VedounMar's page

I vaguely recall a ruling where summons could only be placed where it is safe for them to appear. No summoning in the middle of a wall, no shark on land, and no horse in midair. . . Not sure where in the 20+ years of DnD/Pathfinder I read that, but it seems the answer to one of your problems.

With the exception of the meat, and selling the rest don't seem a problem.

The meat problem is solved with summons disappearing on death.

The selling is either solved by in-game consequences, or by making the summoned horse look "wrong" or "otherworldly". If it is obviously a supernatural looking horse, then folk won't buy it so readily. Illusions and temporary animals are a known quantity by default, so most folk would be wary of it. DnD equivalent to the Nigerian Scam eMails.

Using Mage Hand to drop things on opponents is more a prank then an attack; though I suppose I can sympathize with a low-level wizard trying to keep casting. Ranged Attack with an Improvised weapon dealing d3 damage.

Vedoun

I have never, ever seen any of those classes manage to cast spells and fight in the same round, with the possible exception of Quicken Spell which is prohibitively expensive.

Use your head.

You've never seen a Wizard or Cleric use a summons, then cast? A Druid use an Animal Companion and cast? Did they cast a Summon Monster and then sit back and watch. Do Druids in your game bring popcorn to watch their companions kill stuff? How about an Evangelical Cleric with the Animal Domain? Which at later levels can buff, cast and have the animal charge in the same round...

That is not to say you shouldn't ban it. It is a complicated class, and keeping things simple is a decent enough motivation. . . Whole game systems have been built and enjoyed with that very thought.

As for the power level of the summoner. . . It has some decent power no doubt. When I was comparing it to my Evangelical Cleric mentioned earlier (doing all those tiresome dps calcs) I found the Summoner and Friend made a good showing. . . but didn't quite match it. Likewise when comparing the Summoner with a DPS fighter build. . . There are some threads dedicated to DPS builds, by all means compare for yourself.

In spellcasting the Summoner serves a few basic roles.. . that of the Summoner (obviously), and the Strategist( and a bit of the Booster). Why does that bear mentioning? The OP mentioned dominate monster. . . which is a good example of the Ivory Tower nature of this class. You can choose Dominate, but with the -3 DC, the need for decent con to survive early battles (Summoner=Glass Cannon), and the class's dependence on the conjuration school make Dominate a poor choice. Mass Charm Monster will be a far better choice, as your very hit/miss DCs will still affect Someone. This encapsulates most of the summoner in a nutshell. On first glance abilities look awesome, but when taken in context become much less so.

Powerful certainly. . . but if its level of power is ban worthy than there are at least a dozen other things in the game that would have to be banned alongside it. Typically if I'm going to ban something it would be for complication reasons for new players, not to discourage them from seeking powerful characters in a high fantasy game built for making powerful characters. . .

Vedoun

You may be interested in Chain of Perdition or Pilfering Hand. Tripping or disarming an opponent can make for an effective debuff.

Vedoun

Hmm, sounds a bit like you are telling me how to play my character.

Moving the goal posts? Hardly. . . .

Nope, not telling you how to play your character at all. Just responding to a rather old excuse players have used for their decisions. "It's what my character would do." Whereas it may literally be true, functionally you decided what your character would do. I responded to you expressing the need to charge in order to feel appreciated. . . you responded with: (paraphrasing) it's not me, it's my character. Trying to transfer that feeling of unappreciation to the character rather than you was you moving the goalpost . .. or dodging. . .

The crafter should be recompensed for their time for crafting during downtime. . .

. . .and the tank should be compensated for standing between you and whatever evil you're facing. The Cleric spends time between battles ("Downtime") healing you, and should be compensated for their efforts. Some of that healing happens back in town with expensive components. . . Raise Dead and Restoration come to mind. He should be compensated. That caster over there? He could cast Bull's Str on you. .. using up his limited time in combat, or he could cast an offensive spell(getting that spotlight), or even cast bull's Str on himself. . . Or he can cast it back in town as part of the crafting process and do both, buff you and damage them. All of the above should be compensated for their particular character's specialized skills, expertise, time and risk. Not a single person has ever said otherwise. The opposing argument is that everyone gets a fair share of the loot. The crafter is no exception.

If XP costs were still part of the equation this would be different. As they are not, crafting is just casting with a longer duration and a more expensive component.

Furthermore you aren't being forced to play a crafter, and you are getting substantial bonuses for being one. You are not "sacrificing" anything. The only time I've ever seen that sort of thing happen was with the Cleric. . . players forced to play the cleric because the DM or players insisted they needed a healer. In that situation, that player being forced to play something they don't want, has a legitimate case for asking/demanding a larger share of the spoils.

Not every character personality has to be three musketeer like

And since you of course remember my first post, where I mentioned my crafters are Evil (well, 2 of 3 anyway). . . and that they don't charge fees, you'll understand why this personality thing has no bearing. It can, if you make it an issue around your table. However, in the question of should Crafters charge interest (a broad general question), the personality you may or may not choose for your characters is substantively meaningless. Good, Bad, my table functions as a team. Even when our characters don't like each other.

I disagree. WBL is part of what is used to set the difficulty of the encounters . . .

Great! Still meaningless. The wealth chart is not a religious doctrine. That is the general figure of where players are expected to be in regards to the CR system. It does not equate to power. The compass does not point the way you are supposed to go, it points north as a reference. It helps you decide the direction to go, not dictate it to you. That chart is nothing but a compass for the DM, one of several.

Example 1:Head to one of the DPR threads, imagine dumping 20 +1 swords in front of any of those characters. Technically their wealth just shot up 40,000. .. their power has not changed one iota. They get those things back to town and are able to sell them for 50%. . . their wealth as far as the figures/charts go just dropped 20,000. . . again power affected not 1 bit. Mayhaps the rogue in the party (because his character would do that sort of thing) steals the money. . . just dropped another 20,000. . . power stays the same.

Example 2: A controller style caster goes into the left room, the dpr fighter goes into the right room. Both encounter a Balor. After a round or two the Controller has a balor pet, the fighter has a balor corpse. . . Which is the more powerful? and which requires more wealth to maintain/increase that power?

Does wealth affect power? Sure. The DPR threads are showing a wide range of power based on a specific premise of character wealth. Take away the wealth and that power drops. Meanwhile, observe the disparity in power with characters of equal wealth. Most of those characters have achieved power beyond what the WBL/CR system expected, all with the same GP value. Notice how expensive weapons are? I've read complaints towards the the fighter/wizard about how the fighter needs so much more wealth to be effective. Typically the crafter is a caster . . someone who doesn't need the wealth as much as the fighter'ish members of the party. (though non-casting varieties are fun, just working with basics at the moment)

That Evangelical Cleric I mentioned before, at 10th level (to match one of the DPR threads I read). . . he would only need about 25000 of the 62000 in order to be effective in combat. More would be appreciated (deck out that tiger for instance), but everything over that initial 25k is just bonus. (Lesser metamagic rod of quicken, and headband of wisdom +4. . . crafting costs about 25k if I remember correctly).

