pontoark's page

70 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.




The original witch was was full with witch's references. Everything give you a witch type idea, I always thought it was meant to inspire you create a specific character, like:.
* The ability to attack with the hair remind you of Oriental movies type of witch like <i>the grudge</i>.
* The crackle ability was meant to inspire you to go for a more Hollywood kind of witch
* The fly ability that made you float over water was a reference to witches hunted by the church
* The heal hex ability was meant to allow you to create a misunderstood witch, a witch seems as bad but in truth it a healer

I think Paizo is choosing crackle as a class ability because it is too strong to be a low level feat, it is choosing mathematical reasons over RolePlay ones.

The same goes with the hair attack, it was meant to be a character defining feature, an ability used most of the time but it would be too good for that feat slot and now it seems more inspired in Entrapta (from she ha) than the grudge.

Also patron could be a good mechanic for a Sabrina (the new one) inspired witch but without a more detailed mechanic about fighting against you patron, GMs will feel it's better not to use it at all as they don't know if players will rebel against their patrons or not.

I think Paizo should take a more role play view of the witch.
In my opinion: crackle should be optional, hair attack should make playing with the character more similar to witches portraited in Oriental movies, Patrons should be optional and need to have a Rebelion mechanic.

What do you think?


Dear Paizo,

One of my orders haven't arrived yet, and the other one came with one of the books damaged, I sent an email about both of them and the only reply I got so far was: "Is it still happening" which I reply with: "yes".. and that was a couple of weeks ago. So... I don't know what to do now. What can I do to resolve this?

Thanks in Advance


I think this answers might make a good feedback for the developers

1 - How often do you thing you will use it in your campaigns?

2 - Do you expect to use it as a player os just as a DM?

3 - What makes you positively review a new rule? the number of options it offers? how balanced it is? the inspiring descriptions? how strong your characters will be? how often do you expect to use it in your campaign? (you may choose more than one)

4 - Does this rule inspire you to buy this book? (quite the contrary, not really, a little, a lot)

In my case:

1 - Maybe once in one campaign

2 - As a DM

3 - how often I expect to use it in my campaign plus a mix of inspiring description + balance

5 - not really, but other rules might inspire me to buy it... just not this one


Alchemist fluff is really good, but the design intent don't really match, for example:

Alchemist have to wait until level 8 to have +6 base attacks and get a secondary attack, it seems to me that it was the only design reason to put fast bomb(multiples attacks) with a level 8 requirement: so you can only take it when you actually need it, but of course it doesn't take in consideration feats like rapid shot, so in practice you end up having to play a fairly week bomb thrower alchemist until level 8, it is likely ok for people who play high level adventures often, but not every adventures work like that.

Another thing is stick poison, it is worded to be used only with melee weapons, but the melee alchemist is fairly directed to an unarmed melee, also it sort of remove the ranged alchemist without apparent reasons, I mean: it could be for balance reasons but I really doubt so.

In practice, you only use craft(alchemy) to create potions, alchemy items takes too long to create so you end up buying then and master crafter (the only feat that makes creating poison possible) is meant only to melee with weapon poison users alchemists (a rare kind) but the use poison, swift poison and etc are in the base class description, I guess they choose to put then there just so people could trade then with archetypes... that's a weird reason thought...

so... is it just me or do you also think that alchemist have some weird design calls?


I recently build and played a summoner and I just wish he had some unique spells in his list, and the eidolon could have some more exotic kind of attacks and have then easier, just to further distance him from other classes, do anyone agrees with me?


According to what I read, I wrote the following chart:

Claws+ Limbs: 3 points for 2 primary attacks (each for 1d4 dmg)
Slam + Limbs: 3 points for 1 primary attacks (each for 1d8 dmg)
Sting + Tail: 2 points for 1 primary attacks (each for 1d4 dmg)
Tail Slap + Tail: 2 points for 1 secondary attack (each for 1d6 dmg)

Tentacle: 1 point for 1 secondary attack (1d4 dmg)

And the only thing I can conclude is:

Claws > Tentacle == Sting > Tail Slap > Slam.

