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

Ciaran Barnes's page

5,085 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,085 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It could be said that the mechanics aspect of the various races were intended primarily for PCs, and that shopkeepers don't need half of the traits. I wouldn't assume that all elven shopkeepers have longbows.


I see a problem with granting a 1/2 level bonus to Spellcraft checks, and the ability to counter spells at often as he wishes with a DC that will become laughable as the character gains additonal skill ranks and class levels. An actual spellcaster is extremely limited in which spell can be countered - it requires preparing the right spell from a rather small lister. Later on, it requires a specific 3rd level spell. And spells are a limited resource. Your spell thief can do it at will. I understand this ability replaces sneak attack, but it still has a lot of potential. The DC needs to be reconsidered, and I suggest implementing some kind of limit on how many times the character can attempt to counter a spell.

The skill bonuses make sense thematically, but a rogue has loads of skill points and will probably max these two skills out. I personally feel that a wand should have a DC that increases depending on spell level or caster level, but that's not how the rules work. +1/2 level has become a common mechanic, but these ones are kind of too useful.

I also wanted to suggest that you have an ability that allows the character to store spells from scrolls. And possibly wands and potions. The caster level should probably that of the item, and not to exceed the character's level, unless investment is made is special feats or talents.


Bard or inquisitor with ranged weapon. They both have a skill list that shares ground with the rogue type he loves so much.


Just normal adventuring gear I suppose. Saddle bags?


SmiloDan wrote:
The session before, my PC was petrified, but I got to use my Divine Intervention class feature to get unpetrified (1% chance per cleric level, so 13%) and I rolled a 01 on 1d100, so I got unpetrified.

Hot damn. It's probably been 20 years since I've heard anybody mention this mechanic.


Format this for easier reading please.

I agree that using this to swap out arcane bond is a good idea, but perhaps go a step further and have the tome follow most of the same rules for familiars. Dump the HP = spells thing too. Dump the movement speed formula. Give it a base speed, and limited flight that has a maximum height. Write up a monster entry for a living spell book (or whatever you want to call it). The familiar rules can use this as a base and improve from there.

BATTLE TOME
Does this do anything aside from make attacks? It probably should. At 2nd level, 2d8 + Int is fairly significant. I would have it deal damage as a club or maybe a mace.

EDUCATED TOME
The ability seems cool, but there must be a simpler way to accomplish the general idea.

CASTING TOME
If I understand the ability correctly, this is extremely powerful and would allow a wizard to effectively cast two spells per turn. Additionally, the tome is not limited by a number of spells per day, only by the number of spells written within it.

DEFENDING TOME
Again, too complicated. A wizard would be foolish to volunteer his spell book to be damaged. It wouldn't take long for it to reach zero. Perhaps the wizard could maneuver the tome around and it provides cover.

HEALING TOME
I'n not a fan of any of these that use the number of spells in the tome as a renewable resource. If you want the wizard to be able to heal himself, then make it a limited pool size/HP amount based on his level.

HUNGER FOR KNOWLEDGE
The point of a wizard inscribing the spell himself is so that he can write in his own personalized way. Eating scrolls to heal is cool though. I might use that as a "familiar" ability instead of replacing scribe scroll though.


Anonymous Warrior wrote:

Besides, as soon as +1 Longbows are a thing, this spell becomes practically worthless.

I've got misgivings about Animate Animal. It just seems ripe for abuse.

The way that sharpen is written, it would stack with an enhancement bonus.

As for animate animal, I agree.


The system should be simplified.

With a successful Heal check you can determine if a creature within your reach is living or dead, and if it is stable or losing hit points (DC = 10 + the creature's negative hit points, if any). Failure simply indicates that sure are unsure. You can use this ability on a creature that is further away, but you suffer a -2 penalty to your check for every 5 feet out of your reach it is. With a second successful check, you also learn how many hit points the creature currently has.


