Moondarq's page

One way to fix some of these issues would be to extend the casting time on some of the non-combat cantrips/orisons. For example, if Guidance and create water took a entire turn, or maybe even an hour to cast, they'd be a little harder to abuse.

Or perhaps a "recharge" mechanic would be appropriate. For example, some cantrips/orisons would require an hour between castings, or somesuch.

While I must admit I love the flavor and boost to the sorcerer, bloodlines is not the way to go.

Bloodlines should be tied to race, not class.

For example, when my dwarven fighter takes a level of Sorcerer suddenly I get a Bloodline that has never materialized before now. Ok, possible but stretches all credibility. The bloodlines ONLY manifest for the sorcerer class.

Bloodlines can be limited to only manifesting at Character level 1, but then so much of the new sorcerer is tied to the bloodline that multiclassing is hosed.

Multiclassing into sorcerers has always been a problem for me as a DM. In the PHB they talk about how a sorceror's magic is natural, manifesting during the sorceror's youth. So yeah, how do you explain the 8th level Fighter suddenly realizing he's natural magic?

The bloodline angle has always been a part of the sorceror class... even before Paizo. In the Core PHB they talk about a sorcerer's Draconic heritage.

These "problems" have existed before Pathfinder.

Intead of poking your party members with a stick you prefer to poke them with your finger ? How that is better ?

The stick costs 750 gold. As another post above already points out, the "unlimited" healing of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is mitigated by a monetary cost. Furthermore when those 50 charges run out, the players will have to spend another 750 gold to get more "unlimited" healing.

Also the DM can limit the availability of a happystick if he wants things to get a little tense. "Sorry, we're all sold out of them. That's a popular item with you adventurer types." or "Um, we're just simple farmers... we don't have a magic shop. I hear they got one in the Big City over the hill... just a week's travel from here."

So yeah, I'm fine with Cure Minor Wounds getting left out. But I suppose I could be persuaded to change my view if there was a material component to cast it... say something like 1gp per casting.

I'm pretty flexible on which knowledges work for the monster types. For example, a Lich is undead, and therefore would normally require a Knowledge Religion check. But Because a ton of liches are high level arcane casters, I'd let the wizard player in my campaign make a Knowledge Arcane check - perhaps with a higher DC.

Another example of this type of crossover would be certain types of outsiders. I imagine a Cleric of Drauga, a deity who is known to be "The Father of Demons" could probably use Knowledge Religion to get info on demons, rather than having to rely on Knowledge Planes.

The inscription Conan reads on the wall would have worked the same for anyone able to read it. Unless you consider literacy a supernatural ability. And actually, for a barbarian maybe it would be.

I'm not familiar with any of R. E. Howard's stories having Conan turn undead. I do recall a story where an item Conan buys from a peddler turns out to be a magic charm that protects Conan from shadowy demons during a battle.

I'm not doubting your argument, but maybe you can tell me which stories you are citing?

As for the maenads, I'd call the claws extraordinary rather than supernatural (despite their origin). And again, I think their definition as barbarians is suspect. They were zapped by a god into that incarnation. I'd say that Dionysus simply took ordinary Greek women and applied a badass template to them. One of the template abilities would be the rage ability (like a badger has).

Also I forgot about the wings of Pathos thing. Maybe we should give the barbarian "Fly" as a class skill?

As for the mythic argument, I'll concede that point that legendary and mythic characters did have supernatural abilities. But a lot of these figures are gods, related to gods, or have other unusual backgrounds. At the very least most of them would be epic, and thus have access to all kinds of crazy feats beyond the ken of mortal players.

Ultimately it is a matter of taste. In my campaign, barbarians are more pulpy than mythy. I suppose that a barbarian who prays to the "Flamebird" totem could indeed manifest fire damage through his longspear. Conan never conjured acid onto his battle axe simply by getting angry. I guess he just didn't choose that rage ability.

I used to be annoyed by the fact that in 3.5 if I wanted to make a "classic" bard, that is a singer who can tell tales and play a lute or harp, I'd have to have 2 or 3 perform skills (Sing, Orate, Stringed Instruments).

