|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Let me get this straight.
For years, gauntlets have been treated as weapons, which has been used as justification why the monk needs an amulet of mighty fists. Though the text implies gauntlets might not be weapons, it's nonetheless listed as a weapon. Nothing in the CRB says you can't masterwork or enhance gauntlets. Items and class features have been published with this assumption.
Then out of no where, a Paizo representative says that gauntlets are actually items that modify your unarmed strikes, not weapons themselves?
It feels like there's some oversights with this talent considering that:
1) It doesn't tell you what level of a rogue you count as. A lot of content accidentally forgets important information like this. So whenever an ability doesn't say something, it always raises the question whether or not it was intentional or the designer forgot to include it.
2) Many rogue talents have level prerequisites and require other rogue talents.
3) Other classes (like investigators and slayers) can select multiple rogue talents.
4) Vigilante talents are generally better than rogue talents, so even though this talent expands your choices, every vigilante talent sacrificed for a rogue talent is a bad exchange.
Related to the Teisatsu, which feels weird that you get a ki pool but can only get two abilities to use ki.
I like the potion thing. I've used made up healing items that work like potions before to to make up for not having a healer back in 3.5. I don't think its a huge problem as long as you take measures. whats some other selling points for wands?
Wands are gone from my game. I wanted to redesign wands for some other purpose, but I haven't decided. Ideas included:
1) Having wands grant an enhancement bonus to spell DCs of a certain selection of spells. I like this one the most, but I can't bring myself to give this significant of a buff to spellcasters.
2) The wand allows a caster to spontaneously cast a spell stored in the wand by sacrificing a spell slot or prepared spell.
3) The wand works like a weaker staff that has only one spell.
I think the kasatha race would be fine if you just:
1) Remove the extra attacks from multiarms
Mitt Ticulous wrote:
If I implied this was something players would buy, I hadn't meant it. I intend this as something that would come default with a race that has four arms.
You did not understand what I meant. I was saying that you can't just balance a race by slapping a trait with a high RP penalty on it. Race design doesn't work that way.
I was making the point that it's bad design to use a racial weakness trait as a clutch to balance an overpowered trait because 99% of racial weakness traits are situational. If the player uses a build where the drawback is irrelevant, then it's not a drawback. A drawback that is little or no hindrance to a character is not a drawback.
Mitt Ticulous wrote:
What I meant by actions to draw an item as taking "one step longer" is where normally it's a move action to draw a weapon (if you aren't drawing it as a free action as part of a move at +1 BAB) or to retrieve a stored item from a backpack, for this race it's a standard action that provokes. If a character takes the quick draw feat, then it's a move action. I admit I didn't write this through as clearly as I could have. Whether or not free actions can be taken as swift actions without breaking the internal logic is one sticking point I haven't ironed out yet.
As Ciaran Barnes pointed out, we kinda know what you mean. However, you can't be loosey goosey with how you write rules. Especially in this case as not every action type has a "greater or less than" relationship with other action types. You have to be specific. For example, as you mentioned, it raises a question how this penalty would affect drawing weapons while moving. It's a badly written ability.
You have to be very conservative with RP penalties because players don't "buy" racial traits. They buy the whole race as a package, meaning, they can simply choose a build that won't penalize them. A smart designer once said, "A disadvantage that is not a disadvantage is worth no points."
I once designed and played a four-armed race for 2 years. A smarter approach to balancing the extra arms is saying that the extra arms do not increase your number of attacks. The arms would still be incredibly useful, but not to the extreme of giving a 1st level character 4 attacks per round. If the player REALLY wants those extra attacks, then offer the ability as a high level feat -- at least 12th level since the extra attacks would be less powerful at that point in the game.
Amanuensis hits the nail on the head. Great class features create gameplay by facilitating meaningful choices. There's very little meaningful choice involved with an ability that's always useful and has no limitation.
Since you don't want to have limited uses, then you will need to create a game mechanic that either requires action economy or requires a circumstance or risky maneuver to work. The slayer's Studied Combat (use move action to gain a buff) and Ultimate Psionics's psionic focus mechanic (spend action to gain a resource, expend resource to perform special ability) are great examples of the former. Amanuensis already mentioned a good example of the latter (rogue's sneak attack).
