tasslehoff220's page

Shaken - You actually shake them. Like with your hands.

Yes, yes, that's stupid, but nobody can come up with a use of Dirty Trick (Shaken) that doesn't seem more like Intimidate, so there you have it.

I've had the same issue and eventually was able to come up with a dirty trick to inflict shaken which doesn't overlap with either intimidate or dazzling display.

For those who have seen it, I reference the mask of Zorro. Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones have a sword fight at one point where he cuts holes in her clothes. She is embarrassed and noticibly shaken. (What's more she starts fighting worse when it happens, -2 penalty) This to me definitely falls under the purview of a dirty trick. It's a fighting maneuver that you could do in combat but most people wouldn't because it's outside the normal rules of engagement. It's a dirty trick.

So the next question is, how do we expand upon this. We'll her shaken condition has come from being embarrassed, so dirty tricks that embarrass an opponent should therefore be the most viable cause for shaken. If I am fighting a knight (not a paladin) I could pants him, not pulling his pants down far enough to be entangled, just enough to make him a bit red faced). Another way Zorro did this was by using his sword to cut a z into his opponents clothes, skin etc. I could maneuver an opponent (knight, not Orc) so he accidentally splashed through mud to get to me causing embarrassment. Or splash a bucket of dirty water on a noble, or snipping off the end if a dwarf's beard.

Now keep in mind, this is a combat maneuver, so whatever one does to cause embarrassment would have to be a physical action that could be physically dodged or resisted. You can't shout out threats, or insults, or gossip as a combat maneuver. That would be bluff, intimidate or diplomacy. But anything you can physically do to embarrass an opponent would be fine.

This is in my opinion an especially ideal solution to the worry of crossover with intimidate, as there is no crossover. Also, is easy to immature someone running away from an embarrassing situation, so anything that would cause them to be embarrassed into the frightened condition would make sense.

Thoughts?

Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.

I originally thought this meant the which can affect one target per cackle but the consensus seems to be against me. That's fine as linguistically any could mean any one or any and every. Has there been any official clarification on this? (I wish they had said "any one", or "every" just to avoid the ambiguity)

If anyone can give me any official ruling or link to one, that would be great but I don't really need opinions on the rule as I already know what the typical thoughts on the matter are.

thanks in advance. =)

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

tasslehoff220 wrote:

Despite not being able to teleport, summon monster spells have a short range and the summons wink out of existence if they leave that range.

Where did you get that idea?

Sounds like a house rule to me.

I don't know why people keep quoting me asking this but no, it isn't a house rule. You just have to read the fully description of summon monster spells to find it.

Here is a link to the SRD page which details this:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/summon-monster

Search for the following phrase:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities.

That being said, in terms of a summoned creature winking out if it goes beyond the spells range, I clearly remember reading it but couldn't find it anywhere, so that might be a house rule. Please ignore that part of my post.

Master summoner, starting Cha 20 with stat increase and items 26, level 9. So CR8. He manages to ambush the party, so about CR10.

He spends 13 rounds prepairing the ambush and summons 13 babau demons, which last 13 minutes. On round 14, 13 babaus teleport into party camp and attack.

13 babaus attacking would normally be CR 13, but thanks to master summoner "chreating" its just CR10 and if the party is just level 10 this will be very interesting encounter with the GM having a clear concious, after all its just CR 10, so no problem for party.

(babaus have at will greater teleport, dispel magic and constant see invisible so running hard.)

Any other nice encounter suggestions tweaking CR number?

Despite not being able to teleport, summon monster spells have a short range and the summons wink out of existence if they leave that range. So first your summoner would have had to be far enough away that there was no chance of the pc's noticing him summoning, then the summoner and every one of the Babau demons would have to make enough stealth checks to get close enough to the party to start attacking (the summoner also has to sneak because he can't get too far away from his demon buddies or they'll wink out) 14 stealth checks vs the party's perception, I doubt there will be a surprise round (this is simply the RAW, not how you have to run it but I assumed you were basing this dumb encounter on the RAW). Even if the Babaus could teleport though, they're standard action to teleport in is their surprise round.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-jar

Magic Jar states: Attempting to possess a body is a full-round action. It is blocked by protection from evil or a similar ward.

What happens if you are already possessed and someone casts pro evil on you? Are you still possessed? Is the spell caster forced back to the jar? Is he trapped in the body?

As an on the fly ruling so the game could progress I decided he was trapped in the body til the pro evil ended (I like the fluff of magic circles and similar spells blocking anything from getting either in or out) but I think the correct ruling would be that he is forced back to the jar. Is this correct?

thanks in advance

1. Persistent spell, why it is actually broken: compare it to heighten (core vs new book with potential power creep) spell +2 levels is a 10% greater chance to fail a particular save. Two rolls keep the worse is about 25% greater chance to fail a save usually. (please don't nitpick a few percents, I'm ball parking) That being said, I agree it is broken. I like your fix, it's the one I'll probably use if someone wants to use it in my game.

2. Create Pit: I'm not familiar with this spell but everything you've said seems reasonable to me.

3. Touch attack for fire arms: I'm not a big fan of firearms being in the game. That being said, I don't really think they're broken especially as the ranged rogue is already inferior to the twf rogue to such a huge degree. (When I run fire arms are rare to non-existent)

4. I dislike this spell as anything but fluff. It really slows down the game for a player to have a bunch of similacra of them self. For me it's less a game balance issue and more a streamlining game play issue. Fortunately the only players I have ever had use this spell used it as part of their "this is what I'm doing after the campaign" and as caretakers for his magic item shops.

