thflame's page

I pose this question to the community, but I ask that we not answer it with, "to be on par with casters", as I think that is the general consensus.

What I'd like to see is what kinds of characters in fiction (or real life) that we would give as an example of a level 20 fighter/ranger/barbarian/etc.

Is a level 20 fighter Alexander the Great? Hawkeye? Captain America? Hercules? Kratos? Cloud?

Do these level 20 fighters have magic-like abilities (anime/wuxia)or are they capped at plausible real world physics (and if the latter, how do we reconcile that with powerful casters)?

Do we want high level martials to be reliant on magic items or do we want them to stand on their own.

As title.

If they do, it isn't printed in their Advancement Table (3-19)

If they don't, then why do some of the Sorcerer Feats have prerequisites of level 1?

1) How powerful are Level 1 PCs compared to Average Joes? About how many commoners can a level 1 fighter upset before he is in over his head? Obviously they are tougher than the Average Joe, but do they need to watch their manners around the common folk or can they take a small village in a bar fight?

PF1 assumes that commoners average a 10.5 in their stats while "heroic" NPCs and PCs a have a 12 average.

PF2 gives PCs a 13 average (by my calculations), so what are commoners at now? If they are still at 10.5, then what fills the gap?

2) What makes PCs so special? Do they have exceptional genes? Are they blessed by divinity? Are they chosen by the cosmos to be great heroes (or terrible villains)? Does the plot just demand that they be powerful, and if so, can I rip out that aspect of the game without breaking it?

3) How many months/days/years of "experience" does a level 1 character have in their field of study on average before they become "level 1"? I assume that you can't just pick up a sword and become a fighter or skim a spellbook and become a wizard, so how long does it take? Does it vary by class? If so, should that not be represented in some form during character creation?

4) If all you need to learn how to cast basic magic in Golarion is an average intelligence, why don't more people know magic? I can imagine Prestidigitation would be quite useful for the Average Joe in a medieval fantasy world.

5) Why do all sorcerers have the same approximate levels of talent? Shouldn't some sorcerers have more or less bloodline power? Why do all sorcerers of the same bloodline manifest their powers in approximately the same way?

6) If elves (for example) are more Dexterous than humans on average, then how come the potential for elves when it comes to Dexterity is no higher than virtually any other race? (Feel free to substitute "elf" for any other race and "Dexterity" for any other race's racially boosted stats.)

I, like many other people, don't like the current rules for shield use. I dislike that it takes an action to ready a shield when, realistically, you would use a shield and weapon in tandem.

Given that I don't want to just complain about the current system, I thought I would offer an alternative solution, but first, let's hypothesize on WHY shields have changed in PF2.

Shields in PF1 are boring. All a shield does in PF1 is sit there, take up a hand slot, and provide you with a passive boost to AC.

My guess is that Paizo wanted to spice shields up and make them more interesting, so they added the ability to soak a hit with a prepared shield as a Reaction. This makes shield use "active" and makes you feel in control of your defense.

In order to balance this, raising a shield had to cost an action, otherwise, the shield user pretty much gets free DR for one attack every round for not a whole lot of cost.

Now, onto my alternate solution.

1) Replace "raising a shield takes an action" with "equipping a shield causes a character to incur a -2 penalty on all attack rolls". This represents the added difficulty of fighting with a shield without "stealing" an action from a shield user every round that they want to use a shield.

2) Replace the complicated Shield Soak Reaction with a Parry Reaction.

Parry Reaction
Requirements: Using a shield with which you have at least Trained Proficiency
Trigger: An attack roll against your character beats their AC.
Effect: Make a Parry Check (d20 + Proficiency Bonus + Shield AC Bonus). If your Parry Check exceeds the result of the incoming attack roll, that attack is considered a "miss". You lose your Shield Bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn.

Now, before you scoff and say, "yeah, but is this balanced", actually, it's pretty close.

Being a nerd, I wrote a program to simulate combat between 2 characters, a great weapon fighter with a d12 weapon and a sword and board fighter with a d8 weapon and a shield that provides a +2 Shield Bonus.

The characters were both level 1 with "Expert Proficiency" in their weapons and shield, They both had +4 armor bonus and +3 STR, DEX, and CON modifiers.

I assumed 8 racial HP and 10 Class HP for a total of 21 HP.

I ran 1 million simulations and the end results had the sword and board fighter winning 53.8% of the time, which is pretty close.

I did NOT test this with any extra feats like power attack, just to keep things even.

(The last time I ran a similar program I got similar results for the Power Attack vs Shield Soak mechanic.)

Pros and Cons

Pros: I think this feels more "realistic" and doesn't have a perceived "punishment" associated with it.

It ignores the complex Shield Soak Mechanic, which gives players less to remember or write down on their sheet.

It let's you roll another die! Who doesn't like that?

Cons: If you like getting DR from your Shield, that's gone (but maybe that could be added back in as a feat?)

