x9ss's page

The best suggestion I've seen for stat generation (that I will be using for my own future campaigns, as my most recent started with point buy just before I found this suggestion) is to have each of your players roll for their stats using whatever method you choose (3d6 in order, 3d6 out of order, 4d6 drop lowest in order/out of order, etc.) and then allow your players to use whatever set of rolls they choose from amongst the group of rolls, this allows randomness from rolling while keeping it fair because even if someone rolls insanely high stats, everyone gets a fair shot at them as well. You can choose your rolling method based on what point-buy equivalent you'd like them to be approximately, if you're running a pre-made adventure path I'd suggest rolling 7 sets of 3d6 and drop the lowest of those rolls, since 4d6 drop the lowest with 7 sets tends to make pretty tough characters without the roll-sharing.

Apologies that you took offense to that, but I'm just being realistic. For a level 19-equivalent one-shot, you're gonna be putting in inordinate amounts of work to get everyone at a reasonably equal playing ground, and pulling punches isn't likely to win you any friends at your table, of course your table may vary but that's been my experience. I attempted a very similar concept to this once in the past at only level 4 and it still was damn near impossible to cope with my players versatility and abilities without blatantly targeting their weak points (which completely kills verisimilitude). I honestly wish you luck in this turning out well, that much wasn't sarcasm, my experiences with it have been lackluster at best and unless your players love to either steamroll or be steamrolled I doubt it'll be much fun combat-wise. Roleplay-wise, it'll be no different than usual, and perhaps more fun as beasts and various outsiders, but if you can achieve the wanted role-play without the imbalanced mechanics I'm sure it'd be a better experience all around.

Not a great idea. The monsters power levels vary wildly, especially if you don't have a group that are all equally capable of optimizing (or incapable, just need them to be even). I'd suggest you rethink that decision, if you have a single optimizer and the rest noobs, you'll see one character stomp your dungeon crawl with ease and the rest do little to nothing. The rules for such an endeavor aren't covered by paizo for this reason, though 3.5 attempted it with Savage Species. If you're set on this idea, get that book as a reference material, but I do recommend you go with something else, especially if you're not a top tier GM.

Good luck.

RAW the Powerful Build ability does nothing for unarmed attacks. It says "can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty", it doesn't say "treat weapons a half-giant uses as though one size larger when dealing damage".

As far as my reading of this line in Movement;
When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.

It says moved into, so you should be able to five foot step out to normal terrain. This is hardly definitive though.

Perhaps a Sorceror 8/Fighter 1 prestige into Eldritch Knight? You get some combat feats and use your few known spells to pick up buffing and necromancy spells? If you don't care about optimizing at all, it can be built to be decently effective. How high level is this campaign starting at? How high will it likely go?

I would rule that it has the usual hardness of the armor and can be sundered as normal. So 10 Hardness (iron/steel) and the HP of normal armor (armor bonus x 5). The alternate is to give it 30 Hardness due to it's construction from force, but as it's a level 2 spell, I'd probably restrict it to the strength of steel.

It depends on the maneuver. If the maneuver can be used in place of a regular melee attack (as part of a full-round attack) rather than as a separate standard action only, then yes you can use it in an Attack of Opportunity.

The best I can think of off the top of my head is Cornered Fury which is an alternate racial trait for Ratfolk
Cornered Fury: Ratfolk can fight viciously when cut off from friends and allies. Whenever a ratfolk with this racial trait is reduced to half or fewer of his hit points, and has no conscious ally within 30 feet, he gains a +2 racial bonus on melee attack rolls and to Armor Class. (Allies die, I get bigger! Ideology)
Other than that, you'd be looking at maybe a Necromancy based Wizard, Focus on giving negative levels and gaining temp HP perhaps?

Kresh is a hard character to really duplicate in pathfinder as there is little that truly goes off of creatures dying. I'll look some more, but off the top of my head, there's really not much else.

Edit:
Cleave, Cleaving Finish and Improved Cleaving Finish would be good feats for a martially built Kresh character.

I'm far from a math whiz (i haven't taken a math class since my junior year in high school), but that Expected Value equation seems crazy technical.

Is that more appropriate or exact than just saying "my expected value of a die roll is the average of 1 and the highest number on the die"?

Cause they seem to amount to the same thing. I'm not being smarmy... i'm genuinely curious.

The expected value of a non-weighted die that increments by 1 (IE it doesn't work for a d4 with sides of 1, 3, 5, 6; if you happened to own such an oddity.) is indeed the average of the lowest and highest sides. This works fine for Pathfinder dice, but the more general form of the equation is what Please Don't Kill Me spelled out.

As a future kindergarten teacher, I expect my kids to be able to do this in their heads in the next ten-fifteen years. ;)

The fact that I cannot is irrelevant!

