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

Cyrad's page

RPG Superstar 2014 Star Voter, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,995 posts (2,180 including aliases). 8 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Volume of class features DOES equate to power...

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm not very receptive because a lot of the criticism is not constructive.

And when I do explain it, I get ignored. .. "it's too good" is not constructing advice, it's a complaint.

Ignored? We gave many rebutals to your explanations. What kind of feedback are you looking for? Criticism involves pointing out flaws. so you can make a decision to improve it. I'm not throwing out insults. I explained the reasoning behind my criticism and what could be done to improve the class.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Also how does this fix make them just do more damage? I guess they get one more thanks to weapon training. Those are the kinds of statements that I ignore because you either didn't read it or didn't appreciate the work I did put into it.

You explicitly said earlier in this thread that you intended this fix to make the fighter "the best at fighting" with increases in offense and defense. You decided to accomplish this by giving them more bonus feat access through martial flexibility and combat styles.

Also, you're talking to a guy who draws pictures for his homebrew material and spent months working on his class design. I do appreciate the work that goes behind designing classes. If I didn't care about your work or the topic at hand, I never would have responded to this thread in the first place.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a protestant Christian and I see the logic behind putting deities in your campaign even if you do not believe in the existence in real deities. Some of the greatest stories come from religious texts and mythology, and Pathfinder deities are really interesting characters.

Besides, it might make players uncomfortable if their GM has an atheist agenda just as if I made a setting where the Christian God was the only true God.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amanuensis wrote:
Gear Dependent: Though an artiforged can be raised or resurrected normally, when his body becomes lost or destroyed, he loses access to all artiforged class features except for artiforging and proficiencies in armor, shields, and weapons.[...]

Thank you! I still want to call that section "Ex-Artiforged" because that's pretty standard for any class where a circumstance could remove class features or make it impossible to take further levels, such as the barbarian. It also makes sense because you're not physically an artiforged anymore without the augmentations, even though you have all of the experience and know-how to use them and put them back.

Amanuensis wrote:
Another thing I noticed is that there is no mentioning of replacing integrated weapons/armor (only in the case they are destroyed). If I find a better weapon, can I take it as my integrated weapon and sell the one I'm currently using? Can I screw the fighter's sword into my forearm, enhance it and give it back to him?

That's a good question. So good that I reworked integrated weapon this morning to answer all those questions, clarify thrown melee weapons (you can now eject them hookshot-style!), and give specifics about having an integrated ranged weapon that fires thrown weapons as ammo.

I still need to work out integrated armor today.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The artiforged is a martial class centered around literally forging yourself into the perfect warrior. I designed it as “setting neutral” with a class feature that determines the flavor of your bodily enhancements. Fitting your artiforged to a setting is simply a matter of choosing the right power source. You could be a steam knight, a clockwork soldier, a guy with a bunch of magical devices installed in his body, a warrioress augmenting herself with symbiotic plants or perhaps a man who Frankensteins himself with undead limbs.


The artiforged is a full BAB martial with no spellcasting. He gains no bonus feat progression, but is a feature rich class. Some class features include the following.

  • Integrated Weapon: Gain a special weapon attached to your body that can be deployed quickly.
  • Power Source: Gain a “bloodline” that determines the nature of your augmentations. The power source also acts as a resource pool with special abilities increasing “tension." Time and healing spells reduce tension.
  • Power Surge: Raise tension to gain +1/+1 to integrated weapon attacks for 1 round. Damage scales with level. Every power source augments power surge in some way.
  • Flurry Assault: At 2nd level, gain a bonus integrated weapon attack when full-attacking.
  • Upgrades: At every even level, customize yourself with a new special ability. Some require raising tension to use.
  • Integrated Armor: At 3rd level, gain armor grafted to your body that can be deployed or retracted. At later levels, you can configure the armor to gain situational perks.

I intend to publish this class in a book that will include many more upgrades, power sources, archetypes, NPCs of all CRs, and an Eldritch Heritage-like feat. I’d like some thoughts and feedback before I finalize a draft for an upcoming playtest.

Special thanks to Ciaran Barnes, Goddity, Goth Guru and others for their feedback during the development of this class. They were a big help during the months I spent working on this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has been discussed to death.

