Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ishani Dhatri

Can'tFindthePath's page

861 posts. Alias of Lane Coursey.


1 to 50 of 861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I want to replace the class based saves for a variety of reasons:

1) To have the various saving throw bonuses of characters less far apart and prevent automatic success and failures for level appropriate threats.

2) I want to discourage multi-classing for dip benefits, not multi-classing in general

3) I see no reason to maintain it, ability scores and potential feats do a well enough job to explain why someone is more likely to succeed or not

4) I wish to equalize the classes a bit more, it seems that the weaker classes often have the weakest saves as well (rogue, fighter), or would typically lack the ability scores to boost saves (wizard, sorcerer), while other classes with already strong saves have them enhanced even further with high ability modifiers (cleric, druid, paladin)

5) I like the correlation with a creature's / character's deductible traits having a relation with his strong saves rather than meta gaming

6) it's meant for a relatively low magic campaign and the characters might miss out on the assumed bonuses inherent in magical items, so slightly increasing the saves overall might be a good thing.

The basics:

The base save will be a bonus of 1/2 your level in every category modified for ability modifiers.

At level 5, 10 and 15 you can pick to get a +1 bonus on one of the various saves, at level 10 and 15 you can pick a save you did not choose to increase before, your other previously chosen increases go up +1 as well.
At level 20 they all go up by an additional +1.

So at level 5 you can choose to increase fortitude, at level 10 you pick reflex and increase your fortitude up by +1 as well. Your saves are now +2 fortitude, +1 reflex. At level 15 your will save gets +1 and the other saves go up +1 as well. Your saves are +3 fortitude, +2 reflex and +1 will.

When your fortitude goes up by +1 you also get a bonus of 5 hit points per increase.

When your reflex save goes up by +1 you also get a +1 bonus on initiative checks per increase.

When your...

Nice. Pretty well thought out. I have been considering adopting the Star Wars Saga Edition saves, but with the 1/2 level base as you've done. Classes get a Class bonus to various save categories. So, for instance, I'd give Fighters +2 Fort, and +1 Ref. Rogues probably +1 Fort, and +2 Ref. Clerics would have only +1 to Fort and +2 to Will, etc. These Class bonuses overlap, but do not stack.

The thing that is missing is Prestige Class boosts to saves, in PF we pretty much don't use them anymore with the myriad archetypes and class powers all the way to 20. In Saga, it is expected that you'll Prestige. In that system, the PrC gave larger Class bonuses to saves, again not stacking but overlapping. This buffed out your saves a bit at high level.

I do like your bonus choice progression. If you took Ciaran's concern to heart, you could institute a Saga type base set, and allow choices at later levels. Or boost all saves every so many levels. Just thoughts.

EDIT: Just occurred to me, the smoothest way to address that concern, would be to simply start your bonus choice progression at 1st level instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Why are you granting a +6 bonus to touch attack rolls? A touch AC is already easier than normal AC, particularly as everyone goes up in level.

Because there is no Touch AC, Armor doesn't grant a bonus to AC, and you don't lose your level bonus to AC for touch.

Dotting for later.

I appreciate some of these rules, and may adapt them for my game.

Da'ath wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:

I think it's supposed to harken to things like spy training. I've seen shows with ex-KGB interviews, or that scene in Jason Bourne's training, where they are basically given a test of how well they follow orders.

They bring a person, hooded, into the room, are handed a gun and told to shoot that person.
If they ask why, or who that person is, or hesitate at all, then they aren't "conditioned" enough yet. But if they just take the gun and shoot, they are ready.

"Sorta man they're like to send believes hard. Kills and never asks why." - Shepard Book

That's what I kind of likened the Assassin requirement to. Not just a "Kill, uh.. that guy" - "Ok!" kind of thing, but rather all the conditioning and utter lack of compunction that comes with that kind of scenario.

I definitely get what you're saying. The "Kill, uh.. that guy" - "Ok!" is what I see every time I look at the requirement. I'm anal about it, I have no illusions.=)

It's a little non-specific for some. I always read it as simply shorthand for what you changed it to. To be considered a full member of a gang, or a warrior in some cultures, you have to kill someone.

Seth Dresari wrote:
I don't see the "Young" template in Hero Lab. Which data package is it in?

Odd, it's in the Bestiary. You would think it was in the base files. Do you have Bestiary for HL?

Bandw2 wrote:

I actually thought of a more refined and less derp system.

basically yes split spellcraft up, or just make 7 other "skills". they're only skills in that they let you put skill points in them(it is unaffected by stats), they are rarely used in rolls but instead act as your maximum caster level in that school of magic. This way the class still needs to spend skill points on improving their magic and can't really do them all at once without forgoing all other types of skills.

you can't cast a spell unless you have the requires minimum caster level to cast a spell of that level. so if you have 4 points in evocation, you can't cast fireball.

this way no random rolls are used and your character is consistent and fun to play but still is not as versatile.

What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.

