Wesley Snacks's page

It occurs to me that I never checked. Do PF followers/cohorts still follow the same guideline that the AD&D henchmen/hirelings/etc had?
Namely: They're not stupid or suicidal, and trying to get them to be such is a good way to get them to leave?

While the fact it is a penalty can make things weird, I think the more relevant information from the ability is

"This penalty does not stack with itself and cannot reduce an ability score below 1."

What this means is if you do the -10 penalty, and then 3 dex damage, their effective Dex will be 1.
Because it would be 13-3 = 10
And then the -10 penalty cannot lower the score below 1, so it instead becomes a -9 penalty.

If you do 6 more pressure point strikes, it would still be 1.
Because it would be 13-9 = 4
And then the penalty can't lower the score below 1 again, so it instead is a -3 penalty now.

So you're right in saying that you need a lot of pressure point strikes to get him truly to 0, but you're wrong in saying that HM + PP = effective 0, because HM can never actually reach 0.

Still hoping for an epic rules book.
The sooner the better.

Gebby wrote:

No disrespect to him if thats what you were thinking, the links were there to say there were guns in 1st edition, I was just showing what he actually said about it.

Personally I'm still wondering how you reconcile the guns that are explicitly in the Forgotten Realms with that being your preferred setting.

This was exactly what I was wondering...

I'm finding these quite interesting but I have to ask, do you also house-rule that ranged touch spells don't draw AoOs?
I only ask because I notice your Magus doesn't have the close-range arcana.
And from the use of Scorching Ray I've seen it seems like that would particularly mess up the Magus.

Reference:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

Guilty as charged.

I must say I'm wondering how much of a nerf (boost?) that some of the ELH critters will get... really makes me consider a subscription just so I can get the book early!

Quotes and additional points

You know, in retrospect I would look upon our posts and realize it comes greatly down to one's interpretations.

So I take back my previous statement saying you were wrong, and just throw the Paladin/Anti-Paladin issue into the air as "depends on the group and the way that group determines what's moral/amoral."

However I would add that the assassin issue you mentioned is definitely one that holds true. Since when were all assassinations done for entirely evil reasons?

Don't believe me? Ok, let's look at the Paladin vs Antipaladin. The Paladin is barred from lying ("Oh the innocents you want to kill because they were framed for a murder you committed but I can't prove it? Hmmm, tell you the truth, that they're in the closet and fall. Tell you they're not in the closet and fall...draw steel, in this hospital, villain!"), they're barred from cheating ("Sorry, I could have used loaded dice to win your freedom slave-woman, but it's against my code. You won't mind being the gnoll's sex slave, will you?"), or even working with evil people ("Gods no! I refuse to work with that lout. It's in my contract! If you want me, I'll be in my trailer!").

... Sorry but, are we talking the same Paladin who would simply avoid answering in such a case? Not being allowed to lie doesn't mean you must tell everyone everything, nor does it mean you must tell entire truths. The same paladin who would see it's his duty to smite the foul beasts known as gnolls, especially if they wish to take slaves? I mean I know smiting everything that moves is frowned upon, but that seems like one of the times where you smite (and maybe power attack) without hesitation.

Meanwhile, the Antipaladin...well his code says that he has to do evil - whatever his idea of evil is. And he can use any method he deems is fine within his evil. He can also happily work with good characters as long as it gets the job done. The antipaladin can save the innocents, cheat to get the gnoll slaves free without violence, and look and laugh as the Paladin throws a hissy fit because his evil-dar is going off. The antipaladin then goes "Ok guys, let's leave Mr. Good to moan and complain. Those kids need to be saved, and I want to get paid; so here's the plan...".

And this is the same Antipaladin who may never commit an altruistic or good act? Who must always be committing to actions that have EVIL ends? Always having to impose tyranny, take advantage of people, and always punish those who are good and just? The same antipaladin who can only work with good people as long as the ends are evil and he does his best to defeat whatever good alliance it is from within?

