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. Pathfinder Society Member. 891 posts (1,058 including aliases). 6 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 891 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aye, but I still think the gunslinger should have been given more fun deeds. Most of the deeds are not very exciting, especially the ones later in the game. I would have liked to see more deeds about doing dramatic, actiony stuff aside from just shooting things. Also, when you nerf firearms, it becomes harder to justify them being a gunslinger-only thing. And because of poor design choices with the gunslinger coupled with Pathfinder encouraging specializing in one weapon, a gunslinger cannot really be the "master of arms" kind of guy that uses a variety of firearms to adapt to different situations. This was the biggest disappointment my gunslinger player had with the class.

I do ponder the idea of making penetration be a gunslinger deed instead of an inherent property of firearms.

Instead of Vigor giving you AC, what if it gave you temporary hitpoints? But I guess it's the same as hitpoints except you have to commit an action. I agree with others that you need to ask yourself what purpose the mechanic will serve. Adding a complex mechanic for its own sake is foolishness. The entire point of hitpoints is that it's an easy way to see how much fight someone has left.

I like the interpretation that the enemy is making glancing blows on you all through the fight, wearing you down until finally succumbing to a mortal wound.

I don't like classes with limited options. I like having a lot of tools at my disposal. As a result, I like gish classes, but tend to avoid martials, except for the monk and a few classes from ACG.

Zalman wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.
Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.

I made a bard that gives a rousing speech when he performs. Rather than talking in the middle of battle, he simply give the speech at the start and the supernatural power of his speech continues to resonate in the hearts of his comrades until he chooses to "end" the "performance." It works pretty well, considering every movie with pre-modern war scenes has a hero give a speech before a climatic battle.

Ssalarn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Werebat wrote:

What if a GM were to house rule that guns didn't have any misfire or jam chance, but also lost the touch attack at close range mechanic?

Would Gunslingers become a class that no one wanted to play?

You'd have a class that would essentially become a crippled fighter who pays 1 (or is it 10 gps) per swing.

There would also be absolutely no reason to bring guns into the setting in the first place. They'd be laughable weapons compared to swords, bows, and crossbows, as they bring no advantage into combat but remain cost heavy weapons to use.

That's not even a little bit true. Gunslinger's would still have better skills, good light armor AC, an array of unique weapons with useful options, and a variety of useful deeds. Firearms would still be the only weapon capable of dealing with swarms, their alchemical cartridges provide great options at levels prior to where magical options are readily available... Basically the list goes on. Campaign settings like the absolutely amazing Thunderscape toss Pathfinder's poorly designed firearm system out the window entirely and treat firearms much like any other weapon and it works very well, with far fewer issues than the core options.

While I agree with you that guns have more interesting options, I do agree with LazarX that taking away penetration basically makes them inferior to crossbows, a weapon designed to be the inferior counterpart to bows. While firearms do have some cool options that bows don't have, I feel Ultimate Combat only goes halfway with that. The gunslinger feels like a fighter that trades armor and bonus feats for a few cute abilities that a player rarely uses because he'd rather save his grit for negating misfires.

In my games, I use the term "flat-footed" to mean when you're denied your Dexterity bonus to AC rather than a simply a condition that occurs at the start of combat. In other words, I replace the text "denied Dexterity bonus to AC" with "flat-footed."

I would personally extend the +2 bonus an attacker receives for being invisible to also apply to all forms of total concealment.

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Why not go the other way? Give character a bonus to saves if they are at > 75% HP.

This avoids the "death spiral" and makes it harder for casters to wreck an encounter with an opening SoD spell.

I think this is a fairly clever idea. It's also easier to remember bonuses than penalities, in my opinon.

Werebat wrote:

I actually can dig the idea if giving guns the Dex bonus to damage as an inherent property, rather than a gunslinger ability. As a means of offsetting the loss of the obnoxious ranged touch attack mechanic. In conjunction with just getting rid of misfires as well.

In my current campaign the gunslinger seems to crit at least once a combat but in two years of playing his gun has jammed maybe twice. I am... suspicious of the usefulness of this jam mechanic when it comes to balancing anything.

Misfire mechanic is entirely luck-based. It's no hindrance if you have good luck. However, the gunslinger in my game suffers misfires at least twice every combat. His luck is so terrible that I houseruled using Quick Clear by spending a grit point is a swift action instead of a move action. His crits are devastating and frequently ended combats between levels 5 and 7. However, they stopped being immediate combat-enders around level 8 where he started encountering enemies with more than 100 health.

