sgriobhadair's page

Best Worfarged Race?

Is this a Klingon thing?

Elves mature physically almost as quickly as humans and pretty much do so mentally as well, but at maturity they have a very strong drive for reproduction and spend the rest of the "childhood" period having and raising children, generally one at a time. Elven culture supports them and encourages this. They're allowed to devote their full efforts to their children and don't have to do other work during this period. Towards the end, the drive fades and fertility drops drastically. That's when they begin to prepare for whatever they'll do in their adult life.

Children outside of this period are possible, but rare. Elves still enjoy sex for recreation, but the drive isn't anywhere near as strong.

One of the best workarounds yet; doesn't require changing the rulebook. So they mature around, say, 35 - but then spend the next 70 years raising two children, one at a time. Only then do they start their 'proper' career. So 110 years 'adulthood' would actually be their 'career start' age rather than (say) sexual maturity. And they are family-focused (which isn't measurable in pathfinder) in the first hundred years, explaining the lack of character-sheet-measurable skills, feats or levels.

They then take longer to train (10d6 years for trained classes, instead of 2d6 for humans) because they are doing their training alongside time with their families. In other races, a trainee wizard would most likely be training full-time, but elves wouldn't be.

I like it.

Infinite Perspective Goggles** spoiler omitted **

Don't forget Peril Sensitive Goggles

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this ...

As much as I like the Con/life-force idea for magic, I'm going to drop it for the current world build - but keep my notes and possibly use it in some form in the future.

Using a mix of the helpful suggestions by assorted people (and one or two of my original ideas) I'm going with the following

Rule changes on magic and crafting:
- No additional restrictions on crafting potions or scrolls
- No freely available purchase of magic items other than potions or scrolls (they must be crafted, found in-game, or bought at a negotiated price through interactions with NPCs)
- No wands, other than bonded items (a flavour thing as much as anything)
- No crafting feats required, although the prerequisites for the feats must be met (because the components needed for each item and the lower availability of gp add enough restriction already, without having to use a feat up)
- Prerequisites for items MUST be met (no +5 to DC alternative)
- Many items require specific ('talismanic') components; the more powerful the item, the more difficult it is to find out (acquire or research a recipe) what components are required and to acquire those components.(For example, a +1 sword might only require a lynx or wolf claw, but a +5 sword require a claw from a mature dragon.)
- The Master Craftsman feat is only available to Elves and Dwarves.
- Hobgoblin PCs cannot play any arcane casting class (not even Bard or Alchemist) (Divine casters are unrestricted).
- No universalist wizards; they must pick a focused arcane school.
- Superior Masterwork (see posts in thread) weapons and armour and Supreme Masterwork weapons are available

Relevant Campaign Considerations/Notes:
- Reduced treasure values so there is less gp to spend on magic items.
- Carefully set the difficulty of each encounter (there will be more humanoids than monsters anyway, so they'll have the same restrictions as the PCs)
- Carefully set the spellcasting-for-hire level of each individual city
- Arcane Casters have social issues to contend with when dealing with hobgoblins or passing through hobgoblin areas (arcane spellcasting = mandatory death sentence if convicted in the three hobgoblin nations, possession of arcane magic items = confiscation/destruction of items, heavy fine or several months sentence).
- Elves have +2 to Wisdom instead of to Int (encourages e.g. Druids and Rangers) and "Elven Magic: Elves add +1 to the DC of any saving throws against enchantment spells that they cast. Elves with a Wisdom of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day— detect magic, detect poison, know direction and speak with animals. The caster level for these effects is equal to the elf's level."
- No gnomes in this world.

Still worldbuilding ... I have a culture who live in wide open plains and work with cattle and horses, sometimes mounted, sometimes on foot.

I want them to use lengths of rope as a weapon. They might be one end of a regular 50 ft rope (with the rest wrapped around them), or just a shorter length (say 10 or 12 feet) of rope. After training, they'll be able to swing this in order to knock down or trip horses and cattle. They could also use it in a more martial way, to knock riders from their mounts.

I'm trying to work out how to do the stats on this ... here are some thoughts
- it may either not cause damage, or only cause nonlethal damage. Being hit by the end of a skilfully-used rope probably hurts as much as being being hit by a really good punch; generally it's just a pain but sometimes (bad luck or really good user) it can cause serious damage.
- Being able to trip, dismount riders, have reach (it's a long length of rope after all) and the potential to cause lethal damage are way too powerful to have in one weapon just for the price of an exotic weapon feat. So, to get the best out of the weapon would require additional feats.

Purchasing and weight - same as rope (hemp); only the end section of it is used for fighting.
Basic - exactly the same rules and description as fighting with a whip, except it deals bludgeoning damage instead of slashing. Or does it make more sense, given the rope is bulkier than a whip and a handful to wield, to improve the hit dice to d6 (same as a club) but make attacking with it a full-round action?

I'd give the proficiency away as a campaign trait (otherwise, requires an exotic weapon proficiency).

Feat - "Improved Rope Fighting" (mimics improved unarmed strike, or whip mastery from ultimate combat)
Prerequisite: Weapon Proficiency (Rope fighting)
Fighters with ropes may now deal armed or unarmed damage, at their choice, and no longer provoke strikes of opportunity for using the rope.

