Scottbert's page

I just use Planescape, with the added assumption that the Plane of Shadow connects to alternate-universe versions of everything (IE, the typical plane of shadow is 'shallow' shadow, in the same manner as the 'shallow' ethereal is coexistant with the prime material. Just as crossing the deep ethereal can reach 'shallow' ethereal coexistant with the inner planes, so can you cross 'deep' shadow to reach shallow shadow coexistant with other worlds.

Ah man, I love JamesTheBard's sheet too.
What Bacon666 says should work, but if you lost your copy and for anyone else who wants it:

His site went away, and the new one is misprogrammed so its download links don't work. Here's the right one:

Modified Neceros Sheet 1.0.8

You may also want to take a look at Abellius's version.
I like his inventory page better, but think the spell page is worse. Maybe I can merge them...

TL;DR SIMPLIFIED VERSION

Simple example question:
Can a Magus/Wizard use Spell Combat and Spellstrike with a Shocking Grasp prepared in a wizard spell slot without the Broad Study Magus Arcana?

Justification:
While the Magus can cast 'magus spells' in light armor, just as the bard can cast 'bard spells' in light armor, Spell Combat and Spellstrike use the unusual language 'spell on the magus spell list' when determining which spells can be used with them. Broad Study uses 'spells from the spell list of that class' to determine which additional spells can be used.
This seems to indicate that a multiclass magus can use spell combat and spellstrike with spells cast from other classes' slots, as long as the spells are also on the magus spell list, although he will suffer arcane spell failure even in light armor.

It seems that RAW says yes to my question, and after considering it I honestly can't tell if RAI is yes or no. It depends on if you think the following is a good idea, or abusive:

Why would anyone care?
Because a Magus(1 or 2)/Wizard6/Eldritch Knight would be a new variety of gish, separate from the single-classed Magus and the traditional Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight.
Compared to the traditional EK, the new build gives up 1 BAB and a feat, but can cast some spells in the same round as attacking (and even spellstrike them if they give up an additional caster level), which is especially useful for self-buffs (time spent buffing being one of the EK's usual weaknesses), and can also temporarily enchant his magic weapon with certain handy +1-cost enchantments.
Compared to the single-classed magus, the new build gives up improved spell combat, spell recall, arcana and a lot of the cool things it can do with its arcane points (but then, it won't have a big pool anyway), in return for having access to the entire wizard spell list and eventually reaching 7-9th level spells -- it can better fulfill the utility role with the wider spell list, and it can use effects more powerful than any magus (although it can't use them with spell combat!)
There may also be some other builds that can make use of this to do new things.

Going to play in a game tomorrow. I'm going to try a unicorn fighter-mage. So I have a question:

Advanced Horn Magic -- is it intended to allow Unicorn warriors to fight entirely using telekinesis?

As currently written, it both says 'Benefit: While using Mage Hand, you may make any action that would normally require up to two hands. You may even wield weapons or shields, but normal attack limits apply.', but doesn't explicitly supercede 'Concentration for Mage Hand becomes easier, taking only a move action.' from Practiced Horn Magic.

This could mean that unicorns using Advanced Horn Magic have to spend a move action every round to maintain it. While this might have some situational uses, and serve as a more limited Hand of the Apprentice, that seems kind of weak for a two-feat investment. (Additional complication: You still have to spend a /standard action/ to cast mage hand and draw your weapons at the start of a fight. I think swift or free-action casting of a cantrip might make sense given the feat investment)

I read the intent here as being to allow such character concepts, especially since with its bonus feat a unicorn pony can take both feats at first level. If that is the case, the wording here probably could use some errata. (It gets further complicated when we consider unicorn warrior-mages who might want to cast other spells while using telekinesis. Is this allowed?)

On the other hand, if the intent here is to give unicorns a 'hand of the apprentice'-like option to attack (but not full-attack) or grab a shield to defend themselves at the cost of their movement, this should probably also be explicit.

Edit:
I noticed that Extended Horn Magic fixes this issue, so maybe the intent is to require it too. On the other hand, this means a unicorn telekinesis any-warrior-type-but-fighter isn't viable at 1st level, which doesn't seem right, unless Extended + Practiced Horn Magic is enough to let you 'wield' a one-handed weapon (or perhaps a shield)?
Game fell through so I can't comment on rules in play yet.

The Advanced Races Guide says that planetouched become adults in their 60s, and live 250-850 years.
Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends don't mention this at all, and in fact Blood of Fiends specifically says that even tieflings of nonhuman descent share the human lifespan.

So which is correct? I'm playing an Aasimar in Pathfinder Society, and I want to make sure my background is legit.

If that doesn't answer your question, then please re-phrase it briefer and clearer.

That's my reading too.

Perhaps I should post this here?

...As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)...

Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack...

As written, this would allow a magus to spell combat/spellstrike spells from wizard (or other class) slots, as long as they are spells on the magus spell list. Curiously, Broad Study uses the same wording:

The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class.

This is certainly self-consistent and has a clear meaning: A magus/wizard can spell combat with shocking grasp from a wizard slot, but not, for instance, burning arc. But he can if he takes broad study -- potentially useful for, say, a Magus/Wizard/Eldritch Knight that would rather have the wider wizard spell list than magus class features or something (although they'll need to take three levels in Magus and won't see EK until 9th level if they want to cast wizard-only spells while stabbing things.) Likewise, a magus/cleric could spell combat with Obscuring Mist or Infernal Healing from his cleric slots, but not with Cure Light Wounds unless he takes the arcana.

Common interpretation seems to be that all three of these wordings are meant to read '_____ spells' or 'spells recieved from the _____ class' instead of 'spells from the _____ spell list', as in

...He can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance...A multiclass magus still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.

Which would make it so that the magus only casts spells from magus spell slots with spell combat, and Broad Study lets him use other classes' slots. (If the wording is changed in Spell Combat/Spellstrike and not in Broad Study, Broad Study becomes useless)

Was the wrong wording used in these three places, or am I misunderstanding the meaning of 'spells from the _____ spell list', or is my reading correct?

