Namdrin Quinn

ultimate_illusionist's page

Organized Play Member. 35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


My wishes maybe have become true? A Pathfinder Supplement Book that updates my 3.5 Tome of Battle? YEAH gogogo! Just need money to buy Ultimate Magic first :P, and oh my...soon is august...happy like a small
child :D.

Good Work Paizo!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:pr0ud oWn3r 0F:
^*#;.PATHFINDER ROLE PLAYING GAME.;#*^
gr33tz
ultimate_illusionist


Hello my dear PF friends,

I guess about the current status of the magus and his mechanics...did I miss something or are in fact the magic rules absolutly similar to any source book came out from monte cook or the unearthed arcana [3.5] thingy aka *spell point system*! Is this gonna be the alternative magic system for PFrpg, or does the Word of Power rules work only for the magus class? If it's alternativly for all spellcasting classes I apoligize for this comment now: "this isn't inovative!"

1st: thought, there should came a new mana/spell point system out where spell save DC's are indicated maybe in different ways than the old traditional vancian system does! I am ok to go versatile, but decreasing the spellcasting powers of spellcasters isn't the right way! Since in the PFrpg the general as well the other martial combat classes has an increased amount of abilities and they even beat in some cases spellcasters, more than in old 3.5 times! I would go for something called "magic stunts" e.g. versatility ok, but if you try to cast powerful spells one after another you should make something like a caster level check etc. and if you fail you get some sort of burnout! A state you can't cast any more spells or even lose consciousness to put two examples. This should be integrated an called then inovative in the Ultimate Magic Book!!!

2nd: thought, more magic related classes would be awesome...maybe I give a hint: something shadow/illusion themed :P (from old Cyrusian Sin Magic) or maybe even all 7 Sin-Magic themed (10-lvl based prc-classes or 20-lvl based classes) *yeehaa* with alot of background description how to build spellcasters from the age of past thassilon!

3rd: thought, take your time and master "Ultimate Magic" well, as you have done for the Core Rule Book, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide and Advanced Player's Guide too, which I didn't regret to buy +++ go forward!

4th: thought, if you do not plan to put those things in Ultimate Magic (which I consider Core Rules) put it at least in an upcoming Magic Supplement Book!

5th: offtarget, what I would realy like to see in maybe the end of 2011 - something similar to Tome of Battle 3.5 *PFRG Ultimate Combat*??? with a complete innovative set of new Martial Fighting Styles. In that case de facto martial maneuver combat rules combining the CMB with special kind of attacks for any already existing martial combat character class, be it melee or ranged - bullrush was yesterday!!!

Good Luck and keep the good work up!!!
Any suggestions appreciated ;)

greets
ultimate_illusionist


Vic Wertz wrote:
ultimate_illusionist wrote:

To be honest guys...

Please post your thoughts in the Ultimate Magic Playtest Forum, where they'll be read by the appropriate folks.

Thx for the advice dude, I will correct that asap.

MERRY X-MAS TO ALL 3.5/PFrpg folks & of course PAIZO Team, and an upcoming happy new year!

best regards

ultimate_illusionist


To be honest guys,

no offense...but the magic rules are realy similar to any source book came out from monte cook or the unearthed arcana [3.5] thingy aka *spell point system*! If this is gonna be the alternative magic system for PFrpg, I apoligize for this comment now: "this isn't inovative!"

1st: thought, there should came a new mana/spell point system out where spell save DC's are indicated maybe in different ways than the old traditional vancian system does! I am ok to go versatile, but decreasing the spellcasting powers of spellcasters isn't the right way! Since in the PFrpg the general as well the other martial combat classes has an increased amount of abilities and they even beat in some cases spellcasters, more than in old 3.5 times! I would go for something called "magic stunts" e.g. versatility ok, but if you try to cast powerful spells one after another you should make something like a caster level check etc. and if you fail you get some sort of burnout! A state you can't cast any more spells or even lose consciousness to put two examples. This should be integrated an called then inovative in the Ultimate Magic Book!!!

2nd: thought, more (10-lvl-based magic related prc-classes) would be awesome...maybe I give a hint: something shadow/illusion themed (from old Cyrusian Sin Magic) or even all 7 Sin-Magic themed (10-lvl based prc-classes) with alot of background description how to build spellcasters from the age of past thassilon!

3rd: thought, take your time and master "Ultimate Magic" well, as you have done for the Core Rule Book, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide and Advanced Player's Guide too, which I didn't regret to buy +++ go forward!

4th: thought, if you do not plan to put those things in Ultimate Magic (which I consider Core Rules) put it at least in an upcoming Magic Supplement Book!

5th: offtarget, what I would realy like to see in maybe the end of 2011 - something similar to Tome of Battle 3.5 *PFRG Ultimate Combat*??? with updated and as well new Martial Fighting Styles. In that case de facto alternative martial maneuver combat rules combining the CMB with special kind of attacks for any already existing martial combat character class, be it melee or ranged - bullrush was yesterday!!!

Good Luck and keep the good work up!!!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


wraithstrike wrote:
ultimate_illusionist wrote:
To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered ...

Why so? I only ask because I was compiling a list of the why people don't allow ToB, but I got lazy and stopped. I am not saying some powers are not poorly written, but so are many core spells.

