Raymond Gellner's page

What is he holding in his other hand?? Anyone know?

It looks like it goes around his fingers, so I am thinking perhaps a brass knuckle?

Jason,
When the update was added to the prd, the new Crane Wing description was placed in the Crane Riposte feat description in error.

Hopefully Paizo will address the implications that the Crane Wing change will have on Crane Riposte.

Actually, since the circlet uses the head slot and the headband uses the headband slot, you can use both at the same time.

If the GM is misinterpreting such an obvious rule written as plainly as it can possibly be written, I wonder how many other rules he is misinterpreting?

This is way out of the box, and your GM may not allow, but you could wish for everyone in the group receive a teamwork feat chosen by the group.
This may provide your party and the GM with some interesting role playing opportunities.

Hard Skin: If I was GMing, I would allow it, though it would be a 3rd level sorcerer/wizard spell: base the spell on barkskin (2nd level spell), +1 spell level because you are converting a spell from a different class to your class, at least +1 spell level for the longer duration and -1 spell level for slower progression of the effect compared to barkskin.
If the range was changed to personal, I might go for allowing it as a 2nd level spell. In any event, no matter how many limitations added, it should never be lower than 2nd level as natural armor bonus is the Druid's specialty.

Ghost Self: That is a tough one; I would only allow it if there was an expensive material component involved, and even then the spell might need more limitations. If by doubling scribe costs you mean per scroll instead of merely because you are creating two scrolls at a time that would be acceptable. If the 500 gp limit per scroll is the price of the scroll rather than the creation cost, that would limit scrolls to 3rd level (CL6) or lower with which would help to balance it.
I also agree that the spell should be a different school; I would say illusion over conjuration but only because conjuration already has enough power already.

I recommend starting at 1st level with the module "Crypt of the Everflame" since it is not too long and it is fairly friendly to new gamemasters. It is the first in a three-part series, though you can easily run this as a one-off then go into a different direction.

I believe you are looking for the Valet familiar archetype in the Animal Archive, page 21.

In the PFSRD the links to the three familiar archetypes are at the very bottom of the Wizard class page; here is a direct link for your convenience:

Valet familiar archetype

For comparison, according to the Bestiary the typical orc warrior has an intelligence score of 7.

Improbable stats are improbable, but not impossible.
Long ago in my AD&D 1e days there was a person in our group who rolled three 18s. He was a fighter; in rolling his percentile strength he rolled 100%. It was an amazing thing to see.
We used the 4d6 seven times, cast away lowest die then cast away lowest of the seven rolls as well.

Also, if you have a favorite spell that you cast often, selecting the Magical Lineage trait for that spell means that you can use the Intensified Spell feat on the spell without the need to increase the spell level.

I like option 2; it provides a progressing mythic tier initiative bonus and gives mythic heroes the option of an extra action while not being overly powerful, and it gives incentive for players to still select the Improved Intiative feat (it also gives incentive for players to select the Improved Intiative (Mythic) feat if there is one planned for the final version of Mythic Adventures).

DeathQuaker wrote:
3. (And my favorite choice) -- Don't challenge them solely with combat. Get some intrigue thrown in there. Get in some puzzles, riddles, mazes, traps--things they can't just beat down with a strong enough fist. Pay attention to terrain limitations and use them--have your bugbears use trees for cover while they fire ranged weapons at them before approaching, use a rain storm to make spellcasting harder and firing ranged weapons difficult, etc. etc. etc. This game isn't and should not be all about melee combat. And if you disagree and you want it to be about melee combat than--yep, back to 1 or 2, or be used to attacking your PCs with +1-2 CR higher than the game recommends.

This is an excellent solution as it encourages roleplaying rather than a meta-game response from the GM.

If you haven't seen these before, you might find them interesting...

What D&D character am I?

D&D Ability Score Quiz

Cheers!