I bought a new set of dice at a convention where I played in a PFS game. I rolled three consecutive misfires. Never used those dice again, except when I'm DMing and want the bad guys to roll poorly. A guy at the convention said I should have demanded a refund from the vendor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Law/Chaos is poorly named. It's more so about whether you have liberal or conservative mind set. A lawful person prefers structure and discipline whereas a chaotic person see structure as hindering restraints. Having meant many people of different ends of the spectrum, I honestly feel there exists truth to this, though obviously not so polarizing as the game presents it. Even societies and culture can go either way. Some cultures place a high value on tradition and loyalty while others encourage shrugging off tradition in favor of advancing personal ambition.

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

I think it can work, but you must be mindful what kind of effect this has on the game. I have the following recommendations:

1) Keep it simple.

2) Somehow give melee martials resistance or immunity to it.

3) Alter dying and death rules.

I'd probably do a system where every character has a "bloodied" value that is a percentage of their maximum hitpoints. This percentage is lower the higher class Hit Dice the character has (in other words, a fighter will have a low bloodied value). The character takes penalties when under this bloodied value.

I've done something similar with Profession (sailor) to enable a ship captain to analyze a ship's position to determine if it is moving in a hostile way or identify the combat-worthiness of a ship. The captain seems to enjoy having the skill do something other than driving.

I'm not really sure how someone would run this, but I get the idea. Leveraging the power level of a characters race choices greatly intrigued me about Shadowrun. It could work for Pathfinder, but the issue is that your race choice in Pathfinder has less value the higher level you are. A shadowrun race, however, plays a large role in how your character scales. I also don't really like how the point buy pool and skills scale with the tiers.

I like what you're going for, but it needs some tweaking. I played around with a similar system for adapting my classless RPG to Pathfinder rules.

1) Denying a multiple targets a round of safe movement is a disable. Do not treat the conditions section as a comprehensive list of every disable or status effect in the entire game. It's merely a list of common effects for the convenience of designers not having to reinvent the wheel. There exists many effects that no GM would deny as disables that are absent from that list, such as confusion and curses.

2) My version of Audacious Charge staggers a single enemy, who gets a save, and requires a successful charge attack. Your version does not require a successful attack and instantly disables all adjacent enemies with no save. Even on a single target, it's stronger than comparable abilities of that level, like the Step Up feat. Stagger also implies the character so audaciously charges the foe that it staggers them. There's no implication of this with your draft. No one would even understand it unless they played League of Legends.

3) Limiting Three-Talon Strike to melee attacks is not an artificial restriction. Most on-hit abilities in the game (especially ones for the cavalier) only work for melee attacks because it requires the combatant to take some risk, which creates engaging gameplay. Ranged fighters can full attack with ease and safety, and giving them an almost at-will ability to knock targets prone with no save from +100 feet away is very powerful, even for a 15th level ability. You can't compare this to a 1st level spell that allows a save and can easily be bypassed by high level creatures. It also doesn't make much sense to enable non-risky characters to use this ability was meant to model Xin Zhao, a character that's all about jumping into battle with reckless abandon.

4) Prone is a powerful condition because it forces them to either waste a move action and provoke an attack of opportunity or suffer hefty defensive and offensive penalties. Larger creatures are supposed to be inherently more resistant to effects that knock them down or reposition them, which is why most effects that bypass the tripping mechanic give bonuses to larger creatures.

210) Your eidolon is an imaginary friend that turned out to be real.

211) Your eidolon is a physical representation of your imagination, desires, and darkest fears.

212) Your eidolon is a marvelous invention you created during one hazy drunken night. Now you spend your every waking hour trying to figure out how it works.

213) Your eidolon is an ancestor from a distance past.

214) Your eidolon is a reflection of yourself from another life.

215) Your eidolon is the spirit of a loved one tied to an item you own.

216) Maybe your eidolon is yourself from the future, who gives cryptic information about events yet to come.

217) Your eidolon is the spirit of a haunted deck of cards that lets you materialize the cards into monsters.

218) Your eidolon is a magical genie you were forced to marry as a result of drawing The Marriage from the Harrow Deck of Many Things.

219) You are the eidolon, using a mortal avatar when you choose not to grace the world with your presence.

220) Your beautiful mermaid eidolon is, in fact, an erotic fantasy come to life that you're quite ashamed of. At least she's quite excellent at keeping you safe.

221) You're an artist whose drawings come to life.

222) Your eidolon is the spirit of someone you murdered during your rogueish youth. Now you must atone by having them as your ally, despite them passive aggressively leading you to harm.

223) You don't actually believe your eidolon exists. You believe they are merely a figment of your imagination, and worry constantly that your madness is spreading to other people.

224) You believe the eidolon does not actually exist. When you summon them, you experience as though you're the one performing its actions. These people that witness some monster are clearly out of their mind.

225) You pretend your eidolon doesn't exist. You never speak of it, even when it clearly exists. When someone claims it does, you deny it and say they're out of their mind.

Overall, this system does not accomplish any of your design goals, as explained in detail in the posts above by Odraude, myself, and others.

