Firstly where is fiend summoning? I can't find it anywhere
Seconded. If fiend summoning is something you can just... do, then it's pretty powerful, maybe too powerful to start. An automatic extended metamagic (that stacks with extended?) is a huge bonus, even if you're only limiting yourself to one alignment. On the other hand, if it is super specific, it's still really powerful.
Also, Fiend Summoning isn't on this list. Am I missing something?
It's reasonable, but it's also a question a GM will likely say no to. A better phrasing might be "Is the [creature] known to be particularly weak-willed? Or does it struggle to evade attacks and spells? Is it known for being unusually physically unfit and lacking in fortitude?" I suspect most GMs will take better to questions like that, since it sounds less meta-gamey, but a denial (or roundabout "you don't know that") is still on the table.
"Does it have a mind / Is it susceptible to enchantments" is useful if you're unsure, since there are several Witch abilities + spells that are mind-affecting.
If you can get DEX or CHA to damage, Scaled Fist (Monk/UMonk) is a very nifty dip choice. You can stack 2x CHA to AC (Deflection, via Ghost, and Untyped, via Monk) for a lot of defense. If you did the Vital Strike thing, Scaled Fist + Monk go The Four Winds (Monk) might be an interesting choice, since it can multi-standard action attack by spending ki. Or stacking it with Monk Vows instead of Scaled Fist, since a lot of the vows assume you are living and penalize you accordingly.
It's a spell - it's assumed to not be a weapon-like attack unless explicitly stated. It's not a thrown weapon, and you don't add your STR modifier to damage.
Swim speed and water-breathing are independent. Note how the Kineticist's Waterdance (Slipstream) effect and Greater Waterdancer (Water breathing) effects are separate. Swim speed does not necessarily grant you the ability to breathe water.
As for polymorph, you should be able to breathe water when you change into a water-breathing creature. It's sort of messy, but Polymorph is designed to give you stats and special features in a less-than-broken way (i.e. actually getting all the stats/special features of the target creature). A common sense ruling would say yes. A more in-depth RAW reading isn't something I'm going to dive into right now.
Except when a barbarian who killed a pit fiend swings so badly he wouldn't hit the broad side of a mountain 5% of the time
One in 20 times the hardiest dwarf in the world does a shot he gets sick, doesn't need to be consecutive either.
I've thought of having semi-exploding critical dice, where natural extreme numbers (1s, 20s) make you reroll at -10 or +10, instead of auto-hitting/auto-missing. But there's also a certain relief when an enemy who should never be able to miss somehow does, and you don't get pounded into red jelly by a rain of giant boulders. Extreme variability characterizes the d20 system the same way that bell curves characterize 3d6 systems. Perhaps a lot of the Pathfinder stuff is really swingy and binary (Fail a roll, and you turn to stone and die. Succeed, and you hardly notice as you skewer the wizard.).
I guess there's a lot of value in certainty when total success/failure is riding on the line, such as when you or your opponent is at low HP and you need a specific roll. Over a long game, good rolls will tend to even out bad ones. But in any given situation, you will roll below average half the time. So I guess the value of certainty = (Missed chance of failure) * (Value of failure) - (Missed chance of success) * (Value of success). But in a situation with multiple choices, such as the option to swing at an enemy you know you will probably hit and the option to swing at a more important enemy you know you will probably miss, the value of is the difference in your expected value of hitting this one guy versus the chance of hitting the other guy. Also in consideration is if one or both of them are dead/crippled/fleeing after being wounded, or if one will retaliate and kill you if it's not dead.
The biggest factor influencing weighting is probably how much you value your own life. With a Pathfinder character, I'd gladly take a 19 out of 20 shot to become famous/wealthy/powerful, even if 1 out of 20 got my character killed. But as a real person...
There are a few trade-off feats/metamagic stuff/class features that guarantee a certain number on a roll. For example, the Law domain grants an automatic 11 on d20 rolls at the cost of an action. Or Irori's combat style, which grants automatic average damage at a -2 to hit. Or the Maximize metamagic, which grants automatic maximum variables (usually damage) at a +3 to SL.
Is there an objective value to knowing the exact value of a roll before you make it? What are some good uses for knowing your rolls beforehand? What are the pros and cons of certainty? From certain perspectives (Player, GM, writer, etc.) is it more frustrating or helpful? Is it overall a good thing?
It looks like you're aiming to be the second-best at everything in the party (2nd best melee, 2nd best archer, 2nd best arcane-ish caster, probably 2nd best at skills) . Is that right?
Anyway, there's any number of ways to spend a couple of feats for this character. Artful Dodge & TWF, Artful Dodge & Redirect Attack, Spell Focus & Spell Specialization, Combat Reflexes & Weapon Focus. If you're planning to swap between bow and sword a lot then maybe Point Blank Shot and Quick Draw. Or you could start on a combat maneuver. What do you want to do?
Yeah, I'm aiming for a flexible role. Party Wizard avoided Abjuration and Transmutation so we could cover all the schools. Both of these schools don't have great low-level attack spells, so DC isn't very important at this level, although volume is nice to have.
I didn't take Battle Host, since it would prevent me from getting the Warrior Panoply until 10th, which would equate to a lot of delayed BAB (-3 at 9th) and losing out on the flexibility option (3 focus for mini-Martial Flexibility) for several levels. Figured it would be easier to take Dodge/Heavy Armor proficiency than make up for lost BAB with Weapon Focus-like things. Or pick higher-upside feats instead.
You didn't seriously just bash on Superstition, did you?
+6 to Superstition is +6 to all saves against magic. Considering most of your saves will come against magic, this is very, very good! It's basically an additional +4 to saves, since nonmagic saves are few, far between, and generally much less dangerous than magic saves.
