Kirth Gersen wrote:
Simple fix: turn all the "teamwork" feats into "stance" feats. Instead of requiring an ally who knows the same feat (honestly, how often does that happen?), instead just require that the character be standing still to get the benefit.
I will consider this, and my idea of a +2 Dodge Bonus to AC when you're not using more than a 5ft step.
Goth Guru wrote:
My point was the +1 can be yanked, but the bleeding quality is part of the story. The party wizard can cut out the Minotaur's heart and make some bull's strength potions at almost no cost. You take out the magic ax and put in a bag of gold it just becomes boring. No story, no drama, and no fun.
You could still have the magic axe be part of the story. In my variant of the system, you'd still have the magic axe, but the player would have to trade a couple of their innate +1s to make use of its magical properties (giving them a reason to increase their innate +1s beyond +5 even if they can't use more than +5 on an attack. If they DO come across magic items, they can make better use of it.), and a character without sufficiently advanced combat skill (didn't put enough points in it) wouldn't be able to make use of its magical properties. In the hands of a 6 year old, it's just a large masterwork axe. Pass it to a skilled warrior, and it has the bleed property.
Though they's still have to deal with the problem of using an axe sized for a large creature.
As a side note, since you're new to Pathfinder, Pathfinder has a few problems of classes which many people feel are sufficiently mechanically terrible as to be avoided at all costs, only worth being used for a level or two in another built if you need something specific. (It's controversial, and some people will disagree, but you should still be aware of it and consider it yourself), and "try to meet the character concept any other way possible, or abandon the concept". Typically this is referring to Monks and Rogues. There are some specific monk and rogue builds that contribute okay, but they aren't the most commonly built options. Often in my games (because I have some experienced players and some inexperienced players) I suggest these classes be avoided unless the player really knows what they're doing, as I've hard players get upset about either not contributing much, or being saddled with another player who can't contribute, and feeling they were stuck traveling with a liability (seriously, it happened).
For the Rogue, I typically suggest playing a Bard or Ranger with Archetypes. You can mix and match some ranger archetypes to get a good urban tracking combat rogue, and you can get a good charismatic party buff rogue from bard plus archetypes. For some rogue concepts, You might be able to work with a Fighter, Barbarian, or Magus, using a few archetypes. You might even be able to use a Synthesist Summoner if you want a magic heavy rogue type. The Summoner doesn't get a ton of skills, but you can use evolution points to grant skill bonuses.
In a game that doesn't use very many traps (in my experience, that's most games) trapfinding (bonus to finding traps, plus the ability to disarm magical traps) is not a Necessary ability. If it IS a necessary ability, a number of other classes and archetypes get trapfinding:
A Variety of Monk type (depending on how they're built/played) builds that are more able to keep up:
If you're an accomodating GM, you could consider letting them swap out some of their regular weapon proficiencies for the asian ones (which are only really exotic because they're asian, not because they're better weapons), or consider allowing them to trade some class skills they have for ones that closer match the monk themed concept, and neither would be at all gamebreaking.
If you're a bit flexible as a GM, many of these are quite awesome, and I haven't noticed any of them to be overpowered. They're highly lauded by the community: Multiclass Archetypes
@Lemmy. That would be a little better, but kindof hard to remember in comparison, and I don't think it goes far enough.
I'm inclined to do what Kirth does, that's very similar to what I was thinking. Though I may give penalties of some sort for the attack+move. Or, conversely, I may give a bonus if you don't move. Perhaps a +2 AC.
Staying still isn't necessarily a worse option then, but the defualt assumption would become that people move and attack.
Pathfinder is balanced based on the assumption that the good majority of the player's WBL will be used on improving the character. However, some classes benefit more from the money spent than others, as well.
If you simply strip out the magic items, some classes will be hurt by this decision much more than others. Notably, classes reliant on pets or magic will be hurt less than those relying on attacking with magic weapons.
