Morhin's page

42 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


thenobledrake wrote:
... Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. ...

Well, what kind of save is implied then? A Will save? Ice storm does not have a save, as we all know.

Common sense would put it as a Fortitude save, but that is not implied. Either it is no save, as the ice storm itself, or it is a Will save as with hold person.

The specific save formula is not the question here. The parent spell allows no saving throw, and the mentioned "as if by" spell has one.

If it boils down to a Will save to end a paralyzation effect caused by a spell of the evocation [cold] school, then that's an entirely new kind of save for me at least. :)

Hence, my question.

CWheezy wrote:
Ice storm has no save in the base spell

Exactly, and it was because of that I implied the other conclusion, that is, paralyzation until the end of the duration, which is a too strong spell power (a no save "save or die" effect).

Reading it the other way, like hold person implies a Will save (?) which is even more strange - a freezing mind-affecting compulsion?.

So I really don't know how to use this mythic spell in the upcoming WotR game.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Casting the augmented version of mythic ice storm causes one target to be paralyzed (as if by hold person).

Now, does this mean that ice storm suddenly gains the compulsion [mind-affecting] descriptors and a Will save for that target? Which seems utterly weird. Or is the target simply held fast for the duration of the ice storm?

What's your take on this mythic spell?

I agree with the first poster.

Hunter. What is really lost?

Druid: You loose wild shape and perhaps more important you loose your 7th- to 9th-level spells. Teamwork feats aren't that great and aspects cannot compare to wild shape or 7-9 spells.

Ranger: You are one feat away from having a strong animal companion, full bab, combat style, favored enemy etc.

I do not get it. Hunter seems to be a powered down druid.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Regarding the mythic medusa,

shouldn't she have a -5 penalty on her snake attack while she is wielding the bastard sword?

Therefore, making it a +7 attack with the secondary snake bite, instead of +12 which seems to indicate that it is her sole attack.

I thought that was how using a weapon together with natural attacks worked.

Have I been misinformed?


A note on how medium XP really works in PF.

enc#: XP for encounter of level #
lev#: XP for gaining a class level of #

XP = (lev# - 1) + ((enc# - 1) * 5)

where XP = 0 for 1st-level

For greater sums of XP they are sometimes rounded.


1st-level: 0
2nd-level: 0 + ((400 * 5)) = 2,000 XP
3rd-level: 2,000 + ((600 * 5)) = 5,000 XP
4th-level: 5,000 + ((800 * 5)) = 9,000 XP
20th-level: 2,550,000 + ((204,800 * 5)) = 3,579,000 (rounded to 3,600,000 in PF)

so epic level progression should follow that pattern if consistency is sought for.

21st-level: 5,115,000 (rounded to 5,100,000)
22nd-level: 7,163,000 (rounded to 7,200,000)
30th-level: 114,683,000 (rounded to 114,700,000)

Since XP per encounter increases by 1,5 every even level and by 1/3 every odd level, the total XP still requires only 5 such encounters to reach next level.

For example, 39th-level encounters grant 209,715,200 XP. Five such encounters and 40th-level (3,670,011,000 XP) is reached since 39th-level was 2,621,435,000 XP.

Marthkus wrote:

Ok but my sorcerer wouldn't need much gear either. The wizard still needs to buy spells and stuff, but a sorcerer needs like 1 stat boost item to be effective. Similar to a summoner.

Quite true. :)

Marthkus wrote:
How does this even happen? I have yet to see a legal eidolon build that put a fighter to shame without turning the summoner into a living battery.

Oh, in that campaign there were really no extreme faults with the summoner per se, since she mostly hid behind the others, buffing them and her minions, using the eidolon very little. It was the fact that she didn't need her gear to be effective as a class (summoning monsters, casting haste, bull's strength, and so on, coupled with the fact that the fighter needed better arms and armor, that made her rationalize her choice to give him her wealth.

My players are extremely cooperative and tends to think as a team.

I have no real experience with an eidolon as a deal breaker, only when used as the avatar for a synthesist, something that produces a beast.