It's another die roll, which some people may not want. Personally, I like rolling dice, but If all of your players are taking Parry Reactions every round, then that's another 4 dice rolls per round of combat which may slow down the game.

It may not be balanced with other features that Paizo wants to implement or at higher levels, since we don't know a lot about that yet.

So what does everyone think?

Will the PF2 Playtest contain "all" of the classes, feats, rules, options, etc. for the final game, or is Paizo planning on holding some stuff back for the full release?

I understand that stuff will assuredly change between the playtest and the final game, but will the playtest contain rules for "everything" that you plan on releasing in the Core Rulebook?

In other words, will Paizo be specifically holding back some mechanics from the playtest that they intend to include in the Core Rulebook? (Discounting stuff that get's fixed or tuned after the playtest launches, obviously.)

I have some fears about class feats that I would like to air out and see if others have the same issues.

First of all, there appear to be class features that sound like stuff any character should be able to attempt.

Secondly, there appear to be Class Feats that were once General Feats than now appear to be locked behind particular classes. Now, it is possible that such features are just unlocked later by other classes, but I hope we can get clarification on this.

Here are some examples:

Fighters are the only class that get Opportunity Attacks by default. Apparently other classes can get Opportunity Attacks as a feat. Is this ALL other classes, or are some classes SOL if they want Opportunity Attacks?

Fighters can get a class feature called "Battlefield Surveyor" which gives them a +1 to Perception on Initiative rolls. Now, I don't know how this is described in-game, but it sounds like the Fighter knows what spots make for good ambushes, so he knows to keep his eyes peeled when this comes up. My question is, should you HAVE to be a Fighter to be able to spot likely ambush areas?

The Fighter Class Feat, Sudden Charge, let's a Fighter move twice and attack for 2 Actions. Is a Fighter the only class that can do this or can other classes get the feat later? Also, couldn't other classes charge in PF1? (I know that Sudden Charge doesn't make you move in a straight line, but still...)

Power Attack is listed under the heading of Fighter Class Feats. Does this mean that Barbarians can't Power Attack anymore without multiclassing?

Quick Reversal, another Fighter Class Feat is sort of the opposite of Cleave. If you miss, you can still hit someone on the back-swing. (Unfortunately, they have to be directly behind you, but whatever.) This sounds right up the Barbarian's alley. Swing so wildly that even though you miss they guy in front of you, you still hit the guy behind you.

Shield Warden lets you protect your ally with your shield. Cool, sounds like a great feat for my overly protective Paladin! It's a Fighter Class Feat.....

Rogues get Nimble Dodge, which grants them a +2 to AC as a reaction. This sounds like something ANY dexterous character should be allowed to acquire, no?

Mobility, a Rogue Class Feat that allows you to move at half speed to avoid Opportunity Attacks, was previously a flat Acrobatics Check that ANY character could perform. Should this be locked behind the Rogue Class?

Reactive Pursuit, another Rogue Class Feat, is the Step Up Feat from PF1. Is it now locked behind being a Rogue?

Dread Striker sounds like PF1's Shatter Defenses Feat, a combat feat that allows you to treat intimidated opponents as flat-footed. Now it's a Rogue Feat. My favorite character, and Eldritch Knight took that feat...

Now, I get that classes need something to make them special, but I feel as though PF2 is going the route of taking abilities away from everyone to make them special for certain classes.

Maybe these will be unlockable feats for everyone after a certain point? If so, then why call them Class Feats?

Maybe we will have very similar feats for other classes? If this is the case, then why waste book space writing essentially the same feat for all of the classes? Why not just let us all have access to the same feats?

My problem is that Paizo has stated that PF2 would bring us MORE customization. While this may be true, in that we may have more choices for our characters, if you lock out specific choices because they belong to other classes, then you have just made the game more restrictive.

I have officially gone from being very optimistic for PF2 to disheartened as to how it is going to turn out.

I'd like to make a small request for PF2.

Can we have a small section on guidelines for how to homebrew spells, feats, classes, etc.?

Ultimately, players are going to want content that doesn't exist and Paizo can't read everyone's minds. Even if they could, there would be no way to publish all of it in a core rulebook, let alone a few dozen supplement guides.

The custom magic item guidelines in PF1 are a great example of the kind of stuff I'd like to see, but for feats, class features, and spells as well.

If you can't fit it into the Core Rulebook, perhaps we could get an official handbook on designing game features with examples, tables, formulas, playtesting guidelines, potential pitfalls, etc.?

On the heels of the Fighter Blog post, the issue of how shields work came up again. A lot of us believe that you shouldn't have to spend an action to raise a shield as, in real, keeping a shield raised in combat was fairly intuitive for anyone who knows how to use one.

So, being the nerd I am, I decided to run a simulation of how two identical fighters would fair against each other, with the only difference being their weapon load-out.

Meet Sam and Todd. Sam and Todd are twins with 16 STR, 12 DEX and 14 CON. They are both level 1 Human Fighters with Expert level Proficiency in their weapons (+1). They both wear armor that grants a +4 bonus to AC while allowing their +1 DEX to be effective.