Atarlost wrote:

2) So you're admitting that even channel focused clerics still need to cast healing spells. Most tables don't have channel focused clerics. Battle clerics can't afford the charisma for selective channel at sane point buys and lots of people won't play other builds, either because they don't like summoning or wish they were playing a fighter but someone needs to heal. Then there are oracles of any mystery other than life who don't channel at all. Some misguided (and soon to be permanently blind or deaf) parties try to get away with druids who also do not channel at all.

Unfortunately, I think you are right about this last bit.

The game presents 29!! classes for you to choose from, but if you don't have one of these two in the group, you are kinda screwed.

IMO, that is a problem with the system.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Using the OP's math, +70 to Craft while taking 10 is DC 80 craft.

Using Unchained craft rules has several advantages:

Now 1/4 cost instead of 1/3 cost

Heavy armor is usually a Complex item (DC 20), but you have to increase complexity two steps for Masterwork items made with special material, so Mithral Full Plate is a Very Intricate item (DC 30) with a base progress per day of 16gp.

Now, Unchained craft doubles the progress per day for every 5 you exceed the DC, so:

DC 35: x2
DC 40: x3
DC 45: x4
DC 50: x5
DC 55: x6
DC 60: x7
DC 65: x8
DC 70: x9
DC 75: x10
DC 80: x11

So if taking 10 is DC 80, your daily progess is 176gp worth.

For a 10500gp mithral full plate, that's 60 days (two months), which is faster than the 5 months shown by the OP using the Core rules.

Furthermore, Unchained lets you use up to 10 laborers per day using Aid Another (if your DM considers this suit of armor "large or complex item"), which lets you add another +20 to the check result, for a total of DC 100 (16gp x 15 per day = 240gp per day; 10500/240= 44 days)

Furthermore, Unchained gives you a bonus for Masterwork work spaces, but you'll need trained laborers with +5 to craft (4sp per day each, so 4gp total per day for 10 of them; +5gp per day for masterwork space; so 9gp per day total); using this setup lets you bump the Aid Another bonus from +2 to +3, so now the total craft DC per day is 110, so: (16*17=272; 10500/272= 39 days; so 5 days faster, but at a cost of 39*9gp=351gp extra)

When looking at the above, I think "not bad... craft rules are pretty much balanced now"

In my upcoming campaign, I have further modified the Unchained rules with the following:
1. you compare your TOTAL CRAFT CHECK against Unchained Table 2-4; use the the highest listed progress per day (i.e. if your Craft DC is 35 or more, you basically always use 32gp as a base progress per day)
2. every 5 you exceed the DC, double that, as per the normal rule... (this basically prevent the silliness of MW slings having only a...

So, the craft rules in Unchained work pretty well.....for a 20th level PC wealth, dedicated smith, with a 16th level Alchemist assistant, and an army of 19th level Bards singing his praises as he works...???

No, the rules are still useless.

Eltacolibre wrote:
Hmm just thought about it that will of the forsaken and risen from the graves wouldn't stack due to being the same kind of bonuses, But well maybe a +4 bonus would be too high to be quite honest. Overall, looking good.

Racial bonuses do stack, according to Pathfinder_OGC:

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Cyrad wrote:
Be careful with your words because "D20" is a game system, but d20 is also the name for any RPG that uses a twenty-sided die. They're not necessarily the same. Neither Pathfinder nor D&D 3.5e belongs to the D20 System.

D20 is not a stand alone game system, it is the unified underlying framework of several game systems. Chief among these is most definitely 3.0 and 3.5 D&D, as this was where "the designers" codified d20. Plus there's the D20 System logo on the cover. The reason Pathfinder is not a "d20 System" product is because it requires WotC's permission to fly that flag.

Devant wrote:
All in all, I think that while the position of the article is certainly not the same as the designers of d20, it is practical enough to account for most, if not all, needs. The only example I think that fails that position is the scholarly priest archetype, that needs to cast high level spells without being a combat powerhouse, which is covered (considerably less elegantly) in the follow-up article.

Don't get me wrong, if you agree with that article, and it brings value to your GMing, then more power to you. I'm just tired of the claims of the absolute fact that "normal" stops at 5th level.

Cyrad wrote:
Devant wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
It sounds like you don't understand how the math of the game works.
How so?

The game designer behind 3rd Edition deliberately built the math with the assumption that the greatest humans of real life would be roughly 5th level characters. Anything above that is superhuman by our standards. Justin Alexander explains it in this article (see Crafting and Knowledge). A great blacksmith that spent all his life as a smithy would not be a 20th level character. As shown by Alexander's math, Albert Einstein would be a 5th level expert, making his BAB only one higher than a fighter.

Your proposal also largely ignores many other important factors that contribute to a character's power, such as ability scores, feats, and wealth. A non-combat character will spend their feats on things like Skill Focus. You ignore the numerous ways a non-combat character can increase their preferred skill, such as having masterwork tools and assistants. You don't need to give them arbitrary bonuses.