Was there an official answer somewhere? My post a couple up wasn't definitive, and I still think the way it reads is probably not the way it was intended.

Yeah I totally misread your post, whoops.

Then there's the exception for when the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class. If "from the magus spell list" is supposed to be specifically saying it only works for magus spells, then it becomes circular.

Everywhere else it's used, "classname spells" means "spells cast from a classname slot" (an important distinction, because other abilities you have might give you access to spells from other spell lists or something). Otherwise a wizard could dip a class that can cast in armor and then get to cast any spells on both lists without ASF, even from wizard slots, which seems weird but I suppose could be RAI.

"spells on the classname spell list" seems to mean exactly what it says -- there is no reason to use this language when "classname spells" is established and available language.

So I guess at the moment it's still up to a DM's interpretation. At least we seem to agree on the RAW though, for what that matters. I'm surprised this unusual use of language hasn't been errataed yet, though.

Grick I just wanted to thank you for _finally_ getting me an answer on this. I'm a little surprised it hasn't come up in a FAQ, but I guess that entry covers it.

Amusingly, I noticed the exact same thing with the duskblade back in 3.5 (channel spell was _not_ limited to duskblade spells) and the Sage later confirmed my interpretation.

Magus/Wizard/Eldritch Knight may be my new favorite PF character, though I'll have to see how well it works in play.

I always saw it this way:
Good vs Evil in a nutshell:
A good character doesn't hurt innocent people, and even risk themselves to save strangers.
An evil character would almost never risk themself for another, and certainly not a stranger. They don't care if people get hurt by their actions.
A neutral character won't go out of their way to help strangers, but wouldn't hurt them just for their own benefit either.

There are probably some corner cases and the details of ethics and morality are quite complex of course, but this always seemed like a good rule of thumb to me and it clearly has space for 'neutral' people.

I noticed Witch Blade listed but with no entry on the wiki. Does that mean someone is working on it now but it just hasn't been finalized, or just that it's a good name for any Fighter/Witch MCA someone comes up with?

If it's in progress and needs testing, I might be able to give it a shot in a campaign starting soon.

I see this has come up before:

I don't disagree that RAI may be that it's "only magus spell slots", but that's NOT what it says. It says "only spells on the magus spell list." If they intended it to be "only magus spell slots", they could've easily just said that instead. Or even in addition.

I don't see how you could get more clear. It says "on the magus spell list." Is it on the magus spell list? You're fine. In a core rulebook FAQ it was stated as follows:

Quote:

General rule: If a class ability modifies your spellcasting, it applies to your spells from all classes, not just spells from the class that grants the ability. (The exception is if the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class.)

Since this "modified spellcasting" (by changing the action) and does not explicitly say "from that class". Instead it says "from that spell list", which is not the same as "from that class."

Again, I don't disagree that RAI may be that they intended "from magus spell slots only", but that's not what it says.

Broad Study still gives a huge benefit with this interpretation. For example, a Magus/Ranger could use it to cast Lead Blades as part of their full round and benefit from it immediately (rather than spending a separate turn to cast it). They could not do this without Broad Study as it's not on the Magus spell list.

StabbittyDoom sees exactly what I see, but didn't get a clarification either :/

And even if you develop Cure Light Wounds as, say, a 3rd level wizard spell, you can still use cheap cleric-crafted wands of it, so that's another balance concern (Although I suppose any GM allowing this in the first place could say that to be cast by an arcane caster it has become a completely different spell with a different name, even if it does the same thing, to prevent this)

Broad Study, again, isn't conclusive proof because it uses the same weird wording, and still provides a benefit under this interpretation -- For example, I've seen talk of a magus mystic theurge build that could benefit from spell combating their cleric spells that do things like healing -- even my hypothetical magus/wizard/eldritch knight would benefit from being able to use spell combat with _all_ his spells instead of just some of them.

I still think it should be clarified, consistent language is important in RPGs, especially D&D. Now, it's not the least convenient interpretation which is a guideline I usually go by -- however, apparently you really can arcane mark spellstrike for a free extra attack, and I thought that was ridiculous, as is being able to abuse big crit ranges to get double damage with spells, but apparently _that_ was actually intended. That said, I certainly wouldn't expect this alternate interpretation to fly with all GMs.

The intent of Spell Combat is that it does not work that way.

Can you provide a link to where you got that information?

Usually, spells cast from slots gained from a specific class are referred to by the language 'class spells', as in:

"A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."

"[A magus] can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."

And yet, in the wording of Spell Combat:

"...he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list..."

This is clearly different wording, which seems to potentially signify different intent: That a multiclass magus who can cast spells on the magus spell list through another class, might be able to do so with spell combat.

Yes, there is the broad study arcana. But once again, the strange wording appears: "The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class." Even with this interpretation of Spell Combat, Broad Study provides an advantage -- there are spells not on the magus spell list that might be handy to use with that ability, after all.

This interpretation provides for another class of gish between the magus and the eldritch knight -- a magus 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight or similar build would have pros and cons compared to the other two. Yes it gets spell combat, but it never gets the improved version, or arcana to allow using it with wands or other spells. Arcane armor training beyond light is impractical to learn as it lacks medium and heavy armor proficiency, and it lags a feat and 1 BAB behind the eldritch knight who takes a fighter level instead.

So, interpreting the language of spell combat this way is at least sensible, and while I am suspicious enough of it to make a post here, I don't find it blatantly obvious. 3.5's duskblade was able to channel spells from other classes, after all. My question is, what are the rules as intended here? Has a designer ever clarified?

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

While some of you seem against this, one of the things we want this system to do is to create different versions of existing races. We want people to make snow elves, half-dwarves, and goblins from Akiton and so on. Because of that some subtype requirements will probably stay, allowing specific iconic features to stay within their race. But we will have robust options for creating entirely new race abilities also.