I make Weapon Finesse free for all characters and my players can take the Deadly Agility feat from Path of War. I already made plenty of arguments explaining why Deadly Agility is a balanced and well designed approach to Dex-to-damage.

Don't need a more complicated solution than that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish player companion books gave you a one-time boon as a bonus. I'd see myself buying a lot more books if I could (for example) buy Blood of the Moon and get a one-time boon to play a skinwalker. Even if I didn't intend to use the boon, that's a nice little bonus.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


Now, if only Stealth was fixed to not assume every character has eyes on all sides of their heads that never blink. Then, we can actually play stealthy characters without having to rely on invisibility magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Honestly, separating alignments from philosophy and belief is a good thing for most tables. The last thing I need is another alignment argument.

I'm not sure about that. Pretty much every major alignment argument I've seen came down to a problem with the player or GM, not the alignment system itself. In fact, the worst alignment argument I experienced came result from a guy who argued for abolishing alignments from all games. Other than that, I've had nothing but positive experiences with alignments. And I absolutely love the Planescape setting.

But don't get me wrong. I do really like your idea. I came from liking the idea that law and chaos energy shape reality. Chaos warps reality whereas law keeps reality stable. (And I'm glad your list isn't merely energy damage types. It made me cringe to see 5th Edition use 4th Edition's Pokemon-style damage types).

2 people marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the hate for Precise Shot, either. It's powerful and makes sense. While good, it's also not always an obvious choice. Precise Shot isn't worth it for switch-hitters, who should be engaging in melee when allies do.

The penalty makes sense and it's not a big deal for rays because touch attacks are more-or-less guaranteed to hit the target at mid to higher levels. The only thing I never liked about it was that allies STILL provide soft cover, and I think the penalty should be an AC bonus for the target, not an attack roll penalty. GMs, even ones in PFS, frequently forget that allies provide soft cover anyway.

Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was a pleasure to follow you along for this run. Congratulation, Monica. It was a hard fought and well deserved victory.

It feels pretty special I defended my Master's thesis on the same day of seeing a new friend rise to the top. With awesome placeholder art for the module to boot!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
I'm sorry but you're just flat wrong.

Kestral understood my point.

I agree with Aelryinth. I previously never argued that fast healing to all PCs would make combats easier (though instant stabilizing does make them less lethal). I argued it would reduce the tension of most encounters and change the way players approach using their class abilities.

You also seem to make the faulty assumption that every combat should be lethal. That's not true. Any GM worth his salt varies his encounters, such as ones merely made to wear down the party. It's much harder to do that and vary the encounters when the party can recover for free after every fight.

Xexyz wrote:

Furthermore, step back and look at the big picture. Even if fast healing did have the effect Cyrad is claiming, it's still irrelevant. The current design paradigm intends for a CR = APL encounter to consume 25% of the party's resources. Suppose fast healing had the impact of making a CR = APL encounter only consume 20% of the party's resources, allowing for an extra encounter per day. So what? Since four CR = APL encounters per day is an arbitrary amount to begin with, going from 4 to 5 makes no meaningful impact on the way encounters need to be designed.

Fast healing does have an impact, but it's mostly an economic one, as other people have already mentioned. I certainly wouldn't have to make encounters harder because of it.

But you just illustrated the GM would have to make encounters harder if fast healing had any effect on the resource consumption per encounter. Let me break it down.

1) Fast healing impacts the resource consumption of each encounter, even if a little. That should be obvious, even if the impact merely reduces the consumption of a CR = APL encounter from 25% to 20% as you postulated.

2) You argue that if the above point is true, then a GM only needs to add another encounter each day. (Padding the day out with another encounter is actually a big deal, but that's beside my point)

3) If the above points are true and the GM wants to keep the same number of encounters per day, then the GM must increase the CR of one or more of his encounters. With your example, the GM would need to increase CR of one encounter by +2 or two encounters by +1.

Therefore, fast healing would require the GM to make encounters harder if it had any effect on resource consumption (which it does). You just illustrated that with your example.

