Wally the Wizard's page

I always found this detail interesting, as it seems to imply the spell picks up some sort of evil/magic/whatever rays or waves coming from the target object or creature, similar to a Geiger counter. Is this accurate?

On Dungeons:

9.9.1 Dungeons: By the gods, why?
Alright, we know that you love dungeons. We love them too, despite the fact that we’re pretty sure there is
no good reason for the silly things. The average D&D game world is frankly incapable of the technology or
manpower needed to build vast underground complexes. I mean, look at our own world history: aside from
a single underground city in Turkey and a couple of pyramids and tombs, the ancient world took a pass on
underground life. Even the old excuse of “Wizards can magic it up and they do it because its defensible” is a
bit lame considering that we are talking about a world with teleport and burrowing and ethereal travel; being
underground is actually a liability since its harder to escape and people can drop the roof onto you, not to
mention the incredible costs involved in doing it even if magic is available.
So here is what we suggest: dungeons have an actual magical purpose. By putting anything behind at
least 40’ of solid, continuous material (like solid walls of dirt, stone, ice, or whatever, but not a forest of trees
or rooms of furniture) the area is immune to unlimited-range or “longer than Long Range” spells like Scrying
and transportation magic like teleport, greater teleport, the travel version of gate, and other effects. You can
use these magics inside a dungeon, but you also stopped by a 40’ solid, continuous material in a Line of Effect;
this means you can use these effects inside a dungeon to bypass doors and walls, but entering and leaving the
dungeon is a problem, and parts of the dungeon that have more than 30’ of material in the way between your
position and the target of your effect will be effectively isolated from your position.
In summary, in a best-case scenario you can transport yourself to a dungeon, then bust in the entrance and
enter the dungeon, then transport yourself to the place you want to be inside the dungeon. In a worse-case
scenario, the dungeon designer will have built the dungeon in such a way that only someone aware of the
layout can take full advantage of unlimited range or transportation spells like teleports and Scry, or even that
most or all areas if the dungeon are inaccessible to these effects.

Of course, there are exceptions. The idea of permanent portals, gates, or teleport circles are just too common
in D&D and too fun to just abandon. Permanent effects will continue to regardless of materials in the way, and
will be the premier way to enter and leave dungeons, as well as the best way to move inside a dungeon.
By incorporating these changes in your D&D world, you are ensuring that players actually explore rooms
in your dungeons that you have painstakingly built, you avoid all the problems with Scry-and-Die tactics, and
you’ll find that players actually care about dungeon geography. It also adds a bit to suspension of disbelief in
your setting, which is only good for a cooperative storytelling game

I suggest reading the whole thing if you have time. It's 3rd or 3.5 edition but the authors give a lot of good ideas.

https://sites.google.com/site/middendorfproject/frankpdf

First off, TL:DR. Sorry if I repeat something.

I'm an independent, I don't consider myself of any party. I look at facts and numbers and the best idea wins when i'm voting. That being said, with the craziness that's been coming out of the republican party, I've found myself aligned with the democratic party much more often than not. It's frustrating as hell. The democratic party seems like they are terrified of actually winning and having to govern rather than losing and complaining about the republicans. I've never seen a group of people try so hard to shoot themselves in the foot. And I say that as a die-hard Detroit lions fan.

My suggestions for a better democratic party in no particular order:

A. FOCUS! It seems like every single Dem has a pet cause and the party seems hell bent on trying to include everything all at once so as to make everyone happy. everyone is protesting something different, everyone thinks that their cause is the one that should be at the front of the line. I even agree with most of it, but here's the thing, if everyone's screaming something different i can't hear anyone clearly.

The party should have a laser like focus on just a few things. Building the middle class, getting people healthcare and improving law enforcement while still protecting people from an overzealous police state.

there's a bunch of reasons why people voted for trump, but i think the biggest is fear. People are scared right now. The world is changing quickly, the middle class is shrinking, most working class people are one bad accident or disease away from losing everything to bankruptcy. Crime is on the news every night and it feels like everything is going to hell (yes stats show crime is actually at the lowest rates in a couple decades, but the prevalent nationwide coverage of every large violent crime makes it feel much higher).

Asking people who are barely getting by to sacrifice for a stranger is hard. It's even harder when the person asking you to sacrifice for the greater good is someone who comes across as a patronizing "elitist" with the attitude of "you don't know how good you have it, you should be ashamed you aren't helping this guy who has less". The areas that went for trump in the election are hurting. Prices are going up, good jobs left, wages are stagnant and they can't afford to send their kids to college for a better opportunity. And they are being ignored by one party completely except when they are being mocked by celebs and comics. Is it really any wonder that they are willing to vote for the guy who says he'll fix it, even if his plans are bs? Grow the middle class, grow your base and make people feel secure and then they'll reach out to help those who were left behind. It's not the ideal plan, but it will work. slow and steady gains beats losing and nothing.