You don't need to pursue ranged of melee exclusively, but an attempt to become equally competent at both may prove futile - particularly if you want to fight with two melee weapons. Which style is more exciting to you? With you ability scores, ranged combat seems the easy choice. Since you using a set of rules that gives you free access to feats like weapon finesse and power attack, you will be able to pick up a sword and use it when you want. My suggestion is that you neither split your feats equally or invest completely in one style or the other. Give one style about 2/3 of your feats, and give 1/3 to the other. If you are undecided on which to focus on, that is OK. By the time you get to 3rd level, you should have a better idea which you spend more time using.


Concentration is not defined clearly, unless thrreviscsonethibg I haven't seen. However, you could define an act requiring concentration as one that requires a concentration check and you could say that a raging character automatically fails concentration checks. On the other hand, mixing volatile chemicals would seem to require concentration. It's up to the GM I suppose.


It really depends on your motivations and how you actually play it out during the game session. It could possibly be evil. If you take your aggression out equally in the followers of good and evil deities, then I would say evil. If you take out your aggression out only on the the alters, etc. of good and evil deities, but avoid harming people, then probably more chaotic. This sounds like a character who could change alignment in the future, depending on where his anger leads him and how he responds to the consequences. He could end up either more evil or less evil.


Nice rendition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Actually (in my real-world fighting experience, which is mostly in the martial arts arena), I don't think disengaging is that difficult. You simply have to check the opponent's forward motion for a few seconds, which is very easy to do, for example, by feinting with a jab to the face (or its equivalent if you're using a weapon). The instinct to avoid that particular blow by pulling back out of its reach is pretty powerful, which gives you the time you need to adjust your own footing.

What you're saying makes sense, and I don't think that our statements are in opposition. You probably said it better though. I described it as "when an opportunity presents itself" and you said "check the opponent's forward movement for a few seconds". Checking movement would cause an opportunity to present itself, I think. You say this could take a few seconds to do it. It would require some concentration and could be more difficult against an opponent with more skill. Not something I would describe as "no action".

I still like the 5-ft Step action, because this is a game.


My only real world fighting talent is fencing, but that is different from a monster trying to kill you because it's a sport with rules. My feeling is that in RL you can disengage if an opportunity presents itself, such as when the enemy looses balance for a second or the enemy lets you go so it can catch its breath. Not any time you feel like it though. However, when someone is really, really gunning for you then you might not be able to escape without lowering your defenses. A superior combatant would be able to back away more easily though. Maybe disengage should be a combat maneuver. As far as a keeping the game fun though, I'm very happy with 5-ft step.


First off, you'll be good at any class with those ability scores. How discuss generate those? Secondly, are you playing the original pathfinder monk or the unchained monk. Thirdly, I think you should have maybe six feats.


4th ed D&D used Reflex in place of touch AC. Grappling targeted either Fort or Reflex. Or at least I think it did - it's been quite a while. PF isn't built the same way, so this would be messy to implement.

However, I like having the three ACs. If all three are recorded on your charcater sheet, then there is nothing to be slowed down by.


Only if the same applies to wizards. :)

Or maybe since he has to study his spellbook, he rolls a level check on each spell he wants to see if he gets it for the day or not. :)


I'd like to do that.


While I believe that the strength penalty should apply, the only instance I know if where it actually does is when making a ranged attack with certain projectile weapons, such as a bow or sling.


Gisher wrote:


That method produces impossible results because the rounding is being performed out of its proper order. The most damage that any one Empowered Maximized missile can deal is 7 points, but under your method four missiles will sometimes deal 29 or 30 damage.

Darn those 1/2 points of damage stacking up! I see what you are saying. Depending on how the GM feels about it, I don't think the difference will always be worth worrying about. Am I surmising correctly that the "impossible result" will come up a few times out of a hundred? Some GMs will want the values determined separately for the sake of doing it right, some will want to save time and do it all at once.


SKILLS
I'm on board with upping it to 4 skill points. However, not on board with the 2 additional points to only spend on certain skills. If that a mechanic you wish to introduce then it should go to all classes, not just one. If you want some fighters to be smart and have a wide variety of skills, then offer some kind of incentive to fighters who choose to have a better Intelligence score.

