about wearing armor, not magical effects that grant an armor bonus. It is literally training in how to get the best effect out of armor, not magic that functions as armor. The only thing I would consider extending armor training to is shields, and only those actually worn but not animated shields.

Here is what the class ability says in its own vague way:

Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter gains added protection from the armor he is wearing. Whenever he is wearing armor, he gains an additional +1 armor bonus to his armor class, reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0), and increases the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, and 15th), a fighter gains even more protection, increasing these bonuses by +1 each time, for a total of +4 to armor class at 15th level, with a –4 reduction to the armor check penalty and a +4 increase to the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

It seems pretty wishy-washy what it does or does not include (e.g. shields? Are they armor or are they shields?) especially in light of the description of bracers of armor that I quoted above stating that it is as if they were wearing armor.

I suspect this might be a point where we may have to agree to disagree.

Agreed. :-)

I would like some official clarification on this. I understand how they are a magic item that allows other classes (mages, monks, etc.) the chance to have a better AC. I completely understand how these things work for game mechanics and fluff. Let's move on.

I only have passing familiarity with Forgotten Realms, was never particularly into it myself. I can see how the changes allowing other armor enhancements to the Bracers in the Beta really blurs the line. My statements are based on my understanding of the rules as written and are not infallible. My belief that Craft Arms and Armor should not apply to creating Bracers is based on the fact that allowing the overlap sets a precedent for blurring the lines between what item creation feats apply to which items. If the DM of your group is fine with allowing Craft Arms and Armor for making Bracers of Armor then use it as a house rule. I don't always agree with the rules as written, but I will discuss it with the DM and accept their decision on it.

Then I take it you will not be using the master craftsman feat, which allows non-casters to create magic items since it blurs the lines of who can create magic items. (Notice tongue in cheek.)

Seriously though. I guess I would like to know why there isn't or couldn't be an option to use craft arms and armor to make them. In a game so full of options and choices, I would rather have it as an option that make a houserule if for no other reason than everyone who plays Pathfinder knows about it at least so it's not completely foreign to anyone outside my game group. Also it allows for less problems to those who play in the Forgotten Realms and for reverse-compatibility.

Is this a game breaker or could this be a game option?

-----

As far as the fighter armor training, I am keying in on the word training. Why couldn't a fighter, who by the way does not need to take any feats for armor proficiency unless you are meaning the two arcane armor feats (arcane armor training and arcane armor mastery), train in the use of magic bracers?

Armor training grants a +1 to AC, max Dex bonus and to armor check penalty (e.g. A.C.P. of -3 goes to -2 at 3rd level with this class ability). Bracers do not have any penalties like a maximum Dex bonus, armor check penalty, arcane spell failure, etc. So the fighter's armor training class ability would only increase the AC as nothing else from it would apply.

Is this a game breaker or could this be a game option?

Bracers of Armor, despite having "armor" in the name and providing an armor bonus, are not an armor. Bracers of Archery provide absolutely no bonus to AC, therefore bracers do not count as armor. Bracres of Armor are merely an item that a spell effect granting an armor bonus is attached to and not armor in and of them selves. Since they are not armor in and of themselves, neither Craft Arms and Armor nor a fighter's armor training apply to them. (Armor training applies to magical armors because it applies to the armor the same as if it were non-magical.)

Bracers of archery do not effect AC, they effect how well you use a bow. The description for bracers of armor is as follows:

Description

These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.

Alternatively, bracers of armor can be enchanted with armor special abilities. See Table 15–2 for a list of abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. Bracers of armor cannot have a modified bonus (armor bonus plus armor special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +8. Bracers of armor must have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant an armor special ability. Bracers of armor cannot have any armor special abilities that add a flat gp amount to their cost.

It says a tangible field of force. What is so different from an on-going, magic field of force and a suit of mundane armor? Especially since you can add in armor enchantments which cannot be put into any other kind of magic item.

I think you are getting hung up on the idea that in reality, bracers are considered a piece of armor (as are helms and gauntlets). In the d20 system however, they are not on the limited list of armors. Replace the word bracers in "Bracers of Armor" with necklace making it "Necklace of Armor" and ask yourself if it should still be considered armor.

No, the part I'm hung up on is the effect of the bracers (invisible but tangible field of force) and the application of a fighter's armor training.

