Interesting class though I find I personally prefer powers you can turn on or off when it comes to defense. I know mechanically always having DR 10- is great but roleplaying wise I prefer to be able to turn it on or off . . . .
As a psionic based class, the character would expend their focus, and then refocus after the event that they needed to not have the DR. And since there are a lot of feats, features, and abilities that expend focus to activate, there is a certain amount of juggling on and off abilities with certain builds.
But, yeah, your 100% right... which now makes me think of The Boys and the characters Translucent and The Great Wide Wonder. *shudders*
Oh, and if you want to add more TK style stuff, the Telekinetic Weaponmaster PrC is pretty cool... or Metamorph for a Beast Boy or Mystique style character... but I'm a Dreamscarred Press fan... shame they're defunct now.
Recently I was in a conversation where someone described cultists sacrificing innocents as being 'boring and lazy writing' because there was no personal attachment for them. . . .
That's... kind of funny to me. Are the PCs playing evil characters?
I wish I could remember the Star Wars book it was, but I read one many moons ago where Luke was running around with Lando for a bit, and Lando was looking for investors in a project. They saw the same edifice and Lando saw the money involved to make it... and Luke saw how defensible it was and the subtle marks of violence it had endured. Then a little later on Luke makes the point that no one sees themselves as evil. In hindsight, it was a great depiction of character for both...
I imagine that the best villains are the ones who almost could have been good, but there's that little twist that distorts their perceptions just enough... So make a good character who learns the wrong lessons from a terrible event, and go from there. How would they behave? How would they act? It's almost like an argument or discussion where someone is nodding their head for the first three quarters of the topic until they get to the end and there's that 'Waaiiittt...' moment.
For ttrpgs, SheepishEidolon's #2 suggestion is the most applicable. A party doesn't really care about beating a bad guy when it's all the same to them, when they haven't invested in their characters. If you give the characters a reason to really hate that guy... then the rest sort of falls into place. (...Even though if they're playing GOOD characters, saving innocents should be enough... the loot is a fringe benefit... I mean, Spiderman and Superman get absolutely nothing out of it... )
There is nothing wrong with something aligning to your tastes and not mine and vice versa. There is no reason why someone enjoying something you don’t needs to be proven why your opinion is better.
That is where I’ll leave it.
I would say that taste is not the same thing as a well constructed value judgement, and many of these things about which I'm speaking can easily be analyzed and critiqued based upon simple literary and theater conventions... but I get that you're stating that you don't agree with me and you'd rather not argue about it.
I'm going to over simplify but there's two things in play. How well it's made and if it's enjoyable. I fully understand these things aren't the same thing.
*I can see/argue that something is well made, and I enjoy it.
*I can see/argue that something is well made, but I don't enjoy it.
*I can see/argue that something is not well made, but I still enjoy it.
*I can see/argue that something is not well made, and I didn't enjoy it.
I'll use a few hopefully brief examples.
The recent Dune was well made. The special effects were believable and managed to give an impression of scope that fit the story. The actors played their parts convincingly and demonstrated emotion and subtlety. The plot was well paced and relatively faithful to the original book... the only exceptions being the introduction of a few events early to smartly impress upon the audience the stakes of the struggle.
I liked Dune, because I like the setting, the story, and science fiction is typically one of my favorite genres.
The Force Awakens was well made. The special effects were solid. It modelled several of the story beats of the original trilogy, and actors were believable in their roles. (Then again, others would disagree with me.)
However, I walked out of the theater feeling generally disappointed. I felt that the movie was bartering on nostalgia too much to tell it's own story, and it felt shallow for me.
Big Trouble in Little China is a bad movie. Poor production values, cheezy as all get out and overblown... And I love that movie dearly. It's a whole lot of fun.
JoelF847 wrote:
We clearly don't see eye to eye . . . We're in the golden age of amazing geek content and it's fabulous.
Since you seem such a fan of recent Star Trek tv shows and the Star Wars sequel movies, what did you find so amazing about them? I'm now curious. Give me some examples, it doesn't even have to be those two franchises, of what you think of as well made and entertaining stories.
JoelF847 wrote:
That being said, there's a big difference between being angry about a promo bit out of context and being angry about something after you've seen it in context . . . .
And that, too, is fair. But what's the quote? 'Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.' There's a pattern to a few of these things.
That's a lot to get worked up about from promotional material. Maybe they had a torch for their human companions who aren't shown in that bit, or maybe they wanted to actually light something on fire, which seeing in the dark is not as good at.
Well, hollyweird has been doing it for a while now... prioritizing their social engineering over the entertainment value, plot, and believable characters... it's what happens when you hand stories with histories to people who aren't necessarily fans of the material to do with as they please... and what they please doesn't suit actual fans of the worlds in question... and isn't sufficiently good enough to make new fans.
Just think of the recent Star Trek tv shows, Star Wars movies, and the Terminator movies made since... the third one. (Not saying the third one was Good, but... no I take it back. Salvation wasn't Good exactly, but I feel like they were trying... trying to expand things rather than just rehashing them. Genesis and Dark Fate just depress me... and no, I can't willingly spell Genesis wrong... and the wrong spelling irks me... Irks me something Mightily I tell You...). Picard just made me angry. I couldn't finish the first season. Everybody blaming the old white guy for being the source of all the problems in the universes rather than acknowledging that he's putting up with a lot of sh!t from people who couldn't have accomplished half the things he did in the original series... (without Picard being Picard, Q alone would have f'ed humanity six ways to Sunday on several occasions...)
