Nihilakh's page

Nihilakh wrote:

Are you positing that we haven't learned anything new in regards to climate change/global warming since 1960?

No, just that the general overview information that >I< was filling in was already known in the 1960s.

This is what I suspected. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't applying context to your statement that wasn't purposely implied. :)

Nihilakh wrote:

Your example honestly screams false equivalency to me. A person's political choice is ideological

My point was that I don't believe there IS a political choice here... at least not a valid one. Scientists overwhelmingly support one position on this issue. The handful who do not are either cranks, funded by the fossil fuel industry, or both. Thus, treating this as a 'choice' between two equally possible scenarios seems invalid to me. Rather, it is a choice between clearly established science and easily disproven nonsense.

Ah, I see where the confusion is here. My earlier statement of "I don't have a horse in this race" wasn't supposed to indicate that I am considering the possibility that climate change isn't real. I can see how me kind of pushing that in the middle of the sentence the way I did unfortunately implied that now. That statement was kind of meant to be a warning in advance to say "Just because I might sound like I agree with some people on things, doesn't mean I adhere to your ideology."

In other words, I don't want people to misunderstand my consideration of their points to mean that I am backing any particular person or group, their's or otherwise.

I'm honestly not very good with communication. I tend to take a lot of things literally that aren't meant to be, and I usually don't imply anything. Which to be fair throws people off, especially when I don't think to watch for how things I say could be implied to mean something other than I was intending, based on surrounding context.

Sorry about that. :)

Nihilakh wrote:

No. Who said the climate scientists were rich? Who stated the fossil fuel tycoons were poor? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that there was a lot of money to be made in grants, and those grants are easier to win if your field of study happens to be in a field that significantly affects the population at large

Do not people who make "a lot of money" become rich?

Basically, NO there is NOT a lot of money to be made from research grants. If there were, climate scientists would have a lot of money. They do not.

Point taken. In fact MMCJawa and thejeff did a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws in my assumption.

Nihilakh wrote:

I find the idea that this field of research wouldn't be getting spun by both sides a very slim possibility.

Scientists who 'spin' things are generally known as frauds. Thus, I would NOT expect spin on 'both sides' of the scientific debate. One side exists ONLY because of spin, and the other side is populated by the vast majority of scientists who actually follow the evidence.

Again, this does make sense. I appreciate you pointing it out.

Nihilakh wrote:

Does this proving true allow the democratic party to push the economics in a direction they find more to their liking? Probably.

Please explain. How does global warming push economics in 'democratic' directions?

I suppose I should have phrased that better. Without really looking into it, my initial assumption was that sensationalizing the subject could allow either party to steer things (not necessarily just economic matters) in a way they find more preferable. I suppose we could simply call that "politics as usual" though. Both sides sensationalize things, and I suppose there is nothing really wrong about it.

I just find politics distasteful in general I guess. So any time someone in politics is able to use something I find interesting as a talking point I get disgruntled about it.

It was a point that wasn't going anywhere. I was just being a grump. lol

Nihilakh wrote:

The first half of your response I quite enjoyed. Can we have more discourse along those lines please? :)

I'd be happy to, but note... you've written more on the subjects you ostensibly don't want to discuss. I'm merely responding. :]

Right, I understand what you are saying, but your initial response to me I think was due to a misunderstanding of where I originally stood. Odds are we agree on more of this stuff than we disagree on. I'm just really not interested in the political angles for as much as I can avoid it. Looking back, I probably just shouldn't have mentioned it in an regard, including my opposition to it if I had wanted to stay out of that part.

Lesson learned. :)

Well, there's hard evidence that various oil companies were internally operating on the basis that climate change was happening while funding studies and publicity against it. That side is perfectly clear.

That climate scientists and research institutes are doing anything similar is little more than speculation. That they've been doing so secretly for decades worldwide in the face of hostile governments is a pretty wild hypothesis.

Good points thejeff, but could you clarify the second part for me? I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever heard hostile governments being brought up in the same discussion as climate change. Can you explain that in more detail, or at least point me in a direction to learn more about it?

As someone who is very literally writing a grant to fund scientific research today (YAY PROCRASTINATION), I am not sure you really understand how the scientific process works in regards funding and such.