Sam uses a longsword (d8) and a shield(+2 AC, Hardness 9).

Todd uses a Greataxe (d12), held in both hands.

Both are fans of Power Attack, so they both use it as much as possible.

They decide to have a LOT of friendly duels (1 million to be exact). First one to drop the other to zero wins!

More detailed information:

So what are the results?

*drum roll*

Sam wins about 60% of the time!

This means that the current shield mechanic, under the given circumstances is stronger than using both hands for one weapon.

Logically speaking, changing the shield mechanic to be a constant benefit, at least under these circumstances, would lead to an even more skewed match-up between Sam and Todd. My original intention WAS to re-run the simulation with the shield being an automatic benefit.

While I am personally of the camp that you shouldn't NEED to spend an action to raise a shield logically, I can't deny that shields appear to be slightly more powerful that two handed weapons already (which is also logical. Shields are OP IRL.)

In the interest of balance, it appears that the Shield mechanic should NOT change, unless two handed weapons get a substantial buff.

My guess is that given the new +/- 10 mechanic for critical success and failure, small bonuses and penalties to d20 rolls appear to have SUBSTANTIAL effects. The bonus AC from a shield appears to give a decent edge to those that use them.

Note: This is a very specific scenario, and results may vary under different scenarios. I could have also flubbed something. I am not perfect.

If anyone would like for me to change the variables and redo this test, I am willing to do so, if I have time. (Devs get priority!!!)

If there is another mechanic you would like me to run a simulation on, let me know. I'll see what I can do.

Note: I am NOT a dev, so I know as much as the average poster here. Please don't ask me to do simulations on mechanics we don't have any information on yet. I am willing to make a few guesses here and there, but I am not willing to guess how an entire mechanic works.

The new Power Attack mechanic was revealed in the Fighter Blog Post. Here's a short-hand of how it works:

Spend 2 actions to roll one extra damage die (presumably your weapon's normal damage die).

There was concern that this was a nerf from PF1's Power Attack, so, being a nerd, I did some work:

My assumptions are a base damage of d12+4.

I also assume that a theoretical PF1 Power Attack in PF2 could be done 3 times at a cumulative -5 penalty after the first hit.

I tested for each possible result of a 20 being needed to hit.

My findings show that old Power Attack beats new Power Attack until you need to roll a 15 to hit, then new Power Attack starts to win at lower levels. By the time you need an 18 to hit, new Power Attack is almost always better, regardless of level.

I believe the Devs stated that the new Power Attack should be superior, given the +/- 10 critical system, so I am checking for bugs. (I'm not perfect), though I haven't found any yet. If I find anything new, I will update with a new post.

If anyone wants a particular test run, I can do that, assuming I'm not too busy. (Devs get priority!)

The Resonance mechanic was introduced (leaked?) the other day and it has been a source of controversy since then.

For those who don't know, Resonance is PF2's new mechanic that regulates magic item use. Here are the basics: (devs please correct me if I am wrong so I can modify my code)

1) Characters have a Resonance Score of Level + CHA mod.
2) Worn Magic items use up one point of resonance, per item.
3) Use activated items (potions, scrolls, wands, etc.) use up Resonance per use.
4) If you run out of Resonance, you must make a Resonance Check in order to use another use activated item.
5) A Resonance Check is d20 VS DC 10.
6) Resonance Check DCs increase by 1 each time they are rolled.
7) Crit Failing a Resonance Check cuts you off from any more use activated magic item use for the day.

Being a nerd, I decided to write a program that would run 1 million simulations of characters making Resonance Checks to see how many uses of magic items you can reasonably be expected to get after you run out of Resonance.

My result was approximately 2.3 uses.

This means that, on average, a character can use a number of use activated items equal to their Resonance Score (Level + CHA mod.) + 2.3 times per day.

Keep in mind that party members can "pool" these points with intelligent item usage.

Whether or not this mechanic is acceptable is irrelevant to this post, but I felt that this information should be factored in to any discussion about the effectiveness/palatability of the mechanic.

Thanks for your time.

Don't judge me.

Since it has been all but confirmed that spells will have to be cast at higher levels for stronger effects, and there has been some concern that this would make lower level spell slots much weaker, I thought I would offer a potential solution.

In 3.5, there was a Feat in one of the splatbooks called Versatile Spellcaster. It allowed a Spontaneous Arcane caster to spend 2 spell slots of the same level to cast a spell one level higher. You weren't allowed to dump 4 spells of a lower level to cast a spell 2 levels higher, so players weren't running around with just a bunch of 9th level spells.

As it stands, I allow the feat in my Pathfinder games, as written, except you aren't allowed to convert cantrips into 1st Level spells (that would result in infinite 1st level spells).

I was thinking this would be useful as a standard feature of all casters. Prepared casters would obviously have to do this when they prepared their spells.

The end effect, if taken to the extreme, results in a caster having about 50% more spells of his highest level and half as many spells per day of all of his other levels and no 1st Level spells. It sacrifices efficiency for versatility.

