Clockwork Librarian

toyrobots's page

Organized Play Member. 1,557 posts (10,840 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. No wishlists. 14 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Maybe it's aliases, I'll try deleting this post from my main.

EDIT: Nope, no delete button here either.

(de-Lincolning for sensitive topics)

The comments made by the fund-raising exec about the Tea Party and conservatives are tame. I'm not saying they're true, but they are really tame compared to what you see across media and in the public dialog, and on private news channels.

He basically called the far right in the US gun-toting racists.

I don't believe everyone on the far right is a gun-toting racist, but there are, in fact, some gun-toting racists on that far right. Many of them are proud of it. Gun-toting racist liberals may exist, but they would be — by definition — less frequent given the liberal stance on gun control.

So on the one side, we have a news corporation (Fox) who mirthfully level far more disparaging remarks on a weekly if not daily basis. Somebody from NPR admits some bias about the far right (who are gunning for their jobs) and somehow this is a scandal? Frankly, I would consider it more shocking if you told me that an NPR exec didn't think that about the far right.

Chris Mortika wrote:
Toyrobots, I don't have a problem with there being a lot of bad stuff in the campaign world. I have a problem with slavery *not* being treated as bad stuff.

So did abolitionists in our fair country. So they fought against it, despite societal norms.

Please don't take the above remark as facetious. It took immense bravery, hardship, and physical danger to break through the complacence of those times. I think highly of the campaign setting for not reducing the problem to something cartoonish and simple.

(changing my alias this time, because last time I was unaware of the irony)

A great fact about Golarion is that it isn't an inherently Good place. Most governments are evil. Most people are not Good. Heroes are the exception, and Good heroes are only a subset of that category. Player characters in this setting are not one face in a sea of do-gooders. They are the heroes. They set an example in a world that needs it.

Opposing something Evil, like slavery, is more heroic and meaningful when you don't have all of civilization backing you up on it. Not only are you doing the right thing, you're doing the right thing when it might be easier not to.

Out of curiosity, what would people pay for such a plushie? Bear in mind, USA handmade is going to make it a little pricier than what you'll find in most toy stores.

I may know of an opportunity for folks to buy high-quality, USA handmade gobbo plushies in the near future. This would be a limited edition type thing, since there's no way to mass produce them... I would predict about fifty. I'll follow up on this as it becomes a reality, they will probably be sold via Etsy or the like.

Gotcha. Thanks for the quick response, James.

Are we going to see an expanded procedural method for building a Pathfinder statblock at some point? I've been cobbling together the info from 3.5 statblock instructions. Since I run adventure paths in maptool, the actual building algorithm would save me a lot of time putting NPCs into my campaign.

Is there a specific reason that CMB and CMD are in the Statistics section of the statblock, rather than in the Offense and Defense sections (respectively)?

I thought the guiding principle of the statblock was that numbers actively rolled on the creature's turn (CMB) went in the Offense section, while numbers rolled or referenced on other turns (CMD) were in the Defense section. Statistics were usually for numbers that are important for derivations and recalculations, but aren't frequently rolled or referenced on their own (like Abilities and BAB).

I know a change is unlikely at this point, but I have to say I would prefer to have them in the "correct" sections unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise. This came up when I was trying to explain to my players how to build a proper statblock, and each exception to the general guideline above only makes that explanation more complicated...

I have a damaged extra copy of PF #3 I will send you. Send me your street address in an email to a gmail account of the same name as I use here. Someone once did a similar favor on these boards and I'm eager to unload the karma.

I haven't played ST, but #3 is my favorite in the Runelords series thus far, because of the sheer brutality contained therein.

tallforadwarf wrote:

Or, using a closer parallel with some of the real world post-middle-ages Catholic stuff, invoking the name of the spell-inventor would be a verbal component.

Something else for the character to think about, in-game, is paying for statues of his god to be installed in other temples of the faith, engraved with the spell. You could do the same thing with prayer books if the campaign has printing presses. This way more priests will be familiar with the incantation and the history of the author. Just make sure that "pride" is not listed as a sin according to church doctrine.

tfad, can you turn right around and expand on this idea in the Magic Terms thread? Thanks!