If scientists were manipulating data to oversell/fake anthropogenic climate change, I can almost certainly guarantee that some other scientist would post a rebuttal. You are just not going to get the majority of the world's climate scientists to agree on ANYTHING, since tearing down the result of other studies is a great way to ensure that your own research is published. Consensus (which is effectively what is going on in climate research) is actually worse for funding situation. If climate scientists really want to ensure future funding they would actually not come to a consensus, because arguing over the most basic questions is a lot more publishable. As is, many of the arguments in the literature of late are more about fine-tuning model parameters or seeing how the models respond or accurately replicate events in geologic record.

Furthermore, NSF and related US funding agencies (and other countries like Australia and the UK I believe have similar problems) have been increasingly getting their funding cut. Grant money is far from easy to get. Its incredibly time consuming with often minimal chances of getting funding, even if you get perfect scores on the evaluation criteria (current funding level is less than 1 in 4 proposals). Often grants have to be submitted 2 to three times, with a 6 month turn around time. And that funding mostly goes to the school via overhead or for funding research expenses. Scientists are not lined their pockets with grant money.

IF you want to look for profit-motivated entities, look to the oil industry, which is a goliath in potential funding versus NSF and other bodies. If researchers were interested in getting sweet funding for their research/labs, they wouldn't be pitching a climate change narrative that says fossil fuels lead to a warming environment. They would be...

These are all really good points as well MMCJawa. I have to concede that the scientists tearing each other down would likely be more profitable than consensus. Just to be clear, I'm not saying Climate Change isn't occurring, or is in anyway a myth. If you are looking at the data from an objective standpoint, you can clearly see things are warming up. There is absolutely a warming trend. I won't try to argue that point with anyone.

What I'm not certain on is whether this will actually be disastrous for us, and if so, what that timetable actually looks like for us to turn it around. It seems like that's currently where the questions and unknowns are.

In other words, we know it's happening (and I do agree with that), but are we certain what the consequences are, and are we certain we can actually fix it. Those are the things I can't seem to find a consensus on.

The terms global warming and climate change have both been commonly used to describe the same phenomenon (i.e. rising global temperatures primarily due to human industrial CO2 emissions) for more than 50 years now. If you only hear 'climate change' you may be primarily relying on conservative news sources as they've made a concerted effort to use only that term.

I honestly wasn't aware of this, and have indeed only heard the term Climate Change recently, although I don't watch typical news. I could care less what FOX news, BBC etc has to say on the matter (or any matter).

Most of what I have read on the subject comes from sources like www.nature.com. My personal criteria for reading a specific news source is them citing their sources. If it sounds like they are trying to put a political spin on something one way or the other then it gets tiring for me. Although, I will concede that as someone who really doesn't care much for politics, it may be difficult for me to detect anything but blatant spin doctoring.

I am certain at some point that I had read the explanation for the change in terminology. Something to do with climate change being more encompassing, since "warming" wasn't the only interaction being studied, even if it was the end result. Again, I'm not 100% certain that it was unbiased one direction or the other in this.

I could really care less about which term we use, so long as we both just agree they are the same thing. :)

Lots of informative stuff

Thanks for that explanation CB. That does make more sense with you filling in some of the gaps for me. As for how it was being taught, as thejeff pointed out above, it could have simply been poor education from a teacher who simply wasn't informed enough to teach the subject.

No, we pretty much knew everything I've gone over above since the 1960s. It probably just hadn't made it's way down to the middle school level yet.

Are you positing that we haven't learned anything new in regards to climate change/global warming since 1960?

If the nine most respected oncologists in the world tell you that you need chemotherapy to stop the spread of a virulent cancer while a tenth random unknown doctor tells you that you don't have cancer at all and just need to meditate with a special crystal to feel better is it really 'moderate' to 'see both sides'? Doesn't seem so to me.

You misrepresent me here sir/mam. My point was that I don't have any kind of loyalty to either political party that has used this as a platform. I sincerely only care about the science behind it.

Your example honestly screams false equivalency to me. A person's political choice is ideological and really doesn't have anything to do with medical procedures or terminal diseases. At a high level you could argue it affects what standard of care you have access to, but the example you are providing above doesn't really cover that.

Maybe I'm taking your example in a direction you didn't intend it. If I'm misunderstanding your point I apologize, but it doesn't make sense to me in response to what I said. My whole point was that I'm not drawing conclusions based on party lines. I couldn't care less about the party lines.