Maybe one could say a +1 or +2 to one or two encounters as no big deal. I can concede that point. A GM granting all PCs fast healing would be prepared for that. But to say that a GM wouldn't have to make encounters harder at all to keep the resource consumption the same? That's a fallacy.

strumbleduck wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
The game works by assuming each fight will take its toll on your resources. Healing is the major resource of the game, requiring either expending precious daily abilities or items that cost you money and required you to prepare ahead of time. The gameplay of D&D/PF centers around mitigating the healing cost. If you play smart and work as a team, you lower the damage party members take and lower the healing cost of the fight.
Sorry, but this just isn't the way that Pathfinder works. The math doesn't support your argument.

That example has so many flaws for various reasons. It also neither supports your claim nor does it disprove mine.

1) It views the game in isolation within a single, specific type of encounter and makes the gross assumption that a party has infinite amount of healing wands and/or the ability to exchange money for healing items at any given time. This and other ridiculous assumptions undermines the counterargument by postulating a spherical cow.

2) The example fails to look at emergent player behavior, which I consider much more important and relevant to the discussion than simply how much money the party loses each encounter.

3) Even excusing the above two points, the math provided proves against your argument. Losing up to 10% of your income is not insignificant. Even players with 12th level characters would wince at losing 250 to 750 gp on each encounter--mine certainly do, even when I'm generous on treasure.

And no. Pathfinder is a game of attrition, at least as the game design pattern described by Joris Dormans. Each encounter beats up the party's abilities, health, and items they had to buy/prepare ahead of time. If they play smart, they can get to the climax with enough resources necessary to win and save the day. Otherwise, someone might die or worse.

Even if I agree with you, you cannot deny that it's much harder to beat up the PCs if they can recover from any injury completely for free by sucking their thumb for 5 or 10 minutes. I don't want to play, run, or design for a game like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The whole point of a switch-hit build is that you shoot at enemies until they're close enough to engage with melee. Precise Shot isn't useful because if an ally engages in melee combat, you should engage with them--not stand there and shoot. If you're close enough to benefit from Point-Blank Shot, then you should be close enough to charge at the enemy. As a switch hitter, you're still primarily a melee fighter. You simply put a few of your eggs in the "ranged basket" so you're still a big threat when the enemy isn't close enough to engage with your primary weapon.

Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Quick Draw should be your big priorities. Invest your feats into your melee weapon first.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grammar Coach wrote:

Nice compromise, Cyrad. However...

Cyrad wrote:
There's many thematic and mechanical reasons to not allow this.

This should read: "There are..."

Drop and give me twenty.

Sorry, Coach. I originally wrote "There's many mechanical reasons to not allow this." but later added "thematic" because activating a wand takes some concentration and the invoking of one's force of will. You cannot duct tape a bunch of wands together like they're Canadian squirt guns to create a magic missile minigun. Magical devices do not work that way.

But as you wish.

Drops to the floor and gives 20 gold pieces.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DM Blake's absolutely right. There's many thematic and mechanical reasons to not allow this. Action economy deliberately limits the great power of magic. This also would cheat the magic item creation system because firing three magic missile wands is essentially getting a CL 5 wand of magic missile at a discount.

However, I would allow following:
1) Combining multiple wands increases the caster level if the combined price of the wands equates to the price of a single wand of higher caster level. In other words, three combined wands of magic missile become a single wand of magic missile with CL 3.
2) Combining wands this way expends a charge from all of them.

This way, the player can combine three wands to fire two missiles at a time, spending a charge from all three wands. I'd consider this fairly balanced as this is mathematically the same as having a wand of a magic missile with a caster level high enough to fire multiple missiles. The expenditure of charges is also proportional because spending 1 charge from each of three CL 1 wands is proportionally the same cost of spending 1 charge from a CL 3 wand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a necro'd thread. This thing was made WAAAAAAY before the harrow handbook came out.

This does tempt me to create a cardslinging archetype for the gunslinger that uses luck instead of grit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I wanted to play a time mage, I'd play a summoner and make my eidolon myself or a relative from the distant future. You also can't go wrong with a class that gets haste and slow 1 level sooner than a wizard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like the idea of full attacks--sacrificing mobility for more damage. The problem lies with the lack of options outside of it.

Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The premise is simple, but compelling: A necromancer gets her revenge on an old, deceased rival and uses the loyalty of her people against her. The scope is tight, avoiding the usual problems I see in modules that try to do too much at once. The few elements in the adventure have plenty of room for expansion and intrigue. I find the characters rather interesting. I want to learn more about Delbera and Zohir and about their rivalry. I want to explore Zohir's fortress and see what creative sins of nature she has crafted. I now want an orphne-related player race. Shadow-touched or exiled fey always fascinated me since Realm of the Fellnight Queen. An artistic, gothic fell-nymph? Yes please. There's a lot to like about this adventure.

As mentioned by the judges, there's some issues (why do you use en-dashes instead of hyphens for "non-combat?"). I'd think a title like "Bound to the Blighted Oath" works better considering the villain's plan involves twisting a magical oath to enslave a leader's loyal men. But these are minor nitpicks.

I also like that you made little assumption about what the players will do. There's several ways for the adventure to turn differently, and you do a great job accounting for that. You skillfully avoided railroading.

In my opinion, you struck a home run with this adventure.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish cure spells were necromancy if only to reinforce that necromancy isn't all about making living things dead and dead things undead.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Are the tombs mapped?

Did you just cast animate objects? Because money is flying out my wallet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make tracking the rations easier and more fun. Whenever they buy rations, give them a card that represents one day of rations. When a day passes, they must give you one ration card.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If a party of low level enemies ambushes a bathing 20th level fighter, low level ambushers are screwed and incredibly stupid for even thinking about doing this. Why? Because the fighter has something more powerful than any individual class feature or magical weapon: friends. Powerful friends. No character reaches 20th level without accumulating several lifetimes of allies and accomplishing deeds to the awe of thousands of people. Several kingdoms owe him.

Even if you're a low level and kill the 20th level fighter, you're more than a dead man. That fighter has countless wealth stored elsewhere and a party of friends just (if not more) powerful than him. That fighter has entire kingdoms and powerful outsiders that owe a debt to him. If a mythic character, gods would owes him a favor or two. If you kill that fighter or take his stuff, his allies will find you. A slow, agonizing death is a merciful fate compared to what that fighter and his allies can do to you.

Because this is the heart of D&D. Your growth in power is not merely the numbers on your sheet, but the allies and experiences you accumulated in getting there.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Path of War by Dreamscarred Press wrote:

Deadly Agility (Combat)

You have learned how to use your agility to greater purpose in battle.

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit(s): You may add your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier when wielding a light weapon or a weapon that gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat (such as the rapier) when determining additional damage inflicted upon a successful attack. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is not reduced for off-hand weapons.

I like this feat for a number of reasons:

1) Little feat tax: The only feat requirement is Weapon Finesse. With my house rule, there's no feat tax whatsoever.

2) +1 BAB requirement: This means martials[1] can pick it up immediately (like they should be able to), but gish classes cannot until 3rd level. I like this because gish classes were the only problem I've ever had with Dexterity-to-damage. Dexterity builds are very attractive to gish classes because they offset the class's lack of armor proficiency and MAD. I hated Slashing Grace because it's easy to munchkin a magus or another gish class to become as powerful of a fighter as a Dexterity martial while still being able to cast spells and use other powerful class features. Making the gish classes wait until 3rd level is fair.

3) Strength builds still do more damage: With Deadly Agility, a Dexterity character cannot gain the benefits of two-handing weapons. Power Attack already has diminished returns for finesse weapons. So while the Dex build still has some great benefits, a Str build will still do significantly more damage.

4) It helps two-weapon fighters: As a bonus, the last line of Deadly Agility provides a huge helping hand to two-weapon fighters.

Deadly Agility was obviously very well thought out, well designed, and well playtested.

[1]Before you mention the rogue and monk not being able to pick Deadly Agility at 1st level, I always argued they should have been full BAB classes. In fact, Pathfinder Unchained will introduce revised versions of those classes that will have a full BAB.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just simply give Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat to any character that meets its prerequisites. Then, I make available the Deadly Agility feat from Path of War by Dreamscarred Press. No need to change the weapon listings or change the rules. The Deadly Agility feat is also the most balanced and well designed approach to Dex-to-damage I've seen.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Puna'chong, I am curious why you make Deadly Agility and Power Attack mutually exclusive? Is the 13 ST prerequisite not a deterrent enough?

