gdsims's page

Ok, it takes a while to re-read 509 posts just to be sure I didn't miss anything.

The Chain Spear: The description of the weapon (A short spear and a spiky chain with hook) as well as the way the damage is listed (1d6/1d6) leads me to believe this should have the 'double' special. Is this a double weapon?

Clever.

...
I would also reckon that if the parts of a destroyed net are to be repaired in this way, they would have to be brought together. In any case, a destroyed net hanging off a person would likely be considered an attended object, and they would get a saving throw to resist.

Wasn't even thinking of trying to mend it while they were breaking it. Although that would be neat, I agree that it doesn't seem like you could do that given the single action nature of "breaking". I was more looking to not have to replace the net after each combat and instead, mend it. Which, assuming high enough level of mending, seems doable.

Given that prestidigitation can only slowly lift 1 pound of nonliving material, it seems like it would be very difficult to use it in combat to re-fold a net.

Yeah, that was my thinking, but I was hoping I was wrong because it would be cooler to have it fold itself.

I have a question regarding the use of a net and using two cantrips.

1. Is a 'burst' net 'broken'. Is it reduced to 0 hp, half, some other quantity. Basically, I'm assuming a burst net is repairable with mending, but just want to be sure and determine # of castings necessary to repair the net.

2. Can prestidigitation fold a net? If so, would it take same time as proficient user (2 rounds) or could it be done in 1 round?

I can't say that I or my players are interested in either core classes or PrCs because of cool abilities... that would just seem wrong.

I can't imagine using them them just as mechanical guidelines and my players almost always pick PrCs because the _description_ matches their story.. not because it will make them more powerful. Perhaps its the age of my group (avg 44)or that we all started playing at the _beginning_. We're role-players and many of my players create what, at least according to this forum, are weak characters. Everyone creates back-stories first - it is just what we've always done. For that matter, sometimes we've written up characters prior to even being told what system (d&d, gurps, besm, fudge ... some random downloaded pdf system...) we were going to use for play rules.

Because of this, I see PrCs as a plot device, I think of them as alternate classes tied to regions, cultures, races etc... Rather the same way that campaign settings created alternate core class features.

As a player and dm, I've never seen a need for published PrCs.
As a dm, I would rather just write them into my campaign settings.. and if I have to modify one - its just as easy to just create it whole.
As a player, if I wanted to play with class options I would just talk it over with my dm and work up a solution. Pretty much the way this whole hobby started, and they way it continues to thrive - player creativity.

Every game designer I know, is a player first. Sometime we think others might like our ideas so we take a chance and publish them (Thanks Jason/Paizo). I don't think anyone ever set out to design an unplayable class. It just happens that sometimes their great idea looks to you like their greatest idiocy.

I like what I see in the PrCs, like the rest of the rules, they are a great springboard for player creativity..

Would I play one as written.. no, but I could say that about the Core Classes too :)
-G

Play such a class and you will notice the difference. In theory those mix-classes may look nice, but during play you will notice that your eldritch knight can not keep up with the other adventures.

It keeps up and actually passes the equivalent multi-classed/multi-role character. If you wanted it to keep up with single-role classes, that would make the class broken.

What are you comparing it to when you say it can't keep up.

No class should ever be better in the party role of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, or Wizard then those characters.

If your character fills two of those rolls then it should be half as powerful in each... much as if you took 10 level in each. Otherwise, the class is over powered. The PrCs in PFRPG, for the most part, follow that idea. The more roles you perform, the waeker you should be at each of them. That's kind of what balance means. PrCs now are slightly better then equivalent multi-classed characters. That's good as they logically should given the role written for them.

Like I said, personaly I am more angry about crippling PrC which should strenghthen some aspect of a class, like the Duelist.
And yes, they are crippled compared to the improvements of the core classes.

Hmm.. How exactly is the Duelist weaker then a rogue or bard the classes it was designed to enhance. I mean I suppose you could come from fighter... for the flavor - but certainly not to be a better fighter. Mind you I'm not saying it's not weaker, I would just like to know what you mean.

For me, it's a trade off.. I get d10 hps and a better bab. I trade 5d6 (17.5 average) sneak attack damage for +10 presice strike, which would be able to be used more often then sneak attack, and I trade 5 talents and master strike for 11 powers (Canny defense, improved reaction, enhanced mobility, combat reflexes, grace, riposte, acro charge, elaborate def, defelct arrows, no retreat & crippling crit)

Seems a fair trade to me.

I have to say that I feel very limited because of this. The PrCs are a Joke. The should be an opportunity to specialize in certain aspects, but they are in fact weaker as allready pointed out.

I don't understand.

Eldritch Knight - Gains +10 Bab, +10 spell casting levels, EK levels count as both arcane class and fighter class for access to feats. and an ending bonus of a swift action, non-aoo spell cast on a critical.

End game (level 20)

Caster Level: Minimum 15th, (10 from EK, +5 from prereq) assuming all spell levels went to one arcane class - so access to 7th level spells.
Max 19th if finish out levels as same caster type

BAB: Min - +15 (assuming uses 4 remaining level on low progression bab class. Max - +17

Saves: F1,W9,EK10 - 10, 6, 9
F5,W5,EK10 - 10, 5, 8

Feats: F1,W9,EK10 - 4 Combat (1F/3EK), Scribe Scroll + 1 W,
F5,W5,EK10 - 6 Combat (3F/3EK), Scribe Scroll + 1 W,
Armor Training 1, Weapon Training 1

Closest comparison - F10/W10
CL 10 (5th Level Spells), BAB 15, Saves 10,6,10
Feats: 6 Combat, Scribe Scroll, 2 Wiz Bonus
Armour and Weapon Training 2

How is that 'weaker' exactly? This looks the same with nigh every other PrC that I checked, I can post them if need be

Is it a better 'fighter' then a 20th level combat class? No. Is it a better 'caster' then a 20th level straight caster class? No. And those are the answer you should get. NO MIXED CLASS should out fight or out cast a straight class - that would be stupid.

