Rod Millard's page

34 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Interesting reading.

I am planning a campaign using E12/mythic - so once the party hit 12th level (by which time they should have AT MOST 2 mythic tiers) they advance by gaining additional feats and mythic tiers but NOT class levels.

I agree that having 4 mythic tiers by the time you hit 9th level is broken. My personal plan is to limit the party to one character per mythic path and have each path gain tiers on different missions (so the Archmage gains a tier at level X, then the trickster gains a tier on the next quest when they hit level Y, and the Guardian gains a tier on the next quest when they hit level Z) - the logic is that each quest should go down in [mythic] history as one thing or another - you should not have the situation where ALL the characters gain mythic tiers for participation in the same encounter, only the mage/rogue/fighter will be remembered for what they have done, not the whole party.

My own interpretation (if I was GMing - and since I plan on running a Mythic campaign fairly soon this will probably come up eventually):

1: select any two domains that are [u]NOT[/u] alignment domains (or subdomains). You are Beyond Morality, therefore you cannot grant domains based on alignment, but can grant any others.

2: You may have clerics of any alignment. There was precedent for this in 3.X (a couple of gods in the Forgotten Realms - Oghma and Gond IIRC - were classed as NN but had no alignment restrictions on their clerics). I don't know of any examples in Golarion but that is how I would run it. Note that as you are Beyond Morality your clerics would [u]NOT[/u] gain an Aura, since regardless of their alignment, you have none. Likewise Channeling and Cure/Inflict wounds would be based on their alignment alone.

3: I would not allow you to use the Redemption/Temptation variant of Atonement, and it would not work on you - although I suppose you could argue that a caster who was Beyond Morality (and they alone) could Tempt someone from one of the extreme alignments to True Neutal. You could still use it to reverse magical alignment change, restore class, and restore cleric or druid powers and the latter two variants would still work on you (if you violated the Paladin's Code Of Ethics, for example). If I was feeling grouchy I would probably limit the restoration of cleric/druid powers to *your own* worshippers

The Human-only Buccaneer Archetype (in the Advanced Race Guide) uses CHA for grit as well.

Yeah, I would do this through feats rather than spell election:

Elemental Focus: Cold: +1 dc on spells with the Cold descriptor
Elemental Spell (Metamagic): swap elemental descriptors (to cold, in your case)
Rime Spell (Metamagic): spells with the cold descriptor also entangle the target

Spells wise, most of your actual "cold" stuff will be coming from your mystery spells rather than the cleric/oracle list, but I would look at the endure elements/resist energy/protection from energy chains, and anything weather related that's not on your Mystery Spell list (so obscuring mist, control winds etc.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

And heck, you can still toss Mythic onto it (at least theoretically) and have E6/7/8 characters taking on mid-teens CR challenges.

Funny you should mention Mythic - I am doing almost exactly that for my homebrew campaign: E12 with up to 6 Mythic Tiers.

I've gone into the reasons elsewhere, but level 6-12 is the "sweet spot" for me, both as a player and as a GM. Traditionally, campaigns peter out around level 12 or 13 as that's where the characters want to settle down and run temples/guilds/small countries (several of them are still around as NPCs).

12th level is also the point where the progressions converge - your BAB goes up whatever progression you're on, Good Saves hit 8, Poor Saves hit 4, and you get your 3rd ability increase. This was even more true in 3.X where you got feats at every third level instead of every odd level. If you didn't know better, you could look at the charts and think they were *MEANT* to run out of 12 the way everything progresses in multiples of 2, 3, or 4.

Capping class advancement at 12 but allowing mythic tiers means that I can still use most if not all of the Bestiary Monsters without excessive tweaking. There is a theoretical maximum of 224 HP without magic (assuming a pure Barbarian with 22 CON, Toughness, and a loaded d12) which is manageable - in reality most PCs will struggle to get into triple figures. You also qualify for most feats by then - which is even more important in E(X).