If you respond list all possible reasons since I don't want to derail the thread. I can probably reply in one post.

yo dude, no offense...as I said, I like ToB too, but as I told before it needs to be at least a fairness between combat and spellcaster classes!

And I think in PFrpg there is plenty of improvement for combat oriented classes. If someone is not that guess, ToM should be offered for players too...

Even if you guys or I don't change class progression etc. ...the CMB is a great feature to integrate "MARTIAL ART" like systems as it is introduced in ToB into your campaigns!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered even if you put them directly in scale with the PF core classes, despite the fact that they are nothing else than mobile walking hulks that can initiate maneuvers in other words "cast spells" like a wizard or sorcerer does.
So to say the truth, yes I like them, but also I hate them too. Why? Well, if you put all ToB Base Classes to scale with Wizards and Sorcerers, I would definitly say - no more cryouts arround the fighter/melee/tank-world because they are now even in powers. The only exception is the versatility of spells from mages, but therefore Crusaders, Swordsages & Warblades have more Hitpoints, more Skillpoints, Initiator Level = Caster Level = same as Wizard/Cleric/Druid and not as much empty Levels as True Caster Classes have anyway.
Nothing to blame on, but what about the rest of non-caster or low-caster classes?

My personal opinion on the first look would be, No to ToB or ToM classes in PFrpg! But that would be the hard rule, and since PFrpg is "adaptable" to any d20 campaign setting, this late 3.5 source books were great works for most of us (I have them too) that would be a pitty not to implement them to PFrpg. I've done by myself a progression to completely integrate at least the Maneuver System in the PFrpg in some manner, still beta but I think I am in final state. So if someone wants to learn maneuvers, all martial classes should have the same opportunity to do so if they like to.
I've done as a DM some alternate rules, to get for my crew Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade running if they would like to choose one of them to play:

1.Option: PF skills standardization, no empty levels, put some minor changes + bonus feats but therefore deleted completly maneuvers/stance progression - see below:

1.1 Created 5 "Maneuver Combat" feats that provide the whole maneuver thingy. Beginning with "Insightful Combat Maneuvers", then "Improved Insightful Combat Maneuvers", followed up by "Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" and "Improved Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" as well as "Greater Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers". If you are interested in these feats I will post the full text ofc as soon as I have tranlsated them into english. Short version is - by choosing the above feats you allow your character to use your Combat Maneuver Bonus as a base element for calculating your maneuvers known/readied as well as stances known/readied. That way, nearly any martial class has the chance to take a path as a Initiator of maneuvers. Exception is the non ToB classes are limited only to 1 martial school and are based on the themes that the crusader, swordsage and warblade share.
ie:
1.1.1: a rogue/monk could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: desert wind, diamond mind, setting sun, shadow hand, stone dragon or tiger claw. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.2: a fighter/barbarian could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: diamond mind, iron heart, stone dragon, tiger claw or white raven. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.3: a paladin/ranger could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: devoted spirit, stone dragon or white raven. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.4: Characters must choose the above feats if they want to get access to maneuvers and stances.
1.1.5: crusader/swordsage/warblade still have same rules about learning from martial schools, and are still limited to stances as indicated in their description.

2.Option: PF skills standardization, still empty levels, put no minor changes and no bonus feats but therefore the maneuvers/stance progression stays as it is, non ToB martial classes still have the opportunity to use rules from 1.1.1 - 1.1.4:

Hope you understood what I've written so far, because that's not my native language ;) and I've the problem too speak 4 more different too.

Greets
ultimate_illusionist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hell ya - 4 focused illusionist/
10 master specialist/
4 shadowcraft mage/
2 nightmare spinner
[Spells per Day without bonus spells:] 0x7,1x7,2x7,3x7,4x7,5x7,6x7,7x7,8x7,9x7
[Spells per Day without bonus spells:]
0x10,1x10,2x9,3x9,4x9,5x9,6x9,7x8,7x8,8x8
XD


The idea about 2-3 Hardcover books in a year sounds realy good. I wouldn't / couldn't subscribe because 1st) I am living not in the states, 2nd) I lost a few months ago my job, and 3rd) I eversince picked what I liked and bought it, or it was bought by frieds as a present.
But anyway I am looking to support you an alternate way. I already purchased the "PFrpg BETA" as a Book, and that is just the beginning of a good relationship as far as I can tell between myself and paizo ;).
Go forward...and again THX alot for not loosing the "right path" that WotC just did.

MY WISHES for Pathfinder's Future:

1st. Take a look on Epic Rules.
2nd. Take a shot on an alternate spell system "similar" a la Unearthed Arcana or BESM Advanced D20 Magic, and even like Tome of Magic presenting new Base Classes introducing magic completly different with some extra flavor of course too.
3rd. As wish "2", except Special Combat (Rules) Book for Melee and Ranged Combat Classes. Example: Tome of Battle (only Melee).
PS: "CMB" could be a valid candidate fulfilling this task. :)
4th. Watch forward for psionics. I personaly liked Expanded Psionics Handbook.
5th. As well I personaly like Prc's if they are well designed and not just a page-filler in a book. They should be "crafted" with a big heart. ;)
6th. If it's not a big deal ... go for similar flavor and stuff from Forgotten Realms and Eberron 3.5 Edition. PrC's, Feats, special items, materials etc.
7th. I don't have a problem getting introduced with new races. But personaly I would like more options for existing ones.
8th. As wish "7", except for classes.
9th. Adventure Paths for players starting at 16th level and above. (Epic Adventure Paths).With my current groups we'll manage to "convert" from 3.5 to pathfinder.
10th. Special Complete Books as in 3.5 linked to each of the Base Classes.
11th. It would be a nice option if by purchasing a Hardcover Book getting access to PDF's too (integrated in the purchased Book with an access code to download the PDF linked to it). That was WotC not able to realize, another flavor that would give you a PRO too.