Agreed. This is easy stuff, don't know about kindergarten students doing it in their heads though. Too likely to be distracted. Besides, doing it in your head isn't impressive on it's own, doing it faster in your head than the guy with a calculator is what's impressive. (Not saying I can though XD)

It really depends on what you mean by "formula", a lot of the math on these forums is just based on probability.
For example; If you're a level 10 character with a +16 bonus to attack rolls, and you're fighting say an Elder Air Elemental with 28 AC, you need a 12 to hit, thus you have a 9/20 chance to hit, for let's say, 3d6+18 damage, which is an average of 28.5 damage (1d6 average is 3.5).
Assuming the elemental has 152 health, you need to hit ~5.3 times, let's round up and say that's 6 times.
From there it's simple mathematics, you need 6 hits and have a 9/20 chance to hit; the average amount of rounds it will take you to kill the elemental is 12.825 or ~13 rounds. The way you get this number is to multiply your chance to hit (9/20) by your average damage hit (28.5 in this case). This is an approximate, since it doesn't take into account that non-hits do no damage, rather than the percentage of the average, but it works well for theory-crafting as it's a baseline. Of course, you also have a chance to get a critical hit, to account for that you take the chance you have to get a critical hit, let's say you're using a 20/x4 weapon in this case without improved critical. You have a 1/20 chance of getting a x4 critical which will deal, on average 114 damage, this means you get around 5.7 extra damage per round from critical hits if you can automatically confirm them, if not you get 2.565 damage per round (9/20 * 5.7)(again this is purely in theory, given you have perfectly average randomization. One of the bigger problems with this kind of analysis is that there are spikes in damage rather than a constant stream of average damages). This ups your average per-round damage to 15.39, which reduces the number of rounds to 9.87 or approximately 10.

If you want to learn how to do this sort of this, look up probability and statistics math, but it's mostly intuitive anyway. Hope that helps!

Edit: Whoops, forgot that Elder Air Elementals have DR 10/-, this complicates things, but I don't have time to fix the math right now as I've gotta go to math class (irony get!), regardless the process is still valid.

Yup, Monster Girl races are pretty sweet!
As for making them immune to trip/bullrush, I've been basing this race off of abilities with a known RP cost, and that would be higher. The goal is for the race to be balanced with the core races. I would be willing to change the name, but for now it's not that important.
As for the trip attack, very well. I shall instead append it to a racial feat and use the freed up RP to add in some skill bonuses.
As for the tail reaching much higher, I think that'd be relegated to role-playing, I don't want to give that a combat advantage, though perhaps as another racial feat, ala Lunge but relegated only to the tail, and permanent 5ft reach increase?

Overall;
-Free trip attempt
+Lamias receive a +2 racial bonus to diplomacy and When members of this race attempt to change a creature's attitude with a Diplomacy check and fail by 5 or more, they can try to influence the creature a second time even if 24 hours have not passed.

Racial feats;
Lamia Trip; Prerequisites; BAB +1, Lamia
When a Lamia hits with their natural tail attack, they may make a free trip attempt without provoking an attack of opportunity. (Or, alternate option, it does provoke, but Improved Trip negates it. Yeah, that's probably better..)

Lamia Lunge; Prerequisites; BAB +6, Acrobatics 1 rank, Lamia
The Lamia gains a 5 foot increase to her reach when using her tail slam.

Posting as a just-in-case sort of thing, if anyone wants to use the race, go right ahead. I just made it for a home game and thought to share.

Lamia (surprisingly hard to find a SFW image of one..) are a half-human, half-snake hybrid race. From the waist up Lamias are 100% human, but below the waist, in place of legs, they possess a large powerful tail used for locomotion and self-defense. Despite their apparent reptilian nature, Lamias are actually mammals and give birth to live children, they do not lay eggs.

Physical Appearance; Lamias tend to have vibrant colored scales on their tails which match their hair color, most appear to be reds, blues, or a mix of the two, with a rare few being bright yellow or green. They also possess small fangs, but these are next to useless in combat due to their small size, and are not known to secrete poison. Lamias have equivalent body size to humans from the waist up, but their tails generally reach 6 to 7 feet in length near adulthood. This length can make them appear to be larger than they really are when stretched out, but idly standing with their tails coiled, Lamias really take up no more room than a woman in a wide skirt.

Alignment; Lamias tend toward Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good alignments, seeking personal enjoyment or enjoyment for their close-knit group above almost all else. Evil lamia do exist, but are highly uncommon and if discovered are usually expelled from their community.

Relations; Lamia are quite kind and passionate beings, known to bond with others quite easily and form close-knit social groups, even outside their own race. Lamia's hold excellent relations with Humans and Elves, though Dwarves are usually suspicious of their snake heritage and Gnomes and Halflings can be intimidated by their predatory appearance.
While quite dextrous and friendly, Lamias can be grating to deal with, as they will constantly place themselves in a position of submission to those they trust (though no such deference is given to those they deem dangerous or unfriendly) and also tend to be a bit scatter-brained when it comes to common sense.

Racial Traits;
+2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Wisdom
Medium Size
60 ft. Darkvision
30 ft. Movement speed

Defensive Racial Traits;
Stability - Lamia's receive a +4 bonus to CMD vs. Bullrush and Trip when on the ground.

Offensive Racial Traits;
Natural Attack (Tail) - Lamia's can use their tail as a primary natural attack that deals 1d8+1 1/2 Str modifier in damage. A successful hit with this attack allows the Lamia to make a free Trip attempt without provoking an AoO on the target.

