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

4,741 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,741 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Core races experience normal RP in town. "Special" races would get awkward reactions from normal NPCs.

I have never picked up the feat, not even for a theoretical character.

No wait that's wrong. My first 3.5 character whole stead more than a couple sessions took Orc double axe. Only one. It was awesome. Looking back, not mechanically awesome.

In my game, another player chose to play the aristocrat's cook. He wielded a skillet, so I let him treat it as a battle axe instead of a club.

One time only, I appealed to a friend's inner role-player and convinced him to choose aristocrat as his 1st level character class. The RP was quite enjoyable for him and it led to a memorable character. However, he took sorcerer levels after that.

That's all I got.

Go ahead and try this mechanic out at your table, but you should know that there is already an existing mechanic in place. You can use a readied action (a standard action) to move your speed. Obviously, the exact conditions in the battle and the wording of the readied action are important, but it can work.

Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Grant the same +2 bonuses a character class gets at 1st level, but only to his or her first class. Additional +2s from multiclassing are not gained.

Possible but it wouldn't really fix classes that have notoriously weak saves, though it might help over specialization a little bit.

Making characters weaker overall is not my intention, I just want to boost up the weaker characters a notch and take down stronger characters a notch regarding saves.

You could also change all of those +2s to +1s. Thats how prestige classes work (unfortunately).

If your players agree to such a trade-off, then tell them that it is an experiment and a conditional agreement: if you feel an advanced race is overpowered (or underpowered) you will adjust the point buy when they level up and that they will then make the appropriate modifications to their characters' ability scores.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RedDogMT wrote:
PFS is really no different than the home brew rules that practically every game has. These rules will work for some while others won't.

The difference being that one is inflexible.

Organized play is intentionally different from home games. I played in an organized play story arc that took 13 session - so that I wasn't forming an opinion after one try - and I did not care for it.

NecroMageDroid wrote:

In our last campaign I burned down a church and left the party to deal with it but IRL the cleric was saying he "Might not kill me if I repent and help them put out the fire" which I feel is way too cocky for another player at the same level to be saying to me, so I'm wondering if there's any way to really weaken a cleric (Without access to his food

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

You sound very cocky yourself for wanting to repay a personal slight with death. Since it was "IRL" then you can't use your character's alignment as justification. It's immature to respond to an out-of-game dispute with an in-game retaliation. Moving forward with this plan will result intention in the gaming group. What will you do if the party defends the cleric, or avenged him, and kills your character? I suggest you swallow your pride and think of a reason why your evil character should cooperate with the group, instead of thinking of ways to use a fantasy game to hurt someone in your family by group.

Is PvP acceptable at your table? If you insist on proceeding, just coup de grace him in his sleep.

Grant the same +2 bonuses a character class gets at 1st level, but only to his or her first class. Additional +2s from multiclassing are not gained.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the homebrew forum, not the use pre-written material forum. You are mean to write new material here.

It was foolish for the ranger to head out on his own, especially since he would have had help it he waited until the shopping was done. They could have left the next morning. The consequence you choose was a good one.

As an aside to this, I think I would be good for the game as a whole if there were more situations where splitting the party was a possibility, depending on lots of things. If it makes the game feel more realistic or cinematic (player immersion), that is a good thing. If it allows the party to achieve two goals at once, that is a good thing. If it causes half of the players to sit and do nothing for longer than they are comfortable, that is a bad thing. If it causes the GM too much rewriting, that is a bad thing.

Revisiting something you wrote after many months away can be eye opening.

christos gurd wrote:
my guess is something like this

Looks like LRG had this idea and wrote it up before I did, but HERE is my take I wrote earlier this year.

I can't think of a PF race whose features scale up with level, even though I'm sure there are some. This is more like a 3rd edition racial template. Your four dragon abilities are not well balanced against each other and they are more like spells than racial features.

I think it is important for a playable to race to have some funky little features that do more to suggest the personality of the race as a whole than they do to create powerful characters. For example, dwarves are skilled masons and jewelers, and are good at fighting orcs. Halflings are athletic and brave. These are racial features that have little effect on game play, yet still cost points in the race builder.

Saving throws will be pretty low at low level. Its a small change for classes with one good save but noticable for those with two. What happens to the monk, who is "supposed" to be known for strong saving throws?