1. Persistent spell, why it is actually broken: compare it to heighten (core vs new book with potential power creep) spell +2 levels is a 10% greater chance to fail a particular save. Two rolls keep the worse is about 25% greater chance to fail a save usually. (please don't nitpick a few percents, I'm ball parking) That being said, I agree it is broken. I like your fix, it's the one I'll probably use if someone wants to use it in my game.

2. Create Pit: I'm not familiar with this spell but everything you've said seems reasonable to me.

3. Touch attack for fire arms: I'm not a big fan of firearms being in the game. That being said, I don't really think they're broken especially as the ranged rogue is already inferior to the twf rogue to such a huge degree. (When I run fire arms are rare to non-existent)

4. I dislike this spell as anything but fluff. It really slows down the game for a player to have a bunch of similacra of themself. For me it's less a game balance issue and more a streamlining game play issue. Fortunately the only players I have ever had use this spell used it as part of their "this is what I'm doing after the campaign" and as caretakers for his magic item shops.

If a player is on a mount and has that mount take a single move action while taking a full attack with his bow does he take any penalties? It seems to me he should and that this is an unintended way to get a full attack with a move.

My reasoning: When you make a full attack while your mount does a double move you take a -4 penalty. A double move is just using a single move action twice (the penalty coming from firing while your mount is moving). Since you have to fire while your mount is moving to get the full attack (it is clearly stated that if you wait until you stop moving you can only attack as a standard action) you should take the same penalty.

Was this the game designers intent? It is not stated anywhere. I would really like a game designer to answer this question on intent as it seems to me that the intent was for anyone who take a full attack while their mount moves should take a penalty. If you fire while you take a single move action you should take that same penalty.

Can a game designer tell me if this was taken into acount when the rule was made or just overlooked?

This is because Erinyes (pardon the spelling) which were devils in 3.5 and thus immune to fire were removed from pathfinder and amalgamized into the succubus. At least that is my take on it.

hogarth wrote:

My interpretation is that the damage is the same type as the weapon.

+1 This has the least number of exploits.

But it might be meant to be "Negative" damage?

Incorrect. Untyped damage has the least number of exploits. When you say it is the same type as the weapon it becomes exploitable by anything with DR. When you say it is just untyped damage, (which is what is being stated by the fact that they do not type the damage) it can't be prevented by DR or resistances.

So when will it actually ship out?

The way i have seen bards play, they usally choose 1 or 2 things. Am i based on Preform or knowledge? If your trying to do both then ya this seems abit costly on skill points.

A House rule i would consider would be to say You get 1 skill point bonus per Cha bonus, BUT this must be spent on preform skills.

Tha bard does need some help still.

Lets stay away from fourth editions all skills should be one idea.

There is no need to consolidate the perform skills as you only really need one. Realistically being good at singing does not make you a good guitarist. Taking more than one perform is like taking craft and profession skills. It is good for character building and fluff but needless for crunch.

With the three "lose attack to gain benefit" feats now capped by their relevant attribute modifier, do we need to also keep the BAB cap on them? It might seem like a shaky proposition (mainly due to Barbarians, raging to 22 Str, getting +12 more damage at level 1) but at the same time, -6 to hit is a BIG penalty at low levels, no matter who you are.

And more importantly, a rogue taking Expertise at level 1 doesn't break conceptual immersion with a feat he can't use.

I like the power attack change. I really appreciated it being limited at high levels especially because of the complete warrior feat (name is eluding me right now) which let PC's power attack off their ac. This was way too powerful with a 2 handed weapon at high levels. It needs some sort of cap even if str bonus isn't appropriate.

Combat expertise however already had a cap. It didn't really need one added as it was already capped at 5. Further. Unlike power attack which is capped by strength, the primary stat of most fighters, combat expertise is capped by the fighters intelligence which is usually around 13 if they take the feat. So they can only ever expertise for 1. This is really silly as dodge is massively better by this change and there is no reason to take the feat except as a prerequisite. Combat expertise needs to be changed back to how it was.

Deadly aim I am relatively ambivalent about. I don't think it needs a cap (as you can't do the two handed thing that you can do with power attack) but I haven't seen it playtested.

I like the power attack change. I really appreciated it being limited at high levels especially because of the complete warrior feat (name is eluding me right now) which let PC's power attack off their ac. This was way too powerful with a 2 handed weapon at high levels. It needs some sort of cap even if str bonus isn't appropriate.

Combat expertise however already had a cap. It didn't really need one added as it was already capped at 5. Further. Unlike power attack which is capped by strength, the primary stat of most fighters, combat expertise is capped by the fighters intelligence which is usually around 13 if they take the feat. So they can only ever expertise for 1. This is really silly as dodge is massively better by this change and there is no reason to take the feat except as a prerequisite. Combat expertise needs to be changed back to how it was.

The real issue is; there shouldn't even be a single, cover-all skill called Diplomacy.

<uproar>

No, seriously. It's just too broad.

Mechanically, it's far too easy for a player to max out one skill, for all occasions. A character with Diplomacy is never considered 'out of his element', and this is wrong. The aristocrat, born to high society, is considered equally at home with the dregs of the Under-City.

I actually agree with you. It covers too much. I did not like lumping gather information into diplmacy I will not use that rule personally. One of the only things I liked about the 4th edition skill system was the streetwise skill. I wish this skill was in pathfinder and I think that adding it would be a great imporvement. It covers the gatherinformation and slum type diplomacy which the skill itself should not.

Observed during Crimson Thorne playtesting:

The Heal check takes a lot of fear out of disease in either edition. A fairly simple check takes the risk of a failed save out of a disease, several such checks and you are cured.

