Parka's page

It isn't simple, but I remember a suggestion that any magic item valued above a certain point requires extra-special magical materials to be made, and simply can't be bought with ordinary money. The exact stuff varied by item and honestly wasn't that important mechanics-wise; it was just so that the best goods weren't in mortal markets that ran on gold.

When you do this, large sums of money simply won't buy the players level-appropriate gear, and they know it. You don't feel pressured to drip-feed them gold, and they stop wasting time stripping grungy hobgoblin helmets and going through every pocket.

Theoretically, they could become rich by selling one of these valuable items, but all bets are off when it comes to how much the ordinary market will give you. Many merchants know they'd have to work hard to find a special buyer to get the "full" value of the item, so they won't offer much. The players would likely need to go on a quest of their own to find someone who can offer you something approaching normal value (plus consideration for the extra-special materials).

Since you are their only source of level-appropriate gear, though, you do need to start considering where they might get it, or adjusting encounters because they haven't found it. You don't need to directly award the +4 Oddly Specific Sword of Conspicuousness, but you would have to make sure they know they can look for this sort of thing or get them specially made if they're having a hard time.

The benefits? - Players stop looking to money to get magic items, and instead listen to hints of them in the world.

The drawbacks? - You need to pay more attention to what gear they need, and things that destroy gear at high levels become disproportionately hurtful

I have banned certain players from playing certain things, but haven't wholesale banned anything. I allow- encourage, even- any 3rd party and custom-made material, if the player can sell me on it. I want people to be excited about playing their characters.

Players who have created things of their own need to present me with a clean "final" document of it, and have to sell me on it. They have to tell me why it's so compelling and make me want to allow it. If they start with theme and background fluff, and how I can use it in a setting, they're doing it right.
Some start with mechanics and go on about their character build, and how it's all "totally balanced." I generally stop them, tell them they're doing it wrong, and give them a second chance to sell me on it. If I think the mechanics are broken, but I know why the player wants to play it, I can make something better that fits their desire. The fluff needs to make me want to do that, though.

I started collecting a ton of 3rd party material because one of my first groups had (no joke) literally memorized every entry in the monster manual, and had no qualms launching into appropriate tactics regardless of character knowledge. Re-skinning helped a little, but more than a few times they pieced it together from the mechanics it displayed. So I got a few... new... monster manuals, and livened up the game immensely. Then NPCs started having class abilities no-one recognized. After a while, I let the players have access to those things, and while there were a few dickish experiments, it's really been better than just using core-only. I've extended this to Pathfinder, and found it to generally be the same.

So... I don't proactively ban anything. I do reactive bans to things I think players can't handle, and ban players who are being dicks.

@parka

The way players conceptualize extraordinary abilities in one of the few things I have agreed with SKR about (As seen in his blog). It is a tangential conversation though more about fluff than mechanics.

Except, as noted, it does interact with existing mechanics; resistance or immunity to mind-affecting effects, fear effects, antimagic fields and what spells can and can't be broken, dispelled, disarmed or countered.

Diplomacy could be problematic, but no more so than Gues/Quest which starts being a thing the same time the diplomacy skill gets high enough.

It is a lot more than Geas/Quest. G/Q is subject to spell resistance, targets only one creature, takes 10 minutes to cast (during which it is obvious what you are doing, and interrupting it spends the spell slot), is prevented by immunity to mind-affecting or compulsions (including Protection from XX or Magic Circle effects), and can be countered. A victim can be detected as under the influence of a magical effect, and there are mechanisms to suspend or break it. They are punished for not following it, but have the choice. Diplomacy isn't even an opposed roll; no save is possible, spell resistance doesn't apply, it doesn't require spell slots, is useable on more than one target at once, and isn't subject to immunities. If it works, they have agreed with what you say, and are convinced that what you requested was a good idea. There is no magic to dispel to get them back to "normal," nor will any abilities or spells detect that they have been "tampered with." The only saving grace is that PF added a 1d4 hour limit on the attitude adjustment and left anything further to the GM.

I do not intend for true-seeing or see invisibility to be counters. That is how you counter caster stealth not rogue stealth. There do exist plenty of hard counters beyond a high perception check. The fact that true-seeing doesn't work and that they get this ability with no riders means that a rogue stealth savant is the arguable best at stealth. I do think this is a strong ability, but I am hesitant to nerf it when invisibility is available at this level and arguably better.

Hide in Plain Sight grants the good effects of invisibility with no time limit, and stacks with invisibility. Relying on invisibility alone means being vulerable to "caster-stealth" breakers as well as all the counters I can think of for "rogue stealth." Factor in the time limit and the requisite that when it's broken, it needs to be re-cast from the limited resource pool of spell slots or charges, and it's pretty clear which is superior.

What are the "hard counters" you speak of? Without any justification for the ability, I can't tell if Tremorsense or Blindsight will break it (both being rare abilities), though I'm pretty sure Scent will (though Scent only tells you where they are when they're right next to you, otherwise it just alerts you to their presence).

For bluff, believing a lie is not the same thing as making someone do something. "You should kill yourself" is not really a lie, but even if you made a target believe that, they don't have to do what they think they should do. Plenty of people do not do the things they themselves think they should do.

The problem isn't just something as general and nebulous as "You should kill yourself," it's giving them an outright impossible, very important reason they should do it right now, and by the definition of the ability, they believe it as fact. If they believe the reason to be true (and the ability says they do), then they need to act on it right now or face the very important consequence. If they don't, then the consequence wasn't dire enough (hard to believe, given that you can literally make up anything) or they know the fact was false (invalidating the ability).

The only reason to adventure is to find new and interesting things to do, since you can convince just about anyone you are the rightful owner of whatever material possessions you want.

It's non-magical mind control, and therefore not subject to the usual cures or preventative measures for mind control.

I really think the situational element is necessary. As rogue you just do not straight up fight a foe. This is why you are not a slayer.

]Unlike the current rogue, I did not want to force this rogue to build herself around proc-ing her main class feature.

I can kind of get what you're saying, but... it seems like some static bonus (so you're not building around getting your main class feature) combined with a special bonus (to give a bigger situational bonus) would fit these design desires best.

Then again, I haven't really followed releases in depth after Ultimate Magic, so I'm not as intimately familiar with either of the inspiring classes.

I really disagree with the notion that any of the skill savant effects are magical.

Swimming up waterfalls, making rational strangers believe the boldfacedly impossible without any evidence in 6 seconds, dispel checks against spell effects, turning objects into one-use wands, modifying a spell effect (disguise), having dialogues with animals (not just commands, but back-and-forth dialogues with rational speech), at-will invisibility and silence that isn't foiled by invisibility detection magic.

To make this clear, I don't mind a non-spellcaster having these- I've designed several non-caster classes with effects like these. But these aren't plausible in our own non-magical world, and aren't the result of non-granular game mechanics failing to emulate reality properly. These require the assistance of supernatural forces or high technology.

I disagree with diplomacy, after having to deal with diplomacy bards back in 3.0 and 3.5. Skills expand as fast if not faster than HD will even without magic, and just three stages takes them from wanting to fight you to wanting to shine your shoes in one minute. I know skill bonuses aren't quite so numerous as those days (thank god synergy bonuses are gone, diplomacy had like five), but they still always seem bigger than you think they would get.

The major dealbreaker with using the Stealth skill is that most spells that allow things to detect invisibility don't work. Monsters or magic items that allow for see invisibility don't mechanically defeat the ordinary Stealth skill (and shouldn't, when it's used traditionally). Hide in plain sight is normally somehow situational and has some sort of fluff justification that gives some guidance on how it works or how it can be defeated. Here, there's no such justification or way that a GM can rationalize whether or not a magical effect can pierce it or not. If you intended for true seeing to defeat this, it currently doesn't. There's a reason Rangers didn't get this until 17th level even pinning it to limited terrains.