The Fee is not needed. I may want more money. Or my "Character" may want more money if I'm using that excuse. But I don't need it to retain parity. The WBL arguments are pointless. All those charts and math you guys did, was a complete and utter waste of time. Power vs.wealth is not a universal linear equation.

No insult was intended. I refered to the free crafting crowd as a whole, not you personally. Yes, it is a generalization, but accurate so far. You are only recently joined to the...

You may have noticed I haven't based arguments on generalizations about the "Fee Crafters." 2 reasons. One is political, if it comes across as disparaging then the discussion goes off track and my ability to persuade drops to zero. Two is practical. An argument based on a flawed premise is done before the argument even finishes. Though I read your entire post, I didn't have to. The only thing I had to do to remove the legitimacy of your argument was to say "I don't fit your generalization because. . ." Which is what I did. If I based an argument on a generalization, then anyone could simply state that they don't fit, and the argument is derailed. You attempt to defend your generalization premise by taking/reprinting names. Any one of them can further disprove by saying it was in the heat of the moment, or that they revised in a later post. I can further discount your premise (and thus your whole argument) by pointing out that 5 or so people may make enough for a confirmation bias, it does not a sufficient sample group make. How many Pathfinder players are there? how many have you polled? I've already thrown a wrench in the works by not fitting the generalization. . . I can pick up the phone and have another half dozen.

. . .

A Couple summaries of points made so far:
You've stated you need to charge a fee in order to feel appreciated. . .
You've stated no. . . its your "character" that needs to charge in order to feel appreciated
- Its you, and if your group doesn't appreciate you, charging a fee won't help. Either they aren't being appreciative of a member of the party (being jerks for lack of a better term), or they aren't expressing their appreciation in a way you recognize. . . sounds like a group chat may be in order. Can't really give good recommendations here, as I don't know if you are expressing a real problem, or expressing one in an attempt to support the Fee position. . . Either way this is less a reason for a fee and more a reason to work out whatever problems you're having with your group. That said, it's been your strongest argument thus far.

Then there's the WBL thing ( I swear visions of the Animaniacs leap through my head every time I see that abbreviation). . . Extensive math and whatnot in an attempt to prove you "need" that gp in order to retain parity and not become the weak link.
- I've debunked this in at least two ways.

One: Crafting is a Buff ability. Buffing is more powerful the more people are affected, not less. Extending the example of that cleric of mine, using the quicken metamagic rod, and the inspire courage of the evangelical that cleric in the first round would provide +4 Att +3 damage in buff spells, and provide about +1 better stat bonus and +1 better weapon bonus using the craft feats. Several have displayed an interest and skill in math, so here's your chance to prove me wrong. Head to one of those DPR threads, ~10th level. Take their base damage, then rework with the +6/+5 that this cleric would provide within the first round. The difference. . . is DPR attributed to this cleric, as this damage is effectively caused by him. Three characters: a fighter type, rogue type, and arcane type. combine and compare, does this character concept have parity, or is it "The Weak Link" (I'm curious to see how it does myself) (Inspire Courage 2/2, Prayer 1/1, Bless 1/0 = 4/3, if you have a better spell idea run with it)

Two: If a caster is a crafting they don't need bonus cash, their power tends to be less easily quantified. If not a caster they've likely already made their uber weapon and a Fee (or tip) will only get them minor (not power affecting) gear. Detailed above. I've only given two examples of how WBL != Power, there are more I can give, but you expressed a dislike for the many words I use.

Not everyone plays with a min-max approach. Not every element has to be the optimized element.

Making the group stronger while making yourself less strong reduces your survival chances as the group will be facing more challenging encounters, which you will have less chance of surviving.

Either the first statement is a non sequitur and you might as well be discussing golfing on the moon for it's relevance, or you're stating that my suggestions on how a team oriented approach works best(I even sourced that argument), thus don't charge for any service between party members is not pertinent to the discussion. If the former is true. . . then yes. I in fact rarely if every create characters solely with Min/Max in mind, but use it mostly to help gauge whether or not my character is a weak link and faces the likelihood of death. If the Latter is your intent then we have another "?!" moment. As the two statements contradict each other's intent.

Intent, because the second statement is factually wrong on every level. Crafting does not weaken you. When a bard casts a haste spell does it become "Weaker". . . of course not, it will benefit as well as the party. When a crafter gets a (party)crafting the crafter gets stronger, along with the party. This has now been well established. And since neither you nor anyone has even attempted to challenge that conclusion (preferring to banter about the WBL(cue Animaniacs) and the feeling of being 'Appreciated'). . . ?

Or you can charge a fee (more the ironic)
Vedoun
P.S. - There were other points, but I got bored. I'll probably pick it up again tomorrow. Get to that 2,000 and all :)

Actually, I was refering to the player character, not the player.

The character can have any personality/motivation you can invent. My Evangelical Cleric of Erastil wouldn't bother charging as he doesn't care about wealth. If in "NPC" mode (when I'm DM'ng) he might need the PCs to tend the farm, or some similar set of chores while he is crafting as the crafting would take away from his responsibilities to the community. A type of fee I suppose, but that only when an NPC. My Cleric of Shar (an old character still around from 2nd edition) will craft for free to members of the faith. . . conversion is a type of fee. Neither of which would engage in markup accounting. So if your invented personality demands fees, you can just as easily invent a personality that doesn't. Unless of course you're moving goalposts again.

I disagree. Yes, it is normally a GM tool, but it is not limited to them. Not all GMs are created equal. There are some GMs that run APs, straight up, no changes - so the loot does not get modified in any way - so if the crafter is not getting the FAQ benefit for the crafting feat, why take it at all?

That paragraph is a hodgepodge of "?!". If the GM is ignoring WBL then my statement that WBL is meaningless is even more true. I've maintained since the beginning that DMs which pay attention to WBL negate any point to discounts or fees over the long haul, and that DMs who don't pay attention to WBL make it doubly pointless to bring up. Either way it does nothing to support anyone's position. It is a time waster. Second "?!" with that paragraph is that you go from DM not handing out customized loot (just following the AP) or paying attention to WBL, to "This feat is useless" To be kind that's a non sequitur, when the DM isn't handing out particular gear to the players is when these feats are at their most powerful. If the player adjacent is able to gather however much magical gear he can carry and not have the DM fret over some chart, than what do you think happens to a crafter. . . DM follows an AP and doesn't pay attention to WBL. . . crafter makes awesome; DM frets over WBL. . . crafter makes awesome. Why should someone take the crafting feats: To Make Awesome.

WBL only impairs a crafter if the DM imposes the chart, using the price instead of the cost for the crafting character. Which is the only thing the ruling you pointed to was talking about.

If the crafter crafts only for themselves, then yes, the feats are great. The problem is that the free crafter crowd has said that if the crafter won't craft for free for them, they will drop the PC from the group. So it is either craft for the group or leave. If you craft for free, then the crafter has gained no benefit from the feat, as the non-crafters have gained the benefit at no cost to themselves, so the crafter has taken one (or more) for the team.

The feats are great whether you craft only for yourself or for the party. I'd go so far as to say their power becomes greater when applied to the team. But then, that's how buffing works. The more people you buff, the more effective you become.