Would it be broken to allow the "dagger of doubling" effect on a custom upgrade-able weapon? I have a player that wants to dual wield wakizashi, but doesn't want to ultimately dump 400,670 gp in character wealth into two weapons, especially since she is also getting a splitting shuriken. My attempt at reverse engineering the dagger of doubling puts the cost of the "doubling" effect at +8000 gp.

MATH:

10,302 gp (dagger of doubling)
-2 gp (dagger)
-300 gp (masterwork)
-2000 gp (+1)
= 8000 gp

Does this sound reasonable, or should I price the effect as a +1 or +2 weapon ability?

Keep in mind that the player would like to have her weapon upgraded to potentially an effective +10 with the doubling property. As it stands, that would yield 2 identical effective +10 wakizashi at a cost of 208,335 gp.

Any notable pitfalls in waving or substituting the "proficiency in all martial weapons" requirement for prestige classes in general?

I was thinking of substituting that requirement with Weapon Focus in a martial or exotic weapon.

The idea is to let players who are obviously combat oriented to take combat oriented prestige classes without having to come up with some RP reason why they had to sack a level in Fighter, Barbarian, etc.

The specific examples to why I am asking this are for a "battle sorcerer" and a bard that want to take Eldritch Knight without taking a level in Fighter.

I'm playing a custom class in a Pathfinder campaign that gets an ability similar to the Magus' Imbue Weapon and has access to the spell Greater Magic Weapon. One of the big things this class has going for it is the ability to expend spell slots to grant the weapon bonuses.

I have just learned that Pathfinder has a rule that a weapon cannot have an effective bonus above +10 for any reason. (This was different in 3.5, which is the reason I didn't know.)

The current GM was unaware of this rule and OKed the class at the time. After discovering this rule, it makes one of the main class features practically worthless, for that reason the GM is allowing it to continue for the time being.

Is the ability to create a weapon that temporarily exceeds the +10 cap going to be broken?

Here are some details:

The Imbue Weapon ability on this class allows the character to expend a spell slot to grant an equivalent bonus to his weapon. He does not have an arcane pool.

The class is capped at 6th level spells. (Bard Progression)

This means, at level 20, he could have a +1 weapon with +9 in special abilities, cast GMW on it to make it a +5 weapon with +9 special abilities, and use Imbue Weapon to add +6 worth of special abilities to the weapon for a grand total of +5 weapon with +15 in abilities.

Imbue weapon lasts for 1 minute.

He can only Imbue his own weapon, which is treated like an Wizard's Arcane Bond. It only works for him.

Most (nearly all) of his class features require him to expend spell slots to use, so he runs out of spells very quickly.

Firstly, I want to preface that I understand that Enhancement Bonuses don't stack. (A +3 longsword that has a 20th level caster cast Greater Magic Weapon on it doesn't become a +8 longsword, as the bonuses overlap. It instead becomes a +5 longsword.)

Next, I'd like to let it be known that I also understand that you can't put the same special ability on a weapon twice. (No 2x Flaming for 2d6 fire damage.)

Now for my questions.

If I have a +1, vorpal, holy, flaming burst longsword, and I have a 20th level caster cast Greater Magic Weapon on it, does it become a +5, vorpal, holy, flaming burst longsword, or is the weapon capped at an effective +10?

Next, if the character with this weapon is a Magus, can the Magus expend arcane pool points to add Speed, Keen, etc. to this weapon?

I was under the impression that GMW "stacked" and I assumed that Imbue Weapon would to, but someone told me that in Pathfinder, all weapons are capped at a +10 equivalent bonus and can't be improved further by any means. If this is the case, then many players would have class features effectively robbed from them by just paying for a better weapon.

Hello All

Background information:

I am not proposing these changes to Pathfinder or any other system. I merely want people's feedback on these ideas for a separate system.

I am in the process of writing my own system, and since 3.5/Pathfinder are the closest things to what I'm looking for, I thought I'd start there for inspiration.

I have been playing pathfinder for about a year, and I played 3.5 since about 2008, so I know they general system pretty well.

For my system, I want as good of a ratio of "simple" to "simulationist" as possible. This effectively means, no unnecessary complications and minimal calculations during gameplay while offering a framework that supports doing just about anything you want.

Now, on to my, eh, questions/explanations, stuff:

I want to talk about how a character's core stats effect their "effectiveness" as a character in Pathfinder, and get input from people here on things they do and don't like about that aspect.

The most important "crunch" aspect is your character's stats and how they effect their abilities. In my system, I want to break down characters into Fluff (stuff that doesn't effect gameplay), Stats(what your core potential is), Skills(how well trained/educated you are in a particular area), and "Powers" (pretty much everything unique they can do).

In 3.PF, characters/creatures have a stats starting at 0 and going up, theoretically, indefinitely. A score of 10 is considered average and comes with a modifier of 0. From what I can tell, core stats are only used to calculate modifiers, which are used to determine your probability of success on a given check.