On Bluff, I'm still concerned about the ability to make anyone believe suicidal "facts," even at a mere -20. As I mentioned, you can combine it with Glibness (potion, spell or self-cast) and still net an overall +10 to your attempt (and gives you a chance to defeat Zone of Truth to boot). (Skills don't auto-fail on a one, but taking ten is still overly nice in this situation.) If you build for this, it's a standard action to make any enemy that can understand you attempt to kill themselves, end hostile actions, or blindly follow your orders with no reasonable saving throw. It's a standard action that can disarm, destroy, or convert large swathes of an opposing force.

I've got more, but I've got to go for now.

In lieu of variable conditional damage, you could add a small static bonus to hit and damage (perhaps with finessable or easily concealable weapons), then add a stacking small to medium bonus against vulnerable targets. That way they gain some constant benefit in combat so they don't feel completely restricted, but they're better off bushwhacking. You can even make a selectable perk midway through for people who either want more static benefit or more advantage against vulnerable targets, so people can be even better at their favorite strategy.

That said, +1d6 to hit is a TON. To damage it's not unbalancing, but a potential +30 to hit just because the enemy is wearing medium armor feels excessive. A total of +10 (+2 per increment, or +1 if taken back to Sneak Attack levels) seems better.

Vulnerable is odd. If the enemy's shield is sundered and gains the Broken condition, they're Vulnerable, but if it's then Destroyed or they ditch it, they're fine again. A Dazed, Dazzled, shaken, Frightened, Panicked, Nauseated, sickened, or Staggered creature is, oddly enough, not a Vulnerable creature. It also seems completely counter-intuitive to me that heavier armor makes them more vulnerable to attack, but I'm a fan of armored heroes. Difficult Terrain also becomes laughably deadly.

Skill Savants are all over the place between balanced and overwhelming.
Most of them seem like they should have been broken into two or three parts, with more features being gained by re-selecting the same skill. You wouldn't even need to give the skill an extra numerical bonus to make re-selecting it desirable in most cases.

A lot of the Skill Savant features also should be broken into non-magical and magical halves; several of the effects are clearly unnatural and ought to be marked as such somehow, with the mundane effects divided from the supernatural ones. You could make the mundane effects able to be acquired at lower levels, and supernatural portions locked away until higher levels. Don't forget to mark them with (Ex), (Sp) or (Su), and also the [mind-affecting], [fear] and [language-dependent] tags.

Acrobatics: This would be desirable even without the movement speed increase. In a combat-focused game, this would be up there with Stealth or Bluff... unless rounding her movement speed down counts her as Vulnerable.

Appraise: This feels like it's ripping off the better parts of 7 other skills at once. At least limit the Knowledge aspect to one strength or weakness per rank of relevant Knowledge skill or something.

Bluff interacts with Precision Strikes currently to allow it to constantly go off for whole turns with just a swift action. It also begs the question of how an enemy Rogue 2.0 with these Savants would interact with the PCs; would you tell a player, "No, he passed his check. You completely and truly believe him when he says if you and your party don't die in the next minute, your souls will be forcibly and agonizingly stolen and consigned to Rovagug's hunger. You're also really, really good at telling them it's a good idea, too." You will probably have to ban the Glibness spell. It's technically not even mind affecting or magical, so it's even useable on intelligent undead and constructs, who probably didn't or couldn't pump Sense Motive. And you can take this at level 3, so dipping for this effect on an enchanter, sorcerer, or Glibness bard is plausible.

Diplomacy was already an arguably unbalanced skill, and its Savant removes the one limitation that keeps you from making helpful friends from almost literally anyone you can talk at for a minute (restrained if need be). You can turn previously fanatically hated foes into picket-fence mending neighbors. Combine with Linguistics' 20 language ability (which you would almost assuredly get to use Diplomacy everywhere) and you can bring in the armies of the wilderness too.

Disable Device needs limits badly. Unlimited, repeatable dispels with dispel checks based on skills, which are far easier to boost than spells? And a Trapfinding bonus on top? Even if they can only attempt to dispel a given effect once, that is crazy good. They're better cursebreakers than abjurers, the defining cursebreakers. Also, can they use tools to assist in the dispel check? I can see it going either way, but best to specify.

Intimidate: The duration extension just doesn't make sense without it being a [Su] mind-affecting ability. Also, I can't remember them off the top of my head, but there are dastardly combat feats based on exploiting a demoralized foe, and finding quick ways to demoralize breaks them. I remember Cornugon Smash being a problem because of this.

Knowledge (Local): The final rider is something they should be doing with the skill already. If the DC to find the organization was higher than 30, they probably shouldn't find it with just a 30.

Linguistics: Perpetually copying spellbooks without any check involved just sounds like it'll be trouble. Or at least some gigantic moneymaking scheme waiting to happen at low levels, until they crash the economy.

In Perception, I think you may have meant to link Knowledge: Arcana instead of Trapfinding. (I couldn't see how trapfinding made the sentence make sense.) I personally don't like how a Perception skill check can net them knowledge of the effects of spells they may have never encountered before or have any reason to know exist (i.e. lacking sufficient Knowledge bonuses to identify). Also, most beings are assumed to be taking 10 on Perception checks all the time anyway, unless actively searching- even being asleep only penalizes Perception from a baseline of 10 (so stuff can wake you up from sleep).

Sense Motive's saving throw bonuses pretty much amount to "She automatically detects the true nature of all illusions she can perceive." The last ability (revealing the nature of lies) has the potential to completely blow apart adventure hooks and deflate fun reveals during the course of an adventure. I can see where the desire for the ability came from, but I think it subtracts more potential than it adds. Pure opinion on my part, though.

Stealth gives unconditional, non-supernatural Hide in Plain Sight at level 3. Let's take a look at a level 3 character interested in this: +4 Dex mod, +3 Class skill bonus, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Stealthy feat, +3 Ranks, +4 Size bonus. They have an effective Stealth check of 29 anytime they want (because of Skill Savant's take 10 rule), unconditionally. Anything with a +8 Perception modifier or less has no chance of spotting them at all, and combined with Perception's distanced-based penalty, even otherwise stacked NPCs will be hard-pressed to spot them until the Rogue gets into close-quarters. If they're spotted, they take a five-foot readjust as a free action on their turn to force a new check. Because it isn't magical, things that defeat invisibility don't work unless they penalize Stealth (like Faerie Fire and Glitterdust). This isn't just dangerous from the perspective of granting Precision Strikes, it's dangerous to the world- these men and women walk wherever they please, taking what strikes their fancy and assassinating anyone they don't like, and people learn about it afterwards. Even magic, the usual cure-all, hard pressed to help here. I'd recommend making it at least high-level, and dependent on something- either basing it around an invisibility spell so it can interact with magic, a favored terrain, or the opponent being inflicted with an impairing condition- something.
Edit: Scent. Scent can take some of the sting out of it, since it auto-detects in range and pinpoints when adjacent. Still, this shouldn't be the only reliable defense in the world.

Use Magic Device: Feels off, but can't place why right now. Also, include (or explicitly state if you already meant to include) additional material costs for the spell effect. Otherwise Miracle, Wish and other gems get cheaper.

Improved Uncanny Dodge: If this class is replacing the old rogue, the reference to sneak attack doesn't work anymore.

All in all, room for improvement. Vulnerability feels off, Skill Savants need revising and cleaning up. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Stealth are just entirely too much as is. If this is a first effort, not bad- better than mine.