As to the "Craft for free or get out" comment, you are making two major mistakes with it. One, as someone who is advocating the free position I haven't said anything like that, so the generalization is false and rather insulting. In fact, my previous post specifically said if the player needs to charge in order to feel appreciated then charge and move on. That someone in the past 1600+ posts said something jerky ernestly or in the heat of the moment is not a justification for acting like a jerk. The attitude of "We play my way or I take my toys and go home" is not conducive to an enjoyable gaming experience regardless of your position in this or any other point of contention. I understand you want to charge a fee, okay. I disagree, but if you're at my gaming table the discussion would last less then 5 minutes. There are jerks out there who will get angry and make demands. . . that does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a jerk or is making demands.

Your final sentence in that paragraph simply misses how a buff oriented character becomes powerful. The bard's Inspire Courage ability is more powerful in a group with a lot of fighters, then it is in a group primarily made up of casters. Likewise the more a crafter can craft, the more powerful that crafter becomes, not less. By handing a +5 weapon to the fighter when the fighter would normally only have a +3, means that crafter has increased the chance of damage occurring by 10% and the damage done by 2 points. The same as an Inspire Courage adding an additional +2 to hit and damage. The damage output of the crafter as a result goes up the more they craft, not down. That evangelical cleric I mentioned took the animal domain. . . why? To maximize the number of combatants that will benefit from the Inspire Courage, thus Maximizing the power of the character. The Buff oriented character has the potential to be one of the most powerful characters you can design . . . This is because the party becomes an extension of the Buff character. If that isn't the type of character you want to play, that's fine.

My point has no demands involved. My argument is from a simple min-max position. Minimize chance of death, Maximize chance of success. No more, no less. If you want to role-play a party divided and without trust. . . go for it. If you want to play the merc who cares for nothing but an immediate bottom line. . . go for it. It may be the greatest role play experience of your life, but it isn't maximizing the power of your character. If you want to play a crafter, but only craft for yourself. . . go for it. No demands, simply the observation that a buff ability only used to buff one character is weaker than one used to buff two, or three. There is a Bard Archetype which can only use an Inspire Courage like ability on themselves. Speaking of that ability alone, it is substantially weaker than the default Inspire Courage. Why? Because the maximum damage it will ever add is 4 per attack, or 12 per round (more if TWF). The default can add 4 per attack per combatant. That cleric I mentioned will have a Paladin, a Barbarian and an animal companion(tiger) in the party. . . at the end that's up to what? 14 attacks each with +4 damage . . .56 damage?
If you don't understand how the group is more effective operating as a team then I suggest you watch: This. If you don't have the 18 minutes, start at around 9 and go until the super-organism part is done (about 13 minutes in I think). This is not a demand, it's a recommendation based on how best to effectively survive. The party maximizes it's chances if it thinks like a team, works as a unit. The effort you and others have gone to to show your not getting your fair share by buffing without fees, makes it fairly clear you (and likely your group) are not functioning/thinking as a team. Mayhaps you prefer it that way. Okay, that is irrelevant to the point. The point is simple, if you are playing a buff character (crafting or otherwise) and are not buffing, or only buffing yourself then you are not operating at maximum effectiveness. If you are charging party members for the privilege of you getting more powerful, then you are undermining the group cohesion (typically) . . . If your party is good with it, great! Chances are simply bringing it up will undermine the cohesion, thus undermine the chances of success. And the power you are already gaining makes the fee your collecting less than significant. And if you're functioning as a unit the money should be in a pool anyway, thus making the collection even more absurd (as the "fee" would simply wind up back in the party's resource pool). . . a Pool which, for the crafter, quickly becomes your responsibility to oversee anyway, as you are the one who uses it most. Yes, you become the Godfather of the adventuring party, fluffy cat and all ;)

Or you can charge a fee.

Vedoun

1 -> The fee crafter crowd has stated that they fully participate in combat. . .

2 ->The crafter is willing to cut a huge discount for the team mate, but shouldn't be forced to have their time unrewarded, be unappreciated. . .

3 ->The out-of-character issue is two fold. The first one is WBL. . .

4 ->The second issue is that the crafter ends up having to take one for the team, as they are down at least one feat. . .

( I added the numbers to help clarify what I'm talking about when, maybe I'll be less scattered this way ;) )

As to 1. . . yeah, that analogy failed to communicate the point. Failure mine.

An amusing aside (not to be taken as a serious analogy). I was struck by a vague similarity to certain cRPGs. . . where the player's group is approaching the Mount Doom equivalent and encounter that final Merchant. The world is about to end. . . and this guy still wants his money. I'm not making a claim, simply amusing myself with some gaming nostalgia.

2. . . an in game thing. There are a couple ways of approaching this. Frankly however, if a player is not going to feel appreciated unless they charge fees, then charge the fees and move on. This is not a balance thing, its a FUN thing. Feeling unappreciated doesn't lead to a good time by all or any. If I knew a player was feeling this way ahead of time I would chat with him/her about alternatives, but worse comes to worse prep the rest of the party with a chat ahead of time so there wasn't any surprises.

For instance, the party crafter is a buff character. Instead of casting Bull's Strength in a combat, I'll craft a +4 STR item and save myself the action when combat comes. Generally speaking parties appreciate their buff casters, and getting first crack at the loot would not be unusual. The party politic normally rewards that type of player, through loot and effort by the other party members to protect that member from harm.

Normally the games I'm involved in makes the whole question moot. We operate as a unit, and resources are spent to maximize the group, all contributors are appreciated. You could charge full price if you want, the money is just going to wind up back in the party pool anyway. Crafters, healers, and buff/debuff characters are always very welcome at the table for the significant benefits they provide. The appreciation is palpable and vocal, without any bookkeeping. That conversation with the rest of the party to prep them, would be something like: Give him time, he doesn't understand yet. . . My recent character is a evangelical cleric who has and is taking some of the crafting feats. The party is going to be pretty annoyed when I go back to being a DM and that character stays home :) (The DM chair tends to be rotated)

Though I disagree with the feeling, and think the appreciation shown any character for their contributions is a fair part of the loot they helped acquire. That the party's chances of surviving and prospering are greatly improved if they play as a team ( it is a cooperative game after all ). But this is reason, and reason rarely satisfies someone who is being emotional. Better at that point to move on, the issue shouldn't come up often enough to be an issue. If any player is feeling unappreciated/unwanted (regardless of if crafter or not), perhaps the attitudes of the other players need some adjusting. A diplomatic side chat with the other players may be in order to game as a group, not a social predator.

3. . . Is pointless. . . as Buri stated a few posts back. . .

WBL is a GM tool. Not a player one. This is why it's in the GM section of the book. Players don't care. However, if a crafter begins supplying the party then the GM should theoretically be giving fewer treasure rewards for them to be "on track."

If your DM is paying close attention to WBL and is adjusting party gains accordingly than the crafter will gain Zero long term benefit from charging a fee. Just as the party will gain Zero long term financial benefits for services provided. Regardless of the discount being 30, 40 or 50%. Any short term gain from charging the fee or gaining the discount will be washed away as the adventure continues. The numbers being batted around. . . something about everyone being at 99'ish k instead of 60'ish k, means thats 30'ish k less per party member that the party will be gaining in the dungeon to come. The dragon hoard just got 120,000gp smaller. As such. . . WBL does not support for or against the use of a fee. The in-game psychology of feeling appreciated is a valid argument, WBL is not.

