|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
When buying 3pp products as PDFs, do you prefer smaller supplements or larger supplements?
I'm curious because I recently bought a bunch of PDFs all less than $3 each with less than 10 pages. While it's cool to get content in piece meal like this, managing all the files is kind of a hassle and I have trouble remembering what came from where. I feel more likely to casually skim through a larger PDF than open a bunch of files.
This is table variation. No official rules beyond the WBL recommendation for starting characters.
I have neither experienced nor read any significant instance when players would abuse death houserules to gain a gold advantage. If you truly do have players like that, then you're better off not having them at your table. Players generally don't want their characters to die unless they're bored playing them. If you prefer that players keep try to keep their characters upon death, then make raising cheaper and more accessible.
My best recommendation is starting a new character at APL with the average wealth for a party member. Or, just use the WBL table since the other PCs will likely have higher wealth than that since they're not a character starting at that level
The golden rule of PC race design is that a standard player race should not have abilities inappropriate for a 1st level character. This is true because a 1st level character gets all of the benefits of his race and Pathfinder is a game where PCs get their power from class levels rather than race. This is how the game works.
So giving something like an at-will 4th level spell as a racial trait would be utterly ridiculous unless you intend to create a race for high powered characters.
That's exactly why it would be a Monstrous Trait. Undead is a 16 RP creature type, making it impossible to create an undead race weaker than than Advanced tier. The proposed deathless trait stacks ontop of the race's creature type, therefore coming at less opportunity cost while also reaping many of the benefits of the undead type (like immunity to all hostile effects that allow Fortitude saves). The trait is also stronger than pretty much all of the Advanced Traits. Therefore, it should be Monstrous.
Runeguns are a type of weapon that discharge magical effects stored inside of a rune shell. I homebrewed this as a result of my campaign's gunslinger introducing firearms to a weapon artificer belonging to my runari race. This is a work in progress as I still need to tweak a few things and add more types of runeguns and rune shells.
Added bullet points for ease.
1) You missed my point. Your rules assume the energy damage occurs from a particular source in a particular way. With your rules, taking 1 point of fire damage from holding heated metal would immediately cause you to burst into flame. It's ludicrous. Whether or not an ability sets things on fire should depend on the ability itself, not a blanket rule.
2) Pokemon heavily abstracts combat by having a comprehensive list of "element types" that each have strengths and weaknesses. I brought this up because your rule suggestions divorces how an ability works lore-wise from its game mechanics by creating a blanket bonus effect that applies to all applicable abilities regardless of how those abilities work.
3) There's a difference between effect descriptors and energy types. Also, if it doesn't deal hit point damage, then it shouldn't be an energy type.
4) You redefined weapon damage under kinetic energy. By definition, slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning are all types of weapon damage. However, your "kinetic" defines its damage as slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Speaking of redefinition, you also totally redefine force damage as bludgeoning damage. The whole thing is a complicated mess.
5) Honestly, you can't adjust the numbers to balance this. No matter how you scale the numbers, it functions as a massive buff to all spells that can apply these effects.
Overall, I don't think these rules really add anything to the game. Like I said earlier, it might be better as some kind of spellcasting option or a class feature.
Course not lol, the very first episode of the original dragon ball goku thought bullets stung a little. This is a recreation of the abilities, rather than the power level.
It's not just power level. Super Saiyan is a legendary transformation passed down through Saiyan lore from generation to generation. It's supposed to signify the messiah of the Saiyan race. That would be more akin to a capstone than an ability you get at 3rd level. You can't even fly at 3rd level.
As for the class itself, I'm not sure what to say about it. It's a bit of a mess. Designing classes is really, REALLY hard to do. It might be better if you create an archetype instead.
1) The fact that many people consider the cleric as Tier 1 is evidence that the cleric is really powerful and -- at the very least -- shouldn't be buffed. Not that I'm particularly worried about that because your suggestions so far are pretty huge nerfs.
2) I never said remaking was a terrible idea. It's just that you don't have much room change it without making the result NOT be a cleric. And probably the better way to make an unchained cleric is create a new class, which is what you're basically doing except you're calling the new class "unchained cleric."
3.1) I don't see why nerfing the cleric and nerfing other classes is mutually inclusive. Even just taking one overpowered class off the list is better than taking none off. Heck, one of the more overpowered classes (shaman) is like that because the designer used clerics as the chassis.
3.2) If the premise is flawed, the execution will be flawed as well.
Do searches on the forums? There's countless threads discussing the power level of the cleric. Reworking the cleric is not a new topic.