The reason the word armor is used in the name and as the bonus type is to make it clear that the bonus from the bracres does not stack with the armor bonsus granted by a suit of armor. It has nothing to do with the Bracers actually being a type of armor. Otherwise you would need armor proficiency that included bracers to use them without penalties.

With this kind of logic, then bracers of archery should be called 'bracers of shooting better' because that is what kind of bonus it gives; no offense. Besides, they used to be called bracers of defense which was plain and clear what kind of bonus they provided. The one that is confusing is cloak of resistance which gives no resistance at all, but a bonus to saving throws.

To sum up: Craft Arms and Armor and a fighter's armor training only apply to equipment that would be found listed on the armor table in the equipment section and require one of the armor proficiency feats to use without penalty. Anything other item that provides an armor bonus is just a spell in a can does not stack with actual armors.

I also brought this question up because in a Forgotten Realms book it mentions that bracers can be made using Craft Arms and Armor because of the armor enchantment additions to the bracers that are now included in the Pathfinder version of the description as seen listed above.

Bracers of Armor are not a form of armor, they just give an armor bonus. They are a wondrous item that provides protection. A fighter would gain nothing from wearing bracers of armor becuase the bracers are not armor, they just provide an Armor bonus to AC.

The best way to explain it is Bracers of Armor is a magic item that provides the wearer with a constant mage armor spell at a specific strength.

I understand how bracers of armor work, yet armor grants an armor bonus as does mage armor and bracers of armor. One source is magical and one is not.

Does this mean that magic armor does not work with armor training?

-----

What about the creation questions?

As it stands, bracers of armor require Craft Wondrous Item to make currently. Since they are a form of armor physically and magically, could you also use Craft Arms and Armor to make them?

If you can't, then how can you add in armor enchantments into the bracers?

And finally, can you only add armor enchantments or can you add shield enchantments as well?

-----

On a side note, how does the fighter's armor training work with bracers of armor?

Great question. Our game group noticed that at 19th level the fighter gets:

Armor Mastery (Ex): At 19th level, a fighter gains DR 5/— whenever he is wearing armor or using a shield.

With this verbiage, it seems to me that the armor training should include shields, but the issue we had was how. Does it get the same bonuses simultaneously with armor (e.g. +2 for both armor and shield at 7th level) or does the bonus need to be split between armor and shield (e.g. +1 to armor and +1 to shield at 7th level)?

And what about magic items that give an armor bonus like bracers of armor? Do fighters get to apply their armor training bonuses when wearing them as well?

I have a few questions for this new wrinkle on magic staves....

1) Now that it can be recharged, what happens if you use all ten charges in a day? Will it be used up and useless or can it still be recharged the next day?

2) The 3.X staves couldn't be recharged and had fifty charges, but with the new charge limit, will the charges be changed? Specifically, the Staff of Life has one charge for a 6th level spell, heal, and five charges for a 5th level spell, raise dead. Some others have lower level spells using more charges than higher level spells, but this one is the worst.

3) Why only ten charges? This seems a little low to me even with the recharge mechanic. That brings the staff down to a four use item (less if you have a Staff of Life) the first day and a one use item every day after that. Was there a thought about making it twenty charges at all?

Sorry, I don't trust Wikipedia because of the fact that it is reader or contributor written. It is not in any way, shape or form a kind of encyclopedia. Besides, I never mentioned the shape of the sword so your first two references are kind of irrelevant.

I have heard of the Jabber-wacky, but I have also seen "Clash of the Titans" to know that they mention and show it's godly sharpness. I also remember reading about it from my youth. The source where I read it is buried in the dusty areas of my memory. I apologize for that.

Vorpal blades do not 'shing'. They go 'snicker snack'.

The vorpal sword is mentioned as the sword to cut off the head of Medusa by Perseus, as also seen in the movie in "Clash of the Titans". It has all the qualities we know and love from the game.

Tholas wrote:

Max Money wrote:

It also doesn't have the punch to remain a "must have" weapon at higher levels.

I don't think there is a rule that that you can't add further item appropriate enchantments to an unique magic item?

The problem is that it's unclear whether a sun blade is priced like a +5 weapon (in which case another "plus" would cost 22,000 gp) or like a +2 weapon with a +42,000 gp flat fee on top (in which case another "plus" would cost 10,000 gp) or something completely different.