Finally, this is a combat game. If someone makes a purely non-combat character, they will likely not be as effective as other characters. Even so, the game doesn't stop them from being really good at non-combat stuff.

The article you cite is a good exercise, and an interesting perspective. It is also an opinion whose supporting evidence is based almost entirely on hit points, and how many average 1st level Orcsiz Aragorn can kill. (EDIT: This is a deliberate exaggeration. I find much of the number crunching "evidence" in his article skewed in supporting a predetermined outcome.)

"The game designer" behind 3rd Edition did NO such thing.

3rd Edition DMG, page 36 under NPC classes, "The fact that each NPC class has differing levels provides the DM with a means to measure NPCs against each other. A typical blacksmith might only be a 3rd-level commoner, but the world's greatest blacksmith is probably a 20th -level expert. The 20-level blacksmith is a capable person with great skill, but she can't fight as well as a fighter equal to her level (or even one much lower in level), nor can she cast spells or do the other things that characters with PC classes can do."

Now it goes on to say that most NPCs don't rise to more than 3rd level, and I am not suggesting that 20th-level experts are common...or rare...or even make sense. But the classes were provided as tools for GM's to make the NPCs they want and need.

Also, the 3.x DMGs have demographics tables, missing in PF, that generate "naturally occurring" commoners of up to 20th-level. In fact, the average "highest level commoner" in a thorp, is 7th! In a metropolis, the average "highest level commoner" is 20th (higher than 20 is reduced to 20).

Sounds pretty good. I kinda like the 7th level in one or both classes angle, though spontaneous casters is a concern. On the other hand, they get more spell slots and a 'bloodline' spell known...

The thing is, lots of classes have frustrating thresholds that don't fall right along 7th/8th level. I generally find 8th or even 10th level to make great top end level points. 8th keeps it easy.

Goth Guru wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.

The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.

Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus, not a deflection bonus, which is usually granted by rings of protection. Being of different bonus types, rings and bracers DO stack.

If you think that Pathfinder is complicated... don't even THINK of trying Hero or Rifts.

So force that functions as if it was armor, that doesn't have any encumbrance, and doesn't cause any spell failure chance, cannot be called deflection? I'm starting to see the value of making it an enhancement bonus to the person.

Does Hasbro have a monopoly on Deflection?

It's a matter of nomenclature. These words have specific meanings. Armor, Shield, Natural armor, Deflection, Luck, and a few others. These are 'bonus types' with particular definitions, some stack, some don't. In all cases, except dodge bonuses, only the largest of the same 'bonus type' would count. See Combining Magic Effects, page 208 of CRB. Also, Common Terms, page 11 CRB.

Yes, looks fantastic. I have acquired the last 3 chapters of CoCT, and I've been considering running it in a few months (and completing the set). This will help immensely. I don't know if I would have thought to make these changes, but I am sure I would have found the original wanting.


Goth Guru wrote:

Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.

The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.

Don't worry TOZ...I don't think anyone knows what he is talking about.

Goth Guru wrote:

American English is my only language.

Try to respond without the insults.

He don't believe he meant it as an insult. Your posts have been hard to follow, beginning with blurting out something about modifying the "limit" of deflection bonus of 10 instead of 8...which does not correlate to any rule I know. Thus my question.

We are just trying to have a conversation.

Goth Guru wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.

With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.

Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?

Kthulhu wrote:

The whole "magical story time", along with it's companion "Mother-May-I?" are phrases used to impulse that a system isn't a REAL game, since you don't have to make half-a-dozen skill checks while having a casual conversation with a random barkeeper. You can also be sure that they'll soon imply that you ACTUALLY prefer their game of choice, but you don't realize it because you are blinded by the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

In other words, the person saying it is almost certainly a complete jackass.

Yup. (clinks mug)

Qstor wrote:

Yeah most the domains are converted. Except the 3.5e Moon domain

If you use 3.5 stuff add the simple advanced template to the bad guys as it mentions in the Gamemastery guide. There's nothing that prevents you from using the Forgotten Realms setting with the rules. I did for a short campaign.

Check out the Tome of Horrors. It should have a lot of creatures from previous editions so you won't have to convert. But quite a few things like dread guards haven't been done though in Pathfinder rules though.

True, but as I mentioned, if you utilize sub-domains you can cover just about everything. Darkness Domain - Moon Sub-Domain.

I forgot about the advice in the GMG. The +2 to everything I suggested is just the real simple template, and you can apply it on the fly. It works.

But, yeah. The Game Mastery Guide is good.

Keep forgetting to say: Don't worry that a lot of these details are spread throughout all the books. is your friend. It's all there, with a search engine.

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

I don't think of any Pathfinder class that wouldn't fit in the Realms . . . Gunslingers would be limited to Gondsmen, I believe, but would still work.

The Dreamscarred Press Psionics would also fit, as the Realms does have psionics.

