MechE_'s page

So in an upcoming session, my party will run into a gargantuan sized dragon capable of casting 6th level spells. I have yet to redo the dragon's spell list, but with the recent Big Creatures and "Centered on You" FAQ, I'm most likely going to give the dragon the Antimagic field spell and having not used it before, I seek a number of clarifications/confirmations from my fellow forum users. I recognize that a dragon with DR 20/magic who eliminates all magical properties from attacks before they strike him it going to be nasty! But depending on what of his own abilities he can still use, it may not be that bad. (Also, this will be the last dragon that the party fights in this adventure, even the last one they fight with me as GM. I'll be moving away for a new job in 5 months, so let's go out with a bang!)

1) The Arcane Strike feat should overcome the dragon's DR XX/magic, right?
2) Are there any other means are there by which to overcome this DR?
3) The Mage's Disjunction spell references having a chance to destroy an Antimagic Field. There are no other spells that overcome an Antimagic Field, correct?
4) A Barbarian's Spell Sunder rage power should work, right? (By a strictly RAW reading, one could argue that since an Antimagic Field is on a creature, the Barbarian must close within reach, which likely brings him into the antimagic field and thus suppresses the rage power... I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but bonus points for discussing this corner case.)
5) Are there any other class features or abilities that could unexpectedly bipass/eliminate/adversely effect an Antimagic Field or the occupant of it?
(The next series of questions tries to clear up exactly what a Dragon can or cannot do while the Antimagic Field is active.)
6) Can a dragon use ANY of his normally supernatural abilties and have their effects extend out of his Antimagic Field?
7) His breath weapon, for example? (If not, could the dragon extend it's head outside of the Antimagic Field and throw the breath weapon or would the Antimagic Field "centered on him" follow his head and thus always be within the area of his own Antimagic Field?)
8) What about an ability such as a Blue Dragon's Storm Breath? Could the dragon create the cloud with the Antimagic Field up and then call down bolts?
9) How about the same Blue Dragon's Mirage ability?

Note that I'm specifically interested in answers to the above questions that are not class specific, save spellcasting, let's assume we have access to the Wizard List and the Cleric list. I'm also more interested in answers and ideas that come from the core line of rulebooks (excluding Mythic Adventures). All that said, feel free to give answers that go beyond these restrictions - I am certainly not the first person to think of Dragons and Antimagic Fields and certainly won't be the last GM to throw one at a party, so it's likely this thread will be found in the future with some people having the same questions as myself.

I may have an opportunity coming up to play in a Way of the Wicked game over Roll20. For those of you who don't know, Way of the Wicked is an all evil campaign (suggested alignment is Lawful Evil) where the PCs work to undermine and eventually overthrow a strongly lawful good government. The DM tells me the adventure path will run up to 19th or 20th level. Stats will be 18, 4x (1d8+8 in order), 8.

So I'm working up evil character concepts right now. So far, I've got concepts (of varying depth) for a LE Arrogant Elf Transmuter Wizard, a NE "Wrath of the Land" Brute Barbarian, a LE Elf Rogue / Assassin, a NE Human Curse Witch, and a LE Cleric of Asmodeus.

I'm open to any advice, regarding the above concepts or other concepts. If anyone has played through Way of the Wicked, I value your thoughts as long as they don't contain spoilers. I'm not out to make the most powerful character, but since we will only have 4 players, it would be good if it was average or above average mechanically. Also, I prefer my characters to fill one of the old school standard themes "fighter", "cleric", "rogue", or "wizard".

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Edits:
• The Way of the Wicked Players Guide Link
• According to the player's guide the Antipaladin can be LE with GM approval (likely)
• Characters start at first level with ZERO gear.
• AP strongly suggests core races as infiltration is more difficult otherwise.

Reading through this thread, I see enough discussion about the "SLA counting as spells for the purposes of feat and prestige class prerequisites" ruling that I am concerned for it's growing implications.
Note that I am expressing my own opinion here as a way to open discussion. Feel free to agree or disagree with me.

Concerns:
Divine Protection (see below for a copy of the feat's text) is a REALLY great feat - Oracles are going to LOVE it. But should a Bard be able to access it with a 1 level cleric dip because they chose a domain that happens to grant the right SLA...? What about a Swashbuckler who happens to choose the right race - should he qualify for Divine Protection at 5th character level?

Having a few niche ways to get early access to certain feats and prestige classes subtly pushes players towards those few niche builds. Every Mystic Theurge is an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Magus wields a scimitar, every Swashbuckler will want to be an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Bard takes a 1 level dip into Wood Mystery Oracle... While many people will argue that the Mystic Theurge needed a bumb (which I won't disagree with), I think that this is the wrong way to accomplish that goal, which creates more wonkiness (and problems) than it solved. (If Paizo wanted to bump the Mysthic Theurge, they could have created a feat for the Advanced Class Guide that requires casting 4/4 divine and arcane spells which gives a +2 caster level bump - or something similar.)

Tricks like using your SLA to qualify for feats and prestige classes increase the optimization gap between casual players and those of us who are more advanced. Counting your SLA as a spell in order to qualify for feats on your Swashbuckler is not something that your average purchaser of the new ACG is going to know to do. Those of us who spend a reasonable amount of time on the forums, however, can do exactly that. It has been my experience that optimization is not (in itself) a negative thing. The issue comes when five people sit down at a table to play and one or two advanced (forum going) players build characters which significantly outperform the casual players. (Zen archer monk versus standard monk, vivisectionist alchemist versus standard rogue, CAGM barbarian versus sword & board fighter, etc.) This is, of course, not to say that this happens every time - many of us on the forums know when to go wild with optimization and when to tone it down a few notches. But it also happens at tables from time to time (it's happened at tables I was at) and unless the DM or players are Johnny on the spot with addressing it, negative feelings can develop and the game can come crashing down in time... Regardless, with niche rulings (like the SLA one) and a growing amount of material dependent on spell casting (like some in the ACG), the optimization gap grows.

It is also worth noting that PFS organized play has taken the Aasimar & Tiefling off the list of approved races prior to the release of the ACG. I heard speculation that this was due to the growing presence of Aasimars & Tieflings, in part due to the SLA ruling.