I think having some automatic skills makes sense as part of a character's "basic training"

I'd only allow this at first level though. If you multiclass you don't get the free skill points in the class you multiclass into.

I like the Arcane armor feats as they are. They were designed to benefit core arcane casters, like the wizard and the sorcerer.

Adding extra prerequisites and feats to the chain makes them less useful for such classes.

And what is the benefit of these revisions? More realism? Or is it just to benefit non-OGL classes at the expense of the Pathfinder core classes?

I understand that we want the system to be as widely compatible as possible. But I seem to recall the Alpha 2 rules specifically stating that one of the game designers' goals in beefing up the core classes was to make them comparable in power to the "more powerful" classes that came in later non-OGL books (as well as prestige classes).

Now they don't mention Duskblade or Beguiler by name... they can't actually... but I think mebbe these were some of the classes they were talking about.

Don't get me wrong. I like Duskblades. I just don't see the point in nerfing my wizard to make things easier for a class that is already pretty badass.

Also remember that classes like Duskblade and Beguiler are already getting a slight power boost from Pathfinder because all classes in Pathfinder get more feats than they did in regular 3.5.

This is a repeat of other threads, in particular this one which is specifically about Elemental Rage.

As for my reasons why I strongly and almost entirely disagree with you on the point of supernatural powers being in the repertoire of the barbarian, look there or on the several other threads about Barbarian Rage in general where Elemental Rage is brought up. In summary: Berserkers, Cu Culainn, Thor, Maenad, etc.

Let us examine the barbarians you cite:

berserkers, or bare sarks were pretty badass. However, one of Hrolf Kraki's heroes beats down a dozen of them singly and in a group. And neither Hrolf Kraki's hero, nor the berserkers displayed any supernatural abilities such as doing fire damage with their weapons.

Cu Chulain displayed some abilities that could be considered supernatural, I'll grant you that. But the rage ability is stated as being (Ex), NOT (Su). Also, I think Cu Culainn could arguably be called a fighter rather than a barbarian, but this is a rather esoteric point.

Thor was a Norse deity. It's pretty hard to say whether his supernatural abilities stemmed from his class level or from his being a god. My personal opinion is the latter, since the mortal heroes of Norse myth didn't ever do energy damage with a non-magical weapon in any of the texts I've read.

Maenads aren't a specific person, but a group of "wild women" followers of the Greek god Dionysus. Again, it is arguable as to whether or not they can be called barbarians, but even if we grant them that class, I still don't recall them doing much of anything magical in any of the literature. Pretty much they were just savage, cannibalistic women that, in groups, could tear a man to pieces. This is a far cry from doing acid damage with a non-magical battleaxe.

Some other barbarians I can site from myth, legend and literature are shown to be bereft of such magic. Conan, who may be the archetypal barbarian of modern fantasy is entirely without magic, as are most of the other barbarians which borrow from him. I could also mention a number of Hrolf Kraki's heroes (the Norse version of Arthur's Knights) could be considered barbarians, but for the most part, had no magic.

Also, I didn't say that I disapproved entirely of barbarians having supernatural abilities. I simply don't think a core barbarian should have them. But since this rage ability is optional it isn't really a huge point of contention with me.

But Paizo isn't concerned with balancing things for Duskblades, because Duskblades aren't a core class.

In fact, part of the reason Paizo is beefing up the core classes is because classes like the duskblade are already pretty darn cool.

Regarding the Paladin, I think you may be overlooking one of their class abilities: the Celestial Spirit. At 15th level a paladin can use it in a number of interesting ways.

Paladin versus wraiths: Imbuing the weapon with Ghosttouch significantly improves the odds. If the weapon already has this feature, the paladin can choose Undead Bane or Holy instead.

Paladin versus treants: I believe these creatures have a vulnerability to fire. Otherwise the paladin could always choose Plant Bane as a quality to help with his damage output. Also the Paladin could have spells to beef up his AC for the encounter.

I'll just come out and say it: I don't like this one at all. It just doesn't fit with me, that raging fury translates to elemental power. Its too magicy for me and seems to exist solely to allow the Barbarian to smash through a bit of damage reduction. Just my 2 cents.