Back before the APG was released, I started on a Puppeteer based on the Bard (as that was all I really had to work with). I've continued to devote a few hours here and there in the intervening years, and have come up with a ton of material since then, but have only one playtest of it, on an old version.

While the summoner builds on one large entity and the broodmaster splits HD on several entities, I had the puppeteer have a discrete number of minions, all at the same level (which was inferior to a druid of equal level). Philosophically, the design idea was to create a utility class with many weak minions that were constantly present and provided assistance to other party members, rather than trying to take on a party role themselves. To do this, dolls had "types" which acted like mini-classes, and puppeteers learned and improved types the way a ranger has favored enemies.

I can post what I've developed if you're interested. It had string-based abilities (an idea you had as well), and also abilities centered around gimmicky magical showmanship and the "arcane cores" I developed which served as the animating focus of the dolls.

I like random spell mishaps. Not just humorous ones, but ones that match the intended tone of the scene (such as horror, high adventure, pulp action, etc).

I like magic that doesn't behave like a set of empirical scientific rules, but is instead a mysterious, barely-controlled, and chimerical thing, to be mastered only by the brave, clever and slightly foolhardy.

One, balance is usually overrated, next to impossible to achieve even with point buy, and far too often leads to bland, largely uninteresting characters. There are times where it's a necessary consideration, but it should never be the only one. Two, it's not that hard to run a group with varying levels of power if you include a wide variety of encounters and have the NPCs react to the different race and class choices of the players, ensuring that high stats or low stats are only part of the equation of how encounters play out; in combat, using the environment and a mixture of tactics and enemies also keeps things from easily being dominated by one character. Throw a swarm or a neutral flying creature at this paladin and suddenly the game changes dramatically.

Bland or uninteresting characters are the results of factors beyond the control of stats and mechanics. What makes a character interesting or not is mostly controlled by the level of engagement by the player and their ability to craft interesting reactions or backstory. Good or bad stats, balanced or unbalanced party mixture has no affect on it; it's just impacting your personal preference not to engage. Some people disengage when they have low stats; some people disengage when they realize they have to try extra hard just to be average; some people disengage when they perceive they're missing out in the name of "balance" (whether they actually lose or gain anything or not).

I have run games with varying levels of party balance (I usually try to enforce it), and I can safely say I have never had a bland or uninteresting PC, ever.

Take a lesson from engineering. Lab write-ups have an abstract; a description of the purpose and the result. Try doing the same.

You can have your 1-page or 2-page document, but anyone who just wants dessert can read the abstract. People who want more can read the rest.

For the GM, I would challenge you to think like a GM and then make a bullet list of what they will want from an adventure-making perspective. Your motivations to adventure? Potential allies? Potential enemies? Things to reward them with?

A lot of times when making a character or NPC, I'll start concept-first like you do. The concept isn't necessarily personality, equipment, or things like that- it's usually the reason for adventuring. Something like: novice cleric who just had a hostile rival promoted to power over him, so he flees by going out into the world to "evangelize." Coming-of-age herbalist finds out she's an orphan- and an unusually tame werewolf. An aristocrat from a family going through disgrace and money problems takes up wizardry and find's out she's talented at it- but she can only cast Fire spells.

Usually when you do that first, a lot of choices during character creation can practically make themselves. Sometimes you can even play with backstory or personality based on some mechanical selection you decide you want to make, so you can actually end up "retracing your steps" back up and down the process a few times based on changes you want as you go through.

Could it be a linguistic evolution of "portation" or "porting" perhaps?

RJGrady wrote:

At that point, they start to look a lot like a fetish-based Death Mage (SGG).

(SGG)?

Super Genius Games. The Death Mage may very well be one answer as to how to represent something like their abilities, although the Death Mage spell list really screams "fear, bones and shadows" while the Gleaner tries to evoke a "reincarnation" and "wisdom of the ancestors" feel to it.

Making another Pale Road centered around Gleaning, using the Fetish mechanics but re-flavoring it around the idea of the Spiritstone, with the passive abilities like those of the original class. Early on, they can have the ability to take a pool of daily rerolls to certain actions (skills, etc) from the aid of minor spirits they have Gleaned. At higher levels, they can converse with specific individuals they have Gleaned for information. Fetish powers might relate to taking on other aspects of Gleaned individuals, such as physical appearance, temporarily using class abilities, and the ability to cast known spells of the Gleaned spirits on a limited basis.

Other, unique Fetish options might include attaching a Gleaned spirit into a magic item to turn it into an intelligent magic item with unique powers, or creating a Haunt using Gleaned spirits. These really go sideways with the intended theme, though, but the ideas are there.

Which is a good thing. When they do work, it's ferociously effective. And unlike a lot of martial classes, when one tactic isn't working, there are others which are readily available.

I love martial classes to bits, but I have to admit to experiencing some of this... Casters can play the HP game with damaging spells and summoned creatures, but they also have the option to say "screw it" and throw Save-or-Suck/Die until something sticks. Few non-magic classes can change tracks like that- or wake up one day completely decked out for different tactics.

I'm gonna stop now, as this just beats a long-dead horse.

Try the feat out, see if it's a good fit. Playtest data will go a long way.

Lemmy wrote:

Shain Edge wrote:

The wizard isn't of the the 'most powerful' classes. Just look at any thread pointing out Fighter DPS vs Wizard.

This actually made me laugh... Then I was sad...

Well, I _used_ to think a wizard was the king of DPS, then I read a few threads that compared them to Fighters. Once you pull in magic resistance, saving throws and the like, Fighters, not Wizards are DPS marshal's.

Most people are trying to say that DPS doesn't matter if you are bypassing the hit point track. Incapacitating foes and taking a Coup de Grace is more effective- or just killing them outright.

Edit: Or charming them to your cause, or making them flee, or drowning them in large numbers of summoned/called/charmed minions with stats comparable to a non-optimized fighter (and often times magical abilities/defenses of their own). And wizards can do any of these options, potentially different ones each day to suit their needs.

The general consensus around the forums is that the casting classes (wizard in particular due to conditionally unlimited versatility) are the "win button" for particularly skilled players. They don't need high HP or BAB because they bypass most of these with careful spell selection and good preparation on the part of the player. The "Save or Suck" and "Save or Die" spells are famous for rendering most metrics of combat effectiveness meaningless. This combined with particularly nasty trait/feat combinations to heighten save DCs and caster level mean that people are afraid of giving wizards power, simply because it potentially adds to the options for what is already seen as a powerful min-maxing option.

If you want to go the route of introducing arcane healing to wizards, I would suggest creating Transmutation spells different from that of the standard Cure spells. Make sure they don't compare favorably to a Cleric doing its job, or people will scratch their head as to why to keep using a Cleric when another Wizard can cover that job okay, and convert to doing another job when it's needed.

I would suggest for the low levels having the spells convert lethal damage into nonlethal, which contributes well towards making the Cleric still feel important- it makes her healing go twice as far when she does get around to it. (Helping someone else do their job better is preferable to just doing it for them; at least, when you have a role you fill already. It avoids making them feel useless.)

I know that for me, conversion is rather difficult. I'd like to keep the Pathfinder tradition of not using XP costs for anything, and that really is the primary means of advancing spirits. Spiritual Education wouldn't work for many reasons- losing charms means all lower-level advancements were suddenly made worthless. Gold is the only obvious mechanism left, but it feels wrong.

