Tenshi no Shi's page

I'm actually a little shocked I haven't seen anyone link to this spell although I'll admit I'm not sure if it fits what you're looking for with your characters.

Yes that works, and use the rules for awaken though that leaves you with like 3HD characters, without adding class levels. But hey if everyone is on the same footing.

This is all really good advice. Will Have to check out P6.

For me the problems with higher level are not too much of the problem. The first part which I am right now working on really will focus on survival. Yet it will be about level 1-4 maybe up to 5. After that I will move into a more grand adventure featuring more classic fantasy elements (Though I am adding a fair amount of sci-fi to the mix.

Making survival encounters is a great idea. In fact it gives me the clear idea that I should time-line day by day goals for the party, leaving enough flexibility in not to choke my players' choices.

The way I am going for the hook is that the party is actually a scouting party for an expeditionary force sent to a long forgotten civilization. This lets me limit their supplies as well as get rid of the goodie bag approach to gearing up first level characters. Each character would get standard gear, with slight variations to fit their character. They will get cut off from the rest of the force early on and as such supplies.

I am also planning that the survival theme of the first part will be underlined with fleeing from a much more powerful opponents who are actively hunting the party. Though they will be more overt about their tactics so I do not run into bad perception checks ruining my story entirely.

The whole campaign though I want to focus more on skills then combat. While Pathfinder really is designed around combat, I think that too many games resolve so fully around it. I hope to find a better balance between the two.

Thanks Grizzly, yes that helps quite a bit.

It's going to be a heavy jungle setting with overgrown ruins thrown in, as well as dangerous savages, etc. I am not going to exclude fights, but I want to minimize their importance, while still trying to make the game fun.

I know how casters can make things a lot less challenging. I probably will not have to worry about druids, because of the intro I am going for, which the party is well a military scout team, so well druids are kind of excluded right there. Clerics would still be a useful class, but I am not that much of a sadist where I want to be challenging them constantly with poisoned food, and unhealthy drink.

I know that section will be the party fleeing through the jungle from a superior force that is tracking them. Being that this force knows the terrain gives them a major advantage to tracking the party too.

So I have been working on a campaign, but I have found myself a bit stuck. I have the story outlined, and a clear picture of what I want to accomplish with the campaign. So after years of playing I am getting tired of the players encounter x amount of monsters and have to kill them to get to the next part pattern which a lot of adventures seem to have. I wish to make the campaign more of a survival against the environment, as well as avoiding encounters with superior opponents.

I really want to make the adventure feel more like an action-adventure game. Focusing more on skill challenges. The thing is, I do not have experience with designing such an adventure, and do not know of any good examples or resources that would help me either.

So I am asking if anyone knows of adventures, or resources which would help me.

I am starting to think that some players just confuse evil and chaotic at times. I always have thought the alignments as this good equals selfless evil equals selfish. While Lawful means that a person has a ridged moral code, and chaotic means that they have a flexible one. Yet I encounter too many people that play Chaotic anything as selfish characters that only occasionally do good things, while doing terrible things at the same time. Either that or they play self-serving characters that have to be the one in charge, or the party has to listen to first.

I really am starting to see that really it's a problem with the people I used to play with mainly. Having a good group that you enjoy gaming with really helps bring together a party. If you enjoy gaming with people it does not matter the alignment you play. I would venture that you could even do a good anti-hero, or evil campaign with the right group of people, because if they mesh well then they would be more concerned with having fun together, then having fun themselves despite everyone else.

I started to realize the problem with the group I gamed with a while ago, why I no longer game with them.

Yes the problem with my group was the players each were interested in what the game could give them, rather then what they could give back to the game. It didn't help that we had some people leave, then others join, so our group dynamic was thrown off. It also did not help that the campaign we were playing was itself chaotic, not in the free-spirited sense, but the don't now where it was going. In whole it made me pretty dissatisfied with the game, and well the group as well.

Yet my though on chaotic characters actually stem from me working on my own campaign, and trying to plan it so that I do not fall into those same pitfalls.

I have found on a whole the alignment system less to be a tool, and more of a crutch, or even as justification for a character's behavior. For example in the same group we had a player playing a paladin, that taunted a captive with the death of the captive's pet because the captive was chaotic evil.