Headfirst wrote:
The goal of this system [is] to create a simple system that encourages and rewards teamwork while simultaneously making it easier for DMs to run basic encounters.

1) It is not simple because it introduces meta concepts to the game. In addition, the system has at least three different save DCs to memorize, all of which the players and GM will likely forget. It takes an idea easily handled through roleplaying or arbitrated by ad hoc Intimidate/Bluff/Diplomacy checks and makes it more complicated.

2) It does not encourage tactical teamwork, but instead encourages players to game the system. As Odraude elaborated, the system forces enemies to use completely illogical tactics that go against even an animal's basic survival instincts. When enemies stop behaving in believable ways, players have to start approaching scenarios from a meta perspective rather than from the perspective of an actual person in the game world. As a result, it encourages players to game the system rather than use sensible teamwork tactics.

3) It does not reward teamwork, because good teamwork should have its own rewards. Adding extrinsic rewards can often undermine the intrinsic value for a given activity. A plethora of psychological studies exist on this subject. Again, it simply encourages players to game or break the system instead.

4) It is not easy for the GM because he has to roll every time to figure out who an enemy will target, effectively doubling his amount of work per round. It also encourages players to frequently manipulate the initiative order, which gives the GM headaches. For a GM that desires an easy-to-run encounter, this system provides little to no advantage over having monsters do the logical (albeit simplistic) tactic of attacking the nearest immediate threat.

Headfirst wrote:
To reiterate: This aggro system isn't intended to dictate what a monster does, just who it targets.

What a monster does depends entirely on who he targets. Therefore, the system does dictate a monster's actions.

Headfirst wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
One of my most glorious moments in Pathfinder was when I saved a comrade's life by taunting a demon into attacking me instead of finishing off a wounded ally. "Don't hit her, hit me instead!" I said, "Wouldn't you rather she witness the horror of seeing her best friend suffer before she dies?" I then took a critical hit to the gut, but both of us survived.
So you found it more rewarding that the DM gave you a freebie than it would have been if you'd beaten the demon on a skill roll?

The GM and I roleplayed -- ya know, the thing you're supposed to do in a roleplaying game. The result was I took a critical hit to the gut, but ended up saving my ally's life in the process. How is that a "freebie?"

Headfirst wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Would it have been as awesome and memorable if I said "I use an immediate action to mark him and make an Intimidate check to persuade him to hit me instead."?
Nothing about the existence of an aggro system prevents you from role-playing the situation out in a way that feels epic.

Except for the fact that adding arbitrary extrinsic rewards can undermine the intrinsic value of activities and adding unnecessary meta concepts can distract from roleplaying due to weakening the immersive quality of the experience. Therefore, an abstract aggro system can undermine roleplaying and the epic feel of it. I explained this in my previous post.

Also, by your system, the demon would have attacked my friend because she was the last individual to attack the demon. In-character, she rather have taken the hit. Sure, I could have still done the roleplaying and not follow your system exactly. If that's the case, what's the point of the system in the first place? If the GM needed a roll to determine his arbitration, he would have called for an ad hoc Intimidate check and call it a day. Rules regarding meta concepts like "marks" and requiring a move action simply to taunt someone would be completely unnecessary.

At best, the aggro system adds nothing to the game that couldn't be accomplished already through roleplaying or existing mechanics. At worst, the system undermines the experience and removes GM agency. That's my point.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Audiacious Charge is way too good. Denying all retreat options from everyone within reach is way too much, esepcially when the cavalier doesn't have to successfully hit any of them. There's also no fluff reason for why this happens to all of them.
They can still move, they simply provoke for it. Or they stand and fight, in which case they are hardly hampered. I also don't understand why you think there's no fluff reason, Xin slows everyone next to his charge target. I can agree that this should perhaps scale from charge target to everyone within reach at a later level however.

This is a tabletop RPG, not a video game. How is the cavalier disabling enemies from running away, especially when he hasn't even made a successful attack? Also, this appears significantly more powerful than comparable abilities a character could achieve at this level, like Step Up. When an ability enables a character to disable multiple enemies while granting no save and not actually doing anything to them, that's a sign of a fairly broken ability. I think something like "When the cavalier succeeds on a charge attack against a creature, the target must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 cavalier level + Str modifier) or become staggered for one round. A creature subject to the cavalier's challenge receives a -2 penalty on this saving throw." This would still be a very good ability that synergies extremely well with Step Up and similar abilities.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Three-Talon Strike feels too open-ended and yet too restrictive all at once.
Why shouldn't it apply to ranged attacks? A size limitation would make it useless at level 15. I can agree that the 3 attacks should count off from the same round however, if not the same full attack.

