Shades of Eternity's page

is it heal and damage at the same time., or is it heal or damage.

For example

I got both a zombie and a comrade within 30 feet. I heal/harm darm.

Do I hurt one and heal the other, or do I have to choose?

I was playing in a pathfinder rpg game and found out something involving familiars.

namely that they are a pain in the ass.

I have never been a fan of the 3.0/3.5 rules of familiars. either they hide too much or they are very powerful in horribly contribed circumstances.

So I decided to take one to see how it would play.

Let me state that I love pathfinders skill system. I like it a ton better how it has been simplified for ease of use.

However, this very simplified system makes it game breaking.

let's say I'm playing a 6th level wizard with an owl familiar

I put 6 points into perception.

The owl gets these points outright because the skill points transfer outright to the critter.

however, instead of using your bonuses, it uses it's own natural abilities.

quoting the monster manual:

Skills: Owls have a +8 racial bonus on Listen checks and a +14 racial bonus on Move Silently checks. *They have a +8 racial bonus on Spot checks in areas of shadowy illumination.

plus it's wisdom of 14 gives a +2 to perception.

So you get a perception (spot): of +8/+16 in shadowy conditions and +16 to listen checks.

Furthermore in those situations you can have your familiar : aid another to yourself, giving a +2 to your skills in most situations

am I missing something here?

I like what I see so far, but I reserve judgement till after we see the 3rd update.

well that's the thing.

in 3.5, "tin can" fighters are penalized.

most of the time, they get a minor dex bonus and it's better to take a lighter armor that takes advantage of this because of physical skill penalties.

unlike the full plate warriors of 2nd, which some mc version of plate gave additional bonuses.

this might be some sort of compromise to justify slabbing on the full plate.

The big problem is if the bard does his job well, nobody else really gets to do anything.

get a high enough diplomacy and you'll only get into fights that you choose and the bard is tailored for this.

If I am a 20th level or epic bard, I want to put lower plane creatures to sleep with my music (Orpheus), pull out my custom weapon from hell (el mariachi/iolo), duel with the devil in a music battle and win (johnny), summon and repel rats and people (pied piper), or have a special atunement to nature that compares to a druid (john denver was definately a meistersinger in 2nd edition).

or even just listen to a friend and give advice based on a reading cause he was told to sing (Lorne).

I still say talent trees are the way to go. Basically substitution of abilities that can change the nature of the bard to something other then a cheerleader.

quite a few years ago, there was a bard's challenge for prestige classes on the wizard's forums. What they came up with was truely amazing for concepts and ideas to give a bard different feels. I wish I could find the link (although would definately put any links for prestige bard classes for 3.0/3.5 in the first post).

Adding a couple to my archtype of a bard.
Lorne (Angel) - while based on his own supernatural abilities, he is a bard, true and true.
Johnny Cash - probably the best example of a bad ass bard I can think of.

it's kinda funny, but I noticed that even though the skill point system has been added back in, the color text for humans didn't change all that much.

do you think they should have the additional skill points they do in standard dnd 3.5.

conquer with int based on the arguement above

all your doing is increasing mad.

sorry to commit some thread necromancy, but I'm thinking it's best to pull up an old thread then start a new one.

I'm thinking of playing a jester for my next character, and was wondering if their were any tips.

such as choice of feats, spells, race, equipment as well as overall tactics?

I would like to bounce off you something.

The bardic lore ability seems like a throwback to 2nd edition.

I've also really enjoyed the skill tricks that were presented in complete scoundral.

I was thinking, instead of bardic knowledge, the bard gets breathe of knowledge.

Breathe of knowledge: for the cost of 2 skill points, the knowledge check the bard uses includes another category. For example, for the cost of 2 skill points, their knowledge(arcana) includes history at the same value. It would make their knowledge more specialized and give them at high levels truely outstanding and quantifyable knowledge that fits better with the 3rd edition mechanics.