Besides, Antimagic Field/Raise Dead/Teleport/Polymorph is about as high magic as I like to go - if you want a Wish, go out and convince a Genie to grant it to you...


Which is great for my game in my setting with my players.

Other groups may prefer E6, or E8, or the full 20 level progression - or indeed E1, which definitely sounds like an interesting way of converting D20 to a skill based system for those who feel so inclined.

One of the things I love about Pathfinder/D20 is that it is so adaptable, and you can use it as a toolkit to play in all these styles if you wish. Embrace the diversity people!

Assuming you are going for flavour, rather than power:

Craft (Bookbinding) - make your own spellbooks
Craft (Woodturning) - if you plan on taking the Craft Wand feat later
Craft (Alchemy) - as above, for brew potion
Craft (Calligraphy) - this is not just a scroll of enlarge person, this is a really pretty scroll of enlarge person
Craft (Tailor) - You're fighting people with swords. While wearing robes. Tailoring is necessary to preserve your modesty and/or the other players' sanity

When I was at University (back in the days of 2nd ed D&D) there were several of us who GMed, but people kept asking me to do it. I also ended up directing more of the Drama Society plays than I acted in. In some respects it is the same skill set.

By that I don't mean that a GM should treat his players like the cast of a play and control their every movement - but you do control the stage on which they get to act. You define the story, and then let them make it their own. You handle the scene changes, and make sure they are as smooth and seamless as possible. You control the chorus of townspeople, gypsies, and soldiers (and a performing elephant - there's got to be a performing elephant...) and make sure they never upstage the main cast.

At the end of the day, you end up in the pub listening to half a dozen divas moan about why *they* didn't get top billing ;)

Besides, now that I'm somewhere-between-thirty-and-dead and have kids I spend far more time world building than I actually get to play games - and I love it. I love creating worlds for my players to explore, and putting them in situations to see how they'll react.


On the GM(N)PC debate, I tend to use a bard (usually a halfling, always a coward!) who latches on to the party and follows them around "recording their adventures." It allows me to cover any gaps in the party skill set, gives me a voice in IC planning meetings that can say "are you sure that's a good idea?!" and functions as a buffbot/secondary healer during adventures. I'm not sure where that fits on Evil Lincoln's scale, but it works...

I get that - my point was that after 12th level gaining mythic abilities would be the focus of the campaign, whereas before that mythic tiers are a "bonus." I would expect the characters to pick up no more than one or two mythic tiers each before they hit 12th level.

I honestly hadn't thought about capping mythic tiers, but 12 class levels and 6 mythic tiers sounds about right. It would mean they can eventually learn the Tier 6 Path Abilities, but after the first they have to buy them with feats (which ties it in with the EX rules nicely)

OK, so I am in the process of converting my home-brew setting over from AD&D 2nd to Pathfinder. I (personally) prefer playing and DMing at the "low" and "heroic" levels, and looking over my 10 year old notes the setting reflects this - traditionally, campaigns have petered out around 12th/13th level and the surviving characters have been retired to run temples/gilds/small countries (many of them have entered the canon as minor NPCs...)

Then it hit me: rather than end campaigns when the characters progress beyond the levels I enjoy running, why not cap advancement at 12th level and allow mythic characters - beyond 12th, the party would use XP to learn new feats (as per any of the EX systems) and adventuring could focus on gaining new mythic tiers.

So, my question is should I try and do this? Is combining the mythic rules with EX advancement a good idea (or even possible?!)

This is really interesting. I'm leaning towards using a high end E? system for my homebrew setting, and the breakdowns of the different classes are really helpful.

Personally, I am looking at running E12 - I have never really gone beyond that level in homebrew campaigns anyway, and this seems like a nice way of formalising it so players know what to expect.

As I see it, the big advantage of E12 is the way the non-class specific progressions all point to that level - Everyone's BAB goes up (including characters on half BAB progression who get their second attack - this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your viewpoint...), Good saves hit +8, poor saves hit +4, and you get your 3rd ability boost. Honestly, the way everything scales up in multiples of 2, 3, 4, or 6 you would think the system was designed to play out of 12 levels not 20 - this was even more true in 3.X where feats were every third level instead of every odd number.

