The Hedgewizard's page

27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Again, I said "Half-orcs in general (I'm not talking about a specific background)." Stop trying to argue from a specific background concept. All half-orcs do not "spend all day in wilderness, have all their clothes and utensils made from natural materials, and concern themselves primarily with his instincts and emotions." There's nothing wrong with specific half-orcs choosing to be druids, but you need to show why all half-orcs, not just the "tribal wilderness dweller," would be well enough suited to the druid class (instead of the more general cleric) to justify it being one of their favored class choices.

What are you talking about? I am not arguing from a specific background concept I hold. I specifically said, *if* horcs in the Pathfinder setting *are* more prone to reject civilization compared to full humans, then druid could very well be a possible favored class. The fact that barbarian is already a favored class for horcs however, does seem to show (regardless of setting) that they tend to have an inclination for wildnerness, as the barbarian's skill list and flavor would demonstrate. Which brings me to my next point, from another poster:

Regardless of alignment, Orcs are tend to chop and burn down forests than live in them. Also, all of your arguements work just as well for Nature Related Clerics as they do for Druids, but in the Case of Clerics, it really does show the distinction between civilized and uncivilized Clerics. Most druid aspects can be done with nature/primal Clerics just as easy and better (well in 3.5 they could).

I don't think most druid aspects can be done just as well with "primal clerics" because the problem is a druid's entire spell list, skill list, and extra features (woodland stride, wild shape, venom immunity, wild empathy, etc.) are all oriented towards dealing with wilderness settings or have a wild flavor, whereas a "nature-based" cleric would only get a few domain spells or maybe a skill or two added to his list. I already addressed the idea that dominating one's surroundings shouldn't necessarily prevent one from being a druid but as for cutting down forests, humans, in every setting I've ever seen, do this *far far* more often than orcs...

What is a "strong connection with nature" though? The guy who ignores nature as a concept in the abstract but spends all day in wilderness, has all his clothes and utensils made from natural materials, and concerns himself primarily with his instincts and emotions is going to, I would argue, have a "stronger connection with nature" than the fellow who tends a temple garden in a giant city or advises farmers in towns about how to plant crops and fancies himself as believing in a "balance" between some conceptual idea of nature versus that of civilization while his actual interaction with and direct dependence on the former is minimal. So I think it really depends on whether or not half-orcs are more inclined to reject civilization and sedentism for wilderness and roaming than humans regardless of whether or not they're also inclined to imagine themselves as protectors of the woods and its little creatures or have a sentimental view of "Mother Nature". If so, druid might be appropriate, if not, then not really.

I don't have a strong feeling on this either way, but to all the people arguing druid is inappropriate because orcs would rather dominate than protect nature, I can say this: Malarite Druids. Last I recall, Malar in FR grants druid spells, and his entire philosophy of what constitutes "nature" is the "struggle for survival" and he loathes civilization precisely because in his (weird) view he sees it as not being overtly concerned with power enough and is thus decadent and weak.

Furthermore, druids can be Neutral Evil without any problem, and while this might mean they're fanatical eco-terrorists it might also mean they're simply extreme darwinists, which I don't see contradicting the orc mentality. Orcs in most DnD settings don't seem to actually build feudal or industrial civilizations either. So, they either feel such things are decadent (a druidic view) or maybe are simply incapable of such but the latter would still mean they'd be more inclined to druidry I'd think since a focus on the transcendental generally goes along with removal from being embedded in the natural.

If anything, druids are far more open to interpretation than clerics, because "nature" is a vague concept and druids technically draw their power from it moreso than worship it (although, worship may be nothing other than an attempt to barter for power anyway)whereas clerics must follow a very particular dogma of their specific deity or lose their abilities. People seem to interpreting what constitutes "nature-worship" through the lens of modern environmentalism with its ethics of care but, historically, a lot of nature-based paganism was concerned with bartering with nature spirits and such simply because the people feared them or wanted their blessings for themselves.

Unless I am imagining things, I believe it's in the Book of Exalted Deeds somewhere.