I'm sorry, but I am having a difficult time understanding this. Nobody is against using the system to create different versions of existing races. We just don't see how requiring only elves get "Elven Magic" helps that. I can decide to include that feature in a new Snow Elf race, or decide to leave it out. The prerequisite is irrelevant to making sub-races. All it does it is prohibit me from making "Arcane Dwarves" with the same ability, even if it is a perfect fit for them. Yes, I can choose to ignore the prerequisite. But if everyone does, what is the point of using a line of text on it in the first place?

This is why I, and others, would love to see you "file off the serial numbers" and go for a fully modular system. Instead of "Elven Immunities," have an "immunity to sleep" ability and a "+2 vs. School" ability. You can recreate the Elven Immunities ability, or make your own "Slugfolk Immunities" from the same base. It is more robust and versatile, and in no way impacts the ability to create all the Snow, Moon, or Pudding Elves of your dreams.

This.

If a strong component of this product is the ability to create variant races from Golarion, then include a line somewhere that indicates that subtype requirements only apply to variant races in that campaign setting. After all, maybe in the DM's setting, elves aren't magical at all but are known for their speed. This will cut off rules arguments later, and also help assuage the little 'You're houseruling, you shouldn't be houseruling, what would the great god RAW think?!' voice another poster mentioned. We can still have things like Hardy require a +2 Con, as that's more generic.

(Although the specific case of hardy confuses me -- poison and magic resistance in combination is specifically a dwarven thing, but could also make sense for even a frail construct race, or a half-dwarf race that doesn't get the con bonus -- these bonuses should probably be purchased separately and not necessarily tied to con, although maybe they could have a discount if you already have a con bonus)

I could also see, maybe, offering a small discount on certain bundles of abilities (like Elven Immunities for Elves) if you still want to go the 'core races all the same RP cost' route or something similar, it might help numbers match up while also showing that that's because these are established golarion races.

We have a tool for GMs that's built as if it were a player resource.

We do want to keep in mind, in the final version, that it may be used by players, though even in that case the restriction mentioned probably shouldn't be kept except as a 'if you are making a custom Golarion creature guideline'. But I can totally see a GM saying 'This is set in Golarion but I'm allowing monsters or unique variants if you have the story to support it', or even 'This is a planar campaign, make up any bizarre prime material race you want'.

A thought on the 'only X type or subtype can take Y' issue:

I agree that it should be entirely optional, but it might serve well to keep it around as a guideline. While it has absolutely no bearing on campaigns with an entirely new set of races (or a very different interpretation of the old standbys), it might be useful if playing a game where the PCs are variants among the standard races -- ie, 'my elf has a special bloodline, so his abilities are slightly different, but still elven/fey' or 'my half-dwarf has a mix of human and dwarven abilities'

Also, seconded that, while we can assume the core races are close to balanced, making sure the components are as balanced as possible is more important here. While I have yet to closely compare them myself, it sounds like there is a problem from reading others' posts on the subject.

_Balanced_ rules for mixing powerful and less powerful races in a campaign are needed, even if they look like level adjustment.

We also need a way to play templated PCs, even if it's just level adjustment again. (Note:Although if you can come up with a more elegant system that doesn't hurt PCs and especially casters as much, that would be great)

Would it be okay to have ability ideas inspired by old 3.5 races to help people port them over in home campaigns? As long as you don't publish 'this set of abilities makes Shifter' or whatever...

Personally I'd love to see shapeshifter and draconic/outsider heritage abilities. Maybe even rules for having multiple forms you can switch between?

As to your second question, it will be run on this forum, as a play by post.

Play by post has never been my thing, alas. Best of luck with the game!

I would certainly be interested in a game, though I am not that familiar with Legacy of Fire... I'm pretty sure the Player's Guide _is_ free, I'm reading it now, I downloaded it long ago.

As for what to play, I am unsure... I tend towards arcane casters, especially those who can fight physically as well -- magus is my favorite class, I think, but I might try other things depending on the idea. For campaign hooks, I am most drawn to finding Heleen or joining the Pathfinders.

That said I am very into the combat side of the game as well as the roleplaying -- the tactical decisions appeal greatly to me, as well as the story decisions. I know this sort of playstyle doesn't appeal to some GMs.

What time are you planning to run this, online? What tools will you use? I recommend Maptool.

Have you looked here?

I use the Modified Neceros sheet myself, having found that I like it quite a bit. I don't recall much about the others, so I suggest nosing around.

That was where I found JameTheBard's sheet (the modified Neceros sheet). I don't think any others listed there were autocalc and intended for printing?

So far I have found JamesTheBard's 1.0.8 sheet, and Zumii's 2.5.2 sheet, but I am wondering, are there any others? (I found reference to at least two others, hosted on mysteriously defunct sites, on these boards). Especially any that are actually maintained?

Note that I am specifically looking for autocalc sheets which are also printable (they don't have to be PDF). I usually have a laptop at the table but would prefer to have the option of playing without one, hence my desire for printable sheets rather than simply tracking the stats on my computer. Not that the above sheets are bad, but I would like to see if there are any other options that I might like better, especially any landscape format sheets there might be. Sheets with room for handwritten annotations are a plus.

I have to say: I LOVE this idea and the options it gives players.

I don't love trying to search through this thread for the most recent version of whichever archetype I want to help analyze or playtest, though. In its current state, unless I've missed something, that makes these rules functionally unusable.

How about putting them up on a website or wiki or something where we can easily find the latest version of the archetypes? That would be great!

This is a great idea, best of luck with getting polished, balanced rules that give players more freedom of choice.

Decided to look over this system tonight, unaware of this thread, here are my results.

Conclusion: Any torso piece that is normally considered an entire armor on its own should probably be considered a category heavier when worn with other armor (and stone coat should not be allowed to combine with any other armor). I am also unclear as to why lamellar cuirass and leather lamellar torso piece are two different pieces of armor, they sound the same. I don't even know what's up with the speed changes -- hide, scale, and chain armor for instance are now 30' even as a full suit. Perhaps this is intentional, to elevate those choices above the breastplate, but it seems this should be noted as official errata somewhere if actually intended.