At last but not least: I personaly know 3 groups that will in close future convert from 3.5 to pathfinder. Isn't that cool?

Greets from Germany.


Ross Byers wrote:
ultimate_illusionist wrote:
I think there is still enough time to change a bit the spell system to some sort of mana based.

Mana-based casting would be a huge blow to backward compatibility, as well as the mechanics of D&D that have persisted for three editions.

If you want to use a mana-based system, Spell Points are outlined in Unearthed Arcana, as well as at d20srd.org.

If you want a hybrid between Vancian casting and Spell Points, then I'll take an opportunity to pimp my Zelazny Spellcasting rules (linked in my profile.)

Well, about the backward compatibility I partly agree with you, as an optional designer rule is nothing to worry about if you are warned to use this method. But I would like to see for example spellcasters become fatiged, exhausted, or even to loose consciousness when they weave powerful spells (of course against a caster level check!) like in "Record of the Lodoss War", the same I would say to combat classes but with a different mechanic.

But maybe for the first some ideas:
For example, when trying to cast a spell that is over the actual power of the caster e.g. scrolls with 1 or more spell levels beyond the casters spell level casting ability, or if they try to cast a specific spell from a different arcane spell list.
I would tend also to a rule that every character class has a specific endurance determined by his character level/2 + his constitution-modifier, so a 10th level fighter with a con of 16 would be able to fight without loosing the fitness about 8 rounds before becoming fatigued, another 3 rounds (con-modifier) before getting exhausted, and at last again 3 rounds (con-modifier) before he becomes unconsciousness by depletion of his reserves. [btw. the encounter shouldn't last that long, but the mechanic should stay if so]. The endurance feat should allow some extra bonus, e.g. give +2 rounds extra for each conditional step. => 10 rounds, 5 rounds, 5 rounds.

EDIT: *That way characters should always consider if they want the combat or can do it via diplomacy, bluff or inimidate for example.
The still get xp! And the "I am the one" feeling, I got enough HP/spells etc. doesn't overcome your players :).

Cheers.


I think there is still enough time to change a bit the spell system to some sort of mana based.
Some idea I had few time ago, wanna try it with my group as soon as we start again to play:

First of all, vancian spell system should remain, but a new shine would actually do the work to put a new flair, or at least as a designers optional rule in the PFrpg.


Go for "Book of Nine Swords" - Style ... I like it!!!

CMB = Combat Maneuver Bonus right? why not give them some extra maneuver features like in "ToB" ... would sound awesome. And in any case they wouldn't be overpowered if the maneuver and stance selection is limited by CMB, and the 9 different Initiator powers are determined by class - especially more for the nonspellcaster classes.

Greets
ultimate_illusionist


To turn again back to the "Slow/Fast XP Table" thing.
Well it is for me a great idea, but it should be compatible for the future, and in that case I am talking for people who want to play beyond 20th level. So the progression of the xp table remembers me back in time of 2nd edition. It is familiar even similar, but not the same! The progression ends at 20th level. Ok it is also based on 20th level, but even in 3.5E xp tables went beyond 20th level. And if I just put in mind what kind of paperwork it gets ...

Fast:
20th. 2.400.000 xp / 40th. 24.000.000 xp ? maybe
Medium:
20th. 3.600.000 xp / 40th. 36.000.000 xp ? maybe
Slow:
20th. 5.350.000 xp / 40th. 53.500.000 xp ? maybe

sounds of a lot paperwork huh ;),
some people might tend to play even beyond that level cap. *YeYe ^^)*


Pendagast wrote:
CourtFool wrote:

For me, I have never been obsessed with total balance. However, when all of the PCs become one character’s sidekicks, the game looses its funness.

If you want to augment or improve the balance, then maybe some kind of social contract niche protection is needed.

has anyone actually PLAYED a high level PATHFINDER fighter (as it is written in the beta rules)?

They really aren't that bad anymore.

I rarely find situations where I'm overshadowed by the sorceress/dragon disciple or the wizard/eldrtich knight, or the rogue or the cleric.

I usually find tactical ways to get my full attacks in (of course not every round) but everyone else in the party knows if I can in all my attacks whatever it is Im fighting in gonna go down or close to hit.

With the way shield master feat tree and cleave feat tree works IVe really got tons of attacks. you can shield rush/bull rush enemies into a corner one round and peal off their skin with a tirade of attacks the next round.