Language; Common + Draconic. A lamia with high intelligence scores may select; any human tongue, Abyssal, Aklo, Celestial, Draconic, Giant, Infernal, or Sylvan as a bonus language.

Special:
Heavy Armour not made specially for a lamia (which costs 50% more than the base cost of a given Heavy Armour to have specially made tail plates constructed) gives the lamia 2 less Armour Class than normal, as they cannot wear the protective leg gear.

Special;
Lamia may take the Final Embrace line of feats, ignoring the prerequisite of being a Naga, Seprentfolk, or possessing the Constrict quality, as long as they meet the other prerequisites.

I'm looking for some feedback on the Natural Attack (Tail) ability, this race was built using the advanced race guide, and thus there was no option for a tail slap built into the rules. Instead I've taken the Slapping Tail and Tripping Tail traits, plus an additional 1 RP for Natural attack, and combined them to provide the ability given above. Do you think it's balanced?
The cost in RP was prohibitive (the race is 11 points, with the tail totally 7), limiting what else could be added, but it's a very good natural attack to build around, especially at low levels. Perhaps I should instead leave it as just Slapping Tail + Tripping Tail (thus only usable for Attacks of Opportunity as a base, not as a natural attack) then provide a feat to gain that capability? Perhaps it should be a secondary attack with a feat to change that status? Any thoughts?

As a point of comparison, the Kobold Tail Terror feat grants Kobolds only a 1d4 secondary natural attack and proficiency with tail blade weapons, but Kobolds are notoriously weak as a player race anyway, so it's a bit pointless to call it the baseline. Either way, it's an established Tail natural attack....

That quickened fireball can't be cast until 11th level (3rd level fireball+4 levels to quicken-1 level from Magical Lineage=6th level slot). So it's probably fine. Also, this is perfectly legal by RAW.

Just watch out to make sure your player doesn't think he can apply a +0 metamagic feat to a level 1 spell and use magical lineage to drop it to a cantrip. That particular combo is against the rules.

"Highest bonus" is shorthand for "Highest base attack bonus" in this case, and thus you'd use the value the barbarian derives from their first attack, not their second.
The ability specifically calls out that they forgo their highest attack, it does not change the fact that the bonus is their highest attack bonus.
So yes, the barbarian was doing it correctly.

You may wish to check out Obsidian Portal. It's an online resource for GMs to post their campaign worlds and keep a campaign journal, & you can find a lot of good ideas and worlds there. (also, don't be afraid to look under campaigns for systems other than Pathfinder for ideas, there's some sweet 4E adventure logs out there)

While I love Magic and I love Pathfinder, I don't think the rules as written can handle this combination. If you want this style of game, you should design it from the ground up. Perhaps just take actual magic cards and build a character-based system around them. It would be difficult but ultimately a better system if done well, and not have conflict on both sides from the Magic and Pathfinder camps.
To be honest, this is a lot of the appeal of EDH/Commander in a sense, you're just taking it that one step further by adding role-playing and dice rolls.
While I like the idea, I can't see Paizo stepping up that much for a variant rule-set. They'd be taking on a huge risk financially, and potentially legally if they stray too close to M:TG. On the other side of things, Magic won't stray into RPG territory, because Wizards of the Coast has D&D already, and they don't want to "cross the streams" as it were.

In conclusion, now I want to make said RPG system based on Magic...darn you.

There was also Pierce Magical Concealment and Pierce Magical Protection, to get through pesky mage stuff. They were the higher tier feats off of Mageslayer and damned powerful. (These were all in Complete Arcane, fyi)

Edit: According to the SRD it's 6d8.
Click Me!
For reference, the Greatsword found here at gargantuan is only 6d6.

I don't believe it's possible to be both Shaken and Frightened at once. Thus, if the Barbarian failed saves against each spell, he would end up Frightened for 1d4 rounds (as per the Cause Fear spell) and then Shaken for the remaining duration of Doom (1 min/level).

No. Spells with the same name do not stack. (Other than some specified exceptions.)

*Note: I'm in no way attempting to be confrontational with you Stuart, just making a point.*

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not everyone who multiclasses is a powergamer.

That is a myth, probably because of 3.5 gamers.

This is true but some are and it's the DM's job to identify those who are and tell them to stop themselves!

That's the Stormwind Fallacy right there. Optimizing is not a bad thing, and saying they should "stop themselves" is at the least insinuating something that is downright insulting.

Sticking to one class does not make you a "Better" player. If you can't accomplish what you want your character to do within that one class (either flavor-wise OR mechanically), you shouldn't feel like looking outside that class for answers is somehow wrong. Alas, these threads usually devolve into that kind of conclusion.

I wish more players would remember the work that went into removing dead levels and encouraging players to stay in class, alas some people just can't help themselves!

And that's why a large number of players do stick to one class these days. But I'd say you're being a real stick in the mud if you're saying that NO ONE EVER should be allowed to multi-class. Casters of all kinds are almost exclusively single-classed characters, Paladins and Monks generally stay to their base class (at least in my experience), and all the other classes are perfectly viable on their own, but that doesn't mean that they cover all the bases you want a character to cover. Yes, some players multi-class to optimize, but did you know that some of those optimizers can find the process of deciding how to make a character better as fun as playing the game?

