minkscooter's page

minkscooter wrote:

Stacking is more balanced for low Str (like 6 or 8), but it seems too good for characters with both high Str and high Dex.

Well, look at it this way, you would need very high strength and dexterity along with passable intelligence to make it count a lot, and if you have all of those something else has to be suffering badly. Now if the typical finesse character is like the build I made for a swashbuckler type, that'd be 14 strength + 18 dexterity and 16 intelligence. That stacks to +6 damage, the same as a fighter with 18 strength using a two-handed weapon. That does not seem too unbalanced to me ... especially for 3 feats. Stacking with strength is one reason I wouldn't go with the 1-1/2 times dex bonus option.

Also, there is nothing stopping you from stacking this with Power Attack (or the modifier Deadly Aim), and with the duelist's bonus damage.

Agreed, I posted something at the end of the previous page conceding the balance of this.

It slipped my mind that Combat Expertise requires 13 Int; I wanted to believe it was an alternative to the proposed 13 Int prereq because a Dex damage character without smarts also seems like it should be playable.

I'm not sure your feat makes the game playable for my 1st level halfling fighter with 6 Str, 16 Dex, and a dagger. There are too many prereqs in the way of Improved Weapon Finesse, so his only option is Deadly Aim modified for finesse weapons. If I give him that and Weapon Finesse, his combat dice are attack +2 (+1 BAB, -1 Deadly Aim, +1 size, -2 Str, +3 Dex), 1d3 damage (-2 Str, +2 Deadly Aim).

Improved Weapon Finesse instead of Deadly Aim would give him 1d3+1 damage, which would be more fun. Dropping the Combat Expertise prereq would make that possible. If Weapon Finesse were free, he could stack Deadly Aim to get 1d3+3 damage at first level, making him a lot more fun. This still seems low for a fighter, and a fair trade for another high stat besides Str.

Quote:

Stacking is more balanced for low Str (like 6 or 8), but it seems too good for characters with both high Str and high Dex.

I think it's okay if it requires three feats (with combat expertise). And it's how it's done in most similar abilities.

Yeah, I was coming around to liking it the more I thought about it.

I thought combat expertise was an alternative to 13 Int. If so, I like that for two reasons: 1) I wasn't sure about leaving avg Int characters out in the cold, and 2) as I think you're suggesting, three feats is a lot to pay, so a path that costs only two feats is nice.

EDIT: I do still like the idea of free Weapon Finesse. Could that work with Dabbler's feat? I guess not, since it reduces the cost by one feat. Assuming it's not free, should Weapon Finesse also stack Dex and Str modifiers to attack?

Just add your straight Dex mod to your damage with finesseable weapons, if that is what you are going to do. Don't replace Str mod, just stack them - finesse fighters are usually less strong anyway, it's precision damage (not strength) so logically there's no reason they shouldn't stack, and finesse weapons are not exactly churning out damage.

Stacking is more balanced for low Str (like 6 or 8), but it seems too good for characters with both high Str and high Dex.

Improved Weapon Finesse
Your well-aimed blows inflict additional damage.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Intelligence 13 {optionally, Combat Expertise}.

I don't know what I think about denying Dex damage to average Int characters. The quick-witted duelist with a rapier fits this idea, but I wonder if it leaves out other Dex damage types.

Benefit: When attacking with a finesse weapon you add your dexterity modifier to your damage in addition to other effects and bonuses. This is precision damage, and will not effect creatures immune to critical hits or sneak attacks. Note that armour can restrict the maximum dexterity modifier you may apply.

I like the note about armor limiting Dex modifier. I hadn't thought of that in this context.

Normal: Usually only strength modifier is added to damage.

"Usually" is redundant with "Normal".

EDIT: Then again, a character with high Str and high Dex dumps other stats, so maybe it's fair. Weapon Specialization gives +2 damage; even if this feat does more, it's a lower damage weapon. I think I like it!

With buffs and debuffs and equipment and armor penalties, you'd have to do it more than once.

Good point. It's unfortunate.

So what do people think of making Weapon Finesse (as written in the Core Rulebook) free and adding a feat that gives the same bonus to damage? Is that too strong? Even if the bonus damage is precision damage and doesn't multiply on a critical?

A simple solution which has worked wonderfully for my group for the last 3 years; everyone gets Weapon Finesse for free.

I also suggested that! When no one showed interest, I proposed half that for free instead.

It would be a slight pain to calculate.

Full dex mod seems better.

Agreed, it's not as tidy as full Dex mod. I proposed it because several people pointed out that full Dex mod in place of Str mod can make the bonus too extreme for a single feat (compared to Weapon Focus). For example, if 8 Str and 20 Dex, the feat gives +6 attack. Since the bonus grows with the difference between Str and Dex, I tried halving it. I didn't think "half" would be too much of a pain to calculate (you only do it once). It's more of a pain to annotate on your character sheet. Rather than credit two stats, I would just mark it as +n finesse.