So... the rich climate scientists in their fancy mansions are pulling a fast one on us and the poor starving fossil fuel tycoons?

No. Who said the climate scientists were rich? Who stated the fossil fuel tycoons were poor? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out that there was a lot of money to be made in grants, and those grants are easier to win if your field of study happens to be in a field that significantly affects the population at large. Full quote to end.

I find the idea that this field of research wouldn't be getting spun by both sides a very slim possibility. As I stated before, I don't care about the party lines. I don't have a political horse in this race. Obviously politicians do, and they may or may not be for benevolent reasons.

We could sit and ask each other questions along these lines all day long and turn it into a political studies discussion, but I find that boring, and it honestly does a disservice to the topic at hand in my opinion.

Does the oil industry stand to lose a lot of money from climate change/global warming? Most certainly.
Does this proving true allow the democratic party to push the economics in a direction they find more to their liking? Probably.
Is there a lot of money in grants awarded for the subject of climate change/global warming? Yes.

I am going to state it again, because I can't emphasis it enough, I don't care about the politics behind it. I find the science (information you were providing before that filled in holes for me for example) interesting. On the other hand the politics behind it are tired and boring in my opinion.

Cue claims that doing anything about global warming would destroy the economy in 3... 2... 1...

*sigh* Nope... you won't hear anything about how this affects the economy from my end, because I really don't think it affects it in a way that is significant enough to fret about.

Fear mongering does affect policy and scientific research though. Take "Big Tobacco" vs the electronic cigarette industry for example. I have never seen such levels of FUD built right into research papers. Not to mention the fact that the scientific method was all but completely disregarded, and data was so cherry picked, that it is obvious a specific end result was paid for. I'm not saying there are not still health concerns regarding e-cigs. There is plenty more research that really needs to be done. There are also people trying to push an agenda through this research as well though. That's where we have to be vigilant. Nobody should be worried about whether the result of the research damages some companies' bottom line.

I'm not saying that global warming/climate change research is exactly the same. My point is that, if there is a way to make money from something, someone is likely to engage in that. If there is research that is likely to point out your product is killing people, there are people who would spend money to bury that. If there is research that benefits product X over product Y...

It really really doesn't.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't a whole lot of people with a whole lot of money tied up in this. People who want the outcome one way or another. To say that none of the published research papers on the matter could have ever been influenced by these outside forces is absurd.

Do I have hard evidence of this? No I don't. On the other hand I would be naive to think that it couldn't have happened. Therefore, the point holds water.

Now, all of that said, I'd really just like to learn more about the situation, from anyone else that wants to discuss it, and I really don't care about the political posturing. Debate is fine on the merits of the science itself to me.

The first half of your response I quite enjoyed. Can we have more discourse along those lines please? :)

So sorry for your loss Treppa. I've lost several furry best friends over the years myself, and I know the heartache that comes along with it. :(

Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years.

Yup. As a class of 2000 student, we actually started learning about (what was then called) Global Warming in middle-school. We were taught that the greenhouse effect, and the role clouds played in it, trapping IR light like a greenhouse would. Obviously at that time, theories were far less complicated.

My initial reaction was honestly skepticism. The way the teacher had explained it was that the trapped IR light would cause the additional creation of clouds. According to her and the text book, these clouds were initially created by human pollutants. These clouds created would only trap more IR light

I of course had to ask the obvious question "What happens when so many clouds are built up, that they just reflect the majority of the IR light back into space?". She didn't have an answer for me, but she assured me that this was absolutely irrefutably the way it worked. No question about it, and to even doubt this basically made me a bad person. It was very doom and gloom right from my first introduction to the subject.

So according to them, people created pollution, pollution created clouds, clouds trapped IR light and IR light created more clouds.

Obviously we have actually learned quite a lot from further studies, and while I'm still on the fence about a lot of the studies I read in regards to, what we now call Climate Change, I think it's come a long way. It's interesting, and even if nothing else, we have learned some useful things about the way our environment behaves from the research. It's a win for humanity whenever we learn something new, or prove something previously believed true to be false. It's really all learning, and that (to me) is awesome!

Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen. Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?

I do understand your anger here and the initial response of outrage. To be honest, C02 does most likely make our climate warmer. To what extent? I can't say. I have my doubts that it is at the level many others suspect. It's still pretty fascinating to me though regardless.