In essence, I believe that a class is strong when it can fulfil its part in a PC group using very little wealth, as opposed to a class that desperately needs it, such as, there is no way a fighter can compete with a wizard without having magical items to go round hindrances set up with spells. In a team, PCs can polarize their wealth to strengthen their team, playing on such strengths and weaknesses. The summoner is a very strong choice, since it can fulfil that part, using nothing more than summons, spells, and perhaps a mere longspear for show.

This is my assessment of the new base classes.

Alchemist: I have had no one wanting to play one, but I have used them a lot a NPCs. The class fills a specific niche, I feel, but it feels a little to specific for my taste.

Witch: I adore this class, but it can totally dominate a game set with a lot of brutes (with bad Will saves) just because of spammable hexes like Slumber (and the Evil Eye, Misfortune, Slumber combos). House-ruling Slumber makes it more balanced. Still, a nice class.

Cavalier: I like that this class brings morale bonuses and tactical tricks. What I dislike is that the mount comes with the price tag. Then again being a mounted fighter should be amount the mount, so the class is hard to incorporate in broad adventures, making it a niche class.

Magus: I like this class, but to be honest, this class can outshine other melee characters like there is no tomorrow. Intensified shocking grasps, black blades, hexcrafting Slumber at will (!) coupled with decent spells makes it a huge damage dealer, especially from level 3 and up. I also had to nerf the arcane mark stunt, not to embarass the fighter. Still, this class is a fine concept, and my players like it a lot.

Summoner: I typically assess PC power in how much wealth they really need to spend on magical items. I have had a player being a Summoner and she didn't spend a coin on such matters until reaching 10th-level, she gladly handed the fighter in the group all her wealth, so he could at least pretend catching up. And no, she wasn't a Synthesist since such a monster would bring forth the Apocalypse, were it to exist, other than in concept. Still, a very interesting class, even though it can be made to be broken on many levels.

Gunslinger: At one time I did abhor all things not medieval fantasy. Being through too many steam-punk fantasy adventures, I have shed such preconceptions. I like the idea, but find that the class can have a hard time actually bringing down serious firepower without using advanced firearms. Constantly reloading with a move action or worse, makes it less good than a crossbowman, and much worse than an archer.

Aelryinth wrote:
Art often falls under Performance rules, which are entirely based on the Charisma of the maker, as opposed to a crafting check.

Except that typical art forms such as painting and sculpting are crafts and not performances, at least according to the Pathfinder rules. See the Craft skill (emphasis mine):

"The most common Craft skills are alchemy, armor, baskets, books, bows, calligraphy, carpentry, cloth, clothing, glass, jewelry, leather, locks, paintings, pottery, sculptures, ships, shoes, stonemasonry, traps, and weapons."

I do not believe you can Charisma-produce a painting (at least not I, and I am an artist).

Aelryinth wrote:

The example given is clearly the price given because of the fame of the artist and his 'expression' of art, not for his technical skill.

This I could actually see full sense in, weren't it for the fact that Pathfinder itself doesn't (at least not in the rules).

If the design of the Craft skill for Pathfinder (or more precisely the D&D 3.0-3.5 game) was about limiting money-exploding phenomena for the PCs, then why include it at all?

Especially since the new Ultimate Equipment book, introduces even more shenanigans through gemcutting and jewelry where uncut gems are doubled (!) in value when cut, and inflated even more in price when set into jewelry (see the back pages).

There is no masterwork involved, so fabricate can create a stupid amount of fortune through processing gemstones and implode the economy of both the setting and the system, which when taking the later, it was implied, should be hindered by factoring in non-logical time amounts for crafting by coupling time taken to money value in the first place.

The only salvageable solution, is to standardize crafting time, decouple it from price values, which isn't to say that it shouldn't take a long time to build, say a full plate, but instead to make a gold item that do not take a hundred times more time than the very same item made in copper.

And, in any case, it is best to totally eliminate fabricate from the system, if the system is set to hinder PCs from gaining wealth through crafting. That spell is even more wrong than wall of salt and wall of iron was in former editions of D&D.

EldonG wrote:

...but that's not crafting. It doesn't even fall under the crafting rules. That's like pouring ingots. *shrug*.

The example is chosen for comparison. You could as easily have taken a chiseled spoon, a small sculpture or what have you.

The factor ten for copper vs. silver vs. gold makes it a hundred times more time-consuming to craft a spoon out of gold than out of copper.