The Wizard/Eldrtich Knight and the cleric are both conjurers and often pop-up monsters to help me harry, flank or corner enemies, and the rogue usually attacks smaller, weaker cohort enemies, so she can finsih them off early because she knows Ill tackle the big baddie and then she can manuver around once the peons are down for a good sneak attack.

Summoned monsters often handle peons as well.

But our DM also doesnt have gymnastic monsters hopping around the battle field just for the sake of moving either.

Baddies run away from me 1) if they are spell casters (makes sense)
2) beat me in inititive and are low on hps and are not winning
3)are fliers (I was semi useless in a fight with a dragon that had room to scale walls and fly...white dragon)
4) are naturally mobile monsters, like baboons who swung around and did lots of charging attacks, or wolves/worgs didnt seem to stay still long. Swarms, sturges, things liek that all kept moving...

But honestly, things like golems, undead, even giants seem...

I personaly don't played a high level fighter in Pathfinder but one of my player's did (Level 11), and indeed the fighter is more attractive than ever before. But to give him the cutting edge "CMB gives Maneuvers from Tome of Battle (only 2 disciplines)"...a little bit more work to do, but the fun is overwhelming!


To be honest, the extra powers granted in exchange for bonus spells per day...I say definitly "NO"!
I would only agree if the system would work something like this:

You get 1 bonus spell per day at each spell level that means. 10 bonus spells from (0-9th). Of course (Intelligence-based).
You can swap 0-9th level bonus spell slot 1x/day every 4 Caster Level to earn a specific specialist power which than is cast as a spell-like, supernatural ability (Charisma-based) or maybe extra ordinary. The powers should be interesting enough for the wizard, to consider take a little bit more than 8 or 10 in Charisma. The higher the Charisma modifier is, the higher the benefits should be the wizard gets.

In any case, I personaly in 3.5 played always wizards with a high INT.
1st. level character would look like that with POINT BUY 32:
STR 8
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 18
WIS 8
CHA 12

If it's gonna stay like this, I tend to houserule again or in this case stay 3.5 for only that rule!


Dave Young 992 wrote:

I was recently disabused of that notion, too. Up to 40d6! Whew!

EDIT: Wait, doesn't he only get one attack with the off hand? Must have improved 2 weapon fighting.

Well dude,

it sounds good, but first of all: Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting is needed, and then try to hit 4 times in a row under conditions of "you are invisible, enemies are surprised, flatfooted, living creatures, and don't have armors with fortification, and don't have improved uncanny dodge and are 3 or 4 levels highter than your character".

undead, construct, oozes, plants. -> doesn't work. except for undead if you choose a special feat.

If your DM is very evil, you will get this fun once in a while ;)!


Looks more to me like 4th. Edition. Career paths of each single core class. Well it is a nice idea, but as I would like to say: "it gone wrong in 4th!" I don't think that it will get it's importance in PFRPG!


If it is not possible to stack caster levels for example 3 necromancer / 3 cleric / 14 true necromancer especially for the domain spells/powers and the specialist bonus spells/powers. Why should we multiclass then with prestige classes?

But if it's realy not possible...I would go for houserule!!! Because it doesn't seem to be very logic.


My dear fellas,

don't hesitate...Mystic Theurge is fine with small exceptions, even Ultimate Magus is good if his progression is leveling both caster classes at the same level, but if you want to play some sort of this Prestige Classes I would go for True Necromancer.

It is very similar to the Mystic Theurge Scheme and gets alot of extra stuff which is very important especially for a necromancer specialist/cleric. And you maybe loose 3 Casterlevel of arcane and divine as well some schools of magic. But with the progression 3wiz/3clr/14true.necro you get at last your bonus to caster levels for casting from the necromancy school which should be the mainframe of this class. If your DM has not to much restrictions I would go also for the race Illumian.

Mystic Theurge 10 level
(lower casterlevel for versatility)
True Necromancer 14 level
(lower casterlevel for versatility and get more casterlevels for the necromancy school of either divine and arcane)

HOW CAN WE FIX IT?
... well if the Mystic Theurge is not at least getting some nice features ...
It's an easy choice...go for True Necromancer :) !!!


Bluenose wrote:

As someone who's read one or two novels myself, I'd suggest that using them as support for an argument that wizards "should" be more powerful than warriors puts you at the mercy of all the other stories where the wizard/sorcerer/magic user gets beaten by a warrior. Conan, Sir Lancelot, Odysseus, Cuchulain, Hrolf Kraki, the knights from The Enchanted Forest, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser all disagree with your assertion that they can't fight casters.

On the balance question, it's been there since the first supplement. Anyone remember the Cavalier from 1E UA? That got a few comments about it's balance in relation to ordinary fighters.

I didn't get it exactly what you ment about that to put me in mercy? I just wanted to tell that even in novels non spellcasters were able to beat wizards, sorcerers and the like, as you put for example conan, odysseus, sir lancelot and the rest of them. They do even in the true pen&paper setting. It only just depends how strategic one player plays his character and of course the circumstances plus "dice luck"! But I don't want to tell that (arcane) spellcasters should be more powerful, they are powerful enough...and if they get played well, they beat the hell out of you.

So again what's the point?


