|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
Welcome to the forums and to Pathfinder! I'm happy to see a new player feeling ambitious enough to create content for this game. I want to warn you that my critiques can be harsh. However, I do not mean to discourage you. After all, I became an alternate for RPG Superstar when I never played a game of Pathfinder!
1) BAB and HD are linked together. This is "hardcoded" into the game. Any creature type or class with a full BAB has a d10, a 3/4 BAB has d8, and a 1/2 BAB has a d6. There's a lot of good (though complicated) game design reasons why the game works like this.
2) Because of the above point, you have to use other methods to make a class more "squishy." This usually involves armor proficiencies and stat dependencies. Ranged characters are already typically squishy simply because they rely on maxing two ability scores for fighting, have a high Dex that incentivizes wearing light armor,
3) Getting proficiency in all two-handed ranged weapons feels too broad. Technically, there's no such thing as a "two-handed ranged weapon" and many ranged weapons that require two hands to wield can also be wielded one-handed with a penalty. It might be better to list specific types of weapons.
4) This sniping class does not have any ability that uses the sniping rules.
5) Giving them a Stealth bonus makes sense but adding Wisdom modifier to it is way too much.
6) Signature Weapon Mod is my favorite part of the class. However, many of the abilities are way too powerful (like the +2 damage) or unnecessary (like armor piercing because there's already an ability that boosts your attack rolls). It's also very vague how a sniper assigns his "signature weapon."
7) What's the Ambush skill?
8) Why do Sniper Bonus Feats require feats that involve only bows and crossbows? Especially since you gave them proficiency in tons of ranged weapons and the name of some abilities imply you wanted this class to work with firearms.
9) The class gets an unusual amount of defensive abilities, like evasion at 2nd level and the ability to create smoke clouds. I thought this class was supposed to be "squishy?" Shouldn't they have to rely on Stealth to protect themselves? They're a sniper -- force them to snipe to keep safe!
10) Critical Snipe should just give you Improved Critical. A class ability should not change a weapon's criticals unless the ability requires you to wield a very specific type of weapon.
11) Many of the ability DCs are not calculated correctly. The DC for an ability is usually 10 + 1/2 level + ability score modifier. When writing the DCs down, use the full term for the ability score modifier, not an abbreviation. For example, "dc 10+Wis" could be misinterpreted as "10 + Wisdom score."
12) The Shock and Awe line of abilities is pretty cool, but there's numerous issues with it. The biggest one is that it fails the bag of rats test, a common problem with abilities that trigger on an enemy's death/taking damage. You can basically snipe a bunch of very weak creatures like a dogs and then cause massive hysteria. You can pretty much auto-win every fight by having your party carry around bags of bunnies or kittens. Also, at this point in the game, the sniper will be highest damage-dealing character in the party. Does he really need an at-will AoE crowd control effect? It might be better and cooler to give him a once per day death attack that shakens nearby enemies.
13) The class overall feels very narrow and niche. This feels more like a character concept than an actual class. It might be better as an archetype to the rogue or slayer.
14) I want to end my critique by making something very clear: designing classes is hard. Really hard. So hard that even professional game designers can screw it up. That's why Pathfinder has many ways to build and design concepts without having to use a whole new class. Archetypes and alternate classes are a good example of this.
Those are reasons not to play the class?
I struggle with the class because it's utterly annoying to build a character with. Many of its game mechanics are needlessly complicated. Wild talents are poorly organized. There's multiple types of talents with game mechanics that interact with some types but not others. There's annoying bookkeeping in managing burn and keeping track of how much all your infusions cost since you have to utilize multiple abilities for reducing burn costs.
It's no wonder it took me hours to create a high level kinectist as an NPC.
These are some awesome suggestions. Especially by DominusMegadeus. I'm trying to embrace the fun big stakes stuff in high level play.
In my campaign, each of Razmir's Visions has a title and runs some aspect of his nation or represents an advising council of some subject. The three most feared Visions are the Vision of War (commander-in-chief of Razmir's military), the Vision of Arcana (Razmir's head mage), and the Vision of Faith (the head of Razmir's church). These three are Razmir's closest advisers. So far, the party has only indirectly interacted with the Vision of Arcana, who fought them using dominated followers, simulacrums, or constructs as a proxy.
The party that killed the goddess consisted of six people. I haven't totally figured out all of their classes, but I decided they should have a cleric and a monk at the very least. They might have a wizard and/or maybe a psychic class like a mesmerist. The monk was the one that dealt the killing blow on the goddess. Still-living members of the party are probably around 16th-17th level by now.
One of the six currently has their soul trapped inside of a soul gem. This is actually how the party found out about Razmir's secret -- this man has Razmir's face. During the battle that resulted in the goddess's death, the goddess disintegrated one of the evil adventurers and trapped his soul into a gem. The evil party wasn't aware of the second component of this spell and assumed the goddess had utterly destroyed their companion. The PCs saw a vision of the events that led up to the goddess's death and were rather shocked to see that "Razmir" not only did not kill the goddess but also did not survive the fight. After the goddess was reborn, she took the soul gem and interrogated the contained spirit, who never heard of Razmir and seemed completely oblivious that his face serves as the symbol of an religion and nation.
At the moment, the PCs doesn't feel any pressing desire to go on the offensive. The goddess is patient and prefers to build up her avatar's power and conduct investigation of the party that killed her before making her move. While she has godly powers, she's considerably weaker than she was prior to her death. This works in Razmir's advantage as he has time to plan.
Red Mantis assassins might not be a good idea. Not only are they extremely costly, but also if they catch wind of Razmir's ruse, they could just as easily turn on him.
Throughout my 3-year campaign, Razmiri faithful have proven their mantle as villains. Now almost 15th level, my players have recently completed a long adventure to procure a dangerous artifact before Razmiran does and used the artifact to resurrect a (potentially evil) dead god, who revealed a rather scandalous secret about Razmir. The question is, what would Razmir's next move be?
After several adventures where the party thwarted evil plans of Razmir's faithful and even stopped a Razmiri invasion of Sevenarches, the god tasked the party with uniting three pieces of a dangerous artifact (Gluttonous Tome) in order to resurrect her. Razmir became aware of this and sent armies and assassins to beat them to the punch, but the party ultimately succeeded.
When the god was resurrected in a weakened child form, she revealed information that suggests Razmir may not actually exist and that he may just be a false figurehead created by a party of adventuring conmen that have now grown old and powerful -- the real people who killed the demigod in the first place.
The god that Razmir supposedly killed is now resurrected. The party now believes they know some of Razmir's darkest secrets. The gluttonous tome used to resurrect her is now locked up in Andoran's capital. Attempts to kill the party with military force and demonize the party politically have failed. The resurrected god is now biding her time to allow her weakened avatar to gain strength before enacting her revenge. Razmir is aware of all of this.
Now, I need to figure out what exactly would he do.