This is my first issue with the Pathfinder system. Aside from Feat prerequisites, odd numbers don't do much, if anything. A STR 13 guy isn't any more likely to succeed on a STR check than a STR 12 guy.

For my first question, are there any beneficial properties to having core stats work this way, or could this be worked around without much effect on the game?

My proposed implementation would be to just have Modifiers.

Next part, Since Pathfinder uses the 20 for checks, each point of modifier for a given check modifies your success rate by about 5%. Starting at a core stat value of 10, we have no bonus or penalty for that particular core stat. If we go down to 8 or 9, we have a 5% penalty to success. This continues down to a score of 1, where we have a 25% penalty to success. At 0, we immediately shift to a 100% failure, because we aren't allowed to roll checks with a 0 in a stat.

As an example, an easy DC is 10. A creature with a 1 in the respective stat, with no other modifiers, has a 30% chance of success (15 or better on a roll). Deal 1 point of damage to that stat, and now they are incapable of performing that check at all. It seems like there is a bit of a cliff here.

For my second question, should that "cliff" be there? Would people like to have a more even slope for characters who find themselves in dire straights or for exceptionally weak monsters?

My proposed implementation would be to add some more negative scaling before an effective "zero".

Finally, I find a problem with how stats "scale". An average human has a STR of 10. Someone twice as strong as that character would be 20, right?

How come, if these people were to have an arm wrestling match, the 10 STR guy has a 26.25% chance of winning? A 1 STR guy has a 11.25% chance of winning. A guy, with a Strength of 1/10th of the average human being, would have a 11.25% chance to beat a guy TWICE as strong as the average human. (I actually had a similar situation happen to a character of mine. My full orc fighter with 26 STR lost an arm wrestling match with a 15 STR Dwarf.)

Maybe, on the other hand, someone is NOT twice as strong as a human until they can achieve a DC twice as high as the average human could? In that case, it would take a STR 50 guy to be twice as strong as the average human. By that logic, the STR 1 guy is actually 3/4 as strong as the average human being. I feel like this system doesn't accurately portray a huge population of a theoretical fantasy world that way.

So, for my third question, is this a desirable outcome of the system? Should 1 STR creatures have a 11.25% chance of beating your 20 STR fighter in an arm wrestling match? Should you have to get a STR of 50 for mere average mortals to no be able to challenge your might?

My proposed implementation would be to either stretch out the spectrum or use a smaller die. On one hand, numbers would need to be fairly large, especially for creatures like dragons. On the other hand, we won't get to roll the d20 (it IS a lot of fun to roll) and we may remove degrees of success or failure that would otherwise be desirable.

So, what do you guys think?

Let's say my character is using a longsword (crit 19-20 x2). For some reason, he can only hit the enemy on a nat 20. What happens if he rolls a 19?

Do I threaten a critical, and, if I roll a 20, I crit?

OR

Do I not threaten, because a 19 wouldn't hit?

Here is a base class I made. Please critique.

The idea is a spontaneous casting gish that blends his weapon with his spells.

Spellsword

HD: d8
Skill Points per level: 4 + INT
Class Skills: Climb, Craft, Fly, Initmidate, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (the planes), Profession, Spellcraft, Swim, Use Magic Device.
BAB: Medium
Good Saves: Fort, Will

Spells: Spells Known and Spells per day as the bard. Select spells from Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Charisma based. Spontaneous caster.

Abilities:

1) Bound Weapon, Imbue Weapon, Channel Spell, Light Armor Casting
2) Spell Reservoir
3) Rune Blade
4) Fighter Training
5) Imbue Weapon 2
6) Improved Channel Spell
7) Extra Rune
8) Spell Parry
9) Bonus Feat
10) Imbue Weapon 3
11) Quicken Channel
12) Greater Channel Spell
13) Spell Reflect
14) Extra Rune
15) Imbue Weapon 4
16) Spell Absorb
17) Greater Quicken Channel
18) Bonus Feat
19) Perfect Channel Spell
20) Imbue Weapon 5

Bound Weapon: A Spellsword starts with a masterwork melee weapon of his choice. This weapon is used to channel his Spellsword abilities. The hand holding this weapon is considered free for the purposes of fulfilling Somatic components. The Spellsword may only have one bound weapon at a time. If this weapon is lost or destroyed, or if the Spellsword desires a new weapon, the Spellsword must provide a new masterwork weapon and spend 200gp in a 24 hour ritual to make this new weapon his Bound Weapon. Old bound weapons lose their abilities upon completion of this ritual.

Imbue Weapon: At level 1, as a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity, Spellsword may choose to lose a Spell slot of at least level 1 to grant his bound weapon a +1 enhancement bonus or a +1 equivalent special ability for 10 minutes. In order to add a special ability, the weapon must posses at least a +1 enhancement bonus already. Any enhancement bonus added by this ability stacks with any existing enhancement bonus on the weapon up to +5. Any special abilities added with this ability stack with existing abilities, but not with abilities of the same name. If the Spellsword uses this ability again before the duration runs out, the previous effects end immediately. All abilities added must be compatible with the Spellsword's bound weapon.