Feat - "Greater Rope Fighting" (mimics unseat)
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Rope Fighting, Improved Trip, Base Attack Bonus +6 (in line with other 'greater' feats).
You can attempt to knock a rider from their mount with your rope. If your regular attack hits, you may immediately make a free bull rush attempt in addition to the normal damage. If successful, the target is knocked off his mount and lands prone in a space adjacent to his mount that is directly away from you.

What do you think? Certainly flavourful, but is it balanced - attractive but not overpowered?

sgriobhadair wrote:

Wind Chime wrote:

These rules really don't stop magic item creation not when commoners are a cheap resource and adventurers are as rich a creosote what peasant wouldn't give up a small fragment of their life for more wealth than they will ever see in their lifetime (about a thousand gold) which is still chump change for an adventuring party.

Or if you are th typical heroic protagonists you do a collection from every village you save.

I hadn't actually considered people selling their life force. While this might occasionally happen, life force would be considered absolutely sacred, and even raising the idea with most NPCs would be so repugnant it would get the party driven out of town. The gift of life force would be seen as deeply personal and beyond monetary value

Agreed, and not just because I love your ideas. I wouldn't necessarily allow the fabled peasant railgun in my game, and I wouldn't allow people selling their life force either...at least not without serious consequences. It might make some sense if the actual SALE of life force resulted in something different than willing donation. Maybe filthy lucre taints it, resulting in undead? Other cultures have sin-eaters and blood money, it might be good to reflect this here as well so you can still have evil wizards buying children off the black market to sacrifice that almost always result in undead being created, and the fabled evil, fallen, necromantic society that's backbone was built on such an unwholesome practice.

Hmm, I like this and there's definitely potential there ... I'll think through this and see if I can come up with a consistent rule that works this way. Thank you.

So, we could have a mechanism that either taints the life force or taints the donor if the life force is given with the wrong motives. I like the idea, but can't yet see how to turn it into a rule.

I'd also been toying with an alternative where only the life force from a magical person (or sentient creature) could be used to power magic items - which does make a certain amount of sense (if you want to tie magic to an item, you need life force from a person with magic tied to them). This would be fairly self-limiting in that there are not so many magical people around, and many would want to keep hold of their Con for their own crafting and because they would have a better understanding of its value. The downside is that it still doesn't help the fighters in a party much with their needs, so without further development it's a no-go.

Or hell, maybe the life force requirement should be increased a bit to make it really unlikely that people down on their luck would sell it? Perhaps a level in addition to Con? I dunno.

I wouldn't go this route - certainly not with a level - I'm not looking to put players off crafting *that* much. Plus, levels are a bit too abstract from any in-world quantity, that makes explaining it more difficult.

A couple of final alternatives that could keep the life force idea 'alive', either used together or separately:

One - Newly created magic items are unstable, and need to be used (worn/wielded) by the donor for a certain amount of item before the magic stabilises. If it is separated from the donor by too much distance or for too long before this time is up, then the magic dissipates and the item becomes a mundane one (and can't be re-enchanted). The time needed for the item to stabilise would depend on the value/power of the item - more powerful items need longer to stabilise. (How long? Six months per 10,000 gp (or part thereof) of value sound about right?) (TGMaxMaxer's earlier suggestion about 'binding' items made me think of this; this is similar, but the bound item eventually keeps its enchantments permanently)

Two - The donor would need to be someone capable of using the item to its potential ... use a peasant as a donor and create a magic sword ... and don't expect the sword perform better than it would have done for the peasant. The item needs the life force from a worthy individual. So a weapon needs to have as a donor someone with a BAB equal to it's 'pluses' cost. (A simple +5 sword needs the donor to be at least 5th level martial, 10th level arcane caster or 7th level divine caster). The same table that gives weapon costs against pluses (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/weapons.html) could be used to convert the cost of any item into a plus; use this as the level or hit dice the donor needs to be. Maybe some further stipulation - items that replicate/require spells need a donor from a class capable of casting those spells.

Actually, I'm really liking this final alternative - anyone see obvious flaws with it?

There have been a few changes while this thread has been going on, so I'll post the version of the rule for changes to magic item creation as I have it now, to save newcomers having to hunt the thread for them:

Magic items cannot be freely bought (however, they may still be found in-game or bought through NPC interactions).

Exceptions:
* Magical properties may be added to a wizard’s bonded object without requiring an investment of Con. Restrictions for the bonded object remain as usual (its magical properties only function for the creating wizard, and are lost if the item is replaced or its creator dies).
* Magic items that lose their properties completely after use (or after several uses) do not require an investment of Con, as they require only a trivial amount of life force to activate.
* Magic items that enhance Con, such as a Belt of Might Constitution, effectively store larger amounts of Life force and therefore can only be created by investing a number of Con points equal to the enhancement given by the device. This makes these items extremely rare.

It's a neat idea, and I'm a fan of low-magic settings, but like others have said you'll need to throw martials a bone somehow. If the wizard gets to keep all his spells, but I lose my +3 sword, I'm not sure why I'd ever play a melee character.

A minor bone at lowish levels is the existence of superior masterwork items.