The build is clearly going for some sort of Vital Strike-based approach, so recommending an Endurance chain and durability-based secondary feats would completely alter the character. Also: Feat-intensive =/= easy. In a non-Endurance chain situation, the flexible bonus feat is definitely worth more.
While Endurance might not be a primary draw in a Vital Strike build, I'd look at Half-Orc for the other possible benefits, such as Darkvision or the chance to get full-on Ferocity. The Human bonus skill point/level is handy if it alters how you spend your skill points. And it can patch up a skill weakness if you spend your FCB on HP or the specific class bonus. But it's not a huge leap, since Half-Orcs would get a FCB as well, which could either be +20 rage rounds, Toughness (equivalent to it), the same Superstition bonus (Half-Orc means Half-Human), or +1 skill point/level.
Combat Expertise will be a hard pull at 13 base INT, assuming the character starts at 1st. Combat Reflexes, on the other hand, is a decent filler, but less than necessary without extra reach. Improved Initiative never hurts. I'd exercise caution around Raging Brutality, since rage-cycling already spends rage rounds faster than normal. Although it does combo with Raging Vitality.
The Fortitude/Reflex/Will boosts would be better spent on other feats once you get to higher levels. Consider spending one on something like a Deific Obedience (really nifty things), unless your character worships Gorum. Alternatively, Extra Rage Power can net you something really nifty, like Superstition (which gets boosted really hard by Human alternate class bonus).
Definitely avoid Great Cleave at 17th. At that level, you can just do a full attack, and get just about as many swings in. It's a rare case where Great Cleave will let you kill significantly more than just regular Cleave or a Full Attack.
Consider Raging Vitality as an option once you are able to boost your CON. It provides an option to avoid sudden rage HP failure, and gives a similar HP boost as Toughness. It's mostly useful for when you're down to your last dregs of HP (-18 or so), since a character with Toughness would have died at that point (assuming they took the same amount of total damage). Situationally better, although Toughness is easier to write down/use.
Vital Strike is interesting, but rather questionable, since lots of people recommend either maxing it out (size increase + big weapons), or dropping it entirely. You'd be fine in the middle, I guess. Consider the Gorum Divine Fighting Technique as a mid/late-game filler feat/rage power, which gives you a couple nifty Vital Strike bonuses.
The Animal Totem is a popular chain since it gives you bonus AC as well as a full attack on a charge. And natural weapons, which don't really hurt. Swapping the Scent/Flesh Wound stuff could earn you these at a delayed pace. Scent is useful against invisible enemies, but unless your GM caters specifically to your playstyle, it will only see limited use, since you can only use it while raging.
What feats should I pick to build an effective Human Occultist 3? Anything for later levels?
Set in stone:
Party has an INT-based Arcane fullcaster, a skilled face melee Paladin, and a ranged DEX martial. Optimization level is moderate-low, GM is fairly forgiving.
Race: Human, no race alternate traits.
Stats are rolled and very good. Human boost already applied.
STR: 16
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 16
WIS: 14
CHA: 12
Hey, if you're going to bump, maybe you can bump every 6 or 12 hours? Not every 1 or 2 - people won't always be on. Unless you *really* need feedback immediately.
I'm pretty sure we all understand this to be a sort of "nuclear bomb" radiation domain. The radiation type would include both ionizing and non-ionizing types that a typical nuclear bomb emit.
For your 7th level spell...
Waves of Exhaustion is a 7th level spell, not a 5th level one.
Firebrand works as well.
Delayed Blast Fireball seems moderately appropriate.
Power Word Blind might fit.
If you move Waves of Exhaustion to 7th, then you have a 5th level slot.
Wall of Fire, maybe, although other classes have it at 4th. Similarly with Wall of Blindness.
Waves of Fatigue works.
Elemental Body II (Fire), maybe?
Blight is an option.
A quick, belated response to an earlier post - immunity to radiation is not a broken thing at 20th level, since other classes gain suspense and balance-destroying abilities at the same time. How's for the ability to self-resurrect after dying? Or have immunity to poison, fast healing, and be able to regenerate damaged stats every night, and also be immortal? Or just be undead, and really not care about radiation damage. It would be embarrassing to be less radiation-resistant than the other Cleric who decided to be a necromancer instead of a walking nuke.
Instead of making fire into radiation, why not count all fire the poison descriptor, and all poison effects the fire descriptor? And some stipulation you'd need to be immune to both to be truly immune. Or the ability to turn fire or poison damage into half fire, half poison?
You could have a semi-capstone where Kiss of Radiance just evolves into immunity at 20th.
Blindness/Deafness should probably be able to be prepared only as Blindness on this list. I really don't think Restoration has a place on a (harmful) radiation-based spell list. While there are uses for radiation in medicine, it hardly seems like a PF-ish use. Also, it makes the list unusually versatile. Perhaps something like Neutralize Poison or Delay Poison instead? Or Resist Energy (Fire) or Protection from Energy (Fire)? Elemental and Flaming Aura also aren't bad.
Detonate seems like a fun option, but it probably won't be so good when you blow yourself up. If you have Detonate or similar self-damage abilities, resistance would make your life a whole lot easier. Or a resistance spell, I guess.
STR/CON as a single attribute sounds nifty. There's going to be a bunch of ripple effects, though, so you might need to be careful. Point buy and balance aside, you'll need to address issues class-by-class. Medium has 6 stat-based spirits and Alchemist has tradeoff stat boosts that affect one stat to the detriment of another. Barbarian conversion is fairly simple, but alternate Barbarian (STR/DEX, STR/CHA, etc.) boosts might not be. Also consider that you end up with a lot more rage. Size increases (especially Form of X and Wildshape) become ridiculous, since you can HP tank and spit out massive damage.