Jal Dorak wrote:

1) Played straight-up. Is really just a glorified NPC class with little combat usefulness. All class abilities would be tied to buying, gutting, and selling fish.

This please.

Ashkecker wrote:

If you've given all the spells cooler in-world names, then my hat is off to you.

My goal: for you to take your hat off!

We could. I think it is an ugly word in either context, though.


I can see "x-fold" as a term magesmiths would use, like unto the layers of rolled steel that went into the forging of traditional katana. What is "folded" within the weapon is "layers" of guiding magic — this might actually be how the bonus is perceived by detect magic, et al. as "layers" of magical aura.

Using the metallurgical hierarchy is so classic. I will be stealing that for many tiered spells now, thanks!

Along that line, I just remembered that for certain towns, we had potion brewers who color-coded their potions. Blue-label, red-label, etc. It's silly until you recall that we do the exact same thing with whisky in the real world!

More ideas please! Nothing is insignificant!

Mr. Jacobs, it looks like most people are okay with Oracle!

I think you're dying the death of 1000 papercuts here, with so many people chiming in you think we all hate it.

Freesword wrote:

Thanks for the response.

I must say that I really like how your system allows for crafting an hour here and an hour there without abstracting it into days and weeks.

Do you have a set method for determining base time (whether it is hours, days, or weeks) of an item?

I like having the possibility of failure myself, but that is a matter of preference.

I fully agree that campaign specific variations affect how well some rules will work. Differences in game style and house rules can have an unexpected ripple effect.

Well, I always have a base time of 4, because the best-case scenario takes 1/4 the time. This means if the crafter nails it out of the park on the first hour, he's done. He rolled a wide margin of success (10+) and it still took a decent chunk of time.

As for the increment (hours, days, weeks, and conceivably minutes), this was left intentionally ambiguous. I do believe a table that outlines certain common items would be very useful, but my rule of thumb is this: the time increment should be the least time you can imagine an expert craftsman fashioning the item.

For example: An expert smithy could be expected to hammer out a dagger in a single hour. Some might argue faster than that, but let's say 1 hour, it's much faster than the 3.5 rule. So, we'd make the base time 4 hours on a dagger (or any tiny metal weapon).

Likewise, a full suit of fitted plate armor should take at minimum 1 month to make, so I would give that a base time of 4 month. Here, I would still allow a player to invest an hour here and there, but they only get to roll one check for the month, and their modifiers will be based on the general conditions they faced during the month.

If anyone out there has real-world smith experience, or is very knowledgeable on the subject, would they please lend a hand creating a basic table for increments?

It's worth noting that there are some crafting class abilities, like those of the artificer, that will decrease the time consumed even further!

@ Freesword:

That is correct.

The crafter looks at his sheet, sees that he currently has 3 hours invested in a 4 hour (BASE time) item.

He sees that the current progress is 9 and the DC is 15, so he has failed by 6 points. At this rate it will take him 8 hours to complete the project.

He invests another hour and gets a lucky check result of 22. 22 + 9 / 2 = 15.5. The new "progress" is 15, which brings him back up to base time, and he has now invested 4 hours, which means he has completed the item.

An important thing to note is that I have basically removed "failure" from the equation. I don't believe failure should have a prominent place in crafting rolls. If you spend literally 16 times as much effort as the guy who is exceptionally skilled, I feel that is "realistic" enough. I don't feel the need to imagine a player wringing his hands because he "just can't craft a sword." If he finds the 16 days to make a 4 day object that the skilled character makes in a single day, that's fine with me.

I don't believe in perfect rules that work for every campaign — this one works in mine, because of the way we manage time (a shared googledoc calendar). I wanted the crafter player to be able to say "I go craft for a while" with even small chunks of time, so that the other players would notice his efforts.