This would be insane for ranged builds, which are already very powerful, even for a 15th level ability. It also doesn't fit the cavalier nor the theme of mimicking the ability after Xin Zhao, a character that only fights with a spear. I'm also very wary of abilities that can drop someone prone that's 16 times their size.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
By the way, don't capitalize the class name and order in the text.
An strange stylistic choice to pick up on. I like the visibility capitalization adds.

I'm referring to Pathfinder's formatting style. Pathfinder does not capitalize the names of classes and other mechanics in its text descriptions, with some exceptions like size categories, range classifications, feat names, and skills. I usually don't point these out because this is homebrew, not RPG Superstar. However, I'm making an exception because you capitalize the class and order in some parts of the text, but not others. If you're going to deviate from the style, then at least do so consistently.

I'd like to throw my hat into the ring here.

Tanking and aggro mechanics exist in video games, because players lack the kind of agency a tabletop RPG grants. In Pathfinder, a player can draw attention simply by looking and acting like the scariest guy on the battlefield or by verbally taunting enemies. Players cannot do that in video games unless the game explicitly grants the ability to do so. So it feels very backwards to implement aggro mechanics in a GM'd tabletop RPG when the entire point of aggro mechanics is to model what players can do in a GM'd tabletop RPG but not in a video game.

This system has other problems. Psychological research has indicated that granting extrinsic rewards can reduce intrinsic rewards. You do not really need a complicated system of aggression to reward teamwork. Exhibiting teamwork has its own rewards. It develops character bonds, advances the story, helps keeps party members alive, and enables characters to accomplish deeds they cannot do alone. Adding meta concepts like "marks" can break immersion and distract players from thinking about scenarios as though they were characters in the game world. Mechanics like this could benefit games to help simulate the kind of area control a combatant would have, but flanking and attacks of opportunity already accomplish this fairly well.

One of my most glorious moments in Pathfinder was when I saved a comrade's life by taunting a demon into attacking me instead of finishing off a wounded ally. "Don't hit her, hit me instead!" I said, "Wouldn't you rather she witness the horror of seeing her best friend suffer before she dies?" I then took a critical hit to the gut, but both of us survived. Would it have been as awesome and memorable if I said "I use an immediate action to mark him and make an Intimidate check to persuade him to hit me instead."?

Ah, Xin Zhao, the champion that almost made me quit League of Legends.

Audiacious Charge is way too good. Denying all retreat options from everyone within reach is way too much, esepcially when the cavalier doesn't have to successfully hit any of them. There's also no fluff reason for why this happens to all of them.

Crescent Sweep giving Whirlwind Attack is cool, but I think the bull rush attack is too much, especially when 1) he's getting a bunch of defensive bonuses from it and 2) the calavier has the power to substitute Whirlwind melee attacks with bull rush attempts anyway, 3) it'll probably be annoying for everyone at the table for the calavier to have to roll against each opponent TWICE. I would simply give him Whirlwind Attack as a bonus feat and maybe grant him the benefits of Improved Bullrush for the attack or defensive bonuses.

Three-Talon Strike feels too open-ended and yet too restrictive all at once. It's too restrictive because it only works on three consecutive hits on a challenge target. It's too open-ended becasue it allows the cavalier to use ranged attacks, doesn't specify a time limit between each attack, and does not exempt creatures immune to tripping when it should. I think it should be something like this:
"When the cavalier makes three successful melee attacks against a creature during a full-attack, he knocks that creature prone. If a cavalier made a success chargeful attack against this creature on his previous turn, he only needs to make two successful melee attacks. Creatures immune to tripping or creatures more than one size category larger than the cavalier have immunity to this effect."

By the way, don't capitalize the class name and order in the text.

I think Large, Four Legs, and Fast works. Add Undersized Weapons and reduce their reach to that of a Medium creature, and you should be good. +2 Strength, +2 Wisdom, -2 Charisma fits. This would make a strong race, but one with some heavy drawbacks. They'll be awesome in a open area, but suffer mobility issues in a dungeon and definitely have some social issues.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
Thus, each element is associated with the energy type that polarizes it from the other elements.

I appreciate and can sympathize with your attempt to salvage the system, but, I mean, come on. Some of that is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyy stretching.

I could as easily say:

(1) Plasma is an ionized gas, so electricity is associated with the Plane of Fire.
(2) Higher altitude leads to lower temperatures, so cold is associated with the Plane of Air.
(3) Water is the "universal solvent," so acid is associated with the Plane of Water.
(4) Flint and steel are used to start fires, and flint is nothing but quartz (the second most common mimeral in the earth's crust) and steel is made from iron (which is mined from the earth), so fire is associated with the Plane of Earth.

That makes even less sense!

Though I did make the mistake when referring to plasma as plasma is gas, not fire or molten rock.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
And why is water + cold a thing? Because most ice cubes are made of water? Hell, I can make ice cubes out of organge juice...