Sorry for going off on that little sidebar, but those comments irked me.

Unless you're speaking of the 3.5e Paladin and Paladin of slaughter, in which case the first quote is right, and the second quote is even more wrong as the Paladin of Slaughter had to ALWAYS commit evil acts, not even being allowed to commit good acts that would result in evil later, they were the ones that if they saw a little lady crossing the street, doing anything outside of breaking her kneecaps to make sure she gets hit would cause them to lose their powers.

NOW then.

Evil campaigns in general can be immensely fun, the only issue is that a lot of people (at least from what I've noticed) can't tell the difference between say, Bram Stoker's Dracula evil and LOLKILLBABIES evil.

Amusingly, some of us do still associate Magus with Warlock :-)

And here I thought I was the only one who associated the classes with comics... Which is why I tend to think of a good Warlock or an evil Magus. Made it a lot harder to play a CG one with that in mind.

That is exactly why there is a difference. There might be a better way to handle this though. Will investigate.

Oh, and moved to the correct forum.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Possibly a -1 (or -2) point cost to personal?

This entire mechanic reminds me of epic spellcasting (which, being the oddball that I am, find awesome), as such I'm going to assume that once the first part of the playtest is over, the next set of words will have to do with changing durations, ranges, areas, and other such things.

Wesley Snacks wrote:

I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."

Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
Possibly an iterative attacks rule that multiplies the damage done on your attack based on however many you'd have under normal rules?
This would also mean that haste/speed and such would really just add a second normal attack, and TWF would still be a lot higher damage potential, but it seems like a good basis to start from to me.

That is similar to what 4E does by having its 1W, 2W, and so on damage as you level up. I like the idea, but I am not sure of how to make it work with the current system.

Hmm...

BAB: 6-10, this is where things get changed up a bit. Suddenly your longsword is doing an extra d8 of damage, you're adding 1.5x your strength modifier (or 2x when wielding two handed), your weapon's enhancement bonus is multiplied by 1.5x as well, as are weapon specialization/training bonuses.

BAB: 11-15, your skill enhances further when you attack your series of rapid swings and strikes (which still take only one roll) are finding more weak spots, cutting more into the foe, you're dealing 3x dice of damage as the normal weapon now, adding 2x your strength modifier (or 3x with two-handed weapons), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, weapon training bonuses multiply by 2 as well.

BAB: 16+, you reach the pinnacle of fighting prowess, when bounding through the battlefield your attacks come in with an unmatched ferocity, when they find undefended points your opponent quickly learns that the fight is serious, now your attack is dealing 4x dice of damage, 3x your strength modifier (or 5x with a two-handed weapon), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, and weapon training are also multiplied by 3.

Questions/Concerns: I still need to test out the actual math behind all of this.
Flaming (and other) weapon properties need to be figured into how they affect this.
Two-Weapon Fighting, Flurry Of Blows, Haste, Speed and other such abilities need to find their way into this style.
And probably more I'm not thinking of right now.
EDIT:
Critical hits need to be figured out as well.
As well as mounted charges...
And Sneak attack, and Favored Enemy bonuses
Blargh: In Short, there is a LOT that needs to be figured out for this to work, and I don't think it's a one-man job.

Damage Reduction would also need an overhaul for this to work, mostly because suddenly that DR 10/Magic is meaningless to the one mighty attack that is doing upwards to 60 damage at its barest minimum.

I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."

Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
Possibly an iterative attacks rule that multiplies the damage done on your attack based on however many you'd have under normal rules?
This would also mean that haste/speed and such would really just add a second normal attack, and TWF would still be a lot higher damage potential, but it seems like a good basis to start from to me.

My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.

I suspect that the damage curve for all this would work out pretty well—the only difference being that you're putting all your damage into one attack rather than splitting it up over several. So if you miss, you lose out on all the damage, but really that's not all that different than a spellcaster using a spell only to have it bounce off of a successful save or spell resistance.