B.) Drop gun control as a major plank. It's a losing battle and it costs a ton of votes. Any law that infringes too much on the 2nd amendment will be struck down. And It's seriously not worth the fight at this time, we have bigger issues that need fixed first. about 36000 people die a years from guns, about 21000 of those are suicides. It's horrible but it's also something that gun restrictions would have little effect on, most suicides are done with legally obtained weapons and even if guns are banned it wouldn't stop the suicidal behavior, only change the mechanism that people use (my guess would be a sharp rise in single car "accidents" leading to death.) Of the 15000 remaining deaths a good number are accidents. The remaining aprox 10000 homicides are mostly deaths caused by criminals to other criminals. Gun control treats the symptom not the disease. universal health care including mental health would cut down the number of suicides and the number of killings done by mentally ill people (mass shootings etc) the deaths that are caused due to crime factors will drop as people's economic outcomes improve and they seek legal channels rather than criminal ones for a better life. To put this in perspective, The top two causes of death are cancer and heart disease. Both treatable and both causing about 600000 deaths a year. Focus on health care, save more lives and stop pissing off people who agree with you on the majority of issues and would vote for you but think gun control is the most important thing. Gun control ranked "very important" for 71% of the republican voters. Democrats are alienating those voters for a pet cause that they can't win and are letting millions of Americans pay the price as health care suffers.

C. Stop giving the republicans easy wins. I don't know WTH democrats are thinking by abandoning large areas of the country. Yeah I get that you probably won't win that city council position in rural georgia but you sure as hell should be fighting for it. Even if all you do is get 1 or 2 positions moved to the left that's a win. If you don't fight than what happens is another republican will challenge the incumbent and will try to win by going further right, further radicalizing the country. Even if that doesn't happen the incumbent knows that he's safe and can say and do things that people might disagree with, but since there's no one running against them they get away with it. Democrats have to make serious efforts for local and state government even in red states. it builds a bench of talent, it gets people thinking about your ideas and sometimes you'll win. On the state level the power of gerrymandering should be obvious from this past election. It won't get fixed if you don't fight for state positions and fight hard.

D. Split the party. Not really but I think that the party should adopt a 2 wing strategy for dealing with the current political climate in DC. Right now we have a president that cares about image and winning, has little to no ideological values that he truly believes in and who can be baited with either insults or praise. The democrats on the other hand have very little that they can do to stop the GOP if the GOP is united. Luckily the GOP doesn't like trump much either and they are a fractured party between the moderates and the far right. So here's what i would do if i was a congressional democrat. engineer a party "split" in to two wings. One wing would be the liberal populist wing. Sanders, Warren, Franken, Booker etc. This wing does nothing but oppose and bait trump. This will fire up the base, people are pissed right now and are mobilizing. But they'll need leaders to keep them fired up and to direct the movements in to things that can truly affect change. It's also a good place for building up some rising stars for future elections. This wing should be stacked with your potential candidates for the next election.

The second wing should be the congressmen in more purple districts. These are the deal makers and consensus builders. Trump can be played. He's a useful idiot. You have your progressive wing set the agenda by pushing him on the issues you want to tackle. Tweets, speeches, calling him out on news networks etc. He will, without fail, spout off something that will either piss people off or he'll make some claim about fixing it without thinking. Since he doesn't really believe in the republican platform you can use the moderate wing the swoop in and make a "deal". If you do it right you can get him to focus on the subjects you want, and then you can use the deal makers to give him a public "victory". Since he doesn't actually care about the content of the law you can get concessions by bring him the votes he needs for a quick win. You'd have to control the agenda to steer towards things that divide the republicans so the deal makers are needed, you then limit the damage by pulling the bills to the middle and you might get a couple of minor victories. If you oppose trump completely you lose if all the republicans are on board against you and i suspect that they way they get every republican on board is to move things further right. To keep that from happening the next two years the democrats agenda should be limiting the power of the far right and pulling things toward moderate policy, while still having enough outspoken critics of trump to keep his negatives high and build up peoples profiles for a national run.

A couple things where i think this could work:

Increase the earned income tax credit. Republicans like it as tax relief, democrats like it as it's extremely progressive in that it helps the lower income brackets far more than the higher income brackets.

The infrastructure bill.

