Actually another player and I were discussing this last week.
Personally I love using it as a player, though it's most interesting when the GM allows older tables, or interesting circumstances (like a paladin/cleric who is extremely devout having their reincarnation chart fudged by their deity).
Here is what bothered me the most.
Main thing that bothers me: oaths helped make up for the low will save, and Wisdom as least important attribute.Without Oaths, my lvl 12 cavalier (+6 Will save) will fail just about any will save he's subjected to most of the time, even a DC 20 he'd fail 65% of the time. And as a level 12 character most threats have much higher save DCs.
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Using some of those teamwork feats is hard enough for a mounted character with a focus on charging, and the reactive nature of some of the better tactical feats.
Also, somewhere in the class, perhaps inside one of the Orders, can we get a class feature that makes the abysmal will saves less of an issue? I was kinda counting on the oaths to do that pre-revision.
The iPad does certainly look like it has the promise of being a terrific D&D tool, and certainly it would be easier to use than my 17" laptop I end up setting up for most games.
What I really want is one of these. and I hope apple makes a line of higher-powered tablets running real OSX (and possibly Windows via bootcamp)
Even the way they are now I find them quite nice.
I beg to differ, I'm playing a Diviner, and the only divination flavor I get from my Specialization is that I'm slightly better at scrying, I know when I'm being scryed upon, and I generally manage to get the hell out of dodge before anyone else can act in combat.Oh, and I can give up an action to give someone else a small bonus to everything they do for a round, which comes up very infrequently.
On the whole since every Wizard can have every spell, and there are some very iconic spells that just about every Wizard is expected to have in their spellbook or prepared, the Schools don't really differentiate Wizards from eachother very much.
The only real individuality my character has, class-wise is from the 3 levels of Loremaster I have, which gives me the ability to roll every single knowledge check there is. I took loremaster because there really isn't any reason not to, apart from advancing the limited benefits I get from my School. Oh, and having to sink 4 feats, only one of which isn't on the short list of feats that are worth getting for Wizards.
And I do roleplay the character in a unique manner, it just irks me that my school specialization adds practically no flavor, and there's no way to increase the "diviner" portion of my character short of gimping him significantly in combat with sup-par spell selections that may end up getting us all killed.
Mainly I'd like a better way to differentiate one specialist wizard from another, or a better way to differentiate clerics.
I would like to see at least one prestige class for each school of wizardry, each sorcerer bloodline, and most of the clerical domains.
I think for instance an Abjuration Prestige Class that gave some more abjuration themed abilities at the cost of one or two levels of spell progression (and advanced your Abjuration specialty) would be nice to have, ditto for all the other non-spellcasting things the spellcasters have now.
Umm, why wouldn't you be able to use a longbow while mounted?And yes, some weapons are inferior. It's been this way for a long time. When was the last time you saw someone use a club when they had the opportunity to use a mace?
There's several interpretations to the Caster Level on magic items:
Personally I favor the last interpretation, since there's plenty of cheap magic items that are mainly useful at low level, and have silly CLs listed. Bags of holding or stat increasing items are a good example.
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
And how about some archery-related Ranger spells. Cmon, they're supposed to be the best archers, but right now Fighter blows them out of the water if they spec in archery.
I have no problem per se with DM fiat, however it can be irritating when the GM sees something one way, the player sees it another, and the difference isn't brought up until much later, say in the middle of a combat where a player has been counting on their interpretation.
The big thing I have to say about DM fiat, is at the outset to talk to your players before pulling out a big NO, and even more so to make it clear before the game even starts any houserules you're using, any interpretations you're making on rules or character abilities. It's no fun to find out that that the GM heavily restricts item crafting after you take a bunch of item crafting feats for instance.
That might refer to the traits they automatically gain as creatures of the "animal" type, such as low light vision.Just another interpretation.
Cralius the Dark wrote:
I knew someone with a couple sets of those, I think his are for some sort of miniatures game.I remember it being called something like "ninganos" (pronounced neen ga nos)
You know what I'd like?
A lvl 5-6 spell that was dispel magic, only for counterspelling, and cast as an immediate action would be quite fun I think.
Since Spellcraft is used to identify spells as they are cast, one would assume that a Spellcraft check would allow someone to know of the existence and effect of spells.
If you don't like having players read through other classes spell-lists, you could have them make a spellcraft check to find a spell that has a certain effect, and then give them the information if they made the check.