Yes, you could yank out the magic system. However, that WILL have side-effects, and here are some of the side effects you'll experience:
1. The CR System, the built-in system that helps you know how much of a chance the players have to survive a challenge will be worthless. Some encounters of a CR will be much more difficult, others will be much easier. You can expect that the encounters against opponents who use less equipment (beasts, monsters, mages, NPCs with Pets) to be much more difficult. This will make it much harder to guage how hard an encounter will be, and as a result, also much harder to fairly guage how much EXP it should be worth to overcome the encounter.
d20 Conan, and many of the other RPGs I mentioned aren't nearly so item dependent, and it sounds like that's what you're used to. You can make due with whatever weapon is on hand. If you do that in Pathfinder, it will throw the balance off a great deal.
If you are highly familiar with the Pathfinder materials, you could compensate that some by limiting character options, and being able to eyeball the encounters accurately enough to guage survivability, and ditch the experience system built into pathfinder.
However, I think the easiest approach for an item-light game (without throwing all the game balance out the window) would be to give the players 75% WBL, allow them to buy their item enchantments and other power enhancing 'items' with it, and have these be things you simply apply to the character, rather than things you apply to their items. That fighter doesn't have a +4 Greatsword anymore, he has a Masterwork Sword, and his combat skill is such that he's got the +4 enhancement to hit and damage, and can overcome damage reduction and whatnot.
If you want a less magical game, don't let them spend their money on enchantments like flaming and such other obviously magical enhancements, and instead let them take things like Holy and +Xs and whatnot. Then if you ever do introduce a magic weapon, just make it a "flaming" sword, and they can trade out one or more of their +1s in order to make use of the obviously magical flaming property (with a tradeoff rate based on the number assigned to the magical property in question in the book).
I would advise you give the money as innate bonuses, but limit what it can be used on. Don't let them use it on consumeables, and you might want to limit their ability to reallocate it as they level. You can give the "money points" out gradually, according to the WBL scale you're using, and it gives them some gradual character improvement between actual character levels.
I would not advise throwing out the magic items and the CR System, for the reasons mentioned above. MPLIndustries might be able to pull it off, with a high degree of system mastery, and experience as a d20 publisher. My experience with every GM who has tried this in the past has been that it resulted in a complete lack of game balance and got in the way of enjoyment of the game. Following WBL and having ready access to the gear you want for your character by level is a pretty important balancing aspect of the system, and getting rid of it will make things much more difficult for you to balance, so I strongly recommend either using the items as the game expects, or making that part of character advancement instead. Personally I'm on the side of making it part of character advancement in my own games not out of a desire for lower magic, but out of a desire to not have to track how much money I gave them or if I've given them adequate access to sources to buy whatever gear they want and thus have to worry about it messing with the game balance. If I just let them spend some points, then I don't have to track that anymore, and it makes things simpler for me as the GM.
Oh. I see what he's saying.
He's saying the quality of the axe becomes less important than the person wielding it with these changes.
In this system, that would likely be a masterwork axe, or it could be a magic axe that causes bleeding wounds. And depending on which variant of this innate system you use, either the bleeding stacks with your innate bonus, or you have to trade the equivalent +X to make it do bleed damage.
Hmm. that really wouldn't help fix things.
Since I want a widesweeping change to nonmagical combat as a whole, a feat simply won't do it. I want all of the combatants to feel free to move around instead of standing still.
I could maybe see something like (and I think this may be too harsh):
@MPLIndustries: I'm glad that works for you.
I think were I to want to run that sort of low-magic game, I'd use a different system, like RoleMaster, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Dungeons and Zombies, Dark Ages World of Darkness, or (most likely) RuneQuest 6/Magic World/Open Quest 2/Legend, and just not use the magic option, which is trivial, and nothing in the game assumes any kind of power level. (And that's not saying that's a bad thing, I quite like the BRP fantasy systems, I like Unisystem (Dungeons and Zombies) and I like RoleMaster too (Except Character Creation, which takes way too long).
Personally, if I'm going to play Pathfinder, I want a setting that eventually goes high power (a world famous fighter is likely 14th level+, they new rookie town guard is a level 2 or 3 (likely fighter, but maybe not), and the captain of the guard is typically level 6 to 8). First level NPCs are horribly incompetent, or completely inexperienced. The guy running the Thieves' guild or Mages' guild is at least level 8, likely closer to 11 or 12. Melee Types above 8 are common, but they're typically either adventurers (which are not uncommon in my games), in the military, working as mercenaries, or working as guards for a duke or something - they've usually moved on from the City Guard by then. If the City has a crafter's guild, the guy is also likely level 8-12, with some levels in Expert, and maybe some PC levels, and several crafting feats.