If you look at the arrangement of the elemental planes, you can see why water is associated with cold. The planes transition from air, water, earth, and then fire.

1) Electricity energizes particles into gas, resulting in the Plane of Air.
2) Cold causes air to condensate, resulting in the Plane of Water.
3) Acid reacts chemically with water, leaving behind precipitate and resulting in the Plane of Earth.
4) Heat melts earth into molten plasma, resulting in the Plane of Fire

Thus, each element is associated with the energy type that polarizes it from the other elements.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

D&D's setting makes philosophy literal. The original designers crafted a fantasy setting that makes philosophies regarding the classic elements a reality. This seems evident when you compare old literature regarding the elements with that of D&D and Pathfinder lore. As a result, fire, water, earth, and air exist not merely as matter or chemical processes, but as cosmic forces that gave birth to the Material Plane and everything within it. Energy types function as the raw power of those forces, which proves destructive to creatures with bodies made as result of those elements. This is partially why many outsiders from the outer planes have strong resistances or immunities to energy damage. Needless to say, our modern understanding of physics does not apply in this setting, something I think even the writers of Pathfinder material sometimes forget.

Besides, I see no point in trying to apply our understanding of physics and chemistry to the game. Technically, you could consider physical damage as energy damage since trauma is caused through delivering kinetic energy that rearranges matter in a way we consider destructive the object (or person) as a whole. The game uses "energy types" as a handy way to classify damage not caused by a solid object.

As for substituting sonic, I don't know. Associating a type of damage related to air with that of earth seems weirder than acid.

I never had problems with alchemists and inquisitors, myself.

It's still good to throw ideas around, even though I agree an assembly system is way too low level, especially for my vScape setting.

I recommend looking into Spheres of Power 3pp that comes out in August. It breaks down magic into modifiable at-will abilities organized by theme. It's meant to enable a GM to reskin the system to fit any number of settings with supernatural properties, like making superhero campaigns or even Star Wars-like games.

In regard to your archetypes here, I think the Marksman got the short end of the stick. Everyone else gets an ability almost akin to a 20th level capstone ability whereas the Marksman gets two bonus feats.

Actually, that's kind of an interesting idea there...what if you gave each character their favored class's capstone ability? You'd have to approve it on a case by case basis, of course.

I'm confused. I thought the problem with Pathfinder weapons was that the game encourages you to specialize in a single, specific weapon and weapons lack enough unique features to justify doing otherwise. Thus, it punishes "arms master" character concepts, cripples TWF and thrown weapon builds, and creates other problems like the Christmas Tree Effect.

This feels like a lesser, severely underpriced version of the transformative property. The ability to conjure a duplicate should be a property in of itself. Its price should be considered very carefully, likely should be priced as a +1 or +2 bonus since the property essentially doubles the "wealth" of your weapon.

Speaking of Pit, I personally asked my GM if I could modify my double sword into a bifurcated weapon.

> Rebooting thread. . .

I created a very rough draft of how I'm starting to envision the system. Definitely not mechanically polished, but this might give an idea how the finished system may look like. Pathfinder does spells by using a curated list of effects that only work on specific types of targets (if any at all), organized by level of power. Ars Magicka does the same except the effects are organized by target type and action type. Words of Power has a spellcaster combine spell effects and a targeting method. My prototype system has a list of object types and what effects can be operated on them. The "caster" then combines these effects and has them performed on a target. I can then introduce new types of objects that can be scripted, like a "Fire" module that creates and manipulates a fire source. However, looking this over, I'm worried I may have made it a bit too complicated. What do you think? Any thoughts or suggestions? A sample script is below:

Cube Strike
Mem cost 3; Target on rez; Effect Rezzes a Tiny cube to a location in Close range and moves it 5 feet.

The abilities are disorganized. You should list the abilities based on what level the planeslinger gets them.
A few abilities, like Transpose Firearm and Weilder's Call refer to the class as "summoner."

Planar Grit: The flavor of this ability seems rather cool, but the mechanics just feel sloppy. The scaling isn't that great, and you just keep piling on extra damage dice and effects that it's difficult to figure out exactly what the bullets do.

Doorways: She shouldn't be able to cast dimension door at 6th level and teleport at 9th, and greater teleport at 12th. No class should be getting these abilities before the wizard does.

Bond Senses: Exactly what does this do? I don't see the point of it.

Wielder's Call: So, wait, he can use this on ANY unattended firearm in long range? A planeslinger can essentially steal from gun merchants without any risk to himself and without anyone noticing? Or steal a bad guy's firearm before a fight has started?