Weapon Celeterity (Combat)

... Add 1 ½ times your Dexterity modifier to damage

That's too good. Only Str should be able to do that. The feat I proposed only gives the average of Dex and Str modifiers instead of Str, because that gives a less dramatic boost for a single feat than full Dex mod (I'm trying to make it better balanced alongside Weapon Specialization). If that's too weak, surely full Dex mod is enough?

It's a mute point.
Ask the hearty dwarves.

I wonder if the APG will have a feat that lets you apply Dex to damage in place of Str. It would be hilarious if it did.

Do you know something? :)

When 1 feat vastly dwarfs annother, there is a problem. Even if you don't tank your str and have an 14 str, 18 dex character, its a feat that gives +2 damage, the equal to weapon spec.

Good point. That's why I tried averaging the Str and Dex bonus. If a character has 10 Str and 18 Dex, Weapon Finesse is hard to pass up (+4 attack for one feat). Here's what I propose instead:

Weapon Finesse (Combat)
You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.
Benefit: With a finesse weapon (any natural weapon, light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain) made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier on attack rolls. All other restrictions on finesse weapons apply normally.
Normal: A finesse weapon allows you to use the average of your Strength and Dexterity modifiers on attack rolls instead of your Strength modifier. If you fight with two weapons, the benefit only applies to one weapon. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

By making half the benefit of the feat normal, the bonus offered by the feat is less extreme compared to other feats, and low strength characters are normally a little more viable even without the feat.

The high level requirement you suggest prevents it from being useful when it is needed the most, at low levels.

Yes!

Insightful Blow
prereq: weapon finesse, BAB +1
...

Nice feat. I think even the BAB +1 prereq is too much. A first level wizard might need it.

Dex to damage means your strength IS useless, no matter how many people argue otherwise.

In my example involving a 1st level halfling fighter I demonstrated a real advantage for 13 Str over 6 Str: (+3 attack, 1d6+3 damage) vs (+2 attack, 1d3+3 damage). While this might not be perfectly balanced, the numbers themselves declare that strength was not useless in this example.

I thought ProfessorCirno's examples were terrific. They were loaded with flavor that shows why the concept of Dex-based damage is fun. You can't argue with fun. :)

... you're talking like an enabler. "It's okay to have that extra drink, you'll be fine!" "It's okay to dump strength and game balance, the game will be fine!"

It is okay. It will be fine. There are experienced gamers on these boards who enjoy figuring out how to make things balanced. Aren't you also talking like an enabler when you encourage the idea of Int based damage? Stick with that thought and go with it! More options = more fun.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Addendum: Actually, what would people think if the feat was only for fighters?

Fighters are not the only combat class that could/should benefit. If you racked it up at minimum BAB +5 it would give all of the combat classes a sufficient leg-up. By the time a rogue gets to that level they are already inflicting more damage through sneak attack that while a nice bonus it's hardly essential.

I agree with Dabbler that it should be available to all classes. The rules should give as much freedom to imagination as possible.

I can't agree with a BAB requirement. First level characters desperately need it.

So, for all the people who seem to think you need more damage as a weapon finnesse fighter,

I don't seem to think it, I do think it.

I have to ask: why can't you put 13-14 in str?

Just because I can I should? Maybe I don't want to. I'm not intentionally gimping my character. I'm proposing that the trade-off should be playable. I'm willing to give up some damage for low strength and even give up a feat or two because I have a concept in mind that I think is fun, and because I'd rather put my high ability scores somewhere else.

Another feat would be Deadly Aim if it could be combined with Weapon Finesse and a finesseable weapon - it strikes me as silly that you can damage more seriously using a precise missile attack but can't do the same up close with a rapier or dagger.

Nice idea! This is like the point you made about Power Attack earlier, but better because Deadly Aim requires 13 Dex whereas Power Attack requires 13 Str.

I think that light weapons should always (without a feat) allow either of the following for attack bonus:

• Str
  
• Average of Dex bonus and Str bonus, rounded up
  

So a 1st level halfling fighter with 6 Str and 16 Dex would get +3 attack with light weapons (+1 BAB; +1 size bonus; +1 avg Str and Dex), rather than +0 attack (+1 BAB; +1 size bonus; -2 Str) under current Pathfinder rules. That's more playable and hardly overpowered, since light weapons do low damage and damage is still gimped by low Str.

On top of that I'd redefine Deadly Aim to include melee attacks with light weapons. Assuming the rule above, the same halfling wielding a dagger is (+3 attack, 1d3-2 damage) without the feat and (+2 attack, 1d3 damage) with the feat. That's hardly overpowered for one feat.

I'd also redefine Weapon Finesse to apply the light weapon rule (above) to damage. If the same halfling took this version of Weapon Finesse instead of Deadly Aim, he'd get (+3 attack, 1d3+1 damage) with a dagger, making Weapon Finesse a better choice for melee than Deadly Aim (which seems fair, since Weapon Finesse does not benefit ranged attacks).