Regular masterwork costs +300 gp for a weapon, gives +1 to hit, +0 damage
Superior masterwork costs +1200 gp for a weapon, gives +2 to hit, +0 damage
Supreme masterwork costs +2700 gp for a weapon, gives +3 to hit, +0 damage

(Imagine how much easier and more efficiently you can handle a sword that is perfectly balanced. As usual, masterwork and magic benefits on the same weapon do not stack).

Regular masterwork costs +150 gp for armour, armor check penalty reduced by 1

Superior masterwork costs +600 gp for armour, armor check penalty reduced by 2, maximum dexterity bonus increased by 1 and spell failure chance reduced by 5%; however superior masterwork armour has to be fitted to a particular wearer and will not give its additional benefits to wearers of significantly different height, weight or shape.

(No Supreme masterwork for armour, as it doesn't seem feasible to me to reduce the effects of bulky armour by that much).

Fewer magic items? Oh, well, that's easy. Just hand out cool personalized items for each PC. The old Legendary items. No "Christmas tree". You could also get rid of "ye Olde Magic Shoppe" and magic item crafting (except for consumables, potions, wands, scrolls).

If magic items exist at all, someone can make them. And if NPCs can, PCs should be able to as well. But if PCs can make them but there're not many around, there has to be a reason for that. And that reason may as well be an interesting one.

But there'll definitely be no magick shoppes. And yes, the players will be finding some unique items.

It's a cool game, quite powerful heroes, who if they are lucky, just MIGHT have a magic weapon by the mid levels.

It's d20, also.

I know why DMs always come here looking for advice on Low Magic games. I mean, Iron Heroes would be perfect for them. But Pathfinder is hot, everyone wants to play PF. Thus, DMs who can't handle magic advertise their game as Patgfinder... But with low magic, rather than just running a game designed from the ground up as Low Magic.

Actually I'm really happy with the power and variety of magic users in Pathfinder (except maybe summoners - which seems a common complaint). The wizard arcane schools, sorcerer bloodlines, oracle mysteries etc provide a flavour I'm very happy with. And I'm not advocating nerfing these classes.

I also don't want to learn and invest in another system.

What I do want is to create a campaign world full of flavour, and in this one I want fewer magic items - and I want a convincing explanation/mechanic that not only simply reduces the number of items, but in doing so adds some particular twist/flavour. Again, I'm happy to use the variety of magic items from the rules - I just prefer the feel and balance of this world having low level characters generally with 0 to 1 significant magic items, high levels with 2 to 3, and each item feeling special.

It doesn't mean I'm not happy to run out-of-the-box Golarion at other times; it's a strength of Pathfinder that minor houserules can easily accommodate a range of different styles.

I'll just leave THIS... here....

LOVE the dark crystal ... anyone want to drink some essence of gelfling?

There is the theory that haveing a druid cast reincarnate on you brings you back in a young body.

Yes. This may require some kind of exception (i.e. reincarnation recalls your life force from the afterlife AND from any magic items containing part of it, deactivating those items).

So just to be sure are you saying that you cannot extract life force from an unwilling person?

An unwilling victim needs to be kept in place for the hour of the activation ritual, and then gets a Will save - if they make the save, no activation and no loss of life force. If their life force is 'robbed' this way against their will, then it is released from the item upon the death of the victim, deactivating the item.

You can get round this by killing the unwilling victim during the ritual - this guarantees that you get their life force in the item, but you risk getting too much of it (again, if they make a will save), creating an intelligent magic item with their personality that sure as hell is not going to co-operate with the person that murdered their body, and has the victim's alignment. Even if the item crafter has an amazing casting stat, natural 20s still make the save, so there will be a few accidental intelligent magical items around.

And how do undead create magical items?

They can only create magic items using the life force from a living, sentient creature.

Could you even have a litch in this world? Mecanically speaking.

Yes. Effectively the lich stores all of their life force in their phylactery.

Thinking about this a little more, while I think it achieves what I want mechanically pretty well, it may have an issue or two conceptually. I like the ideas surrounding investing life force into an item, and for that reason being limited in the number of items they can create - or weakening themselves otherwise.

As I said before, I wasn't 100% sure on the idea of Con = Life Force, but thought any other ability score would be less suitable. Of the six ability scores, Con does seem the best option.

However, if we go with Con = Life Force, are we then saying that Elves (Con - 2), who are highly magical and live for hundreds of years, on average have less Life Force than humans? That feels wrong ... (On the plus side, Dwarves have high Con ... +4 in this world ... and are seen as great crafters of magical weapons etc. ... so that works out ok).

(A minor issue is that a belt of great constitution is not merely a physical benefit, but if we strictly say Con = Life Force, then it implies the belt contains life force - perhaps up to six times as much as was given creating a standard magic item. Where did it come from? This would be easily solved by either banning the item, or ruling that it took 6 points of Con to create a +6 one - it's only one item, so not a major issue to adjust it).

So, it's only really Elves that are causing me an issue.

I may give elves an exception; being a highly magical species, in touch with the life force of nature, they do not need to give their own Con to craft items (instead conceptually drawing life force from the pool of natural life force). As in this world the elves live a decent distance from the main campaign area and don't generally deal with money this could work well in the world. If you want magic items, you can take the point of Con loss, or travel to the elves and negotiate/trade for what you need. (This exception would extend to highly magical NPC races, but I don't have other PC races in this world as magical as elves. There are no gnomes).

