Surkin's page

Any spell whose sole function is 1d6 damage/level or is otherwise HP damage only.

There are several solutions you can apply, but if not drastic you're wasting your time, as the problems are drastic.

I don't think the problem is with the damaging spells themselves, but with the mechanics used to buff them.

In any comparison between caster and non-caster damage, the non-caster will be using either power attack or deadly aim. Casters have nothing to compare. Because any use of meta-magic feats results in a higher level spell slot being used, and your typically better off using those slots for higher level spells anyway.

So here is a simple idea for a solution. Basically, a power attack for damage spells. (and no, I havn't fully thought out the ramifications, this is off the cuff.)

Reckless Spell Feat

When casting a spell that does damage, the caster may choose to make the spell a reckless spell. The spell takes a -1 to hit, to spell penetration and to save DC (where appropriate). In exchange, the spell does +1 point of damage for each die of damage done by the spell. The additional damage is of the same type as that done by the spell. For every 6 caster levels, both the penalties and the benefits increase by 1. This feat does not change the level of the spell being cast.

Surkin

In response to Surken

As for a player hit with an illusionary fireball, they don't automatically know its not a real fireball. What they know is that it didn't hurt them. If they failed their save, they don't know it was just an illusion and see through it... Evil GM thought, use illusionary fireball traps and then when they get cocky use real fireballs.

If the monster hits, the player knows it did not hurt him. It feels the force of the blow and his mind reacts. Its not proof that it is illusionary.

Taking time to study something will not reveal if it is an illusion, unless you have something interact with it. Even once they fall through, you can just have it crumble as they hit it, using an illusionary force to provide resistance that they feel (their trajectory is not altered in the slightest). They get a saving through, but its really easy to not have proof.

The fireball probably isn't the best example, it really makes no difference if the player knows it is an illusion or not, it will do no damage.

As for the monster, if it hits, the player knows it did not hurt him, if the illusion has touch, than the player will feel the monsters claw slide across his arm, but there is no force or impact behind it.

Figments don't transfer energy, figments also have no direct effect on the players mind. They only change what the player can sense. If a figment punches a player in the face, the player would see the fist coming, could hear the noise made when the punch lands, would feel it touch his face. The illusionist could adjust the image, so the player saw blood spray from his nose, could even have him feel the blood trickle down his face, and taste it at the corner of his mouth, but there would be no impact, the players head wouldn't move when the punch landed, there would be no pain.
In the above situation, depending on the figment used to create the illusion, I would either give the player a save to disbelieve as soon as the punch landed (if the spell applied against most of the senses mentioned), or simply tell the player he realizes it is an illusion if the spell only applied to one or two senses.

As for taking time to study an illusion, there was a really good series of articles on the WoTC 3.5 site that discussed illusions. It proposed spending an action studying an illusion as a method to allow a saving throw. The time studying would qualify as interaction and allow a save. (The key being that the player needs to spend an action to get the save.) I use that in games I run to help balance the power of illusions.

Illusions are tricky things, they can be incredibly powerful or incredibly weak, all depending on how the GM interprets the rules. All that really matters is that the GM and the players know how the rules are being interpreted. And the GM is comfortable using those interpretations in his/her game.

Surkin

The basic rule when working with a figment, is that a figment can cause no direct harm.

As mentioned already in this post, a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw.
A player hit with a fireball created with a major image spell, needs no save and takes no damage. The same applies to a monster created with a major image spell, the monster hits, the player knows its an illusion, no save needed.

If you want to create illusions that can cause harm, you need to use the shadow conjuration and shadow evocation lines of spells.

That doesn't mean that figments aren't useful. One of my favorites is the illusionary bridge or ledge.

Create a broken bridge over a chasm (or a ledge on the far side)where the players need to jump a short distance to reach the illusion. Unless someone takes the time to study the bridge before making the leap, the first player to make the leap will be in for a fall. (He'll know its an illusion as soon as he passes through the bridge, but its already too late)

Surkin

Agreed, if I find a game to be a player in I'm gonna have a hard time choosing between my halfling cavalier/rogue, or the arabian camel rider who wields a saber. Neither of which fit the concept of arthurian knight at all. Heck someone else pointed out a native american horse warrior. None of these fit the concept the OP mentioned, I really think it's just a lack of trying that they can't think of other concepts.

Honestly, I think your missing my point. You can already make any of those concepts using the existing classes in the game. The arabian camel rider who wields a saber, is a fighter. A fighter that specializes in mounted combat.

What was missing from the game, that mandated the development of the cavalier?

The answer is pretty obvious, there is no mechanic for a character to get a decent mount that will survive in mid and higher level play.

Imagine if there was a variant leadership feat, that was designed specifically to provide a character a balanced mount throughout an adventuring career. How many concepts would that support?

Would you still need the cavalier class to make any of your mounted concepts?

Surkin

Mamluk - a mounted warrior from a desert land and a member of a fraternal organization of slaves that grew to conquer their masters.
Equite - an aristocrat pressed into service by his nation and placed in command of a company of lesser-born adventurers by virtue of his wealth alone.
Mongol - a raider and expert horseman who rides for the glory and prosperity of his people and the thrill of adventure.
Hussar - a common enlisted man who fights to defend his homeland with sabre, lance, pick and rifle....

All good concepts, but the only thing that prevents a player from playing them as a fighter, is a mount. Or should I say, a mount that scales in power with the fighter. (Its no fun replacing your horse after every battle)

For that matter, why doesn't every other class have access to a good mount?