Channel Spell: As a Full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, a Spellsword may cast and deliver a touch spell with a casting time of a standard action or less, with a melee attack at his full base attack bonus. If the melee attack misses, the spell fails and is lost. If the attack hits, the target takes damage as though it had been hit by a normal attack. Then, the target is subjected to the spell as though it had been cast on it normally. Saves, spell resistance, and any other special defenses apply.

Light Armor Casting: A Spellsword does not incur arcane spell failure chance from wearing light armor.

Spell Reservoir: At level 2, a Spellsword may use his bound weapon to store a single spell. This spell does not need to be cast by the Spellsword, but must be on the list of spells normally allowed to the spellsword. Casting a spell from this reservoir is just like casting a spell from a scroll, except the bound weapon is not destroyed. If the spell is on the Spellswords list of known spells and it is compatible with Channel Spell, he may deliver it with Channel Spell. While there is a spell in the Spellsword's Spell Reservoir, he may not use Channel spell with any other spell. He may choose at any time to lose the spell in his Spell Reservoir as an immediate action. A spell placed in the Spell Reservoir is lost if not used in 24 hours.

Rune Blade: At level 3, a Spellsword selects a single rune to etch into his bound weapon at no cost. The Spellsword may select an additional rune at levels 7 and 14. Runes have various special abilities and each can be selected multiple times. A Spellsword's Rune abilities only function for the Spellsword that placed them. If the Spellsword replaces his bound weapon for any reason, he must pay an additional 200gp in an additional 24 hour ritual to etch each Rune into his blade.

Rune Abilities:

Accuracy Rune: +1 on attack rolls with bound weapon

Power Rune: +1 on damage rolls with bound weapon

Mystic Rune: +1 on Save DCs of Channeled spells.

Piercing Rune: +1 on caster level checks to break Spell Resistance of Channeled spells.

Focus Rune: +1 on Concentration checks while wielding bound weapon.

Defensive Rune: +1 to AC while wielding bound weapon.

Evasive Rune: +1 to Reflex Saves while wielding bound weapon.

Mind Rune: +1 to Will Saves while wielding bound weapon.

Speed Rune: +5ft. movement speed while wielding bound weapon.

Eager Rune: +1 to Initiative while wielding bound weapon.

Body Rune: +1 to Fortitude Saves while wielding bound weapons.

Tough Rune: +3 temporary HP while wielding bound weapon.

Fighter Training: At level 4, a Spellsword is treated as a Fighter of half the Spellsword's level rounded down for the purposes of selecting combat feats.

Imbue Weapon 2: At 5th level, a Spellsword may use his Imbue Weapon Ability to add an equivalent +2 enhancement, or two +1 enhancements, to his weapon at the cost of a spell slot of at least level 2. All other rules involving Imbue Weapon apply.

Improved Spell Channel: At level 6, A Spellsword may use Channel Spell to deliver a ranged touch or ray spell with a casting time of 1 standard action or less as part of a melee attack. Only the target of Channel Spell is affected by the spell, even if the spell normally has multiple targets.

Spell Parry: At level 8, once per round, when a Spellsword is the sole target of a spell, he may roll a caster level check DC 15 + the spell's level to prevent all effects of that spell.

Bonus Feat: Bonus Feat: At level 9 and 18, the Spellsword gains a bonus Combat Feat of his choice, but he must meet the prerequisites for the feat.

Imbue Weapon 3: At 10th level, a Spellsword may use his Imbue Weapon Ability to add an equivalent +3 enhancement, or any combination of enhancements that add up to +3, to his weapon at the cost of a spell slot of at least level 3. All other rules involving Imbue Weapon apply.

Quicken Channel: At level 11, a Spellsword's Channel Spell ability becomes a Standard Action. All other rules of Channel Spell still apply.

Greater Channel Spell: At level 12, a Spellsword may channel any spell with a casting time of one standard action or less. Spells delivered this way only affect the target of the Channel Spell ability. Some spells may not be compatible with this ability (GM's discretion) such as spells that normally have no direct affect on creatures.

Spell Reflect: At level 13, when a Spellsword successfully parries a spell with Spell Parry, he may redirect the spell to another valid target. If the spell requires an attack roll, use the Spellsword's attack bonus. For all other effects, use the original caster's stats.

Imbue Weapon 4: At level 15, a Spellsword may use his Imbue Weapon Ability to add an equivalent +4 enhancement, or any combination of enhancements that add up to +4, to his weapon at the cost of a spell slot of at least level 4. All other rules involving Imbue Weapon apply.

Spell Absorb: At level 16, if a Spellsword successfully parries a spell with Spell Parry, and the spell is compatible with Spell Reservoir, he may choose to store the spell in his Spell Reservoir. If there is already a spell in his Spell Reservoir, that spell is lost in place of the new one.