I know it's difficult to come up with a good mechanic. This is why the core class feature mechanic is the first thing I design when creating a class.
The oracle in my campaign would like some non-evil spells related to undead. I have no interest in simply removing the evil descriptor from the animate dead spell since I totally agree with the flavor why it's an evil spell. So, I made an undead-themed version of the planar ally spells, which I think would create more fun roleplaying opportunities.
dinging them for it isn't really an issue - they're next spending opportunity is between books 5&6 of WotR, so they're lvl 18 MT9 - they're loaded! but when we've decided for this campaign it'd be good to be able to use it for future campaigns
That's what I figured. If the PCs are using a portable hole, then they're probably high enough level where 3.6k is no big deal.
My players wanted a portable hole for YEARS and kept daydreaming things they wanted to do with it. When they finally found one, they never used it.
When I was six years old, I wrote to SEGA saying they should make a game with gameplay revolving around Sonic the Hedgehog rescuing animals from robotification. SEGA responded by making me sign a contract. A few years later, Sonic 3D Blast was released. Yet, I wasn't in the game's credits. What gives, SEGA?!
The design decisions here don't make any sense to me.
You give them two abilities that screws with the way they receive saving throw bonuses when you could have just given them two saves. "Secondary Save" already gives them three good saves in a really roundabout way.
You give them an overpowered skill boost class feature that's better than the class features that skill monkey classes usually get. Yet, they still have 2+Int skill points.
All of it feels backwards and overcomplicated.
The class is actually kind of broken in that you obviously did not audit the eidolon powers to see whether or not they're balanced to put on a PC. As is, you can start a 1st level character having pounce, which isn't something feasibly available to PCs until much later levels. Worse is that you can actually give pounce to OTHER characters later! You also give at-will flight at 5th level, which is at least 3 or 4 levels before any other character usually can.
Another problem with the class is that its scope is way too low. There simply aren't many class features. You put some effort into some that it has, but there simply isn't enough.
I'm also not a fan of the class skill list. The class has Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana), and Use Magic Device, but it's not a magical class. It doesn't even have supernatural abilities (and if they do, you should label them as such).
Also, I don't understand why you made two economies with essence and alterations. I'm guessing to make the player have to decide between having a larger pool to use extra abilities or having more alterations? I don't like that at all. You're trying to give some customization and choice, but you end up just making the player feel like they're being punished for using the class features the way they should. It would have been better just to have essence be totally separate from alterations.
hey - I'm the GM - they're looking for something to convert all coins to their equivalent worth in platinum/gold - so you put 1000 copper or 100 silver or 10 gold in, you get 1 platinum
I'd just say it costs 3600 gp to add that ability to the portable hole. That's the price of an at-will 1st level spell effect.If you don't want to ding them for it, then maybe have them do a favor for an NPC that will do it for them.
2: This is a really bad idea because it screws with the math of the game in a subtle way that can have a significant impact. The entire game assumes you round down, because it's a golden rule to the game. Plus, it'll confuse players.
3: None of this really sounds necessary to include.
4: So the rogue can use Disable Device on hazards, ambushes, and haunts?
6: I'm not a fan of this rule. One of the big reasons you would want a transparency rule is to keep things simple. This rule does the opposite and makes everything complicated for virtually no reason.
7: So the 4th Edition method of critical hits? The ones that made crits boring? Plus, this screws over weapons with high modifier. Also, why even confirm critical hits if they dont do more damage than a normal hit?
8: Maybe consider my firearm houserules? There's a link to it in my profile. Also, what does the last line mean? Does that mean you can get a free Precise Aim when using pistols?
10: Wait, so you're using a different skills system? Why hasn't this been mentioned anywhere? Why do you say you get extra background skills before you actually say you get background skills at all?
12: Not sure it's a good idea to give Stamina to all characters..
13: So critical hits are so overpowered that you have to nerf them, but you added skill criticals and skill fumbles, which could potentially unbalance the game even more?