The Realms has Psionics because D&D had Psionics. It's always been a funny fit. And now, Paizo to the rescue! With Occult Adventures, Pathfinder gets magic of the mind. It nicely fits where Psionics used to, and it fits even better with magic.

Psionics is magic of the mind, and it fits narrative fantasy better with a pool of energy to draw from and the ability to push oneself to increase the power of the magic (augments, overchannel, etc.) than Vancian magic does. Also, Dreamscarred has done a wonderful job on the system for Pathfinder.

We can agree to disagree on this.

The exact same can be said of Magic in general. I don't prefer Vancian, but it works, and it's built into the system. Adding Psionics with points has never been equitable as an add-on. Now, if you do the same kind of pool for other magic, then that's cool.

Point is there is a Paizo Pathfinder 'magic of the mind' book coming out, and it'd be easy to use that.

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:

I don't think of any Pathfinder class that wouldn't fit in the Realms . . . Gunslingers would be limited to Gondsmen, I believe, but would still work.

The Dreamscarred Press Psionics would also fit, as the Realms does have psionics.

The Realms has Psionics because D&D had Psionics. It's always been a funny fit. And now, Paizo to the rescue! With Occult Adventures, Pathfinder gets magic of the mind. It nicely fits where Psionics used to, and it fits even better with magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:

Something to keep in mind, Pathfinder went the archetype (basically alternate class features) route more than prestige classes. I remember that FR had many prestige classes, you might want to consider looking at the prestige classes and see if they even deserve to be converted as prestige classes or simply made into archetype.

From the top of my head:

-stormlord of Talos can safely be ignored as a prestige class, as between the storm druids, storm domain for clerics or stormborn have a wide range of choices.

-Nightmask deathbringers: Just use Stygian Slayer (A slayer archetype).

Don't forget Oracles of Wave and Oracles of Wind....

But, yeah. Sorry, I'm so used to Pathfinderization, I take things for granted. Not very good for advising.

One of the key differences between D&D 3.5 and PF is that in PF you stay with your class more. It is not only beneficial to stick with a class as long as possible, but it actually decreases power (usually) to go Prestige. There are still some Prestige classes, and some are even worthwhile, but by and large there is a reason to finish a class progression.

When I think about converting something like FR, I don't mean take the Purple Dragon Knight and convert it to PF. (Btw, PF did away with all 5 level Prestige classes, as they are sort of like system condoned dipping, and they wanted to discourage that.) Instead, I look at what the class (or critter, or NPC, or whatever) does, and try to imagine it and reskin or build it in Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Some adaptation is necessary with Domains; many FR domains were added in Pathfinder, but are a little different, and there are still a few FR domains missing. Though between all the PF books and the subdomain rules in Advanced Player's Guide, you have almost all of them.

The smoothest way to do it is to convert over to PF, it has lots of support, and is not that far from 3.5. Regarding running modules; converting main NPC's is probably worth your time, but you can run everything as is by just treating 3.5 CRs as one or two lower in PF. Or, just give all the critters +2 to everything, and adjust as needed.

I recently sat down to make notes on what I would need to adapt and write house rules for, to adapt FR to PF. All I came up with was the aforementioned Domain issue.

FR is great, and Pathfinder is good too. Good luck and good gaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.

Kirth Gersen explains it best: e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57 e-is-just-fine#446 9 s#2090 -2e#674 ters-are-better#89

If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"

You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the...

All true, although "magical storytime" is a very condescending term. That reasoned argument was not present in your previous statements. That is what I take issue with.

I do like the rules to be as clear as possible, however I also feel the advent of very detailed rules in D&D 3rd thru PF tends to trap GM's and takes away some of their ability to run a successful and fun game.

Oh, and I almost forgot...I wouldn't want you to take any of this post as an apology or retraction. Your rudeness does not make your argument stronger. It just makes you rude.

Atarlost wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

FATAL has urination checks. And I could make the same reply as to you, since you insist on implying that any game where the core rulebook's spine doesn't self-destruct are no-rules magic storytime non-games.

Don't accuse me of erecting a strawman if you're stuffing hay into a plaid flannel shirt.

Ah, got it. You actually aren't capable of comprehending written English. Hint: "rules that have their edge cases considered" does not mean "rules for everything." It means rules that have their edge cases considered.

Chess fits that condition. People actually put in rules cases to handle oddities like double moving pawns or wanting to castle to either side. Pathfinder doesn't fit that condition. Which needs a larger rulebook?

Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

Attacking someone's reading comprehension because they call you out for ridiculous and inflammatory statements is pretty childish.

Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:

8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.
It's just... it makes zero thematic sense. Monks need, deserve even, better class features, but increasing the hitpoints of a class that isn't meant to be hit is just silly. I'd rather have various ki based abilities that can, as an immediate action, give temporary DR, boosts to stats, etc, maybe even a variation on parry or a higher monk ac bonus.
For when AC fails? Monk vs Monk? A Monk who care more about beating the **** out of an opponant than avoiding blows? etc...

My Fighter wants more hit points...for when AC fails....can he have D12 Hit Dice?