Closing Pandora's Box
The more material that gets released, the more ways there will be to use the SLA ruling for early access to feats and prestige classes. I personally feel this is a negative thing (for the above reasons) and would like to see the SLA ruling reconsidered. Paizo said a while back that if it became problematic, they would reconsider it. I have always felt it was problematic, so I am biased, but I feel that with the release of new material, now is the best time to open a discussion regarding the implications of this ruling.

Please try to keep any criticism constructive - whether it's of Paizo's developers, other posters, or the originator of this thread (me). We're all humans behind the screen who enjoy and invest into the Pathfinder game in varying degrees.

Supporting Text
FAQ Ruling - Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat? Yes.

Divine Protection
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.

Characters:
Zog - Half-Orc Inquistor 2 of Heresh (Home game deity, neutral-good god of secrets)
Varak - Dwarf Scout Ranger (Trapper) 1 / Monk (Zen Archer) 1
Phaedrus - Middle Aged Human "Wizard" 2 (Home game class similar to a wizard)
Katsu - Half-Elf Ronin Samurai 1 / Ranger 2
Jyrrath - Catfolk Warpriest 2 of Irori

Recap E-mail Excerpts:
• During cleanup from the previous fight, the party heard a squeaky voice which Varak determined to be undercommon. The voice seemed to be that of "King Zuzga" claiming "Little Suserain" as his domain. Following that were some one-sided shouts of "Hail King Zuzga" followed by 3 seconds of silence - this repeated three times.
• Rounding the corner, Varak and Zog found a Mite sitting atop an ogre skull in an otherwise relatively empty room. He invited Zog and Varak to bow before him, asking if they were the heroes he had sent for. Zog, through Varak's translation asking King Zuzga to bow before him before issuing a threat of his own. King Zuzga responded by yelling "GUARDS" in a squeaky voice. The party waited a minute, then told King Zuzga his guards were apparently missing in action. This was only the first of about 8 times that King Zuzga would yell for his guards - no response ever came.
• Undeterred by the lack of response from his guards, King Zuzga attempted to negotiate with the party, offering them a diamond the size of his fist if they could retrieve his spare crown. His spare crown was apparently lost when his spider mount escaped his influence descended deeper into The Crow. Sitting atop his head was a crown that looked more like a girder for a creature the size of a Mite. Zog snatched it, to the King's despair and determined that it was magical. Phaedrus would later determine that it was one of two of a set of Bracers of Amor +2. King Zuzga attempted to reclaim his crown and jumped up, grabbing onto it and hanging. Zog tossed him aside and eventually bound him, gagged him, and placed him into his backpack.
• King Zuzga was not so easily defeated, for he squirmed and muttered something in Undercommon about flint and steel - Varak translated this for Zog, who swung his pack, King Zuzga and all, against a wall, knocking some sense into the Mite - or perhaps just knocking him out. Search of King Zuzga would reveal that he had no such diamond in his possession, nor within his domain. Instead of disposing of his "king in a bag", Zog held onto him - guidance from his god, perhaps.

... Later in the same session...

• Southward from the large, cobweb choked room, the party found a kitchen. A few seconds after entering the room, Varak heard the sound of clicking - presumably spider mandibles and alerted the party, who readied themselves for such. From an exhaust vent in the room, burst forth a swarm of centipedes who attacked Zog immediately. With no defense or offense prepared for such creatures, the party had no options but a strategic retreat back down the path through the cobweb choked room.
• Varak, being a bit slower than the rest, found the centipedes swarming him, but once the way was clear, he was barely able to outrun the swarm. Unfortunately, the partys speed did not deter the swarm which gave chase. A few seconds later, the party rounded the corner and found themselves in a hallway with 4 web-less spiders bearing down on them. The centipede swarm still bearing down on Varak and other adversaries ahead, Zog came up with a brilliant idea. He pulled the still unconscious King Zuzga from his backpack and offered the centipede swarm a snack, which gave Varak time to round the corner and help the party successfully deal with the challenge ahead before moving on quickly, death by centipede swarm had been averted.
• And thus, at second level, the party accomplished what it took the great Heroes of Korvosa 16 levels to accomplish - they officially (and fatally) deposed a "monarch".

Background

9 months ago, I decided to run Shattered Star for my group when our Rise of the Runelords campaign ended - which was last week. As the guy who pulled the group together originally and DMed the first game, I was excited to get back to it. Having recently toyed around with creating a base class of my own (the Huntsman - which turned out decent, but still needs work), I put the word out to my group that if anyone wanted to create a custom class, I would help them with it and most likely be willing to let them play it. Well one guy took me up on the offer, and this is the result.

The Process

He suggested the idea of making a spell caster based on the Wheel of Time series who utilized "Wild Magic", I was intrigued. There is nothing like it in the Pathfinder game; what a challenge! Less than a week later, he had completed the first draft of what he had in mind and it was FANTASTIC. The concept exploded with flavor, but as you'll see from reading the .pdf file, the explosions don't end with the flavor!

From there, we formatted the class to appear similar to that which you would find in any of Pathfinder's other Core Rulebooks and massaged the mechanics a bit. The goal was to make the class explosive enough to warrant what we wanted it's reputation to be (as powerful as they are unstable) without making it unplayable or so dangerous that even adventurers would shun them immediately.

After a few more iterations of adding flavor, massaging mechanics, and redoing the formatting, we finally got to a class that we could playtest. After 4 playtests (levels 4, 6, 8, and 12) and improvements after each, the class practically fell together. While it is by no means complete, it is ready for it's grand debut!

The Result: The Forsworn.

My Thoughts

The class seems to be in a good place - it's very flavorful and should line up fairly well with a wizard in regards to capabilities and power. If anything, I think it may be a bit behind a wizard - What the class gets (spell like abilities, ability to recall spells) does not seem to fully make up for what it gives up (wizard's specialization school option, bonus feats, two spell schools it completely cannot access). Ultimately, I feel like the class is a more flavorful, but less powerful wizard. Of course, when I say flavorful, what I really mean is that it has the potential to either (A) go barking mad, (B) blow itself and a small city district to hell, or (C) go barking mad, THEN blow itself and a small city district to hell.