""Monks are proficient with all simple and martial weapons. However, when using the special monk weapons, they MAY use their WIS modifier instead of their STR modifier in order to hit/damage...""

There is already a feat that does something like this I believe, Intuitive Attack, although unfortunately it requires you to be Exalted and only works with simple and natural weapons. Pathfinder should just convert it to having no alignment requirement and working with a single type of selected weapon when taking it (maybe add the BAB +1 requirement too like Weapon Finesse). If rogues have to take weapon finesse to use Dex then I think monks should be required to take a feat to switch their attack modifier stat as well.

I don't really understand why the ranger just can't have an animal companion and caster level equal to his ranger level. Is that really going to break the class? I can't see how. They had such in NWN if I recall and no one was screaming "RANGERS ARE BROKEN!"

Personally, I always felt like fear should be a Fort and not a Will save. This way, you wouldn't need to give fighter types a boost to saves against fear effects, but it would still be plenty useful against rogue and mage types, who make much more sense running away in terror than a fighter anyway.

Regarding the scimitar it should really be replaced with the scythe in my opinion. That's basically a d8 weapon (2d4) and it's a farming implement which makes a lot more sense for a druid than a curved sword I think.

So proficiencies would be: Club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scythe, sickle, sling, and spear (any).

Maybe even replace dagger with handaxe too, or just add the handaxe in. I'm not too sure about the shortbow though.

They should grant them the original toughness feat (+3 HP) at every even level with a d10. That's 30 extra HP at level 20, and 10 more hit points than the average result of d12, so it's an improvement unless you are using maximum hit die rolls. Furthermore, they'd be guaranteed at least +3 hp on those even levels, making them ultimately tougher on average even without the d12 (more tough than if they just used a d12 actually).

First thing that comes to mind being a problem is that Endurance is used as a pre-req for certain prestige classes.

In my opinion, while I understand the desire to make every feat seem useful, it's actually nice when designing or re-working a class or variant class feature or building an NPC or monster to toss them a feat that adds a bit, but not really too much. If every feat is roughly equally useful, you can accidentally end up ramping up the power too much in the end. "Weak" feats work well as it is as bonus feats on classes, pre-reqs, and NPCs.

I love condensing skills, and this thread is possibly one of those cases of people who don't like something being more vocal than those who approve, as very few people I know are happy with skills in DnD. Anyway, one specific point:

"Adding Search into it, IMO, is just wrong. Listen and Spot are wisdom-based and deal with just noticing stuff. Search is intelligence-based and deals with methodically cutting an area into quadrants and scouring it for clues. Listen and Spot are something animals and humans can do, but Search is CSI-stuff that your average housecat isn't going to master, so folding Search in with Listen and Spot doesn't work for me"

See, this isn't really based in anything like cognitive science as far as I know. The difference between "actively scanning" and "noticing" seems arbitrary and abstract (we are subconsciously "scanning" all the time) and I doubt the actions really uses different parts of the brain. Even if it did, scanning for something is useless if you can't actually catch it with your eye in the first place so at the very least, Search is subordinate to Spot. As for the housecat, boy, I guess you've never tried to hide something from a cat, LOL.

While this may seem like a good idea, it's not. In Neverwinter Nights, sorcerers don't suffer the increased casting time for metamagic.

This is such a good point. In that game, sorcerers were all over. The person who mentioned giving them sudden metamagic feats had a good point, but I think it should be that or bloodline powers, not both.

Instead of calling it "Unnatural Beauty" why not re-name it to "Otherworldy Charm" and give it a flat +2 Diplomacy (and perhaps also Wild Empathy) bonus on influencing non-elves? That reigns it in a bit and also shifts the flavor emphasis from the physical appearance to their personal presence.

