Velderan's page

So, as part of my upcoming campaign, I'm going to be reflavoring the devils quite a bit (the randomness of the Baatezu race has always bothered me, so they're getting a bit of a japanese cenobite reflavoring). Anyway, as part of this conversion, I was going to simply swap out their immunities to cold and give them cold immunity, rather than fire (while conversely giving demons fire immunity). I figured I would simply switch abilities like fireball into "ball of cold" and such. Can anyone think of any major mechanical repercussions for this? I know fire damage is a bit more common, but I don't think that's going to completely ruin my campaign. Thoughts?

So, flipping through ultimate magic, I saw Cold Ice Strike and thought "Hey, neat. That spell might actually be worth using!" So, browsing through the messageboards, I see a handful of people actually claiming that the spell is ridiculous, or even broken. Did I miss something? This seems like one of the best-designed (read: Well designed, not uber-powerful) evocation spells I've seen in years.

I'm going to reiterate stuff we all know, but here goes:
Evocation spells don't see much use anymore. At least, not at any tables I've played at. Low level evocation actually isn't that bad. The much-maligned fireball and lightning bolt actually do their job pretty well. The problem appears at around spell level 4-5, where monsters begin to experience significant HP inflation and damage formulas stay static. For whatever reason, evocation didn't get a boost in Pathfinder, which is a shame, as a variety of fixes might've done the job (I would've prefered rider effects like stun or knocked prone). the thing is, evocation is a lose-lose situation. Not only are you wasting a spell slot that could be spent on a perfectly productive spell, but you're wasting an action on it.

Here's where cold ice strike comes in and actually gives us a decent evocation option. It partially mitigates the economy of actions issue of evocation spells, but still takes up a valuable 6th level spell slot. It's not a spell that's so good that I couldn't do without it (unless I was an evoker) but it is good enough that I would seriously consider memorizing it.

So....what's with all the complaining? Frankly, I'd like to see a few more swift evocation spells that are actually worth using. The only gripe that I can see is that the spell appears to be a quickened version of cone of cold at only one level higher but....so? Cone of cold is terrible. It's just terrible. It's not quite as bad as polar ray, but it's close. At the level you get it, you basically get the damage of a fireball (this gets better, but not much), except that it can only be used on monsters that are practically up your butt. Hopefully, by the time they're that close, your melees will have intervened or you're probably going to want to spend your round summoning some help. Actually, given the range, if I was going to waste the time nuking, I'd rather just fireball. Is this really the metric we want to use for 6th level spells? Better yet, would quickening this really be worth a 9th level slot? Is this really too strong to be at the same level of acid fog, or circle of death, or better yet, summon spells?

Rant over. I think Cold Ice Strike represents a good solution to some of the problems the school of evocation has.

This thread is exactly what it sounds like. It's a list of spells that I think should be on the Magus list. Clearly, there's been some complaint that the list needs tweaking, so I'm listing the spells that I think should've been added.

Note 1: I didn't pick any spells from other class' lists. While it might prove necessary, this class is clearly meant to be a wizard class, and people have a series of mixed opinions on what can and can't be crossed between classes.

Note 2: Yes, several of these spells are at levels the Magus can't currently cast, and yes I'm suggesting these spells be moved down for the magus (several spells already on the list could be moved down as well).

Note 3: I avoided nukes. I'm suggesting spells that can be interchanged with/enhance swordplay. Personally, I think using mirror image before a series of attacks fits the concept a lot better than using an artillery spell. Alternately, some of these spells are just necessary if the class is meant to be a competent arcanist (and I do feel this class should fill in for the wizard to have a place in most groups). Utility spells are a vital part of those kinds of classes.

Level 1:
Comprehend Languages
Identify
Mage Armor

Level 2:
Protection from Arrows
Resist Energy
See Invisibility
Whispering Wind

Level 3:
Blink (how on earth did this not end up on there)
Heroism
Protection from Energy
Rage
Tongues
Vampiric Touch (Also how did this not end up on there)

Level 4:
Dimensional Anchor
Globe of invuln. lsr.
Remove Curse

Level 5:
Break Enchantment
Prying Eyes
Permanency
Sending
Telepathic Bond

Level 6:
Heroism, Greater
Contingency
Shadow Walk

Level 7:
Mage's Sword
Ethereal Jaunt
Reverse Gravity

Level 8:
Protection from Spells
Moment of Prescience
Iron Body

One of the major problems with any class that tries to do multiple things well (esp both melee and casting) is the dreaded multiple attribute dependence. The way it's set up, I'm afraid the Magus will potentially have the worst MAD of any class yet. It doesn't just require multiple decent attributes, it requires that they be fairly high for him/her to be effective.

A Magus not only needs enough con to survive (and make up for a lower hit die than other melee), they need enough str to fight effectively (making up for a lower BAB than most other melees w/o the buffs to compensate).

However, more than any of the other hybrids, they're going to depend on their casting stat. A ranger is only going to need enough wis to cast spells. Same with an inquisitor, who has judgment. A bards wants charisma, but since most of their good spells and abilities are buffs, they won't need to pump it very high to get their full use out of their class abilities. A paladin wants decent charisma, but he/she won't be ruined by not capping it at a decent level. Monks use wisdom, but it stacks with dexterity for their armor class, so again, it doesn't need to be gigantic.

But a Magus is going to need high enough int to keep up their saving throw DCs (they have a variety of spells that allow saves) AND have enough spell slots to power their arcana.