4. . . From a balance standpoint, as long as the crafter Can craft. The crafter will be well rewarded systemically for their investment in the feat(s). Double the equipment value is fantastic, and every character I have which used the crafting feats were WELL rewarded for taking them. Before or Without crafting a thing for the party. Assuming again that crafting is allowed, a fighter who takes Master Craftsman and Craft Arms and Armor will be virtually guaranteed an awesome weapon and armor throughout most of his career, especially at later levels. .. as acquiring +5 and above weapons/armor through normal purchasing channels is anywhere from difficult to impossible. The argument that fee or wasted feat is a false dichotomy, as the selfish crafter (builds only for self) will gain substantial benefits from crafting. The idea that Fee or others are more powerful? A Party Crafter is a buff caster who buffs ahead of time; making the other PCs more powerful is the point, and why the crafter is so appreciated.

If the other players don't see the benefit of a crafter and criticize them for being gimped. . . I want to play a crafter in that game, don't know how else to put it really. Got a friend who would love to join that one. . . Fantasy Grounds? The crafting has such lovely potential for abuse, that if I'm in the mood to make a point I pity that DM. Two words: Craft Construct. Got the Tomb of Horrors? Iron Maiden Golem :) Want to be especially evil, give it the Construct Armor modification from Ultimate Magic then hand it to the fighter as a peace offering. The minute that player looks at you cross-eyed say the word and the dude is dead and a zombie filled construct pet under your command. Gimped? :D

RAW crafter with the time to craft is one of the nastiest things in the game bar-none.

Vedoun

P.S. - Disclaimer: It's a cooperative game, if you're gonna play a crafter remember to play nice ;)

I would have to disagree that I moved the goal posts. . . The other mercs wouldn't force him to make them several guns each at cost. I highly doubt that it would even cross their...

Looks like I should have made a better effort of separating the two lines of discussion. The moving the goalpost paragraph was intended to be addressing a different line of discussion from the analogy line.

I would not agree that magic items are by an large essential survival tools. A handy haversack is necessary to survival, useful yes, but a regular backpack would also do.

Within this paragraph we see the contrast between what I had intended to be talking about (key equipment), and you started talking about non-essentials (the haversack). Other posts scattered about have specifically mentioned key equipment, such as the fighter's armor. The level of emotion alone implies that we were talking about key equipment. Key Equipment being defined as that which either shores up weaknesses, or reinforces the strengths of a particular character. Though this probably hadn't been defined before, which may again be a mistake of mine. However, whether intentionally or due to poor expectations on my part, the goalposts definitely took on a new location. From: "This will help the party survive", To: "This is neat"

The second line of discussion, the analogy, I had placed into it's own paragraph. . . probably should had done more to visually separate the points. It is true that this may be an artificial division at this point as you were using your analogy to support your above point. . . but my analogy was on such a completely different wavelength in regards to the point it was trying (and apparently failing) to make that I continued to keep the points separate in a (failed) attempt at clarity.

Your analogy (regarding sunglasses at first, then later returning to essential materials weapons/ammo which I appreciate) is more the Ant and the Grasshopper sort of point. Though not as extreme. It was laying out the benefits of labor vs. not. This sort of thing holds true in a broader more RL sort of way, but fails (I think) to capture the more immediacy of risk and the very, very stark division of labor that the adventuring party faces. My point, failing to get across as it may have been, was a very simple one. The party has X resources to face the challenge in front of them. Their chances of surviving that challenge are increased if they function as a team (or unit). Whether that threat is five feet or five weeks in front of them, doesn't really change the dynamic of resource allocation all that much.

My initial analogy, by way of reminder, related to sharing ammo in a battle, not the manufacturing of it. I did make a crafting ammo analogy in the second version, but the previous post was attempting to walk back to that initial analogy (where no crafting was involved) where the folks wouldn't haggle in the middle of a firefight. I mention this because your previous post while responding to mine talks of crafting ammo. . . which relates to my second analogy, not the first. My previous post was discussing the first analogy, not the second. Different wavelengths suspected.

Since I tend to find myself disassembling the points of others for an inordinate amount of time, I had thrown in that analogy to make a point (albeit a minor one) of my own. It would have been more precise to make the point directly. . . but would not have been as much fun :)

Vedoun

I would not agree that magic items are by an large essential survival tools. A handy haversack is necessary to survival, useful yes, but a regular backpack would also do.

As for the ammo example - well, with the possible exception of some special forces folks, most soldier use and carry issue ammo. But to use the scenario, would really expect to get at cost ammo from someone who made during their off duty time, while you were watching movies, drinking or just googing off? Ammo that he spent hours and hours making? Would you value his time so little?

If you'd like to move the goalposts to a more nuanced aspect of which gear we are talking about so be it. I was referring to the essentials, armor, weapon, stat enhancers etc. Rather than accessories. . . If the party has finished acquiring the resources it needs to maximize its effectiveness, and the rogue wants an extra bauble, then charging has little meaning one way or another.

I suspect my initial example of the marines in combat was the most apropos of the examples placed so far, as off hand as it was. No direct analogy exists with RL, as combat is handled classically with large scale economies as backing. Though I seem to recall Russia during WW1 or 2 would have one soldier with the gun, the other with the ammo. Though the logistics of large scale warfare don't necessarily apply, and frankly the heat of the moment aspect of my initial example I think applies better then the refinements that followed. Reason being that the logistics of running a war, like economies, are larger and more complicated things than the methods of small group survival. The mechanics of the crafting feats are very simple, and the more complicated parallels simply don't work. Whereas the simpler analogy I initially used, while by no means perfect, did analogize better.

The crafter typically has a talent the other characters do not have, so it is less a question of laziness as ability. Typically what the such-and-such thousand is spent on is hand-waved/ignored. But I can invent resources requiring the persuasion of the rogue or the intimidation of the fighter just as easily as you assume folks are spending their off-duty hours goofing off. In my invented scenario the party is helping the crafter get the goods needed to craft. Again, typically off-duty aspects of the adventurer's life are ignored, such as the effort a fighter has to make to maintain such a high strength score, or the studies the wizard is involved with to get those spells each level. . .

I'm afraid the argument that the crafter is working and everyone else is being lazy is exploiting the fact the off-duty hours are overlooked. . . as rolling to see how many push-ups one gets is less then exciting. Various player guides since at least 2nd edition have stated that the off-duty hours are filled with training and equipment maintenance. Each is spending their off-duty time (unless explicitly stated otherwise) maximizing the effectiveness of their chosen role.

Not true the magic junk he makes isn't essential adventurers survive without a crafter to make their junk all the time in fact the game is designed with the assumption that they can do so.

That's a DM concern. The players do what they can, the DM fills in essential gaps. The above argument doesn't really support Fee or Free. If anything it supports not crafting for the party at all. The assumption in every other post for and against a fee is that the crafting has value. If the crafting has no value then the entire question is moot.