Ultimately, it's reached a point where sequels and reboots are viewed with skepticism rather than happiness... and you can't blame the fan bases because we've been down this road several times at this point. Agenda-monger X mining older properties to tell a story that they want rather than exploring within the limits of the established worldbuilding... because the things they would want to make wouldn't have any name recognition... or worse yet, the things they want to make couldn't find an audience without their coarse bait and switch.
That's just my impression of it at this point. We won't really know until it comes out how well it conforms to Tolkien's original worldbuilding, but in this era which seems somewhat creatively bankrupt, I'm not really hopeful anymore.
...I mean, I am a bit of a cranky pants, but I don't Want a reason to be Mr. Cranky Pants...
. . . A half-nabasu’s favored meal is the flesh of those who share its non-demonic heritage. It is a loner and a predator, a thief and thug at best, but more often feared as a serial killer or sadist. . . .
On an offhand note, maybe s/he could gain feats like the Dhampir race does that gives him bonuses to eating others similar to the Blood Drinker, Blood Savage, Blood Feaster feats?
Heck, if the character is a PC, and the PC is actually trying to play the character as a good person, I'd give him something like it to make the dark side tempting. Giving in is usually easy. Self discipline, that's difficult.
. . . However generally speaking knowing something can be done is one of the biggest hurdles to creating something. . . It's why I make a strong divide in my games between "intelligent" and "Genius". . .
Point is a 20th level character has resources and abilities that are pretty much peak level mortal power and know something can be done because its right there where they can see it. So unless your talking about something made by a good or a mythic being a 20th level character should be able to figure out a way to duplicate it e.g. philosophers stone is an artifact and a 20th level alchemists discovery to make 1 a month.
That's a fair point, the difference between Intelligence and Inspiration. It also bares pointing out that most fantasy medieval type settings are terrible at passing along information and innovating in general, such that the information critical mass that tends to lead to certain advances would rarely happen in such a setting. It's not that it couldn't happen, but it would be more of the statistical outlier, the once in an elf's life time kind of event... And when you think about necessity being the mother of invention, magic just causes stagnation because it fills in some gaps and you don't have to develop the in-between principles and concepts.
^ . . . and the linked entry for Formless Spawn explicitly mentions some of them gaining class levels, whereas Living Spells are in many ways traditional mindless Oozes.
You're not wrong... but if you're doing something weird, making thematically appropriate alterations can work.
A caster casts Awaken Construct with a metamagic rod of maximize in a wild magic zone (because that's kind of what I think of the Mournlands as... Just Too Much Ambient Uncontrolled Magic floating around...) and later it solidifies as a living spell ooze. It would be reasonable to think that it has a chance to develop intelligence considering it is magic that creates intelligence. Then it'd lose the Mindless trait, but everything else stays. Then it eventually starts hunting down constructs to awaken... believing that maybe it's the instrument of something greater and this is it's Purpose.
And now that the ooze has an intelligence score via dramatic appropriateness, class levels in things that would fit the concept would work, like sorcerer or mesmerist if the intelligence score is still pretty bad or maybe cleric or oracle because the bigger living spell oozes start getting better charisma scores... for some reason.
Who knows? Maybe it would develop an ability like Slight Build to hide better when moving around... not that it'd help a huge slime that much. Perhaps rename the ability as something to indicate that it's compressing itself, like internal compression or octopi's trick, and go from there...
Slight Build:
Races of the Dragon wrote:
Slight Build: The physical stature of kobolds lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category smaller. Whenever a kobold is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as Hide), the kobold is treated as one size smaller if doing so is advantageous to the character. A kobold is also considered to be one size smaller when "squeezing" through a restrictive space. A kobold can use weapons designed for a creature one size smaller without penalty. However, the space and reach of a kobold remain those of a creature of their actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.
(...Man, have I always thought Powerful Build and Slight Build were really nifty abilities...)
Or better yet, maybe living spells are a byproduct of a high magic society, like industrial runoff... or maybe some mind chemists were trying to mass produce intelligence enhancing potions and accidentally created an Awakened living spell... optimally, story and mechanics can work together to make something Fun.
. . . and knowledge arcane (to know how long the spell takes to travel from one planet to the next . . . .
SRD wrote:
Teleportation
SourcePRPG Core Rulebook Definition Type Subschool
A teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation.
One nit pick. The rest of your points still stand... unless the point you were making was that with some sort of giant telescope, you're still chasing the light, which would also be a fair argument.
Which now makes me wonder, could you use remote viewing to another planet (probably the closest one, like Earth to Mars) to then cast greater scrying and then to cast greater teleport rather than interplanetary teleport... Could a refugee, like Lashunta in the Iron Gods game, be good enough to give you second hand, or maybe even firsthand knowledge, to let you scry the other planet and then use the scrying to target a teleport?
Now I'm thinking of the Stargate dialing in other locations...
. . . a villain had placed six kidnap victims into lead-lined boxes (with life support) scattered throughout the city, reasoning that Superman's X-ray vision could not see into lead boxes. . . .
The fool... You'd need at least three times as many that are empty to use as decoys... or just have one of them be a bomb with a little kryptonite dust or shrapnel mixed in.
If it's the same mechanical effect, just described differently but reasonably, that's called 'reflavoring.' And that is a perfectly fine way to do it... like making a paladin and calling it a samurai.