One other poster has suggested Int to AC (which i don't care for, its kind of a monk thing), but I'm going to suggest something we don't see in D20: Let's let them add int mod to damage. Not only does this compensate for the damage lameness of using a 1-handed weapon, it allows them to focus on multiple stats (str and int) without having to fall too far behind in melee.

So...uhh...why don't we just not require magi to make these?

I mean, conceptually, it makes a lot of sense. The magus learns to interweave physical combat and spellcasting. If anything, casting defensively is what he does. Casting defensively seems like an excuse

As for 'violent motion,' I believe magus' training would prepare him or her to cast from horseback or in the midst of a violent storm in a way a normal wizard never could.

As for grappling, I can see the magus learning to mix mystical gestures into wrestling moves. Why wouldn't he or she know how to do this.

And, lastly, for taking damage, any frontline spellcaster should probably be able to cast through the pain, or they just aren't good at there job.

Mechanically, this gives them a bit of an edge/niche other casters don't have, and it's not like it's a gigantic class-making power trope. I mean, concentration checks have never been a huge part of games I've played, but they're a bit of a millstone on the magus' neck right now.

So, while going through the Arcana, I noticed a problem: The two most useful arcana, Critical Stike and Reflection, both have a 1/day limit placed on them.

Now, this seems strangely arbitrary to me. In order to use the class features, they already have to burn their precious, limited spells (especially limited since they have one single spell on their list to make use of critical strike arcana). Every other ability I can think of in the game with a 1/day limit is a power in addition to spells, not requiring them, or, at least, enhances the spell (such as the metamagic arcana). What gives?

So what if the Magus can constantly parry lowbie spells or deliver shocking grasp? At least this gives them something unique to do reliably.

Closet-goblin-col 2 avatar

So, one of my players has forsaken his typical wizard for a few weeks in order to make a magus guest star, and one of the problems he's run into is that he has, compared to every other player in the game, very very few resources. We were playing at 7th level (sort of the agreed-upon sweet spot of the game) and, compared to the other characters, the EDK got pooped out very quickly because, in order to do any of its schtick, it relies on spells.

The Magus has been compared to the Eldritch Knight, but, in all fairness, we should be looking at it next to other hybrid classes, like the bard, summoner or inquisitor, with matching BABs and progressions. The problem is that those classes all have resources aside from spells, which is why they're effective in longer-term adventures.

Now, every other 2/3 (which is more like half-power) casting progression class has some kind of resource to call on other than its spells, but the magus has ONLY its spells to rely on, and then a bunch of class features powered by those spells.

The bard, for example, has a large skill pool to call on, numerous rounds of bardic music to use per day (which becomes a move and then swift action), And spells. The Inquisitor has Judgment (more precisely 3/day at the level I was testing at), spells, and the Bane ability. These classes have a large range of schticks, so, if they aren't using spells for one round, they're still living up to their potential.

The Magus, however, is ABOUT casting spells and melee attacking in the same round. That's the unique thing that they do. Any round in which they aren't doing this, they're basically a rogue without sneak attack (a limitless resource).

This is a serious defect in the class because, at any level, the Magus basically has 2 resource pools to call on: Spells, and Arcane weapon. Now, arcane weapon is nice, but doesn't do a ton until slightly higher levels. Again, at 7, the level we played at, the Magus had about 10 spells. This means ten rounds of 'magus schtick' per day. And that's assuming that they aren't burning additional spells for either out of combat utility or to power their other class features. I don't know about you, but my games tend to involve more than ten rounds of combat a day, and a magus who's holding back just isn't very good.

Now, we can compare this to full casters, who only have a few more spells a day at this level, but their spells will be higher level, and their casting stats will likely be higher (also, potential show-stoppers at this level).

Honestly, they need an additional resource.

So, here's a dumb question: Let's say my alchemist has a familiar for some reason (either through acquire familiar or levels in another class). How does that interact with extracts and/or bombs?

Obviously, extracts work as spells, so, I see no real reason the "share spells" feature shouldn't also work for extracts.

As for Bombs, can the familiar use them? I'm not necessarily trying to worm more actions for the alchemist (I'm the DM anyway), But I could absolutely see making a bomb and handing it off to your hawk familiar for dropoff as a viable tactic.

So, when I first saw the alchemist list, my kneejerk reaction was "oh God, just give it spells."

Now that I've thought it over, I can see why they weren't given spells. But, if Alchemy is going to be something new and different from your basic spellcasting, I'd like to see it be a bit more new and different. Right now, the extracts are just acting as self-only spells, which, given that the class isn't especially powerful, feels more like a nerf than it does a boon (unless you go for the infusion development, in which case it's pretty damn solid).

So, in that vein, I have to ask, what do you guys think extracts should do to be more distinct from spells?

Here are my suggestions:

-Not dispellable: Extracts aren't spells. If anything, they should be supernatural abilities, or even extraordinary and, if they can't be dispelled, they're giving the class a cool and interesting advantage.

-Move action?: Assuming they're a bit smaller or easier to use than regular potions, it feels fair to allow the alchemist to chug an extract quickly. This sounds stronger than it is, remember the alchemist doesn't really have any game-breaking extracts. They won't be SODing anybody, so why not let themselves buff up quickly?

-Combinable?: As an alternative to a move action, why not have a system where lower level extracts can be combined into one big gulp to be used as a standard action? Since these are mostly self-buffs and heals, I don't think it would be fair to penalize them to the extent a caster is penalized for quicken spell.

There are a couple of ways this could be done. One one hand, they could be allowed to combine formula levels to come up with the total level of the extract (IE level1+level3=level4). On the other hand, they could simply pick extracts equal to the highest level they can use-4, and simply add those extracts to existing extracts and use them for free. It's still burning slots.

