This intrigues me.
Search Posts
I wonder how this archetype interacts with "wall climber" ninja trick and climb speeds in general. As normal for climb speeds, anyone with a climb speed climbing a foe keeps Dex bonus to AC while climbing, gains a +8 bonus on Climb checks, can always take 10 on Climb checks, and can move at the climb speed without penalty or twice the climb speed with a -5 Climb penalty. As long as the creature you climb provides a vertical surface (such as the side of a leg), the wall-climbing ninja should be able to use her climb speed. She just couldn't use the ninja climb speed on the underside of a dinosaur's belly, for example.
I will be in attendance for the first time! I am looking to maximize face time with those of you I have only gotten to meet briefly (or not at all) before, so a meal together sounds like a great idea. Traveling far from the hotel seems logistically difficult without careful carpooling plans. I'll be in town for a bit before the show starts and after it ends, as well.
Now I am only going based on what I have read here and on d20pfsrd.com so I could be wrong but... In this book, climbing onto larger foes is included in the vexing dodger archetype (for the rogue class) which can be found on page 21. It replaces trapfinding with the ability to climb onto a larger foe (the DC is the foe's CMD) and penalize said foe's attacks against the rogue. At higher levels, it gains additional abilities that work best against larger for or specifically on larger foes, culminating in the ability to distract (nauseate) climbed creatures with the dirty trick maneuver if they fail a Fortitude save.
This will sound odd, but I'm assuming that various marriage rituals differ from deity to deity. Which kinda makes me wonder, what, say weddings look like when performed by the darker faiths like Zon-Kuthon, Urgathoa, or Lamashtu. What? I have a perverse curiosity.It provides a boon based on one of four possible ceremonies (Funeral, Holiday Fete, Marriage, and Naming). In addition, the cleric can create additional ceremonies based on his domains. Just my 2 copper, but... I'd personally expect Lamashtu's to be sexualized and to involve sacrifices by a bride in the hopes that the goddess would bless her womb with many goddess-touched offspring. This deity seems like the sort to encourage a woman to take multiple husbands, presuming she bothers with such a long-term alliance. A marriage performed in the name of Zon-Kuthon or Urgathoa seems to me likely to be a relatively simple or improvised affair, since these deities don't really seem to have much divine interest in marriage. The big, ritualized, significantly sacred/profane marriages seem likely to be found only among faiths revolving around love, marriage, fertility, or contracts, and outside of places where religion is restricted (such as Nidal), I'd expect people to most often be married by a priest of such a deity as Abadar, Asmodeus (especially political marriages), Erastil, Gozreh, Lamashtu (as mentioned above), Pharasma (especially if there is a pregnant bride or a bride who desires many successful pregnancies), Sarenrae (especially marriages formalizing relationships built on an exceptional degree of honesty/forgiveness), or Shelyn (especially those who marry for love despite any trouble it causes).
We will be doing an update to the Exhibit B list of the Pathfinder Compatibility License shortly (though I don't have an exact date yet).As in added to the PRD? It already has been. Thanks, Liz! I see that said update has happened, and it did happily add NPC Codex.
As in added to the PRD? It already has been. No, I am asking if it will be added to the list of Paizo products which can be referred to in products sold by 3rd-party publishers. The list is over here, near the bottom of the page: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility The referenceable list is very similar to the list of books currently incorporated into the PRD, but not identical. For example, Ultimate Campaign is allowed to be referenced even though it isn't in the PRD yet, but that might only be because it hasn't been released yet at all.
Should 3rd-party publishers expect NPC Codex to be added to the "List of Products which May Be Referenced" any time soon?