Obamacare reform- the republicans are screwed on this one. They fought it so hard they need to do something but since the law was already mostly a republican idea they have nothing that they can replace it with. worse their base is demanding something be done right away. I'd start having the progressive wing agreeing that yes we do need to get rid of obamacare. we need to replace it with universal health care! keep up the pressure and then have the moderates swoop in with an offer of a public option "fix" for obamacare instead. If the pressure is high enough I think republications might take the deal instead of being painted in to a corner with no way out. it's have to be sold as letting the free market decide by letting companies compete with medicare etc.. and it's be a long shot but maybe.

Student loans- tax deductions for interest or some similar deal could probably be made.

Rub-Eta wrote:

Nethys is a sticky one - He doesn't really bring a philosophy with him. What is to worship him, exactly? Do I need to wear a pointy hat and blue robes? Is he a "you should be a wizard"-god? "I worship Nethys because I'm an arcane spell caster"? How is he more magical than the rest of the gods? He's also cannibalized by Irori as the deity of knowledge.

I think this is my biggest gripe with the Pathfinder deities. Nethys should be full of role playing opportunity. I'd love to see two very distinct and different philosophies about magic in his church(s). A holy war where both sides worship the same god. one believes magic makes you better than everyone else, the other believes that having magic means you have a duty to serve others.

Each aspect could have different alignments. CN and LN. You could have paladin and antipaladin of nethys. In rustic areas the differences could lead to all out war where in more cosmopolitan cities both philosophies coexist in a tension filled church filled with political intrigue.

Even in the individual sides you have awesome tension between the CG wizard who uses his magic to try to free slaves, vs the CE who binds devils and angels alike to grow his personal power, etc..

And what if the whole nex vs geb war wasn't 2 mighty wizards but avatars of nethys playing out an internal struggle writ large.

I think nethys should get a lot more love it's a great concept that needs fleshed out more.

Thinking about this some more I think this could make an awesome "choose your own adventure" type AP. You play through while making decisions about which sect to support and you get completely different reactions/ rewards etc depending on the choices. The final book being 2 books one for each sect winning the day. It'd have great replay ability.

Nethys is a sticky one - He doesn't really bring a philosophy with him. What is to worship him, exactly? Do I need to wear a pointy hat and blue robes? Is he a "you should be a wizard"-god? "I worship Nethys because I'm an arcane spell caster"? How is he more magical than the rest of the gods? He's also cannibalized by Irori as the deity of knowledge.

I think this is my biggest gripe with the Pathfinder deities. Nethys should be full of role playing opportunity. I'd love to see two very distinct and different philosophies about magic in his church(s). A holy war where both sides worship the same god. one believes magic makes you better than everyone else, the other believes that having magic means you have a duty to serve others.

Each aspect could have different alignments. CN and LN. You could have paladin and antipaladin of nethys. In rustic areas the differences could lead to all out war where in more cosmopolitan cities both philosophies coexist in a tension filled church filled with political intrigue.

Even in the individual sides you have awesome tension between the CG wizard who uses his magic to try to free slaves, vs the CE who binds devils and angels alike to grow his personal power, etc..

And what if the whole nex vs geb war wasn't 2 mighty wizards but avatars of nethys playing out an internal struggle writ large.

I think nethys should get a lot more love it's a great concept that needs fleshed out more.

So I just was looking at the warlock in another thread: Warlock Vigilante + a level of snakebite striker, Rogue or vivisectionist sounds like a decent way to go in to the AT prestige class. you can pick up the second d6 of sneak through a feat and using mystic bolts means you get a touch attack for both melee and ranged so the BAB hit doesn't matter as much.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/circling-mongoose-combat

it could be interesting to build around that feat. high dex+ acrobatics, mobility, dodge, combat expertise, fighting defensively, arcane strike, twf, maybe crane style or unhindering shield. dance around slapping for multiple d6s of sneak attack. stack as much defense as you can and go to town, you'll be taking a lot of penalties on your to hit but that shouldn't matter unless you are fighting tiny fast creatures often. At range you still do okay damage with ranged touch attacks especially with a pair of sniper goggles and some planning.

Magyc wrote:

Were you surprised by the depth of reaction regarding the change to Crane Wing?

A bit. We expected some reaction, but I am a little surprised by how much this has upset some folks.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer about to head off to a playtest for a bit

Hello Jason,

I think the intensity of the reaction is due to the intensity of the change. I think that there were several options to reduce the power of the feat that could have been implemented without such a drastic change. Off the top of my head:

You can't deflect a natural 20 or critical hit.
You can't deflect when you are denied dex or flanked.
You have to declare before the attack roll is resolved.
You have to spend an immediate action eating your swift for next turn.
You take a penalty on all your AC checks for the rest of the round after using the deflection.