-Duration?: There's something about imbibing your magic that makes it seem like it should be a bit longer lasting. Could the extracts all be given some kind of longer duration than their spell counterpart? (Rounds to minutes, minute to 10 minutes?) eternal potion is a cool ability, and I think it could be worked into the basic extract system without needing a discovery.

-No AoO: I understand why the typical adventurer provokes an AoO from drinking a potion mid-combat, but the typical adventurer isn't a specially trained potion master. The Alchemist is a bit more combative than the typical wizard, and I don't think it would be too off the wall to assume that they can gulp a potion without exposing themselves to their enemies.

Anyway, those are my ideas. I'm hoping somebody else has more, as I really would like this system to be working as an alternative to spellcasting.

So, I have a player who wants to make a dragon Eidolon, but, ultimately, he's just not thrilled with the breath weapon evolution. Yes, d6/HD damage seems really cool, but for a 4 point evolution, it's a little bit weak, and it's really disappointing to only be able to use it once per day.

The thing is, the cool part of a breath weapon, for many of the creatures that have them, is that they're usable so often. They aren't SLAs.

So, I'd like to suggest that the damage be scaled back (maybe a d6 every other HD), and the frequency of use be increased to once every 1d4 rounds like a dragon.

Overall, I have to say, I've really liked the new classes thus far. This thread shouldn't read as an indictment of the new classes, and I'm aware it's easier to make a gripe thread than it is to make a congratulatory thread.

That being said, I don't think the right ability scores are being used for either the summoner or the Witch.

In the summoner's case, I don't think Charisma makes sense. If a summoner is shaping his eidolon out of the raw soup of creation, or even if he's simply altering an existing creature, it seems that he would be more about comprehending the creature's anatomy than he would be about using force of personality to meet his ends. More importantly, it's very mechanically boring. The game already has 2 partial casters and 1 full caster using charisma, and one of them has the exact same progression of spells/day and spells/known as the summoner. It feels a bit repetitive. Out of the published 11 classes, only 1 uses int mod for casting, and, unlike wisdom or charisma, int doesn't yet have a partial caster (and if you were going to make one, this'd probably be it).

The witch actually seems worse off. Her source of power is supposed to be a 'pact with an otherworldly power'. That bargaining sounds like charisma far more than it does int. The character is bargaining, which deals with force of personality. On the other hand, the character communes with her familiar, which sounds like it deals with focus and meditation more than it does memorization or knowledge (after all, it's the familiar's knowledge, not the witch's, that determines her spells). This could mean wisdom. It seems like int is the only not-viable casting stat for the witch. Mechanically, this isn't as boring as the summoner, since int isn't overused, but it's worth thinking about. Hell, I wouldnt' even mind seeing a spontaneous wisdom caster.

In my own game, I'm already going to be houseruling that my summoner can play int, as cha makes no sense with his concept. Has anyone else seen this problem? Does anyone agree? Politely disagree?

So, in general, I think the Orders are some of the coolest features the cavalier class is getting. Not only is the idea inspiring, but it gives them a range of abilities to differentiate between one order and another.

That being said, I think the orders are presenting a few balance issues as they currently stand. Some of them are simply too good, and some are simply not good enough. Also, I'm afraid they contribute to the "too many little abilities" problem the cavalier currently faces.

So, with that in mind, I thought I'd start a thread for us to chop up the specific order abilities, and discuss what works and what doesn't. Below is my own analysis (please feel free to argue with me).

Cockatrice
In general, I think this order is a great idea. It does, unfortunately, need a little bit of a boost. It seems a little underpowered
challenge Nice. Not only does it fit the flavor, it stacks with inspire courage.
Skills Honestly, this is pretty useless. I don't think I've ever seen food/water/shelter issues come up. There's too much magic and too many rangers in the world.
Aid Allies This sounds really good in theory, but it's a waste of an action. It needs to extend Aid another past 1 round as well.
tactics I love the idea of this ability so much. But, as a 1/combat power, it needs higher numbers and it needs to stack with bard abilities.
Act As One This is a problem. It's a strong ability, but I find it redundant with tactics. It should be an enhancement of that power, or something completely different (or an enhancement of Aid allies).

Dragon
Not only is this a cool and fun order, but it feels balanced, powerwise.
challenge Very cool. Probably needs to be a little bit more damage to be worth it.
Skills Very useful and thematic (esp given how nasty demoralize can get.
Braggart Fun to RP and mechanically impressive. Plus it works with existing feat chains.
Steal Glory That's...so...good. Literally, the character will be stealing glory IC and OOC, and it's not overwhelmingly strong. Perfect.
Moment of Triumph Also good. It doesn't overlap with the other abilities, and its flavor fits its mechanics.

Lion
Overally, this is decent, but I'm a little concerned it steals from other classes. I'd like to see it changed a bit to avoid overlap.
challenge I'm not sure why the Lion is the order that does this. Nothing about them seems to indicate dodging that much to me.
Skills Ok, but not particularly useful.
Lions Call I hate this. The paladin already gets an anti-fear aura. The comp bonus to attack is too small.
For the King This ability is alright. It feels a little bardic, but it's not morale, so at least it stacks.
Shield of the liege Very useful ability, and it synergizes with one of the oaths. Plus, it protects w/o feeling like a taunt button. Neat. This might, however, fit the Order of the Shield better.