Suggestions to address this:
* Only Fortitude saves should count for shaking off a disease. If the patient fails their save but the Heal check is successful, the disease does not advance, but the patient doesn't recover. This keeps in the potential for a patient being under care for some time, making disease relevant.

* Heal should be at a subsantial penalty for disease treament if you aren't under long-term care. At 10 minutes per check, a single healer could treat dozens in a day, which makes most diseases less than scary with even untrainedh Heal checks. I'd say -5 to the Heal check for 10 minute treatment, full value for the 8 hour long term care (which still allows treating 6 patients at a time, a pretty heavy workload).

I see your point but I disagree. 10 minutes seems right to me. Also, I have found that heal is already a weak and underused skill in any group with access to magical healing. I want to encourage not discourage my PCs from using it.

I'm really in favor of the idea floated here that Jump should be un-folded from Acrobatics and folded into an Athletics skill with Climb.

Swim should remain its own skill, and I agree that it should be a trained-only skill; non-aquatic creatures are--well--like fish out of water if they're in water and never learned to swim.

Here's my reasoning for the folding of Jump and Climb.
1) It mirrors the ideas behind Perception (folding Spot & Listen), Stealth (folding Hide and Move Silently), and Acrobatics (folding Balance and Tumble).
2) Each of these folded skills recognizes similarities, NOT in what they are--we know that Spotting in not the same as Listening, for instance. They are similar in HOW they're used in the game. Perception (Spot & Listen) is used for discerning one's environment; Stealth (Hide & Move Silently) is used for avoiding detection; Acrobatics (Balance & Tumble) is used for nimble movement; and Athletics (Jump & Climb) is used for scaling physical obstacles.
3) Jump and Climb are things everyone can do (as opposed to swimming), even if not very well.
4) Jump and Climb are STR-based; not DEX-based.

Those are my thoughts.

I like your idea. I wouldn't mind it as a change as rather than a new lumping together it changes an existing one.

I am however with further lumping together of skills. Stealth was good. Perception was taken too far. It gives far too much at once. It should be split into notice and search/investigate. (basically active vs passive) If anything else is lumped together classes should start being given less skill points. Especially when you take into account favored classes for extra skill points and that intelligence is now retroactive. I like pcs being able to do alot of things but I don't want every PC to have every one of their class skills. Thats boring and makes all characters look similar.

I really don't like the skill oversimplification of fourth edition and don't want to see it in pathfinder.

T's Hideous Laughter allows one save, and after that you're out of commission for several rounds. Usually that means that with one failed save, you can get a coffee while the rest of the party finishes the fight without you. Or, if an enemy is affected, he's as good as dead.

I think the victim should get an extra chance each round to snap out of it. Make it a full-round action, so it's nasty enough, but low-level effects shouldn't be so final.

Honestly, I really like the spell but it is too good for the level. A good comparison is hold-person as it is another enchantment which screws you. I would say the best fix is to give the laugher another save at the end of each round to end the effect like hold person. This is simple first of all, balances the spell, and even if the person instantly makes their second save, its still a full round missed and prone. This is a really good effect especially when you consider that they will also have to waste a move action standing up on their next round. This follows the balancing trend of other spells such as glitter-dust and hold person whileleaving the spell effective, and uniquely different from other spells.

I'd be happier if Weapon Finesse included Combat Maneuvers. I don't think the "should be natural" argument works for me, but that a feat which grants use of dex in combat to replace strength on attack rolls should also grant that use during combat maneuvers.

I agree. Weapon finesse should include combat maneuvers. However combat maneuvers should not simply let you use your dex. Just like attack rolls do not let you use your dex without a feat.

I agree that the combination is bad. I have already found that the stat boosting items are the most popular in the game. Combining them like this just means every character is going to want their belt and/or headband. This is going to make item selection go into a cookie cutter mold rather than actual choices. In my game I am not going to allow these combination items. They also make the characters become more and more defined by their items rather than their abilities.

I honestly think the skills have been combined too much. Stealth was definitely a good thing but perception lets you do too much. Too often I have found that a rogue can just do everything and have max ranks at everything (not literally). Thats the main reason I would keep them separate. If they were to be combined then major thought would have to be put into how many less skill points each class should have. Perception should be split into perception and search/investigate. (Basically active versus passive perception) I could see splitting acrobatics back into balance and acrobatics. (although I would not do it and I would definitely keep jump enveloped) And Swim and climb should be kept separate. As stated before this is meant to prevent the need to make classes get less skill points.

I have always found it a pain that in 3.5 the only armours you would consider are Full Plate; Chain Shirt & Breast Plate - in that order.

Full Plate gives you 8+1=9 pts to AC
Chain Shirt & Breast Plate 4+4 or 5+3=8 pts to AC.

No fighter types or Clerics should be wearing anything but Full Plate.

I note PF has changed this some, but wouldn't it be better to make all Amour Bonuses & Max Dex Bonus add up to 8 or 9. This would mean that you could have some variation. 14 dex Fighters could wear Half-plate, 16 dex Fighters Banded or Splint...etc etc

Otherwise why don't you just cut all the pointless armours from the list - nobody uses them, unless it is their only option.

I'm sure you can nibble around the edges of my argument, but you see my point don't you.

Cheers

Sean

I disagree. This is silly because it means wearing heavy armor becomes suboptimal. Lighter armor already has a lower armor check and affects movement less. Implementing this rule means platemail loses its one major benefit over lighter armors.