You can add more enchantments to a weapon, but they cost as much to add to a weapon as if you were making the weapon from scratch with all the abilities. This can get pricey, but at higher levels most have small dragon hoards to take care of that problem.

The sun blade doesn't have a breakdown of enchantments and bonuses. It would be hard to figure out the true magic level and price because it's more than a +2 holy, undead-, negative energy-, evil outsider-bane weapon because of the proficiency, double damage dealing and the sunlight special abilities. Those would make it a +7 (+2 to start, +3 for each bane, and +2 for holy) weapon not including anything else. So just with what I have listed, the sun blade should be at least 98,000 gp as opposed to the 50,335 gp it is listed at currently.

And because of all the abilities it does have, it would be next to impossible to turn it into a weapon enchantment like vorpal or wounding. A series of enchantments sure, but not just one.

I think you need an office that makes people sit back and say "Hey, they know what they are doing." An office located in Lake Geneva, WI screams, "We know D&D." :D

If I recall correctly, this weapon was first put into the books as a tip of the hat to the Greek myths and I think it could only be a sword or was a specific weapon like the holy avenger. (NOTE: I could be wrong as I lost my First Edition books to water damage some years back.) When 3.X came out, it was reduced to the enchantment bin along with disruption and speed properties.

Personally, I would like to see it put back in the game as a minor artifact, a unique weapon keeping the qualities as we know them now and include the suggestions mentioned above (i.e. keen and max damage on crit).

I don't see it as broken in any way, not even with the 50,000 XP card. This is an artifact (albeit a minor one) that is all about taking the ultimate gamble with your life and sometimes the lives of your party members. You either win big or lose big.

Plus with the fact that this is a minor artifact, you can't just buy one at the local magic shop. Our group has run into a few of these in our 10+ years together gaming. We were always over 10th level, and it was an integral part of the campaign that we had to find it. Otherwise, I have never come across a deck in any other game.

In fact, I was in a game that involved quite a bit of gambling when a party member asked if we could try to find a deck. The DM flat out denied it saying that it was too powerful and it could throw a big wrench into the game and our plans that we had been working on for a couple levels. When we argued, he supported his denial with this:

"It's an artifact. Most artifacts are rumors and don't really exist. Even if it does, you'd have to find the one and only deck in all existence."

I say leave it as is.

Not sure I would say a sun blade is a sacred cow exactly. The holy avenger would be more of a sacred cow than the sun blade I would think (no pun intended). Yes, it does some cool things. True, you don't need to be proficient in bastard sword to use it. It's also got an alignment and all the inherent bonuses and penalties to use it. It also doesn't have the punch to remain a "must have" weapon at higher levels.

If anything, I would suggest they make it an intelligent weapon before relegating it to the enchantment bin or bumping it to artifact status.

Good to know since we tend to run our campaigns until we get to 20th level. I look forward to the same kind of games we have now (as we are currently 3rd level) just with longer combats.

-----

A side note, I would like to mention that our group does not have a problem with any one class out-shining another class either. They each have a part to play and some can do certain things the others can't and vice versa. It's all how the DM sets it up to make sure everyone has a chance to shine at what they are good at. It is that kind of thing that I have seen several posts by the paizo guys saying they are going to try to give more examples of set-up and design issues to reduce some of the "class envy" in the game.

I would like to point your attention to:

disintegrate[/i] spell (page 221)"]The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

wall of force[/i] spell(page 286)]Disintegrate immediately destroys it

Problem solved. The old adage of "fight fire with fire" seems to apply rather nicely, I'd say.

This is by no means a broken spell due to the fact that it has a duration of 1 round/ level, it must be a vertical plain so it can't be used to make impromptu ledges or bridges, and there is a list of things that can directly "counter" it.

"But the warrior types can't hack there way through" you say? Well a mage can't drop a dragon in melee in one round either, but you don't hear them complaining about it. Oh wait, yes you can (See "mages get no love" threads).

In July we officially kick off the Pathfinder RPG with the release of the Pathfinder Bestiary. The massive Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook follows in August, but beyond that we have not yet announced additional rules support for the game.

That support IS coming, and we're in the process of finalizing what form it will take.

The current plan is to release between 2-3 hardcover rulebooks per year, including additional Pathfinder Bestiaries.

What form would you like these books to take? Would you be interested in subscribing to such a line, provided the books cost somewhere around $35 a pop?