People derive enjoyment from Pathfinder in many different ways, if you don't enjoy a particular way, that's fine at your table, but I like to take up character building challenges just as much as I like to roleplay. There's no excuse for stomping on someone's enjoyment when it's not hurting yours.

Note: An interesting treatise about the types of game players by Mark Rosewater (a lead designer for Magic:The Gathering) is here, it's a little bit awkward to match the different psychographics to Pathfinder players, but I think that the basic concepts of different types of gamers, who each have different expectations about the games they play, applies.

*End Rant*

RAW, The flaming arrow would stop the regeneration that round altogether. RAI is debatable, but it would seem pedantic to rule otherwise.

I can link you to the most complete conversion I can find.
Thread Here
It's for 3.5, but as the system is compatible regardless, there should be little difference. It includes conversions for some of the base classes, but mainly you'd just need the spell lists and descriptions.
Given the size of the PDF (309 pages), I'd say that the bulk of, if not all of, your work is done for you.

x9ss wrote:

I agree with a lot of the major points already brought up in this thread, so I'll skip over them and say instead;

Why not just use Psionics?
That is literally the exact, already tested, system that runs off a "mana" pool. No need to re-invent the wheel on this one.

Because maybe they don't like it's flavor? Or the precise implementation of those mechanics?

For flavor, that's beyond easy to hand wave, you cannot possibly be so adamantly against it as to reject the system solely on those grounds.

I agree with a lot of the major points already brought up in this thread, so I'll skip over them and say instead;

Why not just use Psionics?
That is literally the exact, already tested, system that runs off a "mana" pool. No need to re-invent the wheel on this one.

dotting for future reference.

I think that by using RAW interpretation, it does not apply a penalty to the attempt like an AoO does, but RAI is fuzzier. The line "If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver" is a bit open to interpretation, though I think it does imply that it is referring to the AoO exclusively.

That being said, as a GM I'd allow it to do so. Seems pretty fair to hold your action to disrupt it, much like spellcasting.

x9ss: Reckless Aim sounds good, but it's from a book we're not using (I probably should have specified :P) We're only using Core and APG in this game.

Hobbling Attack is so much better than Tangling Attack - you can declare Hobbling attack after you hit, where with Tangling Attack you have to declare it before you roll to hit. Both are essentially 1/2 speed, Hobbling Attack lasts as long or longer than Tangling Attack does. Likewise, we debated Defensive Bow Stance vs Surprise Shift and decided Surprise Shift was the better option - they're both Swift Actions, so that's a wash, and even though with DBS you can shoot at the guy in your face, with Surprise Shift you can use that, then move away and still get a shot off, making them expend some movement to get a full attack on you.

Morgen: Any suggestions?

Ah, well that makes it more difficult.

Good point on the Surprise Shift.
If I had to suggest something else, Iron Will might be good, he probably has decent wisdom, but failing will saves is never good news.
Other than that, Toughness, a skill focus (Perception?), or back to Improved Init. You're pretty limited for options with just CRB and APG.

Edit: Actually, should throw up a second vote for Weapon Focus. I just assumed the character had it >.<;

Until the game devolves to rocket-tag at high level, I've found the benefit from improved initiative to be lackluster in play, it serves a purpose and it's nice to have, but I've just held my turn to wait for my allies to act more than I've used my starting order to just attack, it's better IMO to be reactive than fire the opening volley (again, until the game becomes rocket-tag).

That being said, the feat choices available are not great..
Reckless Aim perhaps?

Edit: I also like Tangling Attack more so than Hobbling Attack, you get the 1/2 movement speed (albeit for 1 round) but with added goodies, but it does seems redundant to have both.

Defensive Bow stance seems good aswell, as a just-incase option.

Could you perhaps be talking about Dreamscarred Press' Complete Control - Character Design for the Uninhibited?
I don't now of anyone who has done anything similar for Pathfinder, but it should be relatively trivial to use the system guidelines they've presented there to work out the cost of PF-specific abilities, if you're so inclined.

Anthro Race;

Medium 0 RP
Normal Speed 0 RP
Human Heritage 0 RP
Linguist Language 1 RP
Cat’s Luck 1 RP (and has the pre-req of +2 Dex in the builder, but it’s not infallible, so let’s ignore that for now)
Dual Minded 1 RP (pre-req of Half-undead, Half-construct, or has 2 other subtypes; more specific and RP expensive pre-reqs, so it might fall to reason that this should be the feat instead) (If we use the basis that this is Iron Will as a fixed bonus feat, this is instead 2 RP.)
Curiosity 4 RP (didn’t know it was an exact copy of a skill, interesting)
Sociable 1 RP (again, not intimately familiar with the ARG or catfolk, so didn’t know this was lifted)
Claws 2 RP (and are listed as an “Advanced” trait)
Low-light Vision 1 RP

Total;
11 RP, just outside the 10 point limit for standard races, assuming we count Dual-Minded as it is and not as a bonus feat, if we don’t do that, 12 RP. It also skirts some pre-reqs, with the most egregious being Dual Minded, so we’ll take that as enough reason to settle on 12 RP.