Going with this approach, I might make magical items created from the 'pool of natural life force' have a temporary nature or be tied in to a specific user (if the elves give you a cloak of elvenkind, only you can use it). The elves could still create permanent items by investing the point of Con, but could create personal or temporary items without doing so.

(Another alternative approach without giving elves an exception would be that giving life force to activate an item costs you years of your life instead of Con. I'm not sure how many years would balance it right ... but it would hit goblins and hobgoblins worst, humans badly, dwarves not as much and long-lived elves very little. If this aging pushed you into a new age bracket (middle-age, old, venerable) you would get the physical ability score disadvantages, but would only get the mental ability score benefits when you reached the age chronologically. This would mean that a young wizard could create their first few items with no mechanical penalties at all. Also, unlike Con, it would be easier to make it dependent on the power of the item. Say 1 year of aging per 10,000 gp (or part thereof) of the price. A +2 sword or +3 shield would age the donor of the life force by only one year. Activating a +5 sword would age you by 5 years - scary, but a human would do it once, perhaps. Activating a ring of regeneration would age you by 9 years. This would naturally mean that long-lived dwarves and elves would overall create more magic items (sounds right) and that almost anyone could get their first couple of items without any penalty to play.)

So what do you think of these options?
1) As discussed previously - all permanent item activations require Life force in the form of a point of Con
2) Permanent items generally require Life force in the form of a point of Con, but Elves can create person-locked or temporary versions of permanent items without investing Con.
3) Permanent item activations require Life force in the form of years of the donor's life, dependent on the value/power of the item (say 1 year per 10,000 gp or part thereof of the list value).
4) Permanent item activations require Life force in the form of years of the donor's life, a fixed amount of years per item (say 5).
(I'd keep the rules on willing and unwilling donors as discussed previously whether Life Force was donated as years or as Con).

Both 2 and 3 would increase the availability of magic items, although with 1 and 2 we expect to see more higher power permanent items and fewer lower powered permanent items. With 3 there would be more lower-end items. 4 would probably not significantly increase the number of items compared to 1, except that young adventurers could still get their first couple of items with no immediate mechanical penalties. (And if you're living a dangerous adventuring life, taking 5 years off your lifespan to get equipment that ensures you reach old age may seem a good trade).

3 and 4 would see more magic items from dwarves and elves than from humans. 1 may see less magic items from elves but more from dwarves. With 3 and 4, dragons could become stronger from activating magic items, though, which feels a little off. 3 and 4 eliminate any possible problems with belts of constitution.

(I'm not aware of any magic items or spells that reverse aging ... are there any? Also, with the age approach I'm not sure what ruling there should be for donors who are level 17+ monks and therefore have Timeless Body - though I anticipate campaigns finishing around level 12 so I can probably just ignore it. There should only be 1 or 2 monks of that level in the whole continent, and they'd be hobgoblins who don't play nicely with magic).

What if you could return the point of CON by completely and irreversibly destroying the magic item?

I've already been considering that and it seems reasonable in terms of both in-world logic and gaming. It might require another ritual - at the very least it should need the Con donor to be present when the item is destroyed.

I'm unsure on it though; a main justification behind the whole Con idea is to dissuade people (PCs and NPCs) from creating magic items; making it a two way street could undo that (though of course they'd still lose the money they invested in creating the item).

Maybe destroying the item - so their life force is no longer locked in the item - would make it possible to restore the ability using Restoration (instead of automatically restoring on destruction) - the cost and level of that spell would prevent the reversal being too trivial. Think I might go with this one ...

VII: But 2 here because I don't want to remove too much of the airship flavor despite winged races being perfect here.

I see a PC with the ability to fly being nice, but not competing with airships due to the character's low carrying capacity and endurance.

Your 'fifth horsemen' is interpreted as being Christ in glory. (thus The Word of God - as in John 1, and the blood on his robe from the crucifixion/side-piercing).

Terry Pratchett writes about a fifth horseman, Kaos, who 'left before they got famous' :)

According to paizo, a quarterstaff is "a simple piece of wood, about 5 feet in length."

No, no, no, no, no!

A five-foot long staff is just a staff, the kind someone might use for walking. Yes, it can make a nice weapon.

The english short staff was about eight feet long (ideally sized exactly to suit the user). You could use it in two fighting styles - half staffing (holding the middle half of the staff and hitting with both ends - a double weapon) or quarter staffing (holding it between a quarter of the way along and half way along - a reach weapon). A skilled user could easily outmatch most swordsmen (there's a good story of an englishman, Richard Peeke, who outfought three top spanish rapier wielders at once). You could also use the staff to trip opponents. In addition, it's relatively quick (a swift action?) to switch between halfstaffing and quarterstaffing.

The english long staff was a blunt pole weapon, typically twelve to fifteen feet long, striking with the end. It's also a great peasant weapon - the best way to face off against mounted attackers for no cost. It can be braced.

The pathfinder stats for "quarterstaff" seem to be more for a japanese style fighting staff - much shorter than the english short staff.

Maybe for half-staffing with the english short staff, the existing stats are ok? (1d6/1d6, x2, B, double, monk) but we should also add (trip). We should also be able to use it quarter-staffing, which would be something like (1d8, x2, B, reach, trip).