14: What are you trying to accomplish with this rule? It's not a good rule because A) you don't actually explain what injuries do to the character, only that they get them. And B) the rule requires the players to always have a reference table on hand whenever they take damage. You might want to consider that one supplement that replaces critical hit damage with special effects (I forget its name).
The RP costs are off. This is a fairly strong race, but I think it's fairly balanced overall.
Strong Arms: This is a really awkward racial trait and difficult to word. To quote Mike Selinker, "Don't write rules that cannot be written." Rewrite it as something like, "Bulis have proficiency in bastard swords and other similar exotic weapons that can be wielded in two hands as a martial weapon."
Brain Over Brawn: Just give them Intimidating Prowess as a bonus feat.
Human Blood: Change this to "Buli have a human heritage and are humanoids with the human subtype."
Born to Serve: Change this to "Buli are bred for being mentally controlled and have a -2 penalty on saving throws against mind-affecting effects."
Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:
The difference is that hybrid classes were intentionally designed with their parent classes in mind. Some hybrid classes have primary classes that are literally just the two parent classes's primary class features meshed together.
It honestly might be best to flavor it since it's really vague how the Blue Mage actually works in Final Fantasy games.
Though, I am designing a class that has a "spell thief" ability where they steal essence from a spellcaster and add a spell that caster knows to their spell list and list of spells known.
One of the reasons the race builder's RP costs aren't a good metric is because you can't equate a race's power through numbers alone. If you're only focusing on the RP costs, you're doing it wrong. Even the race building guidelines points this out. It's not a substitute for race design skill.
Again, I agree with Ciaran Barnes in that you can just use the kitsune as a base and swap out some traits. That's a much better approach than trying to figure out all the RP costs of each ability.
Good points. Perhaps I should make them ruse spells that fool onlookers into thinking you're casting true strike or a self-buff spell? The subschool thing is definitely a mistake. I should either make it an illusion (shadow) spell or an illusion (glamer) spell with the shadow descriptor. I want to keep shadow as part of the technique since the goddess is one of shadow and mystery
A demigoddess in my campaign uses a technique called Shadow Iaijitsu that combines quick reflexes and illusory magic to strike so fast that an opponent never even notices you drawn your blade. The goddess mastered this technique to a degree where victims don't realize they've been mortally wounded after long after she dealt a killing blow to them.
After becoming the goddess's herald and loving shadow iaijitsu, the magus in my campaign now wants to learn this technique. So I must figure out how it works.
So what do you think of my initial draft? There's a lot of ways this ability could be implemented, but I decided to try making them spells.
Game design is an iterative process, and generally when someone posts work in this forum, it's expected that the individual is looking for opinions and suggestions to improve the content. Otherwise, little conversation comes out of it. There's little discussion in a thread where a designer posts something and does nothing but try to convince everyone's negative opinions about it are wrong while leaving no room to explore ways to improve the work.
And I'm with nate lange. I'm not convinced about the design decisions behind the work here. The archetype has a lot of design flaws, and jumbling Aldori swordlord lore into Kyonin elven culture feels contrived regardless of how much you try to justify it.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
If instead of the Dueling Sword I was talking about a feat like ability, your point of view would be that a feat that originated in Brevoy could not be learned Kyonin do to knowledge spread?
Largely the same. While it's plausible an elf might learn the ways of an Aldori swordlord, it doesn't make any sense for Kyonin to integrate Brevoy culture. Razmiran and the River Kingdoms stand between Greengold and Brevoy -- that's essentially an entire continent. The river kingdom that borders Kyonin completely forbids any elf from enter. Plus, Brevoy has only been around for about 200 years.That's barely one generation for elf culture. Plus, elf culture tends to stay firmly rooted in tradition, so integrating Aldori is totally farfetched. Also, when someone thinks of an archetype or feat that has to do with elf culture, they expect something that's deeply rooted in elf tradition that has been around for more than a thousand years.
I'm not sure what other feedback I can provide. You seem fairly content with the current iteration of your archetype, and seem more interested in telling irrelevant anecdotes about you playing in your friend's campaign.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.