This might as well be the warrior NPC class with an aura, instead of a fighter with an aura. If the goal is for no one to cast cure spell, then you have succeeded, but the person playing this class has nothing interesting to do. At least a fighter gets to choose which weapons he a better at, and gains a slew of extra feats to customize and diversify his fighting style. This class doesn't have that. There are no options during combat. There are the full-round action restorations, but a character will wait until combat is done unless its a life and death emergency.

I suggest starting over.

If the class has a point pool and a list of talents, then you gain customization when you level up and resources that can be used as the player sees fit. Maybe activating the fast healing aura requires a point. Maybe the healing becomes better when you slect certain talents, maybe it supressed certain conditions an ally has depending on talents, maybe you spend a point to use an ability like Lay on Hands.

But how does this translate into a combat style? I think a focus on non-lethal damage would be cliche and boring, but what if the healer absorbed ailments from his allies and inflicted them on enemies? What if he had a means to supress an enemy's healing or resistance? What if he could dabble or focus in necromancy?

It would also help if you wrote a paragraph or so describing what the character does and/or where the power comes from.

Music and fine dining to compliment the AP? Sounds like a good group to be in. We're playing S&S and my GM plays piratey music, but I think it's best to skip the pirate food.

No I did not mean two lists of bonus spells. I misunderstood post #51.

Did you consider having a main spell list and then each mania has a list of bonus spells?

On the one hanf, Focused Casting seems reasonable, but on the other it has the potential to be much stronger than other "similar" feats with almost no downside. I suppose my suggestion is that the casting time of the spell is increased from a standard acction to a full-round action. And Cyrad is right that you should work on fine tuning the wording. Try to use wording lifted directly from exist feat, rules, etc as much as you can. Piece them together and make modifications so that it does what you want it to.

For Attuned Focus, try "Choose an ability score when you gain this feat. When you cast a spell that requires a touch attack or ranged touch attack, you can use that ability score's modifier in place of your Dexterity or Strength modifier to determine your attack bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seductress is female, while Suducer is male or gender neutral. Oh english language. So peculiar.

I would drop the arcane part of this and make it available to any spellcaster.

I'm not sure to properly balance out BAB and saves and class features on this, but something makes me feel like this should be a medium-BAB class.

So is this a prestige class or an archetype of a prestige class? I say dispence with the attempt to swap out features on a one-for-one basis and and commit to making this its own entity.

Instead of Poison Use at 1st level, I suggest the following:

Seductive Spell/Spontaneous Charm: A seducer has the ability to cast charm spells even if she did not prepare them ahead of time. The seducer can “lose” any prepared spell or (if she prepares spells) or spell per day (if she is a spontaneous caster) that is not an orison or domain spell in order to cast charm person, except the spell's level is equal to the level of the spell sacraficed. If she sacrifices a spell of 4th level or higher she can instead cast charm monster. If she sacrifices a spell of 5th level or higher she can instead cast charm person, mass. If she sacrifices a spell of 8th level or higher she can instead cast charm monster, mass.

Alternately, the seducer could instead gain bonus spells as she advances in level. Wizard would add it to his spellbook, cleric would add it to her spell list, spontaneous caster would add it to its list of spells known. There are quite a few spells withe with the "charm" descriptor.

I might change this ability to one where creatures that are friendly towards her are not aware she is casting a spell, unless she wishes them to be or until it is too late, or the creature knows and just doesn't care. I would also throw in something where she can't cast her highest level spells in this way.

I feel this is just to narrow to count as the only feature for the level. I might instead make a feature where she gains a bonus against charm spells, and when she succeeds on one she can make a Bluff check to fool the caster (and others too maybe?).

Why would you suck with a 14 in every thing? You don't need six good ability scores, and not all of them need to be equally high.

We generally only see it outside of combat, although in order to avoid the GM's ire for perceived cheese we don't use it when the main PC has a high modifier. If it's a difficult DC or the skill user has negative levels or whatnot, then we'll go ahead and use Aid Another. In combat I have only ever seen it a handful of times. The only character of mine who ever used it was a cleric with a pitiful attack bonus who was trying to conserve spells.

I'm glad it is available for use, but while it appreciate its simplicity I think allowing for situations where the bonus is higher might make it more appealing.