Shield
In general, this order needs a major boost. It has a couple of good abilities and a couple that are very lackluster.
challenge this needs badly to be changed to a competence bonus. There are enough morale bonuses floating around the class (let alone the game).
Skills Honestly, the heal skill just doesn't matter that much.
ResoluteThis is an awful, awful ability. I'm really hoping it's a typo because, otherwise, quite useless. Just give them DR. Seriously.
Stem the tide Decently useful. Makes a shield Cavalier a good tank.
Protect the Meek Also pretty cool. I like that it synergizes with stem the tide.

Star
Really just not a good order. We've already got paladins to do this, and they do it much better.
challenge Meh. Isn't this what Oaths do right now?
Skills I'm pretty sure putting ranks in know (rel) is more than you'll ever need.
Calling Not very useful. The paladin already does it better, and I don't see this as multiclassing very often.
For the Faith The paladin still does it better, and when he does it, it stacks with the bard.
retribution This one is ok, assuming you're actually in the rare circumstances to make use of it.

Sword
Too strong. Mounted Mastery takes this too far.
challenge Only part of this order that isn't blatantly awesome, and, in a bardless party, this is still darn good.
Skills No feinting against this guy. Pretty decent.
By My Honor Cool, depending on the oath used. Awesome, but balanced.
Mounted Mastery Way too good compared to the other Cavaliers. "Here's, bulls strength my giant wolf mount too, that way I'm getting double the bonus." Animal companions get ridiculously high stats AND the cavalier has a built-in multiplier mechanic. Needs to be halved.
Knights Challenge Not broken like MM, but still seems a bit better than what the others are getting.

Thoughts? Opinions? Challenges?

So, nobody seems to have devoted a thread to just this yet.

That being said, I absolutely love the oath mechanic. It separates the cavalier from the other melee classes nicely and, hopefully, is going to become an even bigger part of the class. More importantly, it's a meeting of fluff and crunch, which is very hard to do. So, breaking this down, let's talk about the individual oaths:

Chastity: This is a decent ability. Enchantment spells are often party-killers, and this mechanic makes a lot of sense. That being said, I'd rather the boost were broadened a bit to be any enchantment spells, as this may be too specific to be worth doing.

Greed: Also very cool. I like that the mechanics are supporting a sonovab#@!& cavalier.

Justice: This one could use a boost. first of all, I feel like, in order for this ability to be not-abused, it should specify that the Cavalier not currently be locked in combat with his target. Second of all, I'm not sure how taking down the foe necessarily gives a boost to saves (which will, overall, already be getting a couple of boosts via the other oaths). How about a bonus to defense?

Loyalty: I like the concept, but this is going to lead to problems. First of all, it may be too specific (I'd like to see all enchantment rolled into chastity). Second of all, it's relying too much on the Aid another action, which is already extremely meh (even for an order of the cockatrice).

Protection: I'm not sure this works 100%. Why does the Cavalier get an AC bonus for this? Shouldn't it be attack or damage bonus? I mean, really, staying next to his charge should make him fight better, not defend himself better.

Vengeance: I don't care for this one at all. It feels like its stealing from the ranger.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Ideas for new Oaths?

So, we've had a couple of days to look at the new classes. I'm thrilled overall, but, I think it's time to start breaking the new mechanics down a little more specifically and asking "does this work?"

In that vein, let's about the "challenge" ability. Any time I look at a new ability, I always ask "what is it" and "Do the mechanics represent this" when deciding whether or not something works.

A: What is a challenge?

A challenge, at its most basic level, represents calling one specific foe out in some way. Depending on order, you might insult your foes honor, brag about your own exploits, or even request a formal duel against the foe. You might gain a boisterous surge of confidence from issuing this challenge, or your foe might look the fool. This isn't a taunt button, and it isn't a mark mechanic, but, more likely than not, you're going to end up face the face with the one you challenge.

B: Do the mechanics represent this?

here's where I think there's a bit of a problem. First of all, the Cavalier already has decent damage boosting abilities from order and charging, and doesn't need an extra 7d6 precision damage. Also, I'm not sure how calling somebody to fight lets you hit them where it hurts for more damage.

The bigger problem, however, is that the individual foe takes no penalty from this. The idea is that they're honor-bound to fight you or that, at the least, they look the fool for not doing so. But, logically, other than RP, the character has no particular incentive to face you. In fact, they're mechanically encouraged not to face you. They're buddies have a benefit when trying to hit you, and they themselves take a great deal more damage from you.

The flanked component of the ability doesn't seem to work. I think it's cool that you have tunnel vision toward your particular foe, and I like that, should his buddies choose to be dishonorable, they get a bonus to hit you. But, not being able to perceive your opponents isn't represented by flanking, it's represented by being flat footed.

Later, this ability creates an even bigger problem when your allies gain a bonus to hit the target of your challenge. Are you calling the guy out so your friends can fight him? That doesn't quite make sense. What will happen in any remotely tactical game is that you'll challenge your foe, his buddies will attack you, and yours will attack him.

My recommendation: Let's make challenge what it should be: A debuff. The bonus damage needs to be toned down a bit, and, your opponent should get a penalty to hit your allies, while a bonus to hit you (-4 and +4 maybe?), as he looks the fool if he hits the little lady in robes while you're standing there making jabs at him.

Thoughts?

Overall:
Awesome. This is just a really good class. This is actually the APG class I was least interested in AND I'm a grognard who hates new classes, but I still looked at this and went "Oh man, I'd play that". Bravo.

Artwork: I'm a big Wayne Reynolds fan, so there's not much else to say. I will say, however, that it looks nothing like a cleric to me, which is good.

