rydi123's page

So is this the new direction PF is taking? Reballancing frequently to maintain sameness and hammer down anything that stands out, invalidating all the sourcebooks people pay money for? I for one was already upset by the ACG errata because, ignoring any disagreement with the content changes (I have a lot of disagreement...), I just had a book made completely obsolete. Now they are doing the same with another book the next day, apparently pulling the bandaid off fast instead of peeling it off.

This is a problematic path, one that is a mistake for the company. Rather than doing wholesale revision, they appear to be attempting to rebalance the game as a continuous process, which is fraught with complications. Further, and most dangerously, they invalidate the act of purchasing their books by reducing buyer faith that the content will have value. This just makes it clear that using electronic sources that are auto updated (and free) is a superior option, because you can trust that the content is accurate and don't have to cross reference errata for everything you do.

Insain Dragoon, could you pm me that link? I wanted to watch it when you posted it, but didn't have time and now it's gone...

Yeah... Honestly, I'd like the ability to show that I bought the book and get a PDF with the errata applied. I never buy the PDFs because I just find it so much clunkier at the table than a physical book, but keeping up with that much errata is kind of ridiculous. The errata PDF was what, 9 pages or so?

Yup. Sadly it isn't just hyperbole to say that I cannot use my ACG as a meaningful and trustworthy reference document. Sure there is errata to other stuff, but most of it is isolated and doesn't effect the entirety of a book. With the ACG I can't keep track of all the changes, and since pretty much every good archetype or ability got nerfed, I'd have to double check any content I wanted to use. Sad I spent money on it. Posted an amazon review warning others not to buy it... hopefully I saved some cash strapped gamers $30 of wasted money.

Still better than video game devs who rush glitchy betas to the market, then sell the patches as overpriced DLC, then nerf the patched content. But a business is a business either way.

Uhm... Isn't that functionally what happened with ACG? Rush a bad book to print, charge full price, put out a companion splat with "extra" questionably worthwhile content, errata the original book into oblivion to the degree that you can't actually look at your 1st ed printing of ACG and know how any of it is supposed to work. Frankly, that's exactly how bad video game publishers do it, and it is beneath the quality and dedication to their customer base that early pathfinder was all about. Hopefully they are moving in a different direction now, but my confidence is shaken.

As for the play tests agreed they are a farce. A feel good PR thing for the fans. The debs can and will ignore any of the play tests if they ready have a set idea in mind of what a class should be. I actually like Mythic. The main issue for me never using it is that Mythic enemies don't scale properly with players.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing for them to do what they want without input occasionally. It gives the freedom to do new things and take the game in directions that the fan community might not be capable of. That said, glaring mechanical issues need fixes and sometimes those don't get listened to either.

I actually like mythic too, or at least the ideas behind it. But it reads like a really good playtest document... a great start, but it needs significant refinement. Instead of getting that refinement, it just languishes. And WotR is fun as campaigns go, but the modules are hilariously outmatched by mythic characters. Aside from perhaps one fight, our group could have completed the first 4 books without mythic tiers at all (can't comment on the last books, haven't started them yet). Mythic play would really have benefitted from a more extensive bestiary and pre-made npc's, as regular critters become a joke, and modding every single encounter with mythic stats is just too much work (I play modules so that I don't have to do the leg work of getting all the stats together myself).

In answer to the op, yes.

I got in to Pathfinder at the start because of higher quality control and lower production schedule than the deluge of books produced yearly by WotC. The early books were all pretty high quality, and had a higher ratio of usable content than I had come to expect from 3.5 releases. I feel that as the company grew in popularity, however, they started to fall into the same traps: increasingly outsourcing work to people with poor rules understanding, bad editing, more books per year with less worthwhile content per book, and poor internal consistency in both balance and mechanics in individual books.

I feel that Mythic was a turning point for the company, as it represented a lot of the above issues. It has great ideas, and is more fun than Epic because it isn't just a scaling set of numbers with a broken epic casting system. The core concepts are great, and the ability to tack on the system at any level makes it a really usable toolbox, WotR is even a fun campaign (playing it right now actually) but... execution was lacking. Abilities vary wildly for no reason (archmage abilities vs. hierophant, power attack vs. deadly aim), the mechanics just don't work in places, and of course the balance between paths and even various abilities within paths are just poor. Many classes were left behind, caster's got almost all the love, and the little mini-splats they released to accompany the main mythic release (yay, more books...) were really didn't even amount to a bandaid.

Around then, more "companion" books to the main products started being released, and the company seemed to decide on a new heavy handed errata policy that simultaneously ignored known issues (such as with Mythic) and focused on adding more "balance" rather than clarifying actual writing errors (crane style, I'm looking at you). One of the things I liked about Paizo initially was that my books mattered; they didn't make sweeping changes, didn't obsolete old content with every new book, and even if I wasn't fond of how something worked, I could at least trust that the text of my book was correct (minus typos of course). Now... well, the ACG and accompanying errata appear to exemplify the problems with the company. Hopefully it represents a low point for Pathfinder, rather than a new normal. Unchained was a promising new start, though it had its own issues that are beyond the scope of this post.

The designers seem to be backpedalling and trying to rectify some of the above problems, but it is unclear at this point if they can do so. Production demands are high, the system is bloated, and many of the changes that need to be made to the system (like a cleaned up 2nd ed., in line with many of the Unchained options, to make the system more accessible to new players) are difficult to accomplish. I really want Paizo to do well, despite some frustrating misteps on their part, but I feel like Occult and the books that follow will be a make-or-break for both my group, and many other frustrated fans.