Bandw2 wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/

It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.

These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.

nothing happens if you're discovered, so it can almost be exclusively ignored. Think of Stark-Ironman from the Marvel movies, he has a second identity, but doesn't hide who he is.

more on the vigalante, I think you should update some of the heritages to match the general power of them. Like battle heritage using full BAB for instance, and spending talents to increase your spell casting does seem fair.

Yeah totally. I was more referring to the time to change between personas. I think that is a bad design for fantasy adventure gaming. But, you could just stay "in character", however you would lose your special (and strange) bonuses that only apply in "social" persona.

The thing is, I kinda like the rest of the class, particularly the Specializations. I could see the dual persona thing being a talent, or an archetype. I don't mind supporting that approach for those that want or need it. I'd just like to have a straight forward version of what this class can do for my non-superhero fantasy gaming.

Bandw2 wrote:
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/

It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.

These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.

Silver Surfer wrote:

Speciality Priests were a fine concept but actually they didint have a lot of meat on the bones in terms of giving them personalities.... I would hyperlink you the website but I dont know how!!

Here is a link


I had an idea for a D6 divine class that had a stigmata type ability, whereby everyday they dedicated a certain number of HP to their deity in return for power boosts to their casting. It was v.wimpy but had enormous smackdown potential! Again it had a very Biblical feel to it... no armour, barely any weapons, no channeling, 1/2 BAB.....

I wouldn't use the Complete..anything Handbook as an example of how to do things. Every implementation of the Specialty Priest idea, other than the Druid, was a complete let down. Every setting book and supplement TSR printed got it wrong. They started right off with breaking down what percentage of a particular faith were Specialty Priests and how many were....Clerics. Huh? I thought the "specialty priests" of Tempus were THE priests of Tempus...

The description of the idea in the 2nd Ed. PH is where you want to look. In it, they highlight the standard Cleric and the Druid as examples of the rule.

The Druid varies pretty heavily from the Cleric, and communicates a ton of flavor difference as well. That is what I am talking about.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I want the devs to clearly state that fluff is not rules. Some people seem to think they are, and I want flavor to be clearly noted by making it italicized or marking it in an obvious manner.

I want more or less the opposite - and I want the words "fluff" and "flavor" to disappear from this context forever. I consider them the unholy marks of a shallow, faulty, Johnny-come-lately style of thinking that has taken the gaming culture by storm and tangibly and needlessly degraded it over the past decade.

You are playing a character in an alternate world. While you play the game, that world and everything about it are real. The rules are an imperfect UI for that world, but the world comes first, then the rules. What is referred to as "fluff/flavor" is nothing of the sort - it is the heart and soul of the game, and the mechanics are subordinate to it.

But, the game rules have to serve thousands of individual campaigns, many of which are not in Golarion, and even in those that are, details vary by GM and game group.

The game rules need to be generic-ish. With fluff and flavor suggesting style and helping GM's and players imagine their own vision.

One of my pet peeves is a totally new game rules set with detailed setting specific material integral to that rules set. For instance, Dragon AGE. GREAT rules, smeared with setting. Had to wait 6 years to get the upcoming Fantasy AGE version.

Anguish wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
If 2 mythic tiers equals +1 CR then yes it's not supposed to be overpowered. A CR increase from a source should have its power level in line with any other source.

I don't want to derail what the OP is trying to do here, but I'll lightly engage for conversation's sake. By no means are all mythic abilities of equal utility. So yeah, I'm uncomfortable with flat stating 2 MT = 1 CR because it really depends. Many of the mythic abilities are better than any 1 level of a PC class. Many are not though. And measuring classed "CR" is also more art than science. Sure, the math says what to do, but we all know some classes are beefier than others, and some classes and class abilities synergize better than others, and some builds are flat out massively better than others. Mythic is kind of like that... only cranked up to 11. It's the same, only more so.

Mythic is not something appropriate to introduce to a normal campaign. One where you plan on having the PCs evolve into legendary demigods, about whom tales are told for centuries... definitely.

That's interesting, I hadn't noticed the Tier/CR ratio. I haven't yet, but plan to run a Mythic campaign. I remember when the playtest came out, they were saying the Mythic "levels" were going to be equivalent to a normal level. Not a lot changed power wise from then, so maybe that's why it seems OPed.

Anyone know more about this aspect?

Regarding the direct subject of this thread: the houserules seem simple and straight forward. I think they would achieve a "mythic" or rather "epic" feeling game, as long as all the major bad guys are knock-down, drag-out fights.

Legowaffles wrote:
Verification: You say +1 to two attributes every 4 levels instead of 1? Can I put both +1s into the same stat, effectively granting +2 to that stat? Or would I have to put them into different stats, say Strength and Intelligence?

This would be the reason it is every 4 and not every 2. In Star Wars Saga Edition, you get 2 every 4 levels and they can't be in the same stat. If you get it every 2 levels, and don't want it to stack up to +10 in one stat, you have to add clunky restrictions like "not the same stat twice" and such. You could say max +5 per stat, but SAD characters would get there by 10th level, and that's a bit aggressive.