Conclusion; My hunch that it might be slightly out of bounds was correct, at least by the ARG race-builder standards, which while good, are not the end-all of balance concerns.
I’d offer the choice between Sociable and Cat’s Luck, as I suggested previously, and reduce the linguist language package to the Standard language package (You get Common + your racial, plus can learn up to 7 different languages based on your race, make your list of 7 or steal it from Catfolk, whatever). This is a simple fix to get you down to 10 RP even using Iron Will as a bonus feat, and preserves darn near everything you’re trying to accomplish with this race.
That being said, since the ARG is not the end-all of balance, I turn to look at the Catfolk themselves and see that Curiosity and Claws are both racial options for them, but they replace the same racial trait, so giving them both is perhaps a step too far. In fact, other than ability score optimization for Dex and Charisma (say, a rogue), there seems little reason to pick the standard Catfolk over the Anthro, another bad sign. If I were trying to balance this race with the core races, I would remove the claw attacks, or make them an alternate choice that replaces something, such as the Iron Will feat.
Anyway, that’s just my 2c on the matter.

Your system just makes MAD classes more MAD...

It Nerfs Fighters & Wizards while buffing Barbarians. What are you using as Usual PC Health considering the Half+1 is based on the average rolls.

So the Half and Half+1 are pretty much Identical.

Also you have all HD EXCEPT for d8 HD.

Also how would you handle it if they did increase their CON later on? Would they be screwed out of the HP increase or what?

The usual PC health is based on the average of rolling a die. (half the number of sides + 0.5) It is near identical to your system of Half+1, but it's the baseline and is slightly lower as it doesn't round up the half point, so I included it for numerical comparison.

This system does NOT make classes any more MAD than before, because when averaged out, the outcome is nigh-identical to the system base. The numerical proof is above (Compare Usual PC health to My system under the Average rolls math). The only purpose of this system is to increase the MINIMUM, as I have stated now /numerous/ times.

If characters increase their Con later on in leveling, they gain retroactive bonuses to HP per HD as is usual, but their rolls are just that, their rolls, and are not retroactively changed. It works in exactly the same method as base system.

For example;
A level 10 fighter in normal pathfinder play without any house rules, and with a starting Con of 18, gets a +6 belt of Con.
If his health before was perfectly average 5.5 points per level, his current total without the belt is 95 points. (55 points from rolling, 40 from Con bonus)
If he puts on the belt and wears it for 24 hours so the bonus to Con acts as though permanent, his health increases to 125 points (Still 55 points from rolling, but his Con bonus has increased to 70)

A level 10 fighter using my system, with a starting Con of 18, gets a +6 belt of Con.
If his health has been the average under my system it is 101 points. A slight increase from the base, due to investing in Con early on. (61 points from rolling, 40 from Con bonus)
If he puts on the belt and wears it for 24 hours so the bonus to Con acts as though permanent, his health increases to 131 points (Still 61 points from rolling, but his Con bonus has increased to 70)

And yes, I skipped d8 HD, you can still see the exponential progression. It's irrelevant to do d8, as it would not change the conclusion at all. I could have just done d6 and d12 as I gave 4 sample points for each, and the pattern is easy to deduce.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care about the NPCs, I either hand-wave or give them maximum health plus a bit anyway, & my system does not empower the PCs to the point that I need to adjust monsters in any way, the PCs will simply be a bit more resilient than the base rolling system, but still weaker than your system.

Breaking out the math;

Since the maximum health in each system is the same, I will do the work for averages and minimums. This math assumes, for my system only as it's irrelevant otherwise, that the PCs never increase their Con as they level and start with the relevant score value, for 22 Con at level 1, it would be difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the math tracks upward in all cases, with an average slightly higher than the core and a minimum at a much more reasonable HP for a playable character, so it does not skew the conclusion that can be drawn from the data.

Math on Averages;

Usual PC health; (at level 20)
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con
Fighter=110/150/190/230
Barbarian=130/170/210/250
Wizard=70/110/150/190

Half HD+1 health;
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con
Fighter=140/180/220/260
Barbarian=165/205/245/285
Wizard=90/130/170/210

My system;
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con
Fighter=110/152/202/242
Barbarian=130/171.66/230/275
Wizard=70/113.33/160/200

Math on Minimums;

Usual PC health; (at level 20)
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con

All classes follow the same route;
20/60/100/140
^Conclusion; mostly too low to be playable, except in extraneous circumstances.

Half HD+1 health;
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con
Fighter=120/160/200/240
Barbarian=140/180/220/260
Wizard=80/120/160/200
^Conclusion; higher than the average for rolling. Better than what is considered the norm for playable, all around.

My system;
10 Con/14 Con/18 Con/22 Con
Fighter=20/80/160/200
Barbarian=20/80/160/240
Wizard=20/80/140/180
^Conclusion; low Con-scores still can lead to nigh-unplayable characters, AS INTENDED, but high Con scores result in characters that approach rolling averagely and are still playable despite what has been horrendous rolling luck.

In conclusion, my system works an intended. The average is within the bounds of rolling averagely and 1/2HD+1, but the minimum proves that maxing out Con is rewarded. Low Con scores lead to worst-case scenario with rolling builds, but high scores make the PCs playable, effectively disregarding their poor dice luck, just as I set out to do. And all accomplished without needing to rework any NPCs or Monsters.