. . . And this one isn't so much a houserule, but insomuch as Traits are an optional rule, my campaign won't be using them. However, they're so commonplace that I'll probably offer a selection of feats that players can take for free, instead. These feats will be things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Dodge, etc., that are often the first step in some of the longer feat trees. . . .
A game group I've played with has a variation of certain feats that we cribbed from somewhere else.
Quote:
COMBAT POSTURES
The feats Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim as well as fighting defensively and full defense are waived in favor of combat postures.
If you adopt an Offensive Posture, you may take a penalty of up to half of your base attack, rounded up, and add it to damage at a 1:2 exchange.
If you adopt a Defensive Posture, you may take a penalty of up to half of your base attack, rounded up, and add it to your AC and Reflex save at a 1:1 exchange.
If you adopt a Focused Posture, you may take a penalty on damage and add it to your to hit at a 1:1 exchange, though damage will never drop below 1. You may also not take a higher penalty to damage of more than the weapon's maximum damage - 1.
Any feats that have Power Attack, Combat Expertise, or Deadly Aim as prerequisites remove them as prerequisites.
The only race I can think of that any group I've played in has collectively banned were Warforged in 4E. Just felt wrong for the games we played.
Huh... I love Eberron but have had little chance to play in the setting. I have, however, been in two different games where players had variations on construct-who-persisted-after-his-master-died-became-self-aware, and we just used the Warforged stats for it... a little bit like Wall-e or Curie from Fallout 4.
It was kind of nice.
Sysryke wrote:
I did have a GM who absolutely hated halflings, because to him ALL halflings were Kinder, but oddly he didn't ban. He just tartgeted any of us who dared to play one. Joke's on him; I played an uber healing halfling cleric. All the monsters tried to get to me through our defensive types. I stayed up with heals, and had enough left over to keep our crew alive while they ginsued the baddies.
I don't mind Hobbits... even cannibal Halfling out of Dark Sun are not without their twisted charms... but if somebody says Kinder... not just no, but **** No.
I mean... I get her post. Divine classes get the good healing. Wizards and sorcerers get a backdoor. Now whether you agree or not if it is enough is another matter. You, Derklord, think it's enough. Senko thinks it isn't. You both made that clear. So the post does make sense.
Derklord wrote:
First, Wizards already have a superior alternative to using wands of CLW, namely wands of Infernal Healing.
You're right. A wand of celestial healing or infernal healing is significantly more effective out of combat than a wand of cure light wounds. As an arcane caster, it heals more and you don't have to UMD it. In combat, however, it's slow and won't do what you need if you're in a position to need that healing in combat.
But it is what it is.
Derklord wrote:
Second, the Wizard spell list is miles ahead of the Cleric's. If you can't see that, maybe the problem isn't the spell list, but rather you.
The wizard does have a lot of effective spells. You're not wrong. And yet you're glossing over the fact that the bulk of the divine classes just get their spells. They don't study. They don't hunt them down. They don't research them. They just get them.
Depending on how a storyteller spins it, an arcane caster might not ever reach the heights of what divine casters can right out of the box. The sorcerer has the other problem. S/he can pick up whatever they want, but they don't swap out every spell every day like the cleric or druid can... they just swap one a level.
It's not the most powerful argument, but it is definitely something to consider before...
Derklord wrote:
Third, what's with the "No one objected when they got all this stuff" - do you know what every single player input in the PF playtest said? Do you have a mind-reading device that tells you what every single player's reaction to the Cleric class is? Because if not, your statement is pure bull s!$&.
... resorting to a bit of saltiness.
I use a lot of salty language with friends that I wouldn't use in front of strangers. Let's not resort to the obvious swears cleverly masked. Let's think of a posting board as an area filled with strangers because anybody can casually browse said boards.
Now, no, nobody has access to all the feedback except the ones who compile it. But power creep in additional splatbooks is a thing across multiple editions of d&d and pathfinder is a derivative of that... and models it pretty well so, there you go. Additional books HAVE been put out. Power Creep IS observably present in some of them. And NOBODY is happy with Everything All the Time.
I'm pretty sure some hated new ideas. Some loved them. Some were indifferent... because that's pretty standard. But the designers still put out splats to 1) give players more options and 2) make money selling books. This is the direction the game went. CoDzilla is still a thing. Most 9/9 arcane casters are still top tier. So... whatever. You could always argue that some issues with the game are legacy issues because classes didn't change enough for some and too much for others... and I forget which things got added and subtracted and mutated from 3.5 to Pathfinder because I get forgetful... I also don't play it exclusively so... take me with a grain of salt.
Derklord wrote:
Fourth, if you want healing on an arcane caster so much, why don't you play a Witch?
That is a fair argument... enough so that third party were putting out evangelical arcane casters and/or white witches from the get go. They got to it before Paizo because they were positioned well. They had 3.5 stuff to adapt, and they did one way or another. And eventually Paizo put the witch class out. But lots of people value core or they don't want to go afield to the 3rd party stuff for one reason or another so... I don't know. I have no problem borrowing from 3rd party. I do however reserve the right to pick and choose when I run a game and acknowledge that my storyteller can do the same when I play.
I really like the hybrid class that the witch is. Then again I do kind of like 4 Winds hedge witch which is a divine caster that gets a little arcane based on it's tradition... but that's neither here nor there.