Phooey. Valvalis's Initiative should be +9, her flat-footed AC should be 20, and Kainazzo's Swim modifier should be given. (It's +16.) Rubicant a.k.a. "Rubicante" CR 15
Cloak of Flame (Su) As a standard action, Rubicant can cover himself with his magical cloak and activate it with a command word. For the next 3 rounds, the cloak grants him immunity to all acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic damage so long as he wears it, but prevents him from using any of his other supernatural abilities or spell-like abilities of 5th level or higher. Glare (Su) As a standard action every 1d4 rounds, Rubicant can focus his gaze with burning intensity upon one target within 30 feet. A ray of heat strikes the victim, dealing 15d6 damage if Rubicant hits with a ranged touch attack (+26 attack modifier; critical threat range 19-20).
Valvalis a.k.a. "Barbariccia" CR 13
Kainazzo a.k.a. "Cagnazzo" CR 12
Water Barrier (Ex) As a standard action, Kainazzo can surround himself with a barrier of water. This barrier grants him concealment and causes him to gain vulnerability to electricity. If he is dealt electricity damage while the barrier persists, it is dispersed. If Kainazzo already has a barrier, he can unleash it as a minor tsunami (as the tsunami spell, but the duration is only 2 rounds) as a full-round action.
FF4 being a personal favorite of mine, I'd be happy to stat those up real quick. I'll start with Milon/Scarmiglione. Milon a.k.a. "Scarmiglione" CR 10
Touch of Opportunity Any time Milon can make an attack of opportunity against a foe, he can cast a touch spell of 4th level or lower as an immediate action. If he does, he makes the spell's touch attack as his attack of opportunity.
A single caltrop might be relatively easy to overlook on a similar-colored floor, but a bunch is rarely hard to spot. You should set their size modifier to the Perception DC based on the size of the group, not on the size of individual caltrops. So the group is effectively Medium, and DC 0. If the observer is distracted, particularly by being attacked or by focusing intently on things near eye level or above, they might get a +5 DC increase for distracted observers. If the caltrops blend in for some reason, you could give a circumstance bonus to the DC of +2 to +10 depending on how good the likeness is.
The way I deal with players wanting to do something that costs a feat when they haven't taken the feat is simple: unless it seems like it would be impossible without specialized training, I let them try, but make it harder for them somehow. If the feat can be used as an immediate action, I might make it require a readied action. If the feat requires a check, I might give them a penalty of at least -4 or raise the DC by at least +4. I think it's a pretty happy medium and rewards players for their creativity without making feat choice meaningless.
I don't give my party a fight on simple terrain unless a simple fight makes sense or the encounter needs to be quick. Otherwise, I embrace the terrain rules to keep fights interesting for everyone. In fact, I created a set of guidelines to quickly generate such terrain and help keep things interesting both tactically and story-wise. Just pick the table that suits the area you're in and roll a few times for what the scenario is like. You can see these guidelines in my "Random Encounters Remastered" line of PDFs (link to a search with all three installments shown).
Here's hoping we see some rules for more ways PCs can create some artifacts... after all, what else could set apart a creator from other mortal artisans if not mythic status? :D Well, after some thought I must admit that there is some semblance to 4th edition Epic Destinies. In fact I think that there would be place for additional, more exotic Mythic Paths besides core six based on Epic Destinies. I don't see that as a bad thing. Both are based on much older archetypes, so some similarities are to be expected. But they are extremely broad concepts, and that leaves much potential difference in the manner of their execution.
Just wanted to say that I have been waiting a long time for this playtest, and I am very excited to participate. The previews so far are promising since they seem to be assumed to be gained every level or so (hopefully in the middle of a level--one of the things I've always wished was different about Pathfinder and its predecessors was that characters could develop abilities in between level-ups), and I love that they are tied to accomplishments.
A few ideas: Holy War
Against the Abyss and The Impossible Crusade weren't bad. I like War for the Worldwound on its own, but I see the issue with the first installment's title. I would say I like Worldwound Legacy, except I think it would be confusing and repetitive to use the word "Legacy" when there's already a "Legacy" AP ("Legacy of Fire").