In a game where free time is abundant or not tracked, this might be less desirable. But you're still paying the base price, and it is still possible to fair if your progress check is still an abysmal failure after 16 rolls. Part of the cost would be unaccounted for... but then again I guess that's true of the RAW as well.

Technically, incarnate isn't nounable either.

...but noun is verbable, evidently.

And verb is adjectivable.

Kolokotroni wrote:

I like the idea of calling the +x bonus on a weapon guided. Perhaps using ideas like lesser, improved, greater and superior? +1 Lesser guided blade, +2 guided blade, +3 improved guided blade etc.

It is an interesting idea to be able to give the player an accurate mechanical description without breaking character. "The wizard has identified this blade as a Flaming longsword of Greater Guidance) instead of "Its a +3 flaming longsword".

We do Novice (1), Apprentice (2), Journeyman/Jack (3), Master (4) and Archmage (5+) — and usually include the name of the tradition that forged it, sort of a "brand name". Plus, the zelda fan in the group really wants a master sword.

James Jacobs wrote:

For "incarnate," nothing pops into mind because there's not a real-world tradition for whatever an incarnate might be. And since nothing pops into mind, ANYTHING could be an incarnate, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed and weak choice for a base class name.

I don't agree with this, but I'm backing off because I liked Oracle too.

To say that there is no real-world tradition of an incarnate, well... the dictionary begs to differ.

Armor Check Penalty applies to all Concentration checks for arcane casters. Normal exceptions apply.

When casting an arcane spell in any kind of armor, or while using a shield, you must make a Concentration check as though Entangled* (DC 15 + Spell Level). Failure means the spell fails.

Any ability that would reduce Arcane Spell Failure reduces check penalties on Concentration checks by 1 per 5%. Any ability that reduces armor check penalty, such as Proficiency or a Fighter's Armor Training, also applies to the Concentration check.

*this might be a little high for some people. In my campaign, a failed spell is not consumed, so I feel this is a fair DC.

Well, I don't want to push too hard, since it speaks for itself:

but the idea that a person can gain their power from a single domain or concept like "Good", "Fire", "Evil", "Death", or "Strength" is evoked much more effectively by Incarnate than Oracle.

Incarnate derives from latin literally meaning "made flesh". I think Hercules would be much better described as "Strength made flesh" than "an Oracle of Strength".

But hey, I liked "Oracle" before "Incarnate" came along.

hogarth wrote:

Oracle => Hercules? What the heck?

Hercules = Strength Incarnate.

Checks out. :/


I actually liked oracle.

But Incarnate is too good.

It really, really works with the stated concept (a domain-based class, gods help but don't require supplication, etc).

Death Incarnate would make such a great villain NPC.

Please call it the Incarnate.

Spacelard wrote:

I tend to use real world analogies for clerics, so you have Intiates, Brothers, Vergers, Priests, etc.

Old school D&D had different titles for each level of each class so you could raid that for inspiraton or if worse comes to worse fall back on "I've been a Wizard for three years now." for a third level as an example.

Hm. My PCs in an average campaign tend to rocket through the first three Spell levels in a couple of months, tops. There is not a clear relationship between time and spell level.

Expanding on your idea, I think a name specific to the practitioner of each spell level is a really good idea. It would probably differ by magical tradition, and further by Diety or arcane college... but a standard set (maybe one arcane one divine) would be phenomenally useful.


Why can't you have all types of healing potion just be called "Healing", if you need specific just use a descriptor like mild or mighty.

You absolutely could do it this way, and I think most people do. But I think on another end, the spells and pricing are standardized, there must be a less clumsy term to refer to a specific strength of potion. This is why I reached for the trappist ales: without a scientific notion of alcohol, they still managed to create and delineate the strengths of different ales (Singel, Duppel, Tripel, Quadrupel) for different occasions. I imagine an informal system exists for certain clerical orders and cure potions, although it probably varies widely by region and tradition.

How do you normally refer to enhancement bonus weapons in-character?

Skullbone wrote:

I love this idea.