This system definately had some potential -- finer control over the max dex and check penalty and speed of your armor might encourage wider variety than chainshirt/elvenchain/breastplate/fullplate, and of course it's perfect for a game where the party must scavenge or for combination with called shot/hit location rules (perfect for that gritty campaign where pieces of your armor break), but as written it is extremely breakable. I wonder how much of this book was actually playtested?

Note: Armored skirt +1 AC 0%ASF -0ACP, increase armor category by one

0% ASF
Normal: Haramiki/silk ceremonial +1 AC
(No other)

-0 ACP (Wearable with no proficiency)
Normal: 10gp Leather: +2 AC +6MDex 10%ASF
Special: 1100gp Mithral chain shirt +4 AC +6MDex 10%ASF
Piecemeal: 22gp Lamellar cuirass + studded leather legs + leather arms +4AC +2MDex, 15%ASF

10% ASF (Cast at no ASF w/feat)
Normal: Leather +2 AC +6MDex -0ACP
Special: 1100gp Mithral chain shirt +4 AC +6MDex -0ACP
Piecemeal: 21gp Lamellar cuirass+wooden leg piece + padded arm piece +4AC, +3MDex, -1ACP

Light armor:
Normal: 100gp Chain shirt +4 AC +4MDex -2ACP 20%ASF
Special: 4200 GP Mithral Breastplate (medium prof) or Elven Chain (light prof), +6 AC, +4/5 MDex -1/2ACP 15/20%ASF
Piecemeal: 4220gp Mithral Do-Maru torso piece + Scale / Lamellar / Kikko arm and leg pieces (medium prof) +8 AC, +5MDex, -1ACP, 15%ASF

Medium Armor:
Normal: 200gp Breastplate +6 AC
Special: 11500gp Mithral Anyplate +9 AC (heavy prof)
Piecemeal: 220gp See Light, sans mithral (+8 AC, +3MDex, -4ACP, 25%ASF)
S Piecemeal: 10600gp Mithral Plate torso piece + O-yoroi leg piece + any arm piece +10 AC (heavy prof) +4MDex, -2ACP, 25%ASF

Heavy Armor:
Normal: 1500gp Plate +9 AC +1MDex, -6ACP, 35%ASF
Piecemeal: 810gp Stone coat + O-Yoroi leg piece + any arm piece +12AC, +0MDex, -7ACP, 40%ASF

It is a built in version of TWF is all, nothing to see here folks.

So what's the point of the Spellblade Magus then?

A friend of mine looking to play a Magus in an upcoming game noticed that combining Spellstrike and Spell Combat gets you an extra weapon attack. I didn't notice the potential for this because I started playing a Magus during the beta test, when there was language specifically prohibiting this:

Beta:

Spellstrike (Su):

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting this spell. If used with spell combat, this does not grant an additional attack.

Spellstrike (Su):

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Worse, if you can spellstrike Arcane Mark, this gets you unlimited attempts at extra attacks from level 1! (And if you can't, all you need is the ranged-to-melee arcana and cantrips can give you unlimited attempts later).

The removal of the specific language from the beta seems deliberate, but is this really the intent? Am I missing wording somewhere that prohibits this?

That was from september during the first Magus playtest, does it still apply to the revised magus?

I thought the obvious way to adjudicate this was that the spell doesn't crit if delivered through a weapon, but has a 20/x2 crit as normal if delivered through a touch attack.

Have you ever seen a shotgun being fired? They don't work that way!

I would like to see shotguns portrayed more realistically in _some_ game, maybe Pathfinder isn't the place for it, but what _is_ the appeal of shotguns firing in 90 degree cones? At least you didn't make it an easy reflex save to avoid the blast -- that would make them useless, rather than just weird. Anyway, just an issue that bugs me, in this game and others.

A few times in places discussing the Magus I have seen people claim that when casting a touch spell you can cast the spell, use your move action to move adjacent to a target, then make the touch attack, to avoid having to cast defensively.

I can't find where in the rules it says this.

The closest I can see is having your familiar deliver the spell (Since it has its own actions, it can move away from you and then make its own touch attack) or, as a magus, beginning spell combat while 10' away, casting the spell into your weapon with spellstrike, and then 5' stepping up to your target and making your weapon attacks. Of course you can also cast one round, hold the charge, and then move into position and attack on subsequent rounds, but this sounds more like a strategy to use when you desperately cannot afford to fail that concentration check rather than something to use regularly.

Is this people getting mixed up, a common houserule, or what?

It doesn't seem right for a Magus to be a source of loads of known spells.

I suggest stipulating that spells obtained temporarily through this feature
1. Cannot be written into a spellbook,
2. Cannot be written into a scroll (or any other spell trigger or spell completion item, see next post). (You might rule that it can't be used for item crafting prerequisites in general -- that's a wizard's specialty, and the magus shouldn't be better than the wizard at it).

Edit: Alternately, if you like the idea that Magi can quickly know every spell on their list, either
1. Make them 'know' all the spells on their list but still prepare each day, like a druid or cleric, instead of using a spellbook, and make them unable to write spellbooks (this is probably the simpler of the two), or
2. Stipulate that other classes cannot use/copy from Magus spellbooks.
Either of these still leaves scrolls as a potential problem, and disallowing other classes from using Magus scrolls introduces the same problem as the Eberron Artificer had -- Now the DM has a third type of scroll to track in treasure. I'm not sure what to suggest there.

Overall, it looks pretty awesome. I wish I were in a pathfinder game so I could play one!

I agree that Dispelling arcana sounds kind of expensive.

Also, I am slightly sad that the one hand free specification precludes a Magus from kicking butt with a staff (Unless it's a staff with spells in it), am I the only one in the world who wants to see a mage that can fight well with his staff as well as spells?