I really think they could just use Deception combined with a Dexterity check and perhaps just drop the sleight of hand skill. So you make a DC 10 Dexterity check to conceal a dagger or something, and if you succeed that then a Deception roll against a Perception roll prevents you from being seen doing it. My problem with sleight of hand is that legerdemain tricks aren't really about manual dexterity primarily, they are about misdirection, which is bluff (now deception). Granted you certainly need some dexterity to do it, but that's another thing. A character with low dexterity and high ranks in sleight of hand could be a master pick pocket, even if his Dex score would indicate he's a klutz. And anyway, being a master pickpocket really comes from confusing the people you're pickpocketing which means it should be Charisma-based to me. I doubt they'll do this, but if they were to they should move Sense Motive back out of Deception and into its own skill, but also perhaps make Sense Motive used for sending messages, and not bluff like it is now. If you can read people you'd probably be able to communicate better as well, I would think.

"I have no answer to this and I'm not trying to make a point either way really ... I just find it interesting that the Class that seems to most often get accused of be too powerful is the class that most people don't want to play ..."

I really think this is because they get shoe-horned into being a healer for the party. While I personally enjoy playing a 'support' class, many people don't like not being in the spotlight or feeling limited. I really wish DnD in general would figure out a way to move out of the trap-disabler, healer, front-line fighter, and caster party assumption. It should be a lot easier to play without needing any magical healing, so you could feel like you could be whatever kind of cleric you wanted and weren't a walking medkit.

[KnightErrantJR]: Looks like just going by the SRD, the average number of spells a cleric has on this spell list is 23. I'm wondering, given that there are a few spells restricted by alignment for every level if 20 + Wis bonus for a given level wouldn't work.

20+Wis is really too high to even be a restriction I should think. Plus, it should really scale by level, IMO. What I do is 10 - spell level + base Wisdom, not counting the heal or inflict and domain spells. So a cleric starting with 16 Wisdom would know 12 1st level spells, plus the heal or inflict and domains spells, for a total of 15. By 17th level, when he could cast 9th level spells (assuming his Wisdom is 20 then) he could know 6 level 9 spells plus domain spells and 2 more 1st level spells.

My problem with tweaking the half-orc is consistency, meaning if you're going to alter the half-orc you really should be altering the base orc to make sense. Orcs have +4 Str and -2 to all mental stats as of now, and no abilities, which would really make a half-orc be expected to have +2 to Str and -1 to all mental stats, however -1s don't really work out in DnD. At any rate, I would feel weird having them have a Con or a Wis bonus, or any special abilities for that matter, unless a regular orc does as well. Looking at the 3.5 half elf, we see it's pretty much just lesser version of the elf's abilities combined with a bit of the human's versatility. Regardless of what they do decide to do the half-orc really needs to be made with the orc in mind.

[wrong thread]

Regarding half-orcs, I think it's reasonable to have half-orcs not receive a Cha penalty and have dwarves do so. Any half-orc that survives is likely to have at least a bit of a strong character and orcs in general are individualistic and don't really do anything to discourage strong personalities in their culture, as far as I can tell, like dwarves seem to do. Again, if one argues Charisma means force of character, and not appearance, then the fact orcs ugly to most people is irrelevant. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon for certain groups to be more attracted to people in other groups than their own anyway, so I don't really have a problem with a racial Charisma penalties. If we're going to go with archetypal LOTR characters, Gimli, or any dwarf I can recall, did not strike me as very charismatic, but some of the orcs did (at least moreso compared to the dwarves).

EDIT: I'm just going to say that if what Cha measure is subjective, then it shouldn't be an objectively quantifiable stat in the game at all, and hence scrapped, IMO....

Turning as healing seems to be it should be a domain power for the Heal domain rather than standard to all clerics. They're already shoe-horned enough as healers, even if they have the evil and death domains. Furthermore, it should really be more like 1d3 or 1d4, not 1d6, and possibly require expending a turn use, not concomitant with the turning of undead. Clerics are already stupid powerful, and alpha only makes them even more strong, not even counting this turning healing effect.

I agree with the notion that Elves should receive a Cha bonus and not an Int one (and be sorcerers rather than wizards), but I strongly disagree Dwarves should not be getting a Cha penalty after thinking about it. Nowhere are dwarves actually described as being stodgy or clumsy physically. The dwarven defender prestige class is actually based around a dwarf utilizing his nimbleness, dwarves are often pointed out as being quite manually dexterous (many are smiths and crafters), and the dwarf's favored and most common class (the fighter) is hurt a lot more by having a Dex penalty than a Cha penalty.