With his 1st level Fighter bonus feat, he could have both Weapon Finesse and Deadly Aim (as defined above). Combining the two would give him (+2 attack, 1d3+3 damage).

Hooray! That's playable, but not nearly as good having high Str and using a better weapon. For example, imagine the same halfling with 13 Str, 13 Dex, and a small longsword. Instead of Weapon Finesse and Deadly Aim, he would take Weapon Focus and Power Attack, giving him (+3 attack, 1d6+3 damage).

Alternatively, Weapon Finesse could still allow Dex bonus instead of either of the two bonuses listed above. That way it would still provide the same bonus that it does currently, but less benefit over normal bonuses without the feat. Another feat, Finesse Strike, would provide the damage bonus described above. Both feats would have the same prerequisite; Finesse Strike would not require Weapon Finesse.

That little guy that uses a dagger to kill you while you are laughing at him isn't a fighter, systemically he's either a monk (use fob to hit multiple times) or more likely a rogue. That dagger isn't killing you by strength damage, it's killing you by sneak attack.

He could also be a wizard, cleric, or fighter. A fighter with 6 Strength should be playable.

That's where the precision damage is. What may be an idea is a simple feat that inflicts +1d6 precision damage as a 'sneak attack'. It should be limited to +(level/2)d6 total when combined with SA, but then you have the option for the smart fighter to get in some seriously damaging hits ...

For a fighter who wants to avoid multiclassing, that could be a nice feat. For some, sneak attack might not fit the character concept, unless the suggested feat only resembles sneak attack mechanically (I can't tell if that's what you mean). Someone might be interested in role-playing a character like Sir Didymus in Labyrinth or Reepicheep in Narnia who values bravery and a fair fight. That should be playable.

Make a feat that adds dex to damage as precision damage that also requires weapon finesse and x dex.

Maezer suggested some interesting feats with minimum Dex 17 and 19. I dislike minimum ability scores above 13. What's the point of going so far to make a feat unusable by most characters? Of course, I don't know what you had in mind for "x".

Also, I think two feats is too much to charge just to make a character playable. Either Weapon Finesse should be free for all characters, or it should include a limited application of Dex instead of Str bonus to damage.

..., nor does it increase on a crit, ...

I'm OK with that.

..., nor does it work on some creatures.

However, I thought the trend in Pathfinder has been to remove exceptions that once exempted creature types from things like critical hits and precision damage.

When you play with a rogue with 20 dex and 12 str and size small, and they take weapon fineness, it all makes sense.

Not all feats are for all classes or all builds, this is a fantastic option for the above mentioned rogue. He now has a +5 to hit instead of +1 for ability bonus, and all of his rogue skills still get the benefit of having the 20 dex.

I dislike the idea of feats designed with specific builds in mind. One measure of how good a feat is is how widely usable it is by many different characters. Highly specific feats lead to feat proliferation.

What about a finessed fighter?

Exactly!

Add int to damage, yes. Not dex

That's an interesting idea too. But what do you have against Dex? What did it ever do to you? :)

The Duelist PrC already gets Int bonus to AC, similar to Monk's Wis bonus to AC. I think an Int bonus to damage also makes sense with an appropriate feat. Why not? Let Str be king of melee damage, but allow other ways to partly compensate for lower Str at least some of the time, enough to make rolling the dice worthwhile.

It's freakin' weird and totally at odds with anything approaching 'realistic' at all. I believe that's the point being made.

Thanks Speaker! And even more important than the lack of realism is the lack of fun for the player of the low strength character.

Speaker, the problem is, that until they divorce armor protection to getting hit from armor protection in absorbing blows. the dicotomy of Str being needed to hit will persist.

By "absorbing blows" do you mean DR (for normal armor)? I think that would be a good idea.

Those are good points, but that's the trade-off. If you use a low strength character, You can't really expect to hit terribly hard, though. But if he's clever, finding new weapons to harm his attackers would be good. That awful high chandalier probably does more damage than the small dagger. Positioning, skill, luck, they all come into play, sometimes more than strength.

I'm not asking for a lot, just a hope of contributing something in combat. Do you really believe a clever character should not ever be able to do more than 1 damage with a sharp metal dagger? If it was your character I don't think you'd be happy with your DM telling you, "If you want to do damage, you'll have to rely on your surroundings and find something improbable and heavy to drop on the enemy. That way you will be 100% dependent on my willingness to adjudicate crackpot ideas not covered by the rules."

I understand the gaming value of trade-offs, and I'm not trying to eliminate them. What if the feat allowed you to use Dex instead of Str for bonus damage only if you exceed the roll needed to hit by 4 or more? That way, armor makes it more likely that in spite of the feat you'll need high strength to get past your opponent's defenses. A greater version of the feat could improve your chances so you only need to exceed the roll needed to hit by 2 or more.

