YamadaJisho's page

So there are a lot of ideas out there on "how to make your character more interesting, including a lot of lists on questions for your character. Here's one, tell me what you think.

1. What is your character’s name?
2. What race does your character belong to?
3. What is your character’s role/class/archetype?
4. What does your character look like?
5. What does your character do for a living?
6. Where did your character grow up?
7. What was your character’s childhood like?
8. What social ticks does your character have?
9. Why do people like your character?
10. Why do people dislike your character?
11. What type of music does your character listen to?
12. What does your character do for fun (at least three things)?
13. How does your character react in social situations?
14. How does your character react under pressure?
15. How does your character react to authority?
16. What are your character’s political and religious leanings?
17. Does your character want or have a family?
18. What happened to make the character start their current path?
19. What happened on the first adventure the character took?
20. What happened on the most recent adventure the character had?

I posted my thoughts on Blood Magic about a year ago somewhere in these forums, including feats to make any spell blood magic. I'll repost them here. See what you think.

Blood Magic (Metamagic)
You use blood to power your spells rather than ætherial energy.
Benefits: The Blood Mage can sacrifice blood to fuel his spells. When casting a spell, the caster may inflict wounds in order to power the spell. When this is done, the spell is cast, but the spell caster does not lose any spells for the day. The wounds that must be inflicted to power the spell are an amount of hit points equal to the level of the spell times the level of the caster. These wounds can be inflicted on the caster or on a sacrifice (willing or not), and need not be inflicted by the Blood Mage himself. All wounds must be made within two rounds of spell casting. Blood Mages may make any number of wounds on themselves as a free action. If these wounds kill the sacrifice, the spell is treated as though maximized and enlarged. Any spell cast using blood magic automatically gains the evil descriptor, and if the caster is Good, his alignment automatically shifts to Neutral. If the caster is Neutral, the caster’s alignment shifts to Evil as soon as he sacrifices one hundred hit points worth of blood, or kills a victim to fuel a spell (willing or not). Blood Magic cannot be used to cast any spell with the good descriptor.
Blood Magic is highly illegal in all civilized areas, and there are entire orders of paladins and clerics whose sole purpose it is to hunt down and destroy Blood Mages.
Only humanoid, good dragon, or good outsider blood will work for this feat. Animal blood (animal, Fey, or Magical beast type) will also work, but the blood mage needs three times the amount of blood to complete the ritual.

Power of Blood (Metamagic)
You use blood to make your spells more powerful than would normally seem possible.
Prerequisites: Blood Magic Feat
Benefit: You may sacrifice blood to empower your spells. You may sacrifice an amount of hit points equal to the level of the spell times the level increase of the metamagic feat to be applied in order to apply that metamagic feat to the spell. Spells with metamagic feats applied to them using this feat do not need to be prepared beforehand with the metamagic feat attached, nor do they actually raise the level of the spell slot needed to cast them.
Blood sacrificed in this manner may come from the caster (in which it is a free action), or from a sacrifice. If the blood comes from a sacrifice, the wounds must be made within 2 rounds of spellcasting. If the sacrifice dies during spellcasting, the caster may add an additional metamagic feat he knows onto the spell for free.
The Blood Mage can only add metamagic feats he actually possesses. Use of this feat affects the caster’s alignment in the same way as the Blood Magic feat.
Normal: Metamagic feats normally raise the level of the spell.

Essence of Blood (Metamagic)
You use blood to increase the effectiveness of your spells to their natural maximums.
Prerequisites: Blood Magic Feat
Benefits: The Blood Mage can sacrifice blood in order to increase the effectiveness of his spells. Any spell with a random component can be affected. If a spell requires a die roll for damage or healing, the Blood Mage can sacrifice blood in order to raise the effectiveness of the spell after the die roll. The die roll can effectively be increased by one for every hit point sacrificed. These hit points cannot be taken from the damage caused by the spell this feat is empowering. A spell cannot be empowered beyond its natural maximum. For example, an 8th level wizard with this feat casting a fireball spell can only empower the spell to do a maximum of 48 damage (the natural maximum 8d6 can roll).

YamadaJisho wrote:

thejeff wrote:

YamadaJisho wrote:

I dunno. The aging rules for Elves have been that way in D&D for years now, like, since 1st or 2nd edition (never really looked at the first edition elves). In the 2nd edition elf handbook, it was pretty clear that elves didn't reach full physical maturity until around 85 years old, so 55 is even faster than normal for D&D.

I don't think they did. I don't have the book, but there seems to be conflict between some statements in this thread.

If I'm reading correctly 55 isn't full physical maturity, it's the age at which the playing as a child rules kick in: equivalent to a human 8 year old.

I do have the book, and I'm looking at it right now. According to the Complete Book of Elves, the official TSR AD&D book, elves reach physical maturity at right around 85-95 years of age.

As far as the rules for the Complete Campaign, I was unaware of that. Haven't bought the book yet.

In any case, if you don't like it, don't use it. I don't have a problem with it, so I will use it.

Yeah, I was questioning the Campaign book. I believed you on the AD&D one. That's where the 55 number that's being thrown around in this thread comes from.

Ah. Gotcha.

YamadaJisho wrote:

I dunno. The aging rules for Elves have been that way in D&D for years now, like, since 1st or 2nd edition (never really looked at the first edition elves). In the 2nd edition elf handbook, it was pretty clear that elves didn't reach full physical maturity until around 85 years old, so 55 is even faster than normal for D&D.

I don't think they did. I don't have the book, but there seems to be conflict between some statements in this thread.

If I'm reading correctly 55 isn't full physical maturity, it's the age at which the playing as a child rules kick in: equivalent to a human 8 year old.

I do have the book, and I'm looking at it right now. According to the Complete Book of Elves, the official TSR AD&D book, elves reach physical maturity at right around 85-95 years of age.

As far as the rules for the Complete Campaign, I was unaware of that. Haven't bought the book yet.

In any case, if you don't like it, don't use it. I don't have a problem with it, so I will use it.

Claxon wrote:

Alright, so I guess the consequence here is that the 55 year old elven female is going to be sitting right next to the 8 year old human girl watching My Little Pony. Roger that.

And next to the 25 year old human male.

If my understanding of the demographics of MLP fans is right.

They are. After all, Friendship is Magic.