Skills/Proficiencies/Skeleton: I like that their armor was paired down to light and I'm happy to see 4 skill points rather than 2. In most games I've played in, this alone will probably make the Oracle more useful than the standard cleric, if less powerful.

Focus: I'm a fan of these. On first viewing, I was concerned they were too strong, but, once you consider that these are a balancing factor against channel energy and domain powers, they seem completely appropriate. Picking your own revelation rather than having a set progression like the sorc or cleric is extremely player friendly. And, more importantly, these don't feel like bloodlines (which is what I was concerned would happen to the Oracle).

Oracle's Curse: My favorite feature of the Oracle. I'm a huge fan of classes that give power at a price. But, in D20 it can often be crippling, which is why no one ever wants to play a blind seer (till now). It seems like a lot of players nowadays don't want to have any downsides to their characters. But this, turning the weakness into an advantage, seems like the perfect solution. The only complaint I can make about this is that I'd like to see a few more Curses on the list. Really, though, overall, very cool and flavorful.

So I'm statting up a character for a game, who has a doggie animal companion, and I had a question.

Is the dog supposed to have trip? Since the hyena and wolf (which is more powerful than the dog) get trip, I would have assumed the dog AC would get it as well. Am I missing something, or is this a mistake?

So, I have a player with a bison animal companion, and I'm a bit confused as to how trample works.

A-Since it otherwise works as an overrun, does trample still work on a charge OR a normal move?

B-Since it works as overrun, would improved overrun (the companion has human int) keep the trample from provoking AoOs?

C-Since trample doesn't require an attack role, but otherwise works as an Overrun, should the trampler make a CMB check to see if they knock the opponent prone anyway?

Thanks in advance.

I can't speak for the entire community but, even in the most serious games I'd ever played, there were some moments of real ridiculousness that we ended up mulling over later (and, in most cases, these were the most memorable parts of the game). Given the popularity of games like Hackmaster I'm sure at least some of you can relate. Back when wizards were still doing their genre based books (heroes of horror) I always requested a humor-based book, but it seemed to get rebuffed by the "badasssz" paradigm of that forum. Since pathfinder and paizonians are a little more oldschool, I'm wondering if there's any interest in this. I'm aware that Golarion is a somewhat serious setting, so slapstick might not be appropriate. But there's a tarrantinoesque undercurrent of dark humor in a lot of the books (ogres...*shudder*), and the RPG is somewhat setting-neutral.

So, to the powers that be, I'm asking: is there any possibility/interest of this on your end?

And, to the community, I ask: Are you interested in this, what would you like to see, what would you not like to see.

To start things off.

Yes

Things I want to see:
-new monsters
-new spells
-new magic items
-An extended table for cursed items
-Whackier crit rules
-new feats (a better version of throw another perhaps. A lot of -bard-heavy charisma combat feats would be great and flavorful...I really see this being the bard's book)
-A few expanded character options (the rabbit animal companion, anyone?)
-New domains
-New deities/extended fluff on the appropriate deities
-New combat maneuvers

Things I dont:
new core classes/prestige classes (jester=bard)
A new magic system

thoughts? Anyone?

So, I’ve seen several posts in the past few weeks in which people, for some reason or another, have said they didn’t like new magic systems, and others in which people called us curmudgeons or grognards. So, I thought I would write a post explaining some of us hate them, and why I sincerely hope they’re kept out of the Pathfinder RPG.

So, to start thing off, here is my opinion on the matter.

What do I mean by new magic systems:

Defining what is or is not a magic system is a discussion in and of itself, which will inevitably lead to armchair logicians using terms they half-understand from college rhetoric courses. It’s sort of like pornography, I can’t give you a concise definition, but I know it when I see it.

First of all, I’m not talking about variant magic systems. I think these are a great tool for DMs who want to tweak their setting. If you want to use spell points, or the exhausting variant, or all of the unearthed arcana stuff, I’m not talking to you. Have fun.

Second of all, I don’t want to talk about psionics. Whether or not psionics are magic is a question I’m not interested in discussing here.

Third of all, I’m not talking about class features. Depending on definition, Bard performance and Paladin mercies could both be magic systems and both of those are fine and dandy.

What I am talking about are broad systems that create wholly new types of magic or systems that are simply spells but don’t call themselves that. For example, incarnum, book of magic(truenamers, shadowcasters), and artificer infusions.

Why do some people hate them:

Disclaimer: this is not an indictment of all new mechanics. It’s a problem with some new mechanics (poorly designed classes) but it’s a problem that I see being specific troublesome for new magic systems.

In general, the Vancian system is how magic works. It’s not my favorite system, but, for backwards compatibility, and out of respect for the old system, the good folks here at Paizo (and their players) have decided that those are the principles on which magic functions. Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers are all wildly different classes, but all manage to function using the Vancian system. There’s absolutely room for variation from this formula, but that variation is already a part of the existing system. To borrow (sadly) a commonly touted 4e term, it’s a matter of exception based design *shudder*. When everyone’s an exception, there are no exceptions. Not only does adding new entire systems disrupt suspension of disbelief, it gets completely silly for everyone to have some kind of new and rare magic, when such a broad range of existing casters use the same system. Now, at this point, in general, I can simply say no to players who want to play these things. And I do.