(I know that not everyone has a high dex or ability to buy dex enhancing items but this is meant os a response to the idea that plate dex + armor bonus should all be equal for all armors)

I have a player in my game playing a druid (yes he is a half-orc) but I haven't found him to be a melee monster. His major advantages seem to be mobility in the wild and that he is flexable. Damage output doesn't approach the rogue, barbarian, fighter characters. The exception being call lightning in stormy weather. Even then, he did a bunch of damage but seemed fine to me. I have't run at really high levels yet but I see no reason to nerf the druid.

Vorpal is a +5 enhancement that makes your sword say "snicker-snack" every time you swing. Nothing more, nothing less.

That being said, I would want it to be included because it is a staple, its always been around. As a GM I have never given one to a player. Not that I wouldn't allow one, I just haven't encouraged it. I do like alot of the ideas that have been thrown around but in the end I would probably leave it as it is with a disclaimer that this may not work on certain creatures at the GM's disgression (which is think is already basically stated in 3.5). The only example I can think of off the top of my head that I would use is a collossal creature as the neck would be too wide to be severed. For me this preserves both realism and balance as one-shoting things is ok occasionally but when something has that many hit-points I would rather it not be one-shotable. (Although, the ability the collossal red dragon had in the minis game works well for this too: anything that would kill it in 1 hit does 100 damage instead, it had 600 hit points I think)

OK I can see why you added it, then, but perhaps the best would just be to drop the dodge requirement altogether and replace it with another feat, like f.ex. Arcane strike.

I actually debated it but arcane strike has the same problem. It is activated as a swift action. In the end I thought it better to leave the prereqs as close to the original as I could and allow the feat to work as a free rather than a swift action (effectively grandfathering in the action it was before).

I would drop perform sing as a requirement, I think the term "singer" in the word Bladesinger refers to the singing noise he makes with his sword, not that he actually sings (can't seem to remember this from any of the novels or lore I have read.)

I would drop the Improved dodge ability at 1st level, it just seems tacked on.

I think song of Celerity should be a swift action, Immediate action seems to strong.

Also the song of fury? Do you have to make a full attack action to gain the extra attack or would you get it when you make a standard attack as well? You could always allow the bladesinger to make an extra attack each round as a swift action, but with a -2 penalty.

Otherwise this looks good.

Thanks for the imput. The ranks in perform sing is actually a throwback to the 3.5 version which had that as a prereq. Although I really like the way you described thing singing of the sword, I always imagined the mid swing castings to be sung literally.

Improved dodge is tacked on somewhat. The reason is you are only allowed one swift action per round and I didn't want one of the prerequisites (dodge, which must be activated as a swift action) to be unusable with the class's main ability (song of celerity).

Song of celerity was mean to be a swift rather than an immediate action. That was me confusing the terms. Song of fury was meant to only be used as part of a full attack. I should have been more specific.

It's not about average damage stopped. It's about stopping the character killing 80+ hp that a single power attacking critical can do, even at mid levels. And while most base monsters only crit on a 20, it's not unusual to have monsters/NPCs with class levels that a) use weapons that crit more often, or b) have keen attacks or the improved crit feat.

I agree that its not just about average damage stopped. Otherwise it would not be worth it but average damage stopped is a decent way to benchmark it to determine it's actual power. Also you must keep in mind that pathfinder has attempted to get rid of things which instantly kill with one roll. Negating criticals seems along those lines especially when you consider how many of the versions of the base classes get that kind of ability.

Second, while you are right that monsters often have higher crit ranges than just 20, this was just random ballparking. I did not take into account that the monster or PC will usually have to roll to confirm, which lowers the chance to hit and thus the average damage prevented. Also most monsters do not have a higher crit range so this wouldn't change the stats much if at all. So while you are right that there are ways for monsters to raise their crit range it shouldnt change that statistics I have created much if at all.

As a GM I disagree. I think Heavy Fortification is exactly where it needs to be. I like 100% because it means less rolling and thus combat get bogged down less. Also, assuming you negate half the damage taken 10% of the time (monsters usually have 20 only criticals), it is no more powerful than DR 3/- granted by adamantine full plate if the fighter takes no more than 60 damage per swing.

Math: 10% of the time avoid half damage equals avoioding 5% damage. 5% of 60 is 3. DR 3/- gets better when things aren't swinging 60/swing.

Next, yes, it will let you prevent more damage from sneak attackers but unless you fight them all the time (which would make you game a-typical and not what we should base the power of the item around) then making the ability for math's sake prevent 2 times the damage is more than generous. This makes it just equivalent to dr 3/- when you take an average of 30 per swing.

Thus unless you think adamantine armor is over powered it should be considered fine. I really have always liked this enhancement. I like the way it levels and can be made better, despite doing essentially the same thing, as you level up. I think it a good baseline for the power of other abilities.

I know that anytime I play a fighter type I buy heavy fortification for my armor or shield as soon as it's affordable at mid levels. Even though it's a +5 ability, for armor that's not a huge expense. You can have a suit of +1 heavy fortification for 36K plus the cost of the armor. That's really cheap for complete immunity to critical hits and sneak attacks. Yes, you sacrifice +4 to AC, but not taking that power attack critical hit from a giant or high level fighter is worth it IMO.

I'm not sure what the best fix is, but have two suggestions.

1) keep the pricing the same, but change light/medium/heavy fortification to 25%/50%/75% protection only. Don't allow 100% protection at all (maybe under epic rules.)
2) keep the effects the same, but increase the price to +2/+4/+6 abilities or higher even.