... Is that a possible alternate rule sidebar for Ultimate Combat I see?

EDIT: Actually screw sidebar, it could be interesting to see a proper discussion/ruling debating on how the attacks should be changed to be a single one that doesn't lose the potency of a full attack.

I must admit, I always enjoy these threads.

Seeing one group that refuses to actually learn about what they're talking about arguing with another group who doesn't want to listen.

Puts a smile on my face it does.

Though to at least pretend to be on topic, I would simply point out that a lot of the arguments going back and forth depend strongly on player experience, the style of campaign, the occurrences thus far throughout it and a million other little variables.

A statement supporting that wizards are the end all or they aren't simply has no real effect without pages upon pages of set up to understand where the wizard is coming from.

Unless we're talking the extreme low levels then it only needs a paragraph or so on background.

I'm with wraithstrike on his first point.

I've noticed that when it comes to direct damage the non-casters are far outperforming the casters.
Casters only really outdo the others when overusing the same SoDs or "You Lose" combos, which no player (that I have had) ever does as it eventually leads to boredom.

RE: Enervation

Fergie wrote:

Doesn't deal damage, means it doesn't qualify for crits.

Maybe I'll be corrected by one of the developers, but I was under the impression that if a spell requires an attack roll and has a quantifiable effect (as opposed to a merly qualitative effect) then it can result in a critical hit. Thus, hit point damage, ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, and the like can be doubled via a crit...but something akin to Ray of Exhaustion cannot result in a critical hit.

A crit only occurs for actual damaging spells, not energy drain, or ability damage. This was brought up in the faq, as linked below.

Link

A rule that has worked well for me was simply make it so that any damage a caster takes in between turns adds up to a cumulative total. When the caster's turn comes up and he/she tries to cast, they have to make a concentration check of DC 10+Damage Taken+2*Spell Level.
Can really screw over casters that don't have meatshields/tanks to keep them safe, assuming your encounters know how to use some tactics to their fighting.

Wesley Snacks wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.

It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?

Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.

Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.

Assuming of course you're willing to do it at various levels (maybe 1, 5, 10, 15, 20?) instead of just at the low ones.

Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee.

I would be interested to see how long the two classes need to prepare for battle as well as how far ahead their preparations start, so I can gauge how screwed over they are when going against a dispelling wizard, or a foe that doesn't just wait for you to buff.

There is also the question of how many times a day they can pull off their respective buffs.

ciretose wrote:

I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.

It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?

Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.

Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

The alchemist is rather hilarious. It REQUIRES equipment for all of it's abilities...but can't really utilize MAGIC equipment that much.

True .... but to be fair, pretty much the same can be said for the fighter and/or the rogue, I suppose ....

Perhaps the same could be said of all martial classes!

You have to expend your psionic focus to use the metapsionic feat. That is why you are limited to one metapsionic feat. Using the metapsionic feat also uses power points which count against the max amount you are allowed to use.

Some powers do have metapsionic feat like abilities but not all, and if you want all of them to do it then you have to take the feats. I think they should dump the metapsionic feats altogether and just have you spend PP that would...

XPH introduces the epic feat "Epic Psionic Focus" which allows you to use 2 feats that require expending your psionic focus at once. You can take the feat multiple times allowing for stacking of metapsionic feats and/or other feats that require expending focus.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but the difference with spells (who have an 'uppercap') is that spells scale for free, just by being cast by a higher level character. A psion who expends the same amount of energy (say a 3rd level spell slot versus 5 power points) still only gets a base 5d6 as an effect, regardless of their level. So an 'uppercap' system would either require all powers to scale automatically for no cost (as magic does) or it would be a total nerf of the entire system.

Also, DCs aren't infinitely scaling, power point expenditure is still (and always) limited by power point expenditure metacap (ie you cannot spend more PP on a power than your manifester level).

Excuse me for not typing more clearly, I was on my way to bed when I posted, and upon review I can see my thought processing wasn't exactly clear with that post.

I believe that's where my 'uppercap' rant was going.

