|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm surprised I never mentioned Ultimate Combat firearms when I wrote an article about them. I don't think it was a good idea to build upon Inner Sea World Guide's gimmicky Alkenstar guns. It would have been better just to make firearms be like a short range crossbow with a Dexterity rating like composite bows. Making a weapon so broken that it has to be locked behind an entire class just feels like a punch in the face.
1. Weapon Finesse. It never should have been a feat. Pretty much every modern fantasy game now makes this an innate feature.
2. Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace. These feats are a miscarriage of game design. Replace them with something like my Deadly Finesse feat, which is more accessible, more balanced, and doesn't require an FAQ to explain how it works.
3. Leadership. The feat is infamously flawed, and yet there's so much expanded material for it that can fill an entire book. I'd completely rewrite it. Maybe as a class feature for a new class. Maybe I could write an optional system for giving out narrative-driven boons. For example, at 10th level, characters get a choice of gaining a group of followers, a cohort, a keep, etc.
I'd add Eldritch Archer and Eldritch Scion to this, but I'd need a time machine to stop these from getting published at all and polluting a design space in a way that prevents players from getting a Charisma-based magus that's not a giant mechanical mess or a broken ranged magus designed by someone who doesn't understand how the class is balanced.
The race has the same problem I have with almost all content that has to do with runes - the runes servce no purpose or meaning beyond just making the magic item, race, or whatever feel magical. It's a cliche. Runes aren't just cool-looking symbols -- it's language. What does it mean? Why does the race have a connection to them? How has this affected their culture, philosophies, and language? There's no explanation of this. They're just people with funny-looking symbols floating around their heads. A shame because that actually sounds kind of cool and makes me think of the dabus from Planescape.
Maybe look at my runari race for ideas? I wrote this race partially because I love runes, but hate how it's become a pointless cliche. For a runari, a rune represents elegance of language and transparency of information. They put runes on their magical items so those that study and use the items can learn how its magic works. Sharing information is a virtue.
That's such a cool idea for an archetype that I wrote one inspired by yours!
I don't think it's that bad. Definitely not as bad as Elminster.
I think it's mostly the case that the lore expanded to explain that the multiverse goes through iterations, and Pharasma is one of the few beings older than the current version of the multiverse. The lore behind Groetus completely hinges on this because people worship Groetus on the hope that the god will give his worshiper special treatment in the next version of the multiverse. i wouldn't really call her a Mary Sue for being older.
I never experienced the issue with too many books.
All of the new books encapsulate a concept for specific types of campaigns. You're not going to use the Intrigue book if you're not running a primarily urban campaign. You're not going to use the Horror and Occult books if you're not playing a horror campaign or a campaign that has psychic magic.
The GM accidentally caused a TPK when he had Sarenrae intervene in attempt to save the life of a player's self-insert Mary Sue who expected to be treated as heroic and noble despite being deceitful and arrogant.
There was also a player who thought it would be cool if he was a werewolf. He wanted to divert all attention to himself in a big dramatic show where he'd turn into a werewolf as a big revelation in front of everyone at a big dinner party and then leap out the window and run off into the woods. Instead, I drew my sword and prevented his escape so the guards could bound him in chains. In addition, he forgot that the dinner party took place on the third floor of the castle. Oops.
The cycle of rushing out poorly designed content and gutting it in errata is unhealthy for the game and disrespectful to customers.
I sympthasize with the design team and freelancers for working under tough deadlines, but there's no finesse in handling the erratas and often they make the content even more confusing. Slashing Grace is an excellent example of this. The errata needed an FAQ to explain how it works, and the change was a larger nerf to the (arguably underpowered) class the feat was designed for than to classes the nerf was intended for.
Thankfully, I think the releases after ACG were great improvements, with some exception (lookin' at you brute vigilante).
The same principle I described above about fighters also applies to spellcasting. You're making the faulty assumption that every race and culture should cast spells in the exact same way.
That argument doesn't hold any water. Races learn to fight with respect to their strengths and weaknesses. Their armies will differ accordingly and use different strategies.
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
At my player's request, I added a gunblade quality and created new runeguns: the runic edge caster (scimitar), runic edge viper (dagger), runic kenshi (katana), and runic buster (greatsword).
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.