I don't understand this, either. Power Attack already has diminished returns for using light weapons and rapiers.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo's a good company. If you like the game, show your support and buy the book from them or your local game store (they deserve love, too!) I don't think it's an unreasonable requirement. PDFs of the hardcover books are ridiculous cheap. I think they're on sale, too. If you want to play Pathfinder, it's probably a good idea to have a copy of the main rulebooks anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It still strikes me as just a tiefling with a few bizarre design decisions. If it's not a creature with the chaotic subtype, then it shouldn't have an alignment restriction. Even evil races don't have alignment restrictions.

Kharzai wrote:
The only reason at-will charm monster isn't fully broken is it DOES have a will save DC of 10 + caster level (which is character level in this case) + CHA Mod.

You're giving a player race an at-will 1st level spell. That alone makes it broken. This is why the race builder lists it as a monstrous trait. On top of it, it's a powerful spell designed to trivialize social encounters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The guy next to you is playing a character named "Batman."

And he's the only other character in the 6-man party that isn't a homicidal maniac.

Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Cyrad

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to give my thanks to everyone who gave me honest feedback on windpath razor. I appreciate the time you took to do so and I am happy that many of you did enjoy the item. I see I need to gain a better grasp on pricing magic items.

I want to give back by responding to some items that caught my attention.

Eremite Rod:
This item feels way too SAK for me, but the powers for modifying spells caught my attention and I really liked them. I always hated the design space of rods -- rods are basically just wondrous items that get their own category. I always wished they had more of a niche. I really support the idea of rods being all about modifying spellcasting.

Riftcarver Bow:
I love the powers of this item, but the writing needs a lot of work. In writing game rules, it's very important to be clear and concise. There's a lot of unnecessary text that gets in the way of describing how cool the item is.

I once ran an encounter where the party had to use an experimental potion that granted them the powers of a mimic. When I saw this item, I got really excited, but I think you made the adhesive mechanics a little too complicated when you could have used an existing spell, which would have let you figure a way to give it a bit more original twists. I personally would have played more with the idea of turning into objects.

Monastic Staff:
I love the premise, not the execution. While choosing self-buffs was not a bad idea, I'm disappointed there's no monk spells like ki arrow in this staff.

Raven Leather:
I have to be honest. I'm jealous of the praise for this item, because one of my candidate items was almost just like this--a cloak that turned you into a swarm of ravens that came inspired by an NPC in my campaign. Raven Leather is cool, but it's tragic that it falls short for the same reason I decided not to use my version of it. The armor is essentially a spell-in-a-can that turns you into a monster. It needed a bit more to it than that, even though the writing is very evocative.

The item deserves the praise it got. I'm surprised it did not get into the top 32, but I'd guess it lacks enough meat on its bones. I do like that it avoids the trap that many on-death items have by providing a useful benefit each day. My favorite aspect is the very last line: a dead-man's switch that notifies your next of kin. I'm honestly surprised an item like this does not exist already, especially considering that recovering pathfinders is a common scenario in PFS. Such an item would be a great plot hook.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deadly Agility is better and more balanced.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skinwalkers don't take a -4 penalty to Charisma. Read this again.

While in bestial form, a skinwalker takes a –4 penalty on Charisma and Charisma-based checks when interacting with humanoids that lack the shapechanger subtype.

The text means they take a penalty on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks. They have to use this language because Charisma checks are not skill checks---they're ability checks. Charisma checks are used for things such as charm person and Command Undead. If the author meant the bestial form grants a Charisma penalty, then the text would say "to Charisma" and the penalty would be mentioned in the Ability Score racial trait heading. Additionally, it doesn't make any lick of sense why some heritages would give you Charisma bonuses when you shapeshift despite having a penalty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I didn't see that there was a link there. This site's CSS always trips me up on that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.

Alchemy isn't magic, but the alchemist's alchemy is magic. However, many feats like Arcane Strike and item creation feats only care if you can cast spells, even if the feat itself doesn't have anything to do with casting a spell.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And the class all about making potions still can't make elixirs because he technically doesn't count as a spellcaster for item creation feats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could just reflavor the alchemist. They're already good at throwing improvised weapons. I always wanted to play a dwarven alchemist who's a brewmaster that drinks a specially made strength-augmenting brew and throws exploding bottles of booze at people.