Briefly, perhaps healing potions could refer either to intended consumer (lowest level might be "Peasant's Remedy," with highest being "Noble's Restorative"), or its efficacy referencing religious figures in a church (from "The Curate's Blessing" to "Saint Evros' Divine Elixir").

Ooooooooooo, making it about wealth and social class! Very nice.

Again, there should be many different traditions and conventions for referring to magic in-game.

Heck, some ultra-lawful society might very well call ever potion by it's clumsy spell name (i.e. Potion of Fox's Cunning). But I'm curious to see what various players and GMs have come up with in their own games.

Ultimately, I'd like to compile everyone's ideas into a "Magic Thesaurus" so that GMs could pick from a bunch of terms with relative ease. So keep em coming!

I'm just going to dive in, please feel free to add new items or expand on what's here. There must be very many ways to refer to these concepts.


"A potion of cure critical wounds"

No, they wouldn't call it that.

"A powerful healing draught"

No. There are 9 divine spell levels segregated into discrete groups observed by all clerics. You might make the case that they don't know about different levels, but a clerical order would eventually observe that you can cast a certain tier of spells at the same time, and you access to that tier all at once. They might write it down. They have to know the difference between cure light wounds and cure critical wounds.

"A bottle of cure, tripel."

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't know how to brew a trappist ale, and I don't know how they brew cure potions, but I'm pretty sure the monks and clerics have a handle on what they're doing.


"A plus one sword."

No way in the hells.

"An enchanted blade."

Better, but we know that tossing "enchantment" around is going to piss off a certain subset of players (myself included). Plus, this is totally ambiguous about the type of magic — it's not a flaming sword, it's a "plus one" sword.

Enhancement bonus to weapons is radiates evocation under detect magic. What does this evoke, exactly? It isn't elemental, but it may be a force effect, since magic weapons can strike incorporeal foes. Let's presume it's a force effect. How exactly does it grant it's bonus to hit and damage?

"A guided sword."

Might work. This means that there's an evocation effect "guiding" the weapon, ensuring that it will find its mark and strike deep.


"A plus three bow"

As above, guided maybe? But, picture this: A logistics officer in the Mendevian crusades sends an order to the clerics that guided or cold iron weapons are necessary to stand any chance against the demon hordes. Obeying the letter of his order, the clerics send him a crate of +2 longswords. The officer's legion is crushed, unable to penetrate the demonic resistance, despite their guided weapons, and Mendev is lost.

"A journeyman or 'jack' weapon... opposed to the 'apprentice' weapon (+1 or +2)."

"Level Three Spell"

You know, it could work. Characters in the game world don't suffer the same confusion between character levels and spell levels as we do. However, I still think "Level" lacks atmosphere.

"A third order incantation"

Incantation works for both arcane and divine spells. Consider also...

The Dictionary wrote:

order |&#712;ôrd&#601;r|

3 (often orders) a social class : the upper social orders.
• a grade or rank in the Christian ministry, esp. that of bishop, priest, or deacon.
Theology any of the nine grades of angelic beings in the celestial hierarchy.

8 Mathematics the degree of complexity of an equation, expression, etc., as denoted by an ordinal number.

"He has attained the third order of initiation."

Yes, there must be a moment in every spellcaster's life when they realize they can cast spells of a new level. In some cases, such as wizard collges or clerical orders, this must be accompanied by ritual, pomp and circumstance. After all, in the case if clerics, the deity has literally ordained more power to that individual. That's an unmistakable directive from 'the boss'. It's a promotion!

"He has entered the third circle."

I like this one too, because circles are neat.


"I'm out of spells per day."

You're a wizard. You pore over tomes each morning so that you can go out and cast spells. Maybe you're a little smarter than the next guy, which means you get to cast an extra spell. Bragging rights!

If the majority of wizards have a 13 Int (looking at page 448 in the PCR), most wizard schools would notice that their apprentices can cast either one or two first-order spells. IF you can only cast one, you're not going to make it past 3rd or 4th order spells. If you can cast three, they most likely try to kill you depending on their alignment.