Full casters (whether prepared or spontaneous) have access to 6th level spells, 2/3 casters still [u]don't[/u] have access to 5th level spells, and you can qualify for most feats.

Also remember that if a cleric (or other divine spellcaster) falls from grace, they are going to need someone of the same faith to cast an atonement spell - that is going to be a lot easier if they have a pre-existing relationship with the guy.

Having said that, in all my time GMing I can count the number of times it has happened on the fingers of one hand - doesn't stop the players worrying about it though...

lemeres wrote:

But about 1% seems about right. That would mean that in your average small settlement (humans tend to like numbers around 150), you might find 1-2 casters. That works out well for a small hereditary group of professionals or maybe a cleric trained in a larger convent or apprenticed on of the locals. These kind of numbers are enough to keep a sense of mysticism and awe about magic

Which - assuming medieval social norms - would probably be the parish priest (1st level cleric) and the midwife (1st level witch) - although either of these could easily be replaced by an adept.

Smaller communities might not be able to support a spellcaster of their own, but still have access to spellcasting under limited circumstances: maybe a cleric comes out from The Big Town every Sunday to take mass, or there is an alchemist and a couple of bards that make the trip out into the sticks to ply their wares on market day - "second thursday of the month, regular". These communities would still have "access" to first level spellcasting as per the GMG, but players in need of spellcasting services may find they have to choose between waiting or moving on to a larger settlement.

Sorry - I think the GMPC debate was partly my fault for explaining how I use them (and why a Magus would be a bad fit for that approach)

The reason I say dropping Spell Combat for full spellcasting would not be broken is because a by-the-book Magus could pick up and wield a halberd (and even do spellstrike through it) - he just couldn't cast and deliver the spell in the same round: he would have to cast one round, hold the touch effect, ready his weapon, and then attack. The difference is that a regular magus could also pick up a battle axe, whereas a Kensai cannot. You are effectively putting yourself at a disadvantage by specialising in a two handed weapon.

However, Nate Lange makes a good point which I hadn't considered, in that the way Magi are encouraged to use one handed or light weapons serves to restrict their potential damage output. Presumably, the slowed rate of attack for a "standard" magus is considered to balance this out, although whether the same would be true of the Kensai is debatable.

Ask yourself if you would allow one of your players to swap out the abilities like this. If you would be willing to allow a PC to do that, then as I said earlier you should make it a general rule for ALL Kensai (and/or soul forgers) who specialise in a two handed weapon. At this point, you are effectively creating one (or more) new archetypes for Magi who specialise in two handed weapons.

However, your situation is complicated by the fact that one or more of the other players may want to take a turn behind the screen and you will want to keep the character - so you have to ask yourself if *they* would allow it as well. If you were a player in one of my games, I would tell you to choose: if you want full spell progression and a halberd, play a regular Magus; if you want to play a Kensai, play a Kensai as written and either don't use the halberd or take the hit for using a sub-optimal weapon.

I tend to use GM(N)PCs in my campaigns for the following reasons:

*it gives me a voice in IC planning meetings that can legitimately say "do you really think that's a good idea"
*it allows me to seed plot information if the party fluff their knowledge/perception/linguistics checks en masse (yes, this has happened!)
*it allows me to save the PCs from their on stupidity on occasion: "so you don't think the door is trapped? OK then..." BOOM

So bearing in mind how I use them, Magus would not be my first choice. I normally run a knowledge focused Bard (good skill selection to fill any gaps in the party, high INT and CHA for party discussions, can function as a buffbot and/or secondary healer when needed). The Bard also has a legitimate reason to follow the party around "recording their adventures." As a Magus you will be missing out on some of that functionality.