One other thing: it seems like in recent years the company stared catering disproportionately to the whims of (admittedly loyal, enthusiastic, and big-spending) PFS members. Many of the heavy-handed "balancing" errata from the last few years seems to be focused on making PFS work. Further, while PFS represents a ready playtesting pool, it may be the wrong demographic to target; PFS players are highly invested in existing rules which makes it difficult to introduce sweeping system repairs, are comfortable with rules oddities/minutiae that casual players often find alienating, and are likely to be more enthused by niche concepts (vigilante) than the casual player that wants more broadly applicable concepts. Whether to cater to the most loyal fans or to make yourself broadly appealing is an issue for every company, and a hard balancing act that I don't envy having to maintain... That said, I think they may want to start re-focusing if they are to maintain broad and lasting appeal into the next decade rather than being supplanted by 5th ed.

Wow, this really makes me re-examine my purchasing patterns for paizo products. Half of my book is now invalid, and many of the better designed options were removed for seemingly arbitrary reasons... I'm sad I pre-ordered the new Occult stuff, or I'd be making different choices.

Honestly, quality has been going down for a while now, and despite loyally purchasing product for some time (I own all the non-setting hardbacks) I'm going to stop buying until the game takes a turn toward better quality control and cuts out some of the fat that has accumulated in the system.

Off to Amazon to write a hateful 1 star review for invalidating an entire book...

Thanks!

So, for those more familiar than I with the three bestiaries, any suggestions on a good base monster that I could use to use as the basis for a Metroid or Metroid-like monster?

Thank you.

Does anyone know if sorcerers retain their bloodline powers while they are polymorphed? The Magic section states:

"While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form."

This should be cut and dry, but which bloodline powers depend upon the "original form" of the sorcerer? I'm mainly concerned with the Capstone abilities for this question.

For example, Boreal's 20th lvl Child of Ancient Winters ability gives a bunch of immunities, but is that a result of body modifications, or just mystical attunement to the cold?

The Celestial bloodline's Ascension gives immunities, untyped bonuses (notably not racial bonuses) and the ability to speak any language. Which ones are based on body features, and which are retained in a polymorph? Or since it's technically only a single (Su) ability, would you have to lose/retain all abilities together?

What about the Destined bloodline? Would all of it's abilities be retained, since it's all mystical? If so, and if the above capstones turn off in a polymorph, does that create a problematic power disparity between the bloodlines?

Thanks in advance, any answers here would be helpful...

Thanks all!

Still not sure where I saw it, though it might have been the D20 Modern stuff. I'll go take a look at the various suggested material. Trying to get set up for running a low magic / E6 game, and wanted some more interesting variants on treasure than +1 and masterwork items.

So, I swear I read something about advanced masterwork items (enhanced versions of standard masterwork gear) a month or so ago. But I've looked everywhere I can think of for them, to no avail. Am I going crazy? Does pathfinder, or even 3.5, have anything like this squirreled away in a random book somewhere?

Thanks in advance.

Quandary: That might make it better, but that isn't RAW.

Druid argument: The argument that "yes, it could be played that way, but if you are responsible it's balanced" is not really valid imo. Just because YOU play nice, doesn't mean others will, and merely having your arsenal of awesome creates feelings of irritation and inferiority in some... The U.S. hasn't dropped a nuke in 65 years, but it doesn't stop other countries from trying to build up an arsenal. I know that this is still an issue, because we are playing a game currently where this situation has been coming up constantly. It's a gestalt game, and the Druid character DOESN'T EVEN USE its other side (barbarian, limited casting options too much to be in a rage), and still outshines most of the other players. Oh, and another metagame irritation: because it is THE class for many power gamers, this highly thematic class attracts some of the most boring and bad RPers (referencing current situation, our "Druid" doesn't ever technically violate his oaths, but doesn't give a *^*% about nature and doesn't play out any of his class, except of course to reward his cat for eating things). And you can say all day "that's just bad RP/players/GM's/whatever" but without the overpowered option there, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The druid comes with too many good options. They are a full caster, they have a pet that is the equivalent of a whole other character, they have the ability to fight themselves. They can quicken a flame strike, hit like the fighter with minimal prep buffing before combat, and then top it off with their pet tiger and 3 summoned bears leaping on the opponent. What does the fighter do during this time period? Take a full round attack. Yeah, there's a great deal of disparity there.

My personal desire for the druid would be to see it take multiple paths: casting, fighting, and pets. Let them keep all three, but force some actual choices in what they want to be good at. Letting them have everything (and putting out yet more options in the form of spells with every splat) is just bad game design. PF improved it a bit, but the core of the druid, and the Tier 1 classes in general, are all intact, so it doesn't ultimately change the situation much.

I like BaComp. I fully integrate 3.5 into PF games I run, and find that it really expands options. Also, as a former devotee of CharOp boards over at WotC, it thrills my cold, dead, optimizer's heart knowing that there is the possibility of NEW numbers to crunch.

That said however, I think PF can stand on its own, especially with the APG release. I will probably run some PF only games in the future, and such games are far simpler to run. Having the option to do either however... that's what makes me a fan of PF and Paizo.

1) Power Attack does not work with Touch Attacks (nor does the ranged equivalent they put in). This is an unnecessary hit to martial characters, especially when it really only gets into the high damage range at higher levels (you know, the levels where casters are blowing up the world). Otherwise, PA works better and far more smoothly now, despite the overall lower cap on it (which some hardcore 3.5 people are not fond of).