Long staff would be the same as quarter-staffing, except that reach goes up from 10 feet to 15ft (?) and we could brace it. (1d8, x2, reach (15ft), trip, brace).

Having a good quality staff made (or making one) will cost a little more than the 'free' cost of the pathfinder 'quarterstaff' though; but only a few gp at most.

Given that getting the most out of the short staff requires quite a bit of training, I think it would be martial weapon.

Thoughts?

I) World Features
1) Skyseas
A) Do not exist.
* Rainfall is pretty frequent in most layers of the atmosphere, giving plenty of streams and lakes on the skylands. It gets dryer as you go up, so upper skylands are more likely to have deserts.

2) Layers
A) All layers of the world (from inner core to exosphere) are habitable.
E) The most habitable layers range from roughly the lithosphere/crust to the troposphere.
* All layers are habitable by *something* but typical PC inhabitants struggle at the lowest, and can't go to some higher levels.
* Dragons (and any other similar huge fliers) may rely on the thicker air in the lower layers in order to be able to fly.
* While all PC races should be comfortable in the main habitable areas of the world, certain races may be able to survive (or have fewer penalties) at lower or at higher altitudes than humans.

3) Planet size
C) The planet is large (2 - 10 Earth masses).
* I think the physics/arcane physics and logistics probably work out better at with this size.

4) Seasons and weather
C) Natural phenomenon (water cycle, microbes, etc) is responsible for the weather and seasons experienced by the skylands.
* Mostly C), BUT B) and A) also apply - the deities and powerful spellcasters, spellstorms or interplanar tremors can affect local weather.

II) Deities and Planes
1) Pantheon(s)
B) There are several pantheons with mixed races.
* This (or with no races) as far as the inhabitants are concerned; but there is only one 'set' of Gods (some of whom probably belong to multiple pantheons under different names and guises).

2) Planes
A) There are Outer Planes.
B) There are Inner Planes.
C) There are Transient Planes.
* (Mostly happy to stick with Pathfinder standard for this).

III) Astronomy
1) Sun(s)
A) There is one sun.

2) Moon(s)
B) There are two moons.
* (not a strong preference; I wouldn't vote against any of the options).

3) Other
A) There are guide stars (like Polaris).
B) There are constellations.
C) There are other planets.

* While I'm voting for these options, I also feel that the misty/cloudy nature of the world means unobstructed views of the sky are probably rare -virtually never happen in the lower lands, if at all, and only rarely in the main inhabited lands. This could give natives of the upper skylands a quite different perspective on the universe and their place in it than the average. Upper inhabitants study the constellations; lower inhabitants don't know that they exist (or glimpsing them is a major event).

It would also be useful to determine how thick the skylands are. How much depth is there for mining or creating tunnel complexes? I envisage
- the bigger the area of the skyland, the deeper/taller it is likely to be
- the biggest ones are probably in the range 2-3 miles high
- it would be damn scary if you tunnel out through the bottom
- the smallest skylands may have extensive tunnels (while not removing too much buoyancy - though miners would sometimes get this wrong) so that inhabitants live in them more than on them.

In round 5, I'd love us to take a vote on what the main sentient races of the world are.

The final votes for round three are tallied! Thanks for being so interested so far!

1) Skyland Size

C has two direct votes [Aranna, sgriobhadair] and two supportive votes [Tacticslion, Katydid]
B has two direct votes [Goth Guru, Katydid] and two supportive votes [Cr500cricket, Tacticslion]
A has one direct vote [scary harpy] and three qualified votes [Cr500cricket, Evan Tarlton, Tacticslion]
D has one direct vote [Air0r] and one supportive vote [sgriobhadair]

The largest number of skylands are in the C-sized range. B-sized skylands exist but are not as common, and not generally much larger than Iceland. Most of the qualified votes for A argue that the number of A-sized skylands is limited, perhaps no more than 2-4 of them in the whole world. These huge skylands are likely rumors or myths and have specific names.

Weren't we voting for maximum size rather than typical size? Given the nature of the options (i.e. a range), perhaps the outcome for maximum size could be the median or mean value of the votes?

Indagare - time for round 4?

I only just discovered these ... some larger versions might be a fun navigational hazard
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary3/flumph.html#_flumph

I don't think people realize just how big Ireland actually is. For you people in the US that is roughly the size of Indiana. Yes big enough for train and cars... and capable of massive amounts of agriculture. This is why I didn't want anything bigger. If you get any bigger then being on a sky island is no different than a normal campaign setting. I mean if all of Golarion is one island and all of the Sword Coast another island... then it kind of spoils the setting for me.

To reinforce Aranna's point ... medieval Ireland contained EIGHT kingdoms (and five city-states). It would take a medieval army on foot (est. 18 miles per day), forced marching every day, not needing to forage, around EIGHTEEN DAYS to cover that distance. For regular travellers, it would take more like a month unless the roads were excellent. Even for a well supplied cavalry regiment it would take around eleven days.

The skylands need to be somewhat limited in size because otherwise there would never be significant reason for trade and travel between them.

#9 has got my imagination going quite well, on a number of areas.