Maptools has shown itself to be pretty awesome to me -- although you'll only get the most out of it if you have someone in your group that understands how to program macros, but if you do they can speed up combat SO MUCH.

I never really used much 3rd party stuff, I used some of the Dreamscarred Press psionics stuff, but never got to do so extensively in a long-lived game.

Player: "But what about snipers in Iraq? They shoot people in the head all the time."

The game totally supports this. Snipers have rogue levels (the skill required to accurately aim for a vital point), their targets are unaware of them and thus denied dex bonus to AC (and thus vulnerable to sneak attacks) and their sniper rifles are special equipment that increase the range allowed for ranged sneak attacks tremendously.

If the player wants to play a rogue crossbow sniper (IIRC there's a feat somewhere to double sneak attack distance to 60'?) he totally can -- but he has to invest his character in the idea. You can't just expect your average soldier to pull off shots like that, even if you get them a fancy sniper rifle.

Is it theoretically possible? Yes.

Is it practical? I don't know, but I seriously doubt there are enough DS/DSi owners who don't also have a smartphone or something to make the cost of developing and manufacturing a 'Pathfinder RPG: Character Info' cartridge worthwhile for whoever would undertake it.

That said, there are 'flash carts' that will run homebrew software on the DS. It may be possible that there is an amateur programmer somewhere who also plays Pathfinder and has a DS with flashcart and will think this a good enough idea to write it as a hobby -- I wouldn't count on it though. A goog search for "ds programming" or similar phrases will likely find sites where DS programmers congregate -- If you're going to go looking for one, good luck!

One thing I was delighted to see in the PRD/Bestiary is actual guidelines for custom monsters -- the lack of this in 3.5 always irked me, and the (relatively) simple process for creating basic monster statistics is one of the things I like about 4e.

(I'm referring to this: Monster Creation )

That said, this still involves a lot of checking tables and such. Has anyone made a digital tool where you can plunk in type, CR, and role, and get some baseline statistics to tweak? It seems like such an obvious thing to me, but the 'monster builder' tools I can find just add templates and levels to existing monsters which, while useful, isn't helpful if I'm making a unique monster.

As a DM, I don't use weight unless someone's doing something really egregious (Like carrying an object that's probably a heavy load all on its own). The problem is, tracking the weight of every single fiddly little item is too much work unless you're using excel spreadsheets to track inventory or something -- even then, you have to look up the weight of items when handing out treasure.

As a player, I try to make it a nonissue by purchasing a handy haversack at the first opportunity -- I seriously doubt my carried gear exceeds its capacity -- if it does, I'm probably rich enough to buy a second one. I will sometimes track weight when making a low-level, low-str character, but don't worry about it beyond making sure they can carry their starting gear. I've never had a GM who was a stickler for the weight rules -- again, it's only come up when a particularly heavy object is picked up (usually another character).

While I have yet to get a chance to play a Magus, I HAVE played something similar before, which might give some insight into how to 'fix' the Magus if it's as bad as posters seem to be indicating.

First off, I _love_ the idea of mixing magic and melee. Buffing and running into a fight is okay, I guess, channeling spells is great, being able to fight _and_ cast spells at the same time is _awesome_.

Back in the 3.5 days, I had an idea for a character and, at first, no idea how to implement them: Wizards are often carrying around quarterstaves, but they aren't good with them. I wanted to make a wizard who could kick butt with his quarterstaff while throwing spells in the middle of melee. (I am sad that the Magus can't do his thing with a staff)

For me, a lot of the fun of optimization is making what sounds like a really sub-par (in D&D's mechanics anyway) character idea and making it work. Eventually, I found what looked like a good combo:
1. the Havoc Mage prestige class, whose _thing_ is, like the Magus, attacking and casting in the same round -- Instead of penalties, it was limited to one attack and one spell per round, though.
2. Combat Expertise - trade attack bonus for AC? My spells don't _need_ good attack bonus, I can block attacks with my staff while casting!
3. Staff Fighting - +2 to AC when fighting defensively (and, any sane DM would hopefully rule, when using combat expertise)! With this, I at last have a _reason_ for a mage to use a staff!

I played this character through many dungeons, from 4th-9th level, before the campaign petered out. Once he got Battlecasting, the last piece of his combo, he was awesome. Not only could he attack and cast, he could benefit from it, making himself harder to hit -- and with his investment in staff fighting (TWF was a prereq), he wasn't too shabby at plain old physical combat when trying to conserve his spells (Which was good, because DMs in this campaign weren't shy about throwing a lot of encounters per day at us). He could even combat expertise at full and play tank!

Maybe such a character is overpowered, and I recognize that you can't make the Magus use the same mechanic as the Havoc Mage, but I hope there's an idea in this concept somewhere that's helpful to the Magus concept.

You could ask your GM about the possibility of allowing a 'transform familiar' ritual to let you change one familiar into another.

I used this to upgrade my cat to a tressym in an old 3.5 game, but cat to smarter-poisonimmune-wingedcat is less of a stretch than cat-to-pseudodragon.

In my own PF game (Concluded early this spring), I allowed
PF Core material
WOTC 3.5 material
Some d20 modern/future material (There was some dimension-crossing, and guns and related feats got into the mix, some enemies used mecha)
Dreamscarred Press material
third-party, homebrew, and Dragon material if reviewed by me first (this didn't come up much, a little Dragon stuff was used, races and fighter variants. One NPC I used was a homebrew alchemist from the boards)

However, we had converted from a 3.5 game (In which I allowed some PF Beta material after it came out).

If I were to run a game now... I would recommend PF material, but if someone has an idea that works better with 3.5 options, fine. DSP stuff is good, and anything else run by me. However, I am someone who is actually familiar with a lot of 3.5 stuff, and I have enough 3.5 min-max experience to know what to expect and throw harder stuff at my party, and I can trust my players not to try to use any charop theoretical-only stuff.