So.. lets just take math in consideration (forget about Role Play for a while), why would you take Sting, or Tail Slap, or even Slam? What kind of balance am I missing here?

Also, regarding what evolution you choose:

Serpentine -> Constrict

Quadruped -> Rake, Trample, Pounce

Biped -> Trample, faster reach.

Do you really anyone really think: Constrict == Rake + Trample + Pounce == Trample + Faster Reach?

Also, Does Limbs with weapon equal 2 points for extra primary attacks?


So far, Eidolon is build like a mister potato, using Quadruped, Biped and Serpentine as base and building in top of that with evolution points. What is your take on

1 - This design approach, do you thing it brings good/bad situations in your adventures?
2 - Evolutions, Is there any you think its potentially dangerous, too hard to describe or deal with?
3 - Summoner Eidolon interaction mechanics (Life Link, Bond Senses), is there any one you find particularly clumsy or cool?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - I rather D&D class system over gurps buy points system, and in a similar way I would rather a pre defined set of creatures to choose from than a more abroad approach, while an Archon, an Hydra or even a Celestial Lion have a picture, a description, some times a history and as a DM I have a general idea of how it behaves or should behave, the actual Eidolon barely have a defined shape, might get one arm bigger than the other, pincers in one arm and a weapon in another and even worse, he just might lose his pincers over night and get a tentacle on his forehead.
The way he works now, Eidolon has no history, personality or even shape, I don't mean it can't have, a good DM/Player can work things out but the system is not helping at all...

2 - Besides the fact that evolutions can often turn your Summon into a true mister potato freak (Especially with Reach, Weapon Training and Armor Training), I think pounce is a "Cookie cutter" temptation, and so is Large and Huge. I Liked pull and push, both those abilities sounds fun.

3 - Bond Senses duration is sort of too small if you want to use your Eidolon as a scout, everything else is too soon to say for me.


Reading the forums these days I wandered how different everyone thinks about what is a poorly designed prestige class and what is not. So, in your opinion what is the most common mistakes you see when you read a book with new prestige classes?

To me, the most common mistakes are:

1 - Creating a monk prestige class that doesn't increase unarmed strikes. It ends up making you attack with a weapon better than attacking with your unarmed strikes, and since your stun attack DC is not increasing the new prestige class is not really adding abilities to your class, its more like swapping abilities (you are losing everything you got related to your unarmed strike since you are not using it anymore and getting what ever the prestige class is offering you instead), that would not be so bad if the prestige class was based on the fact that it isn't adding new abilities it is swapping new abilities with the old ones.

2 - Spell caster prestige classes without some of its +1 existing spell level. Its not always a mistake but its very hard to balance because whatever ability you are getting instead must be better or equal than what a new spell would offer you in all the levels you will go thought after that: not getting a +1 existing spell level with a wizard at lvl 7 means you just lost 2 level 4 spells and 1 caster level, when you got to level 9 its value changed, that spell level took of 2 level 5 spells now, usually abilities don't increase with level so in time the new abilities you got are not going to be worth the spell levels you lost to get then.

3 - Bard without Bardic Performance. Its just like with the monk, in time your old bardic performance will not be worth your standard action (At least most of then), so in the end you are swapping abilities and most of the time the prestige class is not balanced around swapping.

4 - Removing rogue sneak attack and giving him role playing abilities instead. People love to completely remove rogue sneak attack and instead giving him role playing abilities, its not actually wrong but they do it way too often so in the end, if you are looking for a prestige class that change your rogue flavor without reducing it's combat skill, you will have a hard time looking.


I'm sorry, I realize a lot of people like the idea, I somehow like it too but from a poll of choices to create a new base class I would really rather a class that is not covered already: There is the specialist mage and druids (even thought the druid doesn't have any specialist type associated, there were some feats just for the druid's summoner and he still use spontaneous cast to summon), I can´t stop to think that another summoner will make those archetypes lose their appeal.

I'm not entirely against it, I just think this is something that should be taken in consideration.

What do you think?


Wierd... I can't edit my post at all...