I envision some kind of magical ore or mineral; let's call it kyslite. Large masses of kyslite repel each other, so a continent which contains a lot of kyslite in its rocks would be repelled from the core of the planet, and settle at an altitude where the repulsion of the kyslite is in equilibrium with the attraction of gravity. This same repulsion would prevent continents from drifting into each other.

The kyslite could be mined and used as a source of buoyancy for some flying machines (although others would be directly levitated by magic, and some carried by a group of flying creatures in harnesses). There may be an older continent that was over-mined and started to sink, being abandoned by those who could, leaving the rest to fend off the nightmares they discovered down in the lower clouds.

It's the 'field' surrounding the kyslite that creates dense clouds and mist, so that each large continent is always surrounded and sits upon hundreds of miles of cloud.

With similar logic, a large continent would likely have one or more satellites, at most big enough to only hold a nation or two, orbiting the main continent at a more-or-less fixed distance, probably a few hours' flying by suitable methods from the nearest 'shore'.

The drift of the main continents relative to each other would be predictable; so we might expect our main continent to see a couple of others over the space of a year, remaining within reach of flying animals for a few days at a time. Academics who studied and predicted exactly what landmass would be within reach when, would be in high esteem. Occasionally an unknown landmass (or one that is only seen every so-many-years) would show up.

It might be that a large mass of rock buds off from the planet's molten core and rises relatively quickly through the clouds to take up a high altitude as a new island or continent; but over hundreds of millennia the kyslite decays, so younger continents are higher up, and gradually sink over expanses of time. Ancient creatures like dragons dwell on the oldest continents that have sunken into the clouds (but the odd one might appear in the upper lands, flown up from the depths).

The largest continents will probably have some lakes or even seas on their surfaces, although full-scale ships are probably quite rare.

In the old days (AD&D), magic users required more experience points to level up. (2500 for level 2, compared to 2000 for a fighter. Level 3 needed 5000 and 4000). On the other hand, thieves only needed 1250 for level 2, and headed up to level 3 at the same XP point that the magic user finally made level 2).

I've borrowed/adapted a house-rule that limits casters by giving their casting a risk of causing them to become fatigued etc, because of the strain that casting puts on their bodies. This should cause them to become somewhat wary of spamming level 9 spells.

This is my version:
* Channelling magical energies put strain on the body of the caster:
* Each time a spell is cast, the caster makes a Fortitude save with the target 1 + (3 x spell level) - caster level
* Failing the Fortitude save causes the caster to receive the Fatigued state (or the Exhausted state if already Fatigued)
* A caster with the Exhausted state failing a Fortitude save takes 1d4 nonlethal damage per spell level
* Casting a spell from a scroll still requires a Fortitude save, but potions and other magical items do not (although creating them does).
* A target of 1 or lower/negative for the Fortitude save shows no chance of becoming fatigued, and doesn't require a roll.
I haven't play-tested it yet.

3. Lonely Stones, a pair of teardrop shaped stones, which when placed on the ground, will always point to each other, no matter the distance. Great for following something or finding someone who is lost. Note: Does not rotate up and down to account for elevation.

These are great; will definitely use these. (Not sure about the name). (Wouldn't mind some in real life too).

17: Pauper's Purse - this plain worn purse seems to always have enough loose change in it for a warm bowl of stew and a cheap room. The Pauper's Purse generates 24 copper coins a day, appearing inside the purse, coins stop appearing if more than 24 copper of coinage is in the purse. The Purse is under a permanent magic aura effect, a knowledge history DC 20 Check reveals the coins to bear the face of a long dead king. Rumors exist of a Prince's Allowance purse.

This is a favourite too.

Keep 'em coming.

I do like having to see what I can do with the stats I get, rather than having total control over character creation. With rolled stats I often create characters that would never have thought to design myself, and have a more interesting time because of it.

For that reason, I'm a fan of 4d6, drop lowest, ROLLED IN ORDER (i.e. no rearranging stats).

However it does need some safeguard against AWFUL rolls ... (a usual recommendation is: reroll the whole set if no ability score is higher than 13 or if total bonuses are +3 or less).

One nice way of using this but still giving the player some choice; each player rolls two full sets of stats and chooses the one they prefer.

I like the group activity of all rolling up characters together at the start of a campaign; it also lets people check details with the GM and discuss with each other the composition of the party as they design their characters.

I agree to an extent with those that say a lot of point-buy stats look the same; there are a lot of characters with an 18 and a 7 in two of their stats.

Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).

As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...

Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...

Wow, this is obviously important to you.

My approach to RPGs is much more about role-playing and feel/concept than mechanics. For that reason I don't want to overload with rules or content. I don't want to have eight manuals to learn or refer to during gameplay when one or two will do.
For me - and presumably some of the others that are not keen on the additional classes - this is a personal preference for playing. I wouldn't say that my approach is better or worse than someone who wants to have a choice of twenty or thirty classes and races to pick from - the fact that I prefer one way and you prefer another should be no problem unless we're sat at the same gaming table - and then probably still won't be a problem unless I'm GMing. As a player, I can build from core classes and you can pick from any you like, and it wouldn't affect the play.

So, when I say I can create a witch as an oracle, sorcerer, wizard or druid, I'm talking about my mental image of how a witch should be, not the game mechanics of the witch class - because the concept is more important to me, personally, than the mechanics. (In fact, the Druid class is pretty close to my PERSONAL mental concept of a how a witch should be).