I also tend to want players to have access to magic if they want it if I'm going to run Pathfinder. A Party with a cleric, a summoner or synthesist, a druid, a ranger, and a wizard is totally kosher at my table. I'm more likely to allow the beefy character builds without scrutiny than someone who comes up to me with a typical TWF Stabby Rogue. I'll let him play it if he really wants to, but I will explain to him that he's very likely built a weak character, and he may want to rebuild it. If he does, I'll help him build something that does a better job keeping up (keeping with his base concept as close as I can if he wants it, and likely using a bunch of archetypes).
I don't stick to CR like it's a law (If the PCs intentionally go into a red dragon cave at level 5 I'm not going to coddle them) but I typically tend to add NPCs they stand a chance against in the plots they are likely to follow up on. They will know that at level 4 they will have a hard time taking on the famous bandit king who has been raiding the countryside head on, and that if they want to get involved in that, perhaps they should do so by harrying his underlings until they have the personal power or sufficient backup to take him on head on. I think there should be a decent chance of failure at a major boss fight.
I do think that WBL is an important part of the game's balancing mechanism which matters if you're going to care about balancing the players against CR Appropriate Foes (Which I basically use as a guage of what they can handle in terms of Monsters and Beasts and NPCs). I suppose if I was doing almost all NPCs the lack of magic items would be easier to account for, but that would require building many, many, many NPCs, as I don't think the couple books of pre-built NPCs I have would cut it.
I think the appeal of this sort of system allows you to use the same number balance the system has baked in so you can use CRs as guidelines instead of needing to know your player's stats to know what they can handle, and lets you swap out all of the boring +x to bla items for items that are interesting (or I suppose, not use them at all) without radically changing the character's abilities from what players might expect. As an added bonus, the players can get points they can allocate to stuff as the game goes on, giving them gradual character improvement between levels, which if you don't level them quickly, may make them happier.
I have no objections to running a grittier fantasy game, or a lower magic fantasy game, but I simply have a hard time seeing why I would want to use Pathfinder to do so when IMO it doesn't do a very good job of it.
So I've been thinking about making Melee Combatants more mobile;
Has anyone tried allowing a melee character to move their speed as part of a full attack?
So a character could move and attack, or attack and move, or attack move attack move attack move attack?
Would it be so gamebreaking to allow them to do so? I think they could use the boost, and I can't see how it would cause any problems, assuming you allowed the same for monsters.
It would give the melee types a bit of a boost to keep up with casters at high levels, and I'd think it would make combat more interesting, but I can't think of a downside.
Can anyone else see a problem here?
This has been dealt with before, pretty well, actually. Check out these threads:
Basically here's how it works: Characters get 25% of the WBL expected, which they will get in the form of cool s*&+ you want to give them.
Players get a pool of points equivalent to 75% of the WBL they would have, which they can spend on any sort of "essential" or character improving item they might feel they need. They don't have to fight to get the items they feel they need in order to have the build they are going for. The prices of the bonuses in points is directly converted from the price of the item.
As the bonuses are innate, you may see players having more of a variety of weapons, and that should be okay. If all the weapons you go to use are +5 weapons, then it's fine if the GM passes you an axe, a mace, and a bow as well, and you may actually consider using them.
They system he laid out could use a little bit of polish and likely a bit of adaptation for your specific purposes, but it handles the issue pretty nicely in general.
Actually, pretty similar to what you have up above, but with the numbers scaled down.
So, say I have a summoned monster with DR X/Good; and then I have a character ability that gives my summoned creatures DR Y/Adamantine.
I read something that makes me think I've been misunderstanding how DR Worked, so here I am asking.
Does that mean the summoned creature has DRX/Good, and once its been bypassed the remaining damage has DRY/Adamantine (Like I thought) or does it mean the creature has DRX+Y/Good or Adamantine (Like I've just been told) or DRX+Y/Good & Adamantine or the much crappier DR XorY/Good or Adamantine or DR XorY/Good & Adamantine?