I agree. My preference is that the barbarian not have any ability that could be seen as supernatural... at least not in the core books. The rage ability is defined as (Ex), not (Su) so the rage abilities should comply with this.

I suppose there could be a variant barbarian with some kind of "Elemental Totem" power or somesuch, but I'd prefer to see that kind of stuff in a supplement rather than as core rules.

Ok, look, I've played OGL games by Mongoose and other companies and many of them had the standard character generation used in the core rulebooks, so there probably is NOT an issue with stat generation.

I'm really not sure WoTC could put proprietary rights on how to roll up stats anyway.

I've gamed for 25 years and there have always been a large number of DMs who have their own house rules for generating stats, so I really don't see the need for re-inventing the wheel in Paizo's core rulebook.

I think a lot of people are really negative about 4E because they invested serious amount of money buying all 950 of the 3.5E splatbooks. And now that these splatbooks are obsolete they're gonna have to save up their money to buy all the 4E splatbooks.

Aww come on- Mayfair over West End Games? What is this, the bizzaro universe?!?!? ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I really like West End Games. And I don't especially care for Mayfair at all. I'm just saying that West End really blew it with their take on the DC Heroes RPG.

I'd much rather the drow were set on fire, impaled on stakes and set out as a warning to writers not to take a fairly bland concept and make it even more boring with special abilities like Writer Fiat and Whine, whine, whine.

One of the biggest problems D&D suffers under is the '31 Flavors' problem. There are literally a dozen elf-like things. And essentially 99 varieties of 'evil humanoid'. They add nothing to the game, and since they share the same design space, they actively make each other boring. I honestly can't remember any more if xvarts are impinging on the hobgoblins' 'organized empire', the kobolds' pathetic cunning evil, or orcish/gnollish 'savage evil' or the lizardman 'not actually evil, but go ahead and stab them in the face anyway, because no one has moral qualms about what you do to lizards'.

I agree with that sentiment.

In my own campaign world I've done a good bit of consolidating and culling of the various humanoids into a more manageable variety.

I don't automatically let my players multiclass into sorcerer, because a sorcerer is born with his or her ability (a factor emphasized by Pathfinder's sorcerer bloodlines). As a DM I'd make the player do some story work to get permission to multiclass into sorcerer.

One thing that I have never liked about 3.5 is the fact that you have to confirm critical hits. I understand that this most likely will not change because of backward compatability issues, but I would suggest reformimg the system anyway. One house rule that I have been using for a long time now is that critical hits do twice your maximum damage. This way a player is not penalized for a crappy damage roll on a critical hit. Imagine the half-orc barbarian with 18 strength and greataxe who flubs his damage roll and ends up only doing 15 points of damage on his critical hit. Compare that with the 48 damage that they would do if the did max damage. Remeber the excitment you used to feel when you rolled a critical? Its time to bring it back.

The reason you confirm critical hits is because otherwise creatures that NEED a natural 20 to hit you would ALWAYS hit you for double damage.

Granted, Dwargo the commoner only has a five percent chance to hit Elmo the Fighter because of his awesome AC, but it seems silly to presume that the few times Dwargo does hit, he automatically scores double damage.

Eleminate percentile miss chances (as the current rules stand) such as for arcane spell failure, concealment, and invisibility. There is one more roll to be made (sometimes two if you are murky eyed for example) which is unnecessary because

there is a simpler solution: just apply a -1 penalty per 5% (or perhaps 10%) miss chance to your attack roll.

This leaves the "problem" with arcane spell failure. I can life with the complete removel of such a rule, but for "3.5'S sake" keep it. A possibility would be to reduce effective caster level by 1 per 5% (or 10%) or arcane spell failure.

Just some suggesstions. Thoughts?

The problem with changing miss chance to a to-hit penalty is that it allows beings with super high attack bonuses to ignore invisibility.

For example consider this scenario with the miss chance rules as they are now:

Dwargo the commoner swings at the invisible wizard with an AC of 15. He needs to roll a 15 to hit, and even if he does roll the 15, he misses half the time.