Greater Quicken Spell: At level 17, a Spellsword may use Channel Spell in place of the first attack in a full attack action. All other Channel Spell rules apply.

Perfect Channel Spell: At level 19, if a Spellsword's Channel Spell ability fails, the spell is placed in his Spell Reservoir instead of being lost.

Imbue Weapon 5: At level 20, a Spellsword may use his Imbue Weapon Ability to add an equivalent +5 enhancement, or any combination of enhancements that add up to +5, to his weapon at the cost of a spell slot of at least level 5. All other rules involving Imbue Weapon apply.

Here is a Magus Archetype, the spellsword, that I thought up. Please critique.

Spellcasting: A spellsword casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell, a spellsword must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level. The DC for a saving throw against a spellsword's spell is 10 + the spell's level + the spellsword's Charisma modifier. A spellsword can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is the same as a bard of the same level. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score.

An spellsword's selection of spells is limited. He has the same number of spells known as a bard of the same level, and can choose new spells to replace old ones at 5th level and every 3 class levels after that, just as a bard does. See the bard for more information on swapping spells known.

This ability replaces the magus's spells class feature, Spell Recall, Knowledge Pool, Medium Armor, Improved Spell Recall, Heavy Armor, and Greater Spell Access.

The spellsword may not select Item Creation Feats as a Bonus Feat

The Spellsword may not select the following Magus Arcana: Empowered Magic, Familiar, Maximized Magic, Quickened Magic, Reach Magic, Rod Mastery, Rod Wielder, Scroll Mastery, Silent Magic, Still Magic, Wand Mastery, and Wand Wielder.

I like the Magus thematically, but I can't help but notice that a solid Eldritch Knight build is WAY better than the optimal Magus build that I keep running into.

The downside to the Eldritch Knight is that, for the most part, the magic aspect and the melee aspect are separate. The only time spells combine with magic is with the Eldritch Knight capstone ability.

What are the possible pitfalls of allowing a Magus to select any spell from the Wizard Spell list, as opposed to just the Magus List? This would effectively replace Greater Spell Access, as it becomes mostly redundant. I am also okay with losing medium/heavy armor.

My reasoning as to why I think it's okay:

Magus 20:
BAB: 15
Max Spell Level: 6

Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10/Fighter 4
BAB 17
Max Spell Level: 7

Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10/Wizard 4
BAB: 15
Max Spell Level: 9

I feel like the Magus class abilities don't quite cover this discrepancy, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything.

I have a campaign idea where the only town nearby gets destroyed. The PCs will have to survive on whatever they find out in the wilderness. There will be little to no "buying stuff"

Some "rules" in the campaign:

Money will be effectively useless (unless the PCs want to make something out of platinum/gold/silver/copper).

I plan to replace gp rewards with random gear or raw materials.

I plan to offer an NPC who can craft just about anything if the PCs bring them the raw materials. (A Dwarf Wizard) Any spells they want him to learn will have to be found in a spell book or a scroll, or taught by a PC or NPC.

I am using the background skills variant to give my PCs extra points to spend on Craft Skills and the like. I am also encouraging that they do so.

It may be possible for the PCs to barter materials with NPCs. (I'll probably use this to help fill any gaps in resources)

Any pitfalls I should be aware of?

This is mostly a curiosity based question, but I'm wondering if having a "boss" that is designed to toy with the PCs, then all but crush them, then walk off without finishing them off.

Here's the idea:

PCs (who's classes and abilities have yet to be determined) stumble upon the BBEG way before they are ready to fight him. The BBEG is not interested in killing the PCs, but doesn't mind toying with them. After a lengthy battle of trading somewhat heavy hits from the NPC, he get bored with the party and hits them with some less-than-lethal spell that incapacitates either all of them, or enough of them that the remaining PCs realize that it would be stupid to carry on.

Statistics wise, I'm thinking a custom Sorcerer template (replace the bloodline stuff with d8 HD, medium BAB, light armor/martial weapon proficiency). The idea here is that the BBEG can handle himself in melee and use his low level spells to toy with the PCs, then bust out a high level crowd control spell to incapacitate the party as he walks off chuckling.

I'm not sure what level to put him at. I want him to be hit-able rarely, but have plenty of HP to tank what hits he does take. I want him to have high enough saves that the party can't incapacitate him.

The BBEG will be using mostly debuff spells to soften people up (touch of idiocy, ray of enfeeblement, ray of clumsiness, bestow curse, etc.)

I'm thinking of throwing this guy at the PCs fairly early (level 5 or so) and he would go on to become the final boss (where he is hopefully defeated by the PCs).

I'm unsure whether the PCs should just run into him on an unrelated quest or based on poor information.

Examples:

The PCs are going to retrieve some item from a dungeon and the BBEG just happens to be looking for the same item. They run into each other and things deteriorate from there.