Suddenly a low strength character at least has a reason to roll the dice, even though the difficulty of finessing a well-aimed strike still makes it much less likely that this character will do any noticeable damage.

Me, I would also put a prerequisite of having a STR of 11+ on the feat. Mechanically, it's important not to break the system, and realistically, if you're too weak to properly wield your weapon, no amount of DEX in the world will let you strike with pinpoint lethality while your weapon is dragging on the ground. I mean, look at successful fencers in the real world. Those guys take off their shirts and they are ripped. Maybe not Mr. Universe body builders, but they are definitely strong and fit; and they need to be in order to succeed at their sport.

We're talking about light weapons, so I don't think we need to worry about them dragging on the ground even if the character has a strength of 5. A dagger is sharp and made of metal, making strength unnecessary. Why does everyone have to be ripped or buff or athletic to participate in combat? Who cares if you excel at fencing if you get stabbed when your back is turned?

More importantly, why take away the feat from characters who need it the most? Maybe I want to roleplay a halfling with his lowest stat in strength (8 - 2 racial = 6). My character is feisty and clever and should at least be able to participate in combat. Here's what I think is silly. If he throws a dagger one foot, he gets Dex bonus on the attack roll, but if he keeps the dagger in his hand and stabs with it (which ought to be even more accurate) he not only loses the Dex bonus but incurs the Str penalty as well.

Why not just give Weapon Finesse for free to every character? Then the feat (WF, not Greater WF) can deal with the problem of low damage. Here is a game breaking problem: Dagger for a small character does 1d3 damage; at Str 6 that's 1d3-2. Just because I want to roleplay a small, low strength character doesn't mean he should be hopelessly unplayable. If I know I can only ever do 1 damage, combat is no fun. Every hit is exactly the same: as lame as a hit can possibly be.

Now add in damage reduction and I might as well not even play. Why not make weapon finesse negate some DR so I can at least hope to achieve the heights of total lameness? Why is it game breaking for my character to participate as though he actually exists?

This is all busted.

Thanks!

How many people use the alias links as a way to check on their play by post games? I hope they come back soon!

This seems to be something that a lot of folks are interested in.

I'm glad to hear that.

greater weapon finesse thread

For consistency reasons, I'm not sure "Greater Weapon Finesse" is the right name. "Weapon Focus" gives +1 to hit and "Greater Weapon Focus" gives another +1 to hit, not bonus damage. To get bonus damage, you need a feat by another name: "Weapon Specialization". Similarly if "Weapon Finesse" helps attack bonus, then you might expect "Greater Weapon Finesse" to give more help to attack bonus. Such help to bonus damage would need a feat by another name: maybe "Weapon Precision".

Then again, it would be nice to associate the new feat with "finesse", since both have to do with Dex subbing for Str. Also, I don't think there are "Greater" versions of either feat to distinguish from one another.

I used a more permissive homebrew feat (one which allows dexterity to replace strength for melee weapon damage for any weapon, with the only prerequisite being weapon finesse, and the only restriction being no two-weapon fighting).

I like the sound of this. Someone else said any weapon allowed by Weapon Finesse, ie any light weapon, and I think that makes sense.

KaeYoss had an interesting idea of giving Weapon Finesse to everyone for free. In that case, we could move it from the feats to the normal combat rules, then "Weapon Finesse" could be the name for the new feat that applies the same benefit to damage.

I can't imagine a Duelist (or Bladesinger or spring attacking Rogue)who wouldn't take it. I agree at first glance it looks overpowered, but it's very specific to: a) one particular weapon;

b) one particular style of fighting (one handed weapon only)

but again, i can't imagine a Duelist not taking it.

I don't like that it's weapon specific. If the feat needs to be nerfed for balance, there must be a better way. (It's not a nerf anyway if you were already going to use that weapon.) Making it weapon specific is bad for a few reasons:

• It's not consistent with other feats in the core rulebook. I can think of feats that can be taken multiple times, each time for a different group of weapons, but none that work only with a particular weapon.

• It encourages feat proliferation, because soon everyone will want a feat specific to their favorite weapon.

• The feat covers less territory and is less likely to work with your character concept. Why wouldn't it work with a dagger?

I also don't like that it requires 2 ranks of Heal. Rogue sneak attack damage relies on knowing your opponent's anatomy and knowing where to strike, but it doesn't require ranks in Heal. I guess the requirement fits well with the name "Surgical Strike" but I don't like the name either. I'd rather it be named something that sounds right with more of the character concepts likely to use it, like Precision Strike (but that's bad too because we already have "Vital Strike"). I do like the good intention of putting an unpopular skill to work in an unexpected way, but in that case I'd prefer a feat that awards bonus damage for ranks of Heal in a way that scales with your level of investment in the skill. (Bad Medicine? Diagnose Weakness?)

I also think there needs to be a way for low strength characters to do more damage so they are not automatically useless in melee combat (especially against damage reduction). Feats that do this seem good for the game.