Phew, that was a lot of math hoping to prove it worked XD.

A little on the powerful side at first glance, they lose the choice of a feat that a human gets, but receive Iron Will (effectively) instead. That would be fine if it stopped there, but the claw attacks, random skill bonuses, Cat's Luck, Sociable and low-light vision all are minorly powerful abilities on their own, but combined make it very versatile and a little on the OP side.

Some changes I might suggest;
Perhaps Sociable and Cat's luck are choices, IE, you get one or the other, depending on which side of your bloodline is more dominant. Catfolk dominance get's the luck, human get's the sociable, though obviously the appearance of the character is up to the PC/DM, regardless which side of the bloodline is more prevalent.
Turn that +2 Will save into the actual Iron Will feat, so they don't stack with each other.

If I can find my copy of the advanced race guide I'll see what it's RP is, to see if my hunch is indeed correct, but that's my first glance impressions, I personally value the claws and skills bonuses pretty highly, so something probably has to get cut somewhere. I'll do a comparison to a regular human and a regular catfolk later if I have the time, so I can have a good frame of reference, but off the top of my head, it feels just a smidge too good. I like the concept a bit anyway, but it's reticent of so many half-human half-animal hybrids published in the past that it feels a bit played out at this point.

Also, your link tag is broken, the / is the wrong way on the last tag.

I have a Fighter that his rolls were: one 3, five 2s, and thirteen 1s.

For a total of 13+10+3+100=126 at level 20. He was the Main Front Liner in the entire group. And was the most successful and funnest character I played.

3 HP per level can be a major difference in this game. Well 60 HP after 20 levels.

That's fine and all, but you probably weren't just relying on your measly 126 health to get by, or if you were you were lucky as all heck haha, it's of course possible to get by with incredibly low rolls, but when the rules are based on numbers it can be frustrating. Doubly so when you invested with the expectation of getting above average health, I'm sure you would have had an easier time with an extra 40-60 health under your belt, and it likely wouldn't have detracted from the fun you had at all unless you were really into the concept of a frail fighter and it was important to your role-playing.

Anyway, it's not anyone's place to decide what way of having fun is the best, if you had fun with a abysmally unlucky but ultimately successful fighter, that's awesome, but I know I'd be disappointed if I was in your shoes at the time and so would my players. Role-playing is primary to my Pathfinder games, but often RP is driven by the numbers you've got to work with, and bad luck with rolls isn't a character motivation I find compelling to play.

Anyway, I don't just want to give my players a handout with 1/2HD+1 or any other arbitrary minimum, so that's why I'm trying to concoct an essentially fair system that keeps power near the same levels as the original game, but removes the bad feelings associated (in my group at least) with low rolls, if they choose to act on it. And if you really like the low rolls, taking your Con mod is a choice in the system I presented, you can stick with that 1 if that's what you want to do.

How does someone not benefit from investing in CON in the system a lot of people use?

Your system results in less HP than my system.

The point is not that they don't benefit, it's that the relative value of having higher Con is less noticeable. If I have 16 Con and d10 HD in your system, at worst I'm getting 9 HP, but the agile fighter with 10 Con is getting 6, only 3 points less. That's a usual difference of exact Con mod, but I would rather a system that makes that difference more pronounced, to reward investment.

Under my system, the player with 10 Con's average hp per level is 5.5, while the player with 16 Con's average hp per level is 8.8, it's a slight difference when you compare the averages of the two methods, but when you look at minimums it's a whole different story, the minimum for the 10 Con is 1 measly point, while the 16 is 6 points, a difference of 5 health per level! It means that the beefier characters have much less of a chance of getting less than the casters, without skewing the average health per level too much. The point is not to have my players running around with X% more health than average, it's to reward characters that are built to be damage sponges, with the ability to accomplish that, even if they have the worst rolling luck in the world!

The HP cap thing is to mitigate my system not working too well at low levels with small hit die. It makes the wizards con increases worth more with average rolls than bigger hit die classes due to probability, but if you cap it a certain point, the eventual increasing returns for bigger HD classes pays it off. It's not unreasonable to get 18 Con at level 1, but as a wizard, your minimum roll is still only 3 rather than 4, you need a bigger HD to benefit fully from your con, but you do still benefit from that investment.

x9ss wrote:

... but the point of the system is to prevent the feeling of, oh, I've got 18 Con and a d12, but i rolled a 1 so i'm getting 5 hit points this level. At the minimum now it'd be 8 points.

That is why a lot of groups adopt something like a Roll and if you get less than 1/2+1 you instead gain 1/2+1 base HP before CON.

The problem I have with that system is that it doesn't reward you for actually investing into constitution, it's even all around, which actually means it's worse than the system I proposed because it achieves the result of increasing low end health but not the intent behind it. Clearly mine isn't the perfect solution I had thought it was due to the wonky probability of different size die, but I'd prefer to go with something that rewards investment than something that buffs everyone indiscriminately.

Brainstorming here, maybe if I limited the roll's minimum to 1/2 the HD, so bigger HD classes can take advantage of larger Con scores, while rewarding all-around? This way, wizards effectively cap at 16, while barb's don't cap until 22 con, fighters at 20. Might be roughly appropriate, but I'll have to do out the math.