I dunno. The aging rules for Elves have been that way in D&D for years now, like, since 1st or 2nd edition (never really looked at the first edition elves). In the 2nd edition elf handbook, it was pretty clear that elves didn't reach full physical maturity until around 85 years old, so 55 is even faster than normal for D&D.
I never had a problem with this. I always assumed that that was the reason for their racial abilities. Their natural predilection for spell craft shows that most elves learn quite a bit about magic in their youth, so much so that they gain a special affinity for it, regardless of the class they take.
Elves are also described as capricious and even flighty at times. This would make sense if elven children remain children for 30 or 40 years. Those kinds of traits will stick more if you're allowed to have them for decades rather than years.
It also explains, as stated above, why elf societies tend to be cut off from most other racial societies. Their long lifespans make attempting relationships an exercise in futility. Elves are used to things changing, since they live through it all a hundred times over.
It also makes the +2 Intelligence modifier for the race make sense. After all, Intelligence isn't just the ability to learn, but also what the character already knows, and the elf, even though they were in childhood at the time, has decades more to gain that knowledge.
These are the conclusions I came up with way back in 2nd edition, and a lot of it is stated as such in the many, many, MANY elf handbooks that are out there.
Mind you, that doesn't mean that ANY of that needs to be cannon in any game. That's kinda why homebrew exists. I just don't have a problem with the elf aging rules as they stand. Nor do I have a problem with the other races' aging rules. It makes sense that Kobolds, Orcs, and Goblins would breed and mature faster. Their races are designed to be a bit more violent (generally speaking) and die off faster.

So, Imrijka, do you keep any childhood keepsakes or nostalgic reminders with you?

Imrijka wrote:

derf73 wrote:

and have you ever had to throw one across a river.

Throwing halfling or gnome seem counterproductive. Besides, very difficult. Weigh two, three stones, but all lose and floppy. Never travel as far as you think.

Someone suggested taking "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Halfling)"...

I imagine the "Throw Anything" feat would work well here too.

YamadaJisho wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I might use the ideas to for the skeleton of a unique encounter. Only while I don't have the problem with angels falling to become erinyes or other infernal abominations, I think of the opposite being rare enough that they would be uniques, not numbering enough to be a species.

I dunno, I like the idea of a race of redeemed fiends. After all, it was common enough for good to fall and become fiends, I don't see why it woulnd't be similar for evil to see why good is the better choice.

You don't get it. What defines evil as evil is self interest above all other considerations. If they only reason they can think of becoming good is because it's "better for themselves" then by definition they're still evil.

Evil and Good are not symmetrical opposites of each other, despite the cute graphs that might imply otherwise. Good takes commitment, effort, and sacrifice to accomplish. (the last is particularly hard for the selfish.) Evil only requires inaction. It should be a thousand thousand times more hard for a Demon to ascend than an Angel to fall. For the former actually has to build upwards while the latter is simply shrugging away his laid down charge.

No, I do get it. I don't appreciate the insulting demeanor. I do understand that good is harder to adhere to than evil, but the two ARE symetrical opposites. Action and inaction, selfishness and altruism. Many people don't like the alignment scheme, but it really does work.

I like the idea of making them a race because of a number of reasons. One, there are MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of demons and devils. The idea that more than a few of them would get tired of being pushed around by bigger and badder fiends makes sense. Two, let's not forget that Eriynes propogate themselves in the hells now, nothing to say that these good-aligned fiends don't do the same.

It does help when you're not openly insulting and actually try to have a discourse. Just a suggestion.

I might use the ideas to for the skeleton of a unique encounter. Only while I don't have the problem with angels falling to become erinyes or other infernal abominations, I think of the opposite being rare enough that they would be uniques, not numbering enough to be a species.

I dunno, I like the idea of a race of redeemed fiends. After all, it was common enough for good to fall and become fiends, I don't see why it woulnd't be similar for evil to see why good is the better choice. I like the idea of it being a class of angels rather than a single encounter. Especially for an evil campaign, having these things dogging the 'fallen' player characters. But maybe that's just me and my hatred of evil talking.

Cori Marie wrote:

And how do you know what Lem tastes like?

Am not sharing details for this one.

I get the feeling more fanart is now on it's way, and this time not featuring Valeros...

Wouldn't correct English grammar indicate you should have said "Took it from a dead guy who wasn't as good at stabbing folks as I,"?

No, 'me' is correct in this instance, as it is the subject of the sentence, not the object.

And that, friends, is a grammar cleric.

This could be a very good opportunity for you as the GM to make role-play experiences for teh party. Now the healing and restoration isn't as readily availible, the party will have to be more carefull, and if they are hit with massive damage or stat/level drain, it's a much larger problem. Seeking out people who can cure diseases and heal stat loss can be an adventure in-and-of itself. My only advise is to use this detriment as a tool for role-playing, rather than seeking ways to 'make up for it'.

I always felt that if flying enemies are such a problem for teh Fighter, make a Dragoon from Untimate Combat. They can get a flying mount, and if it's Wartrained, it'll just come get you when you jump off it. just be sure you're further away from teh ground. Also one thing that the OP never seemed to mention that most of the flying enemies in the book were not ranged enemies. Their melee attacks are their primary attacks, and they often use thier flight to out-maneuver the enemies rather than staying out of melee.
Also, everyone needs a 'nanny' every once in a while. After all, if you're fighting even somewhat sentient creatures, all of them should be trying to, as they say in Shadowrun, "Geek the mage first". The spellcasters, especially at higher levels, are the largest threat because they don't just do damage, but they make the entire group better with all the buffs. The most powerful wizard I ever played had not a single pure damage spell (I say pure, because he did have Black Tentacles, and other such spells), but was almost completely a buffer and combat controller. Walls, Black Tentacles, Fly, Haste, Slow, Confusion, all these spells made my wizard a MONSTER on the battlefield, and all because they allowed the other classes to do thier jobs better. When you go up against a group of enemies with a spellcaster, who do you target first? The wizard or cleric.
In any case, if you don't like the fighter, that's your business. But there's nothing I can see that's wrong with the class.

SR is 10+character level with the key being the + level part. That's a scaling bonus, and since it represents an ability that characters don't normally get, it can't be described in terms of a flat bonus.

Humans gains one extra skill point per level. Normally I wouldn't care about this kind of thing, but you're being extraordinarily rude about this issue, so I thought I'd point out the largest flaw in yoru logic. Now please, be respectful and don't accuse people of being stupid because they don't agree with your point of view (and that's exactly what you're doing when you say "This is the only way you'll wrap your head around it").