In order for the gleaner to be suitable for dungeon-crawl/action style adventuring, it really ought to have offensive or utility abilities of its own. Linking the Spiritstone to the Bonded Object mechanics of the Wizard and giving it some spellcasting thematically related to what it was doing before might work; losing the Spiritstone can still wipe out the bonded spirits like it did before. Thematically related spells can be necromancy-flavored versions of Unseen Servant, Mage Hand, Sift (they look where you tell them), Keen Senses (they tell you what they see), Seek Thoughts, etc. Spirits can provide some bonus spells based on their properties, like Crafter's Fortune or Brilliant Inspiration, etc., but this quickly balloons into a terrible accounting nightmare, not to mention potentially create all the wrong motivations.

There is still the major roadblock that you don't contribute meaningful damage in a fight (especially low-mid levels), and you're pretty bad at helping keep people alive during a fight. Even giving it Cure and Inflict spells or Rogue base attack doesn't fix this to my liking.

Replied in your other thread, copying here in case you've abandoned it.

Near as I could tell, the real advantage was when you got the spells that allowed you to take on the abilities of the souls you were nurturing. If I recall correctly, you got a variant on Tensers' Transformation for most PC classes, assuming that you had a soul of the appropriate type. You could also use any knowledge or skills the souls had, though that power is highly dependent on the actual adventure. I do remember getting the impression that the class was not at all suited for a dungeon crawl style adventure, though- and keep in mind that this is a 3.0 book, so the mechanics are already well behind PF power levels. I'll probably give it another look-through in a while...

The thing that made the Gleaner a really attractive class to me was the non-mechanical potential in it- talking with potentially centuries-old spirits is an absolutely fascinating thought. Are there gleaners who get called in to harvest heads of state, the religious elite, or aristocratic families, to preserve their knowledge for future generations to consult with? Are there some immortal gleaners (Dragons, Warforged equivalents, etc) who have acquired more collected knowledge than any library? Is there a potentially lucrative business for adventuring gleaners to kill, harvest, and resurrect certain important people, then trade the remains to these immortal collectors?

It's something I've pondered trying to convert, but I haven't been able to find the time it would take to make it adventure-worthy.

Near as I could tell, the real advantage was when you got the spells that allowed you to take on the abilities of the souls you were nurturing. If I recall correctly, you got a variant on Tensers' Transformation for most PC classes, assuming that you had a soul of the appropriate type. You could also use any knowledge or skills the souls had, though that power is highly dependent on the actual adventure. I do remember getting the impression that the class was not at all suited for a dungeon crawl style adventure, though- and keep in mind that this is a 3.0 book, so the mechanics are already well behind PF power levels. I'll probably give it another look-through in a while...

The thing that made the Gleaner a really attractive class to me was the non-mechanical potential in it- talking with potentially centuries-old spirits is an absolutely fascinating thought. Are there gleaners who get called in to harvest heads of state, the religious elite, or aristocratic families, to preserve their knowledge for future generations to consult with? Are there some immortal gleaners (Dragons, Warforged equivalents, etc) who have acquired more collected knowledge than any library? Is there a potentially lucrative business for adventuring gleaners to kill, harvest, and resurrect certain important people, then trade the remains to these immortal collectors?

It's something I've pondered trying to convert, but I haven't been able to find the time it would take to make it adventure-worthy.

Argh again with the bard. He has a lot of synergy with all of his abilities but he is not a skill monkey, skill make up 1/3 to 1/4 what a bard does, depending on how much of their feats are spent on melee or ranged combat.

If "skill monkey" means good at skills, the Rogue is a worse skill monkey than Bards and Rangers.

If "skill monkey" means not good at anything but skills, the Rogue still isn't a good skill monkey (you have tricks and Sneak still), but "skill monkey" isn't a very good thing to be.

... Also, when I play a bard I have to ham it up. I am the party fop.

I hate it when I play a Samurai and have to finish all of my sentences with "Desu."

...

In all seriousness, most of the "fop" characters I've had in my games were Rogues, Fighters, or Swashbucklers from 3.5. In fact, I've had an overabundance of rapier-carrying, giant-floppy-feather-hat wearing, smarmy-one-line spewing rogues. I groan every time I hear someone wanting to play a rogue in my games, not because they don't work, but because I associate them with arrogant gits.

I usually associate Bard with the time I played one as a calculating member of a Tzeench-inspired magical cult. The "performances" were flavored as eldritch chants to the weird primeval god of magic.

Most players set their own challenges to overcome. Sure, we're populating the world and control the XP reward, but players decide "We must stop the demon army!", "We have to rescue the princess!", "We want to cross to the other side of this kobold warren!"
Even if we throw a monster directly at the players, unprovoked, they are pretty much deciding that the challenge has become "Survive" and we are just awarding the XP value appropriate to how challenging the task is.

With this mindset, it's a tad bit easier to figure out how to award XP-
Did the players meed their goal, in whole or in part? XP.
Was it harder than expected? More XP.
Was it easier? Less XP.
Did they fail completely? No XP for that, but make sure they didn't create challenges along the way you should have awarded for.

Also, it's noteworthy to mention that I've had players who "defeated" the villain, without combat, and counted the villain as "loot" for the challenge. I award full XP if the clever players figure out how to turn the villain into an ally or asset without drawing a weapon.

Use d4s if you want characters to have good HP but still want some randomness.

HD 1d6 = 1d4+2
HD 1d8 = 1d4+4
HD 1d10 = 1d4+6
HD 1d12 = 1d4+8

that makes

d6: 2-6
d8: 4-8
d10: 6-10
d12: 8-12

d8 and d10 seem good but giving min of 2 for d6 seems too low (should be at least 3) and 8 is too high for d12 should be like 6 or 7

Seems more balanced to do: d6 is d3+3 and d12 is d6+6

It seems like you're adding 0 as an option on the 1d4, making the minimums too low. You can't get a result less than 3 with DrDrew's methods.

Initiates of the Sevenfold Wails
Master of the Unseen Bands
Horizon Rockers
Leap Attacking Rocktroopers
Abhorrent Champions
True Necrochanter

Dapper Ogres
Full Moon Men
The Dire Hags
The Will Saves
Fool's Goldpiece
Broken Wand
The Last Page of the Spellbook

I'd lose the +1 Will part and make the feat a flat +4 against mind-affecting spells and abilities; maybe an Insight bonus? Can you get Insight bonuses on saving throws?

Anyway, I'd lose the Will part because I like feats to be quite distinct from each other, so avoiding bleedover with Iron Will is good.

Do keep in mind that the bonus will also stack with Iron Will (or any other feats/traits/racial abilities) too. +6 for two feats is a very tempting thing, especially if non-human races can get it (looking at Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves and Halflings). Many characters with this bonus will become functionally immune to mind control, which may be intended.

Another possible effect is to allow them saving throws against mind-affecting things at the beginning of their turn with a bonus. Or possibly opt to end the effect prematurely by Dazing or Stunning themselves, as they become mired in their memories.

On other topics:
Everlasting Faith is amazing compared to everything else. Taking the best of two dice is better than most similar feats and class abilities, which allow a reroll and make you take the second (even if it's worse). It might be appropriate for a two-feat chain, but it's a long shot better than Greater Iron Will (especially since it can both stack with the previous and be applied to a different save if no Will saves are called for that day). I don't think it'll break the game, really, but it compares well.

I'm tempted to suggest some extra hit points for Heart of the Lion. Possibly something about not having to flee due to fear effects, and/or be able to knock yourself down a stage of Fear somehow.

Since Archmagus scales up with the ability score (and ability bonus items, I imagine), it could be fine. That feat can end up netting you a bonus 5th or 6th level spell as you level up which you wouldn't otherwise have. If more is needed, simply expand the bonus to all effects related to spellcasting, and specify that if the character has Spell Focus (for that school) already, they gain Greater Spell Focus instead.