An alchemist archetype might work as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
It's more a hobby right now but I would like to make it a career if I end up being good at it.

For serious learning in game design, I always recommend Art of Game Design: Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell and Fundamentals of Game Design and Advanced Game Mechanics by Ernest Adams. Jesse Schell's a Disney Imagineer and lead designer of Toontown. Ernest Adams is a professor that teaches game design, which is why his books are much more technical and expensive. Game design is kind of like writing narratives. It seems fairly simple at a glance, but it's a subject that requires an ample amount of creative and technical skill.

For writing content for Pathfinder, I recommend just writing new archetypes. Get a feel for what has been done before and find a niche to itch. Like any skill, you get better at it the more you do it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made a thread about this ages ago.

Despite the fact Paizo advertised the Swashbuckler could get easy Dexterity-to-damage in ACG, that feature was added to Slashing Grace as an after thought. They said they would remedy the situation, but all we got was Fencing Grace, which only works for rapiers. We still have the situation where a character can add their Dexterity to battleaxe damage, but not dagger damage.

I'm honestly not sure what the stance of the design team has about this. I thought they were adamant against Dex-to-damage, but then they make Slashing Grace and completely botch it up. Many have been begging them to errata the feat since the release of ACG.

Dreamscarred Press made a really well done version of the feat called Deadly Agility. A nice touch is that Dervish Dance still has a reason to exist.

Deadly Agility (Combat) wrote:

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit(s): You may add your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier when wielding a light weapon or a weapon that gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat (such as the rapier) when determining additional damage inflicted upon a successful attack.

This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is not reduced for off-hand weapons.

Unlike Slashing Grace, it has less feat tax while still preventing gish classes (like kensai magi) from getting it right away. Dex-to-Damage greatly benefits gish classes because it allows them to offset their MAD limitations.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of 5th Edition, but I do have to concede the following things I like about it.

Backgrounds: Backgrounds feel like what Pathfinder traits should have been like.

Feats: I really like how each feat helps encompass a character concept, and having them bigger and more meaningful reduces the bloat. I do wish they had a level progression, though.

Sorcerer and Monk: Both these classes strike me as very well done. It feels natural that the sorcerer is the metamagic master. The monk is designed so you can pick between being a mystical warrior, a ki blaster, or a ninja with shadow powers. I've honestly been tempted to homebrew Pathfinder versions of these.

Skill & Saves: I like how skills and saves are simplified, though I do wish they left more room for customization.

Advantage/Disadvantage (as a concept): I think advantage/disadvantage was really poorly implemented for so many reasons I've listed elsewhere. However, I really like the idea of encapsulating all circumstantial bonuses into one mechanic. I'm implementing a different version of it in my own RPG projects.

Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Cyrad

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This was one of the things I learned from Sean K. Reynolds's advice PDFs. After I read it, I immediately went to my homebrew folder and did all the necessary replacements.

Many word processors will let you program them to automatically certain character combinations with special characters. I set my Google Docs to replace -- with – and -+- with —

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of my opinions remain the same from my first impressions.

However, I do believe that the arcanist is fairly balanced with the wizard and sorcerer. I did the math and found that the arcanist and wizard are fairly on par with one another. Having fewer spell slots than the sorcerer does hurt arcanist. While the arcanist does get cool toys, the wizard can pick them up, too. My only problem with the arcanist is that I think their spellcasting is way too complicated. You have to keep track of three different lists: spells in their spell list, spells they prepared, and how many spells they can cast. That and their resource pool makes them a bookkeeping nightmare.

I always roll my eyes when I see someone complain about "power creep" with ACG. The feat that gives you divine grace is really the only major power increase worth worrying about. And that feat was banned before the book hit the table.