To be more specific, the real problem with new magic systems is that they don’t support existing classes and, conversely, they are difficult to support. Things like incarnum, or shadowcasters could easily be done with a series of spells, feats, class features (an incarnum school and sphere, for example), magic items and even, when done well, a prestige class or two, all of which could use the existing magic in a new and interesting way rather than re-invent the wheel. This means that existing classes are getting shiny new options to use with their characters, and that, instead of some whole rare new classes your NPC throws at your PCs, you have rare or unusual spells. It also keeps compatibility issues from occurring, like the following:

-Abjurer: I counter the fecomancer's spell
-DM: Well, he’s not using spells, he’s using turds.
-Abjurer: Uhhh, can I counter that?
-DM: Well, it’s not a spell…and I don’t see a rule…so no
-Abjurer :Dude! I’m built as a counterspeller, and we’ve been fighting these guys for like 5 sessions. You should’ve told me!
-DM: Well, you can’t be good all the time…
-Abjurer: I haven’t been good any of time!
-DM:shhhhh.
-Abjurer: I hate you and I quit gaming forever.

The converse, as I said, is also a problem. It’s easy enough, when writing a new spell, to take a few well-written new base classes into account and decide whether or not they can cast it. And if ,for some reason, they aren’t included, it’s easy enough for the DM to decide if a spellcaster can cast it or not. But, once you have seven new magic subsystems, new books either don’t support them at all, or they chop up book space that might be devoted to cool spells to make room for new binds/shadowthings/turds/infusions. Plus, you don’t want redundancy, so things that’d make dandy new spells for several classes could use might be relegated to one obscure class so it’s at least getting support. The same thing happens with feats and magical items, leading to this:

-Artificer: Awesome, this item grants an extra spell
-DM: You don’t cast spells, you cast infusions.
-Artificer: But…dude, infusions are spells, they’re just spells that you cast on or through an item
-DM: mmmm, sorry the text begs to differ.
-Artificer: But…the book you’re rolling for treasure from was written before artificers existed
-DM: Yeah…sorry about that.
-Artificer: I hate you and I quit gaming forever.

So, what would some of us like to see instead:

I like new mechanics, and I like new concepts, so I’d like to see them done well. For stuff like incarnum, I’d like to see new items (really, I think souldbinds are basically just a type of variant magic item) or, one or two well-written prestige classes. The Incarnum guy and the binder are both cool concepts, they just…need to be written within the existing rules. For stuff like the artificer…can we just call a spell a spell? I see no reason this class doesn’t just have an extremely limited spell list with a few artificer-only spells on it. For stuff like the shadowcaster…why does this exist?

Anyway, I’m very curious what other people’s opinions on this topic are, as there seem to be a very few vocal people on each side. Do we like these new systems? Do we not?

When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack).

The text of this feat stipulates that the vital striker does not multiply Strength damage, weapon ability damage, or precision damage. Are other damage bonuses (those not mentioned, such as those from Weapon Specialization, enhancement bonuses, or the bard's inspire courage ability) are, in fact, multiplied on a hit? I'm not sure if that's what is intended, though--the wording sounds like it could just be saying, "No damage bonuses, such as X, Y, and Z, are multiplied on a hit."

I have two questions regarding the Shield Master feat, and I was wondering what it was the designers intended:

Add your shield's shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.

It says you add your shield bonus AS IF it were an enhancement bonus. Does this include the actual enhancement bonus the shield already has? A +1 light shield, for example, would have a shield bonus of +2. Would you add +2 to your attack and damage rolls, or would you only add +1?

Secondly, how does this interact with shields that are already enchanted as a weapon? Do they stack? Is the purpose to give shield users a bone? (Ie, would a +5 small steel shield enchanted as a +5 weapon give you a +12 weapon?)

I don't know for certain the intent behind it, but I can state with complete certainty (though I am only human so if somebody proves me wrong, my bad lmao) that the wording of Vital Strike is telling you only weapon damage dice get multiplied and giving examples of bonuses that do not get multiplied.

So, evocation didn't get the much-needed boosting that was discussed in beta. The formula is still static blah blah blah. I'm trying to take it upon myself to fix the nukes back to some level of 'kick ass' in my games. First off, I'm installing the suggested houserule that SR doesn't apply to energy-based spells. Easy enough. Secondly, I've decided to come up with the following magical item.

Rod of Frost/Flame/Thunder/Lightning:

Each of these 'wizard rods' as they're colloquially called, is associated with a specific energy type, fire, ice, lightning, or sonic. When casting a spell of that specific energy type and wielding the rod, the caster adds a set amount of damage to each die of damage dealt.

Lesser rods add 1 to each die of damage, while greater rods add 2. (namely, a 10d6 fireball becomes a 10d6+10 or a 10d6+20, respectively).

I'm thinking the lesser rod should be an easily affordable/common magical item (since, even with that rod, evocation spells suck), so I'd price it at about 3k base price (1500 to craft). The greater rod, I'm thinking, would be moderately expensive, but still not up there with the really amazing magical items, so I was thinking about 9k base price for that one.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I can come up with rules for this on my own, but I'd like the core book to contain slightly more extensive rules for hirelings. My current party makes use of warrior hirelings on a regular basis, and the books don't really have rules for gaining xp/salary (he's not getting a full share of party loot, and I've basically had him get better as a group cohort).

Hey, I know the petless druids were discussed extensively in the class discussion, but what about druids who don't want to wildshape? I've seen druids that don't care for the class feature, and it doesn't seem to be any more conceptually necessary than animal companion. So, how about the option to swap it out for cleric domains the same way AC can now be swapped?

I recently had a player who wanted to play a bard/paladin so that she could be a mounted bard, riding a buffalo. However, as she is new to the system, and she's far too chaotic, Bardadin is a poor choice.