Characters in Golarion probably do not see magic as a skill. There is an element of skill, but they probably see it as a "gift". If low level mages can only cast two spells a day, every day, and there is no fatigue involved, they probably have codified language for referring to a prepared spell, and it's probably not "spells per day".


More later. Post your own!


Reason? Them b*&#hs are scary.

Perhaps they make their living as logsplitters, fishgutters, and other blade-related professions...

Laurefindel wrote:

@toyrobots: mind if I steal your ideas and build around them?



That's what I hope to hear when I post them!

Report back and show us where you're going with it.

Also: The basic idea comes from Shadowrun 3rd, they have a general "base time" rule that gets used for a lot of different things. It works really well for complex processes like computer hacking and mechanical repairs — I hate to think what these things would be like under a market-value based system.

I find base-time is very useful when combined with the "narrow/wide margin" effects (+/- 5, +/- 10) in d20 games. It turns out using a base time of 4 for any increment keeps the math easy, although it's not strictly necessary. It's one of my favorite tools in my GM toolbox, it was only natural to apply it here as well.

I do think we'll need a small table that describes what time increments are used by the various craft-able items.



Wow! Forced March Craft: great idea. I'll be stealing that.

I do think that basing everything on price is problematic. I wracked my brain for weeks trying to find a simple fix, and it just doesn't work for me at all. Plus, it completely undermines things like batch-creation, which we use for potions and other brewed items in my game. Basically, if you pay for more tools on a one-time basis, you can make more items in the same time interval. Good luck doing that in a system where value determines time!

All RPG rules need abstraction, but I feel like 3.5 went too far with crafting, and didn't glean much benefit from it. By focusing on gold at all parts of the process, they needed to abstract time to balance it. That lead to a system that makes crafting so inconvenient as to be virtually useless!

So yes, I recommend considering a time-based system. In real life, when you look at an item's base price, it's simple: materials + labor + overhead. Materials and overhead are fixed as far as game mechanics. The only variable of meaning to the player is labor: how fast can I get this done? I believe time is where the die roll belongs.

I should have said:

So long as some point of the Stealth aura is not covered by the perception aura.

So unless the observer's aura completely overlaps the stealth aura, he doesn't see the stealthed character.

Yeah, Az, we would need a GM-only aura to make it fair. But I'm fine with it being unfair, since it would be unfair both ways — it's a staple of the video game sneaking trope to have players be aware of how close to being noticed they are.

It would suit a certain kind of game/player/gm quite well, mainly for rogues who really want to feel the "stealth kill" like from a video game.

@Laurefindel @my houserule:

Yes, sort of. Maybe you can help me clarify it.

The way we've been using it, it's been about one check per day, since it is usually in the downtime on adventuring days and whole non-adventuring days. If crafting gets interrupted by a second encounter, I'll use two rolls for before and after.

This isn't the clearest way of doing it, but it makes crafting into an action, something you do and roll during a specified time interval. Maybe it should be one check per "period" (hour, day, week, etc) since each item has its own period. Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks for the help!

Read this over and tell me if the idea works:

In maptool, we have the ability to create a colored radius around a creature token. The numeric value of the radius can be set, via a function, with a skill roll.

Let's say that each round, each creature rolls its Perception skill. The DC to detect a character in sight who isn't hiding is zero, and there's a +1 modifier per ten feet, this means that a radius equal to the perception check times 10 will be the distance at which an observer will notice a creature out in the open. If a creature isn't hiding, and it is visibly within the Perception radius, that creature is noticed.

Now let's say that a creature wants to move through your Perception radius while hiding. That creature has a Stealth radius surrounding it equal it its Stealth check times ten. As long as some part of its Stealth radius does not overlap with your Perception radius, you will not see the creature.

Of course, this is not very realistic, but it works if you're going for a Tenchu-like "stealth meter" which assumes that every person knows how close they are to being spotted.