Here is what I have for a pathfinder Bladesinger so far with an explaination for changes at teh botton. Any comments/ suggestions would be appreciated:

Pathfinder Bladesinger

Prereqs:

Elf or half elf

BAB +5

Skills:
Acrobatics: 2
Perform Sing: 2
Perform Dance: 2
Spellcraft: 2

Feats:
Combat casting, Combat expertise, Dodge, Weapon Focus (Long Sword, rapier, or elven Thinblade)

Class Skills: Acrobatics, Knowledge Arcana, Perform, Spellcraft

Good Saves: Ref, Wil
Hit die: 1d10
Full BAB

Level

1 +1 Caster level, Bladesong style (The bladesinger gets his int bonus as a dadge bonus added to his AC up to his bladesinger level as long as he is wearing no armor heavier than light, has a long sword, rapier, or thin blade in one hand and nothing in the other), Improved Dodge (The bladesinger always adds his dodge bonus from the dodge feat to his AC unless caught flatfooted, he no longer needs to spend an immediate action)

2 Lesser Spellsong (The bladesinger can always take 10 to cast defensively)

3 +1 Caster level

4 Song of Celerity 2nd (when he take a full attack action the bladesinger can cast 1 spell of second level or lower as a immediate action, he can use this ability a number of times per day equal to his bladesinger level)

5 +1 Caster level

6 Greater Spellsong (The bladesinger ignores arcane spell failure in light armor)

7 +1 Caster level

8 Song of Celerity 4th (The bladesinger's song of celerity power can now be used on spells of 4th level or lower)

9 +1 Caster level

10 Song of Fury (The bladesinger can take an extra attack at his highest bonus with all his attacks for 1 round at -2)

This is very similar to the 3.5 blade singer, the basic differences are the number of times per day that it can use its song of celerity and its improved dodge power. I gave it improved dodge because I didn't want using dodge to interfere with its song of celerity. I upper the number of uses on its song of celerity because I was comparing this to the 10th level eldritch knight's ability to cast a quickened spell every time it crits. Comparing this version of the class to the eldritch knight it has the same BAB/hit die, steeper prereqs (I always hated combat casting), and 4 less levels of casting. The eldritch knight gets spell critical and 3 feats. The Bladesinger's song of celerity seems on par with spell critical. Song of fury, greater and lesser spell song seem about on par with the 3 feats. Improved dodge seems on par with diverse training. So that leaves Blade song style. Is this equivalent to 4 casting levels? I would say its equivalent to 2 caster levels (1 higher level of spells) so I would need 1 more ability. Any suggestions for the ability? Have I made song of celerity too good? Should it have more/less uses? What do you think of improved dodge? If I were to add another ability I would like ti to be called "Song of X" I was debating making bladesinger levels stack with bard levels for the bardic ability to inspire courage, or to let a bardic bladesinger start his bardic music as a free action but I was afraid this would encourage the class to be taken out of bard instead of wizard as was I belive the original intent (elves have favored class wizard, and are all proficient in long swords and rapiers). As stated before, any comments and suggestions would be appreciated.

"Some monsters are vulnerable to magic weapons. Any weapon with at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls overcomes the damage reduction of these monsters. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."

Actually, this is something I specifically had in mind when I posted. This is why I said it wouldnt defend against dragons but would against many other things such as plants and animals (which never have DR/magic), outsiders (which have DR/alighnment or metal or both, although there are a few with magic weapons most do not have magic weapons), constructs (DR/adamantine), magical beasts (ironically rarely have DR/magic), giants (typically use nonmagical weapons or their fists), NPCs (which if your GM only is putting you up against NPCs with magic weapons your party's treasure level is going to skyrocket). Thus it usually works, and is relatively cheap (I always though +3 enhancements on armor were cheap, not so much with weapons). It isn't supposed to work all the time, similarly to how the weapon enhancements are not expected to work all the time but 5 points of DR is really awesome. You can be immune to things which do a little damage multiple times, and lots of extra hit-points in other cases. I have always been of the inpression that if you don't the enhancement, you shouldn't take it (not meant to sound rude if it does) but I know lots of people who find it quite worthwhile.

tasslehoff220 wrote:

As a gm I really disagree.

While your arguement is accurate, many adventures make use of mid to high level NPCs (including monsters with class levels) that will be equipped with magical weapons.

From my experience DR/magic is useful, but it will rarely help when fighting NPC opponents. For the price, while not useless, it is not exactly useful either.

While you are right that it will not work against most high level NPCs its not supposed to work all the time. Otherwise it would be 5/-. I can see the argument for it being weak but I would say that making it a +2 enhancement makes it way too strong. There are just way to many monsters which do not have a way to beat it. I would find a game where I only fight NPCs boring. All the GM's I have played with like using elemental and outsiders and undead and plants etc for their encounters. Not only that but they will also usually have a decent number if not all of the mid level and minion NPCs use MW or mundane weapons rather than magic if for no other reason than otherwise they are giving away a huge amount of magic. Except for dragons and a few other creatures, if you DR is being beaten, then you get magic items from the encounter. Now I am not saying this is over powered or even one of the best +3 armor enhancements, but its definitely good and making it more powerful seems to me that it would be a mistake.

I agree with those who feel Gate is too good. I like the idea of being able to summon things but it needs to be weaker. Not having control would help but it would still be way too good. Summoning things with hit-dice only equal to your CL rather than double would help although I worry of certain monsters which might be overly powerful for their hit dice that I am not thinking of. This spell was one of my major disappointments in pathfinder. I looked for it almost immediately (along with ray of enfeeblement) hoping for a change but was disappointed as it remained broken.