Life Bond: You need to use Damaging Objects rules when you write this ability. A firearm "ceasing to function" is very vague. It's a neat ability, but the gunslinger should be able to choose if they want to do this or not. At this level, some players would prefer their character get killed and then raised rather than have their weapon become destroyed. Also, what happens if the weapon had misfired?

Merge Forms: Merging yourself and your gun into some kind of powerful being is rather cool, but this ability feels out of line. Pathfinder very specifically changed all polymorph spells to eliminate the mechanical mess they made in 3.5e. This ability throws that endeavor out the window.

You have a cool premise, but I'm honestly a little disappointed. I was expecting a lot more fun planar abilities triggered by shooting things. Like, the planeslinger shoots the ground and conjures a monster where he fired.
-Or an ability where he fired at a distant wall and instantly teleported adjacent to it.
-Or maybe he fires on someone and it creates a rift around them with altered gravity.
-Or maybe he could fires on someone and makes them teleport a short distance away.
-Or maybe he could have a capstone ability where he banishes someone to the astral plane.
-Or have the ability to grant his bullets the phase locking property.
-Or maybe he could cause a bullet to phase through a single solid object to hit something on the other side.
-Or shooting a wall creates an extradimensional pit or a temporary hole in a wall.

Overall, many of the mechanics feel ill-inspired and sloppy. And aside from the abilities that are out of line, the class feels fairly weak overall.

Jiggy and pretty much most of the cool guys I chat with during RPG Superstar.

It would also be awesome in a game with Wil Weaton or sit in one of Noah "SpoonyOne" Antwiler's games. Noah's funny D&D stories got me into tabletop roleplaying.

After looking up the zoan fruits (I'm not that familiar with the manga), those could be easily designed to grant the user the ability to do beast shape II to become a particular animal or monstrous physique I to change into a hybrid form.

Set wrote:
...The answer to questions like 'why haven't shadows overwhelmed the world' or 'why...

I do think you have a point here. I don't mind if monsters get higher powered abilities, but it does feel really strange that a 10 HD creature can warp the fabric of reality on his whim...three times per day. I could understand if he could do it once a year or once a month. Then if he's binded, there's a high chance he already used it or would pretend he did.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could make it like the summon monster with a specific list of outsiders. You could also add a clause that a summoned creature cannot cast a spell of a level greater than the highest spell level you can cast.

Lemmy wrote:

You're missing the point. Sneak Attack is not the problem. It's probably the one thing that actually works for Rogues, it's just not good enough to be a class' one and only offensive tool.

Increasing Sneak Attack damage is like trying to buff Fighters by increasing their damage output. It's technically a improvement, but it misses the whole reason why the class is underpowered.

The real problem with Rogues are:

1- Low Accuracy: They are the only medium class BAB with no means of boosting their to-hit.
2- Poor to Mediocre AC and CMD: A Finesse Rogue can have a okay-ish defense, and Offensive Defense can make a Rogue's AC really good against a single enemy, but other than that... They are screwed.
3- HORRIBLE Saves: This is probably the greatest weakness of the class. Having both bad Fort and Will save progression is not just a minor problem, it's a crippling weakness. Basically a death sentence past 7th level or so.
4- Redundancy: There are at least half a dozen classes that make Rogues completely pointless. And not in a "they have similar roles so there is no need of having both classes in the same party" way, no. It's much closer to "These 6 classes can completely outperform Rogues in 90% of the situations without even trying". Rogues have nothing unique and are not even particularly good at being rogues.
5- Sneak Attack Dependency: Sneak Attack is not a bad class feature, but it's not nearly good enough to be a class' only offensive tool. Rogues who can't Sneak Attack for whatever reason are about as useful in combat as an Expert. This makes them extremely predictable and one-dimensional.

Rogues don't need help with Sneak Attack damage, they need help with everything else!

I'd also like to add another item. For a 3/4 BAB class with no spellcasting, the rogue doesn't have many class features. They have sneak attack, trapfinding, talents, and that's about it. They have about as many class features as the barbarian, and yet the barbarian has a full BAB, the best Hit Die in the game, and their rage powers are way better than talents and let the barbarian do things most other classes cannot.

It's also why I roll my eyes at people saying the rogue was trashed solely because of archetypes taking their features. If you steal animal companion and wildshape, the druid still has 9-level casting and other cool abilities. If you steal spellstrike and spell combat, a magus still has magus arcana, spell recall, and the ability to cast spells in heavy armor. What does the rogue have if you take away sneak attack and trapfinding? Next to nothing, because that's all they gave him.

Like I mentioned before, defining all the core god prayers may be redundant as Inner Sea Gods does so in great detail while also allowing individual worshipers to vary the ritual depending on local culture, location, and available resources.

The other gods, however, would be very worthy of a thread. I honestly wished Inner Sea Gods defined the rituals and practices of Razmir as if he were a real god.