Sorry Darkmeer, I have to drop out of this game as well as your Shackled City adventure. With less free time I have to focus on my own games. I've had a great time, and I thank you for letting me play.

Sorry to see you go. It was fun! Best wishes with your games.

I once had a chipped, beat up d20 with rounded corners. It was old-style, with 0-9 each printed twice instead of having 11-20. I remember an adventure when my wizard waited outside a room while the party entered, triggering a trap that dropped a portcullis at the entrance and released monsters from the other side of the room. My 9 strength wizard with a 1% chance to bend bars gave it a try. The second toss after a '0' rolled all over the table, keeping everyone in suspense, and finally landed on 'A'. It took people a moment to realize that 'A' was actually 1 (this was an old-style d20), then everyone burst into cheers.

One of those wonderfully improbable gaming moments that stays with you...

1d20 ⇒ 1

Crap!

1d20 ⇒ 1

Crap!

1d20 ⇒ 1

Crap!

So far I haven't had any issues with books falling apart, but I'm pretty careful with them. The only problem I've ever seen since starting my subscription (at the start of Second Darkness) is AP #29 CoT "Mother of Flies" where the ink was a little too dark and made the page corners stick together. I thought it might be a fluke and didn't say anything until I saw this thread.

My Campaign Setting, Core Rulebook, and Bestiary are still fine. I don't have Gods and Magic so I can't comment on that.

minkscooter wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Trivia:

Breath of life was designed as "cure deadly wounds", but the name was changed during development.

Cool! I guess the previous name sounds enough like the other cure spells that you could easily overlook the ability to raise dead.

I think death is something like a status effect, but one that gets harder to lift as time passes. I don't mind if it can be done cheaply in the usual case (during or just after a battle), since the game is deadly and it needs a way to cope with a common occurrence. Like other status effects, it's easier to think about if it's not rolled into a cure spell.

I would suggest that they want the game to stay deadly to a certain extent... after all you are less likely to go do something off the wall stupid if dying means you're either down for a while, not coming back, or it costs a substantial amount of money...

after all if getting back up from dead is so cheap and easy almost everyone would be doing it...

A.K.A. they don't want, "Don't worry Bob we still have a full stack of phoenix downs!"

I get what you're saying. I'm only suggesting that just because death is a big deal in real life doesn't mean it has to be in your game. Cheap raise dead is a very playable option if you don't need the finality of death for the story aspects of your game.

I always imagined that the Shadowdancer had some mystic connection to shadows, like Jack of Shadows in the Zelazny novel. I guess I would expect the Shadowdancer to be better at using shadows than an assassin.

That would be incentive for the assassin to get on his leotard and dip a few levels of dancer :)

What about non-badger celestials?

<waking from nap, bits of gold falling from his fur> CH, good to see you here in the sett! I don't recall what sorts of refreshments we have to offer nowadays, but I think we can scare up something fitting for the occasion.

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I think medium armor could have been stripped from them as well, I don't see the need for good fortitude saves either.

You don't see the cleric, then. Clerics aren't divine mages. Clerics are warrior-priests. They wade into the fight with divine might strengthening their strikes. Divine wizard style clerics might be possible, but they're not the only possibility, and they're not the usual choice for Pathfinder clerics.

Clerics in 1e had the best saves against poison, so the good fortitude save has some basis in tradition.

You can choose to try to get into the class ASAP, or you can just wait and get in later.

Feat requirements are more onerous than skill requirements, since feats are acquired infrequently and there are so many good ones to choose from. An -OR- prereq that uses feat requirements on the fast track only is a neat idea.

Of course that doesn't relieve the designer from the burden of choosing prereqs carefully on both -OR- tracks. It potentially makes a PrC specific build easier to tolerate.

Trivia:

Breath of life was designed as "cure deadly wounds", but the name was changed during development.

Cool! I guess the previous name sounds enough like the other cure spells that you could easily overlook the ability to raise dead.

I think death is something like a status effect, but one that gets harder to lift as time passes. I don't mind if it can be done cheaply in the usual case (during or just after a battle), since the game is deadly and it needs a way to cope with a common occurrence. Like other status effects, it's easier to think about if it's not rolled into a cure spell.

minkscooter wrote:

I'd like a cheap 4th level cleric spell that lets you revive a character that died within one round per caster level.

Well, there's breath of life in Core, and revenance and revivify in 3.5's Spell Compendium.

Thanks! Case in point where a See Also section would have helped :)

It seems to me that one round (for breath of life) is too short. I might try three. I would also drop the part about functioning as a healing spell and add a component at something like 50gp.

I'd like a cheap 4th level cleric spell that lets you revive a character that died within one round per caster level.

When I was re-reading the Raise Dead description in the Core Rulebook, I also thought it would be nice if there was a See also section at the end of the description that lists related spells, so I don't have to remember the names of more powerful ways to raise dead, like Resurrection.