However, if you are set on the Magus I don't see any harm in the change you are proposing. Dropping spell combat will force you to choose between casting or fighting, but the Kensai abilities mean you will be able to switch between the two quickly and easily as the situation demands It's not game breaking, but you will have to make it clear to your players whether this is a general rule for all Kensai in your campaign, an option for Magi who specialise in a two handed weapon (in which case you may want to make it available to Soul Forgers as well, who also bond to a specific weapon and suffer diminished spellcasting), or a special rule for that character - although I would err against the latter as giving special stuff to your GMPC tends to annoy players!

Captain K. wrote:

He's a Witch, ignore the misguided fluff about witches being weirdo cackling women.

His familiar is just like Baba Yaga's hut. Sexy the Tardis has all of those powers.

He has the Time patron, obviously.

He is Peri-blooded Aasimar (outsider, +2 Cha and Int, likes to blow stuff up, no bonus to Wis. Bonus to Knowledge Planes, "and wrestle with their urges to do both good and evil.").


Alignment is CN, obviously.

Good call!

However, mechanically I would count the TARDIS as the Witch's Hut grand hex (throw in Hidden Home if you want the chameleon circuit to work) with a permanent Create Demiplane spell cast on the inside. It seldom moves very far on its own, and requires the doctor as a "pilot" (using plane shift or whatever).

The Doctor has a dog familiar naturally. Possibly using the Improved Familiar feat to create a homonculus so that it would also count as a construct...

For spellcasting, there were feats in one of the 3.5 Dragonlance supplements "Academic Priest" and "Dynamic Priest" which allowed Clerics (and other divine casters) to swap out their primary casting stat for INT and CHA respectively. Allowing those feats might be better than permanently altering the base class (although if I was going to do so I would add a third to allow CHA based divine casters to base it off WIS).

Sorry, it's another monk thread ;)

I am trying to revise the monk class for my homebrew setting, while keeping the changes as simple as possible for the players to understand (I would rather have a list of 2 or 3 bullet points than completely rewrite the class)

For the purposes of the setting, monks are scholars and advisors - often found in positions of authority such as magistrates or chamberlains. There are no clerics (it's complicated) so non-casting monks fill much the same role in society.

I am looking at crudely balancing the monk against the ranger (also a non-casting class in this setting - they use the Skirmisher archetype by default), while also reducing the insane MADness of the class, so:

* Full BAB/d10 Hit dice This puts the monk on a par with the Ranger for BAB/HP, and also reduces their dependence on CON; the Maneuver Mastery class feature is now redundant
* 6 Skill points per level Again, this puts them on a par with the Ranger; it also makes INT a more viable dump-stat which mitigates against the MADness
* Sensei Archetype by default. This fits their role in the setting. It also reduces the MADness as Sensei get to use their WIS bonus in combat, and the fact that Linguistics is on the Sensei's skill list helps to make INT a viable dump

In that form, Monks need high WIS and DEX, reasonable STR and CON, and can afford to dump INT and/or CHA.

But using the archetype as written they swap out Flurry of Blows, Fast Movement, Evasion (and Improved Evasion) and all but one of their bonus feats for the Advice, Insightful Strike, and Mystic Wisdom abilities. I feel this still leaves them relatively weak compared to the Ranger (Skirmisher).

I am therefore tempted to put some of the core monk abilities (that would normally be swapped out for Sensei) back into the mix - maybe just drop the bonus feats but keep the other class features. But would it then be too powerful?


Honestly, for your concept I would recommend an Inquisitor with the Black-Powder Inquisition (gives you EWP Firearms and Gunsmithing as bonus feats, plus the ability to disrupt spellcasters with your firearm) rather than trying to multiclass Gunslinger/Druid. You will lose out on the animal companion, but you would gain Monster Lore and a lot of the skills you want from the Expert class, which would allow you to take a level of Warrior as your NPC class for the BAB.