My evidence is in the above post. Their feature scope is too high.
They're the second most powerful class in the core rulebook. And even with the abundance of new classes and rules, they're still one of the most powerful classes in the game.
The general community consensus is that the cleric is overpowered but a little boring to build and play. The reasons being:
1) Cleric has a lot going for them with very few weaknesses. They have 9-level spellcasting. They have the second best divine spell list in the game. They have an average BAB/HD. They get decent armor proficiencies and can get proficiency in any weapon they want as long as they worship a god that has it as a favored weapon. As much as people complain about channel energy feeling underwhelming, it's one of the few AoE abilities in the game and has excellent feat support. You can easily make a battle cleric that's competitive with martials up until the point where 9-level spellcasters dominate the game where your spellcasting is king and being a good fighter is icing on the cake. The fact that clerics automatically know all spells on their spell list is also a big deal. The only weakness a cleric has is that they're kinda MAD and have few skill points, which is standard for 9-level spellcasters anyway. Really compare them to other 3/4 BAB classes (excluding druid) and how much they gain compared to martials, it's easy to see how good they are.
2) Despite all the power, most clerics come out feeling very samey. Aside from favored weapon and domains, they don't get many options to help differentiate them. And even then, domains aren't very powerful - their main use is getting a few extra spells to your spell list.
As a result of the above two points, an overhauled cleric should present more build versatility but be a nerf overall.
Menacing Shade of mauve wrote:
The most glaring flaws, that don't break the game if you fix them, is that all the even levels (except 8) are dead levels, and that the Cleric has 1 skill point per level.
Spellcasters never have dead levels. Spellcasting is a primary class feature for a 9-level spellcaster.
I'm running a campaign where one of my players invested heavily in several businesses. I use a mixture of rule sets from Ultimate Campaign:
1) I use the prices for Managers, Rooms & Teams, and Buildings & Organizations listed under Downtime for determining how much it costs to hire people or get a building built. I don't use any other rules under Downtime since they're complicated, mathematically flawed, and provide so little benefit for how much book keeping they need.
2) I use The Investment Mechanics to determine the profits and success of the business, treating the amount of money spent hiring people and building facilities as the amount invested. A ship your player buys would also be counted as an investment.
With this combination of rules, a PC can start a rewarding business with very little book keeping required. All the player has to do is keep track of what teams, ships, or facilities he bought and how much he paid for them. And all you (the GM) has to do is roll a percentile every game year or game month to determine his investment return. Simple, effective.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Even if you perceive a comment as a personal attack, rude and dismissive remarks are not an acceptable response.
Understand that this forum is a community of people that believes in collaboration and reception of ideas for the purpose of creating a better game. Critique, sometimes even harsh at times, is a pillar of this community. The kind of dismissive attitude you displayed whereupon you treat critics as bullies and trolls is not welcome here.
Also realize that you're relatively new to this community while many of these people you describe as "bullies" who are "absolutely certain to their very soul that are in the right" have been designing Pathfinder content here and GMing games for years. Some of them are game designers that have been paid for their work and taken the craft beyond a hobby. The kind of contempt you have for these "hateful bullies" who are genuinely attempting to help you is nothing short of disrespectful. Especially to folks who likely have considerably more experience than you do.
And if you already made up your mind and totally disagree with all of these people, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion. If you truly feel they aren't helping you, then arguing back and giving condescending remarks does not accomplish anything but create unwelcome hostility in this community. Even if you feel they're doing the same to you. You're better off ignoring them or dropping the thread entirely.
All characters receive Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and Deadly Agility from Path of War is available.
Katanas are finesseable weapons.
Firearms use my firearm/gunslinger rework
Combat maneuevers do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
All characters receive a bonus trait later in the game of my invention based on their adventures.
Characters receive max hit points. Major enemies do as well.
Since you just now revealed that all characters get a substantial buff that makes the bonus feat not as available, I have a suggestion for you.
What if humans have the ability to change their bonus feat at the start of each day? Or, instead of getting a bonus feat, they can change the extra bonus feat all characters receive?
That would make the bonus feat aspect of the race more appealing, fit the theme of humans being versatile, and give humans something unique.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Well with all the insults, condescension and unreasoned hysteria that key aspect didn't naturally come up (as it would in a normal discussion) as I'm constantly defending from off-topic attacks.
People react by giving tons of reasons why buffing humans was a bad idea.
You call people's reactions "unreasoned hysteria."