WEAPON PROFICIENCY
I don't like the "all exotic" thing. Why would a fighter choose a martial weapon at all when exotic weapons are better and he is proficient with all of them?

BONUS FEATS
I like the built in retraining. However, I think a reduced quantity of bonus feats and the brawler's martial flexibility would be better that a big pile of feats.

BRAVERY AND DISCIPLINE
So he gets a poor will save, plus a scaling bonus to will saves. Would it just be easier to give him a good will save? Also, the way you wrote the class feature, it is unclear whether or not he gains both bonuses against fear saves or just one.

STAMINA POOL
I like the general idea. It might be simpler to just say that he gets a stamina pool, per the PF unchained book, and that he also gets the following ways to spend points. I think that the stamina costs you have assigned need to be re-evaluated. I would say that the cost if off on most of these. Let me begin by saying that I am a big proponent of having ways to change action economy, but you also have to watch how far you go because it's very easy to go too far.

ARMORED AGILITY
Good start. How long does the bonus last? I might cause to lessen the penalty by amount equal to the number of points spent, but have it last a while.

ATTACK SURGE
The cost is way off. If I had this, by the time I have a few levels under my belt I will be using this ability literally every single round. You should jack up the price and/or tack on some kind of attack penalty. For example, 3 points for an attack at -5, or 5 points for an attack at -0. This one needs care.

BURST OF SPEED
Like the idea, but it's too complicated.

DISCIPLINED ACTION
Why is the fighter so good at skills? He can use his 2 free points to get training in a variety of things, and than add 1d6 to them all. When he's not in combat, you might as well just call it a free +1d6 to a big list of skill. So I would severely limit this. Maybe there is a short list of skills. Maybe the cost is higher, since he's a combat specialist, not a skill specialist. Maybe the bonus only kicks in while he is in the heat of combat. Outside of combat he just doesn't have the same kind of focus. Why is it necessary to say that it stacks with Skill Focus?

HARDY REFLEXES
This is a great example of how you need to re-evaluate the stamina costs. This one costs 4 but a free attack at full BAB costs 1. The net result of 4 points is a few extra points added to a reflex saving. Maybe as a fix, he simple gets a bonus to the save, instead of swapping out the ability modifier uses. Maybe he has a poor will save and can add the bonus to reflex or will saves.

HEAVY HITTER
I might change this one to adding dice to the damage roll, where the dice don't multiply on a crit. As he gains levels, the die value/number of dice increases

IMMEDIATE VIGOR
It might be simpler to grant temps equal to his level and limit it to once per hour (like the unchained barbarian).

SPEEDY PARRY
It not quite a parry, is it? He improving his response time to incoming attacks.

WEAPON INSTINCTS
My personal feeling is that this kind of ability should be available without spending points, and should be something an experienced fighter can do by spending enough time. Maybe measured in hours or day.


The idea isn't new. I believe that xp for role playing, completing a quest, overcoming problems, solving puzzles, advancing the story, eye. has been around for a long time. The important part (or the hard part) is getting your players on board so they stop obsessively trying to murder everything that has an initiative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't personally hate the fighter the way it is, but I guess even the brawler would be a better chassis to start building a new one. Martial Flexibility and fewer bonus feats for starters. Some version of unarmed strike, except it applies to the minimum damage of one weapon group. Some version of AC bonus, depending on what you're wearing. A rework of close weapon mastery where he chooses another group of weapon, or it applies to all other weapons. As far as out of combat, well you picked a fighter, so I hope you know how to role play. A good design beginning with a chassis is not beholden to a chassis though, so it's just a place to start. There is always room to branch out into other areas.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And where exactly in her Feat progression can she fit Toughness? I mean, let's examine this:

I suppose I would take it somewhere is the first 5 levels and push everything back, but that's just me. Also, I wouldn't choose all of those feats, so there is more flexibility in when I gain certain ones. I don't know how it is in other people's games, but I don't roll Will saves in every combat. And when I do roll one, they aren't all immediate shut down effects if I fail. However, I do expect to take HP damage in every combat, even on the occasions that I don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A simple problem has turned into quite a debate!