The thing is I ran into it all the time, with different players and groups. There is always someone more interested in doing their own thing despite the rest of the party. Unfortunately they use Chaotic alignments to justify their actions.

I began to think that the alignment system itself that is flawed. It is this chart which we use to make a bland and faceless character, which most people then proceed to ignore other then as a game mechanic. I kind of wished that Paizo had removed it from the system when they revamped the rules, but it has become too entangled into the magic system I guess.

I guess really the problem is not with chaotic characters, but with chaotic players.

I guess I am getting tired of how the alignment system has really become a mess, as each person weighs in their own idea how each alignment should be played, as well as using the alignment as a justification for their character's actions.

It doesn't help when the players are all set on making their own story, even if it interrupts the main story, or other player's enjoyment. It really does not help that most adventures are designed around the party being grouped together randomly, to justify the mismatched characters that seem to come about in character creation. Everyone wants to play the lead, have their characters in the spotlight, rather then focusing on the story itself.

I am currently actually writing a campaign the I hope would help with that. Yet even that I don't trust would help.

I don't really know why I am posing this, but I was wondering is anyone other then me gets tired of GMing a party of chaotic characters, or even playing with a character in a party of chaotic characters.

I was playing in a game with a bit of a pirate/swashbuckling theme, and the party was primarily chaotic. It really burnt me out playing in that game. People all really wanted to do separate things, and really there seemed to be no real party cohesion. It did not help that the GM's story was a little weak, and really had too many subplots distracting from the main story.

The thing is as a GM too, I hate chaotic characters. People seem to use the alignment to justify screwing around. And it's not even things that are interesting, sometimes it is just a deliberate attempt to throw a monkey wrench into things. I don't know why people play like this. It's like they like poking the other players trying to get a rise out them, but I can tell that if they are, they are doing it subconsciously. I think that it might just be a bad habit that they developed.

Maybe it is just the people I played with.

Okay thanks for all the suggestions. Like I said this will be low level, but I did not think about Pass without Trace, being a first level spell.

It will be a jungle setting, so that covers the natural, though i will be a reclaimed area, meaning a city that the jungle took back.

I like the idea of aerial surveillance, as well as tracking the rest of the party. Both will work well. I just needed ideas to cover my bases for this campaign. It would not do to make a scenario which evokes a sense of danger, if the danger is easily avoided.

So Scent supersedes Trackless Step? That helps, I am guessing that I can then use another druid with an animal companion to track those with trackless step. I just have never read anything saying that Scent makes creatures able to track druids.

Yes I know there a lot of things I can use, I am just wondering if there are any solid rules about this. I know that the skill system is pretty full of holes though.

My question is fairly straight forward. Simply is there a way for a tracker to track someone that possess Trackless Step. I am designing a campaign which will be largely survival based, and wish to have a point where the group is being tracked by a larger and more powerful foe. I just wanted to see if there are any ways in which a character can track another character that has trackless step.

This is more then likely going to be a non-issue for me, as at this point the party would be around level 2, so even if there is a druid, they would not possess trackless step. So really it is more for curiosity sake.

So I am working on a campaign idea I had. The basic premise is that the PCs are part of an Expeditionary force for a nation sent to a mysterious large island which largely is shrouded in mystery. The island is home of was home to an advanced civilization that underwent a collapse, so all that remains is sparse and scattered communities of survivors, as well as other things.

The Civilization as far as technology levels is past our own, fusion energy, holographic technology, artificial intelligences, gene manipulation, etc. The PC's would be only used to technology from the Renaissance. So black powder firearms would be uncommon.

The point of this thread is I am trying to gather ideas for the denizens of this shattered civilization. Largely it will be a jungle environment, that has overgrown the city centers. I plan on having tribes of mutants who will be largely hostile, but also wanted mutants who might be friendly to the party.

So I am trying to think of races that might have already been made that would fit these roles, that I might re-flavor. That or make new races that work. I kind of leading for things leaning on undead, lycanthropes(animorphic), plant, etc.

I also am going to have Android, and other robots, but want to have things like robotic animals, large flying drones, etc.

If people could point me to ideas, or sources. Even make their own suggestions. I myself am going to be adding my own ideas here for people to look over and comment on. Any help would be great.

Really the problem is with the sneak attack rules in general. They are very situational, favouring melee over ranged.

Really the simple fix for rogues is give them improved feint as a bonus feat, and then make a rogue talent that says "Once per round the rogue can make a feint as a free action." Also allowing to feint on ranged attacks would definitely help ranged rogues

These three things would allow the rogue to sneak attack at least once per round, and still allow them to make full attack actions in combat. While they might not be as godly as a fighter, they would still be quite deadly.

Though facing rules from 3.5 Unearthed arcana plus the simplified acrobatics rule for tumble make them deadly without all this.

If you are doing Knowledge/Face I would suggest only taking Extra Revelation once if at all. Using your feats for things like skill focus and other skill feats would be better.

I would also recommend either Dwarf/Gnome/Elf in order to take Breadth of Experience. The +2 to all knowledges will be worth it.

Drop your Strength, and make your con lower to and pump up Int. You will need it for the amount of skill points you will want to spend. Do not worry about making your Cha so high. Yes it feeds a lot, but at the same time int will be better, since you will have more skill points.

One other tactic is to set a hard limit of 18 in any one ability after racial bonuses. It keeps players from going after that 20 in one ability, and make the characters more balanced.

Well... That would be hard. Druids are not the greatest primary casters imho. They are too diversified from being casters. With things like Wild Shape and Natures Sense. They have a lot of flavour to them, but really it's only one flavour, nature. If you are doing a primary caster, you will want to dump quite a few stats in order to do it. Wisdom and Dex are the important stats, Then Con, and the rest you pretty much need to dump to make casting decent.

It's why I hate Low Point buys, they do not encourage diverse characters, they encourage min-max characters.

But for a primary caster, which is more balanced focus more on buffing, as well as spells without saving throws. You will not have to worry so much then about having high DCs on your spells. Dex will be more important then Wisdom really. Weapon finesse would also be your friend.

If you guys are doing more RP then combat, (which the first book of Sk&Sh leans to) Look at the Urban Druid.

Urban Druid

They are more diplomacy / rp oriented, and other then losing out on spontaneously casting summon natures ally gaining spontaneously casting their domain spells is a huge boon. They also get different domains then a standard druid, and you regardless can pick an Animal or Terrain Domain, at least I am fairly certain you can. Charm though is a great domain, mainly because you will stop a lot of fights before they even start, the Lust Sub-domain makes you a good anti-caster with touch of idiocy. Community is good for it's buffs, as well as Nobility, especially the Leadership sub-domain

Have you looked at Undine and the Undine Adept Archetype for Druid? It is basically what the Aquatic Druid should have been.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-undine

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-undine/undine- adept-druid-undine

While the -2 Str that the Undine have would hurt a Druid focused on Wild Shape, the +2 to Dex and Wis is really helpful with such a low point buy, thus making a good caster druid.

The Undine Adept basically lets you get constant water-breathing at level 2 (you already have a 30ft swim speed for being and Undine). Which for an adventure which you are on a ship for is great.

If you are going with a melee druid. Then I would go with just human, or another race that gives you bonuses to Str, and Con. Wild Shape is not as awesome as in 3.5, so you need a decent str starting out to make melee worth your time.

If You want to have good versatility outside of combat, like in Role Play, but less in combat, then I would recommend the Urban Druid. You lose out on a lot of combat ability, but you get bonuses to Diplomacy and 3 knowledges. As well as getting Thousand Faces at 6th level, making it a much more useful ability. You also become immune to Compulsions and Enchantments, which is really nice. If you take the Charms Domain, or Lust Sub-domain you become very adept at ending combat before it even starts. The drawback is that this build is very ability heavy, and with a 15 point buy would make it hard to do. As well as losing 4 levels of wild shape, and the ability to spontaneously cast Summon Natures Ally

Yes I know. I was taking it the the extreme.

If it is humanoid shape then devils, demons, celestials, genies, etc etc etc should be in the chart to. Humanoid type is defined by as much by biology as spiritually. I really think that Native outsiders should only come back as other native outsiders, because there is something inherently different about them then humanoids. After all Charm/Hold/Dominate Person does not work on any Native Outsider. Neither does Enlarge/Reduce either. You have to pick a specific alternate racial trait for some of those races to be targeted by spells that effect only humanoids.