All of the attacks against you were directed how "receptive" you are to criticism and suggestions. In game design, any content designed should meet some design goal. Criticizing the design goal itself is a valid point, because if the goal is flawed then content designed aiming to meet that goal will be flawed as well. Of course, you could have avoided all this "hysteria" if you explained from the beginning that you wanted to buff humans since all characters begin play with extra feats.
You shouldn't totally fault people for getting frustrated. They genuinely do want to help despite you responding mostly with dismissive remarks and strawman arguments. Heck, in another thread, I dropped a conversation with you because you derailed the discussion into an vehement rant about alchemists stealing items from the party.
If humans get a swim speed, then there's not really any reason why almost ANY race wouldn't get a swim speed. The same principle applies to climb speed. You're suggesting that a race should get movement speeds that are reserved for races that are physically evolved for it. It's ridiculous.
Humans already have alternate racial traits for getting Climb bonuses, Swim bonuses, and spell-like abilities. And those traits do a WAY better job of representing the fluff you claim you're trying to accomplish.
I wouldn't say so. Kender are basically the Mary Sues of D&D races. That's what makes them a horrible race.
Portrayal is a big difference. Kender are not only obnoxious, but also the material desperately tries to paint them as cute and charming in a way that insults your intelligence. Describing how people who hate kender are close-minded and mean. That the wisest of races consider kender as "precious." Being "cute" and "loyal" are the only positive traits mentioned, but the text never shows us what makes them charming or loyal aside from playing off their kleptomania, lying, and obnoxious personalities for laughs. On top of it, they're fricken ugly. They're insufferably unlikeable and the text insults us for thinking so.
PF goblins are not portrayed this way. PF books never downplay their faults. In fact, we're supposed to laugh at them. They're quirky and pathetic.
I appreciate the design team's attempts at mitigating power creep.
However, I consider it pretty bad form to have this cycle of creating content that misses the mark and then totally gut it with little attempt to compromise or balance it appropriately. I understand the reasons behind this, but it does leave customers feeling frustrated to have the content they paid for get changed for the worse. I feel erratas should be used to fix mistakes and content that simply doesn't work. Instead, it's used as a way to nerf content that's too powerful in PFS.
In some cases, the errata creates even more problems and confusion than the content as originally printed. Slashing Grace is a great example of this. The errata made the feat even more awkward and broke several items and archetypes for the class that the feat was intended for.
You have to remember that potions are basically spells in a bottle. So being able to drink two different potions at once is like being able to cast two different spells at once, which is very powerful. You would have to make this item very expensive as a result.
Your design goal doesn't make much sense to me. If the problem is that casters aren't casting buffs on combatants, wouldn't you want a solution that encourages it rather than discourage it?
Also, remember that most of the action economy of getting buffs exist for very good reasons. It rewards preparedness and punishes lack of it since you have to spend a turn to drink a potion if you came to the fight unprepared. However, it also puts a limit on how much you can buff yourself before a fight. Each round spent buffing is one round of duration lost for any existing buff.
I think the idea is pretty cool: trading divine bond to gain angelic aspect. But there's some serious flaws here.
At 5th level, this ability is severely underpowered. At this level, Divine Bond grants the power of a 3rd level spell. Lesser Angelic is a 2nd level spell. I suggest having this ability also give wings with a fly speed of 30 feet. This makes the ability more in line with 3rd level spells and makes it competitive with the other options.
Secondly, I'd totally remove all of the annoying and complicated bits about the spirit disappearing if the paladin falls down or the spirit taking the paladin's soul away. Just say that if the paladin is knocked unconscious, the effect ends. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
Assigning a point value to every feat is such a daunting task that ultimately yields little benefit because it's difficult to judge the power of a feat on such a fine level. Especially a fine level where a whole feat equates to 8 points. This was one of the flaws with the race creation rules in ARG. You aren't going to have a more balanced system this way.
A better approach would be to have tiers for feats. For example, a character can choose one feat or two "minor feats" By making the values more discrete, it's much easier to figure out whether a feat is too powerful or too weak. With your system, it's much more challenging to figure out the power difference between a 4-point feat or a 5-point feat.
I can't place my order. Every time I do, it sends me back to choose a payment method, despite the fact I already have a valid one selected and the site doesn't say anything's wrong with my payment method. Sometimes, it doesn't even do anything.
Checkout has always been really buggy. It's ticking me off so much that I've bought stuff from other stores as a result.
"Can someone please trip my fighter so he falls on his bed? He had way too much to drink, and now he can't lie down or let go of his mug."