My Request

Straight forward - I welcome any and all comments.

SKILL ACTIVATED SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES

One common complaint is that the disparity between magic users and non-magic users becomes too high as levels increase. This is especially apparent with prepared magic users who are given some preparation time, or have foreknowledge of the day’s challenges. A second common complaint is that almost no matter how invested into stealth a mid level rogue is, a wizard can completely outclass them with a single spell, leaving skills feeling too mundane and magic too powerful.

The following “alpha stage” idea is an attempt to rectify this situation. If this idea pans out, I will likely play test it during my upcoming campaign and thus would like to get as much feedback as possible before committing to allowing my players access to homebrew material for 15 to 17 levels. Please provide feedback!

EDIT: Permalink to the .pdf file found here.

At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus (Fortitude half), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word. This performance replaces suggestion.

FAQ Question: Is the Wierd Words ability intended to allow a single creature to be the target of 10 different ranged touch attacks, each of which deal 1d8 + Charisma modifier in damage and must be saved against individually?

Side note: The ability should probably also call out Wierd Words as being a sonic/sound based effect.

Intent? My own comments here - Ignore if desired.
If I read it with my "intent" glasses on, it would appear that it is missing a restriction that "each creature may be targeted by no more than X Wierd Words", where X is probably 1. Balance wise, X being 2 or 3 would still be fine, but that would be odd since there are very few (if any) abilities in the game that allow you to deal multiple times an ability modifier in damage that is not strength.

Did the author intend a 10th level bard to be able to deal 10d8 + 10 * Cha Mod in damage? Sure, you have to hit with 10 ranged touch attacks and some will miss, and sure the monster gets 10 saves, and he'll make some... But what GM wants to wait for a player to roll TEN d20's, then EIGHT d8's, then make EIGHT fortitude saves for a creature, trying to keep track of which of the 8 to 15 points of damage you reduced by half before totaling them all up...

Feel free to discuss... Right after you click the FAQ button. Thanks!

EDIT: Post number 7.

Whether or not it's overpowered is immaterial. It's a badly written ability that needs to get re-done. The fact that it can require 30 die rolls is just absurd in its own right.

So I spent about 6 hours of my Saturday tooling around with Excel in order to create something to help other forum users determine when it's a good idea to use power attack, deadly aim, or piranha strike. I've summarized my findings down a little bit, but since the first finding is that "There is no such thing as 'always' when talking about attack for damage trade-offs..." (which I already knew), I've also tried to make the calculator very easy to use.

The file can be found by clicking THIS LINK. The password is paizo.

General Guidelines:
• There is no such thing as "always" when talking about attack for damage trade-offs...
• It is generally a good idea to use damage for attack trade-offs on full BAB classes (including a monk when flurrying) when fighting lesser enemies. Especially if you are using power attack with two hands.
• On 3/4 BAB classes, unless you have no other damage mechanic (sneak attack, bane, or other precision damage), damage for attack trade-offs are almost certainly not worth using against BBEGs.
• If the above two guidelines don't cover the situation, then damage for attack trade-offs are probably god for low AC monsters and bad for high AC monsters. Run the numbers to be sure, that's why you're here!
• Having access to attack buffs, specifically inspire courage, can make damage for attack trade-offs much more worthwhile.
• Be smart about damage for attack trade-offs. If you miss on a roll that threatens a critical from your highest BAB attack, it's probably time to stop using them!

Best of luck with it and I hope some people find it helpful!

Feel free to report any problems in this thread and if I'm ambitious (and remember) I will fix them later. (Don't bother reporting that I misspelled piranha strike. I realized that one after i uploaded the file.)

Preface
1) I’m a huge fan of Pathfinder – it’s a great system and though I have my gripes, I’m generally happy to house-rule them and move on.
2) I am NOT a game designer by trade, I dabble in it as a hobby and enjoy digging into games and trying to understand every little bit and piece.

Introduction
There has been a recent flurry of FAQs (thank you in general for that Paizo Design Team) with many long standing issues being clarified. Unfortunately, there have also been some FAQs that (I believe) are going too far – as opposed to clarifying bits and pieces of the Pathfinder system, they are making changes to assumptions that are at the very core of the game. For those of you who haven’t been following the forums lately, I’m specifically referring to the possibility that using SLAs allows you to qualify for prestige classes early – much earlier in some cases – Wizard 1 / Fighter 1 / Eldritch Knight X or Magus 1 / Eldritch Knight X, for example.

Relevant info on prestige classes and early entry via SLAs
The caster level granted by an SLA allows you to select item creation feats.
SLAs count as spells for prerequisites.
SLAs can be either Divine or Arcane.

For the record, I’m not yet convinced that the RAW of the rules actually allows taking levels in prestige classes for a few different reasons. But as this is not the primary purpose of this thread, I will direct those interested in discussing the merits of prestige classes and SLAs based on the wording of the rules to this thread. There is also this thread for those who want to hit the FAQ button on the issue.

Why I perceive this to be a problem
If this ends up becoming the law of the land, count me as beyond concerned. It has long (3.0 days forward) been an understood design philosophy that prestige classes required at least 5 levels of base classes before entry. The fact that this changes the base assumption (5 levels of base classes) about only a small percentage of prestige classes is just the beginning of the problem. This is poor game design philosophy – You don’t change some of the most basic assumptions about a major portion of the game without creating more problems than you’ve solved.

More specific to this problem, I’m afraid making changes like this will only move us closer to the 3.5e days of “I take 1 level in this prestige class, then 2 levels in this other prestige class, then a level in this third prestige class.” Wasn’t one of Pathfinder’s primary goals to make base classes viable? If we now feel like prestige classes are not viable, then why not do something about it for all of the prestige classes? If some of them are not viable, rewrite those ones. But please, please, don’t FAQ a “fix” for one-quarter of the prestige classes, thus making them over powered. (Sure, they seem like a trap now, but the ability to freely quicken a spell on a critical at 11th level instead of 16th level seems like a HUGE bump for a crit fishing Eldritch Knight. Hello power creep!)