I honestly have no political horse in this race. I am definitely a true moderate. I see good and bad on both sides. In fact, I prescribe to the notion of a political axis and not just a linear line or even circle. I do have to admit though, there is a lot of money to be made in research grants, and it is probably far easier to get said grants if your field of study involves some potentially dire future consequences. Also fear mongering does have a habit of pervading politics. I won't say that is the case for certain with the Climate Change research. There is no way I could possibly really know without the proverbial "smoking gun" to prove it to me. I will admit that, if this is the point you are trying to make, it does hold water.

At the end of the day though, this is all just very interesting to me. I like learning, and while I do like theory, I love proven fact more.

Can I fling oatmeal creme pie cookies at people?

Please throw them directly at my face! *NOM NOM NOM*

Edit: I missed a period in one of my sentences! I blame those sneaky trees. X(

Speaking of clouds, I just read this the other day. Not sure if anyone else had seen it, so I dug it back up to share: Linky!

This just confirms my suspicions that all trees are sneaky over-sized broccoli! :P

Edit: Forgot to make the link more linky. lol

Off-topic:

Do you guys need a wiki monkey? I am more than willing to post new classes up as you guys finalize them. I also noticed there are some places on the wiki where it looks like a previous class name was copied and pasted, but probably changed since. In other words the class name doesn't match the descriptive text.

Let me know if you need help. I'm willing to contribute back. Thanks again for your assistance with the Coldblooded Killer. ;D

And on that note, here's the...

** spoiler omitted **...

I absolutely love it! Thank you Elghinn!

@Nihilakh - welcome to the thread/s. Kudos to you if you have indeed all five of our previous threads, including this one. You'll have noted I'm an ornery wolf who is fairly toothless on crunch (but finds a tasty error-morsel to chew on from time to time) and that I'm big on theme and flavor. And I'm incredibly biased with regard to what I do and don't like, am hung up on process and strive to be fair.

I haven't commented on the past few MCAs as I just started my last six months of my degree in the past few weeks, and I haven't been terribly enthused by the concepts - although I did create the Focused Combatant (submitted by me as the Focused Mind, remember El?) Barbarian archetype for Kobold Press' Legends of Midgard...

# Blooded Rogue

I like the cold-blooded rage as a concept but currently as written I find it problematic thematically and mechanically:

Cold-Blooded Rage wrote:

Cold-blooded Rage (Ex): When a blooded rogue rages, instead of making a normal rage she receives a +2 morale bonus to her Strength and Dexterity. This bonus increases to +4 when she gains greater rage. When using a Cold-blooded rage, a blooded rogue gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Dexterity-based skills. A blooded rogue does not suffer fatigue at the end of his rage, but may not end their rage voluntarily. Once a blooded rogue begins their rage it lasts until all rounds have been expended, or they fall unconscious via some other means. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage. This ability replaces trapfinding.

So a +2 bonus to Str and Dex, no penalty to AC, still able to use Dex skills (I'm on board with this thematically) and no fatigue. All for trapfinding. And it improves to +4 later on... I don't think this is equal to trapfinding - it's a huge buff. That's the mechanics side.

Thematically, I don't get why it's uncontrolled/can't be ended voluntarily.. That seems counter to a controlled, cold-blooded rage. If it's a balancer...

Hello Oceanshieldwolf!

I feel honored that you took the time to review my submission despite your busy schedule! Thank you very much.

I most certainly can explain my train of thought with it, although it may not make it balanced! Essentially the concept for the class was to be more along the lines of Cold-Blooded Killer. So instead of an uncontrolled berserker style rage, it's supposed to be more of a combat rush. I've had experience in hand to hand combat during my time in the Bosnian conflict. So the best way I can explain it, or the thematic effect I was going for, is when you get that all or nothing feeling in the pit of your stomach, cold tingle across your skin (commonly referred to as 'your blood runs cold'). It's a tricky thing to describe because fear is always as much a driving element as anger. This isn't something you can train into someone though. It essentially just takes raw determination, but turning it off isn't easy either, and I didn't feel like turning it off captured that. It's supposed to feel a bit trapping, scary and I'm sure it becomes a seductive feeling eventually. In any case, it was something I based off of real life experience.