I have no idea how the cost and the mechanics all balance out, but I like the idea. I too have always thought that a mounted warrior shouldn't have to be a special class just to have a horse that doesn't die easily at higher level.

Due to the mind meld, the character will have a lot of issues to work through. We're talking about salvaging his/her sanity - and that will take time. You should still retire the character, but maybe he/she return in the future if your badass gets smoked.

I"ve been playing Fallout Shelter, and even after getting all of my dwellers armed and leveled up these guys continue to ruin their days - especially if they dog into an unoccupied room and a bunch manage to enter before I can stand dealing with them.

Read the spell. For example, fireball says:

"A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area."

There is no consideration given to the size of the creature.

At 1st level, I think you should just let your skill points handle the RP/intrigue/non-combat aspect of the game. Wait till 3rd level to pick a feat that will help that. Weapon Finesse is a good idea, because eventually you will need to fight and when you do you'll want to hit things. For the second feat, you might look to one of the feats that is beneficial to literally any character, such as Toughness or Improved Initiative. I know you would prefer something that is non-combat and not just a skill bonus, but at 1st level that leaves you with few choices. If we're talking CRB and you're not a spellcaster, you've left with feats like Run, Endurance, and those that increase saving throws. If your game includes traits, you could take the Additional Traits feat. Check out the Cosmopolitan feat.

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.

Those historical knights weren't characters in a fantasy game, and were probably low level compared to many PCs. They didn't have magic either.

It's cool that you have taken the time clearly word your house rules, but I don't see what a lot of it has to do with low-magic. Do you have house rules addressing what your players will do when they encounter higer level monsters that basically require magic to defeat? Even a weak swarm at low-level is hellish.

Attack Rolls
This seems like a way to punish strong characters. There has been a lot arguments about using Dex for melee attack rolls, but usually the proponents want to give a choice betwen the two ability scores.

The hole I see in this one is that there are no rules covering what direction someone is facing. I assume your rules mean that the GM will decide if the character gets the Reflex bonus or not? Are bucklers addressed in your rules?

Fighting Multiple Opponents
Much like the "facing" issue, it falls to the GM here to decide if an enemy is "attacking" or not. Perhaps a less arbitrary approach would be that when a creature attacks an enemy, the creature gains an attack bonus equal to the number of other creatures that threaten the enemy. Flanking is still possible, and it can still lead to the higher attack bonuses you are looking for.

Heavy Armor / Prone
I think this is a bad idea. A high level paladin or fighter might not be trained in Acrobatics, but should have the strength and experience to get back up. Maybe an attack roll modified by ACP? Not a difficult DC though - this is meant to be a heroic game.

Gotta go to work. Maybe I'll drop in again later.

Some GMs wouldn't shy away from allowing spells to be added to a spell list, especially if that list is comprised of spells from only one or two books. Obviously, some care must be taken so the new spells remain in the spirit and intent of the original list, nor unbalance the list.

Try a change of pace for awhile. Open up the world a bit for the PCs and let them travel where they like and do what they like. Take cues from them and see what they are interested in. It takes time to build chemsitry and trust.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get distracted by all kinds of things. Various home projects, BBQing, daughters, Archer, chores, Fallout Shelter... the list morphs over time (especially since I always get bored with any video game I play). However, no one effs with my RPG time - there are no distractions. Not for this and not for GoT. It doesn't take a back seat to anything except the periodic holiday family get-together, and others in my group usually have the same thing going anyways. My non-gaming friends don't ask why I'm busy on a Sunday, the kids don't complain (much) anymore, I even go to gaming while I'm on-call. Yes, I will schedule ahead and cancel myself for something important, but generally I do everything I can to make it to every session.

There was a time in my 20s during which I didn't have a gaming group, but to be fair I was in a metal band that had all kinds of D&D undertones... and overtones.

It's all good. You don't have to use my ideas. We've worked on a bunch of stuff and I just enjoy the brainstorming.