Or probably the best option since the abuse seems to be mostly from getting the feat too early: MoMS can only choose the first style feat in a path as a bonus feat at level 1, but they don't have to meet the prereqs. at 6th and 10th the could choose the second and third respectively without meeting the prereqs.

Out of curiosity did you and your team consider any milder changes to the feat? If so would you be open to sharing what ideas were discussed and why this option was decided to be better?

Add 1 more vote for disappointed crowd. As it stood Crane style feats were an option that was worth investing in for several build types across several classes without being so good it was mandatory across the board. In other words it was pretty damn good feat design.

However I do try to give constructive criticisms so here's my suggestions to Paizo on how to lower the power level of the feat chain while not breaking it.

A: Keep the old feat text but instead of " deflect one attack that would normally hit you" change it to "deflect one attack. This deflection may be used after the attack roll is made, but must be applied before the results of the roll are determined."

B. Keep the old text but add that you may not deflect a critical hit or natural 20.

Both of those ideas would diminish the power level a bit while still keeping the spirit of the current feat the same.

The first and the last adventures in an AP are often the most challenging to create, and in some aspects are the most important.

This is exactly why I think they should be written by the same person. If the schedule were adjusted so that the first installment was finished before the others were even started it wouldn't change the amount of time that the author has to write each part. And since the author has already put in a good deal of the work when he completed the first part, the last part should actually be easier for him than it would be for a different author.

Having the same voice bookend an adventure would provide a great boost for a consistent feel. I imagine it would be something the writers would look forward to. Being the headlining author would give them a showcase where they could really shine. I also expect that it's somewhat frustrating to spend all this time fleshing out a world and a story for a beginning AP and then not be able to finish telling it in your own words.

Since this thread seems to have been thoroughly necro'ed I might as well throw in my 2cents:

I get that a one author AP would cause too many logistical issue but how about having the same author do two parts? Specifically the beginning and end. The ideal way I would see this working is an AP idea is decided on and an outline is created. Author 1 gets this outline and begins the opening adventure. Once author 1 is done with the opening adventure authors 2-5 get the adventure and the outline and then started on their portions. With the beginning already set they get a lot stronger feeling of the style and tone of the whole AP. At this same time author 1 begins work on the last installment. As authors 2-5 finish their parts the first author ties the various loose threads to the final adventure.

Since the first author know he is working on the beginning and the end he is able to use a fair amount of subtle foreshadowing knowing that it will at least be touched upon in the final installment. He also is better able to weave in the inevitable loose ends that multiple authors will cause since he's got a better idea of how things started and how he wants them to end. I think it would give you the overall feeling of having one author while still allowing you to split up the work so things are able to get done in a timely manner.

I very much like this idea. What thickness of stone/earth/metal did you use?

I'm thinking like 5ft/1ft/1in would shield or prevent from scrying or teleportation. Definitely adds to the degree of difficulty if you don't know where exactly something is or can't just teleport to it.

Here's the text from the tome Kirth Gersen was referring to:

I suggest reading the whole thing if you have time. It's 3rd or 3.5 edition but the authors give a lot of good ideas.

Tomes

I second the evangelist archer cleric option. With 4 melee party members the performance ability is worth it's weight in gold. Especially with 3 of them 3/4 BAB. Focus on Wisdom and Dex and use archery after you've buffed up everyone. Your healing will mostly come from channels and CLW wands out of combat. Once you hit level 7 you ca start a performance on a move action and cast blessing of fervor with a standard. That's an extra attack for everyone and +2 to hit and damage, you'll end up creating more damage than all the other players combined. Later rounds you can just plink away with your bow.

A single level dip in to zen archer could give you a few extra feats, unarmed attacks in case someone gets close and wisdom to AC.

For feats you'll need lingering performance to maximize your performance, Point blank shot and Precise shot after that you can choose whatever depending on what you want to highlight.

God-wise I suggest Erastil. Bow as a weapon, Feather domain gives you a perception bonus and you can get an AC to play bodyguard or add extra damage (I suggest boon companion if you're gonna send it in to combat)

I'll accept your numbers for "buffed full attack vs buffed vital strike" and admit that when when all your bonuses are up it's almost always better to full attack. Of course taking VS doesn't mean you have to use it in every situation and if you have all your buffs feel free to full attack. There are however several situations where it is clearly better than not having it:

A) How often are you unable to make a full attack due to movement/positioning?

B) How often are you Disabled or Staggered?

C) How often do you have to stand up from prone, pick up a disarmed weapon or retrieve a stored potion/item?

D) How often are you in a surprise round?

E) How often do you run in to circumstances where you are not able to get all of your buff spells working?