All ponies:

Language Trait:

Xenophobic* (0 RP) Equestrian (¿common?), bonus: Zebra, common, other, other.

More pony stats...

YawarFiesta, you're my hero.

Okay, here's a few:

Shalan (Elven for "Immortal")
Type: Humanoid (0 RP)
Size: Medium (0 RP)
Speed: 30 - Normal (0 RP)
Stats: +2 to any one stat - Human Heritage (0 RP)
Language: Common - Standard Array (1 RP)
Abilities
Skill Ability - Skill Focus (Knowledge (History)) (2 RP)
Magical Ability - Raise dead, self only (7 RP I guess)
10 RP Race (I guess)

The 'Shalan' is in some book with elves (I really can't remember which one) the elven word for Immortal, and in a game I played a long time ago, that was the name for the immortals. Like, from the movie 'Highlander'. The raise dead, while a higher level spell than the rules allow, is self only, but does make teh character immortal (unless the head is cut off), so I figure that would be worth 7 RP, brining the total up to 10. Alternatively, you could replace 'Raise Dead' with 'Reincarnation' and call the race 'Time Lord' from Doctor Who.

Warforged (Because they're cool)
Type: Half-Construct(7 RP)
Size: Medium (0 RP)
Speed: 30 - Normal (0 RP)
Stats: +2 to Con, +2 to Intelligence, -2 to Charisma - Standard Mod (0 RP)
Language: Common and the language of the race that built them - Standard Array (1 RP)
Abilities
Defensive Ability - Natural Armor +1 (2 RP)
10 RP Race

Warforged are very sturdy and well constructed, and they are also programmed with a great deal of knowledge, but they have difficulty asserting themselves and understanding the complexities of other races, as they were only made for war.

Avari (The cat race I created before Bestiary 3 came out, based off Katt, Rei, and Clay from the Breath of Fire series)
Type: Humanoid (0 RP)
Size: Medium (0 RP)
Speed: 30 - Normal (0 RP)
Stats: +2 to Dex, +2 to Cha, -2 to Wis - Standard Mod (0 RP)
Language: Common and Avari - Standard Array (1 RP)
Abilities
Defensive Ability - Greater Defensive Training - +2 Dodge bonus to AC (3 RP)
Movement Ability - Sprinter - +10' movement when using run action (1 RP)
Movement Ability - Climb - 20' climb speed and +8 to Climb (1 RP)
Skill Ability - Stalker - Stealth and Perception always class skills (1 RP)
Skill Ability - Skill Bonus - +2 to Perception (2 RP)
Senses Ability - Lowlight Vision (1 RP)
10 RP Race

The Avari were the race I created back during the Pathfinder Beta (I think I even posted them during the Beastiary 3 beta) because I've always liked cat-people. Also, for everyone who know that the race in the games was called the 'Woren', I never thought that was a particularly good name, myself, so I ended up renaming the race my own name.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of Paizo's interpretation, but it is certainly an interesting one. Less about cutting yourself open and more about letting it just pool up inside you...

Well, there's always something to be said for options.

YamadaJisho wrote:

and yet there's nothing like it in DnD.

Actually, there is...

AEG's d20 version of "Legend of the Five Rings" had "Bloodspeakers". They were spellcasters who practiced Maho or "Blood Magic"...

Oh, right. That. I kinda forgot about that. Or maybe the correct term is forcefully repressed the memory. God I hated that book. L5R was fine with its own system, I thought. Didn't think it transelated very well into d20. Just really no thte same feeling. Then again, I was playing L5R when it was still in its first edition, so maybe it's a loyalty thing. I dunno.

In any case, I always thought that blood magic should be something that didn't have its own class, so that any spellcaster could potentially be a blood mage. As for those other two feats, I'll take a look at them.

Awesome, awesome. I'll look into it and post a revized version soon. I'm glad for all the feedback. Lots of stuff I never thought of.

It's probably a god idea to make it so any blood from any creature would do, I'll look into that too. I came up with these rules because there's always this idea of blood magic and how it's so powerful, yet forbidden, and yet there's nothing like it in DnD. I thought that feats would be a good way to incorporate it, so that litterally any spellcaster (arcane or divine) could potentially be a blood mage.

One of the reasons I made it so that any use of blood magic is considered evil is specifically because it's considered evil in most books and storylines where it's included, however, it can be house-ruled to not be in all cases (as it is, in itself, a house rule).

So, I came up with this idea for blood magic feats, feats that allow people or NPCs to use blood for thier magic rather than the normal spellcasting rules. I figure it can be used to make those enemy spellcasters more dangerous. Tell me what you think.

Blood Magic (Metamagic)
You use blood to power your spells rather than ætherial energy.
Benefits: The Blood Mage can sacrifice blood to fuel his spells. When casting a spell, the caster may inflict wounds in order to power the spell. When this is done, the spell is cast, but the spell caster does not lose any spells for the day. The wounds that must be inflicted to power the spell are an amount of hit points equal to the level of the spell times the level of the caster. These wounds can be inflicted on the caster or on a sacrifice (willing or not), and need not be inflicted by the Blood Mage himself. All wounds must be made within two rounds of spell casting. Blood Mages may make any number of wounds on themselves as a free action. If these wounds kill the sacrifice, the spell is treated as though maximized and enlarged. Any spell cast using blood magic automatically gains the evil descriptor, and if the caster is Good, his alignment automatically shifts to Neutral. If the caster is Neutral, the caster’s alignment shifts to Evil as soon as he sacrifices one hundred hit points worth of blood, or kills a victim to fuel a spell (willing or not). Blood Magic cannot be used to cast any spell with the good descriptor.
Blood Magic is highly illegal in all civilized areas, and there are entire orders of paladins and clerics whose sole purpose it is to hunt down and destroy Blood Mages.
Only humanoid, good dragon, or good outsider blood will work for this feat. Animal blood (animal or Magical beast type) will also work, but the blood mage needs three times the amount of blood to complete the ritual.