2) Bardic music. Rounds per day is NOT better. The new Lingering Song prevents twisting, which was the whole point of taking lingering song in the first place imo.

You could make fairly effective Knights as either Fighters or Cavaliers, but as a class the Knight does convert over to PF very nicely. The biggest changes I feel they need are a better feat list (just give them access to all combat feats and move on), and a boost to their shield ability (perhaps +2 instead of +1 each time it goes up, or just have it apply to all opponents). But Loyal Beyond Death is great, and the Taunt at 4th? level is the best one I've seen anywhere (note that it doesn't say anywhere that it is mind-affecting).

I think if you gave them an animal companion/mount, along with the above changes, then you would have a nice, PF-ready, fully playable Knight.

I add "Dual Strike" to crusader at 20th, mirroring "Dual Boost" from s.sage. I like symmetry, and it really doesn't overpower anything.

Death effects to 10/initiator level, and autohypnosis (or perception) changed out for the concentration skill both make sense.

Otherwise... Not sure there's really anything else to do. I've played extensively with the ToB, both in 3.5 and in PF, and they really do balance out w/PF base classes.

Question: how would you suggest making battle grid set up faster?

1) I find that using generic tokens helps. Some people don't like this, but frankly I don't have the money to spend on 30 Orc minis that I might use 3 times over the course of a year. I do have a lot of minis, and I generally use them for named characters (pc or npc), rather than trying to precisely model each character. Also, this reduces the amount of junk you have to carry around; I personally have a little box filled with colored plastic "crystals", sorted by color, that has made my life much easier.

2) Mapping doesn't have to be precise, you can do stuff on the fly when necessary. Tell your players "Hey, I need 10-20 minutes to prep this, I wasn't expecting you to run off in this direction. Go take a food break." Then busily create a rough outline of what you want to do, and how you think things should go. Pull out some generic character numbers, bestiary monsters, etc. Pick a few minis you want to represent big bads for your encounter. Quickly pick out appropriate tiles or draw on the map, but don't worry about exact precision. Add flavor crystals (little details on the map, a couple traps [there's lists of them in the book, no work there], and anything else you feel like putting in to amuse yourself or your players). You're done. After you've done it a few times, you'll get even faster at it.

3) Make some wire templates for often used effects (20ft radius, 30ft cone, etc.), it speeds play up dramatically.

One thing it has done in my games unfortunately is to lower the number of "cool" actions my players would try. Very little jumping over chasms and swinging from chandeliers any more from my guys, but then they tend to prefer simple hack n slash nowadays to the older problem solving games we used to try. I think as we're getting older we're getting a little lazier :)

Cheers

I identify greatly with the quoted statement. Really, laziness is the biggest problem with immersion I've found in my games. The battle mat is not to blame. I actually really like the mat, since it lets the actual numbers on your sheet matter (for example, Combat Reflexes doesn't much matter when you don't have a mat to define AoO's), and it makes a lot of stuff easier. For those wanting a more "realistic" experience, I recommend using a grid-free mat, and perhaps some terrain; you can use a tape measure for movement and such. I've had good experiences with this in the past (though we use a large chessex grid map nowadays).

As to the 5 foot step thing sited above, I used to have a problem with it, but then I got over it. Really, it's pretty sensible to hop back slightly to give yourself the space you need to take an action. You see it in action movies/books/shows all the time. "Venser stumbles back from his attacker, moving outside the creatures reach just far enough away to safely form the mudra of protection with his hands, barring any further attacks." Seems reasonable to me. Potions and such are a little weird, but I've seen their modern day equivalents (syringes) incorporated into many an action movie quite well, so I don't see why you couldn't do the same with dnd. "Robilar shoves himself away from the demon, avoiding its chains has he reaches into his belt pouch of holding, willing it to bring him a much needed potion of healing. With his thumb he breaks the seal on the thin vial, and sloshes the bitter liquid over his beard as he tries to get as much of it in his mouth as he can while keeping distance between him and his foe." 5 foot steps are also not a get out of jail free card, since they become a far less useful option when characters are in fights with multiple opponents. In the examples above, the situation would have been much different if the character had backed into the threat radius of another monster.

This is a work in progress, but we've been working on some revisions for d6 SW here:
http://www.lostknightsrpg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Star_Wars_%28D6%29

I think that the d6 version was nice, but definitely shows it's age, and without revision is pretty much unplayable by today's standards of roleplaying rules. Despite this, many of the concepts it introduced and ways it handled characters were quite interesting and in tune with the setting... it also was THE resource many fiction writers went to for info on the setting, and really helped to flesh out the universe.

The d20 version is not my favorite, it overly weakens the force, but the saga edition shows some promise from what friends have told me.

It is. It has none of the penalties of wearing medium armor (armor check penalties to skill checks, reduced speed, fatigue if slept in).
-
Bracers of armor can provide all of those non-enhancement armor bonuses.
-
No, it's worth MORE than a material type. Material types are overcome by any +3 weapon (+4 for adamantine). Alignment is overcome by any +5 weapon. ONLY damage type and exceedingly rare DRs (like a demilich's DR/vorpal) aren't able to be overcome by bog-standard magic weapons.
-
Except that, especially at high levels, it should always be active whenever you need it. The activation time is only an issue at very low levels.
-
Stone gets the "I break every weapon that hits me and...

1)The penalties of medium armor are rarely an issue for the classes willing to use it at all, at least in my experience. And in that case, A chain shirt is still just as good, barring exceptional dexterity (on a primary charisma class), at least until 7th level.

