Ronnam's page

I just learned about the nerf, mid-fight, still grumpy about it.

Was the following approach to nerfing this feat considered instead? The next time I GM, I think I'll house rule it this way:

Benefit: Choose either kinetic damage or one of acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. If you choose kinetic damage, you gain damage reduction equal to half your base attack bonus. If you choose acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic, you gain energy resistance against that type of energy equal to your base attack bonus.

I like a lot about the new rule set, but I'm not a fan of the +1 per level for everything, because it diminishes character-customization. The mechanic of +x per level was adopted in 4th edition D&D and was one of the reasons myself and others chose Pathfinder over 4th edition.

But if Paizo is going to stick with +1 per level for everything, please at least adopt one change that 4th edition did right on this point: have no prerequisites for the feat called Skill Training (the feat that lets you gain proficiency in a new skill). The 4th edition PHB (page 201) says Skill Training has no prerequisites, but the PF2 version of Skill Training (page 171) requires Intelligence of 12. That means you have to have at least Intelligence 12 to unlock the opportunity to become proficient in a new skill. But many skills are not related to Intelligence, and this rule feels like an unfair barrier to the option of customizing skill choices. I see no upside in constraining player choice like this. Plenty of people with perfectly average intelligence pick up new skills later in life. (The 5th ed feat "Skilled" lets you become proficient in 3 new skills when you choose it, with no prerequisites.)

Please remove prerequisites for the Skill Training feat.

I put these handouts together to help my players navigate the first starship combat from Incident on Absalom Station. I thought they were decent enough that others might get some use out of them.

Go to Starship First Combat Rules.

The description of Acrobatics doesn't really explain what happens if you fail the check when attempting to move through a square that's threatened or occupied by an enemy. Am I missing something? Are folks falling back to the 3.5 rules on this? (3.5 was explicit that if you try to tumble through a threatened square and fail, you complete your move but provoke an AOO. If you try to tumble through an occupied space and fail, you stop before entering the enemy-occupied area and provoke.) Thanks!

In Pathfinder, there are a lot of spell-like abilities granted by classes. In WotC's Spell Compendium, the language of "lesser spell immunity" was revised in such a way that it blocked all "spell-like effects." PF Core Rulebook uses the traditional 3.5 language, which is more ambiguous: spell immunity "protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks." I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?

I designed a channeling item, and was intrigued when one of the judges commented on the fact that they'd received lots of those... but apparently they didn't make it into the top 32. Well, I would really like to see them. One of the reasons I designed a channeling item is that I'm playing a cleric and I'd like some options for magic items that enhance that power.

So if you made a channeling item, please post it here. Thank you!

To get things rolling, here is mine:

PRAYER BEADS OF THE REDEEMED SEPULCHER
Aura moderate necromancy [good]; CL 10th
Slot none; Price 13,000 gp; Weight -
Description
Malevolent necromancers and similar villains take great pleasure infesting holy burial sites with the living dead. If the undead are driven away and such places cleansed, it is common to consecrate the location by erecting a small shrine. In these shrines, virtuous clerics fashion these long strings of prayer beads. Such prayer beads may be tied to, and untied from, any holy symbol. When using a holy symbol with these prayer beads attached to channel positive energy, the user's cleric level is treated as two higher than normal for purposes of channeling positive energy, and the user may choose to reduce the number of dice she rolls in exchange for any combination of the following benefits. The user may reduce the positive energy unleashed by: 1d6 to increase the DC of the Will save undead make by 1 (up to +4), and 2d6 to increase the radius of the positive energy burst by 5 feet (up to +20 feet). One can benefit from only a single set of prayer beads at a time.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, 10th-level cleric; Cost 6,500 gp

Consecrate and desecrate are omitted from the Beta, meaning the 3.5 version applies. But the 3.5 version boosts/hinders turning, not the channeling of positive/negative energy. So these two spells should be revised for Pathfinder and included in the final version.

Table 5-3 provides no indication of where someone should look for a Use Rope check. For the sake of backwards compatibility, I suggest that there be a clear rule if Use Rope ever comes up when playing a non-PF adventure. I suggest that if a Use Rope check is ever called for, the PC should be able to use the best of Knowledge (dungeoneering) or a relevant Profession (like sailor). Just my 2 coppers.

I advocate excising the restrictiveness and unnecessary complexity of the following rule, which seems to be an unhelpful relic of 3.5.

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

I would rewrite as follows:

Upon reaching a new level, a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

I've house-ruled this, and it certainly hasn't harmed play balance. Rather, it makes the guy playing a sorcerer happier.

I have enjoyed the flavor text connected to each of the bloodlines. Those descriptions are concise and evocative.

But it made me realize how little flavor language there is for the other classes. I suggest adding some flavor text for everyone else. Even a line or two would be welcome. Thank you.

My 12th level rogue in a high-danger campaign (Rappan Athuk) keeps falling prey to magical attacks calling for Will saves.

I'm looking for something to help improve his Will save, or that otherwise helps protects his mind from enchantments and the like. E.g., the mindvault from MIC seemed kind of appealing, but too expensive for a 1/day item.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

In one of the 4e forums re adding 4e elements to 3.5, I proposed some healing spells for a cleric that enables other characters to heal themselves during combat (like an "imbue with spell ability" dedicated solely to healing). The idea was to have something like a healing surge, but it still costs the cleric resources and it still requires magic to restore hp, which flavor-wise I prefer to catching your second wind. It was suggested I post them over here: