Terranigma's page

Balanced? No clue, haven't thought about it. Exciting? Heck yeah!

I think this should be the design philosophy.

In general I'd love to see improvements to the overall game design and a change in the design philosophy, i.e. "Fun First". Personally, I'd just cut a lot of systems, categories, etc. pp. that make the game more tedious to play the game but not more fun. Just a few ideas:

(1) Make the skill system more elegant! Cut the number gloat on skills. Cut the gating of basic activities behind Trained/Expert/Etc. pp. I prefer the "You can try"-approach in Pathfinder and D&D 5e. Whether I succeed or not should be determined by my roll. Profiency should not be added to skill checks, as it causes the numbers to explode and leads to situations where tasks that very difficult at level 1 become trivial just a few levels later. The linear, numercial progression was one of the worst aspects in Pathfinder and they repeat the same mistake in Pathfinder 2. Smaller numbers are better numbers. The same is true for AC and saves.

(2) Choices should matter! Feats and abilities feel very restricted so far. It feels like there was a guard checking the designers and telling them "Nope, that's too funky", "Tune it down", "That's too impactful" whenever they created a new feat. Just be bold. Pathfinder 2 is not a PvP game, so if a class happens to be stronger than others, we'll handle. I'd rather have classes that feel too strong and too impactful rather than too weak.

I mean, have a look at 'Stormborn' (Feat 1, Druid): "Reduce any circumstance penalties to your ranged attacks or
Perception checks caused by weather or weather effects (such as wind) by 1." That is not fun, exciting or thrilling. It is plain boring. Don't be boring. I mean, if you call a feat 'Stormborn' and want it to be situational, then be situationally cool with it, like: "Reduce any circumstance penalties to your ranged attacks or Perception checks caused by weather or weather effects (such as wind) by half rounded down. Addtionally, you can channel and redirect one thunderbolt during storms or severe winds to strike your foe. You can use this ability 1 + WIS-modifier per day." Is it too strong? Maybe, I don't know. But it's more flavourful. Again, this isn't a a PvP game, balancing should not trump fun.

Feats should grant players new things to DO, instead of mere numerical improvements that feel negligible because of how fast numbers increase in this game. A feat that grants a +1 bonus is okay'ish at level 1 but eventually becomes irrelevant just a few levels later.

(3) Add fluff! The handbook should not read like a manual for a dish washer, but like a book for a game that allows you to roleplay your wildest imaginations and fantasies. At least the non-sexual ones.

(4) Cut mechanics that don't add to the fun. Why does Finesse only add your DEX-modifier to the attack roll, but not the damage? If I want to play a DEX-based fighter that uses Finesse weapons then the game should help me to do build such a character effectively without constantly telling me, "But, but ... the math! It might be too strong if you can add to +2 DEX-modifier to the damage." Why does each component of a spell require one action? Just give each spell a specifc cast time. Again, all this subdivsion and adding of just another category does not make the game better, it just adds complexity for its own sake. Cut Bulk and Carryping Capacity and just write this sentence: "Players are intelligent beings. Every character can carry as much as is considered reasonable by the players and DM." If you enjoy book keeping and filling out tables, add Bulk as an optional rule.

But that's not what Paizo wants for feedback here.

"Tell us about your actual game play. Theory is all well and good, but everybody’s got theories, and we’ve probably heard most of them already. Tell us how things are actually working in play, not how you think things will work." - Vic Wertz

I see your point, but agree with the other poster: Me and three friends met today because we were looking forward to have a first look at Pathfinder 2 together. We went through the character creation, had a look at the changes, talked about our initial impressiond and came to the same conclusion. It looks organized, structured, clean and neat - just like an Excel sheet. But it doesn't look fun, exciting or thrilling. It doesn't seem to adress what we consider problematic about Pathfinder and doesn't seem to add any qualitity of life changes.

We were willing to give it a try and play it, but eventually decided that no one of us feels in anyway motivated to play the game, neither as a DM nor as a player. So while I understand Paizo's wish to get feedback on actual gameplay, I've never seen such a case of curiosity turning into indifference as I did today.

And I think that's valuable feedback, too. The main concern of Paizo shouldn't be to design a well-balanced and well-organized game, but to create one that looks fun and that gets people into the mood of giving it a try. For us, Pathfinder 2 failed in this regard. It doesn't look fun.

Yep, quite a lot that I ask. Our group starts a new adventure from level 1 with 4 players. As two of us will most likely go for tossing out damage and another one for a more supportive and manipulative witch, what seems to be missing is a character that tries to keep the foes at distance and protects the group as good as possible.

Now there are several ways to to that but I want to go for a new gaming experience, even though it might not be the best way to do it, e.g. a phalanx soldier based on reach-weapons and trip. However, here's what I am looking for.

(1) Dex-Based.
(2) Melee.
(3) Non-Caster.
(4) Combat maneuvers.
(5) Parrying, blocking and redirecting attacks.
(6) Damage doesn't matter.
(7) Nets, Whips and such mundane means.
(8) Offer a variety of out-of-combat skills and abilities.

I try to corporate those 8 points into one coherent character concept. I want to be active (!) in battle by parrying attack, using combat maneuvers (especially interested in dirty tricks) to keep foes at distance and redirect attacks against my group.

So far I thought about going either for a Rogue or Swashbuckler. The Swashbuckler fits the general theme perfectly by abilities such as Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex) but then again, I like the versatility of the Rogue and I think even a Rouge can be turned with the right feats and rogue talents into a supportive melee-fighter. But then again, a Rogue only has a medium BAB and that might be rather problematic ...

Two levels in Duelist seem to have a must-have due to Parry (Ex), but aside from that, I am rather undecided how to proceed. Any advice? Basically, I want to throw dirt in people's faces, pull their hair, hinder them, throw nets, parry attacks and take a blow if I have to in order to defend an ally. Thanks!

My apologies first, I've used the wrong terminology all the time as Touch-AC explicitly excludes armor. To hit touch-AC obviously is as wrong as it could get.

You've got to hit more than touch AC, since you've got to hit squarely and with force, not just touch.

Ye. To hit could also mean you've hit the right leg, that wouldn't obviously do the trick to. Still, as pathfinder doesn't care about hit zones that's from my perspective the best to make out of it. At any rate, I don't see any logical necessity to hit the shield-bearer when I simply want to damage his shield.

To hit someone implies for me that I've somehow bypassed his defense and hit the body. But in this case I don't want to bypass the armor, in fact I want to hit the shield. Whether the pilum eventually hits the bearer seems redundant for the effect to take place.

In fact it is somewhat similar to a sunder-attempt just ruled quite oddly. Guess I'd take a look at that thread, maybe there's a bit more reasonable (house-)ruling to be found.

Hoplites used spears or long spears not Pilums. Roman's used Pilums.

That's why I said neat 'addition'. :P

A "hit" in the case of a pilum might be the weapon hitting the shield with enough force to send a painful shiver through the defender's shield arm, maybe with a twinge of pain in his shoulder as he struggles to keep the shield up.

I thought that's the reason your defense can be separated in your mere dexterity bonus, your mere armor bonus and both together. If you get hit, you've got hit and not a part of your armor. Otherwise it would be odd to categorize weapons according to different types of damage. An arrow is supposed to be piercing damage but in order to do that the arrow has to actually pierce into your flesh. If it would simply hit the armor or shield, the damage caused by that could hardly be called piercing.

Hitpoints are a very abstract number but after all, I cannot imagine someone inflicting serious damage with a dagger by only hitting a breastplate. Thus I'd say that a pilum hits when it actually hits - namely the body, not the armor. That's how I imagine a fight. As DM I'd rule it as to hit the armor and not to hit the body - because that's what you usually have to do in order to inflict lethal damage. Stubbing against armor might be annoying and exhausting but that I'd call that nonlethal damage at best.

Now the long soft iron part of the head will bend from the weight of the wooden shaft, making the pilum difficult to remove from the shield while the wooden shaft makes the shield heavy and unwieldy.

I can imagine that fairly well, but according to your description the pilum did in fact hit the shield, i.e. the touch-AC. Whether you actually hit the shield-bearer or not is not important in order to damage the shield. To me the pilum sounds more like some sort of in-built sunder-attempt, and you don't need to hit anyone in order to damage their belongings. I don't want to start hairsplitting, though.

I'm currently up to write a character who's in terms of equipment and tactics similiar to ancient greek hoplits, thus using a shield and spear for meele range. While browsing through the armory I came across the pilum, which is pretty much a javelin just with the neat addition that it can cause shield-using enemies to loose their AC bonus from that shield if hit. It might be due to the fact that English isn't my mothertounge but I really don't know how the pilum is supposed to work in practice.

Here's what it says on the SRD. Pilum:

Benefit: Like ammunition, a thrown pilum that hits its target is destroyed. If you hit an shield-using opponent with a pilum, he loses the AC bonus from that shield until he takes a standard action to pry out the remnants of the pilum.

What does hit mean? Usually when the SRD says hit, it means a successful attack, thus an attack roll which beats the enemy's AC and would inflict damage. This however seems to make no sense at this point, because if I hit the enemy and deal damage with the pilum, I obviously havn't hit the shield but some vital area.

Thus I thought hit would mean to simply hit the enemy, thus making a ranged attack against the enemy's touch-AC. If I surpass the touch-AC but not his overall AC, the pilum could've hit the shield.

Therefore I think that either the pilum hits the target and deals damage or beats the touch-AC but not the overall AC and disables the shield.

But that's just my five cents after all. Any ideas?

I want to build a character who focuses on nonlethal damage as he won't kill anyone due to his backstory. Luckily, I stumpled across the feat "Bludgeoner" and am a bit puzzled about this wording:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/bludgeoner-combat

"Special: A rogue with this feat can use a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal damage with a sneak attack."

It says clearly that 'a rogue with this feat' can deal nonlethal damage with his sneak attacks. That is as obvious as it can get and still, I was wondering whether it has to be taken literally as usually only rogues get sneak attacks at all. So I was wondering whether this 'gimmick' would also apply for non-rogue classes which can get access to sneak-attacks.

If so, what about if I dip one level into rogue, could I apply the feat also on sneak-attacks I gained due another class, for example the Expanded spell-less ranger. I mean, it says 'a rouge with this feat' can 'deal nonlethal damage with A sneak attack' - not HIS sneak attack.

I know that is some hairsplitting but I puzzled how to interpret it.

Inhaled and ingested poisons can inflict multiple doses at once.

?

In how far's that possible? I don't think it's possible to poison, let's say, the same piece of meat all over again till its drowning in 10 doses of the very same poison. Thus I don't really know how to understand the wording "At Once" - I can't imagine a concrete situation.

Say, would it be actually be possible to apply several doses of the same poison at the same piece of food? In such a case, all doses of the poison would be inflicted at the same time when eaten. But I don't think that's withtin the rules.
If a NPC would eat two pieces of poisoned food, he would of curse suffer from two doses unless he makes the save. However, the DC will only increase when he fails the save for the two doeses and that has to happen first of all.

Dipping into rouge for 3 levels seems worth it; turining a poison into another type is very handy, though, I'd love to avoid multi-classing but I think there isn't much to do about it with Witch as the main-class.

You can only take Spell Hex when you get Major Hexes, that is no sooner than level 11th...

My bad, you're right.

I currently play a Witch (lvl 6) and having a blast with this class. It's mainly because of the theme and mood of the class - not the mention the patron of insanity - and not mainly the mechanics, though, the Witch has without any doubt several very potent hexes and is after all a caster. That's however not the way I enjoy playing this class. I enjoy combat, but evenmore do I enjoy characterplay.

Having the cauldron hex already it was a no brainer to delve into alchemy, potion and poison creation. It suits the character very well and allows for some interesting non-magic/non-hex actions. I thus grabbed Spell Hex (Beguiling Gift) in order to make sure that those, who I can't poison unnoticed, will eventually take whatever I give to them. Furthermore I intend to take Master Alchemist, speeding the creation of poisions dramatically.

All in all I currently have/intend to take, feat-wise:
1) Spell Hex (Beguiling Gift)
2) Master Alchemist

Now I was wondering whether there are more possibilities to flesh out the effeciency of the poisons without dipping into another class. I don't want to apply the poisons on weapons, i.e. I focus on poisons which are either ingested or inhaled. Sadly, the DC for most poisons is rather low so that they seem strongest at the first few levels decrease in efficieny quite fast.

I was wondering whethere there are any traits, feats, etc. which could be used in order to boost poisons?

I know that the Alchemist's discovery Concentrate Poison is pretty much what I'm looking for, though, I dislike the idea to dip into another class for two levels in order to get that discovery. I think it would fit the character to have levels in Witch and Alchemist, though, I'm usually not a fan of multi-classing. At any rate, this character is not meant to be min/maxed but should be fun and stick to a theme, which is a lunatic who's skilled at creating potions, drugs, poisons and all sorts of psychoreactive liquids and alchemical substances. Of course, it's only fun if the poisons actually work. Therefore, if you have any idea how to make poisons more potent, I'd be glad.

I suppose it's not possible to grab the discovery class ability at any means without taking levels in an Alchemist, eh?

I currently GM for a homebrew campaign and, playing d20-system (D&D/PF) for several years already, I wanted to try to do things a bit more different as routine has sneaked in over the course of time. That being sad, I switched to PF as D&D became more and more a game I couldn't enjoy anymore - it encouraged players so tremendously to powergame and felt more like a dungeoncrawler, as the official material supported that kind of gameplay. While it's all up to the GM how the campaign works, now I took over - we're playing PF as being said - and I want to turn the game in a little bit different direction in two aspects.

First, it's more orientated towards a steampunk-style world. Magic is, if existent, usually consider as superstituion, pagan religious stuff noone takes really serious. There is magic, but I want to become magic again more 'magical' and mysterious. D&D, and sadly PF as well, treats magic like some sort of tool you can easily buy at a shop and usually, is degraded to mere mechanics - there's nothing magical or special about magic in usual D&D/PF-campaigns. Therefore, magic is very rare and there won't be any Shortsword+1 or such. Instead, I've substituted those more 'mechanical' progressions into mundane, non-magical items. If you want a better sword, get a better blade for it. If you want to improve your leather armor, get some harder material to improve it. On one side, I don't change 'too' much about the overall balance - even though the characters are weaker due to the lack of magic 'tools' - but present it in a more 'low-magic'-fashion and encourage the players to make frequent use of the craft-skills in order to improve their equipment by themselves.

That being said, I'm happy with it so far. Is kinda lot of work as I have to write most of the material myself but I like it, because magic - when it appears - is usually stranger and more powerful. Anyway, now here's where I need some help and advice:

Half a year ago I ran a Realms of Cthulhu (Savage Worlds)-campaign and it was a blast, because the game felt so gritty and even the players were - finally! - acting cautiously and tactically as they knew that a wrong step might kill them. It is a very intense system and only then I realized how I love such deadly system and how much I've become to dislike the high-fantasy-superhero-marvel-epic feeling of D&D/PF. When I first played D&D, it was the AD&D system which was nowhere as 'powergamingly' as it is nowadays. Anyway, I currently search for some EASY to include ways to change the pace and feel of PF a bit.

Cutting out most magic and substituting it with non-magical means was a good start. Still, I'm still a bit puuzled how to turn PF a bit more into a grittier fashion. I don't speak of horror and such but a fight - if taken - should be deadly. I could, of course, simply tweak the numbers of the enemies but that wouldn't do the job; the enemies would feel stronger but the players wouldn't feel less powerful after all. I'd like to work a bit more with moral, the way armour works, the way hit points work - I mean, you can be beaten down to 1 HP and still can act as you havn't received a scratch, according to rules. I know there are some official variant-rules: have you ever tried them out and can give me some feedback on how it turned out or do you have any other ideas how to 'tone down' PF a bit. The work-in-progress products sadly go in the right opposite direction, turning players in even bigger monster/heroes, thinking, that bigger numbers make a game more fun or even epic.

However, do you have any EASY to implement ideas - or maybe even some more difficult ones? The alternative systems for armour and hit points look like they require a lot of calculations and I'm no huge fan of spending all the time doing math and calculating weird formulas in order to play a game. The more simply and straightforward, the better. I like PF and D&D, but I somehow miss the feeling I got when I've GMd Realms of Culthu and somehow want to bring it back, making the player's character again a bit more 'human'. Yes, even the dwarves and elves, but you get the point! :P

Personally, I'd just start thinking what kind of character and actions puzzle me most when in in films and literature. There's definitiv one kind of antagonist I despite most - the rich, famoues, attractive, selfish and arrogant guy; and that's the sort of character I'm currently pestering my group with.

I think a good villian needs a few aspects thought of:

1) He should be a recurring NPC. Nothing you just drop in and let the group kill him, but someone who's always in the background and whenver something bad happens to the group they start wondering whether it might have something to do with their old 'friend'.

2) He abuses the group. Maybe the 'friendship' between the group and the villian is established during a quest where the group is doing some sort of job for him, of course, with a certain lack of information and 'truth' about their mission. Nobody likes to be lied to and betrayed. This works perfectly.

3) He should be someone who has a certain reputation, maybe a royal man, handsome, young and beloved by many women yet and arrogant, snobbish a@*+$@$.

4) He should be meddling in all sorts of area; he has connections to the government, friends in all areas of life and is someone who is hard to grasp. It ain't any hard job to bring down a well-known murderer but it is very tough to deal with a person who is beloved by many and 'appears' to be within the boundary of law.

5) Give hints of his action. I think a good villian is a villian who might be pushed back and who's actions and plans might be sabotaged by the group, but in the end, the group will have a hard time to actually bring him down. Just think of all the villians from Marvel comics and such - the heroes might deafeat them but this doesn't mean that they're ever finally 'defeated'. I would remeber the group that they have pissed of serveral powerful men; maybe they see a banner of the villian, in a letter his name is mentioned and such. He doesn't even has to appear in order to be a pain in the ass.

This is at least MY favourite sort of villian. Someone you know who's doing evil but then again, you just can't get your hands on him. Maybe a politican, a judge or a rich, noble man. Personally, I'm no fan of 'fantasy' villians such as Lichs and such because at least I cannot really connect to that. I expect a Lich to be evil and that won't be a great deal for my.

I would really consider what upsets the PLAYERS. From my observations, what upsets many people is when the villian is doing something which is morally wrong but legal.

Lets take the slavery as an example, the treament of black people during the course of the US history. It is something nowadays would consider utterly wrong - yet again, it was legal for a long time and when you nowadays see movies dealing with that topic, you'll often have a hard time to sit still in your chair.
Another example would be where someone actually did something evil and the group knows that but still, they have to keep it secret for be bigger good. Maybe the current king is actually a fraud but what should the group do: tell everyone about his true origin and risk civil war as they dethrone the current king - or should they keep this secret, even though they know its wrong. And obviously, the king would brag about that in front of them!

Or, even more easy: watch Game of Thrones and pay attention to Joffrey and just ask yourself again and again, "What makes this brat such a great a@%@@#&?". Joffrey is just this sort of villian I love; powerful, arrogant and you just can't get your hands on him because he isn't just some sort of slaver or murderer but someone up the upper 1000s.

I currently DM a game and two months ago, I gave the group a quite powerful artefact. It was meant as a tool to encourage roleplaying and well, I simply like skilltrees and Pathfinder - like most P&P games - simply doesn't have any. So I came up with one myself.