I have a player in my pathfinder game who wants to play a bladesinger. I have no problem with this as I would like to see how more prestige classes shold look in pathfinder. Well we are almost at 6th level and he wants to take it at 7th level. Can anyone give me suggestions for how to make it pathfinder? It seems to me it should be a little stronger. Ideas I had were increasing the number of blade song free spells per day or giving it some other abilitiy. I have been examining eldritch knight and duelist for comparisons. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or help.

Yeah, I have the same worries about vorpal ruining a combat as a GM. Although one reason I really like it is the idead of giving a jabberwock dr/vorpal. As for your abilities I like:

3. Vorpal automatically confirms a threat.
4. Vorpal deals maximum damage on a critical hit.

the most although 3 would be really weak by itself and I am not sure I would want to make it do both. I also like the idea of keen as a prereq but for a vorpal weapon as a GM I like the idea of giving a very high level PC a simple +5 vorpal sword as a weapon rather that piling things on.

JoelF847 wrote:

At a +3 equivilent ability that grants DR 5/magic, it's pretty underpowered, since most enemies you'll be fighting can ignore it. The cheapest you can get this power is on a +4 equivilent armor, which sells for 16K more than the MW version. Comparing to the adamantine price for heavy armor of 15K, which grants 3/- DR, I'd suggest that changing the invulnerability quality to 5/adamantium would be a much better fit for the price. The numeric part of the DR is higher than that granted by adamantium, but it can be overcome. Would that be more balanced for the price?

I agree,

for the price point Invulnerability is not worth it.
Really,
*/Magic is almost never useful in my opinion.

As a gm I really disagree. I put my players up against alot of creatures that don't beat DR/ magic but virtually none that beat adamantine. Only creatures using weapons and dragons typically swing magic. Most aberations, undead, demons, and devils do not (some of the most popular monsters). Not to mention that no plants, animals, or constructs swing magic. Some undead swing magic or have magic weapons but most don't. Demons and devils swing evil but not magic (except for balors) Most of their weapons are non magical. Seriously, while I am sure youll be able to find exceptions, there are alot more in the other way. Magical beasts (despite the name) do not often swing magic. Sladdi don't. The point of it being magic is that there are so many things that don't swing magic but it is still beatable. Adamantine is really rare and if you start fighting alot of creatures with adamantine weapons, well then there is no point in it being adamantine in the first place then. The other great thing about invulnerable armor is that you can have it on light armor. Not everyone wears full plate. A barbarian or rogue could have invulnerable armor but adamantine woudl not work well for either.

Animated shields are broken. They make the 1 handed weapon as an option at high levels irrelevant and allow two handed fighters the best of both worlds - good defense and good offense. I also hate the flavor - the idea of a shield floating around and blocking things for a warrior type like Conan just doesn't float my boat.

My worse nightmare is a character weilding a spiked chain and utlizing an animated shield. Oh the pain! Make it stop!

I don't really like animated shields either for the above mentioned reason. I haven't had too much trouble with my player's over using them although there was one time where one person got one and then everyone wanted one. This makes the flavore even worse as 1 pc with a floating shield is interesting (especially as he was an single rapier wielder/archer) but past that it gets old fast... Something smiilar I hate is wizards using mithril bucklers because they can and there is no penalty. Slightly more problems with that unfortunately.

While it is a nice idea in theory, the in combat vs out of combat spells seems like an exceptionally bad idea in practice. Example: I walk around with my 10 summoned creatures because its cool and flavorful etc. Then combat starts, the duration drops to 1 round per level but I still got 10 free quickened spells (even ignoring the fact that summon monster spells normally take a full round to cast). In reality the flavor you want is already in the game, simply in the form of other spells. Unseen servant, phantom steed, and planar ally. If you dislike the idea of your unseen servant being unseen, ask the GM about researching a seen version. As a GM, I would have no problem with it personally. Planar ally even has it built in that it costs less for non-hazardous tasks, such as out of combat tasks.

That being said: while I do agree that casters at least starting out weak was nice for flavor, you have to remember this is a game. It is bad for the game to be unbalanced. It is good for the game for the players not to feel like they can't do anything. Thus wizards need to be on par with other classes at all levels not better or worse. The same is true for spells. Polymorph was terribly overpowered, especially as more books came out (I polymorph the fighter into a wartroll, ring any bells?). I like the idea of wizards actually turning into things but I do not feel that the current polymorph spells indicate they do not. When one of my players uses a draconic polymorph spell, he is a dragon. For NPC's you are the GM and if your players question you when the villain polymorphs into a massive red dragon with all the powers it would have had, they could be scarred in character, they could say OoC: cool!, but they should not say "hey, thats not the way the spell works!" I am not saying that as the GM you should ignore the rules but if you want to run an encounter for a dragon but you want the dragon to actually be a sorcerer who shapeshifts, have that happen.

Sorcerer: Bloodlines are really cool. I like the option of the arcane bloodline as it lets someone who doesn't really want to focus on a bloodline play a sorcerer. I have never though sorcerers needed something to make up for their slightly slower spell progression. The major reasons bloodlines are good are they give incentive to not simply take a prestige class (all sorcs should always prestige before) and they add flavor.

Bloodlines:

Aberrant: all the abilities past the starter make me twinge. I am not sure that they are broken, but they should be examined carefully.

Abyssal: This seems fine. It is obviously weaker than aberrant though.

Arcane: Very strong. On par with aberrant except offensive rather than defensive.

Celestial: This seems fine. It is on par with abyssal. Wings of heaven could be at will.

Destined: is really cool/strong. Better than celestial or abyssal but not as good as arcane or aberrant.

Draconic: Cool, slightly better than celestial?

Elemental: Good, on par with Draconic.