That is the major point.

Now, take that to art for instance, which is a subjective matter. A famous artist's work can be worth enormous amounts of money. If such an artist (in Golarion) paints a blue canvas and dots three black spots and a red line (like Mirot) it is still worth tremendous amounts of gold pieces. Compaired to a person painting a cathedral in Michelangelo-style but without the fame or celebrity as the former artist, it would cost much, much less.

The first painting can be done in minutes. The former can take months or even years.

But the crafting rules indicates that the former easily made painting takes a lot more time than the cathedral frescoes, just because of the fact that crafting is linked to the price of the crafted item.

The craft rules, at least when it boils down to materials, are clearly retarded.

For instance, a simple task (say DC 12) of melting down a one pound of silver into a mold to shape a cube of pure silver will take approximately 2 days for an Expert 1 with Craft + 5, since an average (taking 10) of DC 12 * 15 = 180 sp per week can be made, which is about 7 * (50/180) = 1,944... days of work.

The same work in gold would little over 19 days (!), since 7 * (500/180) = 19,444...

This is the main problem with the Craft rules. Not that it takes a lot of time, but that more expensive materials takes longer to craft (see above).

In reality, melting gold or silver and pouring it to a mold to cold, takes more or less the same amount of time.

The solution would be to standardize general time frames for the most common items based upon logic and real world experiences, not on the cost of said items in silver pieces, also since such prices can be a subjective matter (like paintings).

From UC: "When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage."

So, no. Spellcasting folds into the "otherwise follows the normal rules for rage".

A Knowledge (arcana) check would be possible, but spellcasting isn't.

The Chart actually builds on the awards given at specific level (the one below).

Medium XP for a specific level (n) is related to the XP award of the former level in this way:

(5 x (XP award for CR of (n) - 1) + total XP for (n - 1))

Medium XP for level 4 is then, five times CR 3 award plus the xp total to reach level 3: (5 x 800 + 5000) = 9000.

For n= 2 to 20
2 000
5 000
9 000
15 000
23 000
35 000
51 000
75 000
107 000
155 000
219 000
315 000
443 000
635 000
891 000
1 275 000
1 787 000
2 555 000
3 579 000

For n= 21 to 40 (epic levels)
5 115 000
7 163 000
10 235 000
14 331 000
20 475 000
28 667 000
40 955 000
57 339 000
81 915 000
114 683 000
163 835 000
229 371 000
327 675 000
458 747 000
655 355 000
917 499 000
1 310 715 000
1 835 003 000
2 621 435 000

Paizo rounded the numbers neatly. These are raw values.

Note: Also note that PC cash seems based on Fast treasure in this way for a specific level (n): ((n - 1) x 2.5 + total treasure at (n - 1))

Medium XP for a specific level (n) is related to the XP award of the former level in this way:

(5 x (XP award for CR of (n) - 1) + total XP for (n - 1))

Medium XP for level 4 is then, five times CR 3 award plus the xp total to reach level 3: (5 x 800 + 5000) = 9000.

The next XP total, level 5, is then (5 x 1200 + 9000) = 15000.

For Slow XP, multiply Medium XP with 1.5 (the slow progression is arbitrarily rounded to nearest 1000 (at first, but to nearest 5000 at 9th, and so forth).

Also PC cash seems based on Fast treasure in this way for a specific level (n): ((n - 1) x 2.5 + total treasure at (n - 1)).

For example at level 4: (800 x 2.5 + 1000) = 3000

These formulas can be put in tables in excel and show epic level cash per level and XP totals.

Still, the examples (Bear, Tiger) in the Bestiary 2 are Medium-size in Hybrid form, not Large, as Bestiary 1 seems to indicate them to be. For the werebear, a medium bear could have been the base animal. For the weretiger, the stats indicate a Large tiger (look at Strength) but the size is still Medium. Also the natural armor* bonuses seems to contradict what is written in Bestiary 1.

Clearly, these lycanthropes do not follow Bestiary 1 rules, but seems to be made different. The weretiger, at least should have been Large in Hybrid form.

*Natural armor bonus is (base animal + 2) according to B1.

Magicdealer wrote:

So then you'd end up with 400000g for a +20 bonus to hit.