I recommend providing some ways around more conditional immunities, and mitigating some currently scary absolute effects (such as overcoming freedom of movement, reducing the effectiveness of mage's disjunction and flesh to stone, and otherwise helping characters who specialize to not become utterly powerless when they run up against those with blanket immunities and negations). I also recommend increasing the scope and scale of powers, affecting larger areas at longer ranges. Eliminate logistical problems for skill-users and physical fighters, such as allowing them to skill-check their way through terrain problems and nasty spell effects. Finally, for some general accomplishments I would like to see achievable... demigods and lesser deities should be realistic campaign-ending foes (depending on at exactly what point one wishes to end a campaign). Likewise for smaller-end demon lords, arch-devils, Eldest, and elemental lords. Heroes should be able to brush aside debilitating conditions temporarily, perhaps even ignoring death itself at the highest levels long enough to achieve something important. More reliable, farther-reaching versions of existing class abilities all around should be available, such as no-save versions of certain spells and powers. Add guaranteed partial effects to all sorts of actions, such as spells that are normally negated with a save and attack rolls and opposed skill checks.
I heartily applaud this choice of direction. I've been looking forward to something in this vein from Paizo for some time, and I have complete confidence they'll pull it off well.
Page 417 of the Core Rulebook, under "Perception and Disable Device DCs" states that magical traps cannot be noticed by those who lack trapfinding. You can also see the line in the PRD here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html As for the DC, generally if a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule applies, but only in that specific case (in this case, the DC just for this one spell is not equal to 25 + spell level).
Congratulations to those who continued, and I hope you all blow us away in the remaining rounds! You've earned this. :-) It was a great experience just getting as far as I did, and I'm grateful to those who supported me (especially my old Dicefreaks compatriot Kain Darkwind). Don't worry--this will not be the last you hear from me. ;-)
Always a shame to see any part of a contest end in disqualification. :-( I also hope you try again next year.
You get my vote. This reminds me of one of my favorite Greek deities, Dionysus. Oddly enough I'm a cleric of Dionysus in one ongoing campaign and I'd likely be able to get this organization church funding ;) Ha! Thank you very much. That sounds like an awesome combination... though I wonder if the leaders of the two groups might eventually come into conflict over the way that the Dreamstitchers choose to spend their funding and the way they sometimes manipulate their clients. Or if the priesthood of Dionysus is that amoral. >:-D
Thanks for the praise and criticism, everyone. I've taken this advice to heart regarding writing under a very limited word count and making strong impressions quickly in general. I also felt like you just didn't punch this up high enough. I'd have liked to see you explain more about their operations (and how they vary) in different places. Have them mingling in Katapesh, for sure. Maybe they find it easier to operate in Rahadoum without any priesthoods there to vex them. Maybe they go into shadowy Nidal or capitalize on the decadence of Taldor and its tarnished history. In retrospect, I think I would have included a few of these sorts of mentions, especially highlighting vividly how the Dreamstitchers smuggle illicit drugs and magical substances from places where they are legal (such as Katapesh and the Court of Ether) to places where they are not, rather than only indirectly implying it as I did in the above version of my entry. The Not So Good: I have to admit, this hit me kind of jarringly—they aren’t smugglers, they are thieves. Smugglers bring illegal goods into a place where they are not legal. That’s not what this group does. They just steal stuff. Actually, they acquire things by blackmail and fair trade (that's the "price" I mentioned in the description) as well as thievery, and they do smuggle by hiding the true nature of what they peddle in places where their drugs or magical compounds are illegal. However, it seems I glossed over that too quickly (it's really only implied) and made it easy to miss. Definitely something I would revise if I could do this entry over again. I just didn’t get enough specifics from you. I’m disappointed that the only NPC suggested by this is the founder, Sister Griselda. I think you missed a chance there to create another evocative NPC (those two initial apprentices, for instance, just cry out to be given at least names). I also don’t like the name Sister Griselda. It’s too unoriginal. As noted above, your first paragraph was strong but the rest was a bit hazy and not filled in—some of Neil’s “glittering generalities,” as he says. And I think that gets at the heart of where I went wrong in this challenge. Although I'm proud of the concept, I should have let a few words to do the work that I spent so many words describing in glittering generalities--just mention it smuggles and barters and then move on to vivid, specific examples to maximize usefulness of this very short introduction. This was a learning experience.