PrCs that mix abilities across class roles are just about equal to doing it through multi-classing. It's just easier to manage for some players or allows access to otherwise inaccessible class features - which caused all the 'class-sniping' in early 3.0.

That was one of the reasons I shudder at the thought of a return to the Mongoose big book of broken prestige classes. Next folks will want a return of the shadow master that summoned shadows, that could make shadows, which in turn could make shadows.... I remember all the complaints when it got changed too.. how it wasn't fair that X PrC wasn't MORE powerful then Y Core Class.

Mixed classes have more roles they fit in, thus allow for more role-playing opportunities but that has costs in end game power. Its a balance, a delicate one that will never make all camps happy.

As for learning the system, it seems very similar to CC2, which I had and enjoyed using. Both programs seem to me to have some elements of AUTOCAD, which I'm also familiar with.
Either way, I'm looking forward to working on some maps.

In case anyone is interested, Campaign Cartographer is based on Fastcad. It always has been as far as I know. Currently it uses Fastcad 6.5. I used to use the CadView (Same creator - Evolution Computing)program for display during my game while waiting for the latest viewer from ProFantasy.

I've been using CC for over 15 years. While the original learning curve is steep for non-cad users, no other map software has had the longevity and staying power of the CC lineup. I've used many ( I think almost all) other apps that were not CAD based and while easy to learn they are also easy to hit a productivity cap.

I can't imagine using anything else.. take the time, do the tutorials and head over to ProFantasy and use their forums. You won't be sorry

During play-testing, two questions came up to which I was unable to find official answers.

The description in the power state: You can apply any one metamagic feat that you know to a spell you are about to cast. This does not alter the level of the spell or the casting time....

These two sentences led my group to ask two questions:
The first sentence:
Does the character have to be able to "use" the metamagic feat on the spell in question in order to use the feat? For example, could a level 8 wizard with the maximize feat use this power to maximize a fireball (Which would usually require that the caster was at least level 11 so that they had a level 6 spell slot to 'store the spell)? Same for Heighten, I would think they actually needed to have a slot they could have heightened it up to. Basically, I would assume that you need to be able to use the feat "normally" in order to use it with this ability. Is this assumption true?

The second sentence:
Would this mean that you can't use this ability to Quicken a spell as that power specifically alters the casting time? If this wasn't the intent, why mention casting time at all? was it just to ensure we don't confuse it with the sorcerer's/bard's metamagic-on-the-fly ability?

Jason's actual intent will have to wait until next week when he returns and can get caught up on the boards.

Ok, it's been a while since this tread started. Hopefully Jason is back now and we can have an official response regarding this ability and his intent.

Is the strength bonus still 1.5X or is it doubled now? Also what if a character has a strength penalty, like -1. Can he get rid of the penalty by wielding his weapon two handed?

Any other word on this since the beta release? I don't agree with the idea that a negative bonus would become "more" negative. That defies my experience and logic. A person with a strength of 9 can use a long sword with a -1 damage. Why would using two hands make this become -2 damage? From my experience relatively weak people to defend themselves, using a weapon in two hands has always increased the power and effectiveness.

A suggestion may be that with a negative strength bonus just reduce penalty by one when using two hands.

Don't sweat it, this will last for a couple levels at best. The mostly-flat DCs of Concentration mean that you'll be behind for a while but will make the rolls easily at L10+. You could take Combat Casting if you really wanted help with it, but that's a wasted feat at higher level.

Actually, Skill focus(spellcraft) would return better dividends at 10+ and the loss of the extra +1 for the first 9 levels is more then made up for in the gain of +3 in all of spellcraft's features and then that bonus jumping to +6 at level 10 (assuming you put in 10 skill points by level 10) versus the limited nature of combat casting. +19 (10 ranks, +3 for class skill, +6 for skill focus) at level 10 before stat mods.. so the druid in question would be +17. Seems more then reasonable gain for one feat. The real limiting factor of playing a low Int druid is that your only getting 2 skill points per level. The -2 on int based skills is absorbed quickly as you level.. the -2 on skill ranks per level is going to affect the character at each and every level.

As an aside, the cost to craft a +5 competence bonus item for spellcraft would be 1250gp (base price of 2500gp). Not sure of spell requirements a gm would set for this. Anyway, it is yet another option to overcome a limiting intelligence without breaking character concept.

I personally, like the combining of spellcraft and concentration, much as I like many of the combined skills. For a low int character, it is just more bang for the buck.

Personally, I view the pulp fantasy roots of the game as a feature and not a flaw, and I'm glad that there is an edition of the game for people who don't, because that is not a version of the game I am very interested in publishing.

I'm so very happy that your interested in publishing a game that supports the "features" of a genre I love. I thank Jack for inspiring Gary and I thank you for keeping that inspiration alive. From Blue book through 3.5, it has been a long and ofttimes bumpy ride, thank you for adding a new leg to the journey. I want pulp, I want a vast, epic & heroic sagas. I'm happy there is a system for those you want a boardgame/rpg, but I'm even happier that there will still be a system for my friends and me.