I would argue that customized equipment improves the chances of the party's survival and success. The DM may choose to provide custom crafted goods to the player, or not. Typically not, occasionally an adventure path will state to change a weapon to a type used by the party. . . Usually the party makes due with what they have/can find. As such, my crafters do what they can to maximize the chances of the party's success. This is not "Good" or "Generous" It is Pragmatic.

Can the party acquire specific magical goods. Sure, though not reliably. Usually not of high-power either. If you as a DM provide reliable customized equipment services to the player at all power levels then there is no longer a point to taking the crafting feats. You can spend less and have me craft it for you (with or without fee) then you/the party gets less gear/loot to account for the increase in party wealth. Remember the ruling you linked me too only applies to the person who took the crafting feats, everyone else who benefits would be treated as if they have too much wealth for their level. The only way they can benefit from having a crafter in the party then is if getting customized equipment is difficult or impossible otherwise.

That of course is up to your game. My assumption walking in was that the crafting feats had value, to both the individual as well as the party. Hence the discussion of how much the party should pay for that benefit.

Perhaps this discussion has moved the goal posts off the field.
Vedoun

The discussions about capatilism and socialism/communism were invoked when the subject moved to out of combat/downtime activities.

A better example would be two marines stationed in Afganistan. One, as a hobby makes killer sunglasses, effective at keeping glare and such at a minimum. He sells them as a side business. Free crafters are saying that he should sell them to his platoon/squad mates at cost, regardless of how much downtime it takes, while fee crafters are saying that he has the choice of how much to sell items made during time off, and that a small fee over costs is not unreasonable.

hmmm. .. I'd say no. A better example would be one member of the squad crafts ammo, and the rest are feeling the need for more ammo. Does the one provide ammo at cost or not. Reason being is that we aren't discussing accessories, but by and large essential survival tools. Even though the activity occurs between fights, it is being done to help survive the fights yet to come.

Second problem with the argument is that economic theories revolve around the prosperity of nations, and break down completely when applied to the microcosms of small communities. Tribes and communes have existed and even prospered over generations without the profit motive. . . at small scales. The idea of capitalism is based on a foundation of large scale economies, not a half dozen folks overcoming a challenge. Whether that challenge is a dungeon, or a winter. Regardless of one's stance in the politics of economy or party resource allocation, this argument simply does not work. It's like trying to use Newtonian physics in Quantum Mechanics. Newtonian laws work great within certain scales and speeds, but breaks down pretty quick outside of them. Similar problems occur with economic theory, as soon as you change the discussion from nations to individuals they simply don't apply. Aspects might, but you'd have to start from scratch in establishing why.

Thirdly, if an individuals income/livelihood is based on the crafting and selling of widgets. . . then of course they should charge for their time. It's essentially part of the widget. As a player who often plays crafters, I go so far as to use my own funds to help the fighter afford better armor. But then my character derives their livelihood by plundering crypts and fighting dragons. The success of which likely hinges on that armor.

There may be arguments that successfully support a fee position, but economic models fail to do so.
Vedoun

To save you a bit of trouble, it is in the FAQ for the core book

Link.

Thanks for that. . . These abbreviations always throw me through a loop. The ruling reads well, and works in a mathematical way. Unfortunately the consequences of the ruling effectively discourage crafting for the group in any way, with or without discount. After all If I craft at cost or discount then the recipient would lose out on future loot due to their overabundance of character wealth, and if I charge anything then I would be over the line in terms of character wealth and would be subsequently docked. Of course a customized set of gear is more effective then the found variety, but there is a certain fun to the discovery and recovery of "Loot." I guess that comes down to group preference, To Loot or To Customize.

How this relates to this debate still confounds me however. If this ruling is in effect, and the party is concerned about the volume/value of loot collected. . . then crafting for the party at all is discouraged. Unless you charge full price and donate all proceeds to someone/something else. If the party isn't concerned then this is simply meaningless. So either it has no bearing, or it disagrees with both sides depending on ones preference in loot collection. . . seems an odd thing to bring up.

Mayhaps I'm missing something though. It happens.

Second point of "?". . . the bringing up of capitalism vs. communism. Regardless of your opinion on how a nation's economy should be set up, this has no bearing on how to survive a fight with a troll. I've never served in the armed services, nor do I want to. . . but I suspect that if a couple marines are in a firefight and one asks the other for a clip of ammo, they don't start haggling over price. Despite being armed in the service of a capitalist country. . .

Speaking only for the groups that I've played in of course, the group has X resources gathered from loot and such. Those resources are spent to maximize the effectiveness of the group. Our games tend to be pretty brutal, and we don't have the luxury much else. If the crafter wants to hold on to spare cash and act as the party's bookkeeper than more power to him/her. The rest of us are focused on rescuing princesses and whatnot, and tracking gold is almost as fun as tracking initiative. When the party is first formed folks often have some cash on their character sheet. . . and I've seen evil rogues spend that money to help the wizard get that one extra spell in the spell book. Survival first and all that.

I might be missing something again though.
Vedoun

As more and more people seem to be skipping a lot of posts, going straight to the last page or so (can’t imagine why :)), I will attempt to recap the arguments presented so far from the two main viewpoints involved in the discussion

1300+ Posts. . . awesome. Afraid I fall into the category of folks skipping the bulk of the posts, though I will have to track down what this "SKR's ruling" means. Thanks for the cliff notes.

My only somewhat useful "contribution" is purely anecdotal. I never take crafting feats with any selfless motivation in mind. They are taken because crafting custom gear at half cost is a potent choice. Crafting gear for other PCs comes secondary to crafting gear (or constructs) for my own.

The only time feats like these become useless is when the campaign forces them to be, either through event timing or DM fiat. In either case I simply request to switch them out for something more appropriate.

As for "Fee" vs "Free". Free, as long as its understood I craft for myself first. With an even somewhat free hand to craft my power/competence level is assured. If the rest of the party gets a boost as well that's just bonus.

Just my random thoughts. . .
Vedoun

P.S. - Most of my crafters are Evil. . . :D

How do you handle leadership?

Only in smaller groups (2-3 players)

Combining that with a conversation about not having the Cohort overshadow the PC (suggesting to avoid spellcaster cohorts for instance)

So far it's been fairly successful.

All of the clockworks are 12+ caster level requirement, even the little ones like the servant and spy.

Significant issues remaining include:
. . .
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
. . .

While you guys are pondering that one. . . Some clarification on the Animal Friend ability would be appreciated. The word that throws me off a bit is "kind." Tiger and cat are a similar "kind" in that they are both felines. . . they are not of a kind in that one is a few pounds of purring cuddly and the other is a 400 pound predator. . .so is "kind" equal to feline, canine, primate, snake, rodent, small furry woodland creature? or more specific: house cat, wolf, sparrow (African or European) etc. . .

The former is more potent, and its impact would be felt throughout the levels. The latter is less so, but only having an occasional affect on the game may be the intention.