Weapon groups aren't bad.
As I mathed out with some people during ARG Playtest, FCBs are equivalent to a feat; Through this equivalency, we determined, that using Paizo precedents, (and our intuition that Proficiency feats suck) 1 feat is worth a new weapon every 4 levels. That sounds like a decent "at least".
Weapon groups are nice though, and if you give weapon groups with 5 weapons in them, thats not much more powerful than 1/4 level (more frontloaded, but same at 20).
Proficiency feats are terrible. You shouldn't be balancing against them. I remember working out that for a feat you should be able to get multiple proficiencies. I think it was 4, and that was just based on other things Paizo released which were able to be stated as "equivalent to a feat".
@Are -> allowing a player to convert their Summoner into a Synthesist is an approach I hadn't considered. That might work too.
@mdt -> Out of Curiosity, why no BAB Change? I would think that's a function of the Eidolon in the Summoner's brain giving him better combat skill, moreso than a function of the physical prowess the Eidolon gives.
@Eridan, what do you mean? Could you expand on that post, I don't quite understand.
'The eidelon must be at least as big as the summoner. If this is not possible (for example, a large summoner at level 1), then the synthesist cannot fully fuse with his eidelon. He gains the evolutions and temporary hp, but uses his own physical stats until he can give his eidelon an appropriate size evolution.'
Just to clarify, what would he not get from Synthesist and instead use his own?
Would he get the Natural Armor Bonuses?
The Boz wrote:
I think the reason you haven't been getting much feedback is that you've been asking for it in the wrong place. This isn't the houserules section of the forum, and people tend to not pay too much attention to you when you threadjack.
That being said, while I haven't read through your options thoroughly yet, I do like the idea, so I'm going to make a new thread specifically to discuss them, linked from here.
So we started a thread about Feats that Shouldn't Be.
One of the users in the thread, "The Boz" Posted a number of feat revisions up there, and wasn't getting any feedback about them, so I'm starting this thread to discuss his ideas, and for people to comment, suggest, or propose changes of their own.
Here is his document.
Feats that Shouldn't Be could either be rewritten into better feats, or removed and added as core mechanics anyone can do, or what have you.
Let's have it! :)
I also just noticed you mentioned being interested in a [i]mobile[i/] archer. I don't think it would get much more mobile than Monk/Barb. Six levels of Monk and a level of Barbarian would give you 60 ft.
Haha, I've built characters with more move distance than that (Synthesist Summoner, fly evolution several times), but that's not really what I meant when I said mobile. I meant "Still reasonably effective on turns when he moves."
The Sacred Arrow is neat, but the GM won't be allowuing any homebrewed options, just PF & 3.5. I might be able to slip in some 3PP options, but not unpublished options.
I would not actually consider "cover creatures of any size" to be a special case. I'd still like a RAW way to handle Ogre Synthesists as NPCs without houseruling it, or having to wait until I can throw the party at "Ogre CR+The Number of Levels it Takes Before the Ogre Can Legally Buy His Eidolon Up to the Point that it is usable."
I see two valid choices they could have made here to cover it, and I'm just a bit disappointed they did neither. They could either make sure the Eidolon is at least your size, or they could have you become smaller when synthesized, if necessary.
In the case of temporary growth, the Eidolon would also be affected, so that would be a non-issue.
In the case of creatures bigger than medium, yeah I guess I will have to houserule it as: "Synthesists must have an eidolon of their own size or larger. In the case where the base synthesist is larger than the eidolon would be, the eidolon's size is advanced until it matches, regardless of usual class level requirements or the number of Evolution Points available. The Evolution Points are still paid, however, and this can result in the character having a negative number of Evolution Points. A Synthesist with a negative number of evolution points is treated as having 0 evolution points."
So I'm building a Cleric/Synthesist character, and I'm wondering whether I should just grab Synthesist 1 for a couple small spells, and a neat set of power armor, or if it's worthwhile multiclassing further.
Both classes are casters, yes, but the spells I'll be taking either way are mostly support abilities.
I'm thinking of making a character who is magicky & priesty, but excels in Melee Combat, particularly against undead &/or evil outsiders.