Power of Blood (Metamagic)
You use blood to make your spells more powerful than would normally seem possible.
Prerequisites: Blood Magic Feat
Benefit: You may sacrifice blood to empower your spells. You may sacrifice an amount of hit points equal to the level of the spell times the level increase of the metamagic feat to be applied in order to apply that metamagic feat to the spell. Spells with metamagic feats applied to them using this feat do not need to be prepared beforehand with the metamagic feat attatched, nor do they actually raise the level of the spell slot needed to cast them.
Blood sacrificed in this manner may come from the caster (in which it is a free action), or from a sacrifice. If the blood comes from a sacrifice, the wounds must be made within 2 rounds of spellcasting. If the sacrifice dies during spellcasting, the caster may add an additional metamagic feat he knows onto the spell for free.
The Blood Mage can only add metamagic feats he actually possesses. Use of this feat affects the caster’s alignment in the same way as the Blood Magic feat.
Normal: Metamagic feats normally raise the level of the spell.

Essence of Blood (Metamagic)
You use blood to increase the effectiveness of your spells to their natural maximums.
Prerequisites: Blood Magic Feat
Benefits: The Blood Mage can sacrifice blood in order to increase the effectiveness of his spells. Any spell with a random component can be affected. If a spell requires a die roll for damage or healing, the Blood Mage can sacrifice blood in order to raise the effectiveness of the spell after the die roll. The die roll can effectively be increased by one for every hit point sacrificed. These hit points cannot be taken from the damage caused by the spell this feat is empowering. A spell cannot be empowered beyond it’s natural maximum. For example, an 8th level wizard with this feat casting a fireball spell can only empower the spell to do a maximum of 48 damage (the natural maximum 8d6 can roll).

Okay, then let's go with duranium then, rather than titanium. Or maybe carbon fiber bows and such. But the advanced materials idea is still valid.

I don't see any reason a medium creature can't ride a medium turtle. I do see problems with generating enough speed to "charge" on a turtle.

I suppose you've never tried to ride a st. Bernard in real life. It doesn't really work. You realy do need an animal that's larger so its back can hold your weight.

Also, charging speeds on a turtle?

Well, there weren't any prestige classes in either of the other two 'ultimate' books, so if this one was ever made, I wouldn't think that there would be any in Ultimate Adventurer either (though I'm still hoping that racial prestige classes appear in Ultimate Race Guide), but I do keep hoping that other prestige classes do come out, like Dragon Warrior (like Dragon Disciple, but completely melee, no spellcasting) but I can wait for that.
Things I'd like to see are skill and rp heavy archtypes for most of the classes, and maybe in a future book, alternate rules for things like advanced or early materials (titanium longswords or bronze breastplates), using hex maps rather than square maps, things like that.

This thread has gotten very silly.

Kind of reminds me of Der Shattenman from 7th Sea.

That's too bad. I thought it might be a place for things like lightfighters and quickmonks. Like, how Ultimate Magic didn't really have anything for Barbarians, Cavaliers, Fighters or Rogues; and Ultimate Combat didn't really have anything for Sorcerers; I was thinking that Ultimate Skill (or whatever) would be all about making the stealth and sneak heavy class, so it probably wouldn't have much for the Paladin or Cavalier. But if it's not planned, it's not planned.

Well, we have 3 people interested now... Anyone else?

Well for me, I'm against forcing them to have a specific bloodline like that, or the "you must look like this" aspects.

Cause first off Tieflings are more than just devils, they are a number of other creatures involved such as Rashaka.

Secondly, the bloodlines don't exactly come having your daddy be a dragon.

Quote:

This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past. For example, a sorcerer might have a dragon as a distant relative or her grandfather might have signed a terrible contract with a devil.

So while the planetouched may have not manifested, quite possible something else did. Especially when you consider that some of the bloodlines don't really make sense bloodline wise. Such as Destined or Pestilence.

Yeah, these are just examples, more or less, but I have teh appearance list and then the plaintouched chooses one or two of the physical traits. That way, they very much look like the base race, but also have that 'little something extra'.

As far as those with Rakshasa history in their family, I think that could give powers akin to shapechanging, as well as drawbacks similar to the tiefling. but these are examples of what I use in my games.

To go back to an earlier post I made about Planetouched, this is the template I use. Mind you, I use the trait rules in the APL, and taking a planetouched template is a trait, and the template has its own drawbacks as well. But here's what I came up with:

AASIMAR
Aasimar have celestial blood in their family. Often, in the cases of devout paladins and clerics, a celestial will offer herself as a consort, granting a small amount of divine power to that entire bloodline, though particularly devout people of any class may also gain this boon. In any case, those of this bloodline are particularly attuned to the call of the divine.
Racial Appearance – Aasimar have one or two of the following: Silver or Pearlescent eyes, Silver or Golden hair, Golden or Emerald skin, feathers in hair, vestigial feathered wings (grow if flight spells/powers are used) small bells that accompany voice, faint smell of mountain flowers, or always appears/feels slightly damp (as though just out of a bath, no penalty).
Racial Attributes:
Light (Sp): 1/day create light, as per the spell
Cold Resistance 5
Electricity Resistance 5
Racial Drawbacks:
Evil aligned damage affects character (+2d6 damage if already good)
If a Sorcerer, must carry the Celestial bloodline

TIEFLING
Tieflings have fiendish blood in their family. Often, demons will try to infuse families with a propensity for good with Abyssal blood to corrupt the bloodline, while devils will use their Infernal blood to bolster families who aid them well. Both types of blood affect mortal lines in similar ways, and mortals with this tie are particularly attuned to the profane.
Racial Appearance – Tieflings have one or two of the following physical traits: small horns on head, fangs, crimson or obsidian skin, snake-like or cat-like eyes, cloven feet, goat-like legs, forked tongue, vestigial leathery wings (grow if flight spells/powers are used), a faint aroma of brimstone, metallic quality to voice, appears/feels slightly cool to the touch.
Racial Attributes:
Darkness (Sp): 1/day as per the spell
Fire Resistance 5
If Abyssal, Acid Resistance 5
If Infernal, Electricity Resistance 5
Racial Drawbacks:
Good aligned damage affects character (+2d6 damage if already evil)
If a Sorcerer, must carry the Infernal or Abyssal bloodline

SYRNETH
The Syrne are those who have the essence of Shadow in their blood. Somewhere in this person’s ancestry, one of the shadow folk infiltrated his family, and probably never left. People with this bloodline have a natural affinity for darkness and the plane of Shadow.
Racial Appearance – Syrneth have one or two of the following: ghostly glowing eyes, pale or monochrome skin, flat black hair, slight build, vestigial furred wings (grow if flight spells/powers are used), soft ethereal quality to voice, faint smell of spring rain, slight ghostly glow around body
Racial Attributes:
Darkvision 60’
Illusion spells act as though they were Heightened
Racial Drawbacks:
Silver Vulnerability 5
If a Wizard, must specialize in Illusion
If a Sorcerer, must carry the Shadow bloodline.