I told her that she could simply take leadership and, at the appropriate time, she would effectively have a mount equal to paladin levels-3 as a cohort. We're currently using the Animal Companion rules Bulmahn posted for playtest here, which Brodiggan Gale made into a really excellent downloadable PDF here.

I'm deliberately nerfing the cohort class feature, as I think it's a bit much for a character with high charisma, and we're not playing a high-power game, so the bard definitely doesn't mind. Anyway, I had the following questions, and I'd really appreciate it if I could get some feedback from you guys:

1) Do you think this is fair? Or is it potentially taking too much away from the paladin? I'm not overly concerned about this, as we don't have a Paladin, but I get a little cautious about taking class features from one class for another (for utility reasons, it's getting low human int at some point anyway).

2) How would you stat out a buffalo using that variant system? I'm tossing some numbers around, but I'm not 100% on which stats it should be getting at what level.

3) Since the bard and paladin are both sort of hybrid casters, would it be appropriate to allow her to take some of the mount-based paladin spells from the splat books? Or is that letter her get too many paladin goodies? I'm referring less to combat spells, like golden barding, and more to utility spells like steed of the seas.

Thanks in advance. I really appreciate any feedback I get on this.

I wasn't really here for the magic item discussion or the spell discussion, as I was busy with the nongaming, but I looked through, and didn't see the evocation troubles discussed nearly enough.

I think a simple, elegant solution to the Evocation spell damage(which is really really bad), is to have magical items that boost spell damage rather than items that give more spells. Currently, The problem is that people who use weapons have a nonstatic formula (IE, damage increases a great deal in games that are heavy on magical items), while casters are completely static. A few simple items that increase a damage type by 1-3 per die for specific energy types(which sounds like way more than it is, as 20-60 damage is practically nothing at higher levels).

Another solution would be to factor in ability scores in some way.

Both of these solutions will keep the casters from overpowering the fighters, as, in low-item/low-stat games, the spells will yield less damage, and in high-item/high stat games (in which the melees will increase damage by a lot), the casters will benefit from increased damage.

If I recall my history channel, shields used to be the standard for all but the most skill/specialized of soldiers. Under the current system, they really aren't that great (unless you have a +5 animated shield, which needs to go). Can shields get some kind of boost to make people actually want to use them again?

I believe this was posted in the feats section, but I thought I'd post something here as well. Why are these weapons so bad? Historically, the sling was actually quite deadly and the crossbow all but replaced a bow for most people who weren't immensely strong. So, why are these weapons so poorly handled in this system? Yes, I suppose filling your sling with another rock would take a move action. So, of course, would drawing another arrow, nocking, aiming, and shooting. The poor crossbow is screwed. Can we get either the damage upgraded on these things, or give them the same unrealistic rain of attacks as bows?

Honestly, can we get rid of the Dragon Disciple? I've always hated this class, for the same reason I'm glad to see the Archmage go. An archmage is "A really powerful Wizard", which seems counter intuitive to being a 20th level wizard. A Dragon Disciple is a "Really Draconic Spellcaster", which seems incredibly pointless to me. One could just play a high level Dragon bloodline sorcerer. Right now, when you ask what the difference is between a sorc/DD and a sorc20, it seems you'd have to say "Ummm...the DD is really into it!"

Jason said earlier that he intends for bloodlines to play a stronger role in the game, which will essentially mean this class is going to get more and more obsolete in favor of just being a high level dragon-bloodline sorcerer. Can we maybe trade the pagespace for something that is conceptually different?

I'm personally a really big fan of Racial Specific PRCs. I like giving Elves and Dwarves each a specific fighting style as, as the system currently exists, I don't think race plays an important enough role in character creation.

That being said, the Dwarven Defender had a lot of problems, but it was a very cool class, and I'd personally like to see it return. (maybe at the cost of something less cool, like the Dragon Disciple).

I'm personally not thrilled with the arcane archer. I've always found this to be an underpowered class whose abilities seem counteractive to Themselves. Let me elaborate:

Enhance Arrow: Meh. This is a really cool, really flavorful ability. That being said, it sucks. I mean, in a low-magic game, it's ok, but who doesn't have a bow better than+5 by level 10? This ability, to be worth it, really needs to stack with existing magical properties. Otherwise, I don't see how it's going to get used.

Imbue arrow: Potentially the best ability the Arcane Archer has, it actually becomes completely useless as it depends on spellcasting and the arcane archer gets no spellcaster levels. The typical AA is going to get, at most, a caster level of 8; more likely, a caster level of 3-5. What are you supposed to use with this? Ice storm? Fireball? These spells are already lame. In order to make this worth it, the AA needs at least 1/2 caster level progression. And why limited to Area spells? I think shooting (nondamaging) haste arrows at your allies or (damaging) slow arrows at your opponents would be really cool.

Seeker arrow: This is Ok, I guess.

Hail of Arrows: Too limited. Really, at this point, you're going to have rapid shot. I mean, I suppose making (theoretically) ten attacks at full BAB is nice, but, how often are you fighting that many foes? I would double this. Hitting 20 foes is cool, I guess.

Arrow of Death: The fixed DC is a bad idea, and too low. Kind of lame for a capstone.

All of this is just my personal opinion, but, can anyone really think of a reason to take this class? At this point, Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight do it better.

On a sidenote, please keep this Elf only. I've seen the possibility of others thrown around, and I personally really LIKE the prospect of racial specific PRCs.