I put a homebrew bandaid on the cleric in 3.5 (for various reasons) - I haven't tried it in PF, but thematically it should still work (you may need to tinker with the domain powers though to stop it getting OP):

Each deity grants 5 domains. At first level, a cleric chooses ONE of their deity's domains on which to focus their devotion; at 5th level (and every five levels thereafter) they may choose ANOTHER of their deity's domains, gaining the power(s) of that domain and access to all domain spells.

A Cleric's domain spell slot may be used to SPONTANEOUSLY cast the appropriate spell from any domain they know (obviously at levels 1-4 these will be fixed as they only know one domain); they may also allocate additional spell slots for spontaneous domain casting when they prepare their spells, but they always have one slot at each level which MUST be used for domain casting.

A successful spellcraft check to identify a spell also reveals if the cleric is spontaneously casting a domain spell; a knowledge (religion) check at the same DC will reveal which deity (or deities) grant that ability.

It doesn't give them a true capstone ability, but at 20th level a cleric has mastered all of their deity's domains (remember, each deity in that campaign granted exactly 5) and gained all the domain powers that go with them.

The loss of gnomes doesn't bother me too much - but it is a popular archetype with players for some reason. Rather than write them out completely, I would either make provision for isolated settlements to have survived unknown to the other races, or roll them in with halflings and have one as a sub-race of the other.

My own home-brew setting has several sub-races of "wee folk," one of which has been described by players as the illegitimate offspring of D&D gnomes and Romany Gypsies, another which is not-very-subtly-ripped-off from the Tinker Gnomes in Dragonlance, and yet another which is superficially similar to hobbits. Then you have the Qalili'in (a halfling culture based on the bedouin who ride goats into battle) but the less said about them the better...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want something a bit more out there you could consider taking a few levels as a Cavalier of the Order of the Blue Rose:

The cavalier must guard against needless violence, protecting both the land and its people from wars they neither started nor wish to fight. He must seek to stop conflict with a minimum of bloodshed, to encourage peaceful resolutions to disagreements between intelligent creatures, and to mend the wounds opened by battle. He must also honor quarter when he gives it, protecting captives who have surrendered from his own allies if need be

Sounds pretty Doctorish to me...

Of course, no DM on Earth would let you take the TARDIS as a Mount!

One step away is within the rules, but I have always taken the view that if a divine spellcaster is being true to their deity's tenets their alignment will be pulled that way.

To put it another way, it's not just that clerics (etc) must be a certain alignment to worship a particular deity, the act of worshipping that deity reinforces their alignment. The rites of an evil church, by their very nature, should include an evil act (be it grave robbery or human sacrifice, as appropriate). Even if the priest does not *start* at their deity's alignment, most will drift towards it over the course of their careers.

Of course, that applies more to NPCs than PCs. And I can see the argument that a priest of a CE deity could emphasise the chaotic aspect over the evil (or vice versa), but generally if a character with an evil patron deity is going to balk at evil acts they need to find a more suitable deity - or their deity will find more suitable followers.

Inquisitor could be interesting - fits the 7th and 9th doctors better than the other regenerations IMO, but as Sylvester McCoy was my favourite that's not a bad thing!

Knowledge Domain(or possibly the Memory subdomain) would be the best fit IMO, or possibly the Conversion or Fate Inquisitions. None of the archetypes really fit, although spellbreaker could be interesting, particularly if you chose to oppose illusion or enchantment effects.

I still think Bard might be your best bet for a PC Doctor. Consider the Archaeologist Archetype if the performances are a sticking point - it gives you access to the bard spell list (with all its lovely Sonic effects!) but trades performance for trapfinding, bonuses on disable device, and a few rogue talents (although maybe you should just take the Leadership feat and have an Archaeologist named River as your cohort...)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:

A sensei monk isn't a bad idea at all. Or sensei monk/rogue multiclass.

Needs martial artist though, to not have to be lawful. While his alignment shifts (as most "alignments" do when you try to apply them to characters outside of D&D) he doesn't really feel that strongly lawful. He seems to jump a lot between neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral and chaotic neutral.