Hmm.. let's see;
Wizard rolls;
Average would be 3.5
With 14 Con;
Average moves up to 3.66
With 16 Con;
Average moves up to 4.00
With 18 Con;
Average moves up to 4.5

Barbarian rolls;
Average would be 6.5
With 14 Con;
Average moves up to 6.583
With 16 Con;
Average moves up to 6.75
With 18 Con;
Average moves up to 7

So the difference between scores is 2.5 points at 18 con, versus 3 if they were rolling, on average. Alright, I'll admit that it does give the lower HD classes an advantage, but the point of the system is to prevent the feeling of, oh, I've got 18 Con and a d12, but i rolled a 1 so i'm getting 5 hit points this level. At the minimum now it'd be 8 points.

After doing out the little math, it does make me reconsider though. The barbarian is a little less attractive as a whole..worth a rethink. I'll get back to you on this if I can work out a system that still works to benefit those who invest in Con, just more evenly across the board.

Perhaps something tied into BAB?
1/2 BAB classes don't get the benefit of this system,
3/4 BAB classes get 1/2 benefit from this system,
Full BAB classes get the full benefit?

I haven't scratched the math, but it might work. If only odd numbers weren't so damned awkward to use at 1/2 benefit. Ugh.

That method takes away the main selling point of barbarians, and potentially allows for sorcerers and wizards to end up with more HP per level than would normally be allowed. Plus it gets weird with con boosting equipment.

Not sure if you're referring to my house rule, if so, how does it subtract from playing a barbarian? Yes they get a d12...but they benefit as much from this rule as anyone and as a general rule have higher Con?

As for con-boosting equipment.. I'll have to think that one over, but I'd probably end up with a rule that it uses your unmodified Constitution (just your starting score + any level bonuses into it + inherent bonus), and then con-boosters give you extra hp as they usually do.

Xan Ning; that's a good one that I haven't heard of before, rather interesting... if my original idea doesn't work out, I'll probably steal that.

I haven't had good experiences with the randomization of the HP system in the past, so I've come up with a house rule that I believe helps fix that.
Essentially, you roll your hit die as normal at level up, but you can choose to take your con modifier in place of your roll (Netting 2x con mod gained per level minimum). This is limited to no more than the maximum you could possibly roll on the die and (I hope) promotes and rewards characters that invest in Con.

My question is, is there anything I'm overlooking with this system?
It should give my players just a bit more staying power if they build for it, but given I give them a 13 point buy to work with they might need it haha.

Anyway, just something I came up with and wanted to share!
If there are any other GMs out there that have modified this part of the system in the past, post your own house rules about HP here!

Interesting. While I agree that either is or should be the correct ruling, the combat section on the SRD provides no indication that it is limited to such spells. My DMs and I have always viewed that passage as working in the way I have summarized above.
As to the second sacrifice question, I can now see the interpretation there that can be made, still it is undoubtedly phrased in a confusing manner.

Aha, found the passage. Now I feel a bit foolish.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. (Though this phrasing still makes it seem slightly ambiguous, as the two sentences might appear unrelated to a cursory glance, but I don't want to get into a RAW vs RAI debate here as I agree whole-heartedly that it doesn't work as I had been led to believe)

It seems that is indeed correct, thank you for your contribution, you've managed to clear up a misconception that has apparently been plaguing my group for a while.

I would still like to point out that the misconception arose because of the Actions in Combat reference table that is shown in the PRD that lists;
Full Round Action/Provoke AoO?
Use a touch spell on up to six friends/Yes
Which then links to the otherwise ambiguous passage I listed in the first post.
While it may seem like an obvious stretch to check the specifics of casting a touch spell in this manner, the number of touch spells that actually qualify for multiple targets is quite low as I recall, and since neither communal nor Water Breathing have ever come up in my games, didn't even pop into my mind as a reason to explain this citation. Perhaps a small addition to the pfsrd/prd that links to the relevant Touch spell description in the Magic header is in order? I don't know if anyone else has made the same mistake I did, but a simple ("in the case of touch spells which specify multiple targets") annotation on the combat Holding the Charge section could clear up all ambiguity.

Edit: @cartmanbeck, the reason this ability seemed redundant in hindsight is a misinterpretation of the Combat section regarding Holding the Charge. Read as written, citing only that page, it is quite easy to conclude that ALL touch spells can be delivered to multiple allies by using a full-round action. Having found the proper citation under the Magic heading, I realize this is fallacious, but at the time this ability seemed highly useless. And the phrasing of the spell slot thing is still pretty messed up/confusing, regardless.

First of all, I apologize if this has been brought up before, I did a cursory search for the term Legion's Blessing and Crusader Cleric and found nothing on the subject.

Did anybody even look at the Legion's Blessing ability before this book was published?

Here is what is reads;

Legion’s Blessing (Su)

At 8th level, a crusader gains the ability to confer beneficial spells quickly to a large group of allies. As a full-round action, the crusader may confer the effects of a single harmless spell with a range of touch to a number of creatures equal to half her cleric level. The spell’s range remains touch, so all intended recipients must be within the crusader’s reach when the spell is cast. Using the legion’s blessing expends the prepared spell, but it also requires the crusader to sacrifice another prepared spell three levels higher, as when spontaneously using a cure or inflict spell. The higher-level spell is not cast but is simply lost, its magical energy used to power the legion’s blessing.