Storied Leader: Rallying others seems to be what you are going for here, so perhaps a radius of resisting fear effects and Intimidation might be called for. Perhaps the ability to reduce Fear effects or grant a second save vs. mind-affecting in those around you a number of times a day based on Charisma or something. One could become a mini-Paladin of sorts.
Leadership is really hit-or-miss in a lot of groups for one reason or another, but since it's for your own group, it's likely fine.

...

The more people mix and match the more unexpected interactions there are. If you have a single class the designer has a good idea of what abilities the character will have throughout its career. Multiclassed characters are far more variable, same with prestige classes, there is no basis for a designer to really balance the abilities the prc or multiclass character will have. So you end up with alot of variables.
...

I'm sure that's what about 3/4 of the senseless prerequisites on PrCs are- measures to make sure that the designer has a decent idea of what the character entering the class "looks like." The more prerequisites, the more predictable the entering character.

The other reason is a faulty one- the idea that the more choices you "lock down" in sub-optimal selections, the more power you can give through the class, since they paid an opportunity cost to get it. The reason I say this is faulty is because the designers have no way of knowing what was given up for the sub-optimal selections, so they can't know if their opportunity cost was necessary, or truly worth it. They also can't anticipate later material being added that circumvents some of these costs (racial bonus feats etc).

That is predicated on the idea that you can "go weak" for several levels to double up on relative power later- if the game concerned with character power in a group, and isn't a self-contained and discrete competition, this is bad reasoning.

A prc that plays on the different Shape spells and natural attacks, one for more interesting ways to use jedi mind tricks, and one that might play more on the Shadow Gambit feat (allows ending an illusion for damage, such as exploding a fake wall to deal slashing damage or the fake goblin biting someone.)

These sound like excellent School powers, feats, Bloodline options, Discoveries, Mysteries, and Hexes. PrCs really aren't necessary to realize these, given all of the mechanical bugs multiclassing creates and senseless prerequisite baggage. Even if you want these to be powers that are earned by going above and beyond the normal, give these abilities level requirements and in-game achievements as prerequisites.

Prestige Classes are okay in concept, but seem to mostly fail in practice.

You could price Secondary and Tertiary abilities by dependency on attributes. Ones that don't involve attributes are normal, while ones that depend on the same attribute as a major casting stat are more expensive than current (cutting down the Wis Wizard/Monk).

This could potentially muddle certain classes that are already consolidating abilities to cut down on existing MAD (mostly the Paladin, I think, but there are probably others). But you could also make the price difference based on changing attributes related to the abilities, or bringing attributes from one category to another (say, pulling from Paladin abilities that might be classified as "Martial" over to Sorcerer, classified as "Caster")(Mostly Divine Grace I'm thinking of).

I'm thinking that TheRedArmy might have a bit of a good idea to jive with this. Spellcasting could have different costs based on how many attributes are required for their spellcasting. A Wizard might be able to split their major casting stat to get points back, like the old Healer and Favored Soul used to do. This might also help when "rating" spell lists, as Save DC/Max Spell is definitely more important to certain casting styles, while Bonus Spells Per Day is more important to others.

I personally liked a few more of the 3.5 PrC that added to flavour without necesarrly obsessing with it. Top of the hat there's a class that makes your abjurations better, sure it focuses on abjuration, but it gives varied bonuses and new ways to do stuff than say, three ways to use a costly scroll.

I'm gonna bite back my usual rants about PrCs and instead ask the question: What PrCs from 3.5 were you hoping to have?

There are a ton of converted PrCs in the Conversions section.

Also, please tell me you aren't talking about the Abjurant Champion. Lie to me if you need to.

Would a cumulative cost-hike for multiple primary abilities work, rather than kneecapping effective level or requiring other abilities to be purchased? Someone could be die-hard and accept the cost, instead of buying a bunch of junk they don't want.

You could even assign "special" hikes for specific abilities that synchronize well together, or perhaps discount ones that were mutually exclusive in usage.

A Few Classes can get around the Untrained Knowledge Checks. Plus if the DC is less than 10 it can be tested. So some of the more "Common" of the monsters can be recognized.

Heck, I can see a Wizard trained in an Academy or Archmage's Tower getting access to knowledge that others might not have access to or a Bard picking up the Knowledge from Stories & such while knowing how to decipher fact from fiction.

True. I suspect that the "common" monsters aren't causing the qualms here, though. And Bards have a class ability for Knowledge, so I don't have any problem with them getting mileage out of it. 'S why it's there.

Still, the best thing to do in order to create shock and awe is palette-swap a monster, maybe with one or two more weird traits on it. Then allow the high-modifier characters to identify some of the abilities not demonstrated yet so that they feel awesome. If they roll 20 over the DC to identify the monster, they have only unearthed five pieces of useful info about it (which can include Type, Vulnerabilities, Special Qualities, Special Attacks, and I usually lump "preferred tactics" in there, but that's technically house treatment I do to favor monster hunters). That's hardly comprehensive for the more unusual monsters you run into, except at the lower levels when monsters are usually more "boring" anyway.

Three different examples of how to isolate useful info on a monster without giving away the farm:

"The bog beast's maw is discolored around its teeth and lips, and there is a faint sour smell- it probably has a breath weapon, likely either acid or fiery swamp gas." (Hell Hound re-skinned for use as a wolf-like swamp construct in a game of mine from years back.)

"The beast's muscular hide isn't truly armored- it's a patchwork of scar tissue. It probably heals quite quickly." (Done with a mutant in a gladiatorial arena- it had DR and Fast Healing)

"The thing's eyes flicker from light to light, darting back to your torches. It's probably afraid of the fire."

(5) There is never a reason for a party not to declare a Knowledge skill check to identify a monster and its abilities which they've never encountered before "on screen", as the very first thing to do in an encounter, ever. Yet a character with a high modifier will have a pretty good chance of identifying it; this detracts from whatever mystery or shock value a DM might be hoping to deliver by using a monster the players (not the characters) have not seen in the campaign yet.

I don't know how you would "fix" this mechanically. They need actual skill points in the Knowledge skills (you can't roll untrained Knowledge checks), so if they've devoted character resources, they should get some sort of benefit out of it. And each piece of information given steps the DC up by 5 points- they don't get to just look at the Bestiary entry right then and there.

Re-skinning monsters so that they no longer "count" as the Bestiary entry players might be familiar with (but still uses existing statistics), and then just giving bits of information out like the Skills entry says, should go a long way to keeping the mystery alive.

(My first two D20 gaming groups all knew the Monster Manual by memory, and had no qualms about jumping right in to tactics their characters had no reason to know. I had to get pretty good at re-skinning monsters I wanted to use, in order to fight that.)

Tie it to something in-game. An undead bloodline sorcerer must travel to the oldest tomb in the country of his birth and rest there alone during the three-day holiday of mourning, during which he dreams, half-dead. When he awakens, his spells have changed. A fire mystery oracle must climb an active volcano, bathing in every caldera lake en route, and speak with the elemental that resides in the magma basin. After a long conversation, the new spells are taught, while the knowledge of the old spells was washed away in the sulfurous springs that were on the way.

Not only is it flavorful (always a plus), the GM has ongoing control over the refresh rate. The process doesn't even have to be the same each time; magic is weird and non-scientific. What works now might not work when it's raining.

Having spell relearning tied to something with so many other metagame consequences (like leveling) means that when you want to prevent it or induce it, a lot of side-effects will happen as a result.

Have not played under one, but I have spoken with a few and exchanged quite a number of good, creative ideas.