Conclusion
In my opinion, incrimental FAQs should not be the way in which a major system change happens. Changing the base mechanics of prestige classes requires a lot more than what was done - otherwise there will be more problems created than were solved. If this were going to be done, it would have needed to be done when the Paths of Prestige rulebook was published, but that ship has sailed...

Discuss.

So two of my PCs fell into an unfortunate trap of a specific adventure path and to make a long story short, they have been taken to Hell for torture...

What I would like to do is make the torture feel very real for these two characters, without having to be TOO graphic. I'm also thinking that psychological torture is more effective than physical torture, and would like to focus more on the effects of torture on an observer, who is not themselves being tortured...

Currently, the PCs (C-G female human oracle into harrower and C-N male gnoll rogue/bard arcane trickster) are strapped (in 10 separate places) to Adamantium chairs which are spiked into the rock beneath and are each separately within an antimagic field. They are 30 feet apart, facing each other, and between them are two tables - one with all of their gear and a second with various torture devices. The creature who will be torturing them has the ability to simply steal everything that is within their mind, and he will do so to both of them before beginning the torture. The characters will be completely aware that they have just been mind &%$#ed and that there is nothing more this creature could learn from them, which will make the torture SEEM to have no point other than to cause suffering - but isn't that reason enough for devils?

As I alluded to earlier, I'm only planning to torture one of the PCs - the arcane trickster - while the other just has to sit and watch. In the end, I actually want this to be a terrifying experience for the harrower more so than the poor arcane trickster, as the arcane trickster will have the benefit of being brought back without any of his memories. (There are plots reasons for this, and the player likes the idea.)

Once the torture begins, the oracle will be gagged indefinitely. The arcane trickster will also be gagged, save the time (1 to 3 hours per day) that he is tortured. The torture will stop each day when the arcane trickster goes unconscious, and he will obviously be bleeding out of his many deep cuts, and probably will be missing at least one finger, toe, etc. each and every day... When the torture stops, a wall will go up dividing the harrower and the arcane trickster, leaving the harrower to wonder if the arcane trickster survived this time or not.

Unknown to the harrower, a group of imps will move in to stitch and mend the wounds of the nearly dead gnoll, for the purposes of continuing the torture. What the harrower will see is any body parts that cannot be reattached to the gnoll arcane trickster will be placed on a table 5 feet in front of the harrower. These will pile up fairly quickly, and in their place, human fingers, toes, arms, legs, ears, etc. will be stitched onto the gnoll. Torture of these newly attached pieces will be even more painful than his original body parts...

The wall between the harrower and the arcane trickster will ONLY come down for the mute, shackled, powerless, tireless (Hell is essentially timeless in my world) harrower to watch her comrade be tortured for no apparent reason. So my question is this - is there anything I can do to make it worse psychologically on the poor harrower...?

Notes: The age range of our group goes from 27 to 50, so I can get away with being graphic, I just prefer to use the mental part of it more. Also, I'm not interested in discussing if this is a good idea or not - my players can handle it and the characters put themselves in a bad situation. I have plans that will mitigate most of the damage in the end.

During this weekend's session, one of my players pointed out that it is much too easy to identify spells as their being cast when a character is higher level, despite the fact that 9th level spells are EXTREMELY RARE compared to 1st level spells. So I've undertaken the task of coming up with some house rules for Identifying Spells via Spellcraft. I know this has been done quite a few times by quite a few different people already and I've done a bit or research on it, but I prefer to start with a clean slate.

So here are my proposed house-rules. Please let me know of any possible exploits or thing I have overlooked. Also, feel free to make recommendations based on other house rules on this subject.

Basic Rule Modification:
•Identifying a spell as it's cast requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 15 + double the spell level instead of 15 + spell level.

Added Conditional Modifiers:
•Arcane spell casters attempting to identify an arcane spell as it is cast receive a +5 bonus to the check.
•Divine spell casters attempting to identify a divine spell as it is cast receive a +5 bonus to the check.
•Identifying spells as they are cast is easiest when both somatic and verbal components can be observed. Identifying a spell without either of these components (via the still or silent metamagic feats, for example) imparts a -5 penalty to the Spellcraft check made to identify the spell as it is being cast.
•Without perceiving either somatic or verbal components, it is not possible to identify a spell with Spellcraft as it is cast.

Spell-like Abilities:
•It is possible to identify the general properties of spell-like abilities as they are activated and the Spellcraft DC to do so is equal to 15 + double the equivalent spell level. If the Spell-like ability does not have an equivalent spell level, instead use 15 + the creature's caster level. ("The general properties of a spell-like ability" is intentionally open to interpretation by the DM.)

Background: I'm currently DMing Curse of the Crimson Throne and we're about to finish up within a few weeks. In addition to this, I'm currently playing (with the same group, but another guy is DMing) Rise of the Rulelords and we're going to finish up within a few months. So please no Rise of the Runelords spoilers...

I know there are a lot of questions, so if you can answer only one or two, that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for the help guys.

Questions:

1)

2) Can Runelords be killed? I would assume they are not completely immortal. (Please remember, no Rise of the Runelords spoilers, so general information only here...)

3) The Shattered Star AP assumes that the Rise of the Runelords and the Curse of the Crimson Throne APs have completed (this is the reason I've chosen this AP) - is there any links to this AP I should be aware of from Curse of the Crimson Throne, or any that I should inform my Runelords DM of...? (If you are going to use Runelords spoilers here, please include a spoiler tag and I'll direct my DM to this thread without reading it myself.) I don't want to mess up the Golarion world and would prefer to set it up properly for Shattered Star.

4) For the purposes of the Shattered Star AP, which events happened first - Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, or did they happen subsequently? Does the AP make any mention of these time lines, and if so, does it matter?

5) How many years after the end of Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne does the Shattered Star adventure path being?

6) Curse of the Crimson Throne is very urban and pretty linear. Rise of the Runelords is less urban but has also seemed fairly linear up to this point. Is Shattered Star more urban, or not? Is it fairly linear? I've read a few "short spoilers", and they were VERY light on the details. I would appreciate a 3 to 5 page or so summary of the adventure path and I did not (admittedly) search for this, so feel free to link to a good one, if it's out there.