3.x stuff is allowed, and I'm considering some feats/alternate class features from there, including Spirited Charge and Swapping out Channel Energy for Smite Evil + Aura of Courage as Paladin.
I'm confused, are you using a Pathfinder build in a 3.5 setting? What level are you starting at?
Starting at 1.
We're playing in a pathfinder game, but some of the modules he will be using are 3.5 modules.
He intends to have us going into the module at a lower level than the book suggests.
If we want an option that's available in 3.5 but not in Pathfinder, he'll be open to taking the 3.5 option. So for instance, the 3.5 Druid build is out, the Incantatrix build may not be (but I would be combining it with a PF Wizard).
I can likely grab feats/spells from 3.5 as needed as well.
I'm now considering the Paladin Archer (particularly since I know it's at least partially a ravenloft game); that could be good.
Wow. there are alot of varied and interesting looking builds in this thread thus far. Some of them may not work/might need to be adjusted, but all of them sound like options worthy of considering.
It will take me a while to go through them in more detail to choose one, but I see several already that look promising. Thanks Guys. :)
So, A friend of mine will be starting up game in a few weeks, and from what I understand, the scope will be a 1-12 campaign or so.
He's said he'll be running us through modules, one of which will be the 3.5 Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. He's also said he intends to have us start Expedition to Castle Ravenloft before we're the suggested level on the back, and that we should go nuts and use whatever sources we want; he's giving us free reign.
That said, I'm looking for suggestions on character builds. Here are the things I'd like to accomplish:
As mentioned, he's fine with any source (that includes 3.5 stuff, if someone has a really good suggestion that happens to be from 3.5). Presumably that includes 3pp stuff as well. If the build is too ridiculous he may change his mind, but I want to be a highly awesome guy.
While I'm looking for suggestions, I do have a few ideas that could be fun:
I'm willing to go to some degrees of broken here, as well, but I don't want to be a one trick pony, only useful if some weird exploit works.
Wow. I've actually done something very similar in the past.
Weapon Groups, New Weapon Groups Based on BAB, classes granted weapon groups comparable to what they already offered.
Alternates to the Vancian casting aren't really discussed; I would be interested in what alternate systems people are using in its place, I mean there has to be something that's used right?
Personally I kindof like vancian casting; but there are a couple of mana pool systems floating around (including http://paizo.com/products/btpy8ymz?Houserule-Handbooks-Spellpoints-Compilat ion), and I remember True20 Sorcery being good.
Hmm. That sounds problematic.
Has anyone taken a stab at addressing this math problem?
I hate multiple resource pool. While I'm okay enough with how magic works (although I think only the prepared casters should have to deal with slots) but I think the best argument for mana pools is that a lot of things use some kind of resource pool and some feats call for more pools. Stunning Fist, Elemental fist, Ki, Rage, Performance, challenge. I wish there was a unified resource pool system reflecting stamina.
Hmm. I hadn't considered this.
That could work out pretty well, actually.
So: Hypothetically speaking, if you didn't need to reference the corebook at all, and instead of "A massive collection of houserules" it was "some weird alternate corebook" would that be better?
Lets assume that Kirth had someone do the layout so it was prettier. Say he's got an 800 page rulebook, but much of it is character options, not rules you need to know. How is that worse than needing to know the pathfinder corebook, + apg + um + uc + ue?
I do agree that there comes a point in houseruling, where you may as well just make it an alternate corebook for simplicity; if thats all youre saying.
White Wolf's nWoD has this too (3 different versions of it, in fact).
And there's a decent system for it in Pathfinder in a Campaign Setting Book called Necropunk.
Hmm. I don't disagree with any of those statements. I would like to see more specific examples though.
Because I like these gripey lists (they fill me with ideas for houserules for my games);
What are some feats that shouldn't be?
I'm looking for feats that should be baked in mechanics that are just available by default, feats that suck, feats that are a crappy taxed milestone in order to get to another feat (terrible feat prereqs), that sort of thing.
I'll start this off with:
Weapon Finesse: This should seriously just be a property on the weapons it applies to, period.
I just looked up the 3.5 version and the Pathfinder version. The difference between the two seems so subtle so as to be irrelevant. I hadn't even noticed that it had changed before.