As for why there aren't more women GMing, or gaming in general: I have watched upstanding, otherwise normal guys suddenly turn into irrational, antagonizing misogynists when playing in mixed-gender groups.

Not just once, but three times I've had perfectly rational, levelheaded guys turn into short-tempered jerks when interacting with female players. Not because of any in-character behavior, not because of romantic tensions... and they were perfectly civil in non-gaming contexts (even ones that involved drinking). Their excuses for behaving that way were always flimsy, situational crap. Something about gaming just seemed to flip off the "women are people and deserve respect" part of their brain.

These were mercifully rare events, but after some of the blow-ups, I don't blame the victims at all for having the hobby soured for them (a few gave it a second try, which is more than I gave the aggressors).

Umbranus wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

The game mechanics of Palladium anything blow chunks, and I don't think the writing is all that detailed. Plus, too much of it is repeated or outright photocopied from previous books (lazy writing), horrible release schedule, shoddy writing etc. Can't stand the system anymore. There's a reason why Rifts is the game nobody ever actually plays, but reads for possible adventure ideas. Like most movies, there's an occasional gem of an idea, but the execution sucks rocks.

I played several palladium books games for years.

Palladium fantasy, rifts and beyond the supernatural (contemporary mystery/horror RPG). The latter was one of the best in my book but they never did more than one adventure book as far as I know. But that one was great. It included a newspaper with some fluff articles and reports or news for each of the adventures it contained.

The only problem I ever had with rifts was the difficulty in finding a common power level for the whole party.

I can cite chapter and verse, if necessary. I am willing to bet almost every game you've played Palladium anything is massively house ruled, and published rules are selectively enforced, while published adventures/settings are massively modified.

Palladium's Macross II and Robotech ran just fine in high school, no house rules. Excellent GM, players who were focused on the experience.

Afterwards, we had a laugh about some of the oddities about the rules (magic number 4 means a missile volley can't be dodged), but these things never interfered with the game for us.

Rifts went by harder because I was running it and made all kinds of newb GM mistakes (drowning players in options, no approximate basis for party challenge, prepared for all the wrong things).

In the modern day, it's inelegant compared to newer systems. All of its more innovative concepts having been taken and done better in games more focused on a particular genre, and modern gamers are hyper-vigilant to things like relative character power (over character contribution) or their own perception of realism (over game functionality). However, my experience of playing Palladium in the beginning 3.0 D&D era is that it is functional. It doesn't really break through normal play; it will easily show its age and clunkiness if somebody wants to break it.

I still enjoy the dickens out of it for the art and the unique feel that all of the crazy thematic elements Rifts mashed together created. Rifts Earth was all kinds of crazy science fantasy comic book fun, and I haven't found a system that could duplicate that same feeling without getting bogged down in some other kind of minutia.

Ninja'd: Vincent Takeda hit upon another thing. You don't really wait around for your concept at all: you do things from the get-go. You do still improve, but you aren't slowly growing into what you really wanted to become, you are running and gunning towards your goals right away, putting the emphasis on doing things in the game world rather than banging around figuring out how to advance your character to the point where you feel confident enough to start doing what you want to accomplish.

Essentially, you don't have to earn your character, just your rewards.

I think it's a small trade-off for the world changes they create.

Yes, they are not game breaking but they are world bending and changing (details which are left out of the core rule book).
An example - say I'm running a 3.5 campaign ported over to pfrpg in a city located in an arid location. Water is scarce - but some of it can be created by casters, not enough to keep everyone in the city alive, but enough to keep themselves and a few of the important city members alive if need be should a crisis occur.

Switch over from 3.5 to Pathfinder: Spammable water by level 1 clerics. There is no need for water because the level 1 clerics in the town can (effectively) create unlimited amounts of water.

Same goes for unlimited item repair - ok, so why would a tinker or repairman even go into business with an unlimited power to repair small objects (mostly intact, 1lb/level but can repair magic items and it's a 0-level spell). So now the logical thing would be to have magical water makers in town, and magical repairmen.

So it isn't that the power is OP, it's just that it requires everyone to run things like 100% magic world. Some DMs don't like that. I don't like that - it reminds me of all the bad changes from 1st to 2nd ed AD&D (no assassins) and then the Forgotten Realms with the Time of Troubles nonsense.

A lot of the "why are there still wells and tinkers around" logic comes from extremely modern concepts of economies of scale and globalistic thought- something that has really come into its own with the massive amount of easily accessible information we now have.

Back in the day, yes, creating water in a desert would be an amazingly valuable ability for anyone to have. But it's still a small caste of people who can do that, and they won't always want to. Very likely after a few weeks, they'll dig the entire well themselves to stop having to cast the same thing all the time- if other people didn't dig some anyway. Any day the caster gets sick, goes on vacation, gets pouty from a huge argument or commits a crime and gets himself hung, the community depending on him would similarly die.

Independence, superstition, stubborn adherence to tradition or just plain irrational dislike for the people using the magic could all factor into not adopting a totally magical economy despite the obvious benefits. There are huge advantages to using a single spoken language, a single operating system, a single programming language, and a single monetary system, but I'm pretty sure we won't see that day without world domination creating it.

That's a little bigger in scope than free cantrips (which I like), but I really wish I could illustrate to people how a certain level of inefficiency can make a world more believable, not less.

I personally think that Disable Device should logically include the ability to craft traps already, since if you know how to dismantle a trap, you should be able to make one.

If I could assemble everything I can disassemble, I would get paid a whole lot more than I do.

Or maybe Doctors would just get paid a lot less.

*shrug* I'm fine with either happening.

On the "transitioning the Patrons" I asked about earlier, they likely wouldn't be needed for other Patrons, just these new ones, since they are so uniquely tied to life cycle. It would mostly be something to remember when crafting NPCs, but it isn't entirely impossible to have PCs change age categories during between-adventure downtime.

On the Maiden, it's mostly Protection from Arrows and Earthquake. Wish, I can kind of see, but it is so open-ended a spell, and part of me keeps wanting to assign it to something more characteristic of experience and power than the Maiden (though the Matron fits well with Resurrection already and the Crone currently has too decrepit a feel).

On Ward, I can't really offer any discussion or help on that portion if you are looking to change that part of the system at the same time.

On the Healing Hex, there is the minor utility of being able to use both Minor and then Major hex on every subject, instead of having it auto-scale as a single application. When comparing to Craft Wands, there is the issue of taking the downtime to gather the materials and then actually do the crafting, and a small gain in utility for having Hexes always be available, regardless of whether you've rested or lost all of your gear.

On the [Transition] idea, it was dependent on making better versions of the Minor hexes. Not all of them, just the ones for which it seemed appropriate (like Flight or Healing). It seemed like you already had plenty of ideas on how to scale the power of many of them up to the level range appropriate for a Major and Grand hex level. It seems like it would be simple to take some of your recommendations and convert them into the appropriate level of Hex.

I'm not likely to respond again, though. You may not have intended to come off as hostile, but I'm not invested enough in the discussion to take collateral flak over it.

I definitely do agree that Patrons are quite downplayed, which is a lot of lost potential for narrative flavor- though it also, thankfully, prevented them from ending up feeling like a narrative variation on the cleric...

To the original posted recommendations, I do like the triumverate and the additional patron. Only thing that really jumps out at me is a few spells on the Maiden that confuse me as to why they are there. That, and I wish there was a more evocative spell for the Crone's capstone than "Energy Drain." It's powerful, effective, and probably the best option, just not quite as out-of-the-box evocative as "Wither Limb" (from 3.5) or the low-level "Cup of Dust."