What titles/ideas would you like to see us explore?

We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?

Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?

Discuss.

In answer to your over all question of what I would like to see, I have one word for you--SUPPORT.

Please support what you publish at least a little. The biggest victim to this in 3.X was the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It was a cool book that had some cool classes in it and then ... nothing. Nothing was mentioned in any of the modules or other source books. It was like they printed it and lost the main frame file for it. So I hope and pray that if you make any book that you support it some how through the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Chronicles or Modules.

One thing I would like to point out as well is rules since you mention rules bloat. That is bad only if you come out with a new game mechanic or rule subset every other accessory. I hate to say it, but I was right when I worried that D&D would become an RPG version of Magic:the Gathering when Wizards of the Coast bought it from TSR. As long as Paizo stays away from that kind of thing (i.e. psionic point buy, true name magic, martial adepts, etc.) every other book, rules bloat shouldn't be a problem.

Finally, I would like to say that I am really not a big fan of prestige classes. The idea of mixing, no forcing, role-playing and mechanics together was just a bad idea. Add that to the fact that so many prestige classes were very setting specific and that just makes the idea even more awkward and difficult to handle in a fun way. The cool treats that they give were hardly worth the effort of world-rebuilding or story revising needed to get them into use. I believe that all of them could easily be implemented as optional class features. By being an optional class feature, it would be easier to implement for the player and DM alike both in terms of mechanics and role-playing. Combine this with adjusted multi-classing rules that are more equitable than the 3.X rules and you have a rules light, option heavy winner on your hands.

Don't give up hope on the monk. Erik Mona had this to say.

Howdy folks and bard enthusiasts. I have some good news (well I hope its good news anyway), it seems that a couple classes will be getting a change in the full version of Pathfinder. Check out what Paizo's own Erik Mona has to say here. Granted it is in response to a monk comment, but it still says the bard is getting a change too. I'm so happy I could break out in song!

Max Money wrote:

Finally remember; the game was never, EVER meant to be balanced from one class to the next in any edition or version of the game. I fail to see why it has to be balanced today. 4E is balanced and look how bad that sucks.

You can design a balanced game without creating a poorly-designed game. It's unfortunate that WoTC was unable to accomplish this design goal in 4E. I blame this on the fact that they so desperately wanted to become the tabletop version of WoW.

And you want to establish a balance between character classes so that one class (Wizard, Cleric) doesn't outshine another class (everyone else) over the course of the game. Otherwise you end up with a situation where some players get to do everything, and others end up just being assistants and pack mules. Unfortunately, that's how things are currently set up in 3.5 and Pathfinder, and this needs to be remedied somehow before the game is finalized.

A laudable concept to be sure, but since Pathfinder has certain design precepts, which include backwards compatibility with former 3.X rules, this is more than likely not going to be possible in the first edition of Pathfinder. Later editions....

Wow! This has gone from a "Why is there a difference in levels?" thread to a "Why can't mages do more damage than anyone else?" thread.

I hope I'm not belaboring the point, but if you want to play a class that can deal more damage than any other, play a Barbarian if you like melee or a Ranger if you like archery. Mages were not created to and will never be able to deal as much average damage all day long. That is the natural drawback for having spells. You have to pick one or the other--damage or spells (you can't have your cake and eat it too).

You can always play a Duskblade which has full BAB, decent armor, the ability to cast spells in armor and a decent selection of Evocation spells. (But that's not Pathfinder stuff. Sshhh! Don't tell anyone.)

But seriously, I don't understand the reasoning of why mages, specifically Evokers, should do more damage than any other class. Honestly, I would really like to know.

Now take that example and replace "Rogue" with "Paladin" and you have an idea of how bad things are with the Paladin's Smite ability as it stands right now. Neither situation is particularly good or balanced right now.

Not sure what you mean exactly. The paladin's smite evil is equal to their level and at most usable seven times per day. I'm not sure how exactly this is too powerful; unless that's your point (that it's not). Maybe they should switch the two--give the paladin +1d6 every odd level for the smite evil ability up to seven times per day and the rogue gets to do sneak attack damage equal to their level. That would make sense since the sneak attack is usable way more often than smite evil.