What about PF Regeneration makes ir problematic/bad/undesirable?
Hmm. If you can come up with a way to have your unarmed strikes count as masterwork or have a nice GM, you can always get them enchanted.
I had ghost touch unarmed strikes in one game. that was fun.
This makes your unarmed strikes masterwork weapons, after which point (RAW/IMO) you should be able to enchant them directly.
From what I understand from something I recall SKR said about why AOMF is so pricey, each type of unarmed strike for each limb (knee, foot, punch, headbutt, etc) would count as a different weapon if they were to price out enchantments.
So with that spell in place, you can get your left punch and right punch enchanted, and then you're about on par with all of the TWFers.
Yeah, my first thought was some manner of ranger with an unarmed combat style, or just twf+improved unarmed combat feat.
My second thought was "Maybe I could do something using Magus".
Lets say I'm not *necessarily* eschewing Monk. Are there any Monk builds that are any good for this? I know there's that monk with the big temple sword, and there's the archer monk, are there any other monk builds that are as good as taking another Melee class to build your monk with?
I know it *Sounds* like "You could just use a monk" but my past experiences have been that "just use monk" works out about as well as most paizo forum goers say it does, and it's not a good time.
SO: Hypothetically, I want to build a Monk.
I don't care which classes are used to accomplish this. But lets say I want my character to be able to do the following:
> Capable of Unarmed &/or Improvised (Jackie Chan Style) Combat.
I have a few ideas, but I'm curious: What are my options?
I would love to see Golarion's settlements, organizations, and kingdoms statted out via Ultimate Campaign, but so far as I know, no such source exists.
I would, however, be open to a user-statted collection of settlements, organizations, and kingdoms. They could be golarion themed or not. Examples would be great.
Intimidate and Diplomacy. Both are bad systems that have persisted through multiple versions of D&D and into Pathfinder. The way the rules are written you can turn even your worst enemy into your best friend for a DC 40. Which sounds hard, until you have someone who focus their feats and gear into it. I coudl go on, but there are many threads on the board about Diplomacy and Intimidate and many include posts and references to why the system doesn't work.
I agree. I'm not a fan of this. On the plus side, I came across a subsystem that replaces it nicely, and with a few adjustments, it's going to be making it into my game's houserules for Pathfinder (The Subsystem is in a Pathfinder SciFi Setting called NecroPunk which you can get for $15 on dtrpg. Basically you have A Social Bonus - Like BAB - and SMB/SMD, and then there's a detailed subsystem that replaces the typical "Mind Control Forever if he makes a skill check with a flat DC") that Pathfinder comes with. Those three scores, plus a "Confidence" hit points pool are used in conjunction with a bunch of mechanics that allow you to try to persuade people and do other social things, with some solid rules to do so.
The classes in the Necropunk book have Social Bonuses in their tables; and have some suggestions on how to add them to pathfinder classes. Personally, As I won't be using the Necropunk Classes, I am having the players spend skill points to raise their Social Bonus; So social bonus = Min((1/2 characterlevel + 1/4 skill points invested),character level) with the rounding down happening at the end. The result is you get something like BAB, except you spend skill points to go from bad BAB to good BAB, at a comparable rate/cost to how you would be keeping your diplomacy/sense motive or bluff/sense motive maxed out; if you have bluff/intimidate/diplomacy/sense motive as class skills, they count as 1 free point invested in your social bonus. It means I can use the Pathfinder classes, I don't have to heavily alter them, the players can build their characters to be as social as they like, and the subsystem just works.
I may try to merge the two in some ways, to allow the players to found and build up large organizations, such as the pathfinder society, the harpers, the cult of the dragon, the red mantis assassins, etc. I would argue those groups are closer to the playing field of a kingdom, but without all the centralized land, and cities and settlements and whatnot.
Significantly different than "I run a bakery with 25 employees."
Since I'm looking into a new subsystem, I'm doing that thing I do.
What are the problems with the Ultimate Campaign rules?
I'm looking for things that don't make sense, things that are under-priced/over-powered, things that are over-priced/under-powered, and any other complaints people have about the rules.
Bonus points for Critiquing Ultimate Rulership as well.