I didn't get the size bonus during the first time, months ago, but when I imagine have giant hands to grab someone, throw them to the ground, or move them from one spot to another, it makes sense. For a CM like steal it makes a little less sense, but thats OK. One question though, does "treated as one size larger" give him even more of a boost to CMB? Might want to clarify. Maybe you just increase the guy's size and drop the size bonus? Or you keep it as is an word it very carefully. Or did you intend for two bonuses?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely think there Intelligence limits should be dropped. It will be quite rare for anyone to reach those limits, and if they do then they are exceptional PCs and NPCs who extraordinary compared to the rest of the world.

The word is spelled Profession.

Instead of saying "any tools assocaited with their profession", you might as well say "one martial weapon of choice". You don't need proficiency in tools of any kind - they simply grant a bonus to a skill. And why in the name of Gozreh's beard would a doctor use a punching dagger at work?!


Does this replace an existing monk feature or is it just a freebie?

I would argue that emotions hinder wisdom.

For the Rave feature, based on personal experience, I think a bonus to Strength and Charisma would be more fitting, coupled with a penalty to AC and Wisdom-based skill checks, and a bonus on mind-affecting saves. An inability to use certain skills (wisdom for example) would not be entirely accurate, but it would be more in line with the Rage ability that is is based on. I'm not sure that risking failure to cast spells is fitting, because (if I understand the concept) the maniac is supposed to use this ability to becomes a stronger spellcaster - not an unreliable one.

Oh, and what I meant to ask is if you didn't want suggestion on what I wrote before, could you please direct me to what you would like input on?

I think 1d6 is fine for the amount of damage dealt, but think about how big a huge gauntlet would be. The knuckles might be 2 or 3 feet across. I I think calling it an oversized gaultlet that deals 1d6 damage would be sufficient. I assume they are meant to be larger than normal.

Its impossible to know what your campaign will hold. Great Fortitude in case you get poisoned? Amateur Investigator? Leadership? Black Marketeer?

There is also an "advice" forum. The "suggestion" aspect of this forum is misleading, and the other forum gets more traffic.

Rewriting domains to be as flavorful as mysteries would be a good approach for the cleric.

Headfirst wrote:
You guys have some really good ideas, but the core of this project is to fix the single biggest issue with each class, not nitpick every little detail.

And you have a list of these biggest issue, or do you think that could require some discussion?

Manic is an adjective, maniac is a noun, but they are closely related. Basically a maniac is a manic person. Maniac is probably the more offensive of the two because it is actually a label you could apply to a person, whereas manic would be used to describe a person's behavior. All of that aside though, I just think manic sounds cooler as a class name.

You are confusing hysteria with "female hysteria" - a medical diagnosis no longer recognized by the medical community. Hysteria is simply a state of strong, unconrolled emotions and has absolutely no gender connotation.

"Rave" has to do excitement and enthusiasm - emotions that are less intense than the love and hate emotions you cite in the heading to your class.

At higher level, a magus gets to add wizard spells to his spell book. It would be cool if the alchemist could do the same.

Ranger and paladin spell DCs could gain a nice boost when used against a favored enemy, or against the target of a smite evil.

I agree about the sorcerer's bloodline spell. An oracle gains his bonus spells at even levels and even then only choosing one spell is tough. My oracle rarely has use for his bonus spells, and its a bit of a joke at the table when I finally get to do so.

I am in no way opposed to the idea of this because I have also worked on something similar (a class called bomber), but have the following concerns:

1) Bombs are resolved as touch attacks, and as the gunslinger has shown, a full BAB and touch attacks ends up being boring. You basically always score hits. Little risk, no suspense.

2) No class in the game gets a free bonus to an ability score, and certainly not at 1st level. A fighter who wants this archetype will just have to suck it up and be of greater than mediocre intelligence.

3) You make no mention of what level this fighter gains his bombs. He trades all Armor Training for it, so does that mean he gains bombs at 3rd level?

4) Full BAB is too much, and an extra +1 to attack on top of that from Throw Anything is just unneccessary. Its probably unneccessary for the alchemist too.

4) In exchange for Weapon Training 1, this bomber gains a total of 8 discoveries and is still able to trade Weapon Training 2 & 3 for something else. I see a problem there. What happened to Weapon Training 4?

5) You give an ability at 17th level in exchange for Armor Mastery, but Armor Mastery is gained at 19th level.

I would start with -2, then go to -3 and -4. Basically, you take a penalty equal to the number of attacks you get.

1 to 50 of 4,741 << 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.