It is an intelligent item, a lantern which follows one of the group's characters. It has a neutral alignment and is first of all, curios - about all sorts of things. There ain't much information about the background of this item given but only, that's its old and curious and sometimes sticks to people in order to obtain information about each and every aspect of life.

This item has several powers which can be unlocked in a skilltree-fashion. Think of it as a skilltree similiar to the one in the videogame Titan Quest or if you don't know that game, Diablo2. In order to unlock those powers, the group has to fulfill certain tests. That can be very tough, nasty or tricky battles, riddles and such. Due to this, they can unlock certain abilities and passives bonuses which the lantern grants to the group. Once those abilities are unlocked, they need to be charged with sigils. For every test they gain one sigil. But the sigils gained this way aren't sufficient to fill all available ability-slots.

So! And now, what I've asked for ideas for 'Achivements'. All this stuff is optional. It so-to-say something they can do aside from the ongoing story. Now I thought it would be a good thing if the group could gain a few more sigils throught fulfilling certain tasks. Achivements, so to say. As it's all optional, it could be pretty much anything but I'd like to use it as a tool to encourage roleplaying. Therefore, these achivements shouldn't be too much action-focused or such but most of all, require some sort of roleplaying, doing something unpleasent, uncommon, weird. These tasks are given by the lantern and if the group can satisfy its curiosity, they receive another sigil.

As much as I like this idea in general, I have some real problems coming up with some good/nasty/funny/difficult tasks. I'd like to use it to encourage evil characters to act evil or good characters to act good or just to give them a somewhat puzzling task.

Basically, I just got this one so far:

"The lantern has again and again watched the process of reproduction, it sill has not grasped the ethical, social and biological aspects of it completly. Therefore, one of the group is asked to have sexual intercourse and to have an offspring."

Do you have any ideas what tasks would fit? As said, it would be nice if it could require some sort of roleplaying and, as it is optional, can be anything inclunding all sorts of evil, good or whatever acts but not too easy.

Thanks in advance!
:)

My familiar (Witch) is most of all used for RP matters, - a hamster. My character (Insanity Patron) belives that the soul of his dead sister, at the moment of her death, was somehow transfered into the hamster. The hamster does not speak nor does it appear to be very intelligent but still, the character is most certain that this very hamster carries the soul und essence of his dead sister and would never put her into any dangerous situation, neither a combat or non-combat sitatution. Especially, because he wants to find a way to re-transfer his sister's soul from the hamster in a new appropriate body. He just needs to figure out how. To put the hamster at risk would be therefore a no-go!

Sure, I somehow use the hamster as some sort of tool but mainly for mere bonuses (+2 Fort. save, as I use the rat as a template and so on). Would the hamster die, I would most certainly let my character go suicide. For me, it's a really great tool to play my character and to underline his mental illness and fixation on the hamster, which he treats like an ordinary relative.

I love it to observe player's behavior to find out how they think and well, my group usually thinks pretty straight-forward: first shoot, than ask. The first reaction of our group-wizard was to throw fireballs at everything that approached them in the dark because, in fact, so far it has always been some kind of threat. So when I DM'd, I let a group of starving children run towards them while it was raining and pitchdark - the group couldn't see anything, just a group of people running towards them. Well, the wizard did what he always does - fireball!

... when they realized that they've just killed a group of half-dead children who were in the run, one of them the son of the mayor in a city nearby, they were first confused, then pissed off and then confused again.

But it worked. Now it takes a few moments longer before the first fireballs hover through the air.

On the flip side, you have the universes we're emulating, where only 5/20-ish way's of getting along in the world never learn to cast spells (and monks are debatable in that regard). I bet if the fantasy-verse had a DnD equivalent, it'd be a super high tech based reality. Possibly similar to ours.

Yeah, true point's that.

Currently, me and my group are playing in a self-written world. Therefore we play according to the PF-rules but write the world we're playing in, while playing it. It would be pretty tought - not to say, unrealistic - to town down the magic in the official D&D or PF-campaign world. Magic is all-day-buisness there without any drawback, which is why I actually don't feel to comfortablein these settings. I prefer Magic instead of magic. Still, I think even in such a magical world, magic should have some kind of drawback. The analogy to techology seems fair, though, even technology has its drawbacks.