Bandw2 wrote:
yeah this is due to the rollee winning ties, either make an exception or instead make it +12.

Huh. Sure enough, the DC should be 12 + Save modifier. It seems so unintuitive that the base assumption (10 + x) should move 2 points instead of 1, but that is how it is.

JonathonWilder wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
I've heard some bits and pieces about the specialty priests, though, and it is an interesting concept, but not one I'm currently tempted to try and create. It'd take more work than I currently am willing to do. Even creating the spell list for the Arcane Knight gave me a headache.

Fair, enough. This is not something I would expect or ask for you to do, sorry if it may have sounded like such.

Specialty Priest is an admittingly large project that would require breaking up the spells from the cleric spell list, domains, and perhaps even some from wizard/sorcerer spell list to then be reorganizing them into spheres. Then there is consideration of creating a specialty priest for each of the Pathfinder deities, which is practically like that of the archetypes with a base 'cleric' class.

If it were me, I would boil the Cleric spell list down to it's essentials. Spells that every "Priest" (of any god) could be expected to have. Then, use Domains as the base, treating them more as Oracle Mysteries; lists of optional abilities to choose, long with accompanying spells. Basically, expanded Domains rather than cutting up the entire Cleric spell list.

I would seize upon 'Channeling' divine energy. Creating a Channeling or Divine pool...(Favor?). You could have a list of Blessings, some of which would be powered by the Favor pool....


Cyrad wrote:
I don't understand the point of Name Levels.

So back in 1st Edition D&D, if you went by the book, everyone had to train to raise a level. You had to seek out a trainer who was higher level than you, you had to pay exorbitant amounts of money, and spend many weeks training. Every. Level.

Then when you got to "name" level, you could train yourself. Yay.

Then, in D&D (not AD&D), name level was a time to make a choice amongst several paths, much like prestige classes. A fighter could become a Paladin, Knight, or Champion, depending on ones alignment.

Clerics founded temples and got followers, etc.

I believe that is where the nostalgia comes from. It said, in the game rules, that you were an accomplished badass. Personally, I loved it when my 1st Edition Ranger became a Ranger Knight, and then a Ranger Lord. When I first read that class many years before at age 11, I was transfixed by those titles. Later, after I found my game group, levelled up and became a Ranger Lord, I thought "hell yeah".

I don't think it is something that is good to codify in the class rules. was fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

1) I agree it is weird with incorporeal creatures. Hoenstly, I think a better fix is saying an incorporeal creature uses their Charisma in place of Strength when interacting with objects. It makes thematic sense.

2) I disagree with the notion of giving mindless creatures intelligence. In terms of game mechanics, it's good that there's a fundamental aspect of a creature that prevents them from reasoning. In terms of theme, your points are highly debatable. Whether or not insects can think is something even scientists debate about. A good analogy for how Pathfinder mindless creatures work is to imagine them as programs. A mindless creature completely follows their instincts, functioning only within pre-programming. A construct is programmed to understand and follow orders just as Google Search interprets what information you're looking for.

3) I don't understand the point of this change. Besides, an Intelligence of 3 also means the creature is sentient.

3a) Vermin are mindless. Animals are intelligent. That's actually a really big deal with game mechanics, which is why the creature type system exists in the first place.

4) By definition, a Constitution means the quality of a creature's internal biology. If the creature lacks one, there's no reason for them to have a Constitution score. There's already a system for construct quality in the game.

(*) Didn't unchained already do this? I know this is the case for Five Moons RPG.

So, basically your "arguments" for keeping all those things the same is...'there are already rules for that'? We know what the rules are, we're discussing how the change them.

(1) Charisma for Strength does make sense. This is kind of the opposite direction for how Shadowrun calculates your Astral attributes: Intellect = Dex, Will = Bod, and Charisma = Str.

(2) "Mindless creatures" and "Intelligence"...these are all game mechanical terms that only mean what they mean in the game. The term Intelligent itself is often reserved for so called sentient species. The very fact that there is debate about whether insects "think", kinda leaves the game mechanics open for...debate.

The problem with "mindless" creatures is that it is a fallacy. We are all "programmed", and most of our actions are not very "mindful". The degree to which we can operate within our programming is pretty much what the game ability Intelligence is measuring. It's recall accuracy, and mental control; it is not creativity. That Google engine you mentioned has a pretty good Knowledge bonus, and instant recall. One could certainly argue that the skill ranks do the work there, but what about the machines and their operating software? Where does one draw the line of "Intelligence".

Ironically, multiple d20 science fiction games give starships and other powerful computers Int scores to reflect their processing power. Why not Iron Golems?

(3) Well, once you stop classifying Intelligence by sentience, and equate it to learning, recall, and problem solving, you have to scale the smarter animals a little higher. Admittedly, the "dumbest" humans would perhaps have a higher score than 3 on this scale, and there may not really be room in the d20 design for this to be done.