Opinions?

alright let's get some ideas and examples of bards to maybe make it easier to translate from the mechanics.

let's start with the original bards
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2662/bards.html

you'll notice by the color text that it's more orientated towards intelligence then charisma.

here's what wiki has to say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard

now for specific examples:

Taliesin (Welsh mythos)
Homer, (greek mythos)
Alan-a-Dale. (Robin Hood)
Iolo (ultima series)
The Pied Piper of Hamelin
Johnny (the devil went down to georgia).
William shakespeare (althought that probably isn't an adventuring type)
El Mariachi (from the trilogy of the same name).
Jim Morrison
John Denver

What I found funny is that Will Scarlet was listed as a bard on the wiki. Truth be told the only way they would be able to do so is in 2nd edition as a blade. opinions on this one?

Any others come to mind?

bah

base all bards on the following character archtype

:D

yeah, I hope they can salvage some of the material from their run of dragon magazine for pathfinder rpg.

it's a resource that if they can use will allow them to build up the world and environment fairly quickly.

maybe then decrease the skill focus and/or try a feat instead that is more spread out?

I like the progression which allows more oppertunities to make a bard your own :)

Well as I said the biggest problem with the bard is versatility. By taking 4 domains from the wizard's spell list, and having the opportunity to learn any spell within those domains, it really makes the bard more versatile both overall and by day (the gifted bard is so limited by the fact that they must pick which spells they are actually allowed from their already meagre spell list, instead of receiving all like a cleric).

For example If I were playing a "hell's fiddler" type, I would take illusionism, enchantment, conjuration and necromancy to simulate my vision.

Also, as the wizard spell list is one of the most extensive, as they get upgraded the learned bard does as well.

plus it allows you to mix in "stupid wizard tricks" into the bard and allows a staging platform for gish builds. My first test of the learned bard was a blast, for I really enjoyed the combination of my weapon of spell storing and lightning bolt that I could recharge on my own. Plus strategic use of tensers floating disk really gave the character a different play value then a gifted bard.

and seeing as it's balenced against the "gifted bard" better performance skills and arcane healing ability, I can see the usage of such a class without causing too many problems.

as for the complete book of bards, while a tad overpowered, did give the right feel for what I consider a bard. The different designs of what a bard should and can be gave a chance to do different things with the bardic class. I'm not saying you could convert everything over, but one of my greatest experiences in 2nd edition was my human riddlemaster.

The concept has yet to be converted over to 3.0/3.5 by my standards.

+2 int for gnomes makes sense in their design and was the basis in 2nd edition.

It was only due to a false assumption in game balence that caused them to loose this orientation.

I like your design and color text, but I would probably keep the con bonus as a transitionary step.

edit: Actually on 2nd look, I like the use of +2 cha, +2 int for a gnome. It makes tons of sense and fits what I consider the 5 basic archtypes of gnomes.

1. evil little men who do horrid things and skulk in the dark of the night.
2. nature spirits who hang out in the woods and smoke cheap drugs.
3. earth elemental like beings (as in the alchemical tradition)
4. nerds of magic and technology that are to be feared.
5. tricksters

Am I the only person who finds it a tad ironic that a class that, as an entertainer and whose purpose is to be the center of attention out of occupation, is restricted in a role that requires him to put others before himself?

The pathfinder is a 2nd chance to make the bard a viable, versatile and interesting class.

before they even consider redoing the bard for the alpha test, there is two resources that must be read before doing any changes and tweaks.

The first is the complete bards for adnd 2nd edition. This book basically showed how the jack of all trades can be twisted amongst a theme and allow for greater options.

The 2nd is "The Learned Bard: A New Look at an Old Class for D&D 3.5" Knights of the Dinner Table Magazine #85."

the post listed is at the bottom of the following thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22018.html

both of these point out key flaws in the 3.0/3.5 remake that can be compensated against if already familiar.

The 3.0/3.5 biggest flaws aren't the power level of the design, it's the fact that all optimized designs of bards are effectively the same. For a class that needs to stick out this is unacceptable.

They should have the ability to select "talent trees" that would emphasize a specialization in both entertaining others and that would also add different skills to the party. Just off the top of my head, some options could be acrobat, loremaster, and sculpter (aka a pygmalian animator type).