Depending on the scenario you play, technology often causes some kind of drawback. The more "technologicalized" your character becomes, the less human-like he is - for example Shadowrun. Otherwise, technology can malfunction. Technology is good AND bad, im some way or the other. In PF, just like in D&D, it's all good. The worst that can happen is, that a spell simply doesn't work - not a huge drawback.

Anyway! As I said, me and my group want to start playing in a self-made world and therefore I, when it's up to me start GMing a few session, could easily invent some new mechanics. For example I could introduce an environmental change/hazard which causes all the magic to work less reliable. For this, I'd need this new easy-to-implement set of rules. :)

Some of the stuff that had been posted seem good so far, though, it all looks rather difficult to implement. I don't want to change the basics of the magic-system, just add something on top of that. "Masque of the Red Death" look quite promising so far, though.

I can't imagine how bored Id be telling players to roll insanity checks every time they got a new spell level or saw an aberration 4 cr > apl.

True. Still, I'd like to have both. One way to create mystery is due to an intriguing story-telling and self-made monsters, items, events, etc. that no one can be prepared for. Nevertheless, personally I feel that the use of magic on a daily basis trivialises it. I don't want to introduce mystery by the mere use of new rules, but I want to give rules that indicate, that magic can be dangerous.

According to the rules, even poison is more dangerous than magic. If you try to poison a weapon, there's a slight chance that you posion yourself. Still, you can meddle with magic like a braindead maniac and NOTHING bad can happen because of that. For me, that kills a lot of atmosphere. I dislike the idea that magic is just all-good, no flaws, no drawbacks, - heck, it's even more reliable than some piece of technology, as technology can malfunction, magic cannot. My personal computer at home is more mysterious and dangerous to me than magic in PF!

Highfantasy or not, I'd like to try something different and see how it works. That's why I ask!
:)

You can actually miscast with a scroll if you don't beat the CL check if I recall correctly.

Yes, and I think it adds something to the game. Nevertheless, nothing bad or unpredicted will ever happen, even if you completly blow the spell. I think, that's odd. If a mage tries to use a scroll and completly fails the spell (maybe rolling a 1) I imagine that his guys maybe stutters in-game, talks some nonsense or even casts a completly different spell of some sort. According to PF though, failing the use of a scroll - therefore misreading it - won't cause any trouble.

The way Warhammer handles it is similiar to that, what I'd like to have in my PF campaign. Magic should be as useful and powerful as it is, but a bit dangerous and unpredicatable.

Fantasy Hero might work for you as well.

It's based on the champions/Hero system with magic being built from scratch so you could put in all the risk you want.

I've looked up Fantasy Hero and Ars Magica. Ars Magica sounds very neat and online available. Still, I think it would be very tough to convert these rules to the d20-system. I very like the system and that spells can "botch" but I would have to do most of the work still, converting these rules to the d20-system.

Therefore, I'd be glad if someone knows of any d20-systems, mechanics or rules which could be used or easily adopted to alter the offical magic-system of PF. The only stuff I've found so far was Thieve's World, but that really didn't please me. So, d20-stuff would be really appreciated, whether offical stuff or some well-done houserules.
:)

In order for magic to have the feel you want it to have, it literally has to be less predictable with the results more open to GM interpretation than most D20 players, especially the newer generation, are conditioned to allow.

I don't want to solve this "issue" by letting the GM doing whatever he sees fit. It would be very abritary when the GM had to decide whether a spell functions or not. At least I wouldn't like it.

I know of several non-d20-systems which handle magic a bit different. "Das Schwarze Auge" or "Realms of Cthulhu for example". There, you can fail a spell, and in RoC, it can have some very nasty results. Basically, you make a skill-check on a spell and if you critically fail, you roll on a table to determine what nasty effect occurs. I think it's possible to include something like that to a d20-system.