Lets face it. The rules for pathfinder/3.5 were never designed to fit races outside of the core 6. All these new races are really afterthoughts.

So really if you want to make your reincarnate table include native outsiders, that is fine. I was just giving an alternate argument for the sake of giving another perspective.

You can, but I think it has more to do with flavor then game mechanics. Remember you are talking about worldly races vs plane-touched. Native Outsiders means that their soul is connected to some other plane of existence, just their bodies are bound to this world. When you reincarnate someone you are basically using their souls to build them a new body, unfortunately it just means that their new body is one similar to their last.

Remember reincarnate used to pick anything for your new body. You could come back as a badger if you were not lucky. (Actually knew someone who had a monk that this happened to.) I think they added the of your creature type to keep your new form within reason.

Personally if I was to have a player be reincarnate I would have them roll for race, gender, height, weight, hair color, etc... after all if you can no control of your new form.

You need a seperate table for the native outsiders though, as per Reincarnate

they can only be reincarnated as another race with the same type. So outsiders should have a table specifically for them. Probably would add other native outsiders on it like the Janni, just for some flavor. I think this is to avoid the you can be anything that earlier incarnations of reincarnate had.

I would choose something other then spell resistance lesser. it really is not a great ability for a race. It means that a caster who is the same level as you needs to roll a 6 or better to overcome it. With NPC's and the Big Bads typically being higher levels then your player character, it means that they basically will overcome your spell resistance every time. Ever little mooks that are like 3 levels below you will only need a 9 to overcome your spell resistance. I would give them energy resistance over spell resistance. Or better yet give them a bonus to saves verses a specific type of spell. Or immunity to a specific type of spell. Like Elven Immunities.

Yeah I would remove both Elven Magic and Jumper from the Moggle. Having Elven Magic a trade off for Tinker/Craftsmen works well too. Jumper on the other I just don't see them having. Moggles have kind of short stubby legs.

As for the Viera, I counted Cat's Luck as 2 RP when it is only 1, so it just 15 RP total. If you like Nimble Faller, you can always remove Cat's Luck. I guess quick reactions is not that bad starting out. It means that you can never take Improved Initiative as a feat, since you already receive it and a bonus feat from the race. Keep in mind that the Spell-like ability is only a 4rp on a technicality. It is a 5th level druid spell, it's only a 4th level ranger spell because rangers get their 4th level of spells at 13/14th level. I still don't think it would be too broken though, because it's casting time of 10 minutes you really will not want to use all that often.

A good way to look at making races is look at the classes they would naturally feed into, and then make one of that class.

The Moggles are actually pretty generalized, the best class I can see for them is a Wizard, or Alchemist. Being small, does not hurt either class, and both dex and int helps those classes. But the rest of their abilities do not feed into either class much. Except if you are making a Magic Item creation wizard.

The Viera on the other hand scream ranger. With the +2 dex, +2 Wis is feeds a ranged ranger. the -2 con is a set back, but you make up for that with all their racial abilities. They would also be natural druids. So try making a 1st level then a 5th/10th/ or 15th level character of each class.

Hmm... yeah they are a lot better now. I would still argue with removing Elven magic from Moggles, and Nimble Faller from Viera. I also think that Improved initiative is too much for the Viera as well. I would just reduce it to a +2 to initiative like the trait reactionary. With them having a +2 dex, the +4 to initiative makes that a +5. It's just too much imho. You could also remove jumper from Moggles. I know that Pathfinder has quite a few 13-15 races, but they tend to be either specialized, or really just overpowered compared to the rest.

You are right about the moggles, I had forgotten in FF 12 there are only a few that flew. Just thought a race capable of slow flight would be an interesting addition to a game. Maybe can make a variant where they are tiny, get a -4 to str... hmmm.

Are you going to try to make the rest of the races from Ivalice? Or did just the Moggles and Viera speak to you?

Edit: I did the math and Moggles are 16 as well as Viera are 16 right now.

Both races are too powerful to be playable races.

You really went a little overboard with adding abilities.

I am guessing from the Viera that you are trying to go for Ivalice Final Fantasy, such as FF 12, Tactics, etc.

In that case might I make a few suggestions.

First the Moggles. Give them a -2 to Str. They are small sized, and as such makes since to be weaker then normal, besides moggles are known as weaklings, unless they are summons. Make Craftsmen into the Gnome's Obsessive.