But on the other hand, paladins get a whole suite of goodies that rogues don't (i.e. more spells, natural healing, channel energy, etc.). Then there is the whole better weapon selection, HD, BAB, and AC argument which off-sets matters.

Finally remember; the game was never, EVER meant to be balanced from one class to the next in any edition or version of the game. I fail to see why it has to be balanced today. 4E is balanced and look how bad that sucks.

I'd like to reiterate my point from above...

Initiative is cyclical, and if characters or monsters don't like the order, it can be changed by simply waiting. So the proposed changes you are suggesting really wouldn't matter.

I have never really liked the current initiative rules. The party always, for one reason or another, changes the order; and 90% of the time, it ends up to be monsters go then the party goes. Rinse and repeat. I liked it when initiative was fluid and you never knew when the monsters were going or who in the party acts first.

Glad you liked it. I really enjoy playing and running Pathfinder.

In reference to the old "ear to the ground" trick, I would say give them a Perception check with appropriate modifiers such as a +4/ -4 per size category over/under Medium, modifiers for ground density, etc.

And as far as dying goes, our group has always played it that if you get reduced to below 0 hit points, you automatically drop to -1 no matter how far below it is. That has worked great for us for many, many years through three, now four editions of the game.

OK I have a couple questions.

Counterspelling As An Attack of Opportunity.

It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.

First you say any spell then you say the same spell. Which is it?

How Counterspells Work:

As the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things. You must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Line of sight is also needed.
Both spells are lost if successful.

Sounds good for the most part, but doesn't this open up a whole can of worms, specifically when exactly casters can cast spells? Also there is mention of casting the correct spell, same spell (see question above).

Inquiring mind wants to know.

Has your cleric begun plotting how to use the Create Water orison? It was one of the first things the Druid in my short play-test started plotting over (this player, he's a schemer, he's got plans, most involve a touch of in-game anarchy).

Did the Barbarian take or use Power Attack?

The cleric has used create water a couple times, once to help put out a fire from a goblin attack. He was at one end of the bucket brigade.

The barbarian has taken Power Attack though I can't remember if he's used it at all.

I sort of despise how the rogue rolls so many dice for Sneak Attacks in the first place... I think a solid bonus would more balancing and make the damage phase move faster. Having 10 ~ 60 points of additional damage plus Bleeding is pure insanity. I think I remember seeing a 3.5 Feat that increases the D6s to D8s. @_@

In any event that is a stupid amount of dice to roll. I think a solid bonus equal to the Rogue's Lv would be better. After that, add special options to make up for the lost damage. Better Critical Hits, larger Critical Ranges...
I guess I never made the mental changeover from Rogues: Masters of Skills to Rogues: Masters of Skills and Ninja-ing Folks Directly To Death. What is this, WoW??? =/

Back in the day, sneak attack used to be back-stab which was a solid multiplier (up to times 5) to any weapon damage done, but it was not always an easy trick to pull off.

Using dice instead of multipliers is easier according to Wizards (because math is hard), after all, look at what they did to 4E. And if you take away dice for sneak attack, do you take away dice for fireball too? Or fire storm? Or Channel Energy?

There is also a feat that gives you a reroll on any 1's for sneak attack damage. Tack that on to a d8 for sneak attack damage!

I always had a Thief (not a rogue) that was a skill-monkey AND Direct Ninja Death master because back in the day hit points weren't soaring through the stratosphere and a times 5 back-stab could take someone out (especially with a well placed shot from a two-handed sword).

I am running Pathfinder in my new campaign - a war with goblins (a carry-over from Spelljammer days). We rolled up new characters at level 1. This went smoothly with quite a few "Hey that's new" and other positive comments about the options. It is a party of four: a half-orc barbarian, a half-elf cleric, a human monk and an elf ranger. They have been assigned as skirmishers to harass the enemy behind the lines. To that end, they were very happy to get the racial modifiers to hit points as per the Designer Notes on page 14, especially the barbarian.

They have been in a several encounters where they have been out-numbered by goblins (from the 3.5 Monster Manual) 2-1 and 3-1 and were able to come out alive. They have also faced hobgoblins and a couple bugbears as well. I am using the slow advancement chart for experience, so they are just about ready to level up.