The only reason I'm currently not trying to do it myself is that it can will be very difficult to balance it, i.e. making higher-level spells more likely to fail than lower-level spells, etc.. Therefore I'd like to use an alternate magic-systems which is already playtested instead of creating one from scratch.

Me and my group recently started playing Pathfinder, as we got somewhat bored with D&D 3.5. It wasn't bad, but yet, we were searching for something new and that's one the reasons I'm writing this.

In general, I'm very pleased with Pathfinder and how it handles certain aspects of the game. The fusion of ceratin skills is reasonable, the core classes are interesseting but yet, there's still one think that already freaked me out when playing D&D and it slowly starts freaking me out while playing Pathfinder as well, and that is: the lack of "magic".

http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.de/2012/01/nothing-magical-in-d.html

I havn't written this "rant" but I wholeheartedly agree. While there are numerous pages about spells, magic items, spellcasters and whatsoever, all of this doesn't really help by creating a certain feeling of aw, curiosity or mystery. Maybe that's just me, but when I think about magic, I think it should be, well, "magical", mystical. So far, Pathfinder handles Magic in an identical way as D&D does - it trivialises magic and depreciates it to some sort of technology. So whys that?

One of the biggest issues I think, is, that the use of magic is predictable. That's especially "Fluff-breaking" when you consider, what "arcane" magic actually means. "Arcane" derives from the latin word "arcanum", meaning secret. But arcane magic isn't secret at all in Pathfinder, it's basically spalltered all over the world, all-day-buisness. There is no reason not to accomplish the even easiest, mundane task by means of magic.

I'm too bored to lighten a torch? Just cast Dancing Lights!
I'm too bored to look for a bridge in order to cross the gorge? Just cast fly!
I'm too lazy to roll on Survival in order to find some wood? That's what Create Food/Water is made for.

I know, that Pathfinder plays in a Highfantasy setting. Still, I find this all-day-use of magic deprives the game from even the slightest gimples of a sense of mystery. In books you can read about wizards that meddled with magic too much, turned mad, magicians who feel dragged towards magic by their will to gain even greater power and failed. But all of that, is simply fluff.

There is mechinical-wise not a single rule which creates some sort of mystery, danger or unpredictability. A spell will usually go off, without any hinderance - it is predictable. Using magic on a daily basis won't never do any harm, using magic out of mere laziness and wish for comfort bears no risk, whatsoever. That's not magic, that's just some sort of technology, to me.

This post isn't meant to be any sort of rant, so here's a constructive question:

Do you know of any good, 3th published or even house-made, alternate magic system which fulfills these criteria?

1) Casting a spell can FAIL. Maybe you have to make a roll of some sort to cast a spell.
2) Failing in casting a spell can harm you or create some unpredictable, random effects.
3) This system should encourage the players not to abuse magic for the mere sake of comfort. Instead of casting Create Food/Water each and everyday, it should encourage the players to accomplish these mundane tasks with skill checks or simply some non-magical means. Instead of "walking over the water", they should think twice before casting "Water Walk" instead of searching for some other sort of transportion. Maybe that casting a spell can fatigue the caster, or whatsoever.
4) It should treat arcane and divine caster in a similiar fashion, in order not to "nerf" any of these casters more than the other. Thou, I could imagine that a deity, to which a divine casters prays in order to get his spells, might sooner or later say "Nay" when a cleric of his begs for Create Food/Water each and every day because he's too lazy to get himself any food in "non-magical fashion".

So, long story short: an alternate magic system which makes magic more dangerous in use and more unpredictable. It should by no means reduce useful of magic or nerfed it, but simply encouraging the players not to solve each and every issues with magic, as magic - from my understanding - should be "arcane" (means: mystical) and dangerous. Means, it can fail. And when it does, no one can know what'll happen next.

Currently, I'm a bit in a fix. I'd really like to get back of magic and mystery in my campaign (which PF likes D&D imo lacks) and therefore, I'd be glad for any piece of information, advice how to do that!
:)