Some of the Inquisitor's specialties can be reproduced by other classes.
- want more skills? Get higher intelligence (or multiclass with Rogue). An Int of 14 gives a cleric as many skills as a 4+Int skills class with an Int of 11.
- want better Sense Motive? You have high wisdom anyway as a Cleric, and you can put skill levels in Sense Motive and choose either the Alertness feat (+2 to Perception and Sense Motive) and/or the Skill Focus feat (+3 to chosen skill)
- monster lore - unless you have high Int AND Wis (and optimisers probably don't have high Int here), this doesn't really offer anything more than any other class with Knowledge Nature and Knowledge Dungeoneering.
- other characters get Discern Lies anyway, Sense Motive is an alternative before they do. How many times are you expecting to need Discern Lies anyway? (Yes, it's nice that Inquisitors get it a little earlier).
- the bane ability is nice, but there are plenty of other ways to get bonuses against specific classes of creatures, starting with the Ranger's preferred enemy at level 1.
- the judgements are nice combat bonuses, but there are plenty of other ways to get combat bonuses (feats, magic weapons, buff spells) that aren't necessarily limited in uses per day.
None of which, to be honest, are that relevant to me personally in the details - the important thing is that I can reproduce the FEEL of an inquisitor-type idea I might have in mind, rather than the actual mechanics. And for me, I feel I can do that with the core classes and a bit of creativity.

Sorcerer/Fighters and Wizard/Fighters CAN cast spells with a weapon in one hand, both hands, or even pinned, AS LONG AS that spell has no somatic component; there's not a huge list of these but easily enough to be useful - particularly at higher levels. And Bards can cast any of their spells while in light armour. Personally I'd think adding a few more, well-balanced, non-somatic spells (or adjusting existing spells) would be easier and more flexible than needing a whole new, rather specific, class for this. Some of the existing spells without somatic components are pretty useful already - Blindness for example, only has a verbal component, which means it can even be cast in Heavy Armour and wielding a two-handed sword, and it's a second level spell that can cripple pretty much any opponent that fails a Fortitude save.

My thoughts are simply that too many of these extra classes are concepts better covered by playing the core classes, or as archetypes. When a concept can be covered by what's in the rulebook you don't need them.

Antipaladin.
NPC class only in my games.

Alchemist.
Don't like it. I don't see the need for this class. I'd rather play an arcane caster focusing on crafting and potions. Should have been a wizard archetype.

Cavalier.
Unless your game is more wilderness based than usual this class is pointless. Most games are too dungeon, city and planes based to make this class worthwhile.

Gunslinger.
Tech levels aside I find this class too powerful. Ditch touch attacks and it might be better.

Inquisitor.
When you have the cleric already this class seems superfluous.

Magus.
Though not too bad I dislike the concept behind this. If you want to play a fighter wizard type then multiclass a fighter and wizard/sorcerer. It seems to me to cater simply to players who don't want to lose out by multi-classing.

Ninja.
My dislike of oriental fantasy aside, this is another class that would have been better as a rogue archetype. Otherwise just play a rogue.

Oracle.
Love it. Don't see the need for the curses though. 3.5 Dragonlance had a sorcerer type cleric (Mystic?) and it worked fine without a disadvantage.

Samurai.
Same issues as Cavalier.

Summoner.
I've tried these and I find them broken. Summoning as a class feature makes things much too easy for the party. This and gunslinger are the only ones I've banned.

Witch.
Unnecessary concept when the you have the sorcerer class.

I think I agree with everything you said here ...

I'm not a fan of Class bloat; I don't see the need for so many when a bit of tweaking of spells and a few extra well-designed feats would do most of the same thing.

Auric Reverberation

You had mentioned wanting spell casting penalties to mostly affect those who were amateurs or still in training, but not to affect the “professionals” (ie the PCs) as much. One solution would be to create an effect where lingering magics interfere with spell casting attempts requiring a concentration check or spell penetration check in order to be able to successfully cast a spell. Penalties for failure could be either direct hitpoint damage or perhaps some sort of thematic effect depending on the type of spell being cast (being burned by spells with the fire or light descriptor for instance, temporarily blinded by those with the darkness or shadow descriptor, demanifested flesh or body parts for those of the teleportation types, etc.) This would mean that there would have to be time to “clear” areas of magical energy and would severely hamper “hedge magicians” who may not have access to the amounts of space that magical academies could offer. You could also introduce ways to more quickly clear lingering magical auras (or even slow them for investigational purposes) (I have an image of special tuning forks or temple bells being used to “clear the air”.)

In Terry Pratchett's entertaining Discworld series, residual magical fields are left behind at the sites of former magical battles and, to a lesser extent, around the Unseen University where many wizards operate. These fields can cause random magical events to occur if strong enough, as well as over time potentially turning local animals into magically enhanced versions.

Our home group's had a lot of success with a "magical fatigue" mechanic, reflecting the common fantasy trope that high-level spellcasting is physically draining for the caster. It's essentially a sliding scale of Fortitude saves, based on spell level; once you fail you become fatigued, then exhausted. And if you keep casting beyond exhausted, you start taking damage.