According to the first test:

Second Test was a little rougher:
Ability Scores:
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 11
Intelligence: Pt1/Pt2: 16/14
Intelligence: 15
Wisdom: 14
Charisma: 13

With a 10 point buy, I place my scores as:
Strength: 9
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 11
Intelligence: 16 (14 with a +2 racial adjustment)
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 9

If I went by the 3 point buy rules for basic NPCs, I would have to go with:
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 10
Intelligence: 15 (13 with a +2 racial adjustment)
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 8

Seeing as the Fighter has been given special abilities that define it's class beyond the full BAB (and Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins have a full BAB with their assorted special abilities), Monks should have a full BAB as they are a front line combatants like the other stated classes. They all approach combat in different ways, but they are all heavy combatants nonetheless.

If there needs to be a compromise, give the Monk a full BAB on unarmed combat and a 3/4 BAB on combat with weapons. At first level and every five levels the Monk can add a special monk weapon to his unarmed style. In game terms, this would allow him to use the full BAB with this selected weapon(s).

I alway thought that empower spell should affect all numeric effects, not just the variable ones.

For one thing, how can someone create an ability booster magic item with a +6 modifier without empower spell and the respective ability boost spell (fox's cunning, bull's strength, etc.)? Without the benefit of empower spell, the maximum bonus on these magic items would be +4.

I vote for having the Death Knight included if possible. He's more than a monster, he's a true villain!

IMHO,

WIzards are masters of planned spellcasting and Sorcerers are masters of spontaneous spellcasting, and this is as it should be. Each has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to spellcasting. All in all, Sorcerers are much more powerful, spell vs. spell; They can pull a card out of their sleeve so to speak much more easily than Wizards. Wizards, however when prepared are more versatile and can counter a larger range of threats, again, given ample preparation.

I honestly used to think Sorcerers were too powerful, but after reviewing all their separate abilities, I think Wizards and Sorcerers are well suited for their individual roles, and this is the ultimate goal of a game system. If the GM of an individual campaign wishes to alter this, that is always the GM's choice.

neceros wrote:

Eww, Mushy.

On point; I see no reason why a Human can't take Fighter as his Favored class when he's a rogue at level one.

I agree. It could represent a number of situations, i.e. a fighter wants one day to be a paladin, or a rogue who has a true calling embracing her sorcerer heritage, or something.

It may not be the most efficient for the character build, but how much that matters depends on the player.

Chobbly

This is an excellent point, but if he knew then his life's calling why not select at first level? It is possible that he had no choice (perhaps there was a war and he was conscripted to serve and that is how he became a figher, but he always saw a different path for himself, though it took time to be able to act upon it).

I have a possible solution. What if a player can change his favored class once after first level?

In the end I think this is going to have to be a decision between the GMs and players.

My rule of thumb is that if it positively advances the story and the roleplaying it is usually a good idea.

Can we get a clarification on whether the following is legal:

Human PC starts as a level 1 Rogue, but takes Fighter as his favored class.

-- david
Papa.DRB

I think it is technically legal, but on this I urge players to consider the roleplaying reasoning behind gaining a skill point or hp with the acquisition of each favored class level (at least in my opinion).

My take on this is the idea that since the favored class is the class in which they initially trained it is naturally easier for them to gain more training in that class, therefore they have extra time to train on skills or physical enhancement, respectively.

With this reasoning, the favored class should be (again, imo) the class the character takes at first level.

Since specialists are no longer completely forbidden from using spells from their "prohibited" schools, this all balances out.

That being said I do think that a spells within the specialist's school should have a higher DC.

How about giving a specialist a +1 to the DC in his or her respective school at the cost of a -1 when he or she casts spells from his or her prohibited schools? This can be an optional (permanent) choice for the player when the character is created, since this is an advantage for some schools while not really mattering in others. This could also be a potential feat.

The argument will be made that since there are two prohibited schools, it should be a +2 DC for a -1 penalty, but since a +1 on a school you use frequently is more of a bonus that a -1 is a penalty on schools that you tend to avoid, it is pretty much favorable to the specialist without being overly powerful.