Now, I full well know that this is fantasy, and it doesn't have to be 'realistic'. I wrote it up that way, as it made sense to me. A bit droll of me I realize, but it's also cathartic in it's own way to express it. Mind you, I'd never wish my worst enemy into any of those experiences much less wish myself back into them. I don't want people to start thinking I'm a serial killer or something.

In any case, I agree that it's a strong ability. Perhaps stating that it replaces trap finding was a bit misleading, because I actually toned down a lot along the way. The class, over all, loses out on an additional 3d6 worth of sneak attack damage, it is also unable to take Advanced Talents until level 12 as opposed to level 10. That may not seem like much, but it's essentially preventing the class from taking an extra advanced talent that it would otherwise have access to. I realize this is essentially front loading balance, and that has it's own problems.

As for the time in rage, I would expect it to be shorter than your average barbarian as, being a rogue, Dexterity would most likely still be it's primary stat focus, meaning I would expect Constitution to be lower than the average Barbarian's.

I initially based Cold-blooded Rage off of the rage from this archetype: Urban Barbarian

Leaving it at the default +4 Str, Dex, or Con of the urban barbarian seemed extremely overpowered to me when you combine that with the fact the class gains access to rogue talents. Switching it to +2 Str/+2 Dex seemed more thematic and much more fair. I also felt like the bonus to Will saves was also a good balancing move, and thus kept it.

Turning it off was removed for thematic reasons, as I stated above, however I do see making it an all or nothing ability as a drawback. A barbarian can rage for a single turn, use his rage powers to assist with an opponent, turn it off, spend his fatigue rounds moving to the next opponent, turn it back on. I didn't feel like that fit with this class. I felt it fit better being more along the lines of "you go into the 'zone' until the adrenaline runs out" at which point you're back to yourself.

As for fatigue, I didn't think that fit either. Maybe it's far more necessary for balance than I thought, but on the other hand, the biggest drawback I could see for fatigue being a barbarian was the inability to rage while suffering from fatigue (or exhaustion). If the class does rage as 'all or nothing' then adding fatigue isn't really very crippling. Irregardless, I wouldn't be upset to see fatigue added back.

Over all, I do feel like Cold-blooded Rage is less powerful than the regular barbarian rage, which was what I was going for. It may be still be "too powerful" but then again, that's one of the reasons I posted it here. :)

@Blooded Rogue
We'll need a different name I think. Invokes Sorcerer instead of Barbarian.

For Coldblooded Rage, there are two options here.
1) Make this work like the Rage spell. For the rogue, I see this more of a stone-cold rage, controllable, but much the same effect. We could either go 2 round or 1 round of rage per level. The spell has no fatigue and is 1 round per level.

2) Make this just like normal rage, but with only the +2 stat boost, increases to +4 at a later level.

If it needs reduction in power I think reducing the number of rounds and/or adding fatigue are both great options to balance it out. You could also remove the Greater rage ability if necessary.

Good luck with it...

(I still like the skill check idea but that is just a personal preference thing...)

Hey Damian. I honestly really really like the idea as well. In fact having to trade that part out for balance purposes is really the part that hits the hardest. On the other hand, with a new group of players coming in, I'd like to make sure that balance is the primary factor. If I had a group of seasoned roleplayers with a history of not taking advantage of exploitable rules, as I had with the little playtesting I did with the original write up, I'd be using spellcraft since I could count on my player's not to abuse the system.

On the other hand, I intend to update the PDF (actually put some more time and effort into it visually as well) and I'm going to include a lot of things as "variant" rules. Like switching out a spellcraft check for the caster level check, adding saves to reduce damage, etc.

I wasn't only coming to these forums for help with balance and to brainstorm with other people for my own benefit. I fully intend to wrap this up in a cool little package that hopefully anyone could find something in that's worth it to them to use.

Thanks Excalibur!

I'm going to be starting up with a new group this weekend. I intend to take them through the RotRL AP. That will most likely give me the chance to play test the system with these revisions! If you do manage to find the time to run some simulations, I would be interested in hearing the outcome.

Thanks again!

That actually makes a lot more sense to me. Charisma is obviously the 'social' statistic. If gnomes are 'alien and strange' then it makes sense that they would not have an overall CHA bonus. Good work!

One of the things we do here, if you've followed the thread, is work to make things balanced. So when we're done, you should have something balanced and playable.