We're considering whether to keep it at simple HP loss, or actual ability damage.

Nice - this looks like it would work well; how about if you cast while exhausted you become unconscious (possibly after another Fort save) and take, say, d4 * spell level nonlethal. (or just take nonlethal on each casting once exhausted until they become unconscious at 0 hp).

I think the save should also have something to do with the mastery ... presumably by the time a caster reaches, say, 12th caster level, they should find 1st level spells far less exhausting than they did when they were a 1st level caster? Somehow by the time they reach higher levels, they've learnt how to cast the spells more efficiently so they have less drain on their bodies? I'm not sure how you factor that as a modifier into a simple mechanic though. Or do you see the physical drain being constant, irrespective of the character's skill - it's just a matter of the amount of 'magical energy' shifted through their body.

How do you adjust the Fortitude save for spell level? Do cantrips still exhaust their users? (They feel to me like they shouldn't). Suddenly the 'Great Fortitude' feat sounds more attractive (and that Con penalty for Elves sounds more of a problem; though given their apparently natural affinity for spellcasting, I'd be tempted to give elves and gnomes a bonus for spell-exhaustion checks).

- Have magically active PCs attract the attention of caster NPCs, and not the good kind of attention. Magic might also attract demons, gods, or other strange entities, so that the life of a PC caster becomes very interesting.

I like this approach; it has the feel of Middle Earth, where at some times Gandalf was nervous about using his magic because of the attention it would attract.

This would be some kind of very low level 'Detect Magic' that all casters used continuously, with the level of attention based on the level of the spell.

Cantrips would probably attract no or little attention. A level one spell might make a magical creature or a caster a couple of rooms away realise that low level magic was used nearby, but a (say) fourth or fifth level spell might give them a better idea of the distance and direction of the magic usage; creatures with scrying might take a look at what's going on.

This may give magical creatures nearby warning of the party's approach; they could use it to prepare for attack, sneak up on the players or hide, depending on their relative abilities and attitudes.

A sample house rule:
- Arcane magic creates ripples in the world that attracts the attention of arcane magic casters and magically aware creatures nearby. The distance these ripples reach is (casting level)-squared x 60 feet. Arcane casters and magically aware creatures within (castiing level)-squared x 30 feet may make a Spellcraft skill check to learn the arcane school and approximate direction and distance of origin of the spell that was cast.
- Casters may choose to cast a spell as a lower casting level to reduce the amount of attention they attract, although not lower than the minimum level to cast that spell.
- Cantrips count as a caster level of 1/2 for the purposes of this, attracting attention within a 15 feet radius.
- Spells cast from wands, staves or other magical items create a magical field in the same way as directly cast spells.

Example
- A 9th-level spell cast with a caster level of 20 would be detectable within 24000 feet (4 1/2 miles). Within 12000 feet (2 1/4 miles) arcane casters could make a Spellcraft skill check to know the approximate distance and direction and arcane school of the magic.

The party is staying at an inn when the bard and wizard sense the use of magic nearby.
[The GM invites both to take a Spellcraft check. The bard fails but the wizard succeeds.]
Archie the bard ran into the inn's common room.
"Did you feel that?" He said.
Io the wizard nodded slowly.
"Someone is using powerful necromancy about a mile to the north of us."
[The rogue's player asks to use his Knowledge - Local to find out what might be there.]
Korwyn the rogue chipped in. "That's where the abandoned tower is. I've heard ghost stories about that place for years."

Example 2
- "Leave this to me," Orthos the sorcerer smiled grimly, rolling up his sleeves.
A fireball sprung from his hand, burned through the corridor, and cremated the charging group of kobolds.
"Nice!"
[The GM notes that the level six sorcerer's fireball is noticeable to magic users within 6x6x60 = 2160 feet, and the dragon two chambers to the north is well within the 1080 feet for it to find out more. In secret he makes a Spellcraft check for the dragon).
"OK," continued Orthos confidently. "According to our information, that little dragon is not far from here and always asleep at this time of day. Let's make sure he never wakes up."

Hmm, I like this approach - though the numbers etc. might need a little tweaking.

Yes, 1 in 8000 ... but these things are skewed by our perception. (You don't stop to think about all the times you threw three d20s and got any other combination).

If you think about how long you've been playing, the number of people at the table - and therefore the number of throws that are taken in total over your gaming career - then the chance of some extraordinarily high dice combination/sequence happening sometime is actually pretty high.

The rules clearly allow for multiclassing. A barbarian 3, say, with decent intelligence could at any point take a level of wizard and carry on happily Barbarian 3/Wizard 1, then return to further levels of Barbarian. This new level of wizarding in theory takes no time to acquire.

How do people justify this in terms of role play / character development / in-game reality?

After all, don't we expect the skill of beginning characters, particularly highly trained ones like wizards, monks and fighters, to be the result of years of hard study? I can easily understand picking up a level of sorcerer (the inherited trait just took a little longer to show), but not with trained characters. Surely to become proficient at a new trained class should take AT THE VERY LEAST a year of study, and more likely two to four years? Not likely something to be fitted in between adventures.

Has anyone house-ruled against adding certain classes later in the game?
Does any GMs require some downtime or story justification for dipping into another class? (i.e. next adventure takes place 18 months after the previous one).