7) I would like some personal opinions from DMs who've run the Shattered Star AP - Did you like it? Did you players like it? Was there any sections of the AP you would change up a bit if you did it again? If so, how?

The AP I'm DMing (Curse of the Crimson Throne) is coming to an end in a few weeks/months. Another guy in the group with loads of 3.5e DMing experience has stepped up and is planning to run Skulls & Shackles next for us. We’ve rolled up stats for the group (each person rolls 1 stat, then the array is created by placing them all together) and our stats are 16, 14, 13, 11, 10, 8. This is a bit lower powered than most people are used to, but since we will have 6 or 7 PCs, this is completely acceptable for us. Allowable source books are the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player’s Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, Paths of Prestige, and Advanced Racial Guide. Other material can be included as the DM’s discretion, but 3rd party and 3.0/3.5e stuff is certainly a no-go for our group. Allowed Races are all core races, all “featured” races, and the Samsaran and the Varanas, but we don’t allow the different flavors of Tielfings and Aasimars, just the usual stat bonuses for those two. As for classes, everything is cool, save the Summoner.

Currently, the group is shaping up as follows:
Samsaran Storm Druid (me)
Tengu Stormborn Sorcerer
Tiefling Seareaver Barbarian
Drow Ninja
Swashbuckly Swordsman (Dawnflower Dervish Bard, probably.)
Old Salty Cleric (maybe)
???? <---- This is the guy we have to help!

My friend is extremely indecisive, so I’m trying to help him come up with some character ideas. In our two APs (CotCT and RotRL) he’s playing a Wizard and an Oracle. As he’s always drawn to full casters, he’s committed to avoiding playing a full caster this time around. However, I think he wants to still have some spells to toy with, so 4 or 6 level caster suggestions are probably the best. He is also up in the air about wanting to play an archer character as he’s aware that improved precise shot is almost 100% necessary, which leaves the primary archery options as Ranger or Zen Archer Monk. He loves Monks, and we have a few house rules that power the monk up a bit (not much, but some), but with our stat array, he’s worried about having a 0 modifier in his intelligence, since we’re also under the impression that this is a skill heavy campaign – at least early on, anyways. I’ve suggested a non-lethal rogue with the sap master line of feats, as I think it would make for the perfect enforcer on a ship, and with the Scout archetype stacking with the Pirate archetype, this could make for great flavor and lots of big non-lethal hits. My friend is also really interested in an Inquisitor which could make for many great flavor options, but I think archery on an inquisitor is a no-go with the campaign setting and the prevalence of cover on a ship requiring improved precise shot, which you can’t get on an inquisitor until 14th level or so (and we’ve been informed the campaign will end around 15th level.) So a melee inquisitor is a decent option he’s considering… I feel I should mention that my friend is one of the min-maxers of the group (I’m one of the others), so having a character this is not completely worthless is a must. Though, he realizes that powering down a bit is not a bad idea as it helps balance the party. Also, he’s not huge on the whole magic item concept (he’s an old 2e player) so any build that relies on specific magic items will be less attractive. Also we’re under the impression that items may come and go during the course of the campaign, so this is another reason to make a character generally self sufficient.

So I turn to you, forum community, with your infinite knowledge - Please help my friend out with some character concepts... GO!

So with recent discussion about how to get FAQs answered and a side note I made in another thread found here, I've decided to post an "FAQ this please thread" regarding the use of power attack while wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand since I couldn't find an official answer elsewhere. (Hopefully I didn't just miss it.)

Question - When utilizing a two-handed weapon in one hand (such as a lance while mounted, or an earth breaker using the Thunder and Fang feat), is power attack intended to give -1 to attack rolls and +3 to damage rolls per 4 points of BAB as the feat seems to indicate with it's current wording?

For those who are not familiar with this concern (and are therefore wondering why I am asking you to click the FAQ button), please consider the difference between the wording for increasing your strength bonus to damage when wielding a weapon in two hands, compared to the wording for the same concern for power attack

When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands. Emphasis, Mine.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage. Emphasis, Mine.

So the problem is that wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand (which is achievable in a few different ways) leaves you getting 1 times your strength score, but 1 1/2 times the power attack bonus (+3 to damage rolls instead of +2 to damage rolls).

The following are examples of ways in which to utilize a two-handed weapon in one hand:

A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.

The lance makes no mention of whether it's to be considered a one-handed or two-handed weapon for the purposes of strength bonus to damage (which is currently clear, actually) or power attack damage bonuses.

The Thunder and Fang feat says that you can use the earth breaker as if it were one handed, which seems to suggest that you should only get +2 damage from power attack, not +3, but it is not completely clear.

The most recent addition to the game of the above examples, Jotungrip, does address this problem by stating that "the weapon is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like."

I personally believe that the way Jotungrip works is correct and that either all ways to utilize a two-handed weapon in one hand should be clarified as such, or the wording of power attack should be changed to match the wording used in the combat section when referring to wielding a weapon in two hands.

Comments are welcome, but please click the FAQ button first. Let's see if we can get an official answer on this. Thanks guys!

I am looking for thoughts and critiques on the new base class I've created for my next campaign. Note: I am the DM and will not be playing this class, so my motivations are NOT power gaming. They are, if anything, the opposite of that. My goal is to facilitate new and interesting character concepts that my players will find fun and flavorful without breaking the game. As a group, we ban the summoner & gunslinger (this is more for flavor reasons) and have a restriction on the number of archetypes that can be taken - 1 per character across all classes - because the Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist {AM ALCHEMIST} is stupidly overpowered. So keeping characters at a relatively standard power level is important to us. Or maybe it's just me, lol. As such, I've tried to balance this new base class with Core Rulebook classes - particularly the Barbarian.