Are other there technical problems with this system, or is it a fairly faithful depiction of the rules as written?

Looks good. Here's mine:

Crafting Items
Any Crafting rule in the RAW is valid unless contradicted here.

Each item has a Base Time of 4 hours, days, or weeks. The item also has a Current Quality, which is an ongoing check result that affects the base time.

You may assign even brief periods of time (no less than 1 hour) to crafting items, provided you were doing nothing else during that period. Time spent crafting should be marked on the campaign calendar. Keep track of the total Time Invested in each item.

Each time you work on an item, you roll your relevant craft skill. Average the result with the Current Quality on the item to find the items new Current Quality.

The item is completed when the amount of time invested meets or exceeds the time required. The Time Required is usually the base time. A high or low Current Quality might change the time required:

Current Quality...

  • exceeds DC by 10+....... 1/4 base time
  • exceeds DC by 5-9 ....... 1/2 base time
  • lower than DC by 5-9 .... base time x 2
  • lower than DC by 10+.... base time x 4
  • The objective was to keep it simple, remove the GP basis, and give crafter characters the ability to utilize all downtime they can scrape up. I also wanted craft to be something they need to roll during the session.

    Building on what anburaid described:

    We decided the most sane policy toward Item Creation feats was to just give them all to the artificer as they reach the correct caster level. That's basically what was going on in 3.5 anyway.

    Even if you plan on retaining the certain feats at certain levels thing, take note that Forge Ring is a 7th level pre-req now, so the 3.5 artificer gets it way late. For us, it was easier to just say that the artificer is the crafting class, therefore they get all Item Creation Feats as class abilities. All the ones in the core book — be sure to include the caveat or list the actual feats to prevent shenanigans.

    Freesword wrote:
    After much thought I'm pretty much set on using a mechanic similar to distill radical for my own conversion. What I'm looking at doing however is a series of 3 abilities.

    Wow, freesword, it looks like you're thinking along the same lines, and having the same issues as we are!

    As for dead levels at 17 and 19, I don't think it's that big a deal. We chose to address it by fixing the already-wonky spell progression to work more like the pathfinder bard's, and pushing some of the Armor/Weapon enhancement infusions back - they're still many levels ahead of the same bonuses for a cleric or wizard - so that the higher levels are a little less sparse.

    You can tell that the Eberron Artificer was a latter-era 3.5 class, because it looks like they made no effort past tenth level to keep you interested in the class... *sigh*

    In other news, we're playing around with making the more powerful infusions into per-day abilities, similar in power to the bardic performances, since we gave them bard spell progression anyway. It looks like it's turning out quite well, since you can address a lot of the infusion special cases directly instead of the whole "They're exactly like spells but not spells" thing. We'll link the final version once the dust settles.

    @Anburaid: Does it really need new powers? I think it looks pretty filled out with a power at 18th. A single dead level here and there, it happens, even in pathfinder. Those three in a row before were ugly, I'll admit, but a blank space on the level chart is not sufficient reason to add power to a class, right? Two dead levels is actually better than average in Pathfinder, the bard has three, the cleric has quite a few.

    Most of the houserules we're using are holdovers from 3.5.

    The pathfinder rules in these cases are either a) not a change from 3.5 so the houserule should hold, or b) they doen't seem more appealing to me and my players.

    There's a third situation I haven't encountered, but I sympathize with: people who houserule things back to 3.5. Maybe they like some pathfinder changes, but not all of them.

    Of course, the people who go beyond this an start houseruling right out the gate... well, they probably just love house rules. Consider that they may in fact enjoy tinkering with the system as much as you enjoy whatever you enjoy. Where's the harm?

    Looks like they found one.

    selios wrote:

    I don't know it it's the right place to ask that but:

    I would like Adventure Paths with a slower XP progression than actually, and the possibility of playing two adventure paths with the same PCs (which means AP for say levels 01-10 and for levels 11-20).
    I'm becoming boring to create new characters at each AP. It would be cool to play our characters longer.