I have noticed that. Thank you Elghinn!

The whole reason I posted it was to, not only get feedback, but to try and contribute something. I have in fact gone through all of the MCA threads at this point. I have also gone through several classes on the wiki. I am very impressed. Hopefully balancing this one in particular isn't a heap ton of work. I did try to do my due diligence by making it balanced myself.

Sorry for the double post here.

Actually, I think a straight caster level check (without the ability modifier) is the way to go. It makes things more reliable. Besides, just because you are smarter, wiser or smooth talking/better looking doesn't mean you should necessarily be able to cast a spell "better" only that you may be able to cast a better spell. Being better at casting spells should come with experience, and the accumulation of that experience is best represented by the caster level alone I feel.

Well, I'm not hearing anything further on the Arcane Adept or the Wildheart, so I'm inclined to move on. Trogdar, if you have other exploits, just post them and I can add them to the list.

So that puts Tyrannical's Philosopher (we'll need to swap the primary and secondary classes), and since you're new to the thread Nihilakh, we'll take a look at yours. Is it a Bbn/Rog or a Rog/Bbn? You've called it both, so need to know which is the base class you swapped abilities out from to check balance, etc.

Ack! Sorry Elghinn. It's supposed to be Rog/Bbn.

Just so you know though I didn't swap exact copies of the abilities over. I took some liberties with them. For instance, I reduced the benefits from the Rage skill, and reduced the total amount of sneak attack damage the rogue gets as well as reducing skill points. I upped the hit die to sit in between the Rogue and Barbarian. Word of warning, it's not play tested. I did attempt to make it what I thought was balanced. There is always the possibility of outliers when things haven't been tested obviously.

Actually no. I think it's silly that you can't honestly. However, according to the Pathfinder rules.

Rage:

"While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."

Like I said, pretty silly.

You guys are both right about the difficulty level. It will have to be higher. As Damian pointed out, a Wizard gets their first 9th level spell at level 17. At this point they would have to have a minimum Int score of 19 in order to cast the spell.

That means if using the caster level check, they would have to roll at least a 3 on a d20. Not really something that inspires fear. It would be even uglier if you were using the spellcraft skill check rule instead. You can assume that the minimum points in spellcraft would be 17, +3 for the skill being a trained class skill, +4 for the Int bonus. So technically we are looking at a minimum of 24, before feats.

To me, it would make sense, if when a caster achieved a new spell level they had a 50% chance of failure when casting a spell of that level, maybe a little lower. If the DC is 10+(spell level x2) then a 0 level spell for a 1st level wizard would be anything on a 9 or higher. A 1st level spell would be anything on an 11 or higher. If we assume that a 1st level Wizard will have an Intelligence score of at least 13, that lowers those target numbers by 1, which is honestly just about right on the money.

Conversely at level 17 casting a 9th level spell would be anything on an 11 or higher as well. If they are casting a 9th level spell though they would have a minimum Int score of 19. Bringing that target number down to a 7. Which is about a 35% chance of failure, and that is only going to go down from there.

Given the above, I almost want to say the DC still needs to be a little higher, although, that would certainly make things harder on the lower level casters.

As for this being a spell point system, I do realize that adding essence makes this essentially a spell point system, however unlike other spell point systems (at least ones I have seen in any case) there are consequences for running out. The only ones I have seen simply prevent you from casting once you are out of spell points.

If you guys don't already have a Bbn/Rge archetype, I would like to submit my own!

Even if you don't want to use it, I would love to hear any critiques!

I think one point per spell level might be reasonable om a success?

Then the big hit (1 hit die of the casting class in damage per spell level still makes sense).

Maybe if the caster beats the check by 5 or more then half the damage and 10 means no damage? That way the low level spells are still attractive longer.

I like it. I can't thank you enough for your help on this Excalibur.

This conversation with you has really gotten me brainstorming. I think, instead of just making the damage from spells a type of non-lethal damage with a separate name, it may be better to have a separate "hit point pool". For instance, I am considering having a mirror stat of the current character's hit points, called essence.

So essentially, casting spells actually uses (or in the case of failure tears at) the character's essence. Essence represents the other half of the physical. A character's life force or the metaphysical glue holding them together. A character's essence can never exceed their current hit point total. If a character takes physical damage, they reduce both hit points and essence. If the character takes straight essence damage (from casting for instance) the reverse is not true. Essence damage heals at the rate of 1 essence per character level/HD per hour.