Obsessive: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of their choice.

Master Tinker is a good to keep. Low-light vision is okay, though I never saw evidence for this in the games. The eternal hope I also like for them. Of course leave them slow.

Toss out the rest, but add this instead, Give them a fly speed of 10-15ft clumsy. The fly racial ability says 30ft clumsy I know, but they are not very nimble or fast in the games. To make up for the reduction in speed give them Hover as a bonus feat.

That Gives you.

0 RP for abilities
0 RP for size
-1 RP for Slow
2 RP for Obsessive
2 RP for Master Tinker
2 RP for Low-light
2 RP for Hover
2 RP for Eternal Hope
4 RP for fly if you keep it 30ft clumsy, which would be good too, but I would argue like 2-3 RP is you make it 10-15 ft.

So between 11-13 RP, which is not that too high.

Why give them fly? First off in Ivalice they can, in many games they can actually, and it makes them a very unique PC race.

Now for Viera.

I would go like +2 dex, +2 wis or cha, then -2 Con. They are not really shown to be stronger then Humans.

Strangely I am fine with Fast as Viera are fast. I would not give them Sprinter on top of that though. Silent Hunter is also good, and camouflague. Get rid of the rest, but add this.

Commune with Nature 1/day. It's a 4th level Ranger spell that does not damage, so it works with Greater Spell-like ability. It also has a casting time of 10 minutes, so it's powerful for a 1st level character, but not broken imho.

So that makes them a RP 12 race.

0 RP for abilities
0 RP for Size
1 RP for +10 to speed
2 RP for Silent Hunter
2 RP for Bond to the Land
1 RP for Camouflage
4 RP for Commune with Nature

Yeah, that makes the most amount of sense. I did not know if making the beguiling not conditional would be too powerful. With allowing the Armor bonus, I realize how powerful that makes the character. At no point would a cha caster have less AC then a fighter, or even a Paladin. With not allowing an armor bonus of any kind, they are still a powerful race, with always maintaining a high touch AC. Yet with races like the tiefling and aasimar, I am not to worried.

Another thought I had was go +2 Dex, +2 Wisdom, -2 Strength. That way I am not feeding Diplomacy and Unearthly grace.

A Lore Oracle with a AC revelation at level 20 would have a AC of 50. 10, + 12 cha in place of dex, + 12 cha deflection, +12 Armor bonus, + 5 Amulet of Natural Armor, +1 Dodge. If I make it no armor bonus, then that is only a 40.

A Fighter with +5 Mithral full plate, Dex of 24, Ring of Protection +5, Amulet of natural armor +5, and Dodge. Would have and AC of 42.

On the other hand a Monk without and AC would be a 48 without bracers of armor. So well that is pretty broken.

Hmm I see your point about too much. Why I was thinking lose the water subtype but leave the swim speed. Then lose skilled, or scale it back to just +2 to one skill.

The Unearthly Grace though as an armor bonus just does not fit. It is not mimicking armor, but just makes it so attacks naturally do not want to hit. Maybe just make it so that they use their charisma modifier in place of their dexterity for purposes of AC/CMD/and maybe Reflex?

Though I like your idea of just letting it scale up over time. Maybe make it so that you gain a deflection bonus of 1/2 your level up but can't exceed her charisma modifier.

Building a Sorceress, Bard, Summoner, and Oracle would be a good way to test this concept though.

Edit: Maybe remove Perceptive and change it to this

Beguiling: Naiads receive a +2 racial bonus on diplomacy checks against creatures that are sexually attracted to her.

That way it's a conditional bonus to one skill, though a cha based skill I know.

Yeah I might going overboard with my devil's advocacy but this is a big complaint I have with pen and paper rpgs. I really do not like power creep.

Bards step all over rogues as far as skills go. They should have been only 4+int skill points per level. Or more to the point Jack of all Trades should have been a Rogue only skill. They made bards too much into magical rogues, it is really annoying. The Archaeologist bard is the worst offender.

Yes some of the Rogue Talents are under powered, but really all you should do is beef them up so they are equal to a feat.

And as far as stealth, like I said, I can see the rogue having a 1/2 level bonus to stealth.