Dwarves and Orcs take a hop-step up in terms of "best martial race", after stats get consolidated. Small races, but Kobolds in particular, really get shafted in the HP department. Honestly, -4 STR, -2 CON? What does that even translate to in this new system?
Tarquin is a rolled stat character, not a point buy. I'd say 18 (before equipment) in the highest stat, 16s in anything that seems "really good", and nothing below 13 (after age penalties/race bonuses/equipment/etc.) Really high stats overall, highest mental stat is either CHA (hereditary), or INT (not so much), but his WIS is far from shabby. Base STR is basically that of a decently optimized (full) Orc Barbarian (not raging?), since he's able to toss people around and pretend to be Thog. To get a bunch of the bonuses, a Monk dip would be welcome, although his actual class probably has no Monk in it. Definitely a high 16-18th level. He's basically rolling in money, moreso than a regular character of his level, since he has an empire (worth more than 500k gp, right?). He can afford to toss around 50k gp wanted posters to catch people, and give away 60k magic carpets, so he's got to have a lot of cash, right?
He's also got a whip proficiency tucked away somewhere. And grappling (+arm-breaking!) ability. Honestly, you'll need some sort of custom character ability to mechanically accurately represent the stuff he does.
Really great insight, guys. Thanks for all your thoughts, it's been a real help.
Now, I understand that the "Divine v Arcane" could be a touchy concept, but I also find that it creates a great way to design an easily interpreted world, ie
"What's this place over here?"
"Well that's a Divine civilization"
No more characterization needed. It's a great way to make an incomplete world seem a lot more complete. It also makes for an easy way to create relationships between civilizations, ie
"What do they think of this place?"
"Well they hate them, of course"
"Why?"
"Because they're a divine nation and they're an Arcane nation"
"Oh... okay."
Divine v Arcane isn't that touchy around here. I personally think you'd need something touchier and more complex than that, honestly. Divine/arcane is not necessarily an inherent contradiction. Good/Evil might be, although there are instances of Good beings in the Golarion-verse regularly working with Evil beings. Instead of characterizing one as divine, and one as arcane, why not characterize one as the 60s US, and one as 60s Vietnam? Or one as 80s Iran, and one as 80s Iraq? That leads to a more distinct and unique relationship than simply arcane/divine. Or even just "communist" and "feudal", since that implies more than arcane/divine. And it's a similarly concise and short label.
Now, if you are using Divine v Arcane as a cover for some sort of theology vs. science, with associated theocratic and oligarchic governments, each with its own stratified caste system and limited view of the world, that might work. The divine group might be dogmatic and traditionalist, while the arcane group might be open to new ideas, but unethical. But you'd need to explain it in depth, since simply saying "Divine v Arcane" doesn't exactly capture whatever complexity you have in your mind.
Assuming that circumstances dictate mindset, having a mutually antagonistic attitudes towards each other would require a zero-sum game situation, or something not too far off. The continued success of one faction/mindset would require the failure of the other. A limited shared objective would probably be important. This could manifest in many different ways:
-Pride: Both sides are disgraced by the continued existence of the other side. Perhaps it was a grudge or oath of revenge that requires avenging your pride (or dead affiliates) by slaying the other faction. Or You can have your Montagues and Capulets here.
-Legitimacy: Partially related to pride. Both parties claim to the legitimate, and the existence of the other party undermines this claim. Some conflicts include, the PRC (China) and ROC (Taiwan), the PRK (South Korea) and DPRK (North Korea), and ISIS against basically everyone.
-Money: Sometimes, someone is just really greedy. This applies to almost every major US conflict in the Middle East and central Asia. Also note the British-Chinese Opium Wars. Also, it need not only be one group that is greedy - perhaps you have multiple corrupt powers against each other.
-Ideological Survival: Some ideologies and theologies are inherently hostile to others, and are incapable of coexisting with other groups. For example, Leninist Communism is predicated on the removal and/or killing of the bourgeoisie (rich capitalist) classes, and removal of private property. Direct democracy is inherently at odds with slavery, since direct democracy requires 1 person - 1 vote. Crusaders could not coexist with non-Christian rulers in Israel, since the aim of the Crusades was to make Israel Christian.
-Discrimination: Overlapping a bit with ideological survival - some groups could believe that others are inferior or are harmful. I don't need to provide more examples for this.
-World-altering power: Some people will fight in order to control the world, or more specifically, control a physical thing that allows them to control the world. This is an important part of the Cold War, which involved fights over oil and a nuclear arms race.
Another pitfall, IMO, is defining yourself by the ways you differ from your race. Not quite as dangerous, but still not terribly interesting.
By this I mean, if the *only* defining part of your character is that you're a Dwarf that drinks tea and lives above ground, that's not particularly interesting either, by itself. What makes Harsk fun is the complete package.
The way I see it, a "normal" version of the race can be interesting if they have an interesting character (character meaning goals, dreams, personality, motivations, which can be informed by race, but shouldn't just be the stereotype of the race). A "rebel" version of the race can be boring if they lack an interesting character. And vice versa, of course.
So the tl;dr is to play a character. You can let the race be an important part of the character, or play a "human with elf ears", all that matters is that the character is interesting. This is also why I don't mind all human parties- if that's the story we want to tell, so be it.
Item 1 on the list of egregious differ-types is the Drizzt-clone. Not Drizzt himself, but every [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html]non-satirical[url] rebel to their kind (unlike linked entry) is basically as one-dimensional as a regular stereotype. It is basically all the stereotypical traits, inverted, which still just leaves you with a list of traits and not a character.