To add to Witch's Knight and Te'Shen sentiments, I do not consider someone who simply does a lot of damage to a target an "assassin." An assassin performs a utility function. They take out a target before combat rather than during combat. Their goal is to cripple the enemy by ensuring they cannot benefit from their most valuable units.

The spy from Team Fortress 2 is an excellent example of a rogueish character. He does not excel in combat. Instead, he performs a utility function by sabotaging the enemy, disabling their defenses and assassinating valuable targets before they reach the battle field. In cases where he must fight a target, he excels best in an isolated duel.

As a result, my vision of the rogue is someone who excels in the surprise round or before a battle starts. Someone who sneaks in and picks off a few loners to lessen the enemy numbers before the party assaults a camp. Someone who starts a fight by disabling the enemy's mage or toughest fighter. Such a person needs the tools to sneak up on someone, disable them with a surprise attack, finish them off if it fails, and then get away or participle at least competently in battle.

The rogue, as written, does none of this. Sneak attack only does damage in a game where a unit can fight to full capacity as long as they have more than zero hitpoints. The rogue is not anymore stealthy or capable of escaping as other classes. In fact, several classes are better at accomplishing the above tasks, some capable of doing it without putting themselves at risk. And when a battle does start, the rogue does very little damage unless he flanks. In fact, it's kind of backwards. I feel like the rogue should should be someone who excels at taking out a lone target, not someone who has to flank to have any usefulness in combat.

This is my vision of an assassin-type rogue. As a result, a guy who simply gets bonus damage against a flanked target does not fit the description.

Have you read Inner Sea Gods? They actually do say what's involved in prayer. In fact, the book also introduced a feat called Deific Obedience, which allows a character to do a one hour prayer ritual to gain boons. The book lists details of the ritual and the boons for each core god

I am not a fan of defining prayer based on domain. I think a god's prayer should depend on the god themselves, especially considering that even gods with similar domains can have completely different viewpoints on those domains.

The rogue's problems aren't damage. I'm not really a big fan of giving them maximized damage on their sneak attack. I've seen a few good rogue reworks that had sneak attack simply do +3 damage.

Scythia has a good point. You should decide what role the fruit will have in the game. It could be a rare reward, a one-time way to give each character a snowflake ability, or macguffins. You could actually revolve the entire campaign around them where the party either goes on treasure hunts looking for devil fruit trees to become superhuman beings or stop a Big Bad from doing the same.

As for the effects themselves, I believe choosing some kind of effect with inherent value is the best approach. In other words, pick the fluff and then figure out the mechanics. Also, you don't need to be constrained by the Devil Fruit of the manga. Perhaps each fruit confers some kind of Achilles heel other than the inability to swim in the ocean? Perhaps something related to the power in question, but thematic to the idea that the characters are abominations to the natural world. For example, if you have a power to change into an animal, animals do not willingly approach you because they instinctively sense you are a creature neither human nor animal.

A good place to start with powers might be ones from the manga:

Rubber Fruit: Your body takes on a rubbery property, becoming incredibly flexible and capable of absorbing trauma. You gain DR 15/slashing or piercing and are immune to nonlethal damage from bludgeoning weapons. You take minimum damage from falling any height. As a swift action, you may stretch your limbs to increase your reach by 5 feet.

If I can't use a plot hole to instantly teleport to someone and roundhouse kick someone to the face, I'll be very disappointed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rethinking the symbiotes role is probably a good idea. But I highly recommend thinking about the class design in terms of life style and profession. Every class has an identity as a being that exists in the world. The fighter involves a person who lived a life as a knight, a soldier, or a sword for hire. The wizard is an intellectual scholar. The ranger is largely a loner that lives in the wilderness and is skilled at hunting specific targets. The barbarian is an uncivilized, likely tribal warrior driven by bloodlust in battle. There exists subversions of these identities, but they cannot exist without a core identity to subvert.

The regenerator is just some dude with a thing in his head. There's no identity here. Who is he? What does he do for a living? How does he live his life? What niche does he fill in the world or in society? Why would I want to roleplay such a character?

Now I have to ask myself what the party can do the stop the corruption. Hrm..

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rage powers are a good place to start because several of them are not magical, but do very interesting things. The monk has many abilities like slow fall. The ranger's animal companion is a really nice class feature that has many consequences for roleplay and combat.

Finding a flavor hook for abilities should be simpler than you think with the regenerator. He's some kind of scientist or physician that mutates his body. Think in terms how this concept would exist outside of a game. Wouldn't he have the ability to apply his research elsewhere than simply boosting his body? Wouldn't he be able to function as a medical doctor? What if he could research a poison that only works on a certain creature? What if he could apply his enhancement serums on his allies? What if he could help cure diseases? How does a regenerator fit in the world and what does he do in the world?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh? They remove aasimar and tieflings, but then introduce even more monstrous races? I can understand kitsune, who shapeshift to adapt to human societies, but wayangs and nagaji?