F) How many times have you not needed the extra damage? If the difference from VS is enough drop the enemy as a standard action than you gain action economy.

In all of these situations you're better off with VS since you can't or don't need to full attack.

On top of that your math doesn't take in to account that VS is a standard action and that you have an additional move action that the full attacker doesn't. That move action can do a lot of things to deal or prevent damage:

A) Channel smite sucks, I'll give that to you. So instead the cleric picks up quick channel and does 5d6 damage to every enemy in range as a move action on top of the VS attack.

B) You can use that move action to position yourself in to a flanking position. That adds +2 (10%) to your hit chance upping your damage and also adds to the damage that the other flanker causes. If you've got a TWF rogue in the party setting him up with a +2 bonus and the ability to full attack with sneak can end encounters.

C) If you are out matched when trading full attacks you can attack and then use the move action to retreat. This is especially good against enemies with a large number of attacks (twf/monks/lots of natural attacks).

D) Use the move action to get close with enemy casters to disrupt their spells (great with disruptive feat).

E) Feint with improved feint to deny Dex bonuses.

F) Move to interrupt a charge lane that targets your caster/archers.

I don't think that all classes need a skill point boost but I would agree fighters do need 4 per level. A couple of thoughts:

A. The US army has over 200+ field manuals. Soldiers need to know a lot to survive, more so in a world where magic and monsters abound.

B. Fighters have issues; First they are on the low end of the power spectrum vs other full BAB classes. I don't subscribe to the view that they are unplayable but I do think they are a bit weaker than a barbarian, paladin or ranger. Second the class just feels so much more mechanical and boring than other classes. I think this is why you see so many "fighters suck" posts. It's not that you can't build a mechanically decent fighter, it's that it's more difficult to build a fighter that feels unique and "alive". When a paladin smites evil they aren't just gaining a plus to hit and damage, they are getting a great role playing moment when they call upon the righteous might of their god and fulfill their divine purpose.... the fighter that took weapon focus with his fighter feat...has a +1. The Ranger gets a freaking sidekick to role play interactions with... the fighter takes weapon spec and gets +2 to damage...woohoo. A few extra skill points gives the fighter a slight power boost but more importantly it helps define the fighter's fluff and back story!

C. I really think Fighters should get a bonus to knowledge checks to identify creatures. Their entire purpose is to stab things... don't you think they'd focus on how, where and with what they should do it with? I would like to see them have a class ability called tactics that gives them a scaling bonus to identify monsters. Think of a bunch of grizzled old veterans sitting around the fire swapping war stories;

" Now this scar, this one I got fighting a troll down in the evermarshes. Fred and I were camped out for the night and had just opened a bottle of good mead when the bastard stumbled in to our camp. Fred had been sharpening his sword and managed to stab the thing straight through the heart while it was still adjusting to the light of the fire. Son of a B#$%^ dropped like a sack of flour. Oh man, you shoulda seen the look of surprise on it's face! But when Fred reached down to wipe his blade on the animal skin it was wearing the damn thing gasped back to life, reached up and tore out his throat. It came after me next and I must've sliced the thing a dozen times but the cuts just kept closing up, finally I got a good shot in and the troll stumbled back and fell in to the campfire. That didn't heal. You ever run in to one of those beasts make sure you use fire to put it down... I ought'a warn ya though burning troll's the worst damn thing I've ever smelled, even worse than cook's mystery stew!"

"crafting doubles wealth by level"

Like other people above have said this maybe true in theory but it is nowhere near true in practice.

If you are handing out a good mix of useful magic items (won't be sold), disposable items (used or sold for 50%), magical items that will be sold (50% selling price) and cash than the feat is far less powerful. Also the player will want to purchase things that they can not craft such as mundane items, magic items that they don't have the craft feats for, disposable items, new spells etc. Add this all together and maybe they end up 10-20% above WBL. It's a nice perk but that's not even enough to bump them up a slot on the WBL chart.

Players who focus on crafting also give themselves a huge Achilles heel. Because they spend their feats on items instead of other feats they become dependent on that gear to survive. It's not unreasonable for you as GM to have enemies attack these items. The BBEG fighter may try to sunder that staff that's shooting out fireballs at all his goons. A BBEG spellcaster will cast an anti magic field or disjunction to get rid of the threat. And a BBEG rogue is 100% going to attempt to steal all the shiny objects. This doesn't mean that you should try to punish the character because he took the feat but you shouldn't have your NPCs ignore good tactics either.

Edit: If you still think crafting is too powerful then the simple solution is to up the DC to 10+CL or 5+CL*2. It ups the risk vs reward level of the feat while still allowing players to craft if they want to focus on it.