On a separate but related note, I like to think of character dimensions as such:
1st dimension: Actions
e.g. a vampire hits with a sword, a farmer tills a field
2nd dimension: Mannerisms, quirks, method of action
e.g. a vampire reluctantly hits with a sword, a farmer joyfully tills a field
3rd dimension: Motivations, goals, philosophy, reason behind action and mannerisms
e.g. a vampire reluctantly hits with a sword because his target was a friend, a farmer joyfully tills a field because he loves a simple life
4th dimension: Evolution of actions, methods, and reasons over time
e.g. a vampire reluctantly hits with a sword because his target grew to be a friend, a farmer joyfully tills a field because he learned to love a simple life when he almost died in his murderhoboing days of youth
Complexity of quirks varies, and one can make an incredibly detailed 2-D character. The Man with No Name is essentially one: His actions consist of really cool shooting, and his mannerisms are basically all Clint Eastwood death stares. And you don't need to go dimension-by-dimension, in order. A character made of mannerisms and evolution, but no actions or motivations is basically a Stan Lee cameo. Poor roleplayers may often have characters with actions and goals, but no quirks or evolution. Many unrealized characters are made of mannerisms and motivations, but without a game, they cannot act or evolve. Note that player characters will intrinsically have actions. But roleplaying a race as a set of mannerisms leaves you 2-D at best.
Getting away from our-world race politics is tricky, so I'll try to handle this argument as tactfully as possible.
The easiest thing to do is to stereotype. This is also probably the worst thing you can do. Playing a caricature of a race is a lot of things. It's fairly unoriginal, lazy, and usually lacks depth. It is a mastery of mannerisms, not characterization. When done very well, it can certainly be entertaining, but it is also utterly predictable. If you watch (not read) Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, you'll notice large differences between Gimli and all the dwarves in the Hobbit. Gimli is basically defined as "the dwarf" which means being gruff, heavy accent, and lots of short-guy humor. This is as opposed to the Hobbit, where you have a brooding king, a really fat guy, a quiet battle-scarred veteran, a wise older mentor, a lovestruck kid, and 8 other dwarves with different personalities. They all have a common thread of being beard-y and short, but those are not their defining characteristics. As dwarves, they are far more comical than the elves in the same movie, but that is only a common element of characterization, not an overarching one.
You roleplay a person in relation to a culture, not just a race. Peoples' mannerisms are a product of their circumstances, and most characteristics would not exist in a vacuum. A dwarf would not have a thick Scottish accent if they did not learn language in a way that gave them a Scottish accent. But I'm not saying that you cannot have all the stereotypical racial characteristics. It is a question of depth of characterization. Having an accent is a gimme - if you grow up in a specific place, you will probably pick up a local accent. A snooty elf would probably be snooty because of the circumstances they grew up in, or their views on other races or classes. The difference is why a character is portrayed in a certain way. If you discover that reason, you can roleplay more consistently as well as more in-depth.
Basically, it is not simply:
Race -> Characterization
Forget about Swashbucklers - think of the Gunslingers. You'd be dishing out 4x like candy. Or 3x, with no misfire chance, at crossbow range. Probably using touch attacks.
There are no 17-20 weapons in the game, it's a custom weapon for their table (surprise surprise). And there are no 17-20 weapons in the game, as it was done due to potential crit-fishing abuse like we're seeing in this thread.
The lowest you can get is a 15-20.
**EDIT** I thought Swashbucklers were able to get 14-20/X2 weaponry, but I guess I was wrong.
I think knowledge and disease are the key things that would set a modern human apart for a PF human. Communal city living is awful if you're trying to avoid disease, so modern humans have evolved a high level of disease resistance. Not only that, but most people today are vaccinated. Oh, and people also carry a boatload of diseases that would be fairly horrific for someone not inoculated against them. As for knowledge, most people were uneducated in medieval-ish times. People in our modern era are basically required to be literate, take courses in history, mathematics, writing, and various sciences. Some misc. skills are common, such as the 1-rank Survival ability to tell true north. Sure, knowing Earth-history and Earth-languages is useless as-is. But mathematics and hard sciences are (probably) consistent across universes. Also, many mythological and fictional creatures exist in the Golarian-verse. And the ability to read and write in another language may aid the ability to read and write in Golarion languages. In addition, certain professions should carry over. I think Profession (Lawyer) would be a prime candidate, although there are certainly others.
Skillwise, you might just toss them 1-5 free ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) for the purposes of doing anything except identifying creatures. Maybe 1 rank in Heal, to represent how modern people have fewer ridiculous misconceptions of how the human body works (Note: Bloodletting a diseased person kills them. It does not balance their humors). They should also get a similar number of free Profession ranks, if their profession is relevant. Players might also get a circumstantial bonus to identify mythological and fictional creatures, such as zombies, angels, demons, etc. Or just let them use "common sense" judgement calls, such as "a flame creature is probably weak to water".
Your people are probably going to be plague-bringer sorts wherever they go. This might manifest as an Antipaladin-like disease spreading ability. You might consider giving them circumstantial bonuses against certain illnesses, as well. It would be pretty funny/awful to see how people react when entire villages fall sick and die after they leave.
As for a more out-there idea, you could have magic be similar to computer programming, and give misc. bonuses linked to that.
1st level party, fighting an ogre. The party Fighter wins initiative, runs up with a sword, and gives it a whack for a little damage. Ogre rolls a 20 (and confirms), and suddenly we're left with a steamy pile of greatclubbed fighter-burger. It was basically that player's second combat as well.
Just pull a Magic Monk 20 and magically remove certain concepts from speech. People will challenge anything remotely rooted in fact, but will accept anything if it is caused by magic.
By base stat blocks, I meant level 1 stats without other enhancements from the bond.