The First Doctor was much more Lawful than any of his successors, so maybe a Sensei Monk who "falls" (around the time of his first reincarnation) and then progresses as a Rogue and/or spellcaster?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an NPC?

20th level Aasimar Oracle of Time with the Enlightened Philosopher archetype.

Aasimar makes him an outsider (Scion of Humanity is optional, but would fit depending on which doctor we are talking about), Oracle of Time is obvious, and enlightened philosopher gives you linguistics and all knowledge skills in class as well as the ability to spontaneously reincarnate at 20th level. I would probably give him Tongues as his curse for the ability to understand all languages by the time he reaches that level, and the downside is not that crippling for a character that goes out of his way to *prevent* conflict - you could always have him default to technobabble in a crisis!

If you want a *PC* based on the Doctor,You might want to consider the Detective archetype for the bard (the bardic music abilities are much more "doctor-ish" than the ones they replace - at 9th level you get to trick the bad guy into revealing his master plan! - plus you get the ability to disarm magical traps and a bucket load of divinations added to the bard spell list). I would also consider a Monk using the Sensei archetype, who trades direct damage for knowledges and the ability to buff his allies (and eventually save them).

I am working on something similar at the moment. I want to create more of a thematic distinction between arcane and divine magic, so in my campaign there will be only prepared arcane casters and only spontaneous divine casters. That gives us:

Arcane: Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard

Divine: Bard, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Shaman (Kobold Press version)

Clerics, druids, paladins, and sorcerors are gone. Rangers remain but as a non-spellcasting class (Skirmisher archetype by default - I'm in two minds whether or not to allow other non-casting archetypes)

I'm anticipating that Witches and Alchemists will have to step up to the plate and shoulder some of the burden of removing specific conditions (and to a lesser extent dishing out cures as well). That is going to significantly change both party dynamics and the society in which they operate - between alchemists and witches with the Cauldron hex, cure and/or remove ... arcane "healing" potions are going to be far more readily available than the equivalent spells from the various temples. Since the general population will be turning to arcane casters for their ills, the temples are going to have to find a new niche to fill in society...


My table, my gameworld, my rules.

I have a list of around 20 base classes that are allowed in my games (no prestige classes - that's my own prejudice, mainly carried over from D&D 3rd). This includes specific classes from 3PP (the Kobold Press Shaman being the most commonly used, as it replaces the standard Druid in my world). It also deliberately excludes certain classes from the core rulebook, while others have archetypes "by default" to fit the setting - Rangers not spellcasters, so use the skirmisher archetype by default; likewise, in my setting monasteries are centres of learning as much as martial training, so monks use the Sensei archetype by default.

I really don't see the reason for the 3PP prejudice. If there is an archetype I want for my game that is not covered by a Paizo product then of course I will look at 3PP products to fill the niche. Often, there are more than one available, so I can choose between them and edit them if I wish (I have added some setting specific totem secrets to the Kobold Shaman, for example).

This may change when the Advanced Class Guide comes out. At the very least, I will have to choose whether to keep using the Kobold Shaman or convert everything over to the "official" version. If my dreams come true and there is a "DIY" class generator, I may be able to go over to using my own classes which are purpose built for my game. But in the meantime, selective use of 3PP products is necessary for the games I run.

Artanthos wrote:

New classes should not be "better" than existing classes.

No, but arguably hybrid classes should be "better" than the equivalent multiclass (compare Magus with a multiclass Fighter/Wizard)

Of course, there are multiple definitions of "better" in this case - personally, I would like to see them better themed, better balanced, and better supported. More powerful should not factor into the equation...

I played a half-elf druid/cleric (evenly split) in 3.5. I haven't tried it in Pathfinder, but a lot of the issues will carry over:

What level is the campaign, and how far do you intend to go? This kind of multiclass excels at low-mid levels (CLR3/DRD4 is the sweet spot), but is going to lose out if you plan on taking the campaign up to high level - he will inevitably start to favour one of the two classes and regret missing out on getting the higher level spells as early as other characters.