I agree with the OP that designers should err on the side of too few prereqs and think carefully about each one they include. For example, the Shadowdancer requires Stealth 5 ranks and Perform (dance) 2 ranks. Makes sense. She's a shadowdancer. She can sneak and she knows how to dance. Nothing onerous about that. But then there are feat requirements: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility. (Mobility requires Dodge, so Dodge doesn't really need to be listed, but maybe that's deliberate.) Essentially these feats are saying that the shadowdancer must good at making and avoiding attacks of opportunity. From that I would expect shadowdancers to possess abilities that capitalize on attacks of opportunity, but in fact I see no mention of AoO in any of the class features. Either the class features should develop the AoO specialization or the requirement is arbitrary. This may have been a missed opportunity to spell out some neat tactical ideas like the ability to designate shadows from which she can perform AoOs within the limits of her shadow jump, or the ability to confer shadows that counter enemy AoOs. Without such features, I'd rather, for the sake of flavor, see a skill tax that demands more ranks of dancing. Why? If you're a shadowdancer, you'd better know how to dance whether the skill mechanic apart from the PrC does you any good or not.

Yeah, I'd say that careful selection of prerequisites is at the heart of making a good PrC.

Oh, and I don't like racial prerequisites. I was surprised to see that Arcane Archer requires you to be an elf or a half-elf, especially since Dwarven Defender was excluded partly from a desire to avoid racially specific PrCs.

And regarding the Pathfinder Chronicler PrC, I have to disagree with the OP. I really like the concept of this PrC, and while I'm not on board with all the class features, I really like such features as Live to Tell the Tale, Pathfinding, and Improved Aid.

EDIT: I think I would build on the Live to Tell the Tale feature and say that any enemy that randomly decides to attack the Pathfinder Chronicler must make a Will Save (DC 15 + Chronicler level) or attack any other nearby character instead.

tejón wrote:

Two is a video game, four will serve but needs more secondary stats to pick up some slack, eight is just too many.

Video games usually have more than that. You get stuff like "Strength, Agility, Stamina, Spirit" or the like, or "Attack, Defense, Spellpower, Knowledge", and so on.

I wonder if he was thinking of Final Fantasy Tactics, where you get only Brave and Faith.

Losing the equally appropriate Intelligence-based Search is a shame, but it did good things for the skill system in general. Still conflicted about that one. :)

Threadjack, similarly I'm conflicted about Balance being rolled into Acrobatics. I want to make my dwarf fighter steady on his feet without turning him into a tumbling acrobat. (It's a flavor thing where less is more.)

I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.

I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.

Neat idea! Ticking off charges like ammunition makes the wand seem less magical. To make it even more unpredictable, you could roll a final d6 to see what happens:

1. Fizzles
2. Works normally
3. Breaks and misfires (random target)
4. Fizzles and recharges to d8
5. Fizzles and recharges to d10
6. Surges (adds Maximize Spell and Widen Spell metamagic)

I deeply dislike this idea based on luck. When I drop the gp to craft a wand, I really want to be sure I can depend on it... otherwise I'd UMD scrolls.

Oh well. A lot of people liked wild mages, who made every spell you cast unpredictable. This only affects the final charge of the wand, so it's just a little fun that you don't normally have to worry about.

A wand normally has 50 charges when created. Assuming you rolled each charge die as many times as the number of sides on the dice (20 + 12 + 10 + 8) that would equal 50. The odds of rolling anything but a 1 on d20 nineteen times in a row are about 37.7%. However there's a 22.6% chance that you could get 10 extra charges out of that first d20, and an 8% chance you could get all 50 charges just out of the first d20. At the risk of a fizzle or two at the end you might even extend the life of the wand well beyond its last charge. It's a gamble that could pay off.

I hate tracking wand charges, so one house rule I always use is to the way wands operate. A wand has a charge die instead of a fixed number of charges. The charge die starts at d20 for a fully charged wand and goes down to d8. Every time you use a wand you roll the charge die. If you roll a 1, the charge die is permanently downgraded (d20 - d12 - d10 - d8). If you roll a 1 on the d8, that is the last charge for the wand.

I find the rule dramatically decreases bookkeeping, causes the players to be more liberal with their wand use, and does not slow play appreciably.

Neat idea! Ticking off charges like ammunition makes the wand seem less magical. To make it even more unpredictable, you could roll a final d6 to see what happens:

1. Fizzles
2. Works normally
3. Breaks and misfires (random target)
4. Fizzles and recharges to d8
5. Fizzles and recharges to d10
6. Surges (adds Maximize Spell and Widen Spell metamagic)

The important question is: why encourage counterspell? It's a neat idea, but honestly, in the best case scenario you are trading your action for the action of another opponent, assuming said opponent is casting spells of your level. This is a very boring way to play DND; it's like the higher-level, far less likely dazing. Keep things active :).