Dragonnes (From the Bonus Bestiary) can be taken as animal companions by anyone with Leadership and an effective druid level of at least 10, which gets bumped down by 4. As dragonnes have an int of 6, couldn't we expect something like this for griffins, wyverns- those 'exotic' mounts. They'll just have to deal with having d8 hit dice, and can get any traits as companion Special Qualities.
There's some strange stuff in the Bonus Bestiary, though having Leadership and AC progression meld this way is quite interesting.Though I'd personally say that the 4 effective lvl hit is a bit much, considering it isn't that much better than other animal companions, and is requiring a feat on top of that.
Actually, in a different thread one of the Paizo (official) people came in and said that racial stuff that isn't in the stat blocks isn't included in ACs, but that if you decide to houserule it in, it's probably not a problem.
*trying to find the post*
Note that that +4 from feat only works when casting on the defensive IIRC, and would not help when grappled, damaged, etc...
Strictly by the rules, nothing ever says you need to be proficient with a Bastard Sword as a Martial Weapon before you take EWP and get it as an exotic weapon, though you do need to be proficient with at least one martial weapon to qualify for the feat.
Personally I'd allow anyone who qualified for the feat to take EWP Bastard Sword and get it 1 and 2handed, but then I don't like making my players take ungodly amounts of feats for what eventually equates to +1 or +2 to damage. Generally I find they want to do these things for a concept more.
Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.
That said, it does seem that strictly by RAW you'd need to take the martial wep proficiency for your shield to bash with it, but look at it this way: one feat to use a shield for bonus AC, and a second feat to use a shield as a weapon as well. You are getting benefit from both feats.
james maissen wrote:
No, you can take the melee attack as part of the spell casting, if you do not make the melee attack as part of casting the spell it requires it's own standard action to touch someone (however touch spells are a free action to apply to yourself, and I think there are rules about touching willing targets that reduce the action required)
Remco Sommeling wrote:
Argh, forum ate my post, twice.
A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions.
So putting your phylactery inside an extradimensional space, and putting that item inside another extradimensional space is a great way to make it inaccessible. You can use a permanent rope-trick to keep the Portable Hole+Bag of Holding thing from sending your phylactery to the astral plane. (Nothing can be placed inside either a portable hole or a bag of holding inside another extradimensional space)I think plane shift allows you to leave extradimensional spaces, but not enter them, but I may be wrong.
Ah you're right, I missed Roc.
And I agree with mounts being fine as they are. Cavaliers (especially small ones) have plenty of choices, and anyone can get a good high level mount with handle animal or the Leadership feat.
A Cavalier, an Oracle, a Summoner, a Witch, an Inquisitor, and an Alchemist walk into the City of Brass...
This is exactly the sort of thing he's suggesting is in the actual class description, so you know, DMs who aren't familiar with the class don't suddenly have a many-tentacled monstrosity screwing up their games and requiring rebuilding. Not all players can control their character's power level well.
Hyla Arborea wrote:
I've generally found that bags of holding do the same thing anyhow, not to mention items of "create food/water" x/day.
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Or one use of the Fabricate spell, which no wizard should ever be without.
The spell specifically states that it has no effect on you if you close your eyes.Thus closing your eyes means you get to attack them as though the spell weren't there (albeit with eyes closed)
Dork Lord wrote:
Oh yeah, Divination specialists get some great stuff, however it's not all that bad of a school to dump if you're not a diviner.
Shield Bash: A type of attack, specifically an attack with a shieldBludgeoning: A type of damage, damage typically done by blunt weapons
Bashing: A Special Ability defined thusly:
A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.
Note that no type is given for the bonus, so the bonus is un-typed. (The "as a weapon of two size categories larger" is text describing how the increased damage is calculated)
and to further clarify matters the other terms used in the discussion thus far:
Your references are wrong.Again.
The not stacking size bit you're talking about is for spells that increase your size category (and they all explicitly state they don't stack with other size increasing magics) and a 3.5 rule where you couldn't stack effects that let you wield larger than normal weapons (such as the Goliath racial ability and Monkey Grip feats).
In this case the intention seems to allow for the enchantment and spikes to be suitably generic that they don't need specific examples of every usage with damage numbers, such as if a splat book had come out with an exotic shield that counted as a heavy shield but had a base bash damage of 1d6 instead of 1d4. If the bashing property had a table of values instead of a dice size increase, the new shield would have to have it's own table and specific numbers.
Well, once you've taken out some of the illusions (which isn't really that hard) then you're much better off with your eyes open.Not to mention if I was playing the caster I'd make sure to keep 5' stepping around so someone with their eyes closed would need to guess the square I'm in.
Not to mention all the horrible penalties for having your eyes closed in combat.