Elmo, the 14th level fighter with 18 strength, weapon focus can only miss the wizard on a die roll of "1" - but because the wizard is invisible, he STILL only hits half the time.

Now consider the same scenario with your proposed ruling:

Dwargo swings at our invisible wizard. He basically has to hit an AC 24 now, because of the concealment penalty. He'll have to roll a natural 20.

Elmo, on the other hand, has total attack bonus of 19. Now he has to roll a "4" or better with his first attack, a 9 or better with his second, and a 14 or better on the third. All this without any special ability to see invisibility.

My vote has to be the DC Universe rpg from West End Games. Clunky and not much fun to play. Mayfair's DC Heroes that came out before it was great!

I wholeheartedly concur! I used to love West End (Star Wars first ed, Paranoia, Ghostbusters), but this game really blew. It was clear they were just trying to shoehorn superheroes into their "Universal" d6 system.

Basically when you buy a superhero RPG and you can't make a character that flies, shoots some kind of beam, and maybe has a forcefield without going into the "Advanced Character Generation" rules, something is out of whack.

Other roleplaying games I dislike include:

Star Trek (The FASA version) and Rolemaster (we used to call it "Roll Master" - and I also include their sucky version of the Middle Earth rpg)

My group played day before yesterday using Alpha 2 rules, and we;ll play tomorrow again, but with some modifications. The group consists of drow sorcerer, quagoth figter, thri-kreen ranger (modified fighter, becouse 3.5 ranger sucks) and dwarven cleric. They are all level 6. The guy who plays sorcerer wants the following changes: better BAB (but not necessarly hd per level), light armor on first level, one exotic or martial weapon feat and spellpoints. That way he can be of some use in melee. We'll try that tomorrow and I'll post results here.

If your sorcerer were a human he could use the extra feat he gains to purchase the Arcane Armor combat feat, subtracting 10% from the spell failure for light armor. If he buys a Mithril Chain shirt, he doesn't suffer any penalties, even if he isn't proficient in light armor.

The human also gets a free proficiency in the weapon of his choice.

So the druid wasn't disappointed that he had to give up his animal companion in exchange for the Fire Domain? Looking at the abilities, that seems like kind of a weak trade:

-Fire Bolt -- fun at low levels, but kind of pointless at higher levels
-Burning Hands -- pointless at higher levels
-Resist Energy (fire only) -- pretty weak
-Crown of Flames -- Weak ability that only works when someone punches me in the face :)
-Wall of Fire -- O.K.
-Fire Storm -- O.K.
-Elemental Swarm -- I hate that 10 minute casting time

As DM, my experience with players using animal companions breaks down into these situations:

1) The player creates an effective animal companion, which provides additional tankage for the adventuring party, or perhaps has other uses depending on the druid's ingenuity and the DM's permissiveness. In addition the druid often opts to prepare spells that make his companion even more effective.

or

2) The player picks an animal he or she thinks is neat or cute. The druid often forgets about the animal companion. The player forgets or gets confused about advancing her animal companion every couple of levels. The DM has to ask the druid what she wants to do with her Dire Lion when the adventuring party enters a large city, etc.

I like the fact that Pathfinder has provided a second option for animal companions, familiars, and special mounts for those players that simply don't want to deal with the hassle of controlling a second character.

I had pretty much assumed that a wizard can have one bonded item at a time... in other words as long as one bonded item exists he couldn't make another one.

So yeah, he could sell one item. And basically get some extra money in trade for having to make a spellcraft check every time he wants to cast some of his spells.

But really it does say "bonded" item. It wouldn't be much of a bond if the item can be sold.

Kinda like selling your Monkey familiar to a circus.

I'll cast my vote for keeping some skills condensed. I like the "Stealth" skill. And honestly, if you wanna make a character that's great at hiding but can't sneak, talk to your DM. I'm sure an accommodation can be reached.

As for Spellcraft and Concentration, I'm fine with that combination. It seems that the people who don't like it are in two camps:

1) The "Realism" camp says the two skills have nothing in common, and are therefore unrealistic to combine.