SIDHE
Sidhe characters have the blood of the fey in them. The fey are capricious, and do not seem to have a reason for consorting with mortals. However, when they do, the offspring have traits of the fey. These people tend to have a much stronger connection to nature than others.
Racial Appearance – Sidhe have one or two of the following: blue, green, or purple hair, amber or opalescent eyes, constant glittery appearance, slight stature, vestigial butterfly or dragonfly wings (grow if flight spells/powers are used), soft wind or Fey laughter inside voice, faint smell of the forest, supernaturally smooth skin.
Racial Attributes:
Knowledge (nature), Perception, and Perform are class skills
+1 to Reflex Saves
Racial Drawbacks:
Cold Iron Vulnerability 5
-1 to Will Saves
If Sorcerer, must carry the Fey bloodline

SYLPH
Sylphs have the blood of the Djinn somewhere in their family. The Djinn generally enter a family known for upholding tenants of honor and freedom, granting a bit of Air Elemental power to a family.
Racial Appearance – Sylphs have one or two of the following: white or silver hair, sky blue or white skin, silver or grey eyes, lightweight appearance (bouncy), airy light voice, a faint aroma of mountain wind, feels cool to the touch.
Racial Attributes:
+10’ to fly speed when under fly effects
Cold Resistance 10
Racial Drawbacks:
Fire Vulnerability 5 (5 extra damage from fire effects)
If Sorcerer, must carry the Elemental (Air) bloodline

OREAD
Oreads have the blood of the Shaitan in their veins. Shaitan generally enter a family that is known for its honor and lawful outlook, granting a bit of Earth Elemental power to a family.
Racial Appearance – Oreads have one or two of the following: black or brown hair, earth-tone or metallic skin (forest green, brown, silver, gold), brown or green eyes, heavyweight appearance (muscular), deep earthy voice, a faint aroma of earth, tingles to the touch.
Racial Attributes:
Character adds Constitution modifier to CMD
Electricity Resistance 10
Racial Drawbacks:
Acid Vulnerability 5
If Sorcerer, must carry the Elemental (Earth) bloodline

IFRIT
Ifriti have the blood of the Efreet in their veins. Efreet generally enter a family that is known for its loyalty and familial devotion, granting a bit of Fire Elemental power to a family.
Racial Appearance – Ifriti have one or two of the following: red or blonde hair, bald, red or golden skin, red or yellow eyes, powerful appearance (statuesque), intensely powerful voice, a faint aroma of incense, warm to the touch.
Racial Attributes:
+10’ to movement rate while enhanced
Fire Resistance 10
Racial Drawbacks:
Cold Vulnerability 5
If Sorcerer, must carry the Elemental (Fire) bloodline

UNDINE
Undines have the blood of the Marid in their veins. Marids generally enter a family that is known for open-mindedness and adaptability, granting a bit of Water Elemental power to a family.
Racial Appearance – Undines have one or two of the following: blue or green hair, blue or aqua skin, pearlescent or blue eyes, flexible appearance, melodic voice, a faint aroma of sea water, damp to the touch (no penalties)
Racial Attributes:
+10’ swim speed (or a swim speed of 20’)
Character can hold breath for twice normal time
Acid Resistance 10
Racial Drawbacks:
Electricity Vulnerability 5
If Sorcerer, must carry the Elemental (Water) bloodline

ABERRANT
Aberrants have an aberration in their family. Whether someone in the family was corrupted, or if there was an ancestor actually from the Far Realm is unclear, but it passed some of the powerful taint along, granting power over the spirit.
Racial Appearance – Aberrants have one or two of the following: negative color appearance, solid color eyes (no pupil or iris), hair grows in odd patterns or in odd shapes, twitchy build, mottled skin, unsettling voice, a faint aroma of… something, skin feels off (slippery, scaly, dry).
Racial Attributes:
+2 to intimidate checks, intimidate is a class skill
Spell Resistance equal to level + Charisma modifier
Racial Drawbacks:
5 energy vulnerability
-2 to all Diplomacy and Bluff checks.
If Sorcerer, must carry the Aberrant bloodline

Critique, comment, and show your opinion. I've playtested these options, and they seem to work pretty well, but more opinions are always good.

Also, you may note that the elemental forces are a little wierd in these. Sorry about that. In my campaigns, I always have electricity be earth elemental, cold be air, and acid be water. It just makes more sense to me. but they're easily changesd around if you want them to be traditional.

Very interesting idea, and one very much worth exploring. I like the idea of making the whole campaign setting set in one system with many habitable worlds, but I think making them the size of asteroids could present a problem. There'll always bee one guy who'll ask "Why is there so much gravity? This world is the size of the moon, I should nearly be able to fly!" I came up with an idea for a seperate story (for a book I kinda wanna write) where the system is populated with hundreds of earth-sized worlds, most either acting as moons for ultra-giant gas giants (class U planets) or sharing a solar orbit with 5 or 7 other planets. After all, space is big, nothing saying that there isn't another planet right on the other side of the sun from us, sharing the same orbit.

So putting together the planets and the actual campaign setting'll be important. Having every world be habitable can get boring, too, so here's an easily findable planetary classification list. It's boosted from a Star Trek fansite, so it's not too technical, and it'll work pretty well for a game while still seeming legitimate. You could have each race come from a different world, and with so many possibilites for worlds, you could keep all the core DnD races and monster races, and also come up with as many other races as you like. Humans and halflings could come from very earth-like planets, elves could come from a heavily-forested world that orbits a gas giant, so it doesn't get nearly as much sunlight (hence the pointy ears to hear through dense forest and low-light vision), dwarves and gnomes could live on planets that are almost uninhabitable on the surface, but have extensive cave systems running through the entire planet.

Also, you could have a lot of fun with ship design. After all, naval vessels were designed the way they are because that's what works best. However, if you're in a flying ship that doesn't need to touch water, you can come up with some really interesting designs.
As far as the system, mining existing systems is a good way to go. I play a game named '7th Sea', and I started writing up a 'Star Wars' skin for that system since it has a good naval system, and it's a vehicle for dramatic roleplaying rather than hack 'n slash. But using existing systems and modifying them is good because all the playtesting has basically been done for you. You're just picking and choosing which systems to use in your game.