2)At the cost of another item and slot, yes.

3)Hmm... I'll give you that one, I forgot about that particular PF change. It wasn't one of my favs, but it is in the rules nonetheless. Still, the fact is that a great deal of hits are going straight through the DR/dmg type. They are better when put in perspective, but still not adequate compensation imo for their tempo adjust, equivalence to standard items, and their limited duration.

4)This assumes that the encounter is planned (not sure about everyone else, but I try to spring at least half my encounters on players with limited actions to buff). If it isn't, then tempo remains an issue.

Earth) This is an all or nothing thing, and doesn't protect against things that can't be broken. Really, thematically there should be an armor ability in there. If Death and Air get one, so should the oracle channeling the most solid of elements.

The biggest problems with armor, as I see it:

1) It needs to be front-loaded in effectiveness. A class ability that is taken in place of some fairly potent other abilities should be more valuable than a 200gp item.

2) Even when considering the raw AC as eventually equaling out, you still eliminate the potential for bonuses on the armor, and should thus get something to make it a bit better... and DR of the type provided is not that thing. The Wind mystery is more along the lines of what I think is a good compensation ability.

3) The DR is nice, but of less worth than a material type DR. Unless they changed it from 3.5, everything with a bite attack pierces your defense, and slashing is super common, making Heavens next to worthless.

4) The standard action to activate is imo the biggest single problem. Tempo in combat is hugely important, and the standard action to put up a buff that could be easily replicated with medium armor is a wasted action that could go toward a better buff, or an attack. This problem is only worse at higher levels, and I cannot think of any arguments, from a numbers perspective at least, that make the armor revelations worthwhile when this is taken into consideration. Even simply wearing a chain shirt to get around sleeping in armor is worth it, if it means not wasting your first action every combat.

Edit) The reason that changing to one of the other types of bonus would be better is that it would scale more evenly with level, and give the character something they couldn't do as well with a mundane item at low levels. It also means they don't have to sacrifice the ability to get special enhancements on their armor, and allows them a free slot for a different magic item (technically armor does too, however there is less worthwhile to go in the armor slot).

extra complaint) Am I blind, or does Earth end up not getting an armor revelation at all?! I mean, not that I'd ever take it on any of the mysteries, but it seems like they of all the mysteries should get one.

This is what happens when I assume someone elses statements to be true.

I thought the Summoner had no access to SM 7-9 at all and have based this thread on that using the (SP) as a solution. But it's already there in the final playtest pdf. Unless there was a correction made to the final draft, I see that they do have access to those Summon Monster spell-like abilities.

So why were there people saying they didn't have access to them? They have it as a spell-like ability which is fine.

I guess ignore this thread now, cause I mistakingly thought otherwise.

Because people want the spamability of the standard summon spells, rather than the SLA and its longer duration.

Personally, I like the longer duration and the open spell slots, and I think it fits the power curve of PF better. I also like that it differentiates them from druid; if you want pet spam, go druid, but if you want super pets that crush, go Summoner.

Reading through the Cavalier's abilities, I noticed wording I do not like: "The cavalier must end his movement adjacent to an enemy" This is from the Protect the Meek ability in Order of the Shield. This means that the Cavalier cannot use a lance, since it has reach, with this ability. This wording already hoses reach characters with Step Up and Stand Still feats, I would hate to see it have unintended consequences here. Perhaps "The cavalier must end his movement threatening an enemy" would work better.

+1

I had a thread about this on the original oracle.

I felt that because Divine spells generally aren't quite as powerful as Sorcerer/Wizard that moving some of the spells known back a level or two wouldn't hurt too much.

I feel that with the cure spell changes it alleviated the problem a little, but I still feel like it wouldn't hurt to bring the Mystery bonus spells to 2/5/7/9/11/13/15/17/19 or even 1/4/6/8/10/12/14/16/18.

Either that... or give the Oracle another spell known at the beginning tier of each spell level (2 instead of one).

+1

I don't care which, but either move everything back so that oracles start at level 1 (giving them access to a single spell within their mystery at a level earlier than they could normally access it) or giving out another 1st level spell at first level. But this bothered me since I first read the Oracle.

Or they could just give them an appropriate domain, along with the granted power, and everything would be fixed (and the energy mysteries wouldn't have to buy immunity to their element as a revelation). This is my preferred solution.

Cartigan wrote:

Which is completely counter how every OTHER magic modifying feat works.
Also, would that mean that the Eidolon, as a summoned creature, would benefit from Augment Summoning.

Lets see how many other exception rules the summoner has.

1. Summoner shares magic items with its companion.

2. companion can't wear armor.

3. Bipedal Eidolon gets reach at large but no extra reach going huge. I guess its arms stop growing

4. Eidolon is summoned sorta even tho technically its not considered summoned. see ritual below. Can't be dispelled and can attack through a magic circle but can be dismissed and banished.

5. Eidolon companion has to be near summoner or it loses hit points. That is a weird mechanic.

6. Spell like ability can only have one active, takes a standard to cast ands lasts a minite a level. Augment summoning apparently works on the SLA because the powers that be said so.

7. Eidolon is summoned with a ritual? Since it is summoned with said ritual apparently augment summoning don't work.

This class is going to be a rules nightmare for months to come.

This is a good list, and hopefully the PTB take a look at it. They really should clean this up to be more streamlined.

Though I will also say that I am a fan of how the class performs with the above exceptions. I just would prefer they keep the same functionality, with fewer rules exceptions.