I've played a few months with my group now PFRPG in combination with the "Tome of Battle Rules" with one difference.
The core "non-spellcaster" classes are restrticted to two fighting schools from which they draw their maneuvers known, per day, and stances known.
The CMB "Combat Maneuver Bonus" defines how much Maneuvers they know, use per day, and they can only have 1 stance active at any time.
For me personaly it fitted well.

The Rules that I used are as follows:

barbarian,fighter,monk,rogue: can learn up to 9th level maneuvers.
paladin,ranger: can learn up to 6th level maneuvers (exception they give up there spellcasting ability to be able to learn 9th level maneuvers).
bard: can learn up to 3rd level maneuvers.
druid: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing with other classes).
cleric: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing, or wardomain able to learn up to 3rd level maneuvers).
sorcerer,wizard: can't learn maneuvers(exception multiclassing with other classes).

So far I tried that rules and now the CMB:

CMB : 2 = Maneuvers Known
CMB : 3 = Maneuvers Readied
CMB : 6 = Stances Known

example:
BAB = 10
Str = 18 (with a Feat possible to use Dex instead Str)

CMB = 10 + 4 (18Str/Dex) = 14
CMB = 14 : 2 = 7 Maneuvers Known
CMB = 14 : 3 = 4 Maneuvers Readied
CMB = 14 : 6 = 2 Stances Known (only 1 can be active at any time)

The group is happy and no complains about wizards are overpowered and the like.

Greets
ultimate_illusionist


Blue Wizard wrote:

I don't spend a lot of time on message boards anymore, but this thread kind of surprised me. In 20 years of gaming, I've never played with a group that had this discussion. Fighter and Wizard are my two favorite classes of all time.

I think the key to this is to remember that it isn't a competition. At low levels wizards depend on fighters to keep them from being impaled on a goblin spear. At higher levels the wizards keeps fighters from all manner of horrific deaths.

Also, who says everything has to be balanced? Some characters, even just through the luck of dice, will be more powerful than others in some respect. As long as the people in the group who play the wizard and the fighter are both having fun, who cares?

I totally agree with your comment, maybe something I would like to mentioned too, is that if someone has ever read some novels (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc) and don't just play only D&D related Campaigns for Hack&Slay reasons, if yes? he should be than better equip himself with Diablo/WOW and the like.

The most powerful "classes" that are mentioned in many novels are wizards or sorcerers.
One example:
that Elminster was at the beginning nothing more than a shepherd boy who became a fighter and "killed with a crossbow a wizard". Later he became a rogue, cleric and after a long time he could call himself a wizard and became a powerful man that became virtual immortal. It's maybe to far-fetched to kill a wizard as a fighter, but possible. It depends how good the fighter plays or vice versa!


Studpuffin wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

But, wizards can't bury the Hatchet!

Wizards cannot use Hatchets without spending a Feat!

Human wizards can!

The hatchet's not a D&D weapon...

I've participated in the Fighter V Wizard (oddly not many talk about the sorc being unbalanced) fights in the past. I have to agree whole heartedly with the OP though. I don't see that either class is unbalanced.

On a side note, that's the real reason I participate in those debates. I end up defending both classes (though I must admit I see more fighter bashing on these boards than Wiz bashing). I think people are confusing a wanted play style for an unbalanced game. Its pretty easy to do when you see a certain thing being played over and over and seeing no easy counter come to mind.

Hello alltogether,

well first excuse me for my bad following, because it's not pretty well to understand what sort of thing is mentioned currently with "the hatchet".
If it's not a weapon what's then in this case?

Second, the debate for Fighters vs. Wizards especially for me is really an annoying thing. Because when I remember back in 2nd edition that I've played about 4 years with my group (before we moved all to 3rd Edition), no one mentioned or argued very much about the wizard. By the way, when we started and created our first characters we were all beginners, as all of us! I mentioned that I would like to play a fighter but when our DM told me that there is another person who wants to play a fighter I just asked him, "what should I play then?" ... he answered me with "their is still a need for an arcane Spellcaster!" Well I wasn't happy to play at the beginning a wizard, but afterall I tried my best and I started to like the part the I played in our group. To be honest, the wizard is powerful, but as powerful he can be, as vulnerable he is! At 3rd Edition even in our group a debate started: e.g. haste (2 spells in a round) which in 3.5 is also possible now with some kinds of spells, feats or Prestige Classes. The problem is I think that Players of "Tank" Combat Classes in general tend to be the primary damage dealer and don't like to pushed away from the position by a haste boosted, prestige class featured overenchanted spellcaster, be it a wizard(specialist), sorcerer, or any other as the player chooses combat related scheme. That's maybe the main reason they start to cry out loudly.
I've in most cases played the wizard as an allrounder (as well as offensive and defensive spells used) and the roleplay part was always a scientific scheme. Scholar, Geologist, Alchemist, Paleontologist and something like that. The character was a profi in his domain of scientific things and the "Art". I've never became an oppenent of debate to my dear fighter fellow, until this 3rd and further edition split book expansion came out (but they are good) !!!
Now as a DM I've tried to integrate into the Pathfinder Campaign "The Book of Nine Swords". And the core combat classes may choose 1 or 2 combat schools from which they can draw then maneuvers and stances dependent on the CMB > Combat Maneuver Bonus. Until now I can say that no "Tank" (Melee) Combat Class has wailed arround that the wizard still is powerful.
Maybe the System became a little bit more complex, but until now I can say: "It's worth the trouble!"
I think we will still have crying morrons even if a complete new system would came out for our adorable D&D 3.5/Pathfinder!