The +1 DC would, however, stack with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus. If this is too powerful, you could give these feats a caster level prerequisite, say at 3rd and 7th, or something to that affect.

How about adding three new feats, Greater Great Fortitude, Greater Lightning Reflexes and Greater Iron Will, each with a prerequisite of its base feat (Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will respectively)?
In this way if a player wants his or her character to have better saves, these are an option, but it still leaves the standard class strengths and weaknesses with respect to saves intact.

Too be honest I've always missed the +2 bonus Spell Focus and Great SF gave in 3.0.

I agree, but to keep low level characters from having spells in which a save or die spell becomes virtually impossible to save, I would make Spell Focus (+2 DC) have a prerequisite of Caster Level 3 and Greater Spell Focus (+4 DC) have a prerequisite of Caster Level 11 (or at minimum Caster Level 9).

Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Search return but as it stands I like the present array and think the adjustments I'd like to see aren't too important, if anything: houserule.

The first point makes absolute sense; Does every person who can jump have the ability to tumble? I don't think so. It also makes jump attempts modified by strength again.

I have always agreed that search should be a separate skill from perception as well.

To the one point, I do favor a base of 4 skill ranks per level due to the fact that they have the higest level of education of all of the classes. The four base ranks could represent the following standard courses of study every wizard would receive: Knowledge (Arcana), Linguistics, Spellcraft, and one elective, either Appraise or an additional Knowledge skill.

That being said, I also favor the idea of Wizards only receiving a base of 2 skill ranks per level for the following reason: The study of magic takes an incredible devotion of time and energy. Most of the wizard's base course work deals with this study (the two base ranks represent their standard coursework of Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft). The only reason they would have time for other courses is due to their high intelligence, which plays out in these rules as is.

Unfortunately, whether it is two or four probably depends upon the specifics of each campaign, so there may well always be disagreement. I would say this would be a valid house rule decision.

Concerning the duskblade, all I would do is change the HD from a d8 to a d10 as noted previously and he should be good to go. This class can be extremely powerful if the player knows how to run him.

Concerning the Scout, besides changing the HD to d8, I think he needs something else, although I do not know what that is. He certainly is playable "as is" so I would not worry too much; but still, he is missing something.

I would say this depends highly on the personality of the NPC wizard. If he is scholarly, he should have more spells. If he spends more spare time in a tavern than a library, he would not be inclined to have as many spells in his spellbook.

Actually, if I may cast humility aside for a minute, it would be great if all the persons who have contributed time and energy to this endeavor receive an individual playtesting credit.
If small print is used for this, it should not take up too much space.

What will the weight of this tome be?

As long as it has high quality and durability, it makes little difference as to whether it is one volume or two.

Will there be a monster section, or will that be a separate book?

My impression was that Alpha was the place to try all the really radical changes. Toss out ideas and see what happens. A few things depart quite a bit, true. But this is the Alpha release.

I agree, It is best to place everything on the table then cut away items that do not fit.

I think rather than calling it a racial hit point bonus, it should be called the racial base hit points.

In the Defense Bonus thread I suggested this new feat since I see the Compbat Expertise feat as a mechanic that is parallel to the idea of a defense bonus.
I wanted to start a new thread specifically about this to see what others think of having this kind of feat. I am sure there will be debate of the numerics, but I think the general principle is sound as it gives value to characters choosing to have higher Intelligence scores in classes that normally do not worry about such things.

This is an excellent way to reward players for building non-standard characters such as the Intelligent Fighter.

Improved Combat Expertise
Prerequisite: Intelligence 15, Combat Expertise
Benefit: You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon. Add an amount up to or equal to twice your Intelligence modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, minimum 2) as a Dodge bonus to your armor class for one round. Subtract half this amount from your melee attack rolls for 1 round.

For example, if you receive a +4 Dodge bonus, you would take a -2 on your attack rolls.

Just use half BAB, whatever the classes are.

That's much easier to use, for characters and monsters.