If you went down to bonus squared x 500g then you're down to 200k.

We could go with Craft Epic Wondrous Item and add another multiple of ten (halved for the reduced effect of no damage enh.), for 0,5 * (20^2 x 20,000) = 4,000,000 gp.

That's clearly beyond low-level characters. But then again, ELH has insane costs for magic items.

I suppose it goes like this:

(CL x spell level x 2,000)gp / (5/charges) = (9 * 5 * 2,000)/(5/1) = 18,000 gp

But the item must then be compared to similar items so it isn't too cheap or too expensive. I believe that is how it goes IIRC.

There are some nice conversions of old school Turning feats into Pathfinder Channels here.

I have played with a group since AD&D 2nd Ed (we started with the Player's Option book), advancing/converting into 3rd edition, then 3.5 and then Pathfinder.

The group has gone through both revisions and thanks to cosmic cataclysm a final re-start at first level (when Pathfinder came out). The players love their old characters, but agreed to stop playing them in 3.5 after they hit around level 90 (but ended up playing them again from 1st-level and up).

Many things have appeared during this long period of play regarding balance, classes and so forth.

Our conclusions are:

In any scenario where spellcaster classes have had time to prepare (through divination or pure luck) against any other kind of class, the spellcaster usually comes out as the winner, if

the other classes cannot neutralize the spellcaster's defensive measures.

Such a scenario (where the spellcaster has the preparation time) rarely, if even happens though, since most intelligent players using, say Fighters, avoid being just stick-wielders, and use magical items to deface flaws in their setup and to counter magical threats.

For high level combats, winning the initiative, mostly means the fight is done and over with. A high level warrior type of character (with basic items, that grants flying, teleporting or such) will instant kill any Wizard that hasn't prepared specifically for that opponent (which mostly isn't possible).

Wizards and Clerics (and somewhat Druids) can reshape the world at epic
levels, but their chances in an instant combat encounter isn't much greater than for pure warriors (it is back to initiative roll again).

Still, spellcasters are a necessity in high level play, since the versatility of them are their strength.

IMHO, the strongest character in the game is a warrior/spellcaster multiclass.


Well that kinda depends on where you come from. In Icelandic we say Svartálfar. But I'm not familiar enough with Danish, Swedish or Norwegian or faeroese to comment on that aspect. But seeing as Old Norse is Icelandic to a very large extent then I think the correct ending for the plural would be ar.

Well, in that case, I suppose the ending could fit! :) I'm Swedish, and here it is "Alfer". I think it is in Norway/Denmark as well. Still, if it's about to be "tungur knifur" I suppose Icelandic (which is a beautiful language I might add) would suit the bill.

Revan wrote:
All you need to make the Crusader's recovery simple to track is a deck of cards with maneuver info on them. Deal yourself a hand equal to your maneuvers granted, draw each turn, and reshuffle and redeal when you have no more cards to draw.

Yes, the player did that, but as a DM having multiple decks for each antagonist Crusader, reshuffling and drawing cards from those stacks wasn't smooth.

I like the Crusader, the Swordsage and the Warblade. Some of my players do as well, and they are played in conjunction with Fighters, Paladins and Rangers. We've changed the d12 HD from Warblade to Crusader.

The classes are strong, especially Crusader and Warblade, but not unbearable so. The Fighter usually picks up a stance and a maneuver or two herself which she finds very useful. In fact the party's rogue utilizes the Assassin's Stance with the Shadow Blade feat for great impact, making the Swordblade envious.

If you use the book, allow other classes (esp. the Fighter) to take the Martial Maneuver feat.

As for regaining the Maneuvers, yes, the classes can be eternal warriors and that can be a problem when the Wiz needs to sleep, the Pally is out of smite. One fix could be to have expended Maneuvers only refresh between encounters as for the Martial Maneuver feat.

We've found the Crusader's Maneuver mechanic clunky, especially for me as a DM when a lot of them are NPC antagonists. Having to randomize sifts to much time, so we skipped that mechanic.

In fact, nerfing the standard recovery mechanics are probably not that bad (having the Maneuvers for one encounter only), but the Adapting Style feat can then recharge them for the cost of a full round which is a feat most anyone takes anyway. Perhaps that feat has to go, if consistency is sought after.