I personaly thank Paizo that I can buy books that make me happy. The core classes shine like never before, and maybe until august they will get diamond status :P! 4th Edition wouldn't be my choice, even if I play it from time to time to share time with my friends.

In that case peace ^(o.o)^


deflective wrote:


laid out in point form and ready to be printed.
there may be other sets, one for buff/debuffs and one for situational modifiers (cover, concealment, etc).

Thank you very much for sharing.

But still one question, excuse if I am not up to date but the card that mentions "Energy Drain" -5 permanent HP?
Did I miss something, is this custom or was this rule since the beginning of 3.5?

And again, thx you are great.


anthony Valente wrote:


In the case of a wizard, perhaps allowing a caster to cast the spell directly from his spell book at any time? To balance things the casting time could be extended. This would raise the significance of spell books in general. Take the Knock spell for instance. A wizard who knows this spell could prepare it for the day and cast it with it's normal casting time, or he could pull out his spell book at a time when it is needed and take 10 minutes for instance casting the spell.

That sounds good...to increase the casting time for utility spells such as knock, comprehend languages, diguise self etc. but you would further more have no need to rest for full 8hours to regain the ability to learn new spells (15min. up to 1hour)! So you could move much faster in an adventure/campaign forward as you normaly would!

Good opinion...but I think maybe to powerful, since in 3.5 the wizard (specialist) became quite powerful too! Don't know how they will do it in the final 2009 book...but 1 year could bring a lot of different changes of rules!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


Dennis da Ogre wrote:

First, forget anything that involves splat books Paizo cannot do anything to fix them, they are water under the bridge and if you or your DM chooses to use them then you are on your own. We're just talking about the Pathfinder RPG rules here which is the only thing Paizo can fix.

Next, Wizards no longer get bonus spells per day, they get a bonus spell at certain levels (Under Alpha 3 they had SLAs but Jason slipped in the blog that those are gone). Once they pick the spell it is fixed in stone so while the specialist wizard comes close to the sorcerer in spells he has no flexibility on that bonus spell once it's chosen. Further, when he goes into a PrC he will no longer gain the bonus spell but is still limited to what schools of magic he can take (well actually this is just conjecture) which means that all of your math is wrong.

The wizard is probably still meaner than the sorcerer but your post is all based on the 3.5 and non-core stuff so it's misleading. The gap is no where near what it was previously. The extra spells known, sorcerer SLAs, and nerfing of specialization have really leveled the playing field.

In any case dude they are open to use *the splat books* you are talking about! And about the calculation...I would not think that you dont get the bonus spells! Except if you multiclass to a complete different core class of course or any other prestige class that does not continue the progression of a specialist...in the case of a master specialist logically...I would not say *NO* to bonus spells because it is just a further specialization of that school you have chosen.

But you are right about Pathfinder...anyway...specialist rocks in 3.5...we will see how it will be finally in august 2009!
Basically spoken...both wizard and sorcerer are good in alpha 3...but they already changed again the special things they get!
I am interested in how they will again rebuild this thing! Just only having every spell level except of the 4th a bonus spell (if I am not wrong) is just fine...but the alpha 3 realy made them "DIFFERENT" and in some case funny to try how they do their job!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


What I could try for the CMB for example is to use the value also for having a number of maneuvers known, maneuvers readied and stances known:

the formula should be something like this:

base attack bonus + primary attribute + size modifier : 2 (Melee = Str, Ranged = Dex)
(for maneuvers known) [minimum 1]

base attack bonus + primary attribute + size modifier : 4
(for maneuvers readied) [minimum 1]

base attack bonus + primary attribute + size modifier : 8
(for stances known) [minimum 1]

so a 20th level human fighter with a strength score of 20 (no magic items can enhance this value for this CMB purpose) could have for example...

base attack bonus + primary attribute + size modifier
20 + 5 + 0 = 25

So a 20th level human fighter would have:

maneuvers known = 12 (rounded down)
maneuvers readied = 6 (rounded down)
stances known = 3 (rounded down)

Tell me your thoughts, I think it sounds valuable!

THX again for welcoming me ;) !!!
greets
ultimate_illusionist


As far as I can tell...I played alot of wizard in 2nd/3.0/3.5 (realms campaign), but let's focus only on 3.5 and say level 10 casters!