Is he looking at using metamagic feats down the road? If so then he is going to NEED those high level spell slots.

How does the player use his magic? If he casts a lot of healing and buff/debuff spells, then low levels of both makes a very potent supporting character. On the other hand, if he wants direct combat spells then he needs to keep his caster level in one class as high as he can - both for damage dice and to overcome spell resistance.

What is his Wisdom score? If he has a comparatively low casting stat (say WIS 13/14) then multiclassing in two classes that use the same stat is a more viable option, as it makes better use of his bonus spell slots and he may reach the point where his WIS is too low to actually cast 7th or 8th level spells.

Having said all that, I would not consider a CLR/DRD multiclass in pathfinder. If he wants cleric for the extra healing, then Witch with a patron of Healing (as has been mentioned) or up to 3 levels as an Oracle of either Nature or Life would make for much better options.

I would also say (as a DM) that if he already has a patron deity from being a druid then if he takes levels of cleric he MUST be a cleric of the same deity. A druid who worships nature in its own right *might* be able to discover faith in a god(ess) and multiclass as a cleric, which would make for a really interesting subplot, but a druid with a patron deity could not become a cleric of another deity, or none at all. His deity is going to be somewhat annoyed if the character turns around and says "I revere you for your power over nature, but NOT ENOUGH to worship you as a cleric"...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As has been said, I'd like to see official Paizo versions of:

Shaman (spontaneous caster using the druid list)

I'd like to see a spontaneous necromancer base class, akin to the dread necromancer in 3.5 (could be based on the summoner, but doesn't have to be)

Also "quick fix" archetypes for the Fighter, Rogue and Monk that put them on a par with the other core and base classes. Not total rewrites of the classes, but the option as a GM to say "X class uses Y archetype by default" to make them balanced - I already do it with rangers (I dislike the "and a little bit of casting" classes, so I run rangers with the skirmisher archetype as a default setting - if you want a little bit of casting, multiclass druid or cleric)

and DIY class rules, as per the Skills & Powers supplementrs for 2E.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Or you could make them roll fortitude DC 10+ spell level every time they cast a spell. Failure= sickened for a number of rds equal to the spell level. Save for 1 rd duration.

That ought fire this bad boy right up!

(3.5 ed) Dragonlance had the "Curse of the Magi" mechanic which worked something like that. IIRC, first failure = fatigued, fail while fatigued = exhausted, fail while exhausted = unconscious. In my experience (having DMed Dragonlance a few times) it made spellcasters more careful about what they cast and when.

I'm also a fan of extended casting times - One round per level is not unreasonable (although it makes spells like Haste a bit of a no-brainer...)

I'm considering working up a specialty priest class for my Draonlance conversion (DL had specialty priests back in 1st ed AD&D, along with spheres and schools of magic, before they became D&D "standard" in 2nd).

But if I do I would work it off the Oracle base class not Cleric, with each god granting a unique mystery, for 3 main reasons:

Revelations - a ready made mechanic to insert deity specific special abilities. Some of these can be dragged and dropped directly from the Oracle Mysteries (Mishakal = Life, Gilean = Lore, Reorx = Metal etc), others allow you to take abilities from other classes without multiclassing (Priests of Majere get monk abilities, Priests of Branchala get Bardic Music, Priests of Hidukel get Rogue Skills)

Spell Selection - Specialty priests (ESPECIALLY in 1st ed DL) had very limited spell selection, which fits better with the Oracle's limited range of Spells Known rather than the Cleric's "One List to Rule Them All". Plus, Mystery spells provide the perfect mechanic to say "all Priests of X can cast Y" - I know Domains do this to a certain extent, but since all gods grant more than 2 domains it is perfectly possible to play a Cleric of Mishakal *without* the Healing Domain, which makes no sense to me - plus you only get one domain spell at each level per day, which hardly makes it a signiture ability.