Not only does this give you a redundant ability (via the general combat rules, Important part bolded);
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

But it also implies that spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell drains a spell slot 3 levels higher??

The only possible use of this ability is to use a spell 3 levels lower than your maximum on 8 targets friendlies that happen to have you completely surrounded, instead of 6, but still expending that higher level slot. And that's at level 16 minimum no less. Seriously guys? Get your stuff together, if you're writing a book called Ultimate Combat, know how the classes and combat in general work. I'd love if someone could point out anything I seem to be missing that makes this thing in any way useful, but as it stands, they need to give this archetype a completely new 8th level ability, and make sure it actually accomplishes something this time.

(Sorry if I sound rude, I'm just flabbergasted because I stumbled something that is such a blatant failure in oversight)

Pathfinder doesn't use the "epic" rules that 3.x set out, they are currently playtesting a set of rules known as "mythic" that is as close a fit to what you are looking for as pathfinder currently has. The playtest is here on the forums so it shouldn't be hard to find. As for the Arch-Wizard/Arch-Psion, I'm not sure as I'm not familiar with the source material.
Edit; Here's the mythic general discussion forum;
Mythic
and here's the free playest document;
Playtest

Well, at the risk of completely annoying everyone with a year old thread raise dead (better than starting a new thread imo, as everyone can see previous suggestions), I've recently returned to Pathfinder after a year of various university and work related hells and thought I'd see what the community thinks of this second revision of the original concept. It's still got a few dead levels, and could use a few more unique abilities, but it's a start and I'd love some input on what I've got so far.

Gravity Warrior Attempt 2.0

It is going in a slightly different direction than the original. Instead of focusing on a more Dexterity based build this class uses Wisdom to fuel some of it's gravity based abilities.

Some abilities I'm still working on in the current iteration;

The bonus feat selection needs to be almost completely overhauled, I stole it from the original monk selection and removed the more "speedy" options and added a few random things. I'll take a good look through all the combat and general feats later on to get a better pool, but for now, it's just bonus feats, the vital strike chain is included (sometimes at a lower level than it should be, but I'm debating leaving it as early access, something the monk is good at with feats) but that's about the only surefire include on the bonus feat list.

Debating some kind of haste ability to give out to the party and himself a number of times a day. Overall, he needs a slightly larger list of support options, right now Levitating everyone and a crit confirmation/crit multiplier bonus are cool, but feel somewhat lacking in terms of team synergy.

Some kind of actual attack bonus. Yes it's already a monk with full BAB and HD, but without the extra attacks from flurry and without the weapon training from fighter it may fall behind at later levels in pure combat as it can't land the same hits (Impact helps with damage, just need a balanced bonus to attack rolls somewhere I think). Tied in with the above need for party support/utility, I'm tempted to do something with the combat maneuvers for which he receives a sweet boost in Pseudo-Strength to give him some interesting combat utility. Bull-Rush and Tripping seem good at first glance, through I'm sure grappling would also be good. Any suggestions in this area would be especially helpful.

There will be a Wind Wall effect somewhere in the higher levels, skinned as a massively powerful gravity field centered on the gravity warrior. Just haven't decided what level is appropriate for a nigh-constant Wind Wall as is my plan. (level 15 is open at the moment, so that's my baseline, though if you can argue/I can convince myself access at level 11 isn't overpowering that's also an option.)

Finally, I need a capstone, at the moment I'm toying with allowing him to act as though his Pseudo-Strength was an actual strength increase for a certain time per day, maybe even permanently (hey, capstones are epic, and that's a hell of reason to go Gravity Warrior 20). Again, open to suggestions.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that contributed last year in this thread, revisiting here has really rekindled my love for Pathfinder and gravity shenanigans!

Edit: Class Skills seem to have gone missing in my upload, whoops. In any case, the selection should be decently obvious. Acrobatics, Fly, Climb, Swim, KN:Engineering, essentially the fighter list. I'll edit the complete list in later on.

It'll make martial characters incredible weak compared to casters ss you've said already, so perhaps get them to tell you what the group composition is going to be before you implement this rule. Also, if you are going to use this, give everyone the vital strike line as they reach the appropriate BAB. it'll give them a boost that's a decent approximation of full attacking but saves time.

Boon Companion Feat, gives you +4 effective level to determine animal companion capabilities, take it twice and your companion goes from 10th to 18th effective level.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/boon-companion

Edit: It seems I missed the part about it not stacking on a single companion. Still, take it once and your companion atleast gets a bit beefier.

Sorry my wording wasn't great there, that's what I meant haha.

Egdar, that's kind of the point of the Loosen Holds power :P, he can levitate because he warps gravity around himself.
I like the idea of the vital strike line applying, maybe allow the monk to qualify for them *edit: at the same level ish as fighter*? Like have them in addition to the regular monk bonus feats?

At 6th, add Vital strike to bonus feats
at 10th, improved vital strike,
at 16th, greater vital strike?