I'm pointing out that the effects on par with stinking cloud are 3rd level spells. The effects that are slightly more powerful are 4th level spells and the effects slightly weaker are 2nd level spells. Hence, stinking cloud -- the most commonly used ability that inflicts the nauseated condition -- is balanced compared to other effects. Sure, stinking cloud takes you out of the fight, but it also protects you. The other comparable spells not only cripple your action economy, but also put you at serious danger. Even if the action economy debuff isn't as strong as nauseated, they usually
As for cacophonous call, what's my analysis? It's a second level Save or Suck spell. Only targets one creature. Ear-piercing scream is a level lower, deals damage, and dazes (though for one round). Hideous laughter is way more crippling (disabling actions AND knocking you prone) and can be gained by the bard one level lower. However, hideous laughter allows a save every round. Blindness/deafness can be obtained at the same level as cacophonous. Though it doesn't cripple the action economy as hard, it has a permanent duration and more vertasility. Cacophonous call is slightly stronger than spells of a lower level, has trade-offs when compared with comparable spells at the same level, and isn't as strong as spells on a level higher. Plus, the spell only appears on the bard list and won't be obtained until 8th level. As a result, my analysis points that cacophonous call is fairly balanced.
Conditions serve the abilities, not the other way around. Nerfing nauseated just nerfs those otherwise balanced abilities just because you believe nauseated is too powerful in a vaccum. That's my main problem with your argument to nerf nauseated. You mainly look at the condition by itself.
All of the effects that cause nauseated are comparable to the power level of similar abilities at their level. If you nerf the nauseated condition, all you do is encourage the use of those other abilities, some of which are more crippling.
For example, you can get access to deep slumber and slow at the same level as stinking cloud. You can get confusion, fear, and black tentacles at a level higher. Web and glitterdust a level lower. There's mass disables at every level and nauseated is one of the lesser of the effects. So you don't really accomplish anything by nerfing nauseated.
I agree that the restriction of combat maneuvers is a contributing factor to many martials feeling like they lack tactical options.
But consider this perspective to that notion. If we focus on just buffing the fighter's damage, defenses, and giving them extra ways to bypass enemy defenses, that results in making damage always the best solution to different situations. Buffing a fighter's ability to run up and stab something does not give them incentives to do something other than running up and stabbing something.
Game design is pretty flippin' hard and even very experienced GMs can totally suck at it. A lot of the common things I see with homebrew material are:
B) Classes that either read like an archetype with only one or two notable features or read like character specific builds than a foundation for creating character concepts. For example, a generic archer class that gets a bunch of free archery feats or a class that has only one or two notable abilities or a class that has nothing but the best abilities poached from multiple classes into a single overpowered mess.
C) Bloated overcomplicated mechanics with heavily flawed math that obviously wasn't playtested at all. Or mechanics that try to reinvent the wheel well established rules, but made more complicated and awkward.
D) New feats or mechanics that try to fix things that don't need fixing, or rework things without actually making the game more fun and interesting.
But I'm not suggesting Paizo material is without flaws. No, no, no. With Paizo material, we get issues like:
B) Material that has to be utterly gutted in errata because it was rushed and not tested.
C) Material made deliberately underpowered for the sake of organized play.
D) Mechanics or solutions to problems in the game made way more complicated than they should be for relatively simple concepts.
E) Schizophrenia with design directions.
F) "Safe" design decisions most of the time. And when there's bold decisions, it's usually inelegantly or without polish.
Game design is hard, yo.
126. The bean erupts into a spire of sparkles and light that inspires hope and joy for all that witness it. Creatures within a 10 mile radius that see the spire gain a +1 morale bonus to attack and damage rolls and a +2 competence bonus to skill checks. Creatures standing within 30 feet of the blast must succeed at a DC 23 Will save or become blinded for 1 minute as the close proximity of the spire's power overwhelms their senses. Afterward, afflicted creatures begin spraying waves of vibrant rainbows out of their eyes. This is a 30-foot cone gaze attack with a DC 23 Will save to resist. Creatures that fail the save become subject to euphoric tranquility. Creatures that fail the save by 10 or more act with unnatural lust towards an appropriate object or creature they legitimately have a strong affection for. The effects of this last for 24 hours.
119. The bean erupts into a massive structure made of vegetable matter that gradually grows into the shape of a Colossal hand giving a obscene gesture towards the direction of the last individual that wronged the planter.
120. The bean grows into a lanky plant with a single piece of fruit. The fruit is delicious and seems to have no effect initially. However, a creature that eats the fruit polymorphs into an appropriately shaped tree while they sleep. The creature returns to normal when they awake, leaving no evidence of their transformation except for regaining all of their hit points if they received a full 8 hours of rest.