There's Combat Manager, PCGen...

Let it be possible to intentionally create cursed items, but price the cursed items normally as though magic items with similar effects. That seems like the logical solution as cursed items are meant to be traps.

GypsyMischief wrote:
I'd like to find a way to make defending one's self a saving throw. I really enjoy the idea of an opposed roll against an incoming attack or damaging effect. I have no actual constructive input at the moment, just wishful starry eyes.

Numenera actually handles it quite in an interesting way. In every situation, the player rolls, but the GM does not. If you attack, you have to roll and beat a defense target number. If the enemy attacks, you have to roll and beat an offense target number. This was meant to speed turns, which I really like. It's not that I want fast combats, but rather I want fast combat rounds. I think everyone would have a lot more fun in a 30-40 minute combat if they got to do more than 3 or 4 rounds of actions.

As I mentioned before, you can begin by stop thinking about the classes in terms of combat. Instead, think of them in terms of flavor. Avoid abilities that can completely render a whole class of problems trivial.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnnythexxxiv wrote:
@Gaberlunzie: In the case of the manipulator, natural flight and extendable limbs can help for a number of out of combat scenarios, as does the natural healing (party in an anti-magic field and need a quick escape route from the dragon barreling after you? Power Surge so that you can hold the weight of everyone, Speed Surge to GTFO and Flight Surge to get over that pit that you had to fly over earlier, wrap everyone else in a Protect Surge as you blast...

(Assuming you mean the regenerator? This is a problem when you name your classes based on a specific thing they do rather than conveying who they are)

All of those examples you mention are still largely combat orientated and don't encourage creativity beyond solving a specific problem or solving all problems of a certain type. They just don't feel very inspired, largely because they feel like they're designed with combat in mind rather than as a cool aspect of a character or bolstering the character's development.

I went through the same train of thought, Jiggy, when I tackled the task of developing for my campaign setting. I originally meant to adapt it to Pathfinder until I realized I'd need to completely rewrite pretty much everything, so I ultimately choose to build my own system. Armor was one bullet point in the design.

You should ask yourself what role you want armor to play and how it relates to combat and the game's health system. In Pathfinder, AC and DR prolongs a fight. Characters suffer no performance penalties for sustaining injury. A monster remains dangerous as long as it still lives. However, hitpoints are valuable to a PC because they carry over after combat and determine whether a PC can carry on or abandon their quest. So, the players benefit from having combats end quickly.

With this in mind, DR and AC plays a different role for PCs and enemies. For a PC, AC reduces the chance of losing health as result of a battle whereas DR reduces the damage they take over the course of an adventure. Note that stoneskin essentially adds hitpoints to a PC and that DR without a duration or reduction limit is exceptionally rare for a PC. For a monster, AC and DR prolongs a battle, causing the PCs to take more damage and expend more resources as result of the fight. Also note that DR and AC has different consequences for a PC whereas they accomplish the same thing in different ways for a monster.

In my game, "DR" and "AC" plays a slightly different role. A PC makes opposed skill checks against attacks whereas Armor reduces the damage they take. However, the game uses a wounds system where if a character takes damage up to a threshold, they get a major wound, which can hinder a character's performance and impact their action economy. While Armor doesn't prevent hits, it reduces the chance a hit will be detrimental to a character. Characters can easily patch wounds after a battle, but long term healing costs money, which works well because my game places a large value on a character's wealth.

Numenera also uses checks and Armor like my system, but they play a different role due to the game's health economy. Instead of wounds or hitpoints, each character has a pool of points for each of the three ability scores: Might, Speed, and Intellect. Damage takes away points (character dies if all pools are depleted), but the points are also the resource for the character's abilities and for performing skill checks. Characters can replenish their pools gradually over a day or take a full rest or a day or so to almost completely replenish their pools.

Note that health plays a different role in each game and how AC/DR affects the health economy for PCs. In Pathfinder, hitpoints are largely a long term resource drained through long combats, affecting a PC's ability to finish an adventure. In my game, wounds have a short term consequence on performance and long term impact on wealth. In Numenera, pools mainly determine performance on a day by day basis.

So to start designing your AC and DR system, I recommend figuring out how you want your health system resources to work and how it affects the PCs and their risk of death. Then, determine how AC/DR interacts with that resource.

Unless the GM is a dullard that outright forbids anything not written in the rules, you should be able to do this stuff anyway. My players used a flask of liquid ice to freeze a gelatinous cube, which disabled its paralysis, acid, and engulf attacks. In fact, Divinity advertises as having the freedom of creatively solving problems like a tabletop RPG as a major selling point.

1 to 50 of 891 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.