One question is whether the triumvirate Patrons would change as the witch herself matures, or if she would eventually grow into wizened great-grandmotherhood with "Maiden" as her patron still. My understanding is imperfect, but I thought it was a natural cycle for individuals, too. Eh, meta-game rules interfering with narrativism. Nothing new.

To the original hex recommendations: (Spoilered for length)

Blight's crop-ruining ability really ought to be measured in acres or something for it to do its thematic job.

One idea to help in the modification effort may be to create a way to free up old hexes by upgrading them into higher ones. Something like a [Transition] keyword, where you may take a Major/Grand hex that extends on the previous one, and the minor one turns into something else. Instead of having to make a Hex "chain" worth having unofficial prerequisites and tying up so many options, or making senselessly redundant choices, you can make them lower-powered [Transition] hexes, and free up your older, minor choices for greater diversity. So you could have the minor hex Flight while it's useful, then when it starts to lag, you could [Transition] it into one of your Major hex choices for improved abilities, and the old useless Minor hex turns into... Blight, or something. Whatever Minor hex you feel like you mastered in your travels. The new Major Flight could be made exactly as powerful as it "needs" to be, instead of having to justify having tied up a Minor hex that is now useless. Some, like Healing, might theoretically retain some utility in that you can use Minor and Major hex separately, so there may be some ability to have the two either [Transition] or possibly be left alone, as the player desires.

After all of that, I do think that the analysis of some of the hexes seems to be pegged for very, very high expectations, and comes off quite harsh on them. Since I typically play in and run unusual games, though, I can't really offer any objective advice to help this.

Edit: The [Transition] hexes also help prevent Minor hex choices from having to be artificially scaled beyond the importance of Major or Grand hexes to keep up with levels in their function- you just move the choice up as high as you want to take it, and it becomes appropriately powerful for that level. If minor flight is adequate for your character, you don't have to transition it upward and are free to pick other Major hexes. It doesn't auto-scale to overshadow the usefulness of Major hex choices that aren't available as Minor ones, nor does the character get saddled with choices that are now made irrelevant.

I've mainly seen it used for the reach, as a part of a "giant weapon" combo, or as just one more buff spell in a cocktail that the party happened to be able to contribute at that moment (usually including ones that improve defense).

I suspect it would get more use if I were to hint at monsters with the "swallow whole" ability, or if the party suspected they would ever encounter the "drag and drop" harpies again.

Taking off extra damage essentially means there's no reason ever to wield a 2 handed weapon.

The only thing I can think of besides extra damage is Brace and Reach, and those aren't worth it at all.

... I really wish my players would actually use 2-handed weapons. I don't care if they deal "too much" damage, I've had all of the swashbuckling fops and plucky halflings I can stand.

Additional Quibble:
Throwing daggers like you can in fiction is impossible in typical combat encounter distances unless you allow the player to carry "reskinned" Darts.

Certain other classes can still "tag along" on Stealth missions should they choose. I've seen Rogue and Ranger more often than I've seen Rogue alone, honestly.

The problem is that every player gets solo time pretty regularly, be it the party face getting to diplomacy the party out of trouble, the fighter owning a bar fight or gladiatorial encounter, the cleric showing off the power of his faith, or the wizard using his high knowledge skills to fill in the party on the ancient arcane ritual...

Even if a Rogue is OHKO'ing enemies, stealth missions are a great deal longer than any of these... since they can contain aspects of all of them (combat, bluffing guards, climbs, searches, trap disarming, knowledge checks, etc). It's still a conceptual problem, and best not to assume it's going on.

One of the ideas I bandied about was letting Rogues inflict Conditions when Sneak Attacking an opponent that wasn't aware of them. The conditions list was made up like Paladin's Mercies, with worse ones accessible by higher level/Sneak Attack dice. Since a penalized enemy affects everyone's effectiveness, putting the Rogue into position becomes a self-interested priority for everyone, and the Rogue gets to feel awesome. Combined with a variant of the "Vicious Opportunist" above, it sounds like a good set-up, but I've got no playtest data to offer.

How using magic feels stale and procedural, not mystic and incomprehensible. It essentially behaves like any other equipment, not something that spawns distrust and creates superstitions.

A lack of ways various staple spells could go wrong, linked to fantasy thematics instead of modern scientific understanding.

Magical traditions (again, based on fantasy philosophy/thematics) that alter the fundamental way your character casts magic. Bloodlines are a flavor to existing magic (though its Arcana is close), traditions such as "card/sutra caster" or "spellsinger" that alter how you use the rules in the Magic chapter, as well as how you interact with rival traditions is what I'm thinking of. Dream mages might alter how mirror magic works, for example- not just "fire hates water," though some of that is acceptable too.

Taboos for spellcasters and superstitions for non-casters to use. Basic charms apprentices might make and sell to pay for their schooling, such as things to keep pests out of the larder, make the laundry dry on a rainy day, hush a room slightly, or make a candle last the better part of a week.

Lists of magic mishaps that aren't entirely comical, so they can be used in a horror, mystery, or high drama game without issue.

Alternative rules/classes/magic and recommendations for games centered around fighting titanic beasts, such as sandworms, sky whales, sea serpents, dire whales, and other genuinely big animals.
(Even if this doesn't have longevity, it bothers me that it's been easier to model this in Old World of Darkness than D20 that I've played)

Fear rules are currently lacking for something so fundamental, and given what Pathfinder is all about, this is squandered potential. Combat, emotion control magics, dungeons, supernatural foes- and yet there are only three stages to fear, and one of them is basically "fight is over." A bit more nuance could lead to great things.

Specific Rules Quibbles:

Ranged spells are aimed with Dexterity, meaning they don't home in. Their trajectory should theoretically decay with range, but they don't use ranged increments like missile weapons- they maintain the same accuracy from point-blank to long range.

SR is painfully inefficient both practically and narratively. Casters can't and don't need to do anything in situ to try harder to overcome SR, all of their leeway in that regard is level-up options and repeating themselves. Most fiction and imagination has spellcasters pushing their limits to break an enemy defense, but there is no basic rule for pushing a spell (sacrificing extra spell slots, losing HP, taking Fatigued or Exhausted condition) to increase the odds of breaking SR. For the SR user, it's a poor tradeoff too; many debilitating spells and magical/supernatural effects ignore SR already, and it doesn't help you against any magical boosts or defenses your opponent might be using. Even most fiction has a magic-resistant attacker capable of breaking through magic-based defense mechanisms a foe is using.

I've tried to keep my mouth shut, but my rules lawyer sense is too strong. I squirm around like a dog eating toffee until I can't keep the 'wrongness' bottled in anymore. :(

This is a big thing that will easily cause friction. If I had to guess, there is some element of "this is important to me, and it must be done correctly" going on here. The people you are gaming with might be ticked off that you consider abstract ideas and being right more important than them.

And I've learned the hard way- they're right, not you.

Just make a mental note of things that might need clarifying, and the next time there is a pizza break or end of the session, you can bring it up in a non-confrontational manner with the GM (and no one else). They'll decide if it needs fixing and how to do it- otherwise, let it go.
If they're constantly dismissing things you think are important, find an online game of Pathfinder with a culture more suited to your tastes.

If you are wanting to deny it, here's the text you can use for leverage.

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Emphasis added. The new claw attacks granted by the Totem have a different damage profile from the default catfolk claws, so they are new attacks you can use- they are separate from your default claws (Totem is 1d6 vs. 1d4, according to your original post).

The ability does not grant you new limbs, though, and neither entry overrides this sentence. The player has to explain what new limbs or useable body part get which claw attack. Otherwise, you may have four potential attacks "available" to you, but only enough limbs for two. If the player has a cool explanation that you feel like allowing, great. (Maybe it involves levels in Monk.) If not, you don't need that to be a house rule.