Things are running smoothly for everyone involved. The players like to combined skills and that there is no more cross-class penalties. The cleric and I like how Channel Energy works as opposed to Turn Undead as it is much more useful since they haven't run into any undead (yet <insert evil laugh here>). The orisons (divine cantrips) are nice because the player doesn't have to track how many times he's cast them and I (the DM) don't have to keep asking "How many of those have you cast that today?" as in previous games. The barbarian likes the rage points and how you can enter rage more than once per encounter. The monk and ranger are drooling over their new abilities and can't wait to level up.

I will report back when I run into anything that grinds the game to a halt.

I open the floor for questions ...

I like this idea a lot!

After all, Fortitude is a measure of "a character's ability to withstand damage thanks to his physical stamina" so, why not make it a save instead of d%?

I would change all references to making a 10% roll instead to making a DC 25 Fort save throughout the Stable Characters and Recovery section. (Keep in mind a natural 20 is always a success; this is mentioned because lower level characters with a poor Fort save may not be able to make this DC.)

Finally, I would add recovery checks to the list in the Endurance feat as well. This would be a great feat for those who find themselves in combat (and dying--oops!) who have a poor Fort save, low Con score or both.

I will make these changes in my game and track the results.

-----

On a side note here: if you don't like rolling d%, you could always use a d20. Just change it to say you need to roll a 19 or 20 to become stable. It's the same percentage only on one die.

If Standard Attack Action starts getting Iterative Attacks at some level, then Rogues' (esp. w/ 2WF) Sneak Attack would seem to increase it's effectiveness with Standard Attacks ALOT, given a scenario where they need a Move Action to Flank an opponent and can only use Standard Attack Action.

One thing I noticed that I missed the first time reading this thread is that multiple attacks require a full-round action not a standard action.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

And this is where Rogues can get massive damage in with 11+ BAB, GTWF and either a weapon of Speed or haste from a flanking position that has the possibility of doing weapon damage seven times plus at least 56d6 (7 attacks at 15th level Sneak Attack of 8d6 extra damage). The only thing that comes close is a mage with disintegrate or a priest with harm.

And just to clarify, Rogues in 3.5 can sneak attack on every attack as well.

Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.

Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Now of course this can get into arguments of balance and crazy, huge amounts of damage, but Rogues can keep rolling fists full of d6s whenever they meet these criteria according to the RAW.

You havn't seen a fighter put out 20d6 at range? Then you havn't seen an archer Fighter. 20d6 averages to 70 damage, pre saves/spell resistance/energy resitance.

OK now I understand. You are talking average damage output. That being the case, you never, ever want to play anything other than a fighter-type to dish out huge amounts of damage. Mages were never intended to do that in any edition of the game.

I have yet to see a fighter-type have a range weapon or ability that says "deal 20d6 damage", but I have seen fighter-types do a massive amount of damage at range like a Ranger (which is better than a Fighter archer).

Face it. Damage dealing as a spellcaster is about as far from useful as you can get. There are too many checks to beat and the damage doesn't even scale half as fast as enemy hit points do. You're far better off concentrating on save-or-dies and save-or-sucks. Why bother with 70 average pre-check (touch AC, spell resistance, energy resistance) damage from polar ray when you could essentially kill a creature outright by passing fewer checks (fort save, spell resistance) with baleful polymorph at a much lower spell level?

I would disagree with this. The damage done by casters, specifically mages, can be very useful to the party. There are just as many penalties for fighter-types to deal with at higher levels (built-in feat penalties, reduced BAB on full attacks, DR, sky-high AC, etc.) as there are for mages. And you cannot kill a creature with baleful polymorph in all cases. There is a Will save involved with that spell as well.

I believe people are selling the Evoker short here. Remember that he is first and foremost a mage with low hit points, frail saves and a poor BAB. He is by no means a tank; if anything, he is a glass cannon. And as a mage, the Evoker gets other spells. Evokers thin the herd of on-coming critters as the Fighter takes them down. If there is something that stays out of reach for the Fighter, the Evoker takes aim and takes them out as the Fighter keeps mowing down those he can reach thus protecting the Evoker.

Fighter types have to deal with DR, casters have to deal with SR and everyone has to deal with elemental resistance. Most things beyond CR 10 have either DR or SR and one or two resistances with the higher powered critters getting all three. The thing that has been mentioned already is that most everyone knows this and should take equipment and spells accordingly. Another cool thing is that if something has resistance to fire it's susceptible to cold, not always, but I hope you get the point--there are ways around these things.