This hits on a major problem with the defense bonus, PCs will be harder to hit, and so will monsters. This could slow the game down considerably.

Besides, there is already a defense bonus aspect to the game: the Combat Expertise feat.

Maybe instead of adding a Defense Bonus to the game an Improved Combat Expertise feat could be added for selection, whereby the PC with this feat would gain a +1 Dodge bonus of AC at the cost of half in attack bonus given up. For example, if a character with this feat subtracted 2 from his attack bonus, he or she would receive a +4 Dodge Bonus to AC.

Of course at least one prerequisite would be Combat Expertise. I would also recommend a prerequisite of 15 intelligence.
This is an excellent way to reward players for building non-standard characters such as the Intelligent Fighter.

There are two changes off the top of my head:

1) Magic Missile: Allow additional missiles above 9th level. For example, a 13th level caster would fire 7 missiles.

2) Summon Monster Spells: Expand these lists. Evil casters have a distinct advantage in their summoning choices. While the rules do not state that a good character cannot summon an evil creature, such a character would hesitate greatly in doing so as he would not wish to bring evil into the world, even if it is temporary.

Better yet, on the summoning spells create rules for the DMs and players to create their own lists. CRs for each level of summoning do not seem to be set in stone. There should be some kind of guidelines to follow on this on how to determine the CR that is acceptable for a given summoning level.

I would like to see the Universalist Wizards abilities bumped back to closer to what they were in Alpha 1. Specifically, the Metamagic Mastery ability essentially allowed 1 use per level in the Alpha 1 and is 1 use per 2 levels in the Alpha 3. In my own playtests of the wizard, the universalist abilities have been the funnest change as they have made a straight class Wizard worth playing again. In that same vein, I would like to see a Universalist ability at first level like all the specialist wizards have. It seems the Universalist was scaled back in Alphas 2 and 3 because there were complaints that their class features were too good, which I just don't agree with. The generalist wizard already suffers compared to specialist casters and now I would argue also to Sorcerers and their bloodline class feature. I don't want the Universalist Wizard castrated to the point it isn't as good an option as the other casting classes in the beta and final product.

I strongly agree with this.

I would also give Wizards Spell Focus (for their chosen school) as a bonus feat at first or third level. I would like it at first level, but it would equally be acceptable if they had to advance a couple levels before receiving this kind of "mastery". If it is at third level and they already have Spell Focus, they instead receive Greater Spell Focus (again, for their chosen school).

If a defense bonus was added, I would definitely remove the Fighter's armor training AC bonus as I would consider this to be a part of the defense bonus.

I've used 2 methods in the past:

2) Fix the minimum then add a single die. d12 becomes 6+1d6, d10=4+1d6, d8=4+1d4, & d6=2+1d4 (I ditched d4's for hp long ago but a straight d4 seems appropriate). Mearls used a similar approach in Iron Heroes (no books at work to reference, though).

The latter version was ultimately more rewarding (PC's ARE above average, afterall. Otherwise, they'd be commoners).

I like this way, except for the fact that it favors d12 and d8 and disfavors d10 and d6. It probably should be:

d12 is 6+1d6
d10 is 5+1d5
d8 is 4+1d4
d6 is 3+1d3

Yes the search skill is often used in an investigative role in examining for clues, ideas and deductions so it should be separate and based off of intelligence. If you are glancing around and notice something, perception (formerly spot) should be used. The search skill deals not only with noticing something but knowing whether that something is the valid item of your search. It can be an obvious deduction, like looking though a pile of clothes and finding a gem and deciding it is worth while, or thorough reasoning, like finding clues on a wall to find the device that stops the spiked ceiling from decsending (however figuring out how to disarm the trap would be disable device).

This is an excellent idea. It also helps everyone meet halfway in regards to needing the improved and greater TWF feats. You still need these feats for additional attacks at higher levels, but they have more value if two weapon defense is selected.