Better things to look up:

The Head of Vecna.

Things Mr. Welch Is No Longer Allowed to Do in an RPG. (A lot of gamer culture jokes you may not "get," but there is a LOT to work with)

Look up Kender. Lots of ideas for pranks from people who have played them.

Disclaimer: About 3/4 of the gaming world that knows what Kender are hate them. About 1/2 of the group that hates them would rather chew bees and razor blades than game with a Kender in the party.

As was mentioned above, you really have to know where you need to draw the line, and this has more to do with your fellow players than anything actually in the game.

"Comrade, your valor is impressive as always! However, your poor discretion is going to lose us the war for the want of a battle. Not all foes are equal, and that mindless stack of bones cannot appreciate your bravery and skill. There was no reason to give it the glory of your injuries. I insist you take our search for the more worthy foe seriously- we need not test my patron for the virtue of patience."

There, a good in-character way to gently scold.

Actually the "getting XP for killing things" came from 2.0 long before WOW. Don't blame this on MMO's. First XP was when you got loot back in 1.0. 2.0 you got it for killing things. It wasn't until 3.5 when the idea of bypassing encounters in other ways got you xp for them (I believe the exact section of it can be found on page 35 or so of the book of exalted deeds).

My intro box adventure to AD&D offered up DMs the advice to give players as much XP or more for bypassing encounters through cleverness instead of just fighting them, so that idea isn't a 3.X thing.

I can't say for certain at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the terminology has always been "defeat" the encounters or foes, which is slightly more inclusive (and occasionally challenging) than "kill."

BillyGoat wrote:

No fear, Chengar, Nicos is making the simple mistake of confusing the grappled character for the grappling character.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think its clear. When does the rules on page 206 (and page 184) come into play?

...

But if that is the case, when do the rules on page 184/206 apply if we agree that they can't apply to the Grappler as they do not have the option to cast a spell at all? For the page 184/206 rules to make sense we have to assume they override the page 201 rule that says you can take any action that doesn't require two hands.

The main confusion is that "Grapple" is a Combat Maneuver a character does, while "Grappled" is a condition that a character can gain by means other than the specific Combat Maneuver.

If your character is performing a Grapple maneuver (i.e. the verb form, "Grappling," which is what it is listed as in those sections) then you aren't allowed to cast somatic spells. Normally you wouldn't be able to anyway because it costs you actions in the round, but if you can maintain a grapple as a Move action or if you have a Quickened spell, it's important.

If you simply gained the Grappled condition, you aren't quite as occupied trying to use your limbs to restrain something wiggly, you are just being interfered with. You could theoretically gain the Grappled condition from multiple sources outside of the Grapple maneuver, such as the Web spell here, some sort of magical bola, a complicated trap, or a wall of hands trying to grasp at you. Unless they hold you completely still (i.e. make you Pinned), you could theoretically cast a one-handed spell, you would just be pushed around by whatever is restraining you (hence the Concentration check).

TL:DR; If you are doing the Maneuver, 206/184. If you aren't doing the maneuver (you are a victim or just have the Condition), then 201.

Edit: Potential simplification. Rename the "Grappled" condition "Restrained" instead. Leave the Maneuver, any verb forms of the word, and "Pinned" alone. Might make more sense.

Possibly the grappler only faces a 10 + spell level check. He's in control after all. I don't think the folks at Paizo thought about it. They probably should have because of druids, but...

Ideally grappled and grappling should be separate conditions rather a condition with some exceptions for the controller. It would make the rules quite a bit clearer.

In this case, there technically is no "grappler" since the spell just spontaneously causes the condition on a single being. Two beings aren't opposed, so there isn't any "control" to really be had. If anything, there is a victim, but the "controller" (a.k.a. grappler) is not a character with stats, it's a spell. The theoretical Wizard certainly isn't restraining anybody and can't restrain the spell, and can't make an opposed grapple check to "take control." He just frees himself via the means outlined in the spell: Make a combat maneuver check against the spell's saving throw DC, or an Escape Artist check of the same. The Web never makes any CMB checks of any kind, the victims just fail Reflex saves and gains the condition.

Edit: I think what might be making this so weird for everyone is that it's like the Web spell is the thing grappling everyone and "controlling" the grapple, but because it doesn't have the requisite stats, you can't use the usual process of the same name, where two beings are opposing one another. The way it is constructed at the moment only works because Grappled became a Condition, meaning it can be granted by any process that says so, not the specific maneuver of the same name.
The "Grappled" Condition is a single set of restrictions, like "Pinned" is. "Grappling" is a process a character can do. A character can be "Grappled" without actually "Grappling" anything (the same way someone can be "Pinned" but not "Pinning" anything), but this is a really weird phrasing in this case, and the terminology is confusing when taken at face value.

Now that I think about it, if you don't think like a modular engineer or object-oriented programmer, it's pretty obtuse. Makes me wonder why D20 is the game system I have the easiest time finding players for.

But by definition grappling and grappled are the same, just tense is different.

As an editor- one word carries the meaning that you are performing the action (grappling, an act) and the other carries the meaning that you are simply in that state, involved but implied not to be active (grappled, a state of being).

But looking at the materials, I can easily see how it can go both ways. Both rulings are entirely legal RAW at the moment. Could be FAQ-worthy if it hasn't been already (I'm terrible with searches, my librarian friends all tease me).

I prefer the interpretation that doesn't lock spellcasting completely for the victim, most likely because I'm not a killer GM. If you are trying to hold someone squirming free, sure, you can't cast because you're doing something else. But if you are the victim, a concentration check should be enough of a hurdle (and if the enemy pins you, which is likely, it is clear you can't cast).

And as for the grapple check, I'm not sure there needs to be one. The victim of the grapple should never have to check against their own statistics, because they aren't restraining themselves. The Web spell shouldn't be making grapple checks, as the spell description states that the victims just gain the "grappled" condition if they fail saving throws (kind of like how you can get the "Fatigued" condition or the "entangled" condition). They free themselves by means outlined in the spell, too. So in this case, the grappled condition is just gained or lost, it isn't something between opposing parties- which is weird considering old mechanics, but Pathfinder changed it.

The DC for the concentration check is something we're not clear on and probably should be FAQ'ed if it hasn't already.

Powerful Build, in 3.5, was F.A.Q.'d to clarify that the increase in Handedness is a form of Penalty.

That said the wording, if they were actually going off of 3.5's, should have been this allows the Half-Giant to wield weapons as if they were one size larger.

Looking at the 3.5 FAQ from Wizards, it does do that. Though it also states that effects like Powerful Build and Monkey Grip never stack.

also if the class could only ever get rid of -4 for Inappropriately Sized then whats the point of having it reduce the penalty by -6 over the class unless you could use a larger then normally allowed weapon. It just wouldn't make sense to make a variant class in a book that came out after the core book that, that gets ride of -6 penalty when the rules in the core book only allow for -4, unless the class can brake the rules because of the class.

Remember there is always an exception, the general rules and then the specifics of classes.

I'm not really trying to argue here, this is fun for me.

Anyway, the reason Massive Weapons reduces more than just -2 for inappropriately sized weapons is because you can wield Huge weapons- they just have to be the smaller categories of weapons (Light weapons, like daggers). Every difference between your actual size and the size the weapon was made for is another -2, as well as pushing the weapon category into needing more hands.

That is what is really limiting what weapons you can wield- it isn't the penalties to attack. You could just take it- Two Weapon fighters do that all the time. If the weapon needs more hands than you have to wield, that keeps you from using the weapon at all, and that is what you need special abilities to fix.