Please rate this class in the following two categories in any responses that you make.
1) Flavor - Is this class something that you or another player at your table, if the feel or a Barbarian/Monk/Ranger (depending on the archetype) is not your thing would like to play?
2) Power - Does it seem in line with core rulebook stuff, or more or less powerful? I'm 90% sure I'm in a good spot, as I've run the DPR numbers and compared them to an Earth Breaker wielding, power attacking Barbarian. Please see the last page of the .pdf link for a graph on this. I am, however, concerned that I may have overlooked some possible feat paths, etc. As of now, I have paid little attention to and for the time being, I would not allow this class to be multiclassed, but advice on this is welcome as it will be a problem eventually.

For those of you who want a .pdf, here's a Google document.

For those of you who'd rather have it laid out on the boards, here you are:

-----The Huntsman-----

Alignment: Any non-lawful. Huntsmen value the laws of nature above those of civilization.

Hit Dice: d12.

Class Skills

The Huntsman class skills are Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (geography) (int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Skill Ranks per Level: 4 + Int Modifier

Level.....BAB............Fort....Ref....Will.....Special
1st......+1...............+2.....+0.....+0.....Shapeshift, Animal Senses
2nd......+2...............+3.....+0.....+0.....Bonus Feat, Animal Defenses +1
3rd......+3...............+3.....+1.....+1.....Experienced Hunter, Animal Tactics
4th......+4...............+4.....+1.....+1.....Animal Defenses +2, Shapshifters Escape
5th......+5...............+4.....+1.....+1.....Hybrid Form
6th......+6/+1............+5.....+2.....+2.....Bonus Feat, Improved Animal Senses
7th......+7/+2............+5.....+2.....+2.....Quick Shapeshift
8th......+8/+3............+6.....+2.....+2.....Animal Defenses +3
9th......+9/+4............+6.....+3.....+3.....Animal Pounce
10th.....+10/+5...........+7.....+3.....+3.....Bonus Feat
11th.....+11/+6/+1........+7.....+3.....+3.....Powerful Shapeshift
12th.....+12/+7/+2........+8.....+4.....+4.....Animal Defenses +4, Greater Animal Senses
13th.....+13/+8/+3........+8.....+4.....+4.....Natural Weapon Insight
14th.....+14/+9/+4........+9.....+4.....+4.....Bonus Feat, Extended Shapeshifting
15th.....+15/+10/+5.......+9.....+5.....+5.....Advanced Animal Tactics
16th.....+16/+11/+6/+1....+10....+5.....+5.....Animal Defenses +5
17th.....+17/+12/+7/+2....+10....+5.....+5.....Master Animal Tactics
18th.....+18/+13/+8/+3....+11....+6.....+6.....Bonus Feat
19th.....+19/+14/+9/+4....+11....+6.....+6.....Natural Weapon Mastery
20th.....+20/+15/+10/+5...+12....+6.....+6.....Master Shapeshifter, Animal Immunities

-----Class Features-----

The following are the class features of the Huntsman.

-----Huntsman Animal Ancestries-----

The following ancestries represent only some of the possible sources of power that a huntsman can draw upon.

-----New Feats-----

The following are new feats selectable by Huntsman.

-----Huntsman Archetypes-----

The following are Archetypes selectable by Huntsman.

Thanks for reading - please provide feedback!

Benefit: You gain a +2 insight bonus on Knowledge checks made to identify creatures, including the one Kirin Style allows. While using Kirin Style against a creature you have identified using that feat, as a swift action after you have hit a creature with a melee or ranged attack, you can add twice your Intelligence modifier in damage (minimum 2).

What I do know

Now I know this feat is a bit clunky in how it works and many things have been debated and sort of agreed upon here on the forums, but my search-fu is apparantly weak as I cannot find any answers for how this interacts with damage reduction.

Here's the scenario - a small sized Wizard/EK with an intelligence modifier of +6 is using vital strike with an +2 undead bane heavy repeating crossbow modified by gravity bow firing holy crossbow bolts against an undead creature with DR 10/Bludgeoning.

Based on what I have read, I am led to believe that Kirin Strike's bonus damage is always of the same type as the base damage, so in this case, piercing.

His vital strike damage with said weapon is 4d6, the undead bane adds another 2d6 and the holy adds 2d6 again putting the damage at 8d6 total. The first 4d6 + 2 (magic bow) piercing is reduced by 10 for obvious reasons, as it does not overcome the bludgeoning damage reduction. So let's call this 6 damage (average minus 10.) The 4d6 of the holy and undead bane goes off for another average of 14 damage. So far, we're at 20 average damage. No problems yet.

[/b]The Question[/b]
The Kirin Style feat says that you add damage as a swift action. As previously discussed, the type should be piercing, so if it is added separately (as it's a separate action to deal the damage), then it's reduced by 10 to only 2 points of added damage. However, it does say that you add the damage, so that also could imply that the 12 points of damage are added onto the 4d6+2-10 that we already applied the damage reduction to, meaning it deals it's full damage.

Unfortunately, the Damage Reduction description does not offer any assistance...

At the time, I let the game run along and did not rule that it would be reduced seperately. I'm not saying I made the wrong choice necessarily, but I figured I would seek advice for the future as this is likely to come up again by the end of the campaign. So which is it? Is Kirin Strike added to the attack as it implies therefore not being reduced by damage reduction seperately, or is it instead reduced seperately because it is activated using a second action?

(Note: I feel like Kirin strike should be worded as precision damage - "you take a swift action to study the creatures movements and aim your shot careful to hit an exposed weakness." If it were like this, that would solve a lot of problems, I think.)

First, I did my best to search for answers and what I found was less than satisfactory, so I'm starting a more targeted thread and hoping to get some better answers, with good sources.

My friend and I are trying to determine the cost of adding additional enchantments to an already existing magical item. For example, taking an amulet of Natural Armor +1 and adding the Mighty Fists +1 enchantment to it. First, here is the relevant source information:

Magic Item Creation - Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

Second, here is a few quotes from this thread. Granted it is from the "house rules" section (not sure why it's there), but I have always understood this to be the correct interpretation.

It appears that the RAW for pathfinder leaves a hole in the determination of exact price for magic items with multiple abilities when the item is a body slot item.

Example: If someone was making a ring that possessed invisibility, featherfall, and mind shield, what would be the cost?