While it doesn't bother me a ton (and I don't mind doing the math). I'm concerned that the new saving throw progression rules are going to be too much of a hassle for backwards compatibility. And on a sidenote, I'd really rather not see these rules adopted for multiclassing, as that will definitely be too much of a hassle. What do the rest of you think?

So, any chance we're going to see a revamp for these in the bestiary?

One thing I've always hated about D&D is the way Demons and Devils are handled, aesthetically. We've got two species of creatures that are supposed to be completely different, and at war with one another. But, ultimately, if you haven't played long enough to know the whole MM (and many of my players haven't), there's nothing to differentiate the two.

I get that, in a place of random, horrific chaos and evil like the abyss, you get beings that are a essentially a corrupt, creepy mix of various parts, like the Glabrezu and the Marilith. But even they have things that are not remotely demon-like, like the bebelith and retriever. After 10 levels of fighting monsters, a giant bug/spider is a giant bug/spider, no matter where it comes from.

Devils, by far, are worse. In a plane of brutal totalitarianism, I would expect so see some theme, some commonality between the various inhabitants. Instead, we get an even worse mishmash of creatures than the demons have. We have a spiked troll, a scaly gargoyle, and the ice devil...seriously, an anthropomorphic blue bug with a lizard tail? Why? Why is this a Devil? Demon...maybe if the writer was out of steam, but devil? I don't get it.

Perhaps worst of all is the BBEG CR 20 monster of each side. On one side, we have a red scaly balrog wannabe, and on the other, we have a brown furry balrog wannabe. I'm aware their functions and powers are different, but, aesthetically, they're too similar.

I know that in medieval demonology, which had more in common with devils than demons, was filled with random mishmash creatures, but medieval demonology didn't have two distinct species.

In my own games, I'm going through the process of reflavoring the two. Demons, I'm pretty much leaving alone (except for things like the nafalshee, that I think need a switch). Devils, on the other hand, are all being made more humanoid/corrupt angel, like Erinyes, Hellraiser Cenobites, or some Silent Hill monsters.

One of the things I've really liked about the Pathfinder setting and adventures is that they all feel very grown up to me. You adventure against evil creatures because they, ya know, do bad things. They aren't the Disney Villains we've seen over the past ten years or so, as D&D was streamlined to be family friendly. (I actually consider it a grown-up game, so I appreciate this approach). Their versions of goblins and ogres saved me a lot of time trying to rewrite fluff/concept (especially ogres...oh god do my players not want to be captured by ogres).

Anyway, long story short, I'd personally like to see a reflavoring of Demons and Devils Akin to what we saw in classic monsters revisited and rise of the runlords. What do the rest of you think? Are Demons and Devils sacred cows that can't be 'revisited', or are they sacred cows?

It seems to me that changing the way this feat works so that it does double or triple damage on a successful hit would be the best way to solve the "high crit mod is God" problem.

I'd let the feat be taken at +6 BAB and have it do double, then have this improve to triple at +11 BAB.

Thoughts?

Right now, there's a lot of complaining going on about the usefulness of some skills versus others. Stealth, perception, and acrobatics versus knowledge (history). My concern with this is that people want to revert to a system that, frankly, sucked.

So, rather than gimp skills that shouldn't be gimped, why don't we come up with a way to give mechanical benefits to skills that don't have them? I'm personally a big fan of the Archivist for precisely this reason: Knowledge is power. So, why not something similar to the dark knowledge ability, but simpler and less powerful. A +2 to hit for knowledge (history) versus undead or something sounds fun, and gives wizards something to do when they're out of spells besides blast.

Thoughts?

So, in my current game, I run a not-very-serious 'sucked into a fantasy world' game using players playing themselves and the pathfinder campaign setting. less intellectually satisfying than a normal campaign, but much funnier.

Anyway, my group is now interested in opening a Thai restaurant in the game world that the characters can also use as a base of operations. And, while hilarious, I'm not 100% sure what rules to use for this. I mean, I have and enjoy the stronghold builders' guidebook, but the 'sources of income' section isn't exactly business friendly. I could use profession: cook, but then my characters won't be free to travel and adventure.

I don't need complete realistic economic rules, just something to keep it from being a complete money sink.

Any thoughts?

Honestly, one of by big gripes with the D&D system has always been that crossbows suck, very very heavily (requiring an extra feat and STILL being less good than a bow), making archery the standard attack form of the day. Historically, we all know how untrue this is. A crossbow was much deadlier than a bow, not just easier to use.

I'm aware that archers are a classic fantasy archetype, and that Paizo doesn't want to do anything so drastic as alter equipment, so, I think fixing the crossbow falls into the arena of feats. It's easy to add a new feat. Namely, what can we do to make the crossbow good again? Perhaps a feat that adds int to damage? Or a feat to make a standard crossbow attack at touch ac? I don't know what, but the crossbow needs SOMEthing crossbow-specific to be de-sucked.

So, since guns are included in the pathfinder chronicles campaign setting, can we not get the language of rapid reload altered to include guns as well as crossbows? Otherwise, they're kind of unusable past 6.

Anyone?

I don't know that adding things that already exist in other material is a good thing (or, ya know, legal), but some more bard options would be fun. Something mentioned on the bard thread was a class feature that allowed bards to apply CHA mod instead of STR mod on combat maneuvers (I have a bard who wields a bladed sash in my game, and I think CHA would work just as well as dex to hit with it). I could see this being made into a feat as well (and it wouldn't allow too much ability swapping in the way that I fear snowflake wardance would).

(bump)What about a constuct Cohort similar to the existing AC system but with different abilities? Anyone? anyone at all?