Disproportionate power at 1st level, really easy to kill (and remove your class feature) at higher levels? Also, strange scaling on Familiars, and lots of recalculation / feat redistribution for more advanced pets (Eidolons especially).
You could...
1. Remove it as an option
Every class except Cavalier, Summoner, Hunter, Shaman, Spiritualist, and Witch do not need to take some sort of animal/creature/outsider buddy.
1a. Remove all animal buddy classes from the list
None of these classes are Core, so it's not a total impossibility. Rather heavy-handed, though.
1b. Replace the animal buddy feature
This would take a bit of clever homebrewing, and a lot of thought. I'm not completely sure how this would work for summon-dependent classes like the Hunter.
1c. Disallow animal buddy class features, but keep the classes
Cavalier still has Challenge, Hunter has animal focus, Summoner can still summon long-duration non-Eidolons, and Shamans and Witches don't direly need a familiar (except to prepare spells). It is certainly a heavy nerf all the classes, but not insurmountable.
2. Make it impermanent
If the animal buddy disappears when you're not using it, there shouldn't be a problem.
2a. Have the animal buddy run off and be useless while you're switched out
This is 100% justifiable and possible for Spiritualists and Summoners, since their buddies actually do disappear. Other classes may have more of a problem, especially Hunters and Cavaliers, who will often invest a hefty amount of money making their summon combat-capable.
2b. Have the animal buddy actually disappear when you're switched out
Perhaps if you made the animal buddy necessarily impermanent, such as making them into summoned creatures instead of found creatures (i.e. Paladin mount vs. Cavalier mount).
3. Keep it
This is the simple solution, no?
3a. Give it for free
I mean, you already picked a whole class that requires it.
3b. Have it as a default class power
Occultist normally has a base school focus power when you select a school. If a class has a base feature when you select it, you could have the base feature thing for animal buddy classes be an animal buddy.
3c. Have it cost extra resources
If having it as a default class power isn't enough, you could also have it cost an additional regular class feature slot as well.
Damocles's Vengeance School evocation; (Offensive fullcaster) 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a bronze sword), M (a spool of thread)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect rain of swords
Duration concentration (up to 1 round per 3 levels)
Saving Throw (see text); Spell Resistance no
A massive (medium) downward-pointing bronze shortsword appears and levitates above your head. Each round you concentrate on the spell, three additional swords spawn. All swords float up to 10 ft/level above your head until you direct them to move. As a move action, you may direct each sword to target an enemy or square. Each sword moves to hover over its target, and this immediately ends your concentration. Once you cease concentration for whatever reason, all the swords fall directly downward and shatter, dealing 1d6 piercing and slashing damage per 10 ft. fallen (maximum 20d6) to every creature in the square it lands in (Reflex half).
A single creature or square cannot be targeted by more than 4 swords per casting, and any additional swords that would land in that square instead fall and shatter in a random adjacent square. The swords crumble to harmless ashy dust after they shatter or strike something.
Design notes: This might be a little too powerful. On a good day, this is supposed to be similar to Disintegrate, but takes longer (2 rounds) to act and is a bit more situational. Or you could fling and fire for some cheap regular-scale single-target damage. If you want to, you could have the focus sword affect how the spell behaves - perhaps if you focus with a special material sword, the swords bypass DR of that type.
Edited/rewritten from previous post. Certain number and wording discrepancies fixed.
It is smart targeting, since I suspect the eagles won't needlessly plop themselves onto the ground after a given target dies. Thus damage is conserved. Also, the delay is a function of summons existing for 1 round/CL, which means that you can choose to target on the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. (up to 1 round/CL) instead of needing to target on the 3rd. Also ties back to smart targeting - eagles that don't drop (because the target dies/leaves line of sight) can drop on later rounds. It's not perfect damage distribution, but it's much better than wasting shots if there aren't enough targets this round or you kill a target without using all your shots.
But this is what I was saying though.
All Eagles are given targets and dive at same time. There is no "saving the shot"
So it is not smart targeting. If a shot doesn't drop the target and you had only 1 shot target it then it is up. If you target it with multiple shots and only needed the 1st shot then "too bad, so sad".
Targets would be declared at beginning of third round and could not be changed.
But don't the eagles independently act on their own (probably shared) initiative once given orders? A sample command: "Drop on the beardy guy until he's dead" will cause eagles to drop on him. So the first eagle goes, drops on the beardy guy, and hurts him. The second eagle acts after the first one, sees the beardy guy is still up and moving, and drops on the beardy guy, killing him. The third eagle's turn rolls around, and he sees the beardy guy is dead. So he doesn't do anything, maybe flies in a circle, or poops on the beardy guy's corpse. It would be reasonable (as a balance-minded GM) to make them all pick targets before dropping, but normal turn initiative works sequentially.
I don't think spending more rounds will make the spell any better. The concept of a delayed not-too-high-level resistance-bypass man-slayer is flawed from the start. For creating a new spell, I'd probably want to drop certain elements. The first element would be lower (scaling) damage, with a combination of an option to save, a resistible element type, and ability to miss. For example:
Damocles's Vengeance School evocation; (Offensive fullcaster) 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a bronze sword), M (a spool of thread)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect rain of swords
Duration concentration (up to 1 round per 3 levels)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
A massive (medium) downward-pointing bronze shortsword appears and rises up to 10 ft/level above your head. Each round you concentrate on the spell, two additional swords spawn. When you cease concentration, all summoned swords fall directly downward and shatter, dealing 1d6 piercing and slashing damage per 20 ft. fallen (maximum 10d6) to anyone in the square. You may direct the swords to move above and fall upon targets in range as part of casting, or afterwards as a standard action. Make a ranged touch attack roll against each target - if you are successful, the sword instead deals 1d6 per 10 ft. fallen (maximum 20d6) to the target. Regardless, the sword hovers above the target's square and this automatically ends your concentration. A single creature or square cannot be targeted by more than 4 swords, and any additional swords that would land in a square instead fall and shatter in a random adjacent square. The swords crumble to harmless ashy dust after they shatter.