Fey: I dislike laughing touch even if it only works 1 round per creature per day. Fleeting glance needs to be clarified as to what kind of action it is. Fey magic is really strong and soul of the fey is stronger. This is on par with aberrant or arcane.

Infernal: mostly good, I don't like multiple effect things in general so the penalty on saves vs enchantment bothers me a little. I like the flavor behind it though. Same complain for hellfire but it seems fine ever all. Same level as draconic, maybe a little better.

Undead: is good. There needs to be clarification as to what kind of action a bunch of the effects are but it is otherwise fine. (One of us is an awesome name/ability)

Wizard: arcane schools

Abjuration: is really weak but cool

Conjuration: is really good. The 8th level power is a bit iffy but I think overall it is fine.

Divination: is amazing. Maybe too good.

Enchantment: mostly good. I dislike aura of despair having no save.

Evocation: Straight forward. Good if maybe a little weak. I would rather the 8th level power be something different. I have never found creating walls of energy very iconic for evokers.

Illusion: very good. Invisibility field might be too powerful.

Necromancy: seems fine but will probably never be played in a heroic game.

Transmutation: this seems good. I wouldn't call it weak or overpowered.

Universal: even without a power this is by far the best choice which I feel is a shame. Hand of the apprentice lets the wizard be insanely good at dealing damage at levels one and two. Meta-magic mastery is amazing and mastery of all schools is amazing.

As for other changes, I feel that when a character chooses to specialize they should not be able to stop for a day. Maybe they should only have one banned school but they should never be able to cast from their banned school.

Ray of enfeeblement is still too strong, even lasting only a round per level (especially at higher levels with empowered ray of enfeeblement). It needs a fort save for partial effect (-1 or -2 str on a successful save)

Also, while an arcane bonded item is cool, it seems to be better than a familiar to the point that there would never be a reason to take a familiar.

Clerics have many choices for abilities. The problem is, some are way too good. Probably from the attempt to have all casters an at will power at first level.

Air: this domain is fine

Animal: the summon companion ability might be too good but it is otherwise fine.

Artifice: good and flavorful. I like it.

Chaos: first level power is too good. Especially combined with an immediate save or die effect. A good fix would be to say it doesn't work on anything with more hit dice than the cleric. Otherwise it is fine.

Charm: this domain is good. Dazing touch was done right.

Community: good.

Darkness: touch of darkness is really good. Maybe too good.

Death: this domain works well.

Destruction: destructive smite seems a bit weak as a full round action. It would either be a standard action or add full level rather than half level to damage.

Earth: balance wise it is fine. I think a better ability than acid dark can be found though. It is balanced but I think a more earth focused ability would be better for flavor.

Evil: The touch of evil seems too good for nuking saves. Perhaps making it only work on things with your hit dice or less?

Fire domain: good.

Glory: this seems good but is massively overshadowed by good very quickly.

Good: This seems fine at first but gets to be really good at higher levels. A good fix would be to add half your level I think.

Healing: I like this domain.

Knowledge: I like this domain. Lore keeper is very interesting.

Law: the first power is interesting but it seems it will far to often trigger and auto hit or auto save. I think it needs to be changed but can't think of any ways to fix it. I am sure some people think it's fine but I don't like the idea of no chance of failure, even if it is only once per day.

Liberation: I like this domain.

Luck: the first power seems really powerful but I am not sure if it is too powerful. I also don't know how I would change it.

Madness: I see ways to break it but I love the flavor behind the first ability.

Magic: hand of the acolyte is amazing. It means a cleric should completely ignore their strength. At low levels especially this seems too good although after a couple levels it ceases to really matter.

Nobility: I like the first level power. It is strong, especially at low levels but I like it.

Plant: seems fine to me.

Protection: this seems too good to me. It might not be but it seems incredible. I would err on the side of leaving it alone.

Repose: gentle rest is way too good. Cleric puts tarrasque/great wyrm red dragon to sleep & fighter will coup de grace it. Way too good. Even if it only worked on people of your level and below. Its a no save save or die.

Rune: this domain is interesting. I like it.

Strength: strength surge is really good but I would hesitate to ban it.

Sun: this domain is good.

Travel: the first level power is too good. Barring my dislike for low level teleporting, this lets you teleport as a free action at any time from 1st to 20th level. As a capstone this would still be good.

Trickery: copy cat is really good as a move action. I am not sure how it would work at higher levels but in play testing it is definitely amazing at lower level. I would change this ability somehow.

War: battle smite needs to be more explicit in terms of what kind of action it is to use. Free? Move? Standard? Full round? It doesn't say. Otherwise it seems fine.

Water: Balance wise it is fine. In terms of flavor, I don't think ice is the best way to show off the effect of water. I think icicle should be something else.

Weather: is cool but in terms of balance I dislike getting to inflict damage and an attack penalty at the same time as a touch attack.

Druids: have always been very powerful. I do not think the pathfinder version outshines the other classes.

In terms of a capstone, at will shifting is really cool as is their domain power if they choose one. The major problem I see is that animal companions not being able to hold up to that. Maybe animal companions should have a capstone of some kind?

Paladins: Smite evil makes the paladin. Interesting things could be added to this. A paladin smiting could count as good for DR purposes. A paladin could cause the target of his smite to become shaken. A paladin could do extra smite damage (equal to charisma modifier?) to undead and evil outsiders who it smites. You could add an option to spend lay on hands points to hurt undead more who are being smitten. You could faerie fire the target of the smite.

Lots of the domains have 12th, 16th, and 20th level abilities which are arcane spells as spell like abilities. It might be a fair complaint if they were all divine but you get arcane abilities. This combined with the normal awesome of clerics makes a fine capstone I think.