OR

The PCs are sent out to deal with some little known sorcerer who has been causing trouble. The quest giver is under the impression that the BBEG isn't very powerful and assumes that the PCs can handle him. When the PCs finally meet up with him, they start to fight him, but realize about halfway through the fight that the BBEG is much more powerful than the quest giver or PCs thought, and things deteriorate from there.

My main worries are making the BBEG too lethal, (I was hoping to avoid this by using debuff spells primarily) or making him too squishy and the PCs ace him before he has a chance to toy with them.

I'm not too worried about rail-roading. My group is usually interested in a good story over fair gameplay. I don't plan on locking them in the room with the guy, so they can run if they want, but I want the group to think he's a pushover until they get invested in the fight. I also don't want to fudge any rolls. If the PCs manage to beat him, it isn't the end of the world. (He just becomes the BBEG's side-kick)

Here are the questions:

1) Is this a good idea?

2) Can this be done without the party feeling like they were tricked/forced into an unwinnable fight by the GM?

3) Is it reasonable for the BBEG to let the PCs live, seeing as he could easily just finish them off? (Maybe I give the BBEG a time sensitive errand or he has plans for the PCs later?)

4) How should I build BBEG assuming the rest of this is okay? (Level, Stats, magic items, spells, etc.)

Some info on how I build NPCs:

1) They get appropriate wealth by level for there level.

2) They start with 8s in all stats, then I give them 25 points to distribute how they see fit, up to 10 points in one stat (an 18). (This is what the PCs get on character creation, and I want to be fair.)

3) They have access to anything in any first party Pathfinder or DnD 3.5 books.

4) Bosses get max HP and partial immunity to SoDs/SoSs. (PCs get max HP on the first die and 1/2 HD size + 1 per level).

I have a homebrew idea for the Sorcerer and a 3.5 prestige class called Spellsword.

Here is the Sorcerer variant:

Loses: Bloodline Powers, Feats, and Spells

Gains: Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency, d8 HD, Medium BAB

Pretty straight forward.

Spellsword PRC:

Prerequisites:

-BAB +5

-Knowledge (Arcana) 6 ranks

-Proficient with all Simple and Martial Weapons

-Able to cast 3rd level Arcane Spells.

-Must have defeated an enemy through force of arms alone without recourse to spellcasting.

Abilities:

-Full BAB

-Good Fort and Will Saves

-d8 HD

-Channel Spell: At first level, once per day per spellsword level, a spellsword can channel any spell she can cast into her melee weapon. Using this ability requires a move action, and the spellsword uses up the a spell slot or prepared spell just as if she had cast the spell. The channeled spell affects the next target the spellsword successfully attacks with her weapon (spell resistance and saving throws still apply). Even if the spell normally only affects an area, or is a ray, it affects only the target. A spellsword can channel her spells into only one weapon at a time. Spells channeled into a weapon are lost if not used in eight hours.

-Spells Per Day: At levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10, a spellsword gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class she belonged to before adding this prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained, except for an increased level for spell-casting. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a spellsword, she must decide to which class she adds the new level for the purpose of determining spells per day.

-Multiple Channel: At 10th level, a spellsword can channel two spells into her melee weapon, using a move action to channel each one. Both channeled spells affect he next target the spellsword successfully attacks with her weapon, in the order they were placed into the weapon. As with the channel spell class feature, saving throws and spell resistance applies normally. Furthermore, at 10th level, a spellsword my channel spells as often as they like.

Hello all.

I have been playing DnD 3.5 for about 6 years and I want to get into Pathfinder.

The character I want to play is a gish that channels spells through his sword. The caster portion would be a Blaster/Debuffer emphasis.

In DnD, this character was a Fighter 1/Battle Sorcerer 9/Spellsword 10.

I am willing to homebrew stuff, but I would rather use something official if it exists.

Starting at the Bottom:

Pathfinder fighter is perfectly fine, but I'm not married to the idea. I really only dipped in it to fulfill the requirements for Spellsword.

I don't like the Pathfinder Sorcerer's Bloodline stuff (at least for this character). I would like to have a variant that increases martial capability at the cost of the Bloodline stuff.

I really don't want to play a prepared caster and I would prefer if my casting stat was Charisma.

I would also prefer to have my pick of the Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list.

The updated Spellsword for Pathfinder actually gutted the part I liked about the Spellsword (Channel Spell Ability) It now functions closer to the Tome and Blood Spellsword. (which was complete garbage)

I don't care about the casting in armor stuff (this character will either wear Bracers of Armor or light armor).

I REALLY want the Channel Spell ability from the Spellsword of DnD 3.5's Complete Warrior.

Here are my ideas:

Custom Battle Sorcerer Variant

Loses: Bloodline Stuff

Gains: D8 Hit Die, Medium BAB, Martial Weapon Prof.

Custom Spellsword:

Loses: Ignore ASF%, Armor requirements, Bonus Feat

Gains: More Spell Progression, more (infinite?)Channel Spell uses.

First Question: Does something like this already exist? (Not Magus)

Second question: Are my ideas balanced? How much more spell progression/channel spell uses seems balanced?