-Roll the damage (4d4+4)
-Divide the result by 2, rounded down
-Add the maximized value (20)


She has a good HP because it's just smart. Isn't that why the wizard has a good HP? This just illustrates the point that we don't all build characters the same way. The reasoning is not important. Most players make these choices based on personal preference, sometimes on their GM's tactics. Purely optimal builds represent a minority. We have a variety of priorities.


I agree with Cryad about the lore, but I caution about going overboard. A few paragraphs or up to a page is sufficient. More than that and the number of people who read it becomes less frequent (unless its just that well written ).

The next step, in my mind, is the bridge between lore and mechanics. Here are a few examples. One should support the other.
-The first example I like to use is the old school ability where halflings get a +1 with slings and rocks. It's nearly useless, but I feel every race should have one ability like this. Dwarves can appraise, etc.
-Then there are the useful ones. Dwarves gets an awesome bonus to poisons and spells. Elves get a bonus to perception and to overcome SR. Just mechanics, yes, but they fit the lore of the race. It's not just meaningless numeric bonuses.
-A race that screams only one class type, such as arcane caster, 2-handed weapon, or sneaky, is not great design. A player should be able to use the race more than once and build a different character each time. I feel this is why the core races all have one physical and one mental ability score bonus. Few people would play an orc spell caster, but dwarves can be durable and effective as a cleric or a fighter. An elf can can excel as a wizard or a rogue. (Using very broad examples here)


Maybe, but you could make arguments about other creature types too. But not all animals are great at combat. Cattle or a giraffe might be able to fight off a predator, but couldn't necessarily go and kill one. I imagine the d8 is meant to fall somewhere in the middle. Giants probably get a lot of their HP from a Con bonus anyways. A full bab and the strength of a giant might be too much!


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:


In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
You have a point?
The length of time you've played is irrelevant if it exceeds the existence of the system you're discussing.

I would agree if my opinions were binary, but I disagree based on how much Pathfinder incorporates the legacy of the gaming systems that came before.


Lemmy wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?
You have a point?
He's posting under the "Sarcasm Dragon" alias... His point is to make funny sarcastic posts.

I know. I was returning the sarcasm, which was obviously (now) not obvious. I too often neglect to include a smiley or wotnot.


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:


In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter.
You've been playing Pathfinder for nearly 30 years?

You have a point?


And it could end up a waste if the GM just stops attacking you.


Aelryinth wrote:

Wizards tend to have great hit points, since they are an SAD class. They need to have a good int, and then everything is optional. It's not unusual for a wizard to have a higher Con then a typical fighter, because they don't have to spread themselves as thin.

Also, Wizards have a strong incentive to have a good Con. High HP means more likeliness to survive and AoE, and bolsters their poor fort save.

Fighters need Str, Con, Dex and Wis to do well. A Wizard needs Int, Con and Dex.

Also, Wizards tend to be less Feat-needy then wizards, having this little class feature called 'spellcasting' that helps cover things, so spending a general feat on Toughness is cool. Likewise, they have this high INt thing going, so they don't need to spend Favored Class benefits on Skill points. More Hp!

tack on one casting of False Life, and I would hazard to say a balanced wizard will be walking around with more hit points then the fighter much of the time.

In nearly 30 years I have never seen a wizard with more HP than a fighter. Heard of one who managed it, but that's not personal experience. What you describe is completely possible, but certainly not the norm you imply. Fighters can take toughness and FCB HP just as easily as a wizard.


I'm not even sure I would realistically get a 31 AC at 5th level. It's doable but requires an awful lot of investment. My 9th level oracle is the closest to a tank my party has, and his AC only reaches 29 with magic items and two spells.