To a GM with less extensive knowledge of 3.5 stuff, I would recommend PF material (look if you're GMing you can take the time to at least glance over most of the player material in the core book and APG), along with Dreamscarred Press PF Beta material if someone wants psionics, and then have players run anything else by you, with the caveat that if you can't understand it or they can't convince you it's not broken it will be disallowed and even then it will only be allowed on a probationary basis. Of course, this should vary somewhat according to how well you can trust your players not to try to slip stuff past you.

Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and the Warlock present special problems as they use unique systems to do things. If a player wants to use one of these, see if you can spare the time to read the relevant class entry, and the options (soulmelds, invocations, maneuvers, whatever) that the particular player wants and evaluate those. After all, you don't need to learn what every maneuver in the book does if they're only going to be using a few -- especially if you're starting at a fairly low level so they'll only start with a few and gain options at an easy-to-absorb pace as they level up. And especially if someone wants to use a feat to take like, one soulmeld or maneuver, there's really no reason to not look over the one thing.

If you're at all skeptical about something possibly getting out of control, read the relevant rules in as restrictive a manner as the writing allows and see if it would still be too powerful.

Of course, I'm a very open-minded GM and love the idea of a world where all of these things can coexist in the same setting. I don't like restrictive settings, but if you think that, say, psionics just doesn't fit into your world (sigh, but they're so neat!), then your players will just have to deal. That said, in that case listen to players who just like the mechanics of something and are willing to reflavor it to something that does fit into your world.

So that's my 2 cents.

I like psionics, but like 90% of DMs I talk to do not.

Top 3 reasons given for disallowing psionics:

They don't want to learn a whole new system, even if it's 90% similar to the magic system they already know ('If it's so similar, why not just use magic?' sigh.)

They let someone play a psion once and they were a total munchkin taking advantage of the DM not having mastered the psionics (or perhaps in general) rules -- therefore they want nothing more to do with psionics.

They don't like the fluff of mind-powers and can't see how it would fit into their setting. ('Look, I just like the point system and some of the powers, can I reflavor it as magic?' 'Just play a mage already!' sigh.)

Occasionally I hear 'I don't have the rulebooks' from someone who doesn't know about the SRD, but upon being told about said SRD they fall back to one of the excuses above.

Surprisingly only very rarely do I hear "Well I tried psionics back in 1st/2nd/3.0 and it was broken" or a misconception that psionics-magic transparency isn't the default assumption.

SeanKReynolds's theory is interesting.

The way I tried to handle it:
_most_ NPCs are not that powerful, only 1-3rd level in a class. Those higher are particularly notable, and anyone level 5 or over is either extremely talented or dealing with PC-like adventures and hazards to get those levels. This was based on an article I read awhile back that showed how past 5th level, characters were effectively superhuman.

This would make 1st-level folks those who have just finished their apprenticeship (or wizard school or whatever), 2nd and 3rd level folks those who've gained some experience at their job, 4th level folks are those with significant talent and skill... on Earth they'd be among the best in their fields... and 5th and above they're legends to some degree,

This actually probably works well for converting fictional characters that weren't especially powerful (like in Lord of the Rings), but it broke down when I needed elite troops for the BBEG to throw at the heroes in my own campaign. I couldn't explain where so many near-PC-level folks came from (Like, level 10+) -- fortunately, my players didn't ask.

Okay, now I read over the thread.

Re: Malachi and alignment determining action:
I don't like this idea, though I think there's a bit of merit to it.
Yes, the guy with 10 STR can't do really heavy lifting. But he can work out and get stronger (Admittedly, the game mechanics represent this poorly -- a +1 increase every few levels... This is because, generally, if someone wants to be strong, either they did it in their background already, or they use magic to do it now. Who wants to play the weak fat guy who's sick of being out of shape? That said, if someone wanted this kind of development, I'd reccomend they start with sub-par ability scores, then be allowed to improve them faster, or all at once after a character-redefining decision and some downtime).
Basically, people can change. That's called character development. However... Changing is not easy. If someone does something dramatically 'against their alignment', I would ask them to rethink if they're _sure_ their character would do that, and explain their reasoning. (It may be that the player is having an off day or something). However, if they can explain it, they should be allowed to do it. Whether one action changes their alignment depends on how significant it was, and how they react to it. If a good character takes candy from the Evil jar and then is horrified at their own actions and set forth to atone for it, always regretting their mistake... They're probably not changing alignment. If however, they decide that man doing things this way is so much easier, and there's no way they could go back now... They are likely on the path to evil.

On inadvertent acts:
Paladin's Code aside, if a character is tricked into doing something against their usual predispositions, or accidentally takes a counter-alignment action for in-alignment reasons, their reaction determines how it affects their alignment. Someone gave the example of an evil character who goes around hurting others who accidentally kills someone even worse and saves a lot of people. There are a few possibilities here:
1. The feeling of having actually helped people is nice, and he wants to try more of this. He's probably on his way to becoming a Noble Demon-type or maybe even outright redeeming himself into a good guy.
2. The praise and rewards given to him are pretty sweet, he should try to get this more often. His motivation isn't different, he's just found a new way to express it. Staying evil (Although on a course of behavior that may allow possibility 1 to eventually occur in the future)
3. He goes on his merry way, never finding out that he inadvertantly saved a town or whatever. Or, neither the warm fuzziness of a good act nor the praise and rewards make an impression. Either way, staying evil.
Now the other way around! A paladin determines that cowardly assassinating a tyrant is the only way to do a great good for the oppressed people -- Trying to change the system, or face him in honorable combat, just won't work. (Or perhaps he's a newbie paladin not as devoted to his code as he should be and tries to take the easy way out)
0. He broke his code, he is losing his paladin powers whichever way he goes.
1. He constantly questions whether that was really the right thing to do. Could he have found another way if he'd tried harder? Will this be teaching people the wrong example? He's let his god and his order down, but he still holds the same ideals. He will stay LG and seek atonement.
2. That was pretty liberating. Sure he no longer has holy powers, but with his new freedom, maybe he doesn't need them. Now he can get things done. If the only lawful thing about him was following the Paladin's Code, he is likely shifting over to Neutral or Chaotic. He may hold other lawful beliefs and behavior outside the code that keep him lawful, however.
3. Now that he's done this 'bad' deed, how can he ever go back? Atoning would be too hard, and he's not sure he wants to anyway. He may as well look for other ways to do things more easily. Depending on how much of his ideals he loses and discards, he could end up anywhere on the alignment chart.