Really it is up to you though. This is a home-brewed class. Paizo is not going to change their rogue, and it will be up to DM's whether they want to use your Rogue. I was just arguing that if you go overboard adding shiny abilities to it, no GM will want someone in their group to play it. It will become a class that people point to to show what power creep is.

Really though you are undervaluing the rogue and all their abilities. You are saying that they should be masters of disguise, stealth, and damage. You want the rogue to do too much. At least in my humble opinion.

Anyways this will be my last post on this. I cannot change your mind, nor contribute to your idea in any positive fashion, seeing as I cannot come to agree with you about what is wrong with the rogue.

Rogue talents are feats, to the point that you can take a feat using rogue talents. Several rogue talents in fact give you bonus feats. Finesse Rogue anyone.

Yes I did miss the fact that you can already create diversions using bluff, thank you for pointing that out.

Now as far as fast stealth is concerned, if you think it is too little, then copy the Elf's alternate racial trait Silent Hunter. They can run, but with a -20. You can make it a -15, since fast stealth reduces the penalty by 10 rather then 5, being able to run at a -10 penalty is too powerful. You should not be able to run at full speed and make so little noise.

Yes sneak attack is very situational. Yet it's the same progression as the alchemist's bombs, and it's unlimited by times per day. That means so long as you flank/feint/catch an opponent flat-footed, you can sneak attack, for as many attacks you have. Just by making feint a swift action you would give the rogue the ability to full attack an opponent every round and apply sneak attack to every attack. You would outclass most two weapon fighters with the right build.

I also disagree with your idea of what a rogue should be. A rogue is a swindler, a thief, a scoundrel. They are a person that lives by their wits and guile. They are not Ninjas or Assassins. You are taking a unique class and making it too much like the others. You are discounting the fact that rogues get the most amount of class skills and the most skill points per level.

What you are talking about how a rogue should be Paizo already did. It's called the Ninja.

I think you said it yourself in your first post. The most broken characters you played were rogues. That is the thing, no class should be broken. They should have their own uniqueness to them. If a class is not a powerhouse, then find another role for them. If you are playing a campaign where rogues don't shine, then choose another class. Do fall into the trap that everyone in the party should be doing massive damage every round of combat. The Rogue shines out of combat, in opening doors and making sure that their companions are not killed by traps.

The problem with rogues is exactly that I said before. It's not they are not a good class, but that Paizo robbed them of their best abilities and gave them to other classes. There should not be Urban Rangers and Archaeologist Bards. Those should have been rogue archetypes.

Hmm I was looking it over some more and had a few more thoughts.

I again reiterate that the Rogue's Talents are not underpowered, and they do not need to be changed. They are rogue specific bonus feats, and like the fighter's bonus feats, should come every even level, if you want, just let them get one at level 1 and then one every even level.

Okay now that I am done with that look at the Urban Ranger. It is unfortunate that the best Rogue archetypes are other class's archetypes.

I think that instead of Hide in Plain Sight, the Blend In ability the Urban Ranger has would be much better. Though just having it as an Advanced Talent would be just as good. Either that or a ability/talent that lets them use a bluff check to distract observers so they can make a stealth check to hide.

Push Through would also be a very good ability to copy, just make it apply to Urban Areas, or limit to rounds/minutes per day if that seems to powerful.

Master of Disguise is a good idea, but you have made it way to powerful as a 2nd level ability. You just gave them Disguise Self basically, but without the drawback of being able to dispel the disguise. I think that you should instead of doing the set ignore the penalty from age/race/gender, say that they reduce the penalty by 1 every 4 levels or so. either that or they remove the penalties for age/race/gender separately at set intervals.

Sneak attack is fine how it is. It does not need a critical hit ability too. Especially sense this just leads to more GM policing of dice rolls. If you really want to add one, say that a rogue adds their weapons critical modifier as extra damage to their sneak attack damage.

Prowling is also too much. Just give them a bonus to their stealth equal to 1/4 or half their level. If half their level at 4th level give them +2 every 4 levels. Fast Stealth is already a good rogue talent, you do not need to make it a rogue ability.

Actually I can go on about the rest of the abilities, but I think that it would be too much.

You are adding too much to the rogue, making it better then any class.

The rogue is good class. The problem with it is people expect it to be what it's not. It's not a combat badass. It's the best skill monkey in the game.