Thanks Sean! This is exactly the reaction I was hoping to elicit, and I'm thrilled to see it came through for you. :) It's a great organization, but it doesn't scream SuperStar to me... except for that sentence. I needed more from that. I think that sentence should be your lead, your shining aspect of this org. I wanted to be afraid of their power and influence, but aside from that one sentence I get a "Oh those guys? They're harmless, just some pesh like every other peddler" feeling. Now, I wanted that to be the player's initial reaction to them, so that they could be built up as unsuspected behind-the-scenes villains that gradually reveal how powerful and sinister they are, but I let that get the best of me instead of relying on the GM to know when to reveal parts to the party. Not a mistake I would repeat. I get the strong sense that your best ideas for this group never made it to the page. One danger of working from a familiar template like "merchant association" or "drug cartel" is that if you cut the wrong content, you end up with nothing but a cliche left behind. I'm afraid that's what happened here, at least to my eye. This has been addressed above, but I wanted to pull this phrasing out in particular because I felt it was so apt. I think you're exactly right that I cut the wrong parts, and that the entry would have been a lot stronger had I focused more on specific, original plots. I wasn't a huge fan of your item, so I didn't really expect to like your organization - strangely though, I liked the idea. Glad to hear it! The thing that bothers me the most about this organization is probably that I can't quite figure exactly what they're up to. The goal of "destabilize a nation to get more customers" just asks the question of "and why do they even want customers in the first place? What are they gathering resources for?" Isn't greed and lust for power over others enough? :P Once again, thanks everyone for your thoughtful consideration and for taking the time to comment! I hope you enjoy my entry for the next round. :)
Thank you very much for your thoughts on my designs, everyone. I will take the positive and negative feedback to heart in the future (and reply to your posts when I am allowed to do so after the voting ends). I hope I can count on your votes once you've considered all the contenders! :)
I imagine starting tomorrow evening, I'm going to be busy reading everyone's organizations and all the comments ... and forcing myself not to comment on mine ... and to pay attention to the work I'm actually getting paid for. You and me both, brother.
Naw, that's just a tiny bit more evidence you married the right person! :P I plan to finish my reviews tonight. No promises though. I'm doing in reverse order of how many comments you've already got. Very reasonable choice! I think I will use this tactic when I finish with work and can focus on the forums--I've been wishing to see what my competition looks like!
Just getting to these now. Yes, Clockwork Conscience is a great name, so it gets the first click. Glad you liked it! Does this feel like two items in one? I like the Conscience aspect, that it "corrects" harmful, charmed acts. And I like the magical shock power to remove dazed condition. But both together? I'm not sure they fit. My logic was that both are very similar in their effect on gameplay--making a player less cut off from contributing--and both were appropriate results of a magical sting. And both involve dazing, similar to a reversible spell from 3.0 or earlier editions of D&D (where flesh to stone and stone to flesh were the same spell), if not quite as symmetrical. That all sounds like criticism, but I do like both the concept and the execution. More clockwork! Thanks! I don't think the name is the best, and the item didn't need to be a clockwork- but I don't think the topic really deserves the attention it got, or continues to receive. I am hoping the rarity of complaints about the actual concept and effect means that they are generally appreciated. :) Thanks for the thought, doctor_wu. I've certainly learned a lesson about fitting a name together with a mechanic.
Thanks for the example, and thank you for your applause. This sort of compromise is exactly what I had hoped for, and I'm relieved and pleased to see it work. On that note, thanks for the player's perspective, Alex.