Agreed. You can use it as a resource, or you can break it. Compare the cost of a +2 bonus to Climb to the cost of a climb speed. There are many examples though.


Skip the APs for now. You need to worry about keeping their attention for 2-3 before you think about doing so for 15+ character levels. :)

Even if the initial test results are good and you want something bigger, I suggest a 2-3 level module. An AP or a lot campaign of any kind requires quite a bit of investment from everyone involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the interest of making the gnoll a 10 RP race, I suggest lowering the investment in ability scores. Also, ability scores, dark vision, and natural armor make this a mechanically bland race. An ability such as carrion sense or a bonus to tracking could help. I like to imagine that the mightiest gnoll warriors are rangers. What would compliment that?


I find they people are either inclined towards RPGs or they are not. The number of people who try it out because someone asked them to is a smaller group - and less likely to continue playing. Still, it's good to have 4-5 players so I suggest you buy the books, tell them that you are organizing a game on a certain afternoon, and that you want them to give it a try. Just plan it out and tell them to be there.


The Unseat feat uses bull rush.


How about bull rush?


This is not a RAW answer, but it seems to me that using poison secretly would cause the paladin to fall. Poisoning an enemy's food, shooting a poisoned dart from hiding, etc. However, I suppose I might allow it in combat when the paladin and enemy are face to face, and each knows that it is a fight to the death. Seems no more evil than just hacking at an enemy with a sword until it stops moving and dies.


Engineering is for indirect fire siege weapons, but it's a trap. These require skill and feat investment, more crew to operate, and have only slightly better damage than direct fire siege weapons like ballista.

Depending on the GM, survival will run out of usefulness at later levels.


Jamie Charlan, I think the implication is that a fireball should have a much shorter range increment, and that at 400+ ft the spell caster is suffering some big attack penalties. The implication is not that each increment be 400 ft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
There's a lot of different ways to improve the fighter. The question is "how?" Most homebrewers just give them boring passive or statistical buffs that don't really do anything to make them more fun. Or even more bonus feats. Or let them cheat feat prerequisites. Nothing that makes playing them more interesting.

I have to agree about the first part because my own fighter homebrew include such things, but what a person finds interesting about their character is subjective. That's a different discussion though. I think we all agree that the fighter needs a dynamic aspect that is either not present, or just doesn't exist with how most of us play the game.


I recommend ranger if you're interested in skills. You will still have plenty of untrained skills to use your +6 on.


For a few figurines I wrap them in a plastic bag (not in contact), and slip that into a hard plastic tube. For larger numbers I have a fishing tackle case. Figurines are a lot of work. Don't take their safety for granted!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
[Typically, those interested in RPGs are usually those who are entertained and engaged with intelligence-based gameplay, including but not limited to - imagination, numbers, and abstract ideas.

Gamers are the smartest people around. Just ask any gamer. ;)

Str 10
Dex 11
Con 10
Int 11
Wis 11
Cha 10

However, I use some homebrew and 3rd party material (race, templates, traits, etc) that makes me completely broken and unplayable in any game.


Ouch. This sounds like a GM without a great deal of experience. Since you are new to the setting, to the group, and to the game, I consider it the responsibility of more experienced players and the GM to make sure you can make informed decisions. It seems to me like you were ambushed with a punishment that you the player were unfamiliar with. As a new player, your GM should have given you a warning.

Talk to the GM about this. You have the right to have at least an idea of what things will disable your character. Your character would have to be a great fool to single-handedly attack the temple of a rival god. Much better to feint friendship and then plot their deaths. Perhaps your deity will give you a second chance.


If you want better feat versatility then drop some boys feats (or something else) and add in the brawler's Martial Versatility. It's not an all encompassing fix but it could achieve the feat goal.

As for skills and out of combat ability, this forum has 100 ideas, but few people agree on the best way to do it.


Are you going to post a draft of your class idea?


You can make two attacks, and one uses a lower bab. If one of those two attacks is with s shield, you can still get your shield bonus to AC.

1 to 50 of 5,085 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.