And for my part, I'm also perfectly happy with the spell list; they're primary class ability is not casting, but their pet. People comparing an animal companion to a custom built Eidolon are comparing a weasel familiar a dire bear animal companion. The Eidolon outclasses pretty much all other pets, and is better than pretty much anything you can summon at an equivalent level... and if it isn't, you can always just summon the better creature, and have it last minutes rather than rounds. No, it isn't "on par" with the big three casters, but it is certainly on par with the rest of the classes, and that is the power level that things need to be designed for.

---

As far as fixing the rules inconsistencies, my suggestions:

1. Summoner shares magic items with its companion.
Don't let it do this

2. companion can't wear armor.
Keep this, it actually makes things more simple

3. Bipedal Eidolon gets reach at large but no extra reach going huge. I guess its arms stop growing
Get rid of this. It isn't even that overpowering, as reach at higher levels is expected, just control the level at which Huge can be gained.

4. Eidolon is summoned sorta even tho technically its not considered summoned. see ritual below. Can't be dispelled and can attack through a magic circle but can be dismissed and banished.
They need to pick one and go with it... Preferably making it not count as a summoned creature, as otherwise the summoner becomes "the most easily defeated class"

5. Eidolon companion has to be near summoner or it loses hit points. That is a weird mechanic.
It seems like over-complication. I would just say that if they are separated by X distance for more than Y rounds (Y = very low number, 1-3), the eidolon dissipates, or something. The summoner is their anchor after all. The hp thing just seems... wonky.

6. Spell like ability can only have one active, takes a standard to cast ands lasts a minite a level. Augment summoning apparently works on the SLA because the powers that be said so.
This is fine imo. It is a special class ability that mimics a specific spell, but isn't exactly like it. The rules are pretty much all covered by the text in the ability, and pretty intuitive.

7. Eidolon is summoned with a ritual? Since it is summoned with said ritual apparently augment summoning don't work.
Just make it not count as "summoned" for all purposes. Which would be ironic, given the class name, but very functional given the rules of the game.

Turning alternatives...

Those are some pretty decent ideas, and using a different "battery" is a nice way of working it, though without explicit statements to such in the rules there will be a great many gm's out there that will rule it out all together as an option.

Do remember btw, that though turning now requires a feat, there is precedent for giving turning without channeling. And that turning "just undead" isn't the only option, as for example one could turn fire elementals and control water elementals with the Waves mystery.

On the whole however, I think it unlikely that Paizo will fix this particular facet of the Oracle, in large part b/c they probably don't see it as something to "fix" in the first place. I just find it disappointing that something with an innate connection to divine power can't actually use that power to ward off thematically appropriate stuff. Though the "spell powered turning" thing you mentioned did seem to be a pretty good idea, and to be more in line with the mechanics already available for the spontaneous caster, so maybe they'll toy with that a bit...

And hopefully fix the AC revelations, cuz they're pretty pointless.

Free cure spells = good change

Bones foci = weak revelations (especially the final revelation)

Armor bonuses from revelations = weak (convert to natural AC, deflection, or whatever, as appropriate for the focus)

No turning/channeling access = inappropriate and weak (several classes should get one or both of these, and with the other advantages the cleric gets, it is not out of the question to add these to balance out the oracle, especially for backwards compatibility with divine feats; further, thematically they are appropriate, as foci such as flame and nature should be anathema to undead)

Flame foci burning spells = fairly useless at low levels, fairly useless at high levels; needs more spells, and better damage (=caster lvl, not spell level) that might actually pierce low level energy resistances.

Lore foci Int bonus = potentially confusing (make it a revelation that is taken only at a fixed level, or make it confer points from previous levels; as is, a player that isn't good at the min/maxing is punished for not taking the ability earlier)

I for one am very happy with the spell list changes, and commend paizo for the updated summoner. After playtesting it as an NPC for my party, I can say that they were ridiculously overpowered, and the changes brought them in line nicely.

So, just my two cents, after running a Summoner and a Witch up against my party this Saturday:

Summoner
This class seems a bit strong. The Eidolon, despite having been made more for flavor than for power, was still quite a powerhouse, and was able to get 5 attacks, pounce, grab, and a bunch of other abilities that made it more than a match for several characters that were specialized combatants. The players ended up ignoring the critter entirely, and killed the Summoner... if they hadn't done that as quickly as they did, they probably would have died.

The additional summoning abilities, as well as the nice spell list for augmentation and battlefield control (black tentacles is quite nice) makes them, imo, a bit too strong. My personal suggestions would be to limit the number of extra attacks for the eidolon, bump up the level haste is gained, up the cost on a few of the better eidolon abilities, and call it a day.

Witch
This class wasn't nearly as impressive to me, and the since the witch got killed in the first few rounds, I can't say much about balance (though all the touch effects were somewhat off-putting for a primary caster with low defensive and offensive capabilities). What I did notice however was that the class felt a bit... confusing for me to put together and run. The various hexes, how they work together, specific rules, all of it kind of blurred together for me. Not that I couldn't have figured it out with a few hours of reading and playing around with numbers to make the best stuff... But I was pressed for time, and for those GM's and players wanting something that can be learned and used in a reasonable amount of time (probably a fair share of those playing) I felt that it was just a bit poorly laid out for me to grasp.

A bit of streamlining would be nice, and this goes for the eidolon abilities as well.

--

Anyway, just a brief comment from my personal experiences. Hopefully it will be helpful.