Option 1: Featherfall X 100% + Invisibility X 150% + Mind Shield X 150%
Option 2: Invisibility X 100% + Featherfall X 150% + Mind Shield X 150%
Option 3: Mind Shield X 100% + Featherfall X 150% + Invisibility X 150%

This assumes all the pre-reqs are present.

The challenge I come across is that RAW makes it appear that the chronilogical order of how abilities were added are the adjudication for cost/price.

In theory this means that you could have three of the same item sitting side by side and the cost/price for all three would be different.

Has everyone been playing with the chronological pricing or has anyone found support for instituting a value based heiracrchy such as exists when crafting staves?

How I have always done it: (and the way we've always played it)
Example: Adding the Mighty Fists enchantment to my Amulet of Natural Armor +1.

Amulet of Mighty Fists = 4,000 gp (Calculated first, since it's the most expensive.)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 = 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp.
Total Item Value (Amulet of Mighty Fists, Natural Armor +1) = 7,000 gp.
Current Item Value (Amulet of Natural Armor +1) = 2,000 gp
Difference in price between current item and final item = 5,000 gp
Crafting cost = 2,500 gp.

However, the last paragraph of the original quote from the PRD seems to suggest that if the Mighty Fists is added to the amulet second, it should be multiplied by 1.5x meaning the total item value would be 8,000 gp instead. This creates a lot of problems, such as the following - If you find an item with two enchantments on it and then wish to upgrade it, how do you know which one was added first? Also, it seems silly to me that the order in which you create the item should influence it's cost.

Now, in fairness, I want to propose a counter argument:
If you complete something (such as a car) and then decide later to add something additional (let's say a turbo-charger), it would obviously be more difficult (and therefore more expensive) than if you had just included this in your original design. Planning ahead, crafting in a "proper" order, is not penalized.

In the end, I feel like having the second part of an item always cost 1.5x is silly for the following reasons:
1) When you upgrade an item, you're frequently putting more powerful enchantments on it and this feels like a hit to crafting. (Whether this is a good or bad thing is a conversation for another thread, so please leave it alone.)
2) As a crafter, you are required to keep track of HOW you built your items. You also have to know HOW the items that you find were built...
3) Same exact item, built by same exact person, but costs 10% more since it was built "in the wrong order."
4) I have a ring of protection +1 (2,000 gp) and I want to add the invisibility enchantment to it, which costs 10,00 gp. It's cheaper for me to throw my ring away and craft it from scratch than to upgrade it. Feels very wrong.

Anyways, that's all. Thanks for reading and giving feedback.

So a friend of mine is considering building a grappler for a campaign that we're playing in. Currently we're 8th level and the DM has hinted that bigger and badder monsters await us in the future (of course.) My friend is considering a few different builds to get what he wants, but he's concerned about the ability to grapple creatures at higher levels due to size and other factors. He's heard from multiple sources that combat maneuvers are increasingly difficult at higher level play. This is probably at least partially true.

My friend is consideringly a Tetori Monk. He's also considering taking 4 levels in Druid with the Shaping Focus feat to get to huge size, which would allow him to use the Tetori Monk's grab ability on larger creatures. I also mentioned the Lore Warden fighter archetype which would get him combat expertise without needing to meet the int prerequisite of 13 as well as a +2 bonus to CMB & CMD and full BAB. for a 4th level, you can grab weapon specialization for unarmed strikes in order to up your damage a bit when creatures are encountered that are difficult to grapple.

I have mentioned to my friend that the idea of taking class levels in 3 different classes (Tetori Monk 4/Druid 4/Lore Warden Fighter 4) will result in a character that misses out on a lot of the high end abilities. For example, the Tetori Monk gets some cool stuff at levels 9 and up. So this is something that I'd like other people's opinions/suggestions on as well.

So I'm curious if anyone has experience with any of the proposed builds. Maybe there are some better ideas out there that haven't been mentioned/considered. Keep in mind that this build will likely go into the mid to high teens, so it needs to maintain a level of effectiveness against most creatures at those levels. There will, obviously, be certain creatures (sizes gargantuan & colossul, for example) where combat maneuvers are all but out of the question, but I'd expect those to be the minority. Even so, a "backup plan" of what can be done in these instances is always a bonus.

So the Gnome Wizard 8/ Fighter 1/ Eldritch Knight 2 in my CotCT campaign picked up permanency and decided that being tiny sized at all times would be fun. (He has the magical knack trait to make him an 11th level caster.)

The question that has arisen is whether or not being tiny sized reduces the armor bonus on mage armor to +2 or if it remains at +4. As soon as the player mentioned the idea, I informed him that I was under the impression that the armor bonus from mage armor should only be +2. He disagreed, so as a fair ruling for the session, I had him flip a coin and it fell on +2 bonus from mage armor.

Here's a copy paste of the relevant text so you can help me determine if my ruling is correct:

Size: Tiny or smaller, divide armor bonus by 2. Armor and shields for unusually big creatures, unusually little creatures, and nonhumanoid creatures (such as horses) have different costs and weights from those given on Table: Armor and Shields. Refer to the appropriate line on Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures and apply the multipliers to cost and weight for the armor type in question.

An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.

Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can't bypass it the way they do normal armor.

The two arguments that came up at the table were as follows:

The general rule is that armors provide the specified armor bonus and mage armor says nothing to contradict that. Since the piece about unusually sized armors is under the "equipment" section, that applies only to manufactured armors of tiny or smaller size. The arguments in this camp also cited that mage armor is a force effect and therefore different.

vs

The general rule is that armors of size Tiny or smaller provide half the armor bonus and since mage armor does not contradict this and provides an armor bonus (meaning it is an armor), it suffers this same reduction when placed onto a tiny creature.

Personally, I fall into the second camp. My argument is that Mage armor specifically states the parts of the spell that make it different from armor: no armor check penalty, no spell fail, no speed reduction, and since it's a force effect, it's more effective against incorporeal creatures. For all other purposes, it follows the rules of normal armors - it doesn't stack with other armor bonuses, applies to your flat footed, but not touch armor class, etc.

