|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
LOL. I think we're getting a little too literal about what they mean when they say "Keeps everything out." :)
I don't think this problem is limited to psionics. DMs, I find, are pretty much reluctant to allow anything that differs significantly from the core rules. Take Incarnum, for instance. It's a fairly complicated system that involves things like chakras, totems, and incarnum points. Meanwhile, there are these new magic items that boost a character's abilities to use their various incarnum abilities. It's a neat system, and it could certainly add a lot of flavor to a game. However, if your DM doesn't have the time to seriously sit down and understand how it works, it's unlikely that you're going to be allowed to use it in game. This is the problem that I see psionics suffering from. Sure, some of the powers have balance issues, but I think most people acknowledge that it's a fine system overall. Nevertheless, I think things like the power point system and the Autohypnosis skill intimidate a lot of people, because it takes time to understand it. And if you're not going to take the time to understand it, it's unlikely that