I am actually more fond of using the PF Wizard as the model for the Psion. For specialization alternatives, use the expanded class features WotC put up, but don't include them as alternate class features (so, give them the benefit, but none of the cost)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070314a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070411a

*Sings*

"Stat stat stat... stat the race for Pathfinder"...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

In my games I do a single +2 in whatever attribute the player chooses, and leave everything else the same. Works out very well.

A Man In Black wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

I dont think that will help with someone taking the 'they have inifinite resources' stance which is what I was originally suggesting that to.

Speaking of which. TOB classes do have limited resources; just like fighters, rogues, and rangers, they have to stop when they run out of HP or healing. Those three classes don't rely upon X/day abilities, yet nobody complains that they can do infinite encounters per day, because they clearly cannot.

Fighters are clearly overpowered, Power attack and Weapon spec should be usable on a vancian system ofcourse. And rogues.....they can only sneak attack twice a day, and only once on tuesdays. Barbarians also need to attend anger management classes.

/rage

Anyway, to the OP's question: Little conversion is necessary.

Consolidate Skills, give Diamond Mind Perception as a primary skill, call it a day. Theoretically you could toss in Adaptive Style as a free feat in a dead level somewhere, but it isn't strictly necessary.

Having just made an Oracle for an upcoming game, I wanted to share some of the thoughts that occurred to me in the process.

1) Domains
It seems as though there would be more system consistency and general utility for the class if the foci were each given a specific domain during character creation. All the foci line up with existing domains, and give spell lists almost identical to them. The domain powers in each of the domains are more than fitting for the appropriate foci (fire domain/flame foci for example), and without the granted abilities the oracle ends up having to choose things like Fire Resistance as one of their revelations (further weakening them in comparison to the cleric). In short, just give Oracle a single domain that is appropriate to their focus, along with the granted power of said domain.

2) Undead Turning / Energy Channeling
Yes, I know that Oracle is supposed to be something different than a "spontaneous casting cleric". However, they already lose a lot of utility due to the drastic reduction in versatility, and two domains (or one, if the above suggestion is taken). Losing channeling is just a bit much... at the very least they should get the Turn/Rebuke feat. Imo, this is backed up by the fact that they get a cleric's spell list; they are channeling raw spiritual power, not just "flame" or "bone" spells (and flame actually deserves turning anyway, can't think of something undead fear more than holy flame). Adding this in would also make the class more entertaining when used with 3.5 material, since Divine feats would then become available.

3) Revelations
Just a smattering of various thoughts really:
a)I like having the separate sets of abilities, but it seems like there should be a "general" category that anyone can take. Turning, channeling, special spellcasting boosts, things like that. Such a list could also include "Curse-Specific Revelations" which would provide a way of further exploring one of the defining mechanics of the class.
b) I think that along with revelations, there should be a bonus feat or two thrown in, similar to sorcerer. The progression is kind of boring until key levels. Or, another alternative would be to just increase the number of revealations gained to 1 per 3 levels... This combines especially well with a "General" category or "Curse-Specific" category.
c) Most revelation abilities should be usable more times a day. Compare to the Sorcerer again, and you see a lot more utility in their stuff overall.
d) Should be more spellcasting-amplification type revelations. Sorcerers get bloodline arcana, but what do Oracles get?
e) The capstone abilities are under-whelming in comparison to most of the other classes.

Overall, I really love the Oracle's flavor (curses are fantastic, the flaws add huge roleplaying hooks), but I feel that they are lacking in versatility compared to the Cleric/Druid, and lacking in power compared to both the Sorcerer and the Cleric/Druid. Unless one or both of these are dealt with, the class will be a very sub-par choice for anyone even remotely concerned with the utility of their character.

The masterwork component of a masterwork item has a DC 20 to create

This is still the same (the DC to craft a masterwork item is still 20), I didn't change the dc for crafting a masterwork item. I actually wouldn't mind it being 25, but figure it isn't worth changing and adding even further complexity.

Dependining on how realistic you want to get, you may consider (even if you don't implement anything about it) that most - if not all - pre-industrial revolution craft/trade was working on a apprentice-journeyman-master system. The master isn't only a better worker, he's in charge of the show. An item requiring a master to produce (rather than merely supervise) may have a significant price tag, even if its a dagger. At the other end of the scale, 7500 gp (or 15 000 gp if imported) for a masterwork full-plate armor is a high price to pay, especially if you can probably have a +3 chainmail for less than that (considering that the price on enchantments are divideed by 5 under 15000 gp)

I think I may reduce the masterwork multiplier for armor to x3, you are correct that the multiplier is too high.

The import/export thing is hanging you up, probably b/c I didn't write it clearly enough (I think I may actually move that to the end, so that it isn't the first thing people see). That only effects the pricing in rural areas, and doesn't change the list cost in the book even then (rural areas have costs for basic, locally produced items CUT, while the list prices for imports remain the same as listed). Large cities have basics (food, shelter, services) increased in price, but item costs remain the same. These prices remain constant for ease of play.

Otherwise, I gave more thoughts to your document. My first suggestion would be to re-read it and clarify it. Sometimes it takes me two or three readings to...

I need to clarify it, I agree. It reads like a technical manual, and a somewhat confusing one at that.

rydi123 wrote:

The difficulty of the crafting remains the same, so the journeyman still can't make masterwork weaponry.

Is that new? Masterwork used to be DC 20 as opposed to DC 15.

Hmm? Not sure what you are referring to... I didn't change the dc's for the crafting of Masterwork items at all, and if it says something to that effect, it's a typo I need to correct. I am working on some alternate crafting rules here, but masterwork stuff stays the same there too.