(4) That pretty well fits the game definition. I believe that, like several things in d20 rules, the non-ability scores are products (victims) of the application of logic that has unintended results. Within the definition of Constitution and it's function for most creatures, equating a machine or animated corpse to a Con of -- makes perfect sense. Especially the "unaffected by things that require a Fort save...unless it also affects objects"...(and then it has it's drawers down.) But, Con's basic and most widely derived function is how "tough" a creature is, both for Fortitude and Hit Points. It worked pretty well for most things in 2000, but we fast forward to PF and now you can crit most undead and all constructs, now some undead get Charisma bonus to Hit Points. It makes more sense to give them immunities and resistances consistent with their physiology, and leave the "Constitution" alone.

Finally, I concede that this is all subjective, and that compromise may be needed. So, in place of simply doing away with the logic of non-abilities, we could give certain creatures "stand-in" abilities to reflect their natures. For instance, creatures of animal intelligence could have a "cunning" or "instinct" ability higher than Int that they use for functions of Int like skill points. (No, they aren't learning languages and basket weaving. If you've ever statted a bad ass big cat and found their "cat skills" lacking, you know they need more points.) Also, things with no Con score could be assigned "toughness" to base Hit Points and Fort saves off of.

Sorry for wall o text.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Lots of good stuff...

yes. Yes. YES!

I would establish the level parameters of the WoW universe first. Say 20th level with Mythic. Then scale each thing, boss, NPC appropriately within the Lore, largely disregarding their levels in the MMO.

Ragnaros should indeed be a fairly powerful end-gamey threat, but you could skew him to the lower end of end-game, as he was one of the first to appear. That's a bit meta, but forgivable and nostalgic.

Incidentally, if you plan on using Mythic, I think it appropriate to start giving the PCs Mythic levels fairly early, as a reflection of the epicness they have within the Lore. And of course, the Mythic rules are a great way to show the bossness of signature bosses in WoW.

Bandw2 wrote:
Distracting Sale's Pitch (Ex): At 2nd level, the scion may distract an opponent with well chosen words and leave him open to attacks. By expending a use of her forte as a standard action, the scion may choose an opponent within 30 feet and make a Bluff or Diplomacy check, DC 10 + target creature's HD + creature's Sense Motive modifier. On success all allies who threaten the target may make an attack of opportunity against that creature. This is a language dependent, mind-affecting, sonic ability.

never has soliciting been so deadly, I would remove the sonic descriptor, any time it makes sense language dependent has it covered(such as being deaf).

like why are crystal creatures weak against your berating?

I agree. Also, I believe the DC should mimic Feint; 10 + HD + Wis mod or, if trained in Sense Motive, 10 + Sense Motive mod. Feint actually uses BAB, but HD is appropriate in the case of Sales Pitch. If it seems too easy then add half the Sense Motive; it's too much with both.

On second thought, this ability looks more like the Bard's Fascinate than Feint. Affecting multiple creatures and all, it might be better as a Will save. Believe me, I like what you're going for, but it's been proven time and again that skills and spell(like)s are not on the same page and are not very interchangeable. In this case, the save DC would be 10 + half Scion level + Cha mod.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quorlox wrote:
We have a ninja in our campaign and he is interested in making an Unchained Ninja. Are there any balance issues we should worry about in allowing such a transformation?

As discussed in this thread, the Ninja is already an improved Rogue. The ki powered Ninja tricks are pretty juicy, and compare favorably with the Unchained Rogue's new stuff. So, I wouldn't give the Unchained Ninja all the new gadgets. However, the Ninja as written is now behind the Unchained Rogue, so it needs some Unchaining.

For my money, the most obvious and important upgrade is the Finesse and Dex to damage. IMO that is enough; I've played a Ninja through 11th level, and she is pretty bad ass. She has Weapon Finesse, and I am desperate to get Slashing Grace. Giving the Unchained Finesse Rogue ability would just give her more room to maximize it.

The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:

I was looking at the Shaman from the ACG and thought it was the best fit of all the Shaman variants. I had it in mind to just do a Shaman archetype that focused on totems, just to give players an alternative.

It's funny, but until now that Shaman really didn't do anything for me. But I looked it over, picturing a ferocious Orc Shaman, and a proud Tauren Shaman, and thought "huh, this is perfect". Go figure. Guess I just didn't need a Shaman before.

The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
Can'tFindThePath wrote:
I look at the MMO like I would a fantasy novel, and adapt what is described to PF.
Agreed as well. I went down the other path of trying to build make an exact duplicate of the MMO in table-top form and it just felt wrong.

I've considered doing that myself. And I mean exact. But, it wouldn't be Pathfinder at all. Might be d20, but likely I'd just start designing a whole new beastie to really accommodate the translation.

But, I've been "meaning" to build my own system for like 20 odd years, so decided PF was the best existing style to capture WoW. Got to get something in front of my game buddies; I haven't run a game in like 5 years. They are all DMing, and growing weary.