Other than that, we like those classes. They make warriors almost able to compete with the Wizard and the Cleric, especially at lower to mid levels.

I would strongly suggest that you change the name to "Svartalfer" (black elves) which in norse is the correct spelling for plural of "svartalf" (= black elf). It is always a little weird reading such names wrong (such as in Manual of the Planes and other places) when you live in a Scandinavian country.

Other than that, I think the race is very nice! :)

As far as I can tell, I do not think it is a mistake.

Shurikens are thrown one by one now (at least that is what I have found out by reading the Core).

Ughbash wrote:
Morhin wrote:

In D&D 3.0 a backpack held 1 cubic foot of material.

Water is as a tool for translating this into pounds.

1 cubic foot of water is approx. 60 lbs. This translates into 3000 coins of any type (the 1 lb. = 50 coins formula).

But if more accurate numbers needs to be known,

gold 1206 lbs/cu ft (ouch)
flesh 84 lbs/cu ft
silver 655 lbs/cu ft
copper 559 lbs/cu ft
generic stone 156 lbs/cu ft
fine salt 75 lbs/cu ft
leather 59 lbs/cu ft
apples 40 lbs/cu ft

If water is 60 lbs per CF and flesh is 84lbs per cf, people would find it AWFUL hard to swim, and impossible to float.

What Louis said and:

Steel is much heavier than water.

Steel can float (ships).

It is a matter of bouyancy and area of pressure against the water surface.

Therefore, flesh can float.

Wisdom is the ability that springs to mind when considering witches. Traditionally, wicca, old herbalist women, crones etc are the Wise Ones, not the super-intelligent mega IQ characters with astounding arithmetic talents.

The first thing that struck me as odd, reading the new Witch class was that it was Intelligence-based (I expected it to be Wisdom- or Charisma-based). It seems Paizo like their croning hags to be very clever.

The other thing was that the class broke the Supernatural abilities do not provoke AoO rule, by actually provoking it.

Changing Intelligence to Wisdom (or even Charisma, since we all know how witches tempts the virtuous men to sin) would be preferable. And Hexes should not provoke AoO.

So in essence, I agree with the first poster, 100%.

There are several solutions to the next to worthless Craft (armor) skill (barring Magical Craftsman).

* Do not factor in special materials cost (they are not thousands of times harder to forge, only more expensive to buy/get).

* Allow the Aid Another action to add more bonuses (+3, +4, +5) if the roll is better than 20, 30, 40. A master craftsman with skilled co-workers and lots of apprentices can forge armor quicker.

* Create feats that enhances normal crafting (i.e. Fast-Crafting) that cuts the time by half.

* Create magical tools (Wondrous Items) that reduces crafting times of normal items (Anvil of Hefaistos) by some amount, maybe half again, making it possible with the feat above, to craft in 1/4 the time

Fabricate still wins the day of course, but you won't have to wait a decade for a full plate.

As for Profession/Perform and making money. That really is a DM's call. Perform (actor) yields millions of dollars to celebrities in Hollywood, but next to nothing in other areas of the world. That same "logic" could apply to said skill in Pathfinder.

People will always pay more for things or services made by famous and legendary people, even if such things really aren't worth the cost.

In the end, the DM decides.

In D&D 3.0 a backpack held 1 cubic foot of material.

Water is as a tool for translating this into pounds.

1 cubic foot of water is approx. 60 lbs. This translates into 3000 coins of any type (the 1 lb. = 50 coins formula).

But if more accurate numbers needs to be known,

gold 1206 lbs/cu ft (ouch)
flesh 84 lbs/cu ft
silver 655 lbs/cu ft
copper 559 lbs/cu ft
generic stone 156 lbs/cu ft
fine salt 75 lbs/cu ft
leather 59 lbs/cu ft
apples 40 lbs/cu ft

It seems that Master Craftsman limits a would-be weapon- and armorsmith to choose one or the other, and not both.

And there is no text stating that the feat can be taken multiple times (which would be nice), thus limiting, say a Fighter to either forge arms or armor.

Any reason for this? Would it be to game-breaking to let a Fighter create both his sword and his shield?