I thought the proposed change allowed you to counterspell as an immediate action without giving up your regular action. So you could cast a spell and counter your opponent's spell in the same round.

minkscooter wrote:

The problem I see with Counterspell I-IX is that it gives sorcerers an advantage over wizards, since they can spontaneously turn a slot into a counterspell, whereas the wizard has to reserve the slot in advance. In a duel between a wizard and a sorcerer, this is a decisive advantage, unless the wizard loads a significant portion of slots with Counterspell (taking a lot of fun out of being a wizard). The negative impact on the game is that the party will come to rely on the sorcerer for counterspelling in the same way that clerics were once stuck with the job of healing everybody.

Wouldn't these ideas work just as well without Counterspell I-IX if you just let the spells that already work as counterspells use the same rules you suggested for Counterspell I-IX? That way the wizard still gets some advantage from his versatility, and can hope to find a spell that the sorcerer cannot counter all day. To that end, I don't think it should be possible to counterspell with Dispel Magic as an immediate action. Maybe a feat could let you ready Dispel Magic with a move action instead of a standard action at the same -5 (or -8) penalty.

I really like the Ring of Counterspelling as long as it doesn't take Dispel Magic and instead provides multiple slots.

Not really. A sorcerer who takes counterspell or dispel magic on their list only get a single level. IE they take counterspell I as a level 1 spell on their known spell list. A wizard who know they are going up against a spellcaster can memorize a couple of counterspell I, a counterspell II, and so on.

That's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. It's not fun to waste multiple slots on Counterspell and lose versatility. A wizard doesn't always know when he will have to go up against a spellcaster, and even if he routinely dedicates a couple slots from several levels, the sorcerer will outlast him in a duel because he can spontaneously use as many slots as he needs to repeatedly counterspell. The sorcerer's ability to counterspell only needs to last a few rounds longer than the wizard's in order to land a few decisive spells for lots of damage.

Since you are trying to develop a system of counterspelling that can simulate spellcaster duels, I was hoping you'd look at the problem more carefully. I think Pathfinder leaves the counterspell rules unchanged because a fix is hard. I expect that other people will raise other troublesome issues for you if you welcome that kind of discussion.

You have some nice ideas that I haven't seen before. Best wishes for lots more ideas and feedback on this thread.

I just thought of one way I might consider adding Counterspell I-IX. It would be to require that it be prepared against a specific school of magic. For the sorcerer, that would mean permanently learning, for example, Counterspell (evocation) or Counterspell (enchantment). Also it would add a -2 non-specificity penalty. None of these would work in the Ring of Counterspelling.

I think this keeps counterspelling fun.

This led me to wonder if you can counter abjuration spells, but the rules say the target must be "within range". I think it would actually be interesting to allow it, as a way to ensure that your offensive spells are not blocked. (Of course the abjuration could no longer be countered once it was already cast.) Used as a counterspell, an abjuration with a range of personal would need to acquire range. I'd suggest Short (25 ft + 5 ft per 2 caster levels) but with a -2 penalty and an additional -1 penalty per 5 ft range increment beyond 25 ft. For example, to ensure the success of your Magic Missile you could use Shield to counter your target's use of Shield. You would not be allowed to counter a spell used as a counterspell. (Shield does not counter Magic Missile, it negates all Magic Missile spells cast at you.) Partial success against an abjuration spell would make it easier to dispel.

Since you still need to be lucky enough to have the right spell to counterspell, I think the penalty for counterspelling as an immediate action should be only -4 (-2 with the Improved Counterspell feat). Counterspelling would never be automatic just because you have the right spell for countering. A counterspell readied as a move action could be used with no penalty, and one readied as a standard action could gain a +4 bonus. I really like how the OP's idea allows partial success and cooperation of multiple casters to increase the chances of complete success (and even backlash).

I don't think I like the idea of requiring a feat to counterspell as an immediate action. It improves gameplay enough that it should be available to all casters without a feat tax.

Another interesting feat could be Devious Magic, making your spells harder to counter (perhaps -2 and -4 for Improved Devious Magic, and double that if you use a spell slot one level higher). The Improved Counterspell feat would simply give you +2 on all counterspell checks and it could be taken multiple times; its effects would stack.

The problem I see with Counterspell I-IX is that it gives sorcerers an advantage over wizards, since they can spontaneously turn a slot into a counterspell, whereas the wizard has to reserve the slot in advance. In a duel between a wizard and a sorcerer, this is a decisive advantage, unless the wizard loads a significant portion of slots with Counterspell (taking a lot of fun out of being a wizard). The negative impact on the game is that the party will come to rely on the sorcerer for counterspelling in the same way that clerics were once stuck with the job of healing everybody.

Wouldn't these ideas work just as well without Counterspell I-IX if you just let the spells that already work as counterspells use the same rules you suggested for Counterspell I-IX? That way the wizard still gets some advantage from his versatility, and can hope to find a spell that the sorcerer cannot counter all day. To that end, I don't think it should be possible to counterspell with Dispel Magic as an immediate action. Maybe a feat could let you ready Dispel Magic with a move action instead of a standard action at the same -5 (or -8) penalty.