That's a really intriguing perspective. Actually, I hadn't thought of that! I'm definitely excited to see my work taken in an unexpected but useful and appropriate direction. :) As always, all these earnest comments are much appreciated!
GM/Player:
Thanks for sharing that big piece, Sean. I appreciate where you are coming from, and I look forward to learning from every flaw you think it's worth pointing out in my work.
Thanks for listing my item, Ragin' Sage, Salama, John Bennett, Dragon78, Clouds Without Water, Mikko Kallio, burrahobbit, Pedro Coelho, and Garrett Guillotte! I'm also a big fan of the Clockwork Conscience (yes, it's a bad name). The mechanics are fun, and I can see it getting a significant amount of us in a game. As Clark likes to say, it's go "mojo." It is a tad expensive for what it does though. Thanks again, and in retrospect I definitely understand both of the cons you mentioned (detailed replies to these lines of thought are on the item's thread). 3. Clockwork Conscience- enjoyed the simplicity of this item with the flavorful description. That's what I was aiming for, so I'm glad you think I hit the mark. :) I am looking forward to reading everyone's organization. Four hundred words isn't a lot, especially when you have to divvy it up in the different sections. Maximizing words for impact is going to be critical. Me too, and you can say that again. Clockwork Conscience: Helps out with a genuine in-game frustration and does so with flair (and I loved the name!) I see the name was mostly a love-it-or-hate-it deal. I only wish I had better justified it with fluff or a moral lean to the second ability to make some of the haters love it too due to fitting well. 2. Clockwork conscience: this one has me for its simplicity. I would like it to be less expensive, though, but that could easily be adjusted. It is a clever item that focuses on an annoying game situation (losing actions and attacking friends), effectively giving you a second chance without letting you re-roll your save (which is the usual way in Pathfinder). The name doesn’t bother me. It's my philosophy that any addition which makes the game less annoying is one worth considering, and I figured that the mitigation to staggered would be a solid middle ground between immunity (which badly nerfs the critters which rely on stunning to keep going in a fight) and reducing the frustration of lost actions.
This mention in particular brought a big smile to my face, even if it's not a proper "top 5". I love the idea of doing this, and I'm thrilled that it was my item in particular that you had this response to. :D Also, I will definitely be taking Neil's advice to heart and checking out the consistent high picks on this thread (such as the Spellbreaker Gauntlets and Rajah's Silhouette), so thanks to everyone for sharing your opinions!
Thanks for the new comments, Curaigh, EvilMidnightLurker, Alkwraith, and Luthia! I'll take them to heart. As a player and a GM I would assume that you are not actually charmed or dominated until after you fail the Will save vs. an effect, so the option to deliberately forgo your option to roll a save is still up to you. Ah. I figured that the item as written doesn't take effect until the mind control is already influencing you, since you have to fail the initial Will save before the effect can be making you attack yourself or an ally. But, I can see how it might be taken otherwise. Definitely something I would clarify if I had a chance to re-submit the item. Effect: It's neat, and I like it. It's not quite enough to be a favourite, but it's well described and smooth, and overall you've got a space fairly close to a favourite space. Amaze me just a little more in the next round? Just submitted it, and I hope that it does! :)
Thanks for your thoughts, benjover and SquishyPoetFromBeyondTheStars (great name, by the way)! :) Ahh! Hive mind! (Shh! If folks knew about my secret power it might not work on them!) Er... nobody pay any heed to this obviously irrelevant comment... :D
Ah, more posts. Excellent! To speak to the Will save issue, you can always voluntarily forgo a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's results. Unless you were in a situation where you actually want to be magically compelled to attack yourself or your allies for some reason, you don't even need to roll the Will save, just let yourself be dazed by the sting. Interesting... This seems sound for simple effects such as insanity's self-attack action. However, it gets a little fuzzier when it comes to more encompassing effects. For example, if you were charmed or dominated into damaging an ally, even non-lethally, wouldn't the charm or domination make you want to roll the Will save? As for the effects, I like the ability to reduce stuns. I wonder how multi-round stuns work with it though. Does it affect every round, or just the one it injects you? It's meant to turn that one stun or daze effect into a staggered effect, for as long as the daze or stun would have lasted. For confusion and compulsion effects, I would instead have it give the wearer a second save. The daze effect is neat, but I would usually be disappointed if my get out of stun free card prevented me from getting revenge on my fellow players without repercussion :) Heh, fair enough. For that, I'd recommend asking your GM if you can get a custom version that costs less (around half price, I'd say) that just has the stun/daze negation and doesn't deal with mind-affecting effects. ;) Very original idea but I think the clunky writing might be a deal breaker in future rounds. Then I suppose it's a good thing I don't intend on submitting anything this clunkily-worded again. :) Thanks again for taking the time to comment, everyone!