On intent vs action:
Again, _reaction_ is also important, because it can affect the character's motivation in the future. However, intent wins: Someone who always tries to do the right thing and, through sheer bad luck, keeps causing bad consequences, is still Good (If they weren't, they'd stop caring enough to try. Note that this character is so colossally unlucky that their attempt to become a hermit so as to avoid accidentally hurting people _still_ manages to backfire). Bad luck is not the same as negligence and carelessness. If you don't care about others enough to motivate you to be more careful in your 'good' acts, are you really Good?
This also includes _all_ the intent: "I will sacrifice this child to seal away the demon so he will stop terrorizing the village" does include the intent to seal a demon and save a village, but it _also includes_ the intent to _sacrifice a child_, which is Not Good. If the situation was really so bad that that was the character's only choice, their reactions should be pretty interesting: Will they completely stop caring, or seek to atone for their horrible action?

How all this affects a detect alignment spell is up to the GM. I would have it depend on the character's current beliefs and motivations, however, this is not conducive to some plots like 'Character did great evil in the past, and must now do an equal amount of good before he dies to switch which afterlife he goes to and what he detects as'

Law vs Chaos is Complicated
It is. Good vs Evil seems more clear-cut.
How you try to affect other people determines your goodness.
Law vs Chaos on the other hand...
You can be lawful in following the rules of others
You can be lawful in having your own principles
You can be lawful in being ordered about what you do -- planning ahead, being organized, etc
You can be lawful in believing that order itself is important for some reason.
This muddies the waters somewhat.
In the examples I gave above,
The Guvner believes order itself is important, and in following the rules of others. They're probably also very methodical about their own actions, but I can imagine an 'absent-minded professor' type who tries but fails at that. They may or may not have their own principles on top of that -- perhaps following the rules given to them is enough.
The warrior-with-a-code has his own principles, and may believe that having principles in and of itself is important, but doesn't necessarily care for the rules of others and may not plan ahead.
The bureaucrat likes having rules to follow, and may believe that having rules is what holds society up, and will probably be extremely well-organized, but they may not have their own principles beyond following the laws of others -- As long as they can get by following the rules, they could be just as happy in some _other_ lawful society with different rules.
A lot of 'chaotic good' heroes have principles, but don't follow others' rules, and don't plan ahead much or bother with being organized, and couldn't care less about 'order'.
That particular lawful component seems to be okay for chaotic characters to have, but I can't say why except that there is this idea of the chaotic guy who has _some_ principle to follow, and also because being Chaotic _and_ good or evil means adopting higher principles or deciding not to care about others.
Heck, a person has to have at least a _little_ order and consistency to be a personality and not just be an insane blob. Even someone devoted to 'chaos' as an ideal may be _consistently trying to impose chaos on others_, or at least _trying to behave randomly on purpose_!
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this or what the answer is, except to show how complicated it is. Basically, it's possible to be lawful and chaotic in different ways, so either we need more axes or a scoring system.

That said, as a general guideline:
'Chaotic' people don't like having rules imposed on them or having to work within someone else's rules, even if the rules aren't opposed to their good/evil beliefs, and may believe that imposing rules on folks in general is undesirable in some way. (Chaotic Good folks might, for instance, believe that even well-intentioned order will eventually have bad results (ie, failing to help poor folks caught in bureaucratic rules, being unable to stop an evildoer because of the laws). On the other hand, they might also believe that order is fine for other folks but just not for _them_ -- the latter variety are more likely to put up with some laws temporarily for the sake of accomplishing a greater goal)

'Lawful' people, on the other hand, like rules (not necessarily _all_ rules) and believe law is important in some way. They may follow their own rules, or someone else's rules. They may take rule-following as a personal thing, or believe it is something others should do as well. (A lawful good person may believe that only through a set of laws can a good society be maintained -- After all, a good dictator may do a great job, but what happens when he gets sick or dies? Or when his nation becomes too big for him to manage? There may be some problems with the laws, but they will be carefully examined and changed if needed -- a few people's inconvenience is the price of a stable good-doing society -- On the other hand, they may view it as a personal thing -- others may be happy without a code to follow, but their own rules are comforting and provide them guidance in uncertain times)

On the troublesome corner-case of the character who has a very few rules but is otherwise 'chaotic' in behavior... It's harder to say. The more easily they're willing to break the rule in extenuating circumstances, the more certainly they are 'chaotic'. Beyond that, it's hard to say. If anyone else has insight on this, please share!

Whenever this question comes up, I usually find myself arguing with people who hate alignments either in and of themselves (Largely because of players getting confused and taking the wrong position on the Stupid axis (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid for instance), or who hate the idea of mechanics tied to alignments (No non-lawful monks? You're telling me noone can do martial arts unless they're lawful? Also the requirement for paladins does tend to result in some folks playing Lawful Stupid).

Primarily, I think Alignments relate to characters in two ways:
1. It is a definition of their actions assigned after-the-fact, not (barring situations like a Paladin's code) a requirement. Someone who runs around stabbing people for lulz is behaving in a chaotic evil manner. But they are not doing it _because_ they are chaotic evil -- they are chaotic evil _because_ they do such things.
2. For idealistic characters of all stripes, it can be a goal to live up to. In this respect, it _does_ shape a character's behavior.

Note that in both respects, each alignment can represent more than one narrow viewpoint. For example:
The member of the Fraternity of Order who believes that all laws are important for their own sake and they should avoid breaking them, and the honorable warrior who believes that following his own set of laws (but _not_ necessarily anyone else's) is the best path in life, and the obstructive bureaucrat who believes a rigid focus on law and order is the only thing keeping society from collapsing -- All three of them are Lawful Neutral in different ways.