"Your welcome" isn't always grammatically incorrect. If you extend a welcome, then it is definitely your welcome. For example: "Your welcome is much appreciated on this fine forum". But this seems to the be case in which you are welcome, so you're welcome.
Sorry, I have no idea where this is coming from. It would be 21d6 divided among 3 rays, not "per ray."
However, another thing that strikes me is that, in my experience, by the time you get 6th level spells, most fights are over after 3 rounds. In that context, 1,000,000d6 per ray isn't unreasonable, because there's no one left to use it on. A combat spell that takes more than a full round to get going isn't going to see much actual use in combat.
The spell effect I mentioned in the op takes 3 rounds to happen.
In that scenario the caster using the 6th level version of Scorching Ray you mentioned would be able to get off 3 of those spells. Each of those spells has 3 rays dealing 7d6. Over the 3 rounds it is like 3 rays dealing 21d6.
Did I do a bit better explaining my process? I know I can be a little muddled when explaining things.
We can look at it like:
Level 6 Scorching Ray over 3 rounds: 63d6 total damage
OP Spell Effect: 60d6 total damage.
Spell slots are a finite source, and casting time vs. onset time is important as well. Also, increased onset is almost infinitely preferable to an equal amount of increased casting time, if you are able to select the targets at the end of the onset. Considering that this effect can also probably be delayed by a small number of rounds (like the Delayed Blast Fireball), and targeting is "smart" (you select subsequent targets after you roll damage for each hit, instead of declaring all targets first, then rolling damage), that also adds some value. A 1st level spell should not do 600d6 damage, even if I spend an hour casting it. Similar logic applies here.
Fair reply.
Spells slots are a finite source but there are ways to increase the number of castable spells you have at your disposal, including wands, staves and scrolls. Add in pearls of power and their ilk.
Yes, of course it is preferable to have a longer onset time, but it is still time that the spell is not having an effect. It is just that it cannot be disrupted after the first round.
The targeting is an interesting topic, and I never really thought of it. Thinking of how the actual effect with the Thrush giving orders and the Eagles then divebombing,I would have to say that the targeting is done at the start of the 3rd round then damage is rolled vs each target. So I guess it is not "smart targeting".
I also never mentioned that the effect can be delayed after it is cast.
The comparison was really made to set apples to apples in terms of dice of damage. In 3 rounds the 2 spells are dealing the same dice of damage. There are many other factors in play but just based on damage dice these 2 spells are very alike.
It is smart targeting, since I suspect the eagles won't needlessly plop themselves onto the ground after a given target dies. Thus damage is conserved. Also, the delay is a function of summons existing for 1 round/CL, which means that you can choose to target on the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. (up to 1 round/CL) instead of needing to target on the 3rd. Also ties back to smart targeting - eagles that don't drop (because the target dies/leaves line of sight) can drop on later rounds. It's not perfect damage distribution, but it's much better than wasting shots if there aren't enough targets this round or you kill a target without using all your shots.
A single casting of this spell has similar DPR to three uses of the variant Scorching Ray. However, this assumes that you spend all three rounds casting. Since you only spend one of them casting, and have 2 rounds of onset, you can boost your DPR further by doing things like... I don't know, casting super-Scorching Rays? So really:
3x 6th level variant Scorching Ray (63d6) (3 rounds)
1x ?th level OP Spell Effect + 2x 6th level Variant Scorching Ray (102d6) (3 rounds)
The caveat is that, on a round-by-round basis:
Per-Round Damage (d6)
Round _______ 1 ____ 2 ____ 3
3x ray _______ 21 ___ 21 ___ 21
OP + 2x ray ___ 0 ___ 21 ___ 81
Total Damage (d6)
3x ray _______ 21 ___ 42 ___ 63
OP + 2x ray ___ 0 ___ 21 __ 102
You basically end up taking the opportunity cost of not hurting anybody in the first round, to backload all your damage and get a ~66% total damage boost. It's like the impact of using a buff spell, except that you would have spent the spell slot anyways.
Sorry, I have no idea where this is coming from. It would be 21d6 divided among 3 rays, not "per ray."
However, another thing that strikes me is that, in my experience, by the time you get 6th level spells, most fights are over after 3 rounds. In that context, 1,000,000d6 per ray isn't unreasonable, because there's no one left to use it on. A combat spell that takes more than a full round to get going isn't going to see much actual use in combat.
The spell effect I mentioned in the op takes 3 rounds to happen.
In that scenario the caster using the 6th level version of Scorching Ray you mentioned would be able to get off 3 of those spells. Each of those spells has 3 rays dealing 7d6. Over the 3 rounds it is like 3 rays dealing 21d6.
Did I do a bit better explaining my process? I know I can be a little muddled when explaining things.
We can look at it like:
Level 6 Scorching Ray over 3 rounds: 63d6 total damage
OP Spell Effect: 60d6 total damage.
Spell slots are a finite source, and casting time vs. onset time is important as well. Also, increased onset is almost infinitely preferable to an equal amount of increased casting time, if you are able to select the targets at the end of the onset. Considering that this effect can also probably be delayed by a small number of rounds (like the Delayed Blast Fireball), and targeting is "smart" (you select subsequent targets after you roll damage for each hit, instead of declaring all targets first, then rolling damage), that also adds some value. A 1st level spell should not do 600d6 damage, even if I spend an hour casting it. Similar logic applies here.
