Michael_1707's page

Well, charm person and it's later level equivalents are one of the main focuses of this character, so I don't really want to drop it. But I'm certainly willing to trade Sleep out if there's something better.

Actually, I was just sitting here thinking that Dancing Lights would be a better use of my spells known. So I'm definitely going with that.

Since I'm getting rid of Sleep which would you suggest I replace it with: Colour Spray, Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, or Shield?

PS. I'm going with a Raven familiar.

I'm currently making a level 1 CG Half-Elf face of the party Arcane Sorcerer that I wish be good at magically influencing people and metamagic.

These are the spells I think I going to have on my spell list, but I'm not 100% confident about my spell selection, and I have no idea what spells I'm going to take later. So, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cantrips: Detect Magic, Light, Ghost Sound, Prestidigitation,
1st Level: Sleep, Charm Person

I was under the, probably mistaken, impression that only one synergy could apply to any particular skill roll. If not I would probably house rule it that way.

I suggest that instead of creating a new skill group system, that you simply lift the already existing Iron Heroes skill groups. It is Open Game Content and already covers the core classes.

Using this system each individual skill costs one point per rank and each class gets access to one or two skill groups which gives a rank in each subskill for every skill point spent on the group. A multiclassed character has access to the skill groups of every class that he has taken, and if he has bought ranks in both a subskill and a skill group that contains that subskill that subskill still cannot have more than the maximum number of ranks for that character level.

The only possible problem is the names of the skill groups; I'm not sure if those names count as Product Identity or Open Game Content. Also, even if Paizo doesn't include skill groups in Pathfinder you can still use them in your games.

If you want I can post the skill groups, and which classes have access to which groups. Although, if the group names turn out to be Product Identity then I will have to change them.

I'm sorry for the double post, but my edit button seems to have disappeared. Reading through the thread again I noticed the Dual Attack feat. That would make a decent replacement for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Parry Riposte on the other hand would be overpowered using the realistic variant as the Two-Weapon Fighting feat would already let you add two to your AC. Twice, if you have Improved Two-Weapon fighting.

The Ranger's combat style is simply a class feature that has the same mechanics as a pre-existing feat; it is not actually a bonus feat. If the designers had intended for the Rangers to actually have the appropriate feats they would have simply given it to them as bonus feats. You may also notice that Rangers don't have to qualify for said feats in order to count as having them. The fighting styles represent special class specific training that makes Rangers capable of wielding two weapons or firing two arrows in a single round in light armor. The only reason it mentions the feats is because said feats are pre-existing game mechanics that accomplish the same effect. The limitations are in place because they are not actually feats, but are class features.

The simplest way to fix the two-weapon fighting style would probably be to replace it with the realistic variant or a reasonable facsimile thereof. It removes the extra off-hand attack and makes two-weapon fighting not suck when used by characters without sneak attacks while still being useful for characters with sneak attack due to the feinting bonus it gives. However, if you did do that you would need to give rangers something else instead of greater two weapon fighting. Maybe oversized two-weapon fighting? Or you could give oversized two weapon fighting instead of improved two-weapon fighting, then give that in place of greater two-weapon fighting. It really depends on whether being able to make two aid another checks on yourself while still attacking is worth the same as a third off-hand attack.

I think what the fluff is saying is that due to his aberrant nature, the casters weak points move every round or so, so that there is no way to target them. Whereas a construct's or undead's weak points (a brittle joint on an iron construct, a zombie's head, etc.) are static and therefore targetable.

The Arcane Fighter has been discussed on numerous boards. The thing I keep seeing again and again is that either it is way to powerful or just not worth the paper it is printed on. If you make it a good enough fighter it can't be much of a caster, if you make it a pretty good caster then getting in close tends to result in you making a new character. Trying to adapt one bloodline into an arcane warrior will most likely result in a lot of rules to keep that particular bloodline from being to powerful and still able to do enough to be enjoyable to play. That many rules are best relegated to a new class, not just an option of another one.

Right after I posted, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't make an effective general purpose melee bloodline anyway, so I decided to make a mage killer melee who can defend himself in actual melee just long enough to escape from it. I'm thinking of giving it either good touch spells or spell like abilities since they target arcanists worst defence... AC. I'm also considering giving them true strike as a swift action spell like ability a number of times per day; because, if I'm reading the rules right, it gives you +20 to touch attacks. That might be overpowered though, I'm not sure yet.

I think that if your going to give melee bloodline abilities to Sorcerers, then you should at least have their other bloodline abilities and spells make them worthwhile melee fighters, not just squishies with claws... In fact, I think they should make a melee bloodline. Then we would finally have a core melee arcanist. The bloodline powers/spells would need to make going in close a viable option instead of suicide, then you would just pick melee support, close range damage, and quick escape/movement spells.

I'll see if I can come up with one myself, and I'll post it when I'm done. Should I post it here, or should I make a thread for it?

Any suggestions before I start? Either on the bloodline abilities/spells or on what spells would be appropriate for a melee Sorcerer build?

I like the Pathfinder Half-Elves. They need not the buff, nor the nerf. They have achieved... balance.

The pdf is gone. I clicked the link and got this "The key you provided for file download was invalid. This is usually caused because the file is no longer stored on Mediafire. This occurs when the file is removed by the originating user or Mediafire."

I tried to download the pdf and got this "The key you provided for file download was invalid. This is usually caused because the file is no longer stored on Mediafire. This occurs when the file is removed by the originating user or Mediafire." Is the file still there?

R_Chance wrote:

I think that's what people are looking for -- a fighter / arcane caster that rides the fighter side of the line, like the Paladin and Ranger. The Bard, for all it's good points, just doesn't cut it there. Given the long multi-classing tradition of Elvin Fighter / Magic User (which was what made Elves popular in the original D&D) I would have expected some decent combo class to emerge in 3.E. They seem to have stuck with multi-classing and then later, in various supplements, come up with some fairly unsatisfactory combo classes. It would be nice if somebody -- Paizo for example -- came up with a good class :) Just hinting here guys... but it would certainly help round out the core classes.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48760

This is my proposition for a fighter/wizard class with a fighter BAB progression. This class is based on magicians in Vance's Dying Earth stories - they usually fought with swords, supplementing them with magic.

This class is distinctly weaker than a wizard, but on the wizard-fighter powerscale it is much nearer wizard than figher.

I like it, D&D has been using Vancian magic since BD&D all the way down to the prismatic spells, it's about time it got a Vancian Wizard. I think it needs a little something at level 20 though; maybe Silent Spells? Also, I'm a little confused, does it get bonus spells for a high spell attribute? And if so which attribute gives the bonus spells CHA or INT? I can't tell if you forgot to write it into the description because you thought it was obvious, or if you didn't want them to have bonus spells.

True, but Lay on Hands as a healing power is practically useless before you get channel positive energy, and it's more useless afterwards, it almost feels that the only reason it's still in the class is because it's always been there. Either make it a semi-useful healing ability, or take it out and just give him a power pool for his LoH based abilities. Giving a player a two point heal once a day is just mean. At the very least make it a (CHA bonus + level)/2 heal. That would make it useful at low levels when you need it, without overshadowing the real healers or overpowering him at high levels.

I agree, even a first level elf wizard with 9 con has 9 HP(using the racial health rules). The Alpha version of Lay on Hands is useless for healing the Paladin or any of the other front line characters. Even if you kept the number of uses per day the same, making Lay on Hands act as cure light wounds would make the ability useful, and hardly overpowering. It also makes things a little easier in when no one wants to play as the Cleric.