2) The "I like to use concentration skill for non-spellcasting applications" camp wants their Fighters and Rangers to make concentrations rolls to do stuff like shoot arrows on the deck of a storm-tossed ship and other such thingies.

First let me respond to Camp 1):

There is a perfectly "realistic" way to make the concentration mechanic a spellcraft mechanic. If we define spellcraft as how skillful one is at spellcasting, that it makes sense to apply the concentration mechanic to that skill.

For example, I am pretty easily distracted. I have a hard time focusing on things in general. But I'm really good at playing guitar. I can play guitar so well, in fact, that I won't miss a note, even when I'm drunk or being jostled in a crowd.

By the same token we can explain that a spellcaster can successfully cast a spell while distracted because of their ability at spellcasting... not because they are really good at concentrating.

There, that resolves the "Realism" issue.

Now for Camp 2):

The PHB does mention something about other uses of concentration besides spellcasting. But I've been playing 3.5 since it came out, and I can't say I've ever seen a published product that used the Concentration skill for anything outside of spellcasting/psi-manifesting.

If you've adopted the skill to do this in your campaign, you're doing so because you've created a house rule. There's nothing wrong with this, but why insist that Paizo has to adopt your house rules?

Personally I'd rather assign penalties to rolls, or modify DCs for rolls rather than add a concentration roll to a bunch of different combat and non-combat checks.

So yeah, I'm pretty much fine with Paizo's spellcraft skill.

I have to agree that Spellcraft and Concentration shouldn't be splatted together, and that Spellcraft should be splatted with Knowledge (arcane), though I would say that Knowledge (arcane) is only for arcane spellcasting and Knowledge (religion) is for divine spellcasting. I would also agree that Concentration should absorb Control Lycanthropy and Autohypnosis.

I am not convinced by the argument that spellcasters have to take both. In particular, Spellcraft in 3.5 is unneeded. Why would you have to take it? Especially if you're a Cleric or Paladin?

Indeed, why would you have to take Concentration as a Wizard?

If you want your wizard to be able to cast spells after he takes damage, or while riding a horse, or while standing on the deck of a ship during a storm, or to cast defensively to avoid attacks of opportunity, you're gonna want to have a decent Concentration score.

It wouldn't be that difficult to incorporate monotheism into D&D. Just decide which domains the One God would offer, and have your cleric player pick two of those.

If you wanted evil clerics, you'd have to create a Satanic figure that could grant abilities to evil clerics.

Viktor_Von_Doom wrote:

crosswiredmind wrote:

Gotham Gamemaster wrote:

Majuba wrote:

K wrote:

"Must all balance be combat balance?"

Yes. Next question?

Agreed.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Fifthed.

Sixthed.

Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.

Negative one'd.

I'd agree that MOST balance issues are combat related. Perhaps even 90% of all balance issues are related to combat.

But not ALL of them.

Remember that in Pathfinder, a cleric's turn attempts also heal any living creature in the area. This can be a great way to keep player characters from dropping, so long as you can do so without healing your enemies.

I agree with SirUrza. I'm playing a 3rd level Wizard for the Alpha Test, and I have to say that the new Wizard abilities do help extend my character's usefulness beyond the "15-minute" limit to some degree.

My wizard specializes in Evocation, which allows her to cast a 1d4+1 damage ray of the energy of my choice all day long.

In addition I get a free magic missile once per day.

Also, my wizard took the "bound item" option intead of a familiar, which allowed her to make a Wand of Burning Hands for roughly 200 gp. The wand also casts 1 spell from any she has in her book once per day.

Altogether that adds up to a lot of utility for small encounters while allowing me to save up my memorized spells for when they're needed most.

Demiurge 1138 wrote:

How does Dodge work? Do you get a +1 dodge bonus to AC all the time, so long as you say "I'm using my Dodge feat"? If so, why bother specifying?

Unless they change something, Dodge only works for 1 enemy. If a character is fighting 2 orcs at once, he picks an orc and until his next turn, he only gets the +1 against that one orc.. even if it dies. That's why you specify.

They did change the Dodge feat. It now gives a straight AC bonus against all enemies.

But since it is a Combat Feat, you don't get to use Dodge on the same round you use another feat.