The warpriest still feels like a huge disappointment. They just have way too many class features I don't care about. The sacred fist archetype is the big saving grace

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm developing a class called "artiforged,"* which is what people call half-constructs in my campaign setting. The entire class centers around augmenting one's body with devices. My big design goal is to make artiforged setting neutral so they can fit in most campaign settings. They have a class feature that works similar to a sorcerer bloodline that determines the flavor of their augmentations. For example, there's one where your augmentations are magical devices attached to your body, another where you're "frankensteining" yourself with undead limbs, one where you're mutating yourself with alchemically grown organs, and one where your augmentations are actually symbiotic plants. This way, you can play a cyborg-like character that fits in your GM's campaign setting. Unfortunately, while I finished most of it, I got stumped with a couple of mechanics and had to put the project aside for my Master's thesis and RPG Superstar.

In my campaign, artiforged are rather rare. The only ones the party has seen come from a runari city. Like other runari technology, false limbs are magically enhanced stone with little to no moving parts. Runari artiforged look something like this.

If you're trying to brainstorm some kind of cyborg race, I can picture a race where each member (or the descendants of each member) is like the 6 Million Dollar Man or like Android #17 and #18 from Dragon Ball. At one point, they were a member of a different race, but got "rebuilt" so they're functionally an entirely new race. Maybe there's a racial trait that differs depending on how they were rebuilt. Maybe the only way members of this race can reproduce is by sharding a part of their personality into a new cyborg or by creating a "new version" of themselves.

*I can't decide whether to call them "artiforged" or "artiforge."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Jacobs-Donovan wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

Okay, so that's a vote for not allowing it by the RAW of the Ultimate Campaign rules, that's what I'm asking.... what do people think of THOSE rules...

I for one think breaking the spells known is kinda WTF, but I wanted to see what others thought.

You're absolutely justified to reacting that way. As Sean K Reynold says, spell research is meant to will new spells into existance, not cheat your class limitations. Ultimate Campaign's spell research rules should be FAQ'd, eratta'd, and completely rewritten. They and many other downtime rules were haphazardly made. One should take anything from the downtime rules with a grain of salt and a few shots of Tequila.

I not only allow my players to make their own spells, but I encourage it. My players do many downtime activities. The gunslinger recently built a galleon and commissioned a firearm research and development plant. He's traveling from city to city, searching for artificers to hire and build the most unique magitech guns the Inner Sea has ever seen. I don't use UC's downtime system, but I do the buildings and teams content. Those are pretty well done.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I played a magus that used spell research and had big discussions about the research rules with a friend about them.

Do not use the rules in Ultimate Campaign. As I explained in this thread, the rules were not well thought out and the math completely falls apart beyond the first spell level. A 4th level spell requires over 11k, 28 days, and 56 skill checks that you cannot take 10 on. Whoever wrote these rules obviously did not playtest them at all.

The GameMastery Guide has the best rules for spell research. It does allow a spontaneous caster to create a spell, but it doesn't allow them to cheat their spells known cap. That should be obvious. Spell research is supposed to let you customize your spellcaster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A kitsune has a number of tails equal to the highest spell level they can cast (minimum 1). It's a purely cosmetic change, but my kitsune players absolutely love it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Can I just pop in to mention that this thread has completely failed to go in any direction resembling any of the directions I'd initially intended it to go?

The discussion doesn't really have much to work with. You haven't really provided much clear support for your suggestion. So far, the only arguments to justify ability score requirements I've seen from you are:

1) Hinder munchkins (problem players that use their system mastery to build and play competitively in a non-competitive game at the expense of their fellow gamers' fun).

2) Preserve the integrity of classes.

3) Other editions of D&D do it.

In addition to the numerous reasons why the suggestion is a bad idea that strikes many as loathsome, the fine people of this discussion gave the following rebuttals to the above points.

1) It will do little to hinder munchkins. Even if it did, the problem with munchkins lie with their motivations, not their methods.

2) Class features define a class, not ability scores. So it's better to let the class features decide the minimums, which they do anyway. Class features are highly dependent on ability scores. Some class features (spellcasting, grit, etc) don't work without a minimum ability score. So even for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of classes, enforcing ability score minimums not only makes no sense, but is also redundant at best.