This said, I do consider myself to be a pretty rules strict DM. I look at this as the best way to be fair, though I admittedly probably worry about rules too much sometimes. I should also say that as a wizard who wants to focus on making ranged touch attack and potentially utilizing a crossbow, being tiny is probably a good choice for him, regardless of whether it increases his armor (+4 mage armor = +2 ac) or simply nets him a zero armor difference (as a +2 mage armor would do). As such, I don't expect the ruling on this to change his mind about being tiny sized but I'm sure that he looked at the +2 armor class as a welcome boon.

So I ask you, forum goers, which ruling is correct?

Ok, so I have this concept of playing a character who wields two whips. Yes, I know it's going to be at -4 to all attack rolls. Combining that with the poor damage of the whip, this character is OBVIOUSLY not going to be super powerful. However the game I would potentially play this character in is a RotRL campaign (currently level 7) that already has 6 players and the DM has said that he'd prefer characters to be less optimized, so these are not problems for me. All that said, I obviously don't want to be the laughing stock, so with those heavy penalties in mind, some solid decisions are likely necessary. Also, the game has a half-elf bard who's chosen the alternate racial trait that increases his inspire courage bonuses, so that will greatly help my attack rolls. Anyways, here is is - feel free to give me any advice or feedback. (I want this character to be fairly balanced, so keep that in mind when making suggestions.)

Race: Human (Duel Minded, +2 str, +2 dex)
Class: Fighter (needs the bonus feats, weapon training, weapon focus & specs)
Ability Scores (group uses standard array) Str 18, Dex 16, Con 13 (+1 4th level), Int 12, Wis 12, Con 10
Traits: Adopted - Chain Master and Defender of the Society
Feats:
1 - Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Whip
1 - Two-Weapon Fighting
2 - Whip Mastery
3 - Double Slice
4 - Weapon Focus - Whip
5 - Weapon Specialization - Whip
6 - Improved Two-weapon Fighting
7 - Improved Whip Mastery
8 - Greater Weapon Focus - Whip (planned)
9 - Greater Whip Mastery (planned)
10 - unsure...
11 - Two Weapon rend (planned)
12 - Greater Weapon Specialization - Whip (planned)

Also, I have considered the idea of taking a level of bard for the whip proficiency, but I think with eating the -4 to all attack rolls, a +1 boost to my BAB is more important to me than 1 feat... I also considered going dex based instead of human, giving my my bonus feat back (since I don't need the +2 dex) but requiring weapon finesse, so it's feat neutral. This, however, left my damage even more underwhelming, lol.

I do like having the option of tripping and disarming with my whips, though I know that becomes difficult against most common enemies at higher levels, but it'll probably work sometimes. Combat Expertise may be an option for me also if I think tripping and disarming will be regular parts of my tactics.

Any other advice? Am I missing anything obvious?

Thanks for the help.

Edit: forgot to mention that this character would start with 25K gold but could spend no more than 6K on any single item, so a +2 full platemail, 2 +1 whips, a belt of strength, amulet of NA +1, Ring of Deflection +1, and Cloak of Resistance +2 are what I'd plan to pick up (23.5K total money). If I'm not mistaken, this would put me at 24 AC, which isn't great for a fighter, but isn't awful either.

During a session this weekend, one of my players (an 8th level Witch) tried using the Spite spell (a 4th level Witch spell) to duplicate Enervation (which is not on the Witch's spell list) on herself. I ended up not allowing it, knowing that Enveration is a Wizard/Sorcerer spell only and because the player informed me well after his turn was over - "Oh yeah, you get hit with eneveration"... This is beyond the statute of limitations - even for what I'll allow myself to change. (I forgot assassins had evasion one round earlier...)

That scenario aside, I think that Spite was used incorrectly and I'm hoping someone else can confirm this for me. As I understand it, when you cast Spite, as part of your action you can expend any other spell you have prepared of 4th level or lower (in addition to Spite) that has a range of touch. That spell will then go off the next time an enemy touches you.

Am I correct here, or does the Spite really spell allow you to duplicate ANY spell of 4th level or lower (whether it's on your list or not) and only require you to expend the Spite spell itself? To me, this seems horribly wrong, since Wish (the most powerful spell in the game) only allows you to utilize spells not on your list at 2 levels lower.

The one thread I found was from 2010, so I didn't see the need to perform thread necromancy, but the single response to that thread was in agreement with my reading of the spell. I'm just looking for additional input before letting my player know that his interpretation of the spell is incorrect and that he can choose another spell if he wishes... Thanks!

So I'm currently running (as the DM) an adventure that will be coming to an end in the coming months. One of the guys in the group has already stepped up and said that he would like to run Skulls & Shackles as the next campaign. Hearing of a sea-faring adventure, I immediately jumped to a Druid of the Storms & Sease - Weather Domain with the Storms sub domain.

So the one thing that I'm not a huge fan of in general is summoning - particularity since we have a group of 6 players - it tends to slow things down somewhat significantly. But that is a pretty solid part of the Druid class... So I'm planning to ask the guy who will be running the next campaign to consider letting me spontaneously convert my spells to those from my domain list instead of Summon Nature's Ally. I would place the limitation that every single domain spell be one from the Druid list already. This rules out picking something like the Fire domain, which would grant me more access to spells off another classes list - obviously more powerful. I was curious if anyone had allowed this in the past or considered it? If so, did it seem balanced and were there any unintended consequences?

As the guy currently running the adventure, I've been reluctant to stray far from the rules as a few of my players always want things that are more powerful than the abilities they're currently given... So I don't want to turn into that guy myself, lol. To me, this seems like a request that would not be any more powerful than summoning loads of eagles or sharks or whatever else I need at the moment - thus slowing the game down.

tl;dr - see title.

For reference, here's a list of the spells I would be able to spontaneously convert to instead of SNA.

1, Obscuring Mist, Druid 1
2, Fog Cloud, Druid 2
3, Call Lightning, Druid 3
4, Sleet Storm, Druid 3
5, Call Lightning Storm, Druid 5
6, Sirocco, Druid 6
7, Control Weather, Druid 7
8, Whirlwind, Druid 8
9, Storm of Vengeance, Druid 9