Batteries Not Included - Some of the "standard" Cleric class features do not gel with the old Specialty Priesthoods. Spontaneous Healing *really* doesn't fit: several of the gods of good only granted minor access to the healing sphere, and some of the neutral deities didn't even allow that. On the other side, only one evil deity granted major access to the reverse forms (inflict ...). Likewise Turning was pretty rare - only 3 deities in DL 1e granted the ability to Turn Undead, and only two granted the ability to Control - much better to make Channeling (and its variants) a Revelation specific to those deities than something all Clerics get, even if some of them never use it.

So there you go - my fix for specialty priests: Deity Specific Oracles...

PS - I would drop the curse mechanic, or at least make it an optional feature (both Elistan and Crysania in the books had traits that would fit the "curses" - Wasting Sickness and Blindness, respectively). The way I see it, specialty priests are restricted enough by having to adhere to their deity's code of conduct without throwing a curse on top.

The "Races of Krynn" supplement for Dragonlance (3.5 D&D) had stats for half-elves, half-kender, half-dwarves, half-ogres, half-gnomes, and half-goblins, all of which should be fairly easily converted to Pathfinder, should you feel that way inclined.

It was also hinted (by way of in-game legends IIRC) that Gully dwarfs were the product of in(ter)breeding by several generations of half-dwarf/half-gnomes, but generally you're right that half-whatever normally only allows for the other half being human.

This is awesome! I'm working on my own PF/Dragonlance campaign and I just spent an hour reading the entire thread.

@Gambit: I'm also NOT a fan of the Age of Mortals setting (in fact pretty much anything after the penultimate chapter of DoSF) so I will also be using a variant of the Age of Dragons "Alternate" timeline rom LotT.

In my version, Alchemy is a way of tapping into the ambient magic left behind during the Chaos War. It was discovered by the gnomes meddling with things they did not understand (no surprise there!), but when they realized its destructive potential it was rapidly seized upon by both the Knights of Solamnia and the Knights of Neraka, leading to an alchemical arms race of sorts. Since it does not come from the moons, and has abilities (ie healing) that are not associated with High Sorcery the Orders are leaving it alone - for now! It is also believed to be the key to creating Ogre Titans, but no mortal alchemist has figured out how to create such a radical, permanent transformation.

I run Bards as divine spellcasters, drawing their power from one of the non-lawful deities (usually Gilean, Branchala, Hiddukel, or Sirrion but others are possible); conversely Inquisitors serve the Lawful gods. In this way, every god grants power to at least one of Druids, Bards, or Inquisitors as well as Clerics.

Clerics are house ruled a bit to bring them more into line with the old specialty priests from 1st/2nd ed AD&D - primarily this affects the way domains work.

I hate Prestige Classes with a passion, so Knights are run as Cavalier Orders - although I might borrow the suggestion to run them as Samurai instead. There is only one "order" for the Dark Knights - Knights of the Thorn should be multiclass cavalier/wizards while Knights of the Skull should be multiclass clerics.

Wizards are also tweaked - they can only specialise in one of the schools (or focussed schools) favoured by their order, and gain the benefit of moon magic at 4th level. Then they gain an "Arcane Secret" at 8th level and every 4 levels after that, which can be one of the arcane discoveries from Ultimate Magic, one of the Order Secrets from the DL sourcebooks, or one of the Kingfisher abilities. I'm not sure how to work renegade wizards - I may rework each of the Orders of High Sorcery as an Archetype (along with Knights of the Thorn)rather than trying to have one class to rule them all.

I am tempted to allow the Witch class for arcane spellcasters trained outside the Orders of High Sorcery, particularly among the Kagonesti or human nomads, but I am struggling to fit them into the cosmology as written. If I did, they would be tolerated by the Orders privided they had one of the moons as their Patron but they would not be part of the Orders as they come from a different tradition. "Witches" are referred to in the books, I'm just not sure the Pathfinder Witch class is the best fit for the powers they are described as having...