Well firstly, my only experience with psionics in D&D are the 3e psionics handbook, the 3e mind's eye articles, and the 3.5e expanded psionics handbook, so I don't know DSP's stance on psionics, now with that out of the way...

I might be hated for saying this, but I've always thought it would be wise to toss an uppercap onto psionic powers besides the cap based on manifester level.
Like a power that did 3d6 damage could be augmented to do more dice of damage but cap at a total of 10d6 no matter what the manifester level is of the psion manifesting it.
I always felt it was a bit unfair to allow psionics to scale infinitely when spells all had an uppercap. Besides it makes the concept of epic psionics that much more fun.
That and I thought that it was unnecessary to have infinitely scaling DCs for powers. As in I thought that having it so a psion can augment their powers for both higher damage AND higher DC for the same point increase without an uppercap on either was just flat out wrong.
And lastly, I hated the lack of 'fun' powers in the XPH, it seemed a lot of the 'just for fun' or utility powers were thrown out for no reason than to make the classes great for combat and nothing else.

In short, I would like to see: Uppercaps on powers, DCs not scaling without some specific energy (a feat and higher PP cost perhaps?) put directly into that purpose (and no other purpose), and more powers that aren't devoted entirely to destroying enemies or self buffing.

Thread moved to the Licensed Products section? I believe I'm liking where this is going.

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

PFRP wrote:

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?

I've interpreted it as the entire shield bonus, including the enhancement bonus that one would have on the shield to increase its shield bonus.

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?)

As enhancement bonuses don't stack I would go with the higher bonus.

So in short, a light shield with a +1 enhancement bonus to the shield bonus would provide a +2 enhancement when used to attack with the Shield Master feat. However if that same shield had a +5 enhancement bonus to attack already, the Shield Master feat would leave it as +5 for it is a greater bonus than a +2

Considering it says to multiply the dice rather than multiply the damage, I'm under the belief that you ONLY roll more dice, then add the other bonuses in as normal.

It would be wonderful if paizo put out a psionics book that was updated for pathfinder. In fact I greatly hope for such a day for that to happen. Unfortunately, due to their seemingly tight schedule and general lack of interest in the psionics system as its known in 3.5e I doubt they'll ever be able to get the system set. It doesn't help that most people view psionics as it was set in 3.5e as outrageously powerful, and that most psionics fans see it as the best rules yet.

For a bit on my views on psionics, I have always been a fan of psionics but 3.5e rules for them seem to be lacking... definition(for lack of a better word) in some areas. While in others they seem a bit off, namely the lack of hard caps on anything in the psionics system.

But that is another discussion. And with what seems to be the majority of psionics fans wanting full backwards compatibility with 3.5e this would lead to a system that again allows a psion or psychic warrior with even a slightly optimal build to be able to outclass the other classes in the high levels and possibly epic levels.

Again I shouldn't go into such a discussion.
Anyways, long story short, as awesome as it would be for paizo to support psionics, it's very doubtful and would likely involve an overhaul of the system. Or at least the addition of rules that those familiar with 3.5e psionics wouldn't be familiar with.

Addendum: If they revised it, with major changes or not I would still appreciate it. If they don't I don't mind reworking them in a way to 'pathfinderize' them and be acceptable with my group.

Last note: Excuse me if I'm mistaken on what I've perceived as a lack of interest in psionics on paizo's part, that is simply a bit of knowledge that I've picked up in my lurking in various places.

I do recall people asking in older threads about Damage Reduction and how silver and say a +1 sword works. Well they do have a chart on page 562 that lays it out.

Basically to overcome silver/cold iron DR takes more then a +1 sword, it takes a +3 one. To overcome adamantine DR it takes a +4, and to overcome alginment based DR takes a +5.

So basically the way I read it a +5 sword will overcome all DR with the exception of /- like fighters can get or admantine plate gives.

Don't forget that the +5 sword doesn't overcome /bludgeoning or /piercing