It's not going to destroy a game, but it's a little biased. Certain well-off classes (Druid, Barbarian, Bloodrager, Sorcerer...?, Alchemist) would benefit disproportionately more than others. Meanwhile, the classes that would want it most that don't already have it (All other nonmagical martials) would stand to gain little unless they chose to be a toothy Half-Orc.On a related note, it would also bias race selections, and give a sort of free 1/2 feat buff to certain races.
Not sure which version I might be thought to be responding to (at this point in the thread) but to be clear the OP's OP is definitely completely outside of anything I would allow as a GM.
As it exists, there is no 1st-party diseases that affects undead. However...
If you feel fine homebrewing, you could make a magic-sapping disease that targets Will saves and reduces CHA.
If you are alright houseruling, you could rule that undead are subject to decomposition, and need Fort saves for that.
If you like logical consequences, you could have disease evolve a way around Fort saves.
If you want a more mystical feel, you could make a magical viral sort of curse.
If you want more zombies, you could have a super-disease that targets zombies (turns zombies into golems, demons, better zombies, living people, or whatever).
If you consider life to be an STD, you could have Elven Paladins.
For a character who would use song lyrics as a verbal component for spells - what song lyrics would best fit each spell on the Sorcerer, Bard, and Oracle lists? For example, when casting Scrying, the character would rattle off a few lines of "Every Breath You Take", or might sing "Beast of Burden" while casting Ant Haul. Probably "Thriller" for Animate Dead. Maybe "24k Magic" for Blood Money?
Any other ideas?
Also: What spell would present the best opportunity to Rickroll people?
Don't attribute to malice...There was no real attempt for deception. I felt it was easier to portray it as a spell and gauge replies. As the replies came in I decided to open up on the actuality of what is happening.
...
The internet is tone deaf. The way you opened up seemed, to me, like a bait-and-switch gotcha moment, which definitely put me off things. Anyway...
...
And there's an entire section on Falling in the core rulebook. Look it up, I'm not bothering to copy it. I'm done here.
I was gonna read your whole post but I saw the end...
See ya.
Dox of the ParaDox twins wrote:
It seems to me that you are just ignoring all the good advice and at one point didn't even read one very well thought out post just because he wouldn't post a full paragraph or two and said for you to look it up. Don't come here if you don't want advice
Something about the general tone makes me suspect that we're on the express train to flamewar-ville. *Toot toot!*
Find my other post about what is actually going on with the Thrush and such.
Give me your thoughts on that.
The interesting thing is that the spellcaster is our shaman player who is always our support player. He is a smart guy who like to play non-direct offensive characters, he is also helped by his friend who likes to take corner cases and make something out of them.
Similar things hold true about the thrush situation. However, the caster isn't spending multiple rounds charging up a single cast, so some of the statements I made about inefficiency and not contributing do not hold. It's still anticompetitive, but the caster isn't otherwise useless at this point.
Dropping items on other people requires a ranged touch attack roll (20 ft. range increment) - I don't see why hitting someone else with your falling body wouldn't require some sort of attack roll. The rules are confusing at this point, and it would be better to have an individual GM case for this and stick with it. You're either in houserule territory or overly-pedantic-close-reading land. Consider allowing the target to make a reflex save (like for falling objects), having the attacker make a ranged/melee touch attack (like for dropping objects), or having the attacker make an acrobatics check (like for avoiding falling damage) would all be reasonable things to do. Or a CMB check (like bull rushing) or a fly check. Since the summons aren't descending under their own power (80 ft. flight speed), you could also roll a die to see if they fall into the square they intend to. Or you could scale the damage to a comparable (lower-level) spell - perhaps Fireball or Scorching Ray. The important points are that no damage is entirely unavoidable (0 failure chance) without having already defeated the enemy, you should be consistent with existing rules if possible, and since you are in houserule territory, there are houserule ways to perhaps mitigate your problem.
Also take note of the dense/heavy object and lighter object section of the falling rules. I suspect bodies might count as lighter objects, and thus do 1/2 damage (and not hit like anvils). People on this board understand falling damage to not be reduced by DR. However, you could consider this sort of dive-bombing as an attack, and subject it to be reduced by DR. Alternatively, an in-game option would be to have the Shaman's spirits get displeased, and the eagles/thrush/PETA/whatever become somewhat belligerent about the animal abuse. Or you could give some hesitancy about allowing the Shaman to prepare that spell: "As you perform your ritual chants to regain your spells, the spirits seem somewhat reluctant to grant you command over the eagles." Not that you need to deny use of the spell (or spellcasting) entirely, but just expressing vague displeasure may get a careful player to stop. There is also the out-of-gameplay option: Just ask the player to cut it out. But whatever you do, inform the players if you make major changes, and be consistent and reasonable about it.
But if everyone is having fun (yourself included), and your table (including you) would not have more fun if this combination were illegal, then you don't need to change a thing.
Most require:
A touch attack
A save
Resistible damage
1d6/level damage
Resisted by SR
Either 1 target, or an area effect
Close or medium range (30-150 ft.)
Standard action to use
So your player is proposing to skip basically everything on the list by making it take longer to use? There's a few problems.
The most comparable effect is probably the Kineticist's supercharged gather power blast. You spend an extra round and a half to add 3 free burn. 3 free burn is less than it costs to use the Pure Flame Infusion (4), which makes you bypass SR. Kineticist composite blast damage is comparable to 1d6/level, and still takes a touch attack or save, and will still get axed by energy resistance. Granted, with your other cost reducers, you should be able to do this multiple times a day, but a 4th level spell will be available much earlier and usable a similar number of times.