If options like the faith magic discovery weren't such garbage, maybe we could have something where you swap your wizard school specialization for a divine domain, have to worship the god and stay within a step of his/her alignment, get a celestial/infernal/etc. familiar, and generally have a nifty roleplay for an arcanist that chooses faith as part of the expression for his magic...
There I go, rabbit trailing again. I apologize.
Derklord wrote:
You know to know the truth why people really shut down your complaints? It's because what you want already exists, and in reality you're just lamenting how exactly it's done.
I also don't feal fast healing 1 requiring evil components is a valid response for divine casters still being the main healer option with others getting bits and pieces.
Senko wrote:
of it being "too complex" for arcane caster
Link please. Because that sound's utterly ridiculous.
And... That 'already exists' part may be true. I sometimes look at the design choices and don't like what I see. Other times I think they're awesome. So you can't please everybody all the time. I get annoyed looking at rogue talents ALL the time...
At this point Senko, may I suggest that you participate in homebrewing the kind of thing you'd like to see, or hunting it down in 3rd party materials, or talking with your group to see if you can have access to the options you really want on a character rather than this particular 'in a vacuum' discussion.
Nice talking to you both.
...wait a minute. Why isn't there something like Eclectic Learning out of 3.5...
As one review put it, the movie is a celebration of Sony's Spider-men. I always liked McGuire's Peter Parker, but he felt a little awkward as Spider Man. I liked Garfield's portrayal of Spider Man, but he felt a little too cool to be Peter Parker. Holland had the right balance... but something felt missing, and after this movie, I realize it's the drive that Peter Parker has.
This movie pulls it all together. It gives the Holland Peter a personal stake in being a hero, rather than being something he does because he can. Now he does it because He Must. It's a moral imperative.
The movie is nostalgia baiting, but done well enough. They told a story that stays relatively true to the characters without talking down to the audience like a lot of other movies do, trying to make you feel bad for liking something that you like or used to like.
It's not perfect. You can pick apart issues with the narrative structure or point out plot holes, because comic movies and tv shows are going to have them... they're unrealistic by their very nature, but I walked in expecting a Spider Man movie, I got the feels watching it more than I expected, and walked away happy that I'd seen it. So for me, I felt that I got something that's been in sore demand for a while, a movie made to entertain me by people who also enjoyed the thing that I came to see...
So... scratch that. I don't like this movie, I love this movie, even though it's not perfect... but maybe it was perfect for me.
What they did here makes me not want to invest in ANY more movies, books, comics or TV shows.
What's the point of watching characters grow and change if they will just take away all that development in the blink of an eye?
"We hope you enjoyed watching these characters learn and grow. Just kidding, we are taking all that away."
Thanks Marvel.
You mean... like the One More Day comic... where MJ and Peter traded away their love to a devil to bring Aunt May back... so they can handwave away decades of Peter Parker's character growth from an awkward intellectual teen to a realized adult with a healthy marriage?... Just so he could go back to living with his ancient aunt who still looks like she's going to fall over dead next week and rehash all the old tropes?...
I think someone was inspired by watching or reading Vampire Hunter D. The concentration penalty for a Left Hand seems a little light... what? He was good at getting under D's skin.
It takes all ten levels of a prestige class to get abilities like that...
Mystic Theurge wrote:
Spell Synthesis (Su)
At 10th level, a mystic theurge can cast two spells, one from each of his spellcasting classes, using one action. Both of the spells must have the same casting time. The mystic theurge can make any decisions concerning the spells independently. Any target affected by both of the spells takes a –2 penalty on saves made against each spell. The mystic theurge receives a +2 bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance with these two spells. A mystic theurge may use this ability once per day.
Not really. You don't need ten levels in a prc to emulate spell synthesis. And anytime someone uses mystic theurge as an example, it makes me wince. It's a terrible prc when you play it straight.
That tenth level ability you mentioned is akin to four feats, three of which are pretty horrible and boring. Quicken, Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Focus, three of which you can use all day once you have them. And you wouldn't even need the Spell Penetration feat if you went straight caster rather than losing three or four caster levels to get into that sad flute of a prc. (...and come to think of it, if your MT is MAD rather than SAD, the spell focus is only offsetting not being able to focus on one stat... so most of those feature bonuses are just making up for being an MT...)
Combining the effects of spells is something that I think has been overlooked in the base game. Even with the Arcanist hybrid class, it doesn't actually combine spells, just uses spell slots to cast spells quicker. . . .
I think you have a solid idea, but I think it needs more details to tell if it is balanced or not. You might want to take some inspiration from some 3rd party material that already does something similar.
Cascade Spell by Super Genius Games.
Merge Spell by Rite Publishing.
There's also contingent spell, but it's a whole lot more limited in Pathfinder than in 3.5. You could piggy back off the idea that one spell triggers another if you like that idea.
That's if you are completely ignoring the idea that your character can research new spells which could just be an existing spell with slightly differing parameters, which I understand is not an on-the-fly solution which you seem to be going for.
I understand your positions, MrCharisma, rorek55, and AwesomenessDog, but I agree with Melkiador and Iamacup. You're reading limitations into something that aren't specifically listed. Not unlike how you're describing immediate actions themselves.
MrCharisma wrote:
. . . One big thing for me is that it's an immediate action. This means you use is as a reaction to something, it's not a proactive sustained surge, it's an immediate surge of power/speed/whatever. . ..