I do like the idea of the bard with a touch of druid. . . but, no Handle Animal? Soothing Performance(Animal Speaker), and the Summon Nature's Ally thing are both something I'd be using throughout the levels. . . Animal Friend depends on the answer to the previous question. . . Attract Rats? Hopefully there is an extra sentence or two that didn't get to print which makes those Distraction DCs scale more for the level you are using them. As The decision to give +4 attack and damage to the party versus summoning up to 9 rat swarms isn't much of a decision. The rat swarms won't do enough damage to bypass DR, and those rare times when there is no DR the DC won't be high enough to matter. . .

Perhaps suggestion and mass suggestion are replaced by an animal companion at Druid -4?. . . and Attract Rats could be quietly forgotten. . . please? Of course. . . just removing Attract Rats would be an improvement. I'd rather have Lore Master anyway. ;)

I'm generally very open to what source material interests my players. If they take an active interest in the system, I won't discourage or punish this interest if at all possible. Whether 3rd Party, WoTC or Paizo, there was/is a lot of good work done, work that bears remembering and paying for. Those parts that have been updated will use the updated versions, those that have not I'll have a go at converting. . . and the occasional bit that is actually disruptive will be downgraded where appropriate.

Personal character creations tend to dwell in Pathfinder, with a few dalliances into 3.x. The Favored Soul is still my preferred divine caster, for instance.

The Bard Archetype: Animal Speaker.
The Animal Friend ability replaces fascinate, but says nothing about what happens to Suggestion or Mass Suggestion.

Are these abilities usable with the Soothing Performance in some way? Was it intended for the Summon Nature's Ally ability to replace them? Mayhaps Attract Rats is supposed to replace Suggestion and Mass Suggestion instead of lore master. . .

Just seems off.

Second paragraph of the Animal Friend ability talks about animal companions and magically controlled animals. . . I'm guessing this only applies to the selected animal type from the first paragraph, could use some clarification though.

- - -

No, what I am talking about is that this class does not appear to be interesting, at least mechanic-wise. Admittedly, I didn't play one yet, so I'm asking for opinions.
- - -

Skimming over the thread, it's pleasant to see my unexpressed concerns with the cure spells are shared. . . personally never thought the channel was supposed to be that powerful. . . more a bit of extra healing and a springboard for the channel feats (control and whatnot).

As to the Cleric class. . . Perhaps I am strange in this, but when I craft a spellcaster of any stripe it is the spells that become the cornerstone of character expression, not so much the side abilities . . . choosing which spells that will not only support my role in the combat, but express the personality of the caster.

Example: Recently, while building a bard, I was considering what approach to take in hostile negotiation. . . do I take a pleasant long lasting approach by using a suggestion effect to allow time for diplomacy? slightly more impatient charm effect? the not concerned with talking Hold effect coupled with a handy dagger. . . or perhaps I dig out the Book of Vile Darkness's Extract Drug and Addiction spells to insure my opponent can only get their next fix from yours truly? (Mordayn Vapor = priceless) . . . each a valid approach, but expressive of different personality types.

As such when I look at a spellcaster I look at the number of spells I get to choose. And being the impatient jerk I tend to look at what spells I get to choose immediately, rather than how many I may someday be able to take. So when the Oracle of Lore hits level 12 and gets to choose 1 spell, then gets as a "Bonus:" Mass Cure Mod and Mass Owl's Wisdom . . . I twitch. The cleric, meanwhile, upon achieving a new spell level gets one choice (per day) of spell, and then a choice between two domain spells. . .

Personally my preference is towards spell choice to establish my flavor, though that is hardly a universal opinion. If your preference is to establish flavor through side abilities, the Oracle seems the way to go.

Random 2 cents
Vedoun

P.S. - Between the two I choose the Favored Soul :P

The thing I'd like to keep in mind is that multiclassing needs to be somewhat flexible -- the rage prophet and the battle herald are both "you must have _this_ exact combination of classes to play"; they would be more useful if they weren't so obviously focused on bard/cavalier or barbarian/oracle combos. Something like "martial/skill" or "divine/martial" combos would allow players somewhat more flexibility in entering the class.

+1

. . .which allowed monk unarmed damage and another class's ability to scale alongside each other as you took levels from both classes. I'd love to see something in that vein again and I'm sure other people would too.

Support for multi-classing would be great. Overall I greatly enjoy Pathfinder, but with character creation I much preferred the more toolset oriented systems like SW Saga and ToB, then the more predefined paths of Pathfinder. Though Pathfinder has the ability to multi-class, its velvet glove approach to keeping PCs in a predetermined direction gets a bit grating.

Perhaps I'm an odd one though, I'll create characters for the fun of it. After a while recreating the game designers' characters gets old.

Funny story. . . I have this Cleric of Shar, first built during 2nd edition, converted nicely (and improved) in 3.0 and 3.5 . . . could not convert it to 4e or Pathfinder(without giving up the point or the fun). . . but could to SW Saga. Luckily 3.5 rules are easily adapted to Pathfinder.

So yeah, something to compensate for all the bonuses which have been given to single class would be nice. Something which encourages the player build the character the player wants to build, rather then one already laid out for them would be great.

In my opinion.
Which may be too odd to bother with.

Vedoun

When its out of synch with the theme of the game and stops being fun for those around you.

This still says it all.

One thing I tend to emphasize is that RPGs are Cooperative Storytelling. . . whether the story is about bashing in zombie skulls or political melodrama, players and GMs kinda hafta work together to "Min/Max" fun. Player vs. DM is as old as the RPG itself, largely due it arising from competitive table-top games. . . The mimic is a classic example of this, or read the Tomb of Horrors for further examples. . . This, however, is something I tend to put down as a poor tradition, maintained more out of habit then intent. No one seemed to be putting such competition as a goal or ideal, but some of the comments seemed to imply it as baseline. . . and I felt the need to preface with this fundamental.

The idea of a character (melee or otherwise) doing 77 points of damage to a key opponent in one strike, practically killing it . . . cool. As a DM who has that happen to my villains on a regular basis, my response as a DM is to say "Wow, that rocked. . . Who's next?" Why get frustrated? The players don't know the hit points, and I can keep adding till everyone gets their time in the sun.

Just a couple of weeks ago I tossed in a Blue Dragon mixed with Kyton abilities. . . fun visual. . . Players had him dead before I even let on he was badly hurt, and the creature didn't drop until well after -50. . . What finally put it down was when the PC Barbarian with a throwing ability out of APG decided to lob a player armed with a spear at it. The player with the spear asked if he could land point first, and that was when I decided it best to say "Yes." and let the thing die. (An attack roll was involved)

I had been unimpressed with that throwing ability when I read it. . . didn't catch my Min/Max'n eye. . . but the player was enthused and I wasn't about to discourage. . . instead I helped set up and interpret situations so that the player could come out awesome. . . As a GM its my responsibility to help enable the story of my players . . . even when I think their "builds" are less then optimal. (though sense of accomplishment still requires a real threat of PC death, even TPK. . . thems the risks)

As for spellcasters being overpowered?. . . depends. A player that wants to break the game will almost always choose a caster to do it, I've seen pursuits using non-spellcasters with varying degrees of success. But the broken builds aren't broken because of a fly spell. . . or remove curse or some such. Heck, I've had a player do more damage to my calm with: a woman's shoe, pencil, camera, and rubber ball then any player accomplished with a fly spell (true story, I'm not kidding). . . The Macguyver style casters aren't broken, they're just fun.

