|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
HUNGER FOR KNOWLEDGE
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.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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.
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.
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.
BRAVERY AND DISCIPLINE
BURST OF SPEED
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I know. I was returning the sarcasm, which was obviously (now) not obvious. I too often neglect to include a smiley or wotnot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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. ;)
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.