Archives wrote:
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.
Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
An immediate action is, effectively, a swift action that can be used at times a swift action normally cannot be used. That's it. Just because it can be used as a reaction doesn't mean it can only be used as a reaction. (Hmm... are there places you can use a swift action flat-footed? I don't know off the top of my head...)
As to the inspiration of the investigator, is a skill you take 10 or 20 on a skill check? It is. When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. It doesn't stop being a skill check just because you don't roll. I don't know why the investigator calls it out. It's redundant. Maybe a third party publisher is just trying to be more concise (maybe to save on word count or just to be easier to use... either way).
Wait... I take it back. I understand now why inspiration feels the need to call out differences... it's because it's treating skill checks, attack rolls, and saves, with different rules for the different d20 rolls under one ability. Free vs. Immediate. 1 vs. 2 pts. Some checks are free... It's still redundant to call out taking 10 and 20 on skills, though.
Surge is not inspiration, though it bares a superficial similarity. It's much more straight forward. Once per day. Immediate action to activate (which only matters in combat). Next Roll (no stipulated limitations, but you don't roll for taking 10 or 20 so...). Level + 3 bonus. Your tattoos glow for one round. That's it.
The only thing I'm seeing is the Warlord's 20th level ability Dual Stance.
There might be another one that allows a specific stance to stack with another or a PrC ability that is similar, but I'm not well versed enough to know it.
. . . Also, remember that the Heighten Spell metamagic feat is especially useful with this option.
Yes. Yes it is. With this system Heighten becomes indispensable.
And did the GM ". . . altering other rules to account for a landscape with lower average DCs. For instance, . . . increases to spell DCs from Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus could go up to 2."?
"I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels."
and
"V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice."
You have been warned.
...
Ok. Now if your friend just wants to, and your storyteller is ok with Paizo made content that isn't Pathfinder, there is Kung Fu Genius. But it won't do what he hopes it will do for lots of reasons already mentioned... so... ignore me.
"Hey Guys, go download this movie for free on the internet, just while you are doing so please don't download any of the other movies you encounter, since they are the main source of profit for us!"
You know... I think that disclaimer would be more successful than their 'Piracy is not a victimless crime' campaign.
People making monk-barbarian or Barbarian-paladin builds before the game starts assuming they will just switch alignment whenever their build demands, without a proper in-game reason for the change. Mechanics should not trump fluff in my opinion.
*N Martial Artist 2/Barbarian X taps you on the shoulder*
"Excuse me, Son. I know I'm not as awesome as my little brother the Brawler, but I was here first, and, honestly, I just can't get too broken up over your assumptions."
"But I do expect you to get out of my seat. Like right meow."
Hey guys, how about we keep this on track instead of debasing into a discussion... And on that note...
I'll try to quit after this.
@ Claxon:
Claxon wrote:
The "mumbling" part was just supposed to be a joke about the verbal component required. . .
Ah. Fair enough.
Claxon wrote:
In golarion magic isn't this hidden unknowable force. It's everywhere. The poorest of commoners might not have access to it, but you can buy magical potions in nearly every settlement, even tiny little thorps. So you can call shenanigans, but everyone knows magic exist and it is reasonable for everyone to know the enemy spell casters are much more dangerous than the guy who can only shove a sword through your head.
Yes. Magic is everywhere. And drinking a potion/beer doesn't make me able to glance at a horologist's balance tack or calipers and know what they are or what they're for without some experience before hand. How many people do you know that can operate a computer or phone but have no real idea how one works? Turn that concept up to 11. You cannot used trained skills without training, not even the DC 10 common knowledge stuff (with the exception of the actual DC 10 knowledge stuff), because (with that specific exception) for trained skills there really isn't common knowledge.
You don't know what you don't know.
If a character has no ranks in linguistics and none of the appropriate or even the related languages, does that mean they can still make a linguistics roll to understand Undercommon?
If a character had a pet cat once but no ranks in handle animal, does that mean they get to make a handle animal check to influence an angry dire badger?
If a character has seen a street performer do the three card trick, does that mean they can successfully attempt a sleight of hand check to pick a pocket?
Claxon wrote:
You don't need a skill to see. Spellcraft will let you identify what spell someone is casting, but you don't need a skill to notice they're casting a spell. All you need is line of sight. In fact, there are almost no ways to hide spell casting and the ones that exist are severly restricted. Knowledge arcane definitely doesn't have anything to do with making a reasonable guess that someone is a spell caster either.
Yes you do. It's called Perception. :D
PFSRD wrote:
Skill Checks
When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check. . . If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.
Are you trying to tell me that you make it a DC 0 free action to notice things that you don't know about, probably at a distance (especially since those daffy spellcasters are so concerned about Attacks of Opportunity)?
Until you see a spell being cast, you don't know. Sometimes you've got bluff checks opposed by sense motive checks and disguise checks opposed by perception checks. Sometimes you just can't see clearly due to distance or... I don't know, other people in the way... you know, kind of like cover.
Claxon wrote:
So go ahead call shenaigans, but...
By your rational, when I look at a complex calculus problem on a white board across a college amphitheater-like class, I know it's a calculus problem even though it could just as easily be a notations for a physics problem, maybe neither of which I have studied.
Faelyn wrote:
You know the GM is out to get the CLERIC when suddenly all the deities go quiet... and does not like non-deity divines.
So... he's already disallowed oracles?