Maybe later I'll finally build the ULTIMATE game system, and a homebrewed world to go with it.....maybe.

Diodric wrote:

What chassis are you planning to build the shaman on? Are you going to use a preexisting class and archetype it, or you making a completely new class?

Also, I plan on having the races up today if you want them. It was just taking longer than expected yesterday.

Speaking of which, this may sound crazy to some, but I like the Shaman in ACG for this. I mean, there have been lots of Shaman over the years, starting all the way back in 2nd D&D in Faiths and Avatars. They usually fall short; the difficulty in incorporating spirit magic and differentiating them from Cleric.

I think the ACG Shaman hits it pretty well. I can see choosing an elemental Spirit fulfilling the totemic style. The hexes are a perfect foundation for totem powers. You could add a totem ability at mid levels that lets you drop a totem (either physical or not) that anchors a "hex aura". One could add some of the classic totem powers as new Hexes.

The more (what I like to think of as) Orcish style Shaman, could be any Spirit, especially Battle.

Keep an open mind and check it out.

Diodric wrote:
*Lots of good (but slightly angry) points*


The mechanics of the MMO are just that, mechanics; designed within the parameters of the medium to best function and convey the flavor of the setting. I feel that the medium of Pen and Paper is more open, and much more adaptable, and that PF is the best version to convey the flavor I want.

Azeroth is a setting, and like getting any IP setting license, the task is to make the least tweaks possible to keep the feel and flavor.

I look at the MMO like I would a fantasy novel, and adapt what is described to PF.

Diodric wrote:
Quick question. I was getting to the blood elves, and found its only a point difference between lesser and greater spell resistance. That would bump them up to a 15 from a 14. 11+lv too good for 1 point difference?

Sounds a little strong. I thought it was the Night Elves who had SR. In any case, I shy away from SR on PC's. I would redeploy the points to ensure bonus to save vs. magic, and magicky traits.

Diodric wrote:


Fluffly/Fleshy Racials
Favored Class Bonuses
Tweaked Alternate Tauren

Now I'm doing a class bonus for all the 10 basic WoW classes, save Death Knights. When I was doing my conversion I had Death Knights as a prestige class. I'm also assuming the bonuses will need to be tweaked based on what the classes look like afterwards.

I will try to have everything posted later this evening.

Edit: Large Tauren
** spoiler omitted **

Only thing is I wish the Tauren were stronger.

Re: Moo

I would drop the Powerful Charge and Natural Armor in favor of Advanced Str. Add a feat called....Powerful Charge for those that dig the image.

Diodric wrote:
I'll look at tweaking a large Tauren, see if there's something I can do.

Well, your version gets the job done, and with balance among races. Making a Large version is spendy. You can drop the Advanced Str because of the size bonus, but you'll pick up a Dex penalty as well, throwing the ability mods out of whack. I was looking at +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Then the Large stuff on top. I'd like to get a Con bonus in there, but Wis seems like a priority.

The Epic Dungeon Master wrote:
@LazarX - At the risk of looking like a fool, how would it be easier? The 1st addition rules were more closely tied to the base 3.0 rules, whereas the 2nd addition builds of 3.5 while making a lot of changes themselves.

IMO it wouldn't be easier. Well, it may be easier because the heavy lifting has been done, all you'd have to do is take the WoW (3.5) version material and drop a Pathfinder filter over it (substituting feats, HD, Barbarian features, etc.). The reason not to do it is that they made a lot of custom stuff up, and not very well in my opinion. Better to start fresh, altering as little as possible. You don't need WoW versions of classes and magic; treat it as a setting to play PF in.

Diodric wrote:
Here, you can have these if you would like to use them.

Nice work. I kinda want Large Tauren, but I applaud the balance among races leaning high instead of low. These are very satisfying versions.

Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Hopefully not too late for consideration; here is my advice.

I would try to build in a definitely non-magic focused core ability framework. I think the Teamwork feats and Leadership are the place to start. Then the Lineages can be less powerful/more flavorful enhancements to the class that point out the particular origin and focus of the character.

Aura is a cool idea, but can easily be either boring, or overpowerful if one is not careful.

The Inquisitor has a good start on the team leader stuff, but that class is a schizophrenic mess.

Fortunately, that's what I'm focusing on. Each Heritage is granting a number of (potentially magical) talents that can be selected. Generally four or five. The core part of the class is entirely non-magical.

One thing I'm also focusing on is avoiding giving them a required 'pet', because I don't want to screw up the action economy more than the GM is willing to let a PC manage to begin with.

I'm going back and forth on Auras, too...the problem is, I have 4 spots in the level up progression I need to fill, so that's kinda what I'm leaning toward, there.

I decided on Forte because:

1 - a thing at which someone excels.'

You might consider bonus feats for those slots. Perhaps a small feat list tied to each Lineage?

1 to 50 of 861 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.