Surkin

They would then be Warriors who focus on the mindset of battle, disciplining a single aspect of their battlefield desires,...

This would be an improvement, basically the class needs to have a more broadly defined theme, but at the same time it needs to be more focused in its abilities.

I realize that the decision to include the class has been made, announced, publicized, and isn't subject to change.

But consider this,

Fighters were designed to allow a player to customize them, so they could specialize in whatever type of combat the player chose. Thats why they get tons of bonus feats. If the game needs a cavalier type role filled, is the problem that we don't have a cavalier class, or that the feats aren't available to the fighter to fill that role?

(Even the description of the fighter in the pathfinder rules includes knight as a role)

Surkin

No, thats not it, its just that I can already make a knight. Using fighter or paladin, or even cleric. Being a knight is a roleplay concept. The existing classes already support that concept.

I think a 20 level core class, should support many roleplay concepts.

How many different fighter concepts can you think up?
How many wizards?
Even the monk, one of the more tightly focused classes, lends itself to many different character concepts.

But the cavalier? Its an arthurian knight ... its not a horrible knight, but you can't make it anything but a knight.

Its too tightly defined to lend itself to other roleplay concepts. You might be able to bang a samurai out of it, but even thats a stretch.

Are we going to have a class specifically tailored to represent a native american hunter in the near future? Or should we keep useing ranger or barbarian to build that concept?

My point is, that this class shouldn't be a class at all.

Surkin

The cavalier as written screams Arthurian Knight.

Unfortunately, that's about the only concept that it fits. It just seems to be too specialized from a roleplay perspective.

Added to that, there really isn't any new mechanic that warrants the creation of a new class.

Challenge = repackaged sneak attack
Banners = bardic music variants

Oaths are new, but hardly enough to base a class on.

Its been stated that this class was intended to fill the role of the battlefield leader, and the class as written can do that. But so can the fighter, paladin, cleric, or bard.

I think a better implementation would have been to add feats that make it easier for those classes to fill that role.

A feat to allow a player to pick up a mount. (Similar to whats been proposed for the Cavalier)

Feats to allow a character to focus on battlefield leadership. A rally feat to counter an ally's failed fear save for example.

Even the knightly orders would be better represented as feat chains. (Does the Order of the Shield not admit fighters or paladins?)

I'm probably rambling, but the cavalier just seems to be a too focused concept to be its own class.

Surkin

Its really hard to get a good picture on what happened with Farve, I personally don't think either side ever said the complete truth.

Having followed the whole mess though, this seems to be the general line of events.

1. Farve retires
2. Farve tells the pack he is thinking about coming back.
3. Pack managemnt charters a jet to go visit Farve.
4. Prior to that trip, Farve calls the pack and says he's staying retired.

This was all fairly early in the offseason. If he hadn't waffled then, he'd be the starting QB for the packers this season.

5. The pack plans for a future without Farve. They look at free agents, they have the NFL draft, they sign contract extensions to keep their stars.
6. Farve has a chat with his old buddy thats now coaching with the vikings.
7. Farve wants to play again.
8. Circus ensues.

Personally, I think he's going to have a horrible season, he's showing up late to camp, he needs to learn a new offense, and the Jets offensive line was completely revamped in the offseason, so who knows how they are going to do.

Lastly

E A G L E S GO EAGLES!

As for you Giants, Cowboys and Foreskins fans, we hate you too, enter the Link at your own risk.

Surkin

Surkin wrote:

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.

I agree with this, Paizo needs to remember that LESS is MORE. At least when they are looking at rule changes. I'm all for them fixing the problems, but I'm not interested in a full rewrite. If the system isn't going to be backwards cmpatible it really isn't worth buying.

There in lies the debate. The changes they have made don't go far enough to fix all of 3.5's flaws. They need to rewrite half or so of the system. Doing so can still retain most of the PrC and older 3.5 rules as compatible.

You assert they are no longer compatible if any changes, I assert they can change half the rules and retain compatibility.

I suppose I should explain my way of thinking better. I'm not opposed to them making rules changes to fix the problems in the game. More I don't like correction by subtraction.

For example, the changes to the cleric class are nice, and the end result looks like a more enjoyable cleric to play. The biggest change being the change to domains. Now, instead of a domain granting you a domain spell each spell level and a domain power at 1st. You don't get domain spells, and get a domain power every 2 levels. With the majority of the domain powers simply being the same spells you would have had with a new mechanic.

The problem I have with this, is every reference in a prestige class, or feat that refers to domain spells is now obsolete. I would have prefered if they kept the existing domain spell mechanics, and changed only the domain powers, with additional domain powers gained at higher levels. (But at a reduced rate.)

Anytime they write a game mechanic out of the rules, they make anything that references that mechanic obsolete.

Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.

I agree with this, Paizo needs to remember that LESS is MORE. At least when they are looking at rule changes. I'm all for them fixing the problems, but I'm not interested in a full rewrite. If the system isn't going to be backwards cmpatible it really isn't worth buying.

I don't particularly like this feature either. Only being able to use one feat in a round is incredibly restrictive.

Assume for example your playing a fighter with a fondness for archery. You have point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot and manyshot. As soon as your chosen target enters mellee with another character. Your best option will most likely be precise shot. Performing any other ranged combat feat forces you to take a -4 to hit for shooting into a mellee.

The idea of having combat options that are triggered or unlocked by events that occur in combat is nice. But the current implamentation needs to be scrapped.

Surkin