For truly broken casters. . . pick up Dominate. Person or monster. Master Manipulator out of the Drow of the Underdak book. . . ThrallHerd. . . This theme tends to create scenarios where one player dominates the table and makes it very difficult to get everyone involved. . . See Shifty's comment which I shamelessly quoted.

Quick solutions. . . change the dominates to a Duration of Concentration, forget the Master Manipulator exists (or remove the Greater Minion ability and the add CHA + abilities, replace with 3 lvls of spellcasting. . . or something similar). . . and . . . well there isn't a quick solution to the Thrallherd other then not letting in the game. . .

Either way it has little to do with "Balance" per se, as it has with Player Involvement. If everyone's involved and having a good time, let it ride.

Those rare occasions where players actually build game breaking characters? Solved with a short friendly conversation, often blaming my ineptitude at being overwhelmed by X and Y. Then asking the player's help in getting the rest of the party involved and up to snuff. . . involving the player rather then condemning them as a Min/Maxer (or less friendly epithets) has worked well so far :)

.

The question is, will they still work if cast before the 2 days are up? Or is the PC considered to be undead from the moment of his death?

Personally I'd rule that the spells would work as advertised. As the subject is not yet undead (my interpretation). . . however, I would keep track of how much time is on the "clock" for the next time the player dies. Two days of "dead time" and that player is coming back on his own :) After all, being raised doesn't speak about removing curses :). . .

Some clues would be advised. . . paler skin, sunlight irritates. . . that sort of thing. Solution may be as simple as a Remove Curse spell, or something more elaborate depending on PC level and DM inclination(sadism).

Again, my interpretation, not RAW. Perhaps I'm just being evil, but its my duty as a DM. Effectively, I'm adjudicating the undead state as a curse, which takes effect some days after dying.

*****
Alternate Oracle V2(PDF)
*****
Alternate Oracle V2(HTML)
*****

Probably a bit late in the game for it, but here is the adjusted version for a more restricted spell choice as discussed above. I would have had this up much sooner, but it took longer then expected to get the internet setup :(

Rather then go into more extensive rewrites of the various foci, Gibbenz and I are prepping for some more testing(all the new classes), we should be posting the results in a week or two.

As to gaining spells at odd levels . . . The reasoning behind the way we left it ( not a passionate conclusion) was because it wasn't a spell preparation class. The spell preparation method is such that it really needs some sort of incentive in order to remain appealing, in this case getting access to spells sooner. After playing the favored soul extensively, the only reason I had to play a cleric again was for the necromantic aspects of the evil cleric(control undead and animate dead). This wasn't because of power, the cleric, especially the new pathfinder one, is a force to be reckoned with. It's simply the nature of how spells are used. As much personal bias I suppose, but in return for having to tolerate so many 1/day effects, getting access to spells early seems decent.

The original Oracle was granting bonus spells of the focus at odd levels. Thus the fireball spell was gained at 7th rather then 5th. That has been changed so the Oracle can select fireball at 6th. Not so much a delay, especially considering you are wearing armor and can cast the spells more then once.

Although my Internet hasn't been set up yet, I have put my computer together so I'll be taking another look at the foci. Meanwhile, what was your impression of the two custom foci in the alternate? Primarily I stuck to non-combat effects for them. Two exceptions, one ace-up-the-sleeve'ish ability for when things were getting hairy, and for the Void, one of those touch attack thingies for backup offensive.

Still typing with my phone I'm afraid, unfortunately it looks like they won't get the Internet setup here until next week.

Meanwhile, the restriction you are suggesting is exactly the change Gibbenz and I had planned as soon as my Internet was up. Essentially subtracting 1 from spell levels 1- 9, then adding a "+1" next to each spell known columns 1-9. Then the spells would describe that the spells are chosen from the cleric spell list, with one additional being selectable from the bonus subtypes per foci.

A couple possibilities with the cleric spell list. . .

At early levels (pre-5th level spells) the cleric is a capable spell combatant, though not a particularly zazzy one. Spells such as obscuring mist, darkness, and deeper darkness, though not fireballs can and have prevented the opponents from overwhelming the players. Essentially allowing players to take on a few at a time( or even one). The oracles various vision abilities help here a bit as the player can help track down opponents while they stumble about. Not the stuff of legends but it has saved my bacon in the past. Animate dead is probably the easiest thing to abuse. Especially with the bloody skeleton. Nothing like having a free pack of cohorts that just won't die. Reach or ranged skeletons are especially disruptive. Divine favor, is a fair low level buff that allows the cleric to join the front line. Ultimately the Buff and Bludgeon achieves it's peek at Righteous might. Probably one of, if not the best buffs in the game. This method at later levels can even make the fighter seem a bit redundant. Combining these and you have a small army being orchestrated by an oversized oracle casting flamestrikes from the darkness.

Early on though, you primarily play party support. One of the benefits of spontaneously casting these combos, is with the cleric you will dominate maybe one combat, with the Oracle (or favored soul) towards the latter half you can dominate all of them. Beginning out though I would certainly have appreciated a bit of offensive joy, but I wasn't too worried about though. No one thows themselves in the way of death for a wizard. . . But they have and do for the cleric :)

Hopefully this phone typed message is fairly coherent.

. . .I really like the fact that spell subtypes were added as bonus spells. :) But I think that this creates a redundancy with many of the revelations, particularly offensive-minded ones. . . I'm not sure of the extent to which the number of known spells was increased, but I think it would be wise to place some restriction on it. . . I think the bigger issue was relatively "weak" Cleric spell list coupled with the loss of a new spell level every odd level. . .

My internet should be back on soon, hopefully then I can provide a more cogent response.

The spell subtype addition is certainly fun, but somewhat hazardous for balancing reasons. Not the type of balance as to whether a class is too powerful, but the sort of balance in which it's possible to reduce or even eliminate the value of another class. Hopefully the steps we took were sufficient, though I should have a revised version up in a day or two which I feel better handles it. . . A restriction as you suggested. I hadn't looked at potential redundencies, thinking back it sounds reasonable that it could/would arise. Anything in particular stand out? If so, what change/direction would you suggest?

I've read several times the opinion about the cleric spell list being weak. . . In terms of early level offensive punch this is true, but overall it comes out fairly well. True it is less geared towards attacking, but there are tactics that can make it quite potent. If you'd like I can provide some detail when I'm not typing with my phone.

Anyway, thanks for the response, and I hope you are in a position soon to give it a more thorough examination. I would appreciate your opinion.

. . .

Your Foci are interesting, though giving total free reign on bonus spell selection may be a bit much, its not gamebreaking I'd say.

So I'd just stick to Charisma, and it makes your changes very nicely integrable, without dramatically chaging the overall class, which dual stat or Wisdom based would do.

my first attempt from an iPhone. . .

