ayami's page

So, what you are suggesting is that once a character hits 20, they can start multi-classing, but their BAB/Skills etc. max out at 20.

It sounds like an interesting way to handle it, but it would throw off CRs. Normally, when a fighter (for example) gains a level, he gains BAB, skills and class features. But with this, lets say a level 20 fighter took 1 level in barbarian. He would gain HP and class features, but no increase in BAB or skills. This throws off CR advancement, since after 20 each additional level would give less potent bonuses.

If you are going to re-work the system anyway, why not just left them continue gaining everything as normal, but say no base class can be taken beyond level 20.

1. Let counterspelling be a reaction once per round....

There has been a discussion concerning Counterspelling as an Immediate action Here. It might interest you

2. Give spellcasters spells that are similar to real spells like Shield but that are not cast as a standard action and last x round/minutes/hours but can be used as a reaction to an attack (immediate action), last only that one round and can be used lets say Casting Ability modifier times per day. ...

I actually quite like this idea, especially for Sorcerers. It could be as simple as allowing them (with appropriate limits) to cast spells targeted on themselves as Immediate actions, but also reducing the duration to 1 round.

Sounds interesting to me.

Somethings just get thought up by multiple people around the same time. Happens regularly in science.

I have been working on something extremely similar...

:D

------

And back to crossbows:
Perhaps instead of tweaking how crossbows themselves work with strength, maybe we should think about the cranks. Assuming all crossbows use cranks/levels to draw the cord, maybe the cranks themselves should have strength ratings which could work like a composite bows. You could also have "Strength bonus equivalent" bonuses, like lower reload time but sacrificing the Str bonus to damage.

That looks amazingly similar to something I saw in races of wild for the halflings. Might be worth a peek, don't know if you knew about that.

Heh, don't own races of wild and never read it. Plagiarism only counts if you know you are doing it...right?

And let's just get rid of massive damage deaths all together. Not very heroic.

Seconded!

And I agree on the HP description. Extensive descriptions and examples would really help.

Hmm, not to derail the Crossbow discussion (I agree they need work, but I don't know about a bonus to hit), but this thread is also about slings, and I would like to share what I have done with slings:

Slings remains as is, but are described as basically improvised, just a strip of cloth used to hurl a stone. Real slings, called battle slings or war slings, are slings specifically crafted for battle. They are martial weapons and have the follow stats:
1d8 damage (medium) | x2 critical | Bludgeoning Damage | 100 foot range increment

Load a war sling is a free action as long as you have stones in hand. Retrieving stones (up to 3) is a move action (provokes AoO), and you can hold up to 3 at a time.

It works as a normal sling other wise (two hands to load, one to attack; add strength modifier)

My goal is to put it on-par with a long bow.

Any critiquing would be great :D

Are there any plans to release a web enhancement with the non-PHB player races?

I'm presently in a campaign switching to Pathfinder and our biggest hitch has been the Gray Elf and Kobold that lack balancing against the new races. Some word from Paizo would be doubleplusawesome.

Well the Pathfinder Beastiary was recently announced Here

I would assume that kobolds will be in there, but I can't say anything about elf sub-species.

[sarcasm] Slightly Cloud With Chance Of Scattered Showers elves FTW :p [/sarcasm]

Just a lurker here, but I am still quite interested and excited about Pathfinder. I have designed an extensive Campaign Setting and am already planning how to make the appropriate changes for Pathfinder. I also quite like most of the changes (although I have already done my own re-write of fighter which I will be using :p) and so far all looks good. Come August '09 we will almost certainly be changing our current game to Pathfinder. Until then I am just taking some bits and pieces from the Beta to play around with.

Keep up the good work!

...

In 3.5E D&D you would be correct, but in the Pathfinder RPG, the Leadership feat is no longer in the DMG, but right there among the other feats. Personally, I would still require that a player gets my approval before taking it, but by the official rules it is now a normal feat that is no longer in the DMG.
...

As far as I know, and according to my PHB, Leadership is a standard feat in the Player's Handbook, not in the DMG.

As for the actual feat in question, I have only DMed for it once. I found it rather confusing, calculating Cohort level/advancement and treasure, and then there were all the followers. Now I usually don't allow it, instead opting for the option of "You will get a cohort or followers if I, as DM, find it makes sense, fits with the story and will not disrupt/unbalance combat."

But that's just me.

I have to agree with so many people who find the whole exotic monk weapon system rather odd. It is also awkward. As others have said, I would (and I may houserule this) say that monks should just be proficient with all simple weapons and should be able to flurry with them, perhaps limiting only to light or one-handed weapons.

One thing I would add would be a new light simple melee weapon, the hand flail. Describe it as a short wooden handle with a 6 inch chain ended with a blunt metal head. Make it 1d6 bludgeoning, used for tripping and +2 bonus on disarm checks. If you wish, add a note that it can also be called a nunchauk. This would keep them with the nunchauk without martial proficiencies.

There is a deity in the beta-book that favors unarmed strikes. And clerics of this deity are proficient in this 'weapon'. Does this mean the cleric is considered to have the class ability equivalent of improved unarmed strike, or do they have to spend their first level feat on this still?

Well, it seems that, as written, they do not gain the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Since even the gods with simple favored weapons (which clerics are proficient with) do not grant Weapon Focus or anything like that, I see no reason a god with Unarmed Strike would.

Although, unarmed strikes are of little to no use without the feat, so it might not be unreasonable to give it.

Easy.

Dung30nz & Dr4g0nz :D

But seriously, I quite like the Pathfinder name. I think it suits the whole product line well.

I'm a recent member to these boards. After being a long time lurker and occasional poster on the WotC boards I had heard reference to Paizo several times and had seen the Pathfinder name on paizo.com, but hadn't bothered to see what it was. I eventually caught wind of it on the WotC boards and came here to look and soon registered on the boards so I could keep tabs on it. I had never liked the idea of 4th edition and so when I heard there would be this kind of continuing 3.5-type support I was quite interested.

I always thought some monk weapons for other parts of the body would be cool. Like hard knee-pads or special shoes, since monks can fight with every part of their body.

oh, and for any who might not know, the "lajatang" is an exotic monk weapon in Complete Warrior. Just in case anyone wanted to know :D

Personally, I assumed that the line about vital spots being out of reach meant that you couldn't sneak attack creatures with limbs which can be attacked, like a hydra.