If you want to fix the rogue, give it Jack of all Trade (The 3.5 feat version) as a talent that you can only take at like level 6. Then make an Advanced Talent that allows them to take 10 on any trained skill even if they normally could not.

Make trap-finding exactly like Clever Explorer.

Make trap sense to also be a bonus against surprise attacks, meaning + to initiative, reflex saves, and a Dodge bonus in surprise rounds.

Give them Improved Feint as a bonus feat, then make it a swift action latter on. This makes them able to sneak attack on their own, while not hidden or invisible.

Make Darkvision a rogue talent, then See in Darkness an Advanced Rogue Talent.

If not that, make it so you can still sneak attack and opponent with concealment, but make the rogue roll against that concealment to get sneak attack.

Finally give the rogue back Improved Evasion as a class ability.

It's interesting, and while I agree the rogue is in desperate need of love, I do not think this is it.

It loses a lot of the things that make a rogue unique in favor of adding other classes abilities. That and Blindsight, which is kind of unnecessary with rogues getting uncanny dodge.

I do like the idea of expanding the rogue talents, but you can leave the mechanic the same, just add new ones.

IMHO the reason the rogue is lacking is not because it is lacking in combat, though it does lag behind there. It's that people focus on getting rid of the rogue's utility. They have the highest skill points, the most amount of skills. They get sneak attack every odd and a rogue talent (feat!) even level. They get 1/2 their level to perception vs traps, and to disable device vs traps.

I think how to improve them is just give them a straight 1/2 bonus to perception and disable device, then give them talents that would get them darkvision then another for see in darkness. Which would make them insane killers. Drop a deeper darkness using a magic device in a dim room to make it magically dark then slaughter everyone with sneak attacks as you are pretty much invisible to them.

Making it an Armor bonus would work mechanically, though flavor-wise not that much. Of course that also means that they could get a ring of protection, to boost ac. Which is not that big of a deal since items that confers deflection bonuses cost twice as much as an item that confers an Armor bonus.

I wonder if there is any other changes I should make to this race though. I was trying to shoot for a race kind of like a Nereid. My only other worry is giving it the water subtype, which would mean that it would be able to breathe both air and water. Might be a little too much.

Oh forgot to add that they have low-light, for being a fey.

I was also thinking of adding that they are treated as both humanoid and fey to determine the effects of spells, SLAs and Supernatural abilities. Mainly so that they still are effected by hold/charm/dominate person.

Ahh this slippery slope. Here is a quandary, how about intimidate being intelligence based?

I think that you are missing that even a weakling can be intimidating, because they know the right words to threaten someone with. This is in fact the purpose of intimidate, to get an NPC do something you want without wining and dining them. Using your raw brute strength to intimidate people into doing what you want to only works in the right circumstances. You can't really intimidate the city guard by smashing something after all and flexing you muscles at them will probably just make you a butt of a running gag. (See Lt. Armstrong from Full Metal Alchemist)

That being said taking a feat to make it a str based skill is balanced. The classes that this feat is useful for are all melee classes, that well should have to spend the feat to make themselves intimidating. Though really it should be only for the demoralize ability in the intimidate skill description

As for it being Intelligence based, it was just an example that one can intimidate using any ability. An intelligent character can brow beat someone who is less intelligent after all.

Well Deflection bonuses don't stack in the rules, only race, circumstance, and dodge bonuses to. Hence why I thought that having an high deflection at first level if you don't wear armor was pretty balanced.

So an example would be if you have a 18 dex and an 18 cha, your AC without anything else would be 18. The thing is that if you do a sorceress and cast Mage Armor, that would be a make you at level 1 have a 22 AC, if you do an Oracle that has a mystery that grants a +4 ac bonus at first level, you would have a 22 AC. All be it, those are hour per level spells/abilities.

So at first level you would be outstripping every melee class out there.

The Dodge bonus runs into the same problem, plus you can get a ring of protection later on that would stack.

It's why I was thinking that it should read that they lose their deflection bonus if they gain an ac bonus of any kind. Then you would not have to worry about them having an ac that outclasses anyone else. Though there is not much I can do about monk, except give them a weakness that forces them to be non-lawful.