I have more ideas, but thery're very specific ideas for things like races, magitech, prestige classes, and equipment. I just wanted to focus on the basics for the moment. I hope you find at least a little of this useful.

Probably not what the name would be, but we got a book for magic and all kinds of options for classes that use magic, and we got a book for combat and all kinds of options for classes that are combat heavy, and an ultimate race guide is coming out for people to really delve into their race (as well as some race-specific prestige classes I would think (seriously, I'd love to see Paizo's take on the Elven Bladesinger or the Dwarven Chanter)), but I wonder if we'll get a book for skills and options for skill-heavy classes. Anyone know if anything like that is even thought up as a possibility yet?

Cat Girls?

I've always thought of this as a better cat-people race for DnD.

I think my biggest issue has always been with the planetouched races, such as teh tiefling and the Oread. It's always a human with these bloodlines. Why? I don't think it's impossible for a Celestial to get it on with an elf or a gnome instead of a human, yet the descriptions clearly indicate all these chreatures as human with "a little bit extra". I'd like to see rules for creating planetouched for different races. I have my own house rules I use, but it esentially removes all the planetouched races and adds in templates to be added on to existing characters (for the cost of a trait from the advanced player's guide).

Also, I'd like to see some new races, some things we've never seen before in DnD. Not just monsters as playable races, but something new, something that's only a playable race.

Umbral Reaver wrote:

They are lovingly crafted from the broken dreams of 3.5 monks.

You think they got the shaft?

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.....

Can you choose for the Armor Bonus the Eidolon gets to be a Natural Armor Bonus? It sounds like a second skin so far.

If it doesn't say that it's a natural armor bonus, then no.

YamadaJisho wrote:

Dear JJ:

Sorry if you've been asked this before, but there are 173 pages in this thread.
How exaclty are Sneak attacks supposed to work in regards to multiple attacks? Does Sneak attack damage get added to every attack, just once in the round, or is a sneak attack its own seperate attack?

I am taking this one since it is simple enough for the rules thread. James you(Paizo) can just owe me a free copy of every book that is published from this point on.

Thank you for the input, Wraithstrike, but I still beleive this makes rogues too powerful, so I'll still request an official responce for this question as well.

Dear JJ:
Sorry if you've been asked this before, but there are 173 pages in this thread.
How exaclty are Sneak attacks supposed to work in regards to multiple attacks? Does Sneak attack damage get added to every attack, just once in the round, or is a sneak attack its own seperate attack?

The Paladin's Code is black and white.

Kind of. The Paladin code, just like most any moral and ethical code, isn't black and white so much as it acknowledges the EXISTENCE of black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray, and while paladins are expected to fight to protect good and vanquish evil, he (or she as the case may be) isn't expected to automatically know where on the black-to-white scale everything lay.

At NO point do the rules state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered "Flanking". "Flanking" is merely a term to describe positioned on opposite sides of an enemy, which is useless except for determining the use of abilities that "require flanking". As the Sneak Attack's requires that "the rogue flanks her target", and not that you have a "+2 Flanking Bonus", you may use your Sneak Attack for all of your attacks providing that you are still able to draw a line through the enemy to an ally.

However, this draws a pretty serious distinction. You must be flanking, and not getting the flanking bonus. You don't have to be flanking to get the flanking bonus, so long as the enemy is flanked. However, if you are not flanking, you can't sneak attack. As far as I can tell, this means that the enemy cannot be actively fighting the rogue if the rogue is going to get his sneak attack. I see it in the way that DDO has done it: if the enemy is attacking the rogue, the rogue doens't get a sneak attack. If the enemy is not attacking the rogue, the rogue gets the sneak attack.

On an asside, I don't think you can grant a flanking bonus unless you are actually in a threatened square to the enemy, since the enemy is only actually actively fighting the pweson right next to him, no matter how many arrows are flying at him, unless he disengages and goes after someone else.

I don't know for sure, but...

I think the wand and staff sizes are more for balance than anything else. If you have staves that are wand sized, you could draw, use, and store them much easier than their current incarnation, which for such powerful items seems a bit wonky. However, if you have a DM that'll allow it, go for it.

As for the wands of multiple functions, I don't think that's allowed in the core rules. It's one spell per wand, I'm afraid. You can only get multiple spells in staves, and even then, the spells come off the same charge pool.

Ah, Clerics. I agree that while they are powerful and useful, they don't have any real specific purpose that can't be held by another class. In my homebrew games, I set up diety-specific spells that only Clerics of a specific deity can cast. For example, I have a Diety in my campaigns named Valdus, God of Light, and all Clerics of Valdus can cast a spell that ONLY those clerics can cast. And every diety has spells like that. They are a cut above other spells of thier level, and only castable by Clerics. So far, I haven't made too many damage spells except for use by evil dieties, they're mainly buffs. But it's a way to give a little more flavor to the Cleric.
Also, I've noticed a complaint that combat healing is pretty useless, and having played for several years, I can corroborate that theory. I changed healing spells so they are much more useful in combat. Haven't play-tested it yet, this is a new system, so I don't know how balanced or not balanced it is yet. But I changed the cure spells so that they do dice/level in increasing die types. For example, Cure light wounds does 1d4 healing per level (to a maximum of 5d4) instead of 1d6 + 1/lv healing. Cure Moderate does 1d6 per level to a maximum of 10d6. Cure Serious does 1d8 per level up to 15d8, and Cure Critical does 1d10 per level up to 20d10. This would make a Maximized Cure Crit heal more than the Heal spell (which would make sense, since Heal is one level lower AND acts as a restoration as well). I changed the Mass Cure spells to Greater Cure spells, which are as such: Greater Cure Light Wounds either heals 2d4 per level to one target (to a maximum of 40d4 (or 4d4 x 10)) or 1d4 per level (to a max of 20d4) to one target/level, no 2 of which can be more than 30 ft. apart. The higher greater spells work similarly. Breath of Life and Regeneration also work in a similar way.
Anyway, these seem to me to give teh Cleric a bit more purpose without increasing thier power too much. After all, all it really does is give them a reason for combat healing. But like I said, haven't play-tested it yet.

Edit - Oh, almost forgot, I tend to make changes to the cleric class baced on diety as well, such as selected bonus feats (like my God of Fire gives Elemental channel as a bonus feat at level 1). Of course, doing the whole dieties give you more power is completely home-brew, and I stick to feats that don't give much of a combat advantage except against VERY specific foes, if the advantage is combat-related at all. A lot of the time, it's things like Skill Focus.