You know your GM is out to get your PSION when he lets other 9th level casters have multiple summons out (including lasting ones with planar ally/binding), but limits you to ONE ASTRAL CONSTRUCT.
You know your GM is out to get YOU when you try to RETURN to your party using the hallway they just used and all of the sudden there is a trap every 5'... and YOU are not a character with trapfinding or disable device.
the MAIN purpose for low point buy is to make the monsters more monstrous.
So... instead of adjusting the CR of several encounters, adjust the party down?
Pendagast wrote:
IF you DO meet an 18 str PC, chances are he's raided points from his other stats and meets the stereo type, the balanced heroes will be more Bruce Wayne and Less BANE.
Bruce Wayne isn't a balanced character. He has... like, what, an effective five doctoral degrees and trained to be a ninja, which would speak to seriously above average stats to be able to cross train in several different fields and excel in them all. He also gets to ignore wealth by level. I cannot imagine that really working with a 10 point buy, ever.
Hmm wrote:
. . . it can be disheartening to have PCs that are beaten time and again, or that have to be rescued continually by NPCs. I think that PCs should be special. When EVERYONE you meet is better than you, and it's not a comedy game, it can be really bad for player morale. . . .
It's funny you should say this. It reminds me of a 2nd edition game where I played a caster and the GM had a hate on for casters. No matter what I did, I failed. I came in with a straight 10s human fighter, and he was allowed to do everything the caster should have been able to do in spades.
My DM and another one of our players prefer other gaming systems to that of PF and 3.5...they much prefer more sandboxy games like Fate which I detest. Because of that, the DM feels that a low point buy is preferable...I get the feeling he does the low point buy because he wants the players who enjoy PF to give up and let him move to a different system, but alas...I enjoy PF too much to change. . . .
ryric wrote:
. . . I'm concerned that the issues here(from just your brief descriptions) go a bit deeper than character builds. It sounds like you and your GM want different things out of your games, and that is an issue than no amount of good build can fix. A GM who dislikes the system they are running can make the entire play experience miserable and call it an object lesson in how "bad" the system they dislike is.
. . .
I just think that if you don't meet him partway on this he'll keep making things unnecessarily difficult for you.
THIS.
I like the narrative approach, but when we tried to play the FATE version of the Harry Dresden game, things did not go well, which has kind of turned me off to the FATE stuff. If I just wanted to play magical tea party, that's what I'd do. The fact that members of your group are being passive aggressive in this just tells me that there is another problem.
That said, if you expect the dm to kill your animal companion because... reasons... I'd almost say dip venomous... I mean verminous hunter. Let him kill your pet, and then you can swap out fast healing 1, +2 strength, or +4 perception as necessary. Then when he tries to give you back your animal companion I'd say "NOOO! I STILL MOURN FOR FLUFFY THE WONDER WORM!"
Description: An antique wood or metal framed bed with anchor points and sheer curtains on the posts, decorated with luxurious bedding of the finest silks and satins. The bed requires a full 24 hours of continuous sleep without distraction or interruption to attune to the owner. Once attuned, the bed grants the owner a +4 enhancement bonus to any diplomacy or intimidate checks. Additionally it grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Grapple checks when wielding rope or other restraints. The owner of the bed gains a +4 bonus to saves against all mind-affecting abilities as well as a +4 to all DCs to resist against the owner's mind-affecting abilities.
I would add that spending a little extra time in crafting, or using denser materials would almost be a necessity considering some of the guests a succubus might entertain. I would say hardening each piece of wood going into the bed before final assembly, or, if the GM may allow other spells to be made permanent, consider permanent ironwood. I mean... we were discussing a grappling bare druid to begin with, were we not?
Or just make the whole thing out of adamantine, so no one can ignore the posts' hardness.
Duskblade wrote:
<Lots of Awesome>
[Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that the 'extra rage powers' feat will definitely be required]
Also, the succubus must have the 'savage barbarian' archetype. After all, we cannot underestimate the benefits of 'naked courage' now can we?
That's heading into gestalt territory with the number of feats to pull it all together, but I think making something more awesome is a sacrifice many would be willing to make. With as much grappling that has already gone on in this thread, I'd actually say gestalt (or possessing qualities as a whole that cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts) is already a forgone conclusion.
About the biting, has anyone mentioned the fact that a dhampir character can have a bite attack and can ignore a number of negative levels equal to his/her own? ...I honestly cannot remember. What kind of build(s) would one suggest for the inclusion of a few sisters into the mix?
I started college and the local coffee shop I hung out closed. When a few of us went to another, we found a large group that invited several back to their place to play. It was 2nd edition, though they played just as much, if not more, OWoD. My first character was an elf ranger. My second character was a Homid Silent Strider Philodox.
So... Peers... I guess.
The thing is, I remember borrowing an earlier DnD book from a fellow in high school because I thought it looked interesting. I think it was my sophomore year... meaning I would have been around fifteen. I looked through some of Players Handbook and found it intriguing, but eventually returned it, and he never asked if I wanted to game.
In hindsight that was weird. Willing to loan a book out, but not willing to hang out. I am opposite. I'll give you some of my time, but I have to really like and trust you to loan you my books.
I lean toward no. Keep shared spells. I don't see gaining a +2 to perception/sense motive being worth the trade off from shared spells. I also don't see a lot that prevents the animal companion from getting the bodyguard feats other than the other prerequisites they'd already have to meet.