I really like the Ring of Counterspelling as long as it doesn't take Dispel Magic and instead provides multiple slots.

I liked the Edimmu from AP 20. The idea of genie binding gone wrong is cool, and the artwork for that monster is awesome. I don't really get why the CR for an undead genie is so low.

I'll second KaeYoss' vote for the Fungal Crawler in AP 13, although I wish the artwork captured the "pebbly mushroom caps" and fluted underside like the "gills ... located on the undersurface of a toadstool". The picture is not bad, and I like how it captures the cricket characteristics and the bulbous head, but you can't really see anything fungal. It's the mushroom characteristics that should do the most to make the monster disgusting and frightening. I wish we had a mushroom man like the Myconid (not in an AP as far as I recall), and I wonder how the two monsters might interact.
EDIT: I also like how this monster combines moldy and disgusting with the ability to leap. No escaping this nasty vermin!

Rot Grub from AP 25. I especially liked the infested undead idea.

Of course I want the Banshee and Peryton. It's hard to imagine those not getting in.

EDIT: The Black Blooded template in AP 18 is interesting. It reminds me of the black oil from X-Files.

When I read this post, why do I have visions of Player Options from 2e going through my head?

No offense, but this has been done before, and I can see why they did not want to bring it out again.

But this is a good time for a house rule...

Right, Player's Option "Skills and Powers" split all six abilities into two sub-abilities, each a different aspect of the primary ability, effectively giving each character twelve ability scores. That idea didn't play so well, I think.

When the PF designers were overhauling the world's oldest RPG, they should have added Perception as an ability, correcting one of the most basic -- but far-reaching -- problems in 3.5. In fact, I've been working toward making it a house rule. But I wish the PF designers had done the work -- so I wouldn't have to!

Given that the same six ability scores have been used since first edition, it seems pointless to fault the Pathfinder developers for not changing it. If you think the game can be improved by splitting Wisdom into three scores (Wisdom, Perception, and Willpower), why not go about proposing that change in a positive way under the Suggestions/House Rules/Home Brew section of the messageboards?

Sweet!

The Lists feature seems like a pretty handy way to keep track of threads you like to check on, especially threads that may drop off your Recent Posts. It's a little strange to click on "Wishlists" to access messageboard threads, so I wonder if it makes more sense to link Lists and Wishlists separately. I guess "Wishlists" are more familiar to people than "Lists" and people are not likely to look for a wishlist within a feature named "Lists".

Is "Done With This List" the same button that is now labeled "Delete This List"? If so, the new label is more clear :)

Nice features.

The Armor Training is big, not only because it increases the armor's value as well as the max Dex bonus it allows, while reducing the armor check penalty...but, it also lets a fighter move his normal speed, instead of being the guy who's too slow to keep up with the fleet-footed members of the party and those wearing light or no armor.

--Neil

It would be nice if armor training increased the AC bonus provided by armor. Increasing the max Dex bonus only helps if you happen to have high Dex. Moving at normal speed in heavy armor is also a wasted feature if you happen to be a dwarf and already get that as a racial trait. Reducing armor check penalty is the best part because it helps everyone. However, it encourages the absurdity of fighters performing acrobatics in full plate, so I'm not sure it's good for the game.

A simple AC boost (with or without armor) would have been more to the point. AC is one of the hardest things to improve as the game scales to higher levels.

Nice posts Viletta Vadim! I'm glad to see someone arguing your point of view. I'm also glad to see that the OP has decided to try talking with the player.

The problem with deliberately killing a player character is
1. It's unfair
2. It's dishonest
3. It makes you a bad DM

Just for the record, I said Huergar was open to being talked out of his intended course action:

Unless someone tries to talk him out of it, he plans to seal the entrance

Basil responded by threatening my character:

He looks at Huergar as he moves to seal the cave.

"Do not even think of blocking the way

I understand Wellard is trying to roleplay an uncompromising character, but I don't think that should be an excuse for threatening another player's character, and I'm pointing this out now in case it becomes a pattern.

But until then what they gave us in the Bestiary has to be, and will be enough.

There's no such law :)

No, Paizo shut down the website for a while before announcing the Pathfinder RPG, posting a message that "goblins have invaded the offices".

Ah thanks!

Has a mechanic to replace the unpopular ECL/LA been proposed? Some form of level adjustment seems inescapable, regardless of what it's called. How can the powers of some monsters be balanced at 1st level?

Monte Cook had the idea in Arcana Evolved that you could acquire the abilities of an exotic race gradually by taking levels in that race as if it were a class. It's a neat idea to make a monster playable at 1st level, but it breaks the suspension of disbelief, I think, to start play as a medusa who can't turn anyone to stone and whose snakes have only the potential to become venomous.