So as there are quite a few playable native outsider races I wanted to make a playable Fey race. Looking through the advanced race guide, in the race building portion made this seem quite possible. The thing is I do not want to just make a race that feels like any existing race and slap the Fey type on. I want the race to feel uniquely fey, different from the other races.

So here is what I have so far.

Naiad

Ability Score Racial Traits: +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Str Naiads are lithe and entrancing but their willowy frames leave them rather feeble.
Type: Naiads are Fey with the water subtype.
Size: Naiads are Medium creatures and thus receive no bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Base Speed: Naiads have a base speed of 30 feet on land. They also have a swim speed of 30 feet, can move in water without making Swim checks, and always treat Swim as a class skill.
Languages: Naiads begin play speaking Common and Sylvan. Naiads with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Aquan, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Goblin, and Halfling.
Deceptively Resilient: Naiads otherworldly physiology gives them a +2 racial bonus to fortitude saves verses poison.
Perceptive: Naiads get a +2 racial bonus to Perception and Sense Motive.

The last ability is the one I am having the most trouble with. You see I saw the first level spell Nereid's Grace in the Advance Race Guide. It gives the caster a better version of the Nereid's Unearthly Grace.

Anyways I was wondering if it would be broken to give a playable race the deflection bonus equal to their charisma modifier. With the stipulation that you cannot wear any armor in order to get this bonus. I was even thinking it could be worded

Unearthly Grace (Su) A naiad adds her Charisma bonus as a deflection bonus to her Armor Class and CMD so long as she received no armor bonus from any source.

this would make it so that while they can get a high deflection bonus first level, this ability would not stack with any spell or item that gives an armor bonus.

Either that or I can make it a dodge bonus instead of a deflection, since a dodge bonus is like a deflection bonus, but you lose it when you are flat-footed.

Anyways this is just an idea I had. Would love some suggestions and feedback.

Basically it you can use two-weapon fighting without reach and can treat it as a reach weapon by forgoing the two-weapon fighting. You still mae multiple attacks by having a hight base attack. This is at least how I interpret it. It is a terribly written rule.

Well I think the duplicates the spell, is just to make it easy to figure out. As a GM myself I would allow it on various class SLA, but not all.

Thanks for noticing my mistake about Darkness. It would be a 1st lvl spell that would require lvl 10.

Full round yes, but not spells with a casting time of 1 round. Blood Crow Strike is like Summon Monster/Nature's Ally. It take one whole round, from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn to cast. If any time you are hit while casting it before the start of your next turn you have to make a concentration check or lose the spell.

Sorry I posted, then reread the rules and had to heavily edit my post, so I just deleted it and now posting my edited post.

Sorry about not really answering your question Kazumetsa.

Is it possible to acquire the feat Quicken Spell-Like Ability in Pathfinder? We are running the Rise of the Runelords campaign and I am rolling with a Level 3 Vanaras Qinggong Monk at the moment. The main reason I'm debating it is because of Blood Crow Strike and possibly duplicating it for two full-round attacks.

No you can't. Blood Crow Strike casting time is one round. You can only quicken a SLA that casting time is a full-round or less. One Round is more then a full-round. So with Blood Crow Strike you charge the spell for a whole round, and then at the beginning of your next turn the spell triggers and you then do your actions for the round. In Blood Crow strikes case either unarmed attacks as part of a single of full-attack action or furry of blows as a full-attack action.

Well without a max duration you can concentrate as long as you can take standard actions.

This means so long as you move once per round. You perform no other standard actions like most skill checks, attacks, cast another spell. Are not distracted, so the second you get hit with damage, or another spell that forces you to concentrate on something else (i.e. Fascinate). You also can't sleep and maintain it either.

I as a GM would also rule out eating and maintain a spell. Conversations that require you to reason in order to respond. As well as other things that I think would be too thought intensive.

So to answer your question, you can concentrate on a spell for as long as your GM allows you to. Just remember, they can tell you to roll a concentration check whenever they feel you are doing something that they feel would break said concentration.

Please read the full feat before condemning it as broken.

You have to first be able to cast the SLA at a CL 10. Then it has to duplicate a spell, so all those class SLA which have no spell analogies are out. Then you have to be at a level equal to twice the spell level +4. So the drow's Darkness you can only get Quickened once per day when you hit level 10.

BTW. The feats for Drow, that makes them a noble drow as they take them are much more powerful then this combo.