Search results

Okay the first part, 2 spells whenever she levels, is the same as it was in 3.5. "Adds [cut] spells [cut] to her familiar" is exactly the same language as the wizard "Adds [cut] spells [cut] to his spellbook". How that works is when she levels she "learns", for lack of a better word, 2 new...

If you quote that part from the SRD then we can examine it otherwise everything I'm going to tell you right now is based on my previous readings. The witch knows a certain number of spells, either identical or almost identical to how many a wizard knows. These spells, like a wizard, are kept in...

What is the context? Do you have an example? What part is confusing? I tried to cover all aspects of witch spells and I'm unclear what you are unclear about.

I wouldn't. I don't want to have to pick out a dozen little details to make one simple character. A fighter is a fighter, a paladin a paladin. I do not need different themes and backgrounds to define one as the other. We already know Themes and Backgrounds are optional. If I want to play a...

A few hours old now so the question may have been asked but either way you should hopefully get the answer. Clever edit to slip the question in :P I'm assuming the "how a witch stores spells" you are talking about the line under the Witch's Familiar that it stores all of her spells known. As...

Important is subjective but in general Pathfinder cleaned up a lot of issues people had with 3.5. In general they boosted all the classes (yes even casters) but boosted the martial ones more. I personally love how the changes they made to monk, barabarian, paladin and rogue, bard was kinda cool...

It is the same argument with slightly different classes. My being facetious has almost nothing to do with the argument either way. The idea you present is that XYZ classes are all you need in order to play any class. It is reductionist and exclusionary as it cuts out a number of classes that...

Agreed. Tried to +1 but still can't. I happen to agree, but it is as impossible to prove; as "PF outselling 4e but 4e wins via DnDInsider subscriptions" or w/e the claims are. This is entirely debatable too. He was talking mainly about the hardcore, pay every month, subscription based...

This is going to be a little all over the place, hopefully the quoting works properly. I'm sorry, where exactly is the 3E/PF Warlord? It seems more like a "if it shows up more than once it should be in the PHB" argument. Which is actually a far cry from WotC's own "if it has ever shown up in...

Just right, the monk doesn't need to be be better or even as good as a fighter in combat. That isn't their job. What they are supposed to do, and do so successfully, is be a decent melee combatant AND have extra tricks. They do it well, but they could always do it better. It is the same problem...

IMO, the Monk isn't (and shouldn't be) a Fighter kit. It isn't and shouldn't just replace armor with wisdom to AC. Let me lay out a reason why I am so opposed. I see three options that happens with monks being fighters. First, we could get a monk that is almost identical to a fighter, same BAB...

I'm an idiot. Ignore this please.

Yeah I don't know the DnD reason they could see Frodo. But as far as I understand it from a Tolkein sense the reason he could be seen is because the ring didn't turn him invisible so much as it kind of plane shifted him to the ethereal/shadow plane while worn. Add to that that the wraiths were...

I understand and agree with what you are saying. My problem is I have a 11306 year old elf in my game but I'm having a hard time explaining where he came from. Either my game world is young and just the most recent of worlds, and probably one of MANY out there in the galaxy/universe/material...

I've been thinking about this for the past few days and I'm still not sure I'm where I want to be when it comes to the planes. My problem is that I have NPCs that are OLD. Gandalf in LotR old. The problem with this is that they generally don't live on the outer planes. They live on the material...

I'm going to disagree again when it comes to the illustrated goblins. I like the overall shape of the top left goblin, but the body is too stocky. I like the longer arms but I'm not a fan if they get longer still. Overall the body-shape of 1 is my fav. The face more or less works for me too...

You do have a point here, but to me it seems more like paladins and monks are each perhaps one part priest and one part something else. The paladin is one part priest and one part warrior and the monk is one part priest and one part rogue - at least so far as to the tricks or general battle...

Wow this thread has legs. I think what some of us object to is that we don't think DMs are or should be referees. We don't need the game to tell us how to run our game, we need the game to LET us run our game. When balance is enforced over our being able to run what we want then it becomes a...

I like and better yet understand the distinction of calling smaller races goblinoidss - the goblins, kobolds and whatnot. I like and understand the reason for calling the larger creatures giant-typed. I don't understand why these ideas were so utterly abandoned over the course of two editions...

Ideally there would be as many different variations or choices of monks as there are for the current fighter. A fighter can be a knight or a slayer, or many other types; but a monk could be a elemental first, or martial artist or spiritual devotee, and more. If it were a matter of using all...