Alignments in a nutshell:
Good people put others before themselves.
Evil people are willing to actively hurt others to help themselves.
Neutral people may put themselves before others, but won't proactively harm others solely for their own benefit (self-defense excepted).

Lawful people believe rules are very important, and act consistently according to their chosen rules.
Chaotic people don't like rules, and free-spiritedly change their mind from time to time.
(Example: A chaotic good hero might be just as likely to talk to an enemy or fight him, as suits his mood at the time -- A lawful good hero will have a rules like 'violence is the last resort' or 'I do not negotiate with terrorists' which determine his choice every time).
Neutral people don't really care either way... They will take or leave rules as benefits them -- On this axis they're like a weaker chaotic, the distinction being that they do not mind rules and structure in and of themselves, only disliking them if they have some reason to dislike the specific rules in question.

I'm male, and I play characters of both genders, although after one attempt at playing a female character in a face-to-face game (It went okay, actually, though it was among friends, one of whom was a girl playing a guy) I decided that it's easier to roleplay a male face to face and so haven't tried that again (With the exception of pregens -- I've been playing the female pregen in Dark Sun Encounters, fortunately the DM stopped cracking jokes about it after a couple sessions). Online it can go either way. Hard to say why I choose... Partly because of anime inspiration, I think.

Saw an interesting variation of this once in a campaign where a straight female friend of mine played a lesbian (It was an Age of Exploration-era game, and the character, a young noble, had grown up identifying with the swashbuckling heroes who always save the girl in bards' tales... and certainly wasn't interested in the typical things expected of a female noble)

I think what stigma crossplaying has is because of the (sometimes true) stereotype of the guy who wants to see this fantasy sex object in the game and uses their character to create it.

I started reading this thread and thought it interesting to see someone with negative views on the APG, as everyone I know who's read it likes it.

And then it just became filled with posts by people yelling YOU'RE A TROLL AND AN IDIOT FOR NOT SHARING MY OPINION AND NOT HAVING A FAIR AND BALANCED STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS RAR and I really couldn't be bothered to read them all so if there were some other thoughtful replies that I missed sorry for not noting that.

Okay, he's being stream-of-consciousness-y and not concerned about polite fairhandedness. Well, he never claimed this was anything more than 'what runs through my head as I read the book'.

I have come away from this thread with these thoughts:
I liked the APG for SUMMONER, also witch and alchemist are sorta cool, and there are some neat feats and all those fiddly little items some people like (I was one of those people when I started gaming), and also there are fun spells like create an acid-filled pit under someone that then _eats them_ and one to telekinetically bludgeon your enemies with another enemy. Sweet.

However, I focused on stuff that appealed to me and didn't really think about the rest. I can see where he's coming from on 'fiddly little bonuses'... I'm the kind of person who'll take every fiddly little bonus I can get, but some people want as little bookkeeping as possible, and maybe we could have done with trimmed down fluff and a general rule saying 'You can move little bonuses like this around'. A nicer format for choose-your-class-abilities-from-a-menu _would_ be nice, but didn't strike me as essential. I didn't really look at classes besides the Summoner and Alchemist so I can't speak to them... The complaint about cavalier being a more generic paladin I don't necessarily see as a problem... Maybe some of us want to play a paladin-like class devoted to something other than the paladin's code and lawful goodness? (Although, I would have solved this problem with variant paladins)

So, it's nice to get a fresh viewpoint. What I don't get is everyone yelling at him for not doing what he never promised to do in the first place. I hope you haven't gotten him to quit posting, I'm curious to see what he thinks of the rest of the book.

What's up with losing the spells that made the summoner good (not better than a Conjurer at, but at least able to keep up with a Wizard in what level they get a spell at) at what they would logically be good at, spell-wise?

As for eidolon healing... Well it makes some sense to treat it more as a companion than a summoned monster, and noone complains about having to heal animal companions, however, as others have pointed out, right now it makes sense to intentionally kill an almost-dead eidolon to get it back at half HP and that's not right. (It would help if the summoner had some way to heal his eidolon -- perhaps the ability to spontaneous cure (at competitive levels, IE cure critical wounds if you sacrifice a 3rd level spell -- or maybe at regular levels, but certainly not at worse levels like the Witch as he's already not a full caster) but only on his eidolon? Maybe he's just expected to UMD a wand of cure light wounds (or lesser vigor if you've got 3.5 material allowed))? Giving it natural healing, or perhaps even letting it heal 1/2 its HP with an eight hour rest?

Also, while it makes flavorful sense, the fact that a class can be crippled so horribly by even a 4th level spell (dismissal) seems bad from a balance perspective. (Sure, a wizard is rendered useless by an antimagic field, but that's a 8th level spell and it covers only a small piece of the battlefield! Also it affects whoever cast it as well). I'm not sure what a good alternative that respects the flavor is though... Perhaps it takes damage or suffers a status effect instead?

I love that the summoner's SLA was fixed, though I'm sad to see the 'spells of the summoner's specialty available at comparable character level to full casters' gone. I don't get why the SLA doesn't include gate at the same time the wizard does, either.

Was it stated anywhere that the spell list was changed because PCs could argue that they are buying scrolls from summoners and thus the economy was messed up? Or was it for another reason? I'm just curious what the reason behind this change was.

Summoner still looks very good, I hope I can play one in Pathfinder Society someday if we ever get it here.

LazarX wrote:

If you want to further prevent the summoner from flooding the fields with creatures there's one other fix that's easy to implement.

Remove all the Summon Monster spells from the class list. With the class abilites as given are they really needed?

As he is a "summoner" who is specialized in "summoning" I would say yes.

Also he should be able to use spell trigger/completion items of all Summon Monster spells. (Actually as currently written, III, VI, and VIII are missing from his spell list, so he can't use items of those without UMD! Hmm.