PFSRD wrote:
. . . Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources. . . .
Does a Psion armed with the Vigor psionic power (236 hp, plus throw in a Energy Retort power) eliminate the need for a martial tank character? Yes. Not exactly a game mechanic that helps define class roles and promote teamwork, fairness and player spotlight in a role-playing game.
If you're seriously trying to argue that psionics is overpowered because a psion eliminates the need for a tank, please let me introduce you to the druid, cleric, wizard, etc....
Oberoni Fallacy, making an excuse for flaws in a game mechanic just because it exists somewhere else. Doesn't make it right.
The Psion is d4 (d6 in Pathfinder) and the Cleric is d8 with different BAB progression. Not a good example to use as a comparison.
Which power would you then say is more damning? The ability to add 35 temporary hit points to you and your floating magic rock familiar (so, 70 temp hit points) or the ability to give yourself a base attack increase, an untyped strength boost, and 7 temporary hit points? It's the same expenditure of resources (an effective 4th level slot) but one is on a better combat chassis to begin with. Getting better buff spells And having a better set of saves, hit points, and base attack in Addition to being a 9th level caster is less of an Oberoni Fallacy issue
WotC Boards wrote:
Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.
(which I suppose would be the Rule 0 argument) and more of a comparison of strengths of the classes. Comparing 9th level casters to 9th level casters would be the standard of comparison.
And when you take into account the plethora of options that get added to Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and to a lesser extent, Sorcerers, with every additional book, and psionics typically get only got a Few powers in Some of the additional books, the other 9th level casters can mine for power amongst any book they pick up.
It always seemed to me that the best additional content for psionics was the Mind's Eye articles, and there weren't even (comparatively) a lot of those.
"Never shall innocent blood be shed, yet the blood of the wicked shall flow like a river. The Three shall spread their blackened wings and be the vengeful striking hammer of God."
Boondock Saints.
Edit: I think it was said by the father during the lead up to the courtroom scene... but it's been a while and I'm not entirely certain.
I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.
Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.
Now if you're running a setting where cities are floating on in the sky on rocks, lords get resurrected every time an assassin tries to make an attempt on their lives, and wizards run taxi services, then low-magic makes no sense (or you're playing in a sci-fi setting ;p).
Granted, it wouldn't fit into D&D/Pathfinder well, but Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos fantasy series has a lot of that... in the first book. It's got three obviously different kinds of magic and psychics.
One could argue that there are sci-fi elements in other places in the series, but it is undoubtedly a fantasy setting. Then again, it's so high magic it is not even funny... but it is definitely cool. Just saying...
Even so, I think that if I ever want to run something in the vein of LotRs or Conan with Pathfinder, I think I'd just make it E8 and call it a day. No, it is not perfect, but cut a few spells and leave the powerful, in game (plot) effects to NPC monsters (caster liches) and you might be set. Then again... I'm kind of lazy that way.
. . . I'm pretty sure John Wick is not a sequel to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
Alex Martin wrote:
Nah - I didn't believe it. If you had told me John Wick's dying word was: "Whoa!", then I might have believed it was a sequel to Bill and Ted. ;-)
What are you talking about? I thought Keanu Reeves was contractually obligated to sneak in a "Whoa" into every move he's ever been in. I also assume, that much like The One with Jet Li, that every character Keanu Reeves plays is the same character, just from different parallel universes, and, thanks to a malfunctioning time sliding phone booth, at least one Keanu is there watching another Keanu from the shadows... Possibly the Keanu from The Night Before...
Oooh, one of these days I'm going to stick an invisible somethingerother to follow the PCs around and set off traps, and do random stuff to them....
Like a malicious pixie?
Exactly like.
I was thinking an unseeliepugwampi, but pixies do traditionally fill this role... or any of the shadow templates on something hard to see/tiny and malicious would work.
Yes, well, when you go onto a public forum and post your opinion, you should expect to have it analyzed and questioned by people trying to make sense of it. And pointing out when it doesn't and requesting an explanation that at least follows some sense of logic.
That's how forums work.
Seriously, what reaction did you expect?
I get where he is coming from.
He likes previous edition Psionics.
He likes the DSP updated Psionics.
He tries to share that like of a system with others.
Some complain that the feel is wrong (ignoring reflavoring for other settings/campaigns) or that the system is OP (ignoring the math involved and how some of the rules interact).
This happens enough that he gets disheartened.
This continues, even when he tries to discuss why those specific perceptions of Psionics and how Psionics in Play are actually very different.
Disheartenedness turns to genuine bitterness.
It's not as easy for some to shrug off the negative opinions of others. It's kind of what leads to this type of reaction sometimes...
Monte Cook, Pathfinder Role Playing Game Core Rule Book wrote:
. . . Jason Bulmahn, did an amazing job creating innovative new mechanics for the game, but started with the premise that he already had a pretty good game to build upon. He didn't wipe the slate clean and start over. . . he wanted to empower them with the ability to build on what they'd already created, played, and read. He didn't want to take anything away from them--only to give them even more.
One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that it really necessitates no "conversion" of your existing books and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)? You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG. . . .
Jason Bulmahn, Pathfinder Role Playing Game Core Rule Book wrote:
. . . So while the Pathfinder RPG is compatible with the 3.5 rules, it can be used without any other books. . . I hope that you find this system to be fun and simple to use, while still providing the same sort of depth and variety of options you've come to expect from a fantasy roleplaying game. . . .