Yes, I don't argue that a dagger involves less metal and workmanship, but I'd rather say that it takes a master to make a masterwork dagger but merely a journeyman to make a normal longsword.

I agree that the masterwork price need a tweek when it comes to size. I'd propose a fixed price (which accouts for the masterworkmanship more than anything), which could be divided by two for light weapons andmultiplied by 1.5 (or two) for 2-handed weapons.

The difficulty of the crafting remains the same, so the journeyman still can't make masterwork weaponry.

We initially were thinking about tweeking the costs via variable set prices. When we looked at it, we saw that the numbers resulted in simple, cheap weapons costing the same amount as labor intensive, high material cost weapons (and armor, and generic items). What we wanted to reflect was the fact that simple items, such as a quarterstaff, even when made with fine workmanship, are simply not as expensive or labor intensive to produce as a forged shortsword, and with a fixed masterwork cost, the price variance is most often going to be negligible.

Also, a side benefit of a multiplier rather than fixed price, is that the system rewards people for picking less commonly used weapons, at least early in play. Cheap weapons to masterwork, such as the quarterstaff, have a +1 to hit, while higher damage/crit weapons like the greatsword, are much more costly to masterwork (thus presenting a tension between weapon choices, and a reason to choose the less expensive weapons).

Thanks for the comments. I'll try and explain those points.

Magical items become even more attractive if most income/prices are divided by 5 (including magic items), but most adventuring gears (imported goods) retain the same price as in PHB. Do you consider magical items to be mostly imported too?

Yes. The pricing assumes that in villages/thorps/hamlets, the economy just doesn't deal with magic items and such. Thus the common fantasy trope of the small town merchant taking their wares to a big city to exchange for coins, or barter for the manufactured items they need.

I will admit however, that the wording and mechanic on the rural vs. urban is potentially abusable, and is one of the least certain parts of my model. I am in the process of playtesting it to see about its viability.

Another thing to consider is that most of the play will be in mid- to large-size cities, and that is where most of the magical goods will actually be produced. One might find a steal on a locally produced potion of healing, but won't be able to get a bunch of them, and will be highly unlikely to find a +3 sword of coolness out in the middle of nowhere (even if a good crafter settled down out there, a mastercraftsman able to produce such goods would certainly know the value of their own goods, and price accordingly, especially to outsiders).

As far as the greater desirability of the reduced-price magic items, I think you are correct, but I think this is more in line with the standard of play assumed by the 3.x Core stuff. The way the prices/wealth scale in 3.x assumes that characters are spending huge chunks of money on little magic items as early as 5th level, and assumes a fairly high amount of casters (certainly not a low magic setting). In such an environment, small, rapidly produced trinkets would be far more abundant, and most well-off individuals would have several minor items, but larger items would be far less viable to produce.

This may lead to some issues were the price of a masterwork item is inferior to the (unadjusted) price of a similar item.

If I understand correctly, the concern here is that a masterwork, low-cost item (say, a dagger) will be less expensive than a non-masterwork, high cost item (say, a longsword).

This is purposeful. The items that are costed higher use more metal, and take more time to forge, for the most part. It seems reasonable that a high quality dagger might not be worth as much as even a regular longsword.

The other interpretation (not sure which point you were trying to make) is that you are talking about the differences between a hamlet and a big city for example, where you could buy a locally produced masterwork dagger for less than a normal dagger in a big city. This ideally won't happen for multiple reasons, such as the fact that the metal to produce the dagger isn't actually local in the first place, and the fact that the town doesn't likely have many daggers of that quality anyway. But, assuming that one could do that, and you took the time to travel all the way out to the small town (likely spending rations along the way), I figure it makes sense and rewards good business decisions (kind of like going out of your way to shop at a special discount store instead of the local shop).

I like this, I'm going to have a look at all of the gear and such to see how it works out.

Glad to hear someone likes it.

Working from suggestions in a previous thread, suggestions from friends w/business degrees, and various stuff on the web, I've come up with some rules to playtest for a better economy. The core of it is that it prevents the explosion of character wealth as they level, but it has several other lesser purposes, such as making masterwork costs vary by item type (no more 600gp quarterstaffs).

Link here:Economics

Feedback is appreciated.

...not directed at you...

Gotcha. It just came right after one of my posts, so I suppose I made an assumption that it was directed at me. My apologies.

And I do in fact agree with some of your points in the above post; Paizo has a good track record, and there can be a fine line between fan suggestions and fans overstepping their bounds. And some fans are in fact attacking decisions that haven't even been made yet, and criticizing Paizo for looking at all their options, which is just plain silly.

The key to problem solving is to choose from all the options available, but to do that, you do have to actually look at all the options.

I may be wrong, but I though Pathfinder dropped the "losing XP for spells" idea. If they did, then there is no reason for a psion to suffer from losing XP.

They lose gold instead of xp.

I think there have been significant indications by a number of posters that the using the current system is a major factor in their decision. That using anything but a system matching what they had in the previous edition. I find that saying there is no indication is a significant understatement.

I'm going to have to say that I'm going to have to go with Paizo's judgment here, and that if I had to guess which one of you was more likely to drop the ball, it would be you, given their experience, man power, and desire for this product to actually be successful. They could be off, but when it comes down to it, they are the professionals putting their time and energy into it in order to actually make a well received product.

Interesting choice of words there. It is a false dichotomy to say that the choice is between "Paizo and me" for psi systems. Further, as Paizo hasn't said anything regarding the contents of their system, nor have I made statements regarding exactly what I would do with such a system, I find it... Odd that you would choose to make that sort of a statement in the first place.