    I think this is the wrong place to ask, but your message will likely get through anyway.

    I like a slower pace too. Take pathfinder #1... the longest you could possibly drag that out is 2 months or so (in game), and the characters gain 4 levels? 5? It strains credulity!

    I do try an pad things out with side-quests and downtime as much as possible. I think you're unlikely to see slower APs, because it's more material, and there's an amount of fatigue that consumers undergo if the finish line seems too far off.

    Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
    The Grimoire should be all arcane magic and related matters. There needs to be a separate book for more divinity, mythology, and matters clerical, that has an appropriate name.

    I always figured that Divine and Arcane spells must be unified under the general philosophy of magic. They both have 9 levels, for instance. A Spell level is an observable phenomenon in the game world, it can't be purely a coincidence that there's some symmetry.

    In my own game, it is explained that arcane magic is the magic of a mortal soul, divine magic that of the gods. Other than the source and strength of the magic, they are very similar (requiring components, tapping into planes, etc). Divine magic has less emphasis on manipulating material components (i.e. stuff on the material plane that tethers the other planes to our own) because the gods hold the power of raw creation.

    More generally, I think people are tired of "the big book of this narrow subset" and are more inclined to buy a rulebook that is both broad and deep. Dividing it up into arcane and divine magic just means we've got to look in two more books, rather than a single "Magic Book".

    Your opinion may differ, but I won't be really satisfied until I have a book that defines both arcane and divine magic in a language an 8 year old can understand. This book needs to give us the terminology and philosophy that player characters would use to describe the magic they use every day. As it stands, that is a gaping hole in the game.

    ChrisRevocateur wrote:

    Lodges just meet and do weird ceremonies.

    Yes... how very unlike gamers.

    Where's my fez, Paizo? It's been hours.

    League could work as well, with it's sportsmanlike connotation. Or guild. That's just classic.

    But I'm going right back to Lodge as soon as the Paizo Fez comes out.

    One bit of Errata from AnBuraid's description of the class above:

    The time required to cast an infusion with a minutes duration "on the fly" is 1 round (six seconds), not a full-round action.

    The game designers were quite explicit with the intention that these spells were to be used before, not during combat. However, allowing a crucial infusion to be cast during combat over a whole round (easily disrupted) and requiring a roll allows the Artificer to very rarely pull out that crucial buff that lets the party survive an otherwise impossible encounter.

    You could do it as a Full-Round action, but I think that's too lenient given the original intended role of the Artificer.

    (you probably all noticed that Decipher Script ought to be Linguistics.)

    Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

    TR, you're parents must have been like, part computer or something...

    Wha — WHO TOLD YOU?!?

    Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

    Lodge! That's a piece of classic Americana that would fit perfectly with a revamped model. We could have fezzes and everything!

    Alright, I'm down with it.

    Time for a grassroots movement people. It's no longer the FLGS, it's the FLGL. (which is a little close to FLCL, which could be an additional selling point.)

    Expect an official Pathfinder Fez in the paizo store shortly.

    Oh yeah, the Grimoire should have some pre-gen spellbooks by theme.

    I was very opposed to this skill when I first heard about it. Upon reviewing the actual rule, I have changed my mind. It is quite nice to have a single set of rules to remember for all flying creatures, and have the skill for stunt resolution without looking up the rules each time.

    nightflier wrote:
    Skill-based casting was mentioned several times. Color me intrigued. Until a year and a half ago I still played and dmed using Skills & Powers for 2nd Ed. So, I'd like to hear something more about those alternative casting methods based on skills. Please?

    Well, in Shadowrun 3rd, you roll a skill to cast. You set a target number based on how effective you want the spell to be. That target number determines how much stun or physical damage you need to cope with once you've cast the spell.

    allen trussell wrote:
    Morgen wrote:
    ...I like the Vancian system personally, it's part of what makes D&D feel like D&D. At least for me.
    You know, that's a big part of my dislike of 4E: for all its faults, Vancian magic feels like D&D. Without it, its just not the same.