I found that playing a wizard costs money. Money for spells, money to write those spells into your book, money to create magic items, money for spell componants. If I balance all this out against the fact that I can only cast one extra spell that I know once per day of adventuring... Yeah, I find it balances nicely.

I agree, no class has to spend more personal wealth in order to adventure than the Wizard. When compared with the other classes the wizard is not over-powered. The class that I would worry about being over-powered is the Sorcerer. Most of the Wizard's school powers are one shot a day, whereas the Sorcerer's bloodline powers are in many cases continual and each grows significantly in power as the sorcerer advances. By the time the sorcerer reaches the 16th-20th level range, he easily has more power than any other class.

Are gauntlets not considered armor and therefore unavailable to the monk?

In any event, per Pathfinder A3, page 29:
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a
manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the
purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve
either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Couldn't the monk just have his hands enchanted into a magical weapon?

Concerning the weapon training trait, I propose that the characters receive the following choice:
1) weapon proficiency in a martial weapon
2) weapon proficiency in an exotic weapon if the charater aleady has all martial weapons in his or her class proficiencies.
3) weapon focus in a class proficiency weapon

This makes the weapon training trait valid for fighter types. This also give non-fighter types the option of being a little better in one of their class weapons. I am not a big "wizards with swords" fan, so this gives wizards an option to utilize weapons training without resorting to carrying a sword or other martial weapon. If a wizard wants to use a sword, fine, but he or she also has the option to become a little better at using his or her staff instead.

I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly, but isn't it a rule (Alpha3, p. 49) that if a wizard choses Arcane Bond [item], he will need his item to cast properly, and if he loses it he will be a dead duck until he manages to create a new item, but if he choses Arcane Bond [familiar], he'll be able to cast normally without having to make a Spellcraft check when the familiar isn't anywhere near him?

If that's correct, it severely diminishes the power of a wizard. Take away his bonded item, and he'll fail at least every other spell.

I like the arcane bond, but I agree with this assessment. The DC on the check should be changed to 15 + the spell's level.

Could there be more clarification on how the Arcane Bond with an object works, in particular the wizard's ability to enchant the object. Below are two examples of clarifications needed.

The paragraph states "A wizard can enchant a bonded object as if he has the required feats." Does this mean a third level wizard ca enchant a staff (with which he is bonded) with magic missile? Would this function at 3rd level and then as the wizard advanced in level at a higher level since staves use the caster level of the spellcaster? Or would the minimum level that a wizard be able to enchant an arcane bonded staff be 8th since this is the minimal CL of a staff's ability to function?

Over the course of his career, can the wizard change the object to which he is bonded (for example from staff to amulet)? If he cannot switch the type of object, can he at least switch the actual object (For example, he starts with a MW staff, but in his adventures throughout the years he finds a staff of fire, can he transfer the bond to the staff of fire)?

How about a limit as follows:

cantrip/orison uses per day: 10 + 1/2 levels

or: 1/2 primary spell attribute +1/2 levels (for example, a 2nd level wizard with an 18 Int would have 10 cantrip uses per day).

or: a maximimum of 5 uses per hour

There are many other ways this could be changed.

Has anyone ever kicked around the idea of giving starting characters bonus feats based on intelligence, say 1 bonus feat per each +2 if intelligence modifier?

I like the present point buy system. If you want to play an epic campaign rather than a standard, then choose the epic point buy of 25. If a character can start at 1st level with a 20 (after racial modifiers) in his or her primary attribute and then have above average (12+) in most of his or her other attrbutes, then that is an epic type campaign, whether you choose to call it that or not.

If the consensus is that this is still too low, then shift the points up, for example:

Campaign Type Points
Low Fantasy: 13
Standard Fantasy: 18
High Fantasy: 24
Epic Fantasy: 30

As a gamemaster, I shift these numbers dependent upon the number of players in the campaign; With fewer players, I will inch up the points to help with survivability.

Ride? On a horse? To be slower?
Because "The journey is the reward."? :)

LL

I agree with you on that one; why would a monk have ride as a class skill?