My major problem with the ranger's animal companion is that their other option seems simply better. I also dislike the option as I have never seen ranger's as buffers. Still, I like choices.

A friend of mine was discussing this and the fact that rangers have much weaker animal companions than druids and why this was/ what could be done about it. We came up with the following idea:

Ranger have animal companions which are meant more as companions than as combatants. Thus rather than giving them a companion which progresses more slowly than a druids give them a different kind of companion. Basically the ranger would get 1 companion per 5 levels. Each companion gives a minor bonus, like that of a familiar. Dog/wolf might give +2 to track, or just expand tracking rules to allow tracking by scent. A ferret or weasel could do minor sleight of hand's as a trick. A hawk could do mage hand type tricks. A horse could give +1 to attacks while mounted. etc. This I feel both differentiates the ranger's companion from that of the druid while keeping the flavor.

I like the races as they have been put together and I think the racial ability modifiers also work well.

The way favored classes work is awesome. The only problem I see with it is that I find most players will simply always take the skill point which might indicate the skill point is too good. Still I like the choice existing and think it works well.

I really like the new talents you have created. They expand the list in the way I wanted it to be expanded. The only problems I see are with likable scoundrel and tinkerer.

Tinkerer gives the rogue access to way too many feats at once. A fix would be to make it imitate 1 item creation feat, with the requirement of caster level being replaced with rogue leve1. I would also give this the prereq of the major magic talent and make it one of the higher level talents.

Likable scoundrel is just too good in my opinion.

Bard: Over all I really like the bard. I think it is relatively well balanced. But the capstone is far too good. The save or die effect is interesting and very flavorful (I like the idea of music so beautiful it can kill someone) but still too good. The major reason being that 1d4 rounds of stun on a successful save is insanely powerful. Think of a 9th level spell which stuns for a d4 rounds at a range with no save or SR. Way too good, especially if you compare it to irresistible dance as a benchmark. Irresistible dance is similar but require touch (rather than range), allows a save for partial (1 round of dancing), and allows SR. Albeit the capstones are supposed to be pretty spectacular but even on a successful save whatever the party is fighting is screwed. I think the best fix for this would be to say it doesn't work on things with more hit dice than the bard, that way against a group the bard can use his capstone effectively but when facing the tarrasque, a massive dragon, or any other single monster vs the group fight, the battle does not end before it begins.

Monk: I have a hard time judging the monk in terms of balance but I do like the changes. They are really cool. Most importantly I like the ki abilities. I always thought it sucked that a bard could only use things like abundant step once per day. Also, when it was a standard action a monk would never use it in a monkish way.

Rogue: Talents are awesome. There should be more of them. My only complaint is that there are not more non-combat talents. Talents that augment bluff, disguise, etc. would be good and would increase the number of possible rogue builds. Lastly, their capstone is very cool, but like the bard's capstone, I would say it doesn't work against any thing with more hit-dice than the rogue. I feel this fix works very well for most powers which seem like they might be too strong and I think pathfinder has done a decent job implementing it so far with things like the illusionist's blinding ray.

Maybe change the effect if you save to be dazed for 1 round? And also add a clause that states that if you succeed on your save vs. the Song of Death, you are immune to the effects of subsequent uses of Song of Death from the same bard for 24 hours?

The dazed for 1 round would be an improvement but I really think it should just be will negates. As for immunity to subsequent uses, I think that clause already exists. There is still the problem or near infinite uses of this death effect.

Something else which is less of a problem is that any encounter against a 20+ level fighter would be much more easily defeated and likely in the first round every time with a 20+ level bard. Not the major problem as there are ways around this but a speculatory problem.

Well, they "dialed back" the save or die effects, but they didn't completely eliminate them, and the 20th level capstone abilities are kind of there to make sure you want to take all 20 levels of a class.

I kind of like that a bard can strike a perfect cord that can stop someone's heart . . . it makes the 20th level bard a legendary thing just like an archmage or a warrior that can kill a giant with his bare hands.

Actually, I agree. I think its really cool. I do understand the 20th level capstone thing too. That part of my post was more meant as musings. Maybe I should have left that out so as not to confuse my actual complaint.

The effect on the successful save is far too powerful though. It should be will negates (similar to how the rogue's ability is fort negates). Stunning for 1d4 rounds at a range with no save or spell resistance is insanely powerful to the point that it should not be an ability at all but making it the effect of a successful save is just dumb. As I said before, this ability would define every encounter which was not immune to the effect.

Ok, so the Pathfinder bard can do stuff rather than just buff his allies with his song. I like this but looking at the 20th level ability it seems a bit over the top for two reasons.

First, pathfinder seems to have attempted to do away with save of die effects replacing them with 10 damage per level. This ability and that of the 20th level rogue break this trend. I would rather the game remain consistent and stick to massive damage with these two effects but as the rules are written I do not feel that is actually a major problem nor is it the fact that it is a will save (death effects are tradtionally fort saves, any fighter opponent will probably bite it every time).

Second, what is actually the problem is what happens on a successful save. The bard's opponent is stunned for a d4 rounds. This is way too powerful. Otto's irresistable dance was recognized to be too poweful so it was nerfed. Compare this ability to the unnerfed version. 1d4 rounds automatic stun at a range without a touch attack or SR. Wow! And the bard can do it 20+ times per day (albeit to different opponents). This is insane. Every 20th level combat against a big creature will be boring and against groups the bard just goes through them 1 at a time. Bards should have some reason to buff. This ability should definitely be will negates not will partial. What do other people think about this?