1.
The standard wizard is quite flexible but has not much spells per day output as the sorcerer! So the point goes to sorcerer even if he has not a spellbook ;)... That's the truth!

wizard spells per day: (without bonus spells)
cantrips/4 1st/4 2nd/4 3rd/3 4th/3 5th/2 = 20 spells

sorcerer spells per day:(without bonus spells)
cantrips/6 1st/6 2nd/6 3rd/6 4th/5 5th/3 = 32 spells

2.
As soon as the wizard specializes in a school of magic he has not all spells available because of 2 schools prohibited to him. But who cares he has a bonus spell per day at every spell level. Some special feats designed for specialists get him now even more dangerous and potent.
Now you can even with 6 spells less than the sorcerer can cast per day put him on the same scale because he is still more versatile than the sorcerer about spell choices.

wizard spells per day: (without bonus spells)
cantrips/5 1st/5 2nd/5 3rd/4 4th/4 5th/3 = 26 spells

sorcerer spells per day:(without bonus spells)
cantrips/6 1st/6 2nd/6 3rd/6 4th/5 5th/3 = 32 spells

3.
If you have the nice complete mage, sorcerers are in comparison to a focused specialist just only breakfast. combined with the master specialist prestige class you will become a crazy cake!

wizard spells per day: (without bonus spells)
cantrips/6 1st/6 2nd/6 3rd/5 4th/5 5th/4 = 32 spells

sorcerer spells per day:(without bonus spells)
cantrips/6 1st/6 2nd/6 3rd/6 4th/5 5th/3 = 32 spells

4.
Something for both Wizard Specialist (Illusionist) and a Sorcerer (Shadowthemed) is to take the PRC Nightmare Spinner it gives additional bonus spells per day at each spell level as one of it's features.

wizard spells per day: (without bonus spells)
cantrips/7 1st/7 2nd/7 3rd/6 4th/6 5th/5 = 38 spells

sorcerer spells per day:(without bonus spells)
cantrips/7 1st/7 2nd/7 3rd/7 4th/6 5th/4 = 38 spells

5.
In Races of Stone is described the Shadowcraft Mage...a powerful PRC combined with the master specialist just one thing "AWESOME"! Just give it a try and look how this would raise the power of a focused specialist as well as the sorcerer in some kind if (Shadowthemed).

6.
The most powerful master specialists are for my opinion (necromancers,conjurers and illusionists).
Further speaking the focused specialist gives up a 3rd school of magic > so you have 5 schools to devote oneself for(included the divination school)! If you don't already know...with feats you can learn spells you would like to use but are in your prohibited schools spell list (1 feat), use trigger items with charges of spells from your prohibited school (2 feat) and even if you pay a third feat you can entirely regain the ability to learn any spell from one of your three prohibited schools.
That means ... if you are not the uber-crafter buddy ... you can pwn da house with legendary...

BEAT THIS!!!

...32 or 38 spells per day instead of 20 and have access to (if the feats are right chosen)6 schools of magic!
-----------
Bye Bye Sorcerer...your charming innate force is nothing against my willpower and unlimited study of arcane lore! You can't match me anymore *WHOOOZAAA*

;)
greets
ultimate_illusionist


Selgard wrote:

the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid were always pretty much on par with each other though for completely different reasons.

The Wizard and Druid in particular have been brought quite low by the Nerf Bat. (a necessary hit, but still a hard one to swallow).

I've not seen very much in the way of Cleric nerfs except for maybe Implosion getting the SoD-treatment same as most of the wizard SoD's.

Divine Power has received some nerfs though to be honest I'm not sure how well it's actually *nerfed* in actual game play.
(bonuses scale with level instead of being set, you get an extra attack at your highest that doesn't stack with haste but you no longer get fighter attack bonus).

Righteous Might seems to actually have gotten a buff (to the tune of +2 con and the very slight DR adjustment).

Otherwise I don't see they've done much to "decrease" the power of clerics, so much as they have increased their sheer healing ability.

While I haven't tested it, I think we've seen a great nerfing of the wizard and druid, while keeping the Cleric where it was power wise- or even slightly buffing it. While I like the channeling energy thing for healing, it Does leave clerics alot of spells open to buff themselves. Extra healing is good, but I'm curious to see how it goes in actual game play. It may be the the channeling is too powerful not because of what it does, but because of what it allows the cleric to do with his spell slots.

-S

About the fixes where exactly do you refer from? Can you tell please? Think I missed something and I am not up to date!

Thank you in advance!


hogarth wrote:
My comment is this: even if you're using the Pathfinder RPG, you can still use the Tome of Battle (for maneuvers and base classes) and Unearthed Arcana (for the magic point system). I don't see a compelling reason for Paizo to try to add the content of those two books into its core rules.

About the Magic Point System you could be right, it can still be a house rule each DM can choose to use in his campaign! And about the use of Maneuvers...well I would use them of course, but the thing is that with a standard maneuver system for nonspellcasters...excuse the next text: "the complain and moron cries would have once and for all an end" and the second benefit would be:

1st lvl fighter -> 20th lvl fighter = 1st lvl wizard -> 20th lvl wizard
perhaps.

A fighter (player) would never turn again back and cry to the dm..."wtf I can't do anything and our mage is owning the whole enmity...he's definitely overpowered!"

So give the fighters some maneuvers from some schools, give him restrictions which schools he can choose and what maneuvers he can learn, don't give him more as the warblade has, maybe 1/2 as much or 1/3 and you are fine!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


Pax Veritas wrote:
Welcome ultimate_illusionist to our community! I am so very glad you share our enthusiasm and support for PAIZO.

thank you very much, I appreciate that realy!


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Zmar wrote:
You can always apply the changes yourself, but the Book of Nine Swords is probably not part of the OGL...
Yea, the Bo9S isn't OGL so Paizo can't use it (or the maneuver system as stated in that book). However, there is no reason why you can't use that book with some minor changes (CMB, for example) in a Pathfinder RPG game.