Hi all, I would like to start this thread with a simple question: why publish firearms rules?

It's nice to have additional rules for alternate settings. At first I was agaisnt the publishing of these rules myself, but someone brought up that if you don't want to use them, you don't have to. In most of my games, firearms aren't allowed. I have, however, been concieving of a wild west campaign not unlike the old PS game "Wild Arms" with guns, magic, and all the fantasy races. Now we have the options open to us to perform such campaigns. However, if you don't want fireamrs in your campaign, don't have them. It's that simple.

Firearms had been damned for a great part of "classical" fantasy role-playing players... And don't know why. Historical set up? Yeah, because spellcraft and elves are part of hour [sic] world history. Too much damage? So a greataxe deals 1d12 like a muskett. Throw the bows and crossbows to a forgotten sea? You cannot be an Arcane Archer with a rifle and also a firearm is more than 10 times expensive than a crossbow.

Firearms are generally not allowed in most 'traditional' fantasy games because most campaigns take place in a fantasy version of a time period where they havne't been invented yet, or at least not in any kind of wide usage. As far as I know, the damage has never been an issue with firearms, the place in the timeline is the only reason people don't do it.

Um, why can't you be an Arcane Archer with a rifle? It's true that the core rules state that you need the weapon focus on the shortbow or longbow, but it's not like noboedy EVER homebrews stuff. If fact, it's pretty likely that Arcane Archers would find ways to incorporate the much more accurate, much deadlier, and much more armor-ignoring musket and rifle once they've been invented in a campaign world.

As an example, a low level character NEVER will have a firearm and a high level character will find firearms useless... Because a 20th level character with a light crossbow and the appropiate feats could make, at least, 6 shots for 1d8 + deadly aim and magical bonuses, while the sane character with a pistol coul make a single shot for... 1d8 + magical bonuses? (assuming the ultimate combat firearms rules set in the playtest PDF file, where a pistol with rapid reload feat reloads as a move action and shots as a ranged touch attack, denying the benefits of deadly aim feat).

The only thing we expect is a playable firearms set... They may make more damage than a bow or crossbow, but they are more expensive... Why complicate the things in this way? As I read in another post around here, treat firearms as crossbows, maybe making more damage in exchange of its unearthly price, and adding the exploding dice and misfire rules, both very interesting.

Deadly Aim: It's fairly obvious that this was intended to be a rule agaisnt spellcasters, and in the gunslinger description, there's an ability that allows then to use Deadly Aim with a firearm. In a world where guns are everywhere, it can be made pretty easily that Deadly Aim applys to all firearms if you're, say, a rifle Ranger or something.

Pistols, muskets, and rifles do take a while to reload, but even back in colonial times, people stopped using the bow and arrow to use the musket. The fact that firearms ignore armor is pretty huge. However, you have the revolver, which can easily shoot multiple times and is quick to reload. If you're going for a quick-shooter, whether in the game or in real life, you don't want to be using a rifle anyway. Rifles are for presision shooting, and revolvers (or more advanced pistols) are for speed. Then there are shootguns, which give even infantry the ability to hit multiple targets with one shot.

It is true that firearms are more expensive, in a 'traditional' fantasy campagn setting, but even teh core rules for the gunslinger say that the prices of firearms should be reduced greatly if firearms are much more common in the game.

In my opinion, the best rules are those published in Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (3.5 rules), maybe modifying the weapons damage, reducing the range (150 ft for a rifle is a lot) and adding the possibility to play crossbow feats over firearms (both crossbows and firearms have triggers and, if I don't remember bad, firearms are an evolution of the crossbow trigger system). Prehaps some magical objects for firearms would be nice. So, all players will be happy and will have fun.

I never saw anything that stated you couldn't use crossbow feats for the firearm, since they are basically the same assembly.

Reducing the range for a rifle isn't really consistant for a rifle. 50 yards (150 ft.) is EXTREMELY short range for a rifle. Most rifles, even back then, could shoot out to 300 meters or more. That's about 1000 feet. Also, according to the playtest PDF I have, the rifle's range increment is 80 ft, not 150. Reducing it would remove the desire to have firearms, since one of the other reasons rifles replaced bows in history was not jsut the accuracy, but also the range. True, a longbowman could shoot out to 1000 feet, but he wasn't gonna hit anything. It was teh same as artilery fire. Rifles can shoot out that far and expect to make a kill.

wraithstrike wrote:

I have not looked at 4E past month six(that is how long I played it)* but if a fighter's at will does 1d6 and is called hurtful attack, and the wizard's at will does 1d6, but is called arcane strike then the only difference is the name. That is what a lot of people mean.

I just made those names up so I doubt they are accurate.

It is very rare that two powers will be identical. The 4e powers system allows for literally thousands of unique abilities spread across the game's various classes.

If someone actually believes that 4e powers tend to be mechanically identical, they are probably not reading the powers closely at all.

There are 17 1st-level Fighter at-will powers.

There are 23 1st-level Wizard at-will powers.

No two of these are mechanically identical.

As for non-mechanical differences in flavor, well, the fact that 23 are spells and 17 are weapon maneuvers ought to clue everyone into the fact that they're not identical flavor-wise either.

The main problem I had with the 4th ed system was the, forgive the term, straightjacketing. Only certain classes in 4th edition have powers based in 2 weapon fighting, and only certain classes have powers baced on 2-handed fighting. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just not my preference. In a 3rd ed campaign I was in, I played a 2-weapon melee bard. Sure, the character SUCKED HARD in combat, but I still had the option open to me, and I like the idea of not being required (basically) to play optimized characters. I like branching out and having weaknesses.

Though to be fair, Thac0 doesn't sound like a great warrior. More a comic book sound effect. Right up there with SNIKT!

Okay, now I'm gonna create a game system where you have to figure your SKINT roll to see if you do damage. You, of course have to hit the opponents THWAP score, or if it's an area effect, they'll roll thier ZINGA save.

Rocketmail1 wrote:

I liked 2E alot, too. I really only had an issue with THAC0.

What was wrong with Thac0?

I don't know what people's problem with THAC0 was. I never had any problem figuring out what AC I hit.