The problem with Hex (Su) and provoking AoO is that with spell-like abilities and spells you can cast them defensively (using concentration). With supernatural abilities, there's no such luxury (if IIRC) making touch-based Hexes a very, very bad option in combat.

IMHO, Hexes should never provoke AoO.

Xum wrote:
How would a 2 handed giant hammer be in stats to you guys? And how would a "bastard" hammer be?

In 3.5, Complete Warrior, a maul had the following stats: 1d10/x3, 20 lb and could be used in one hand using Exotic Weapon Proficiency or one-handed as a martial weapon. The cost was 15 gp.

So, I guess there you have both your weapons in one package.

The half-celestial template applies to the base creature, thus modifying the already present base race abilities. There is no difference to add half-celestial ability bonuses to a dwarf or to a human.

I for one agree that the term Anti-Paladin is something best left buried in the seventies. Nostalgia or not. However, if the name Blackguard is saved up for a prestige class, then other more appropriate names could apply to the almost Monty Python-funny Anti-Paladin. If there's a huge need to "Rincewind"-up the class one could let it stand.

On the other hand, a name change is an easy task for a DM, so it is not exactly the end of the world.

Dark Knight, Scourge, Hell Knight, Destroyer, Kinslayer, Vindicator, Death Knight, ...

Just pick one, and be happy. :)

wraithstrike wrote:

The DR seem insufficent unless you take the rage powers to increase it, and even then I dont know how much it will matter with high level monsters doing 30+ damage per hit.

DR x/- always matter. It is essentially an always on "grants x temporary extra hit points at each instance damage is taken"-ability, which really is great. AC usually never really matters in the higher levels, but DR x/- does.

Of course, further down the road, it is always about who wins initiative wins the battle. :)

Xum wrote:

Before the fighter sucked, sure, in PF that was fixed but I feel (and I'm not alone in this) that the barbarian is not on par with the fighter, which is, in the end the class it should be compared to.


Perhaps you haven't understood that the Barbarian in almost all instances were the "warrior" build for dealing tons of optimized damage in 3.5 (and not the fighter, which mainly were a build for spiked chain trippers). The charging leaping barbarian could one-shot almost everything back then. With PA being devalued a bit, there's still Leaping Attack and Shock Trooper out there (if you use non-core).

And Rage Powers can even out the AC penalty as well (granted you have to wait a few levels before going positive when raging, but it is there).

The fact that they get DR earlier and that it can be increased further by Rage Powers makes it really hard to wear them down.

I really do not understand you view, could you perhaps show some of your playtest examples?

Sidenote: I do like the new fighter when compared to 3.5, but since the barbarian is boosted as well (he can for one manage his resources and rage more than once at earlier levels) I fail to see how fighter outclasses the one melee class that actually was able to partly compete with tier one classes in the damage dealing compartment.

DCironlich wrote:
I am surprised that the Witch class doesn't have a vulnerability component similar to the Oracle's curse.

Perhaps the answer lies in this initial assessment. Since the Oracle has it, and it is flavorful, the author's felt little need to "oraclize" the witch as well.

And also, as it stands now, the witch's great weakness, is the familiar itself. Kill it, and she looses all her spells, the entire library. Not especially convenient for a 17th-level caster to endure (with potentially hundreds of spells down the drain).

That, really is more of a vulnerability than the Oracle ever had.

An even easier solution would be:

have the "dead" familiar retain all spells, and thus, it can be called back in 24 hours with no loss of arcane goodies.

The witch will still be out of spells for a day and a night.

That solves the problem.

*Tap-tap, waiting* :)

Iliyan wrote:

Damn you time zones! /Shakes fist in anger!


I really hope Jason's minor tweaks doesn't delay the next round too long. I am really looking forward to a decent Witch class (since AD&D 2 actually).

I just want to point out that the DMG 3.5 table for the Wizard NPC grants both retroactive skill points for permanent increases, as well as for the headband of intellect.

For the DM, retroactively adding the skill points can be a blessing (since making stats for advanced wizards can be a pain if not [at which level did she raise Int to 20 again?]), but adding extra skill points for magical items seems to be simply wrong and extra cumbersome.

The designer of the table in the DMG seems to have made a mistake in allowing the magical enhancement bonus to add skill points.

But I do not know about retroactive skill points for permanent increases.