Would be interested what source of copyright is than the book ToB??? No OGL what else?

And the fact to use CMB sounds to me great...but I have currently no idea how I could implement that without interfering in the CMB game mechanics and confusing my players!
Well for me not as problematic (house rules) as for Paizo, because you mentioned that they can't use it!

Thanks for your comment :)!


Hello guys,

I would like to see complete old school stuff in a new wonderful looking suit of splendor...long forgotten...according rumors about them they appeared in early forgotten realm novels I think (but I could also be wrong)...I am speaking of great and mighty undisputed lords of spells and time...
THE *CHRONOMANCERS*

greets
ultimate_illusionist ;P


Jal Dorak wrote:

I wouldn't get your hopes up about some of your suggestions being included - for the most part the rules are set until playtesting on the Beta begins sometime later this month.

As well, I think Paizo has said a few times that a magic point system or some type of martial power system would not be a design goal. But you should be happy to know that such systems from other d20 games or Unearthed Arcana should be compatable with Pathfinder. Your suggestions are very specific changes.

Welcome to the boards!

Thank you for your comment and welcoming me :D !

Well if they don't include such features it is as you said no very big deal to convert the classes and date it up for the martial power system from tome of battle...just would be cool if PFrgp Book include a designer note or at least a short suggestion about it!

Greets

ultimate_illusionist


neceros wrote:

These boards are pretty slow. Give it time to get responses.

Those are a lot of rules that would need to be tested before it was standardized. No doubt, I hope you use these rules with your Pathfinder to see how well they work and let us know. :)

Of course I will use this rules to see how they will fit...in about two or three weeks I will run the test session! I will let you know step by step if they work well or not!


Hi again...please try to read the above text if possible and when you have enough time...I would appreciate any thoughts and answers.

Thank you very much.


Hello RPG-friends,

I am new here in this community, first of all I want to thank Paizo that it doesn't went the way WotC did with the 4ed! Since my worst case scenario become truth, I was a lost soul and didn't visit any more the WotC homepage and communities there!
But nevermind...I found now a new sweet home and I am realy happy with it! I found since a week ago you all 8).

Personally, I still like 3.5 even if it has it's bugged combat features. The concept of redefining the "good 3.5 D&D" for my opinion has it's exceptional advantages but also some small disadvantages ;P!

I am as well player as dm! But currently we play 4ed. bcuz one of my dear best friends is a 4ed. enthusiast :P and dm'ing!!!
Well even if for me 4ed. suxx a bit, I still want to play with my friends...but I will never ever dm'ing 4ed.

SO THANKS AGAIN for future uses of my 3.x books/accessories and the new books in my library that will fit as soon as possible via Paizo!

I liked the Dragons and the Dungeon Magazines...so this will be still quite awesome!

Enough of introducing myself and up to my topic "what I would like to see" eventualy further.

1st.
I thought since the book: "Tome of Battle (Book of Nine Swords)" has came out, nonspellcaster Classes have become quite good. The complain about wizards & sorcerers are much more powerful at higher levels than nonspellcaster classes by the fact that they feel useless should have an end!

2nd.
So why not taking the concept of Tome of Battle and fit it also at least as an optional rule to the core classes, not as powerful maybe as the (Crusader,Swordsage & Warblade) but at least each core (PHB,PHB2 class) could have a small selection of maneuvers known, maneuvers per day, and stances known from 1 or 2 maneuver schools from that book.

An example could be the barbarian: the rage point system could be revised to maneuvers!

3rd.
Personally I would make an option like the core classes (nonspellcasters) Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue can choose 3 from 5 maneuver schools which they can pick from!
Spellcasters with low spellcasting ability like Paladin, Ranger, Bard can choose 1 from 3 maneuver schools which they can pick from!
And full spellcasters don't have maneuvers available except if they would multiclass to such core classes, take a special feat to learn one maneuver, or take up a prc's presented in ToB!

An example could be the monk: he could have access to the maneuver schools => devoted spirit, diamond mind, setting sun, tiger claw, white raven ... and could select maneuvers and stances from 3 of those schools!

4th.
I would also appreciate to generalize an optional rule to the vancian spell system.(...if not even to make it core) I still like the vancian but an optional thing could be useful for people who want a little difference.
Something like a Mana Point System (a mix of the Spell Point System included in Unearthed Arcane "BUT not so powerful" and the Bonus Power Point System for psionics in the Expanded Psionics Handbook). The concept how psionics work as you know are described in EPH and are more than potent to fit in the entire PFrpg.

Well Arcane Magic and Psionics are for my opinion two different things...but generize their mechanics would be an immense of "save time"

5th.
I have written something for my upcoming PFrpg test session which will include the Mana Point Spell System. One personal writing of myself how am I looking to the use of magic and how I will introduce it to my player buddies!

***Each spell is part of the pure willpower of a spellcaster, and Mana is the pure energy that flows through their mind,
veines and whole body to control it. But each mind has also it's limit, so if a spellcaster continues to cast spells during
the day and consumes up to a special amount of his Mana he won't benefit from it!***

Yes it was a long text...thank you for reading...I thank for replies.

bye and until soon
ultimate_illusionist