I find it amusing that the arguements that all the old-school 3rd edition and 3.5 fans are using against 4th edition are EXACTLY the arguements old-school 2nd edition fans said about 3rd edition when it came out. 4th edition isn't an inferior game to 3rd edition, they're completely different games. Just liek 3rd edition isn't inferior to 2nd edition, they're just different games. Personally, I love (and greatly miss) 2nd edition, and I used to hate 3rd edition. That was until 4th edition came out. Now, I can't stand 4th edition, and I stomache 3rd edition a little, though I think Paizo improved the game in every consievable way, but I will always miss my 2nd edition.

For the meat shield, Fighter is good, but IMHO, Paladin has more defensive options, and with things like bonded weapons and holy magic, it could work out well, especially with things liek Lay on Hands and the like. As far as the Wizard goes, Transmutation is a good specialization, but I'd also look at Conjuration (flanking bonuses for the meat-shield), Abjuration (nothing spoils a fighter's day like an enemy spellcaster), and Evocation (Fighter's a happy fighter when s/he sees 6 enemies closing in and only 1 reaches him/her). But one thing I can say is that the classes are pretty well balanced. It won't matter really what you're playing, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass

Ever have that character that is just plain sub-optimal? Running a joke campaign where you have a character start as the comic relief that you want to become supre-awesome?

Badass Prestige Class

Hit Die: d12
BAB: 1/1
Saves: Fast Fort, Ref, and Will

Requirements
Attributes: Must have no attributes above 15.
Base Attack Bonus: +2

Class Skills
Climb (Str), Intimidate (Cha), Fly (Dex), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Swim (Str)
Skill Ranks at Each Level: 2 + Int Modifier

Class Features

-Attribute Points: Every level, the badass recieves 2 points to allocate to his stats, except his 3rd level, when he gains 4 points.
-Badassery: The Badass prestige class counts as the original class the character held. In the case of a multi-class character, the player chooses the class his levels in Badass counts toward.
-Bonus Feat: The Badass gains a bonus feat at 2nd level.
-Destined Bond: This bond allows the Badass to enhance his weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of an astral spirit for 1 minute per character level. When called, the spirit causes the weapon to shed light as a torch. At 5th level, the weapon gains a +1 enhancement bonus. For every three character levels beyond 5th the character possesses, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +6 at 20th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonusesto a maximum of +5, or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, anarchic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, shocking, shocking burst, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonuses equal to the property’s cost (see Table 15-9, pg. 469, PCR). These bonuses are added to any properties the weapon already has, but duplicate abilities do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. The bonus and properties granted by the spirit are determined when the spirit is called, and cannot be changed until the spirit is called again. The astral spirit imparts no bonuses if the weapon is held by anyone other than the badass, but resumes giving bonuses if returned to the badass. These bonuses apply to only one end of a double weapon. A badass can use this ability once per day at 5th character level, and one additional time per day for every four character levels beyond 5th, to a total of four times per day at 17th level. If a weapon bonded with an astral spirit is destroyed, the badass loses the use of this ability for 30 days, or until he gains a level, whichever comes first. During this 30-day period, the badass takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special Spells
1st +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 Attribute Points, Badassery +1 level of existing arcane or divine spellcasting class

2nd +2 +1 +1 +1 +2 Attribute Points, Bonus Feat +1 level of existing arcane or divine spellcasting class

3rd +3 +2 +2 +2 +4 Attribute Points, Destined Bond +1 level of existing arcane or divine spellcasting class

Vampire. Preferably one that doesn't sparkle. Or Nymph, like Cydeth likes. Ooohhh, Vampire Nymph.

STOP IT! This thread has gotten very silly*.

* - Note that in silly land, something can arrive at a place it's been at for a while.

Seriously, I had to skip pages 8 to current. The argument comparing Sorcerers to Wizards is ridiculous. They're two completely different classes that happen to use the same spell list. It's like comparing Paladins and Rangers (whose spell lists, while not the same, are similar enough to be comparable).
Rangers are better because they use Wisdom based skills and can track better! Favored Enemy gives you so much of an advantage!
Nuh uh, Paladins are better because the Paladin can use Charisma skills so much better and Smite evil works better!

See how silly it all is? Sorcerers have a good spell selection that allows them to be useful in most situations, a good skill selection even with the low amount of skill points they have, and decent bloodline abilities. Wizards have the ability to prepare for nearly anything, a good skill selection with decent skill points, and decent abilities with their specialization school (seriously, getting to act first in the surprise round (diviner level 1) or getting to freely teleport around the battlefield as a move action (conjurer level 8) are not small things).

Item creation feats are more geared for a Wizard (though a Sorcerer can certainly benefit from them), and Meta-magic feats are more geared for the Sorcerer (though a Wizard can certainly benefit from them). Other feats can be utilized by any class. A Wizard can have just as high (or higher) of a leadership score than a Sorcerer by not dumping Cha, choosing the Bonded Object (which a lot of wizards would do anyway, my Eldritch Knight did, and she isn't taking Leadership), and, in LT's example, instead of just getting another cohort when the first one died, taking the body to a temple and getting raise dead cast, turning that minus for a dead cohort into a plus for generosity and kindness. The Sorcerer can be a better Summoner than the Wizard by taking Augmented Conjuring (assuming base Wizard, not one focusing on Conjuration). The Wizard can permanently copy scrolls into his spellbook and have them forever. The Sorcerer can cast spells of other classes with Use Magic Device. Both classes have their own unique abilities.

I personally prefer wizards (specifically Conjurers, as their level 8 power is RIDICULOUSLY powerful), but I can see the virtue of Sorcerers. They both have their place. The Sorcerer has staying power, the Wizard has versatility. If I have a choice, in a 5 person party, I'll have one of each. I'll play the Wizard, as I like them more, but I'm not going to begrudge the Sorcerer for his choice, and I'll be thanking him when he pulls my butt out of the fire, as I'm sure he'll be thanking me when I pull his out. And of course, we'll both be happy the fighter is there to let us both not die. So seriously, can we all let this thread die now?

This flame war has gone on long enough. I'm tired of people being insulting and closed minded (and some of you have been (not all of you), which is a great discredit to the normal tone of the Paizo forums). People are going to disagree with you. People are going to disagree with me. The first (and biggest) step to wisdom is allowing for the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong. Not the acceptance that you are, each of you hold your opinions for good reasons, I'm sure, just that the guy that disagrees with you MIGHT have information you don't, or a viewpoint you haven't considered. Please consider this when you next write a post. I'm tired of people being called stupid because they like class X, Y, or Z more than class A, B, or C.