Opening up to whole subtypes adds a fair amount of variety with minimal power gain. For instance the flame foci was already prescribed the fireball spell as a 3rd level spell addition, being able to switch it out for a different fire spell would allow the player to be just as offense oriented with out gaining much in power. Though they would get it sooner. There are times when this might create unbalance, meteor swarm being a possible example.

By just expanding the spells known however, we find ourselves with a bit of an issue. Sticking with the flame foci, why play a sorcerer? With the limited selection a player will have to focus primarily on healing and have just the 1 offensive power per sp level. With the expanded known he player has access to the 1 offensive, plus room for a buff and a heal. Since the cleric has some of if not the best buffs in the game, we get both some of the best party assist and good artillery combined in one class. No sacrifice of high level spells or low hitpoints like the mystic theurge either. . .

Something has got to give here, if not the dual casting stats then what? Shall we cap the spell level. . . Perhaps arrange the spell list like a bard's ending at 6th level?

I've played a Favored Soul quite a bit, at first the dual-stat thing set my head for a spin. . . After a time of playing it actually turned out pretty well. The largest cost in the long run is DC's . . . It tends to come out more focused on buffs and support. This does hinder the player looking to play artillery AND healing. . . But only by a few points. Leaving the dual stat caster capable, but not as good as the single stat caster. Considering the advantages of the spells per day and spells known. . . Works out.

However, if there is a better/cleaner method of balance . . . ?

**
Unofficial Oracle Alternate V1
**
Gibbenzgob and I put our heads together over the last week and this is what we came up with. For those filled with hate and fury over it, by all means blame me, as I was the one at fault for most of it.

Taking into account some of the changes being suggested, as well as some of my own personal biases we put together a version of the Oracle that we think works pretty well. Increased spellcasting and whatnot, plus some additional changes that it forced upon me. Some of the elements here I already know will be opposed by some, but please keep an open mind. As questions come up I'll try to explain why, for better or ill, we did what we did.

The two biggest changes to the spellcasting was the Favored Soul's spells known progression, and changing specific bonus spells, to expanding the available list of spells. Including whole subtypes based on the Foci chosen (Flame focus can choose any fire subtype for instance). Either of these is a significant increase in spellcasting potency, adding both. . . well, it required some take to balance that give.

As to other changes. . . I'll leave that for you to discover. As luck would have it I'm moving tomorrow and Gibbenz is at some sort of wedding. . . so if we don't respond its because we aren't here, not because we don't want to. I'll try to clock in using my iPhone, heaven only knows how well that will work.

Finally, before bludgeoning me with the closest fish, please try it. Or at least use something soft and squishy. ;)

...My suggestion. . .Take the Favored Soul as a base, convert the saves to that of the PF Cleric, or leave them as a caster. Keep the Favored Soul spell progression. Reduce the armor and weapon proficiencies to simple and light. . .

Couldn't agree more. And well put.

I was converting an older character from the Favored Soul to the Oracle, the theme became far improved (curses and whatnot) ... but the spells became excessively limited. For example the 6th level spells. As Favored Soul: Blade Barrier, Heal, Greater Dispel Magic, Geas; as Oracle: Blade Barrier, Heal(+Create Undead from focus). The latter still functions . . . its the essentials for a divine caster, combat wise. After attempting the conversion I'm left with a strong impression that the spells chosen with the current progression will leave minimal difference between Oracles. As the divine caster the Oracle will be expected to cast restorations, raise deads, neutralize poisons, not to mention the ubiquitous cure spells. . . once those have been taken, few if any spells will remain for making my character feel. . . well . . .like mine. I'd like to take the non-necessary spells, like Commune or Scry, to. . . you know, be an oracle. The focus spells help a little, but they don't provide the unique feel I look for when creating a caster.

As an Aside. . . when deciding bonus spells and what not, it would be better to avoid spells that have special material components. Such as the Animate/Create Undead type spells. These spells may seem potent, however, when actually attempting to use them it is quickly apparent that Onyx Gems are some of the rarest of all things. Its funny how elusive they become when a player is seeking to create an undead entourage. Essentially any spell with a special component cost is really a special DM permission, or NPC ability. Thus not something to foist onto a player, but only to be chosen after player and DM have chatted about the ramifications and come to some sort of agreement.

As to which stat(s) to use. . . I do lean towards the wisdom stat as well, but am honestly fine with Charisma, or even the Favored Soul's Wisdom and Charisma.

. . .The Oracle either needs more known spells (though not necessarily more spells per day) to compensate for the lower power level of divine spells in this format, or the ability to dip into druid spells to give it the power and diversity. . .

I'd go more with the former (Favored Soul Spell progression), that combined with the current system of providing additional spells based on focus should provide both the punch/variety wanted, plus the ability to prepare the various neutralize poison/restoration/cure spells expected of the divine role.

Outside of the bonus spells, the cleric list should be sufficient.

I'd second the suggestion for a Darkness focus.

Something about communing with the dark void to find glimpses of the future or what not seems more evocative to me then wind or waves.

I had forgotten to mention something in my initial post. . . The Oracle is a great class, with a good feel. I'm definitely looking forward to playing one.

Referencing Gibbenz' post. . . I hadn't noticed that about the wind. The idea of optional spells to be learned, instead of the sorcerer's added spells, sounds like a fun idea. Adding variety, while separating the character away from the sorcerer even further.

. . .As a side note, the Oracle doesn't have to be focused on healing. . .

Generally speaking I assume the generic party: warrior, skill, arcane, and divine. If the party already has a cleric and a paladin, then yes you are correct, the Oracle can learn without the normal divine's expectation. This can also be affected by DM style, as ideally a DM will account for lack of healing within a party(providing sources of heal/resurrection through world/NPC design.)

Considering the default spread on the other hand, leaves the Oracle very limited in choice. As I can't predict the style/nature of the campaign, I didn't take that in to account either.

. . . either give them more spells known than the sorcerer, cleric spells are not as powerful, . . .

I second this suggestion.. . The Favored Soul's(Complete Divine) spell progression seems more appropriate for a divine caster. Part of this is the nature of the Cleric itself, as the party's healer the Oracle would be expected to know certain spells(cures and the like.) After taking these spells with a sorcerer progression, little remains(if any) to take more flavorful spells (like atonement, Geas, or Augury.)

For those unfamiliar with the Favored Soul, the spells known grants 3 spells for the newly acquired level rather then 1. .. rising ultimately to six spells known (rather then 5). This allows the divine caster to take the cure/delay/remove/raise spell(s) for that level and still have a spell or two for miscellaneous, non-combat spells. Such as the Augury/Divination spell(s). . . which, considering this is an Oracle, I would like to take. The sorcerer's limited list however, essentially limits me to the bare-bones, what do I need in combat, sort of spells.

With the added volume of spells, the bonus spells granted on the odd levels may need to be pared down to simply being available to know, rather then simply being known. . .

As a quick aside, one general suggestion I have is to limit the number of 1/day abilities. Having one or two "Ace up the Sleeve" abilities is all fine and well, but personally I would rather have lesser abilities that I can use with some regularity, then abilities that I rarely if ever use. .. unless of course the DM gives a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge. . . now would be the time to use your 1/day". . . personal pet peeve I suppose.