Storm of Vengeance is also somewhat comparable, but it does much less damage, takes up a much higher spell slot, and is still resistible by SR and energy resistance. And the damage is fairly tame. Magic Missile skips saves and touch attacks, but is resisted by SR, has a really short range, and the damage is junk. This sort of spell is a 9th level+ sort of thing, comparable to cheesing mythic feather fall for massive damage. And even that requires touch attacks. This is like getting a mega coven of witches with the CL boost hex, but with only two rounds of prep time and fewer moving parts. 20d6 is too much, and that sort of damage only enters the question with 6th level+ single target spells (Harm, Disintegrate, etc.).
Besides that, it is hugely situational and fairly bad for game dynamics - likely to be very, very useful in combats where you get the jump on enemies, and really awful when you don't. Consider the conditions:
1. Combat is outdoors with little cover
2. Combat has a small number (2-5) of powerful enemies (7th level+)
3. Combat takes more than 3 rounds
4. The caster doesn't take so much as a scratch over the course of casting
Outdoors with little cover is possible. Small number of powerful enemies is also possible. If you meet an enemy party while on the road, this will likely happen. Combat taking more than 3 rounds is also possible, although less likely. Not getting hurt is also a possibility, although you'll have to be dodgy and careful. However, all of these taking place simultaneously is fairly unlikely. 1-2 powerful enemies will get ganged up on. 3-5 will put you into a fight for your life. If you are fighting 1-2 enemies, they will likely either get ganged up on and killed, or will take out some of you pretty quickly. 3-5 will require everyone contributing to combat. If one character is sitting around charging up his murder-spell, he will likely get chopped at by a sufficiently powerful enemy, or only need the spell as some sort of mop-up. Either way, that's 2 rounds of being dead weight, and a chance of being a game-ender. It doesn't seem fair to other party members. They spend 2 rounds fighting while one player spends 2 rounds being utterly useless. Then, they either fizzle after taking damage (likely), stop the spell because all enemies are dead (likely), or kill every enemy of importance (unlikely). All this doesn't sound very fun.
Oh, and abuse potential. Cast it at night when everyone is sleeping, slay the rest of the party, and take the loot.
In general, cursed items resist being taken off. If you're OK being mildly meta-gamey, have your character take it off when they go to sleep or bathe or something. If it doesn't come off, your character has full rights to panic.
As for the regular, correct way to do it? See what Darksol wrote.
Language is totally a way to promote ideals and values. Inherent linguistic contradictions will likely let you conceal the existence of certain things.
Consider:
"Rich" - High quality OR has a lot of money
"Poor" - Low quality OR doesn't have much money
"Gyp" - Cheat or swindle - related to "gypsy"
"Slave" - Human who is property - related to "Slav"
"Assassin" - Murder of an important person - related to "Hassassin"
"Right" - Correct OR the relative direction that is east when you are facing north
"Sinister" - Evil - originated from a word for "left handed"
"Noble" - A person with high moral ideals OR a hereditary aristocrat
"Villain" - An evil person - originated from a word for "feudal tenant"
"Pope" - The head of the Catholic Church - related to "papa" (father)
"Brother" - A male relative of the same parents OR a title to address a fellow Christian
Idioms can also pass values. "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" reveals that the culture that produced this idiom values surety of reward over chance and opportunity.
You can create certain idioms and word definitions to suggest a certain method of thinking, then have it secretly be something else. Create suggestions of a type in language, then defy them in practice. If "priest" and "leader" were the same word, or implied to be the same, you could turn it on its head by having a leader who is not actually a priest. You could have nobility that is not hereditary. A tyrant who keeps his existence secret could instead go by another title, that implies that he does not exist as a single being, or at all. Being a "committee" or a "movement" or "party" implies multiplicity, where said tyrant may be a single person. Alternatively, the tyrant could use a title generally reserved for deities.
Or, if you want to be a little lazy, you could just use homonyms.
Maybe, instead of having some sort of variable multi-class slot bonus thing, you have a set number of classes? You might get more classes as you level, but you don't get some sort of altered progression.
Also, choosing the highest BAB/Saves/HD/etc. is very gestalt-y, and should be used with caution. For example, picking a UMonk + Caster leads to full BAB, 3 strong saves, and d10 HD. This negates any problem with being a weak save low-BAB class like a Wizard. I'd recommend having a d8 (or d10) HD and some sort of dynamic BAB/saves adjustment depending on the class. Perhaps if you automatically had all weak saves, but added +2 to +6 (dependent on level) if you switched to a class that had a particular save as a strong save. BAB is a bit trickier, but you could have full BAB, and take a penalty to hit if you are using a lower BAB class. For 1/2 BAB classes, it would be -1 to hit every other level. For 3/4 BAB, it would be -1 to hit at 1st, 5th, 9th, etc.
Instead of spell points being split by Divine/Psychic/Arcane + Alchemical, why not have spell points just come straight from level? No single casting type holds a monopoly on a given combat role, so a mildly competent class feature-mixer could create what basically amounts to a character that casts the same stuff, but with more spell slots. The roles each kind of caster plays are not wholly constrained by their casting type. Bards and Clerics are excellent buffers, but one is Arcane while the other is Divine. Occultists and Wizards are both proficient casters that use a large variety of spell schools, but one is Psychic and the other is Arcane.
I suggest the Occultist might be a good place to start when looking at multiple school/class/whatever advancement. If you head over to the page, you start with 2 arcane schools known (implements), and end up with 7, with a total of 17 focus powers (7 base, 10 bonus). This is roughly 2.5x as many focus powers as implements. Now, if you just swapped those with classes and class abilities...
If you wanted to, you could restrict players to choosing 3 abilities from 1 class, max. This might cut down on people doubling down on a single class.