Emphasis Mine.
Pathfinder converted most of the open content, but not all. Then, even though saying the systems are compatible and you can use other (3.5) materials, saying "Sorry, you can't use the stuff we didn't bother to include."
I can't say I am shocked at this point. PFS doesn't even include all of the options Pathfinder offers, so why would it offer the ability to play classes that they glossed over in the original conversion?
You know this. I know this. Maybe even intellectually Soulcleave knows this... but it doesn't negate his feelings.
I can connect the dots on EltonJ's and Soulcleave's comments because I've felt that way, too, from time to time. It's not always easy to be easy going when you have people telling you what you like sucks and doesn't belong in the game (doesn't fit the flavor/OP/glad it didn't get converted/happy to leave it behind kind of responses...).
But as has been mentioned, that's a conversation for another thread... one that will likely be jumped on by Psionics Naysayers. :\
So far, I am really having trouble getting away from Air/Earth/Fire/Water benders in my mind with the Kineticist.
. . . this is the marvel universe since when does a major hero stay dead for any significant amount of time.
Heroes? They wouldn't even let Aunt May stay dead in Spiderman (...the comic, I mean. Though, I would be surprised if they ever killed her in a movie, even temporarily).
but they were more than happy to kill off Peter and Mary Jane's relationship.
Yeah...still bitter about them negating 30 years of comics....
No, no... I AGREE.
I've said it before...
Te'Shen wrote:
. . . I love Spider-Man. And that in itself is like being in an abusive relationship. He always makes the same stupid mistakes and never really changes. I suppose that's just a problem with comics in general, but it just felt even worse on Peter for some reason. . . . It's why I eventually quit reading Spider-Man comics, but I'd still go back every now and then to see what's going on. . . .
What little character advances they managed over many years got hand waved away with that little piece of writing. It was the worst sort of retcon.
I'm having a hard time divorcing psionics from psychic as, ever since 2nd ed, they've meant the same thing.
I have an easier time of dealing with the classes/spells by replacing the word "psychic" with "Occult". . .
I agree a bit.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
So I'm a little disappointed Paizo didn't take the opportunity to try something truly different mechanically. . . .
The designers have said things like they don't want to add new systems because they don't want to force the customer base to learn new systems to play certain classes.
This is the straddling the line that I've kind of come to expect.
King of Vrock wrote:
This reads far more like 1E/2E Psionics than the 3E version. The old psychic attack and defense modes are now spells, they use a lot of the older terminology like Wild Talents and Disciplines. I know I'm getting all the old school feels from this!
Then I'm confused. Psychic attack/defense modes did become spells in 3.0/3.5. Wild talent/Hidden Talent became feats and limited PCs to first level powers in the case of Hidden Talent, which was a good thing. Disciplines appear in 3.0/3.5 and are basically Psionic Schools of Magic.
But then again, I'm going to try to divorce my like for 3.5/DSP psionics and try to look at the classes and abilities as if those did not exist.
nighttree wrote:
I never really liked the 3.5 psionic classes or feel... felt to Sci-fi for my taste. . . .
Infinitely refluffable. It's only as sci-fi as you want it to be, which in my groups' cases, were not at all.
Star Wars didn't start out as sci-fi. Lucas took a lot of Eastern influences while studying Tai Chi Quan and then reflavored it as sci-fi. The Force is Chi/Qi/Ki.
I could also use all pathfinder classes to emulate a sci-fi game if I want to and vice versa. Barbarians become Warriors with Drugs or an Adrenaline Rush. Wizards become Engineers with superscience gadgets. Clerics become Combat Medics with advanced drugs and pain suppression devices.
Look at the mechanics. Judge those. Flavor is mutable.
D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
As Fabius Maximus pointed out, Pun pun uses a unique Forgotten Realms creature that uses a supernatural ability. When the person responsible (Khan the Destroyer) originally conceived of the character, it was using a wizard with a snake familiar and 'accidentally' entered into the shenanigans at... I think it was thirteenth level... using arcane magic. Pun pun uses the interaction between wildshaping (a FR +1 template) and the wildshaping PrC master of many forms (three levels to get Monstrous Humanoid forms). It was eventually rebuilt as a first level character using Pazuzu (A Paizo inclusion, I might add) and a skill check. No PSIONICS INVOLVED.
Second edition was broken good and broken bad. I can't speak for first edition, as I have no experience.
Just because you don't like something, that doesn't make it a bad thing. I would thank you to understand a system before you start attempting to undermine it to others, please.
The fact that psionics as a system with 9th level casters that IS NOT as disruptive as the rest of the 9th level casters is a point in its favor.
I would also like to point out that where DSP has transitioned most of the material to Pathfinder, they have also make a few tweaks, fixing a few of the somewhat exploitative bit... which, again, where nowhere on par with what other full casters do.
Also...
Morzadian wrote:
If it is going to be exactly like arcane/divine magic why create it in the first place?
If Paizo creates psychic magic to operate the same as arcane magic there will be backlash, major backlash. No one wants the same thing (arcane magic) with fluff added.
Now if the playtesters respond by requesting 3.5 psionics what will the developers do. They will listen to them. So a warning is a fair and reasonable response.
And no one knows what psychic magic will end up being, so of course we can judge and speculate.
I think of myself as pessimistic, but I am also going to try to wait and see what the product is like before I adopt such a negative tone.