Thanks for the advice, Clark and everyone else! Otherwise, Mikko took the words right out of my... er, keyboard, I guess? Computer screen? You know what I mean. Here's hoping for a great competition. :)
Thanks to the judges for their consideration, and congratulations to the other top 32 and alternates! I can't wait to show down against some fantastic work! (And, you know, hopefully surpass said fantastic work by a little bit.)
Thanks for the responses, everyone! I'm honored to be in the top 32. The positive feedback and constructive criticism are both much appreciated. I shall respond to the criticism and questions below. First of all, I can definitely see where many are coming from on the name. I should have included a sentence or so of concept explanation to help that feel like a better fit (perhaps something to the effect of "This talisman was created by a wizard concerned for the sanctity of her free will. She empowered it to keep her from being complacent when she should act and to stay her hand when she was misguided."), and I really like the idea of it reflecting on alignment. In retrospect, I would probably have the self-dazing effect also trigger when the wearer was about to violate her code of conduct or perform an action warranting a change of alignment, even of her own choice. I priced it roughly around heroic finale, because it's granting a free standard action to a character who would otherwise not act. The item also requires the GM to do a little bookkeeping to track if the item has been used in the current game day but that's not a deal-killer. The GM could always just ask the player whether it's been used. I don't like "at the beginning of her initiative count." The proper term is "at the start of her next turn." Thanks for the correction. It doesn't need to be clockwork. True, it doesn't. I only used clockwork because it fit the look that popped into my head when I was trying to explain the mechanical effect I wanted (ameliorating stun and daze). Is clockwork something to be avoided if possible? I have not noticed a glut of clockwork-looking items, but that may be due to a simple lack of exposure. But, there’s a central problem with your item. The clockwork conscience protects against the two most un-fun effects in Pathfinder, stun and mind control – i.e. things that make you lose control of your character. What are you hoping for when your character buys this item? Are you afraid that your GM is going to ruin your fun by taking over your combat turn all the time, and you need protection? In that case, you would be satisfied to have this item and for it never to be useful. But rather than take up an item slot on your character sheet, a better solution would be to talk to your GM about why you don’t like this kind of stuff and ask him/her to minimize its presence in the game. *Nobody* enjoys being dazed or stunned, so it will not be particularly weird to buy an item to make the occasional but inevitable turn of dazing, stunning, or mind control (everyone gets hit by these sometimes, but not terribly often) less of a pain. Alternatively, if this isn’t an insurance policy, then when you buy this item, you’re saying to the GM “yeah! Send lots of monsters that daze and confuse (see what I did there?) the party!” After all, if you buy this thing and don’t get to use it it seems kind of boring. But, of course, your fun here is going to come at the expense of the other members of your party who don’t have this protective equipment. Which is cool once, your paranoid dude and his masochistic amulet turn out to save the day, but isn’t going to be interesting as a regular thing. I disagree. The item is clearly designed, by its 1/day limitation at the very least, to be a stopgap in a variety of situations. It's not designed to have fights built around it by GMs, but will come up naturally because there are plenty of foes that normally use one of the effects it protects against.