Like hit points, falling to negative Con score in essence will result in death, although you would leave behind a pretty corpse... assuming you were never physically wounded.

An alternative to dying might be you instead suffer a point of ability damage to Int, Wis and Cha. Pretty harsh, but I suppose it beats death. Extend yourself too far enough times and you could literally turn yourself into a drooling vegetable.

I think a separate "hit point pool", like essence, could allow for some pretty cool feats or the like. For instance a feat that would let someone leech essence from another character or creature (obviously an evil act), or temporarily boost their essence, similar to how a barbarian boosts hit points with Rage. A character would fall unconscious at 0 essence just like with hit points.

There is however the possibility in these cases of the caster making the ultimate sacrifice in order to save their party. Down to a few points of essence, but they decide to cast that big spell anyway in order to save their comrades. Now that is the thematic casting I've been wanting!

I don't think this was necessarily a bad idea, especially given your situation. To be honest I have seen very few people play the alignment on their sheet correctly. Especially Lawful Good. Which, let's face it, can be a hard alignment to play.

I myself have toyed with simply banning the Paladin class from play completely, or otherwise replacing it with a different class. In all honesty the Inquisitor class is how I see most people attempt to play the Paladin (PALADIN SMASH ALL EVIL EVERYWHERE!!!), which may work as a good replacement for people playing Pathfinder. I probably would have banned Paladins too if it hadn't been for the fact that I have seen a couple people truly play the alignment correctly. Let me first start off by saying, 'correctly' is not meant to imply 'perfectly'. Their characters did mess up on occasion, but when they did they roleplayed the resulting grief over their mistake wonderfully. One instance specifically was particularly moving, where the party had encountered a wretch of a vampire. During a brief in character conversation the Paladin learned that the vampire knew it was a wretch, and hated what it had become but could not bring itself to end it's own existence. The Paladin promised to grant him a good death, but apologized and felt remorse for the fact that he had to destroy this other being in order to set things right.

In my understanding of the class, yes a Paladin should seek evil, but should not be smiting the orphan cutpurse trying to get by because he happens to notice him stealing. They should have compassion. They should defend those who are unable to defend themselves, regardless of the victim's alignment, but should in all places endeavor to show restraint even against the misguided attackers. It should boil a Paladin's blood to see a villain go unpunished for a crime it was obvious they committed, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily go vigilante justice on the villain.

I don't see anti-hero being a good character concept for a Paladin. Nor do I see a Paladin holding up the ideal of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or "Good prevails. No matter the cost". On the other hands these sound like perfect background material for an Inquisitor.

Now, should the Paladin encounter something that is evil in it's pure form, some sinister beast or a demon or devil for instance, then by all means put your zealot cap on Mr. Paladin and go smite mode.

Well, on the topic of the will saves:

Most people agree that Clerics and Druids are the most powerful and versatile classes in the game and the will save system actually makes them even more powerful relative to other casters as they have a reason to have a high wisdom bonus anyways. However, if you want to force some kind of multiple ability dependence on casters then you could enforce some kind of secondary stat for all casters.

Like: though saves for int casters are still based on int, they must make a caster level+wis mod check to get the spell off.

Meanwhile: Wis casters need to do caster level+cha and cha casters need to do caster level+int.

This still makes the clerics beasts though (they need charisma anyways) so you can "reverse the direction" if you want:

Int: needs a cha check
Cha: needs a wis check
Wis: needs an int check

Do whatever round robin makes you feel comfortable, I guess.

I see your point. That's a tricky one. While the round robin idea of saves would fix that issue, it's starting to approach the realm of more complexity. In that case dropping the save actually seems like a better option.

So with your feedback, I think the best case is to instead go with your idea in regards to the caster check. Caster level + Ability Mod. Succeeding at the check allows the spell to go off. Failure results in the spell doing nothing. I also think a separate form of 'damage' which can't be healed except through time is also the way to go.

Do you think a successful cast should prevent the caster from suffering any kind of damage? Obviously failure should result in some. I almost want to say that with it moving to an alternate damage, it should probably result in something even if it is small. I really just need to nail down the amount of this alternate damage a caster should take for a successful cast and a failed cast.