3) Pathfinder is not AD&D, 4th Edition, or 5th Edition. Pathfinder reinforces the idea of using the system to create character concepts with classes as a foundation. This is why Paizo introduced archetypes and hybrid classes and gave many classes talents or features like sorcerer bloodlines. Additionally, other editions had way better reasons to hinder multiclassing or remove it entirely. AD&D's multiclassing worked entirely different from 3rd Edition's. 4th Edition basically removed multiclassing because every class gets all their features at 1st level. 5th Edition centers everything around proficiencies and was deliberately designed for low-level play. As a result, multiclassing is very strong in 5th Edition, which is why the game made it an optional rule with many limitations.

"I'm Hiding In Your Closet," the discussion will obviously stagnate since you haven't provided any good counterarguments to the above rebuttals.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkfire142 wrote:
SO what's your opinion on the Summoner?

It's a class that encourages you to make a background story about your main class feature. That I really love about the class and enables many interesting character concepts.

However, my biggest problem with summoners lies with the fact they're incredibly self-sufficient. They can fulfill the role of a fighter and a wizard at the same time without either of their weaknesses. They can send summons or their immortal eidolon to do risky stuff a monk or a rogue might be tasked to do. They have poor skills, but they can easily make up for it by granting skills to their eidolon or granting evolutions that negate the need for skills altogether. Summoners can fulfill every role at the same time without the risks and sacrifices other classes make. It's incredibly easy for a player to optimize a summoner as a one-man party. For a game all about working as a team, that's a bad thing.

In addition, the eidolon is not only stronger than familiars and animal companions, but also they have none of the risks of possessing a companion. They're immortal. They're hard to kill. And there's little consequence to the summoner if they die. The eidolon comes back the next day. In the meantime, the summoner can use their standard action summon monster SLA.

Overall, I feel the class is flavorful, but broken. When I mean "broken," I mean it's not well designed to the point of running contrary to the game's overall design goals. The summoner is a class unhealthy for a team game. Honestly, I feel like this serves as the core reason why many people don't like summoners, even if they do not explicitly articulate this. I wouldn't necessarily ban the summoner from my campaigns. I only GM for trusted friends that I can count on to make the game fun for everyone.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.
I'm kind of sick of the way the word "fun" is used here and elsewhere. Do you really think I'm against fun? It's like you're accusing me of being the malicious flying blue glove from Yellow Submarine or something. Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game. Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.

The only effective way to stop a powergamer is don't invite them to your table. Pathfinder's a team game meant to be enjoyed with friends and fellow gamers. If a player's behavior comes at the expense of everyone else's fun, they need to leave. Don't play with them for the same reason you wouldn't play with a guy who acts like a competitive prick at any other tabletop game.

Limiting options won't stop someone that powergames the way you describe. Ability score requirements won't hinder them at all unless you make them really prohibitively high.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Surprised at the hostility and complete rejection myself.

We attack the idea, not the person -- though I think Rynjin was jesting. The OP's explicitly said they want to do this to punish players for 1-level dipping. Any house rule designed to make the game less fun will receive very harsh criticism. That should go without saying.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Is it such a terrible idea that a fighter should at least have high-average strength and coordination, or a gunslinger really quick on the draw?

Yes, because there's no good reason to gate classes like that. Why have a minimum Dexterity when a low-DEX character makes for an awful gunslinger anyway? And some classes already have abilities with minimum ability scores to be useful or work at all, like grit and spellcasting. Like I said earlier, it's redundant at best and a punch in the face at worst.

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I think it is an excellent idea, but ninja should have a wis requirement, not int. Although most of their "real-world" work involved cha, pathfinder doesn't really push it that way.

Really? Do me a favor. Look up the ninja class on a PRD. Press CTRL+F on your web browser and type in the word "Wisdom" to see how many times in appears in the ninja's class description. Then do the same for Charisma.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely hated that they added this back to 5th Edition.

The beauty of the game lies with the fact you can play any class a number of different ways. For example, you can play an alchemist as a melee fighter, a blaster, a ranged fighter, a pseudo-caster, or a combination of them. Why ruin that with pointless ability score requirements? Some classes, like spellcasters and swashbucklers, already have ability score requirements for some of their class features.

Pathfinder does a rather good job rewarding characters that don't multiclass. The game already cripples you if you lack the ability scores relevant to your class. As a result, I can't see any good reason to implement ability score requirements. It's redundant at best and a giant punch in the face at worst.

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 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.