Dwarves virtually everywhere *are* described, however, as being stodgy and clumsy socially, and although one could argue gruffness does not mean less force of character, dwarves in general are very community, if not hive-minded. An individual dwarf is unlikely to have a unique and strong personality, in fact, standing out is often looked down upon by dwarves. This doesn't mean there can't be charismatic dwarves, but those dwarves who are charismatic would likely become part of the small leadership caste of dwarven society, probably war leaders or priests. Furthermore, if you're arguing Charisma means force of presence, and not superficial appeal, the attraction argument is void. That's my two cents at least.

I personally think paladin and ranger spells are fine as they are, and I never understood the objection to them casting (it's high fantasy, most everything can access magic somehow). If you don't want your ranger or paladin to cast, just save 4 ability points on an otherwise useless ability for the class and boost another stat instead. I don't really think they need something "in trade" for giving up spells given that they are rather weak (being at 1/2 caster level, gained slower, and going no higher than 4) anyway. If one really felt they needed something to make up for no spells besides not having to dump 4 points into Wisdom perhaps a bonus fighter feat at every level a new spell level is gained would work.

Gray Orcs receive a Wis bonus I believe, which is supposed to represent their sharp senses which, we shouldn't forget, is a major part of Wisdom. If the half-orc maybe gained some kind of other sense-related ability (perhaps something related to having a good nose, which fits in with their feral image) it would make more sense. Also, the idea that barbarians can't be wise I find to be pretty off (they do get Perception and Survival as class skills..). A half-orc who did have a Charisma bonus would be exceptional, and hence likely to be a tribal leader, but not everyone is a leader sort and so I don't agree with the Charisma bonus suggestion (as they certainly arent' friendly or attractive either).

I've always felt that if Half-Orc is going to be a base race, then a full Orc should really be an option as well. As for a new class, as there are already two versions of a divine caster/fighter (paladin and ranger) an Int based arcane caster/fighter should really be in there too as a standard class, particularly as it's very difficult to do gish without prestige classing.

What would be neat is if immunity was basically like a second save, but with a d100 roll. So a creature with immunity to mind spells 50% would have to be beat on a d% roll with a roll of 50 or higher before a save would even need to be made, and if the creature failed the immunity roll *and* the save roll then they would be affected by a mind spell. This would open up a whole new mechanic with things like spells and feats granting bonuses on immunity rolls. It could perhaps slow down gameplay a bit, but absolutes make gameplay boring as we've seen.

I really think clerics should just lose good fortitude saves, and have a d6 hit die. I'd even considering having them use the low BAB, so they really have to choose between buffing themselves if they want to fight or their comrades, or taking fighter levels if they intend to be martial clerics. My idea of them has really always been as a priest anyway. Perhaps to compensate a bit, their class skill list can be expanded and they can use 4 skill points a level? Same with druids for that matter on all of the above.

EDIT: Another idea would be to limit the number of spells they can know per level, say 10-spell level+base Wisdom bonus (perhaps not counting heal/inflict and/or domain spells).

After reading over the fighter class changes I feel that while it attempts to make the class have more raw power it doesn't really address the basic problems of playing a fighter. As an example, instead of having armor training grant a +1 bonus to AC (which I don't feel is necessary and can outshine the other fighting classes), why not have it instead increase a type of armor's max dex bonus by 1 and reduce its arcane spell failure by -5%, in addition to lowering the armor check penalty.

This would make dex-based fighters able to wear any armor they wish without that high dex feeling wasted and would make the fighter/wizard combo a bit more viable without prestige classing. On that matter, ray spells should be added to the weapon training ability as well. I also think a fighter should also be able to choose unarmored combat as an armor training style, in which case he or she would then gain the flat +1 to AC.

Finally, although a bit off-topic, something like the knight's ability to make tumbling past him or her more difficult and something to reward high Int fighters (like the warblade's battle sense) could really be added to the class. Just some thoughts on my part, anyway. What do you all think?