Further, while their experience and desire to make something work will aid in their creation of a good system, it does not prevent them from making mistakes, nor does it make them superior to a great many gaming enthusiasts out there... It just means they are getting paid for their work.

And, since I want them to continue to make money for their work, I am making suggestions, in good faith and to the best of my ability, regarding the system. One of the best traits of Paizo is that they actually listen to and care about the opinions of fans, going so far as to actually interact with them via their boards. Silence on a given issue, and leaving an issue to one's "faith in Paizo" doesn't imo aid Paizo, it actually deprives creators of well reasoned alternative perspectives.

This whole thing reminds me of the introduction of 4E and the strategic thinking related to that...

Yes, I quite agree.

rydi123 wrote:

I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...

ANd from this thread we know if will alienate what 6 or 8 people? thats the ones who keep saying it, I love how you throw that up as a fact, when you have zero sales data and can't talk for everyone. yet when anyone brings up anything you shoot them down saying most psionic fans wont use it. Even after it has been shown why the current system wont work.

Guys in this thread(myself included) do not cover the whole of psionic fans, nore can any one of use lay claim to any proof or sales to say see your loose x numbers here or y number of folks here

Paizo will do what they want and, like it or not many gamers , really dislike the current system, including some folks that will be making the call about a new system.

No one is stopping you from using your 3.5 system, but it's not core so there is zero reason why it 100% must be remade as it is.

Little angry there with that one seeker'?

Further, you seem to wobble on what can and can't be proven, claiming that a great many want this or that, then in the next post say that we can know nothing. If we can't know anything, determine anything, or even make educated guesses at things, why do you bother continuing to make claims at all?
---
No one has proven anything regarding the UN-usability of the current system; quite the opposite in fact. A few well reasoned psi fans have tried, painstakingly, to explain their side of the argument, and been pretty much ignored, with no valid rebuttal or fact checking, in favor of "it sucks" "it doesn't fit" and "it isn't balanced"(with no evidence backing them). Further they have largely stated they don't like psi as a concept period, so they aren't even the market that should be targeted for a psi product.
---
Yes, paizo will do what they like, and the gamers will do as they like with their money. This is a non-issue for the argument however, and you seem to be using it as a reason to stop caring about the issue at all, and to hand-wave away valid concerns of fans/customers.
---
And, in addition to marketing issues, I'm adding psionics to the things I will stop discussing with you from this point out. Feel free to post (I can't stop you, and wouldn't try if I could), but I will be talking around you so as not to descend into some sort of unfriendly flame war, or wasting my time trying to explain my position further to you. Happy holidays, it was interesting discussing things with you, and educational.

Oh, I know about Harn. And I could run this under nearly any game system (GURPS comes to mind). The problem is finding the players willing to put up with it, rather than the "OK, cool, I get a +3 Flaming Sword of Weasel Bleeding!" method of rewarding characters for kit. :)

Since adding in more economic realism, my players have grumbled but also had more fun, and been better roleplayers. Go figure.

Any suggestions on how to implement/formalize economic changes in this manner? Aside from pointing at a whole other system/game world?

Contemplating substituting Con damage for XP costs for psionic powers, at either 1 Con per power level (thus a 5th-level power costs 5 Con dmg) or half that (a 5th-level power costs 2 Con dmg). Too restrictive, not restrictive enough, just right, or back to the drawing board?

It doesn't eat into resources the same way, while reducing in-play utility overly much imo.

Psions also don't have the support the casters do. Psionics get 2, 3 books tops before you break into 3rd party. casters have, a better variety of metamagic, a better item creation system, free scaling, reserve feats, a boatload more prcs, more room for utility, more spells, the spell compendium's most broken cheese at thier disposal, cantrips/orisons, and a lot more magic items dedicated to thier benefit.

Indeed. Honestly, Divine is the king of casting classes. I've been wondering since 2nd ed why Divine casters get better saves, bab, and armor, while still getting awesome spells, and a daily spell list limited only by the books published at a given point in time.

Can I get a Cleric/Druid safety lock? Maybe drop all their numbers to low progression? Take away their domains?
But no, of course not, this elephant is too firmly entrenched in standard play to ever move.

stuff

I think that argument you made was a bit of a slippery slope, and at least as far as the vocal psi fanbase goes, there has been no indication that they will abandon the entire system if it varies from their expectations. They have in fact been fairly reasonable, and shown interest in a variety of options; they just don't want vancian, and they don't want yet another nerf to their abilities base upon misunderstanding of the rules.

And I'm glad you have faith in Paizo. I like them, I want them to take primacy in 3.5 publishing, and I am a huge fan of PF. But anyone can drop the ball, especially if they move forward on false assumptions or poor marketing strategies (larger, more established companies have failed in this area). I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...

I hate to throw another monkey wrench into this debate, but another thing wizards/sorcerers/druids/clerics have over psions is more choices for higher level spells/powers. Which almost forces a psion to augment powers to be competitive. I mean if I don't take any offensive 8th or 9th level powers, I almost have to bump up my 7th level powers to make up for the difference in power.

Man, I can't believe I almost bought into that whole mess that psionics are overpowered.

If people yell something loud enough, long enough, it is human nature to eventually accept it as truth... politicians rely on this all the time.

Oh, and in a totally unrelated tangent: be careful if you live in the US, old people are going to be rounded up into death camps and executed to reduce health care costs. The media told me so.