    I respectfully defy you to name the "faults" of the Vancian system.

    Until about 1 year ago, I was so indoctrinated by the Shadowrun (and then World of Darkness) style skill-based magic that I grew to hate Vancian as "unrealistic".

    Now, I'm back in the other camp. Skill-based magic is fine, but it's not "better".

    The Pathfinder Grimoire.

    Snipped from another thread:


    I want a Pathfinder Grimoire.

    First, I think Grimoire is the perfect word for it. Simple, and traditional, not unlike "Bestiary".

    The Pathfinder Grimoire should contain spells, but it should be about magic, both arcane and divine.

    The purpose of this book is a celebration of Pathfinder's take on Vancian magic (since PRPG is sort of a lifeboat for said system). It should endeavor to explain the spells, the role of the planes in magic, why and how components exist, where dragons and draconic fit in, lists of verbal components for roleplay, expanded magic crafting rules. It should explain the metaphysics of Pathfinder magic in such a way as to make those who hate Vancian magic slaver in anticipation of playing a mage. A proud, Vancian mage, laden with eldritch rituals and steeped in the game's decades old, quirky, bookish, and wholly irreplaceable magic system.

    It needn't be a book that increases the power of spellcasters at all, nor a toolkit for building mages, although a small amount of that is inevitable. Of course, spell-eating monsters, special threats to mages, and GM advice can be included to counterbalance the power dump.

    Might make a good counterbalance to a Pathfinder Armory for the martial types, if anything like that should ever be released.

    Sure, it could be a Chronicles release instead. But given that Pathfinder RPG is now virtually the sole caretaker of the vancian tradition in RPG magic, I think a nice crunchy rulebook release is attainable.

    From another Thread:

    toyrobots wrote:
    KnightErrantJR wrote:

    For what its worth, wizards haven't "memorized" and "forgotten" spells since 3.0 came out. Wizards spend an hour or so starting to cast several spells, so that they have a "mantle" of unfinished spells around them, and then do the last few bits of the spell in combat to get it to go off.

    I've liked this new explanation since I first read it.

    I love the explanation myself. Loving this system is largely about managing your own pre-conceptions about magic. At some point, I realized that a spell isn't a skill but a discrete formula. Preparation isn't study but ritual that establishes a spell within you like a loaded weapon, and casting components are the trigger.

    I've been building upon the internal logic of magic in my own campaign, but I would love to see a whole Sourcebook on the Metaphysics of Magic in Golarion. For example, I'm pretty damn sure that people in the game world are aware of the existence of 9 spell levels. So... what explanations have they cooked up?

    In fact, I'm going right back to the request thread with this.

    I want a Pathfinder Grimoire.

    First, I think Grimoire is the perfect word for it. Simple, and traditional, not unlike "Bestiary".

    The Pathfinder Grimoire should contain spells, but it should be about magic, both arcane and divine.

    The purpose of this book is a celebration of Pathfinder's take on Vancian magic (since PRPG is sort of a lifeboat for said system). It should endeavor to explain the spells, the role of the planes in magic, why and how components exist, where dragons and draconic fit in, lists of verbal components for roleplay, expanded magic crafting rules. It should explain the metaphysics of Pathfinder magic in such a way as to make those who hate Vancian magic slaver in anticipation of playing a mage. A proud, Vancian mage, laden with eldritch rituals and steeped in the game's decades old, quirky, bookish, and wholly irreplaceable magic system.

    It needn't be a book that increases the power of spellcasters at all, nor a toolkit for building mages, although a small amount of that is inevitable. Of course, spell-eating monsters, special threats to mages, and GM advice can be included to counterbalance the power dump.

    Might make a good counterbalance to a Pathfinder Armory for the martial types, if anything like that should ever be released.

    Sure, it could be a Chronicles release instead. But given that Pathfinder RPG is now virtually the sole caretaker of the vancian tradition in RPG magic, I think a nice crunchy rulebook release is attainable.

    1 to 50 of 1,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>