Hey Excaliburproxy! Thanks for checking it out. I definitely appreciate the critique.

This stuff is OP and easily gamed, man. Regeneration or a good source of healing (familiar with wand) means infinite spells. If it has to be nonlethal damage then you gotta push it to the limit.

I had considered this a couple of times. This system really hasn't been play tested pass 6th level. I tend to be conservative with handing out magic gear as well. I don't usually allow the purchase of magic equipment either, so wands and potions are both things most of my players consider to be items reserved for emergency use only.

On the other hand I totally get what you are saying. Since I really haven't tested the system at higher levels though, I hadn't given much consideration to the system breaking at that point.

It has to be like 1d10 per spell level so a 9th level spell can actually knock you the f%%@ out. I also say drop the will save entirely. Not every caster has a good will save necessarily and it essentially forces all casters to be wisdom casters.

I can certainly see your point with the higher damage at higher levels. To be honest, I'm not really sure what the HP pool for a high level caster looks like in Pathfinder. I only ever played a high level caster once, and the guy running the campaign had some extremely terrible rules ideas. In fact we didn't even get to create our own characters, they were pre-created by him. The other part that was terrible about it was the fact that he didn't really let us act out the characters the way he wanted, and quite often forced our characters to act the way he wanted them to act. It really felt like the dude really just wanted to have a bunch of people sit around and listen to him tell a story.

Anyway, that's a long tale just to point out that I don't really play casters much, and so my experience with them is minimal from a player point of view. From the GM perspective, just because I have an NPC that CAN do something, doesn't mean that I should have that NPC do that. Especially if it's terribly OP or gamey.

But that's why I posted here in the first place. For this kind of feedback! So thank you!

I had previously gone through a large list of caster classes and it appeared to me that most have a good Will save. Off the top of my head I know that Rangers are an exception, however they don't gain the ability to cast spells right away so in my head this kind of balanced itself out.

As for the Wisdom portion, I'm not so certain that encouraging casters to diversify their stats is a bad thing. I understand that Wizards want to pump their Int as high as possible. On the other hand, the melee classes gain benefits from increasing stats like Constitution and Dexterity due to the system. My goal was to create an element in the casting system that would encourage that Wizard to at least decide that he couldn't completely ignore his Wisdom. I hope that makes sense?

If you are going to go this route then the check made to cast spells needs to be in line with the casting stat. Maybe the check should just be caster level+casting stat modifier. If you fail you take the big nonlethal or you succeed and the spell just goes. This is still game-able, though.

I do actually like this idea. I'm a bit torn though. As I stated above I like the idea of giving players a reason to try and diversify their stats. I feel like choosing an ability to increment should never be a no-brainer decision.

On the other hand your proposal would certainly be a less complicated way, and I'm all for simplicity.

What probably needs to happen is that this nonlethal damage needs to be from a special category. Perhaps this particular kind of effectively nonlethal damage (magic expense damage?) can only be healed by taking a 20 minute rest or something. Or perhaps even better: can only heal at a rate of your caster level per hour (that way casters are still limited in their amount of casting over the course of the day). If this later model is taken then the "nonlethal" damage probably only needs to be like 1d6 a caster level. Or something like the caster takes nonlethal damage per spell level equal to their hit die (so druids are not suddenly a better font of magic than wizards as they can eat more nonlethal damage from a higher HD)

Now this is golden! A different kind of damage all together, that couldn't be easily healed except with time. Call it something catchy like... "Spell Drain"? I guess the name is pretty irrelevant at this point, but if anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears.

I really think this is the way to go. So again thanks a ton Excaliburproxy! If you have any more suggestions or advice I am all ears!

I've been playing Pathfinder for quite some time. Just decided to recently get back into it. Up until recently I hadn't bothered purchasing anything digitally. Since I had decided to pick it back up I decided to go grab all the digital copies of everything I thought I would need.

I've been GMing for a long time. From the original Dungeons and Dragons Red Box through Pathfinder.

One thing I have always disliked was the Vancian Magic System. It just didn't feel thematic to me.

So to that end I created a very simple risk vs reward system. I'm sure I'm not the first person to conceive of this concept. But it works well for myself and my group, so I thought I would share it.

Risk v Reward Spell Casting for Pathfinder

*Edit: I forgot to add that any criticism or critiques are more than welcome!