You make a good point about the Will save. I think in retrospect I would remove it and allow the item to work automatically. As a last design thought, the price is probably a little too high for how it is currently worded, since it's not giving more actions than usual, but rather mitigating the loss of actions. I would add the changes mentioned above to make it a better deal and then reduce the price to 18,000 gp. Finally, thanks again for all the feedback, everyone!
I definitely concur that a series of awards would be a valuable addition to PaizoCon or to any publication. That said, I think the best way to make people realize that is to attract some attention by holding your own vote here on the forums.
I'd think the meat of taxes in such a setting would come more from land than on a per-person rate, wouldn't it? And thanks for running through this--it's quite interesting. :)
1. I'd definitely curb the prevalence of buffs by making more of them overlap and not stack (in the process reducing the amount of magic items expected to be carried and orienting the ones that remain toward activated effects and other new combat options). 2. I would also make the skill systems so that non-combat actions can be more immersive and rewarding for players (including introducing guidelines for XP rewards on such things).
Dicefreaks D20 Community is proud to present the first PDF release of Songs of the Sidhe, our collection of material relating to Faerie, the realm of the fey courts, giant kingdoms, and other mysterious beings. This chapter features setting, ecology, culture, power groups, and gamemastering advice for using this otherworldly place. The file is available via the following link: Songs of the Sidhe: Into the Otherworld (PDF) Please feel free to share your thoughts and questions here or at Dicefreaks. Feedback is always appreciated. :) Songs of the Sidhe is a collaborative project always open to fresh perspectives. If you find this chapter intriguing enough that you would like to help out on a future chapter, feel free to say so and we can discuss details.
I noticed that none of the staffs in the PRD seem to have prices including any costly material components or foci for spells such as true seeing or legend lore, yet the rules for crafting staffs indicates that they should. Which is right, the prices or the staff crafting rules?
You might get more response if there was a little more of a premise to start from. Even a theme or an inspiration. For example, you could say try to come up with features that complement an old-school RPG video game world (these might involve elemental crystals, incredibly powerful and mysterious magical towers, and active fiends manipulating vast schemes in the world's background). Or you could say the world has the theme of duality, where everything is balanced by some opposite, and PCs can always have a major effect on the world by disrupting or restoring that balance (though they likely have to deal with their own opposites resisting their efforts).
I concur. As do I... but I think the rules are too vaguely written here, and I want to get something official from this, or at least an opinion from a qualified member of the Paizo team. Alternatively, is there any conclusive reference to how this works with monster telepathy?
Bump. Can we get a more definitive answer to this? Some people in my group claim that all telepathy is now one-way only unless noted otherwise, but as I read it it's all two-way unless noted otherwise.
I'd be pretty happy if they didn't leave so many spells off of the main list and restricted to familiar lists. Like a cleric's domains, just because it's available on a bonus list doesn't mean you should leave it off the main list (this is obviously based on English ideas of witches making pacts with demons/devils and blighting the country side, and can't do a lot of the relevant things without having several different familiars). It's missing basic buff spells, like Bull's Strength etc; Contagion (THE thing people were afraid of witches doing to them);
Some flavor issues aside from that: This witch is not good enough at the one kind of combat spell that really fits the archetype (who's most famous for inflicting illness): it's slow at or missing some important blight spells, i.e. Inflict Wounds above 2nd level, Harm, and Contagion. Several of the suggestions earlier in the thread would also be nice, but the above are pretty glaring.
I disagree with Kevin's explanation. The Pathfinder witch is no such thing. The familiar does all the theorizing in the relationship; the witch instead has the insight to figure out how to coax eldritch forces into giving her access to this magic through the familiar. Thinking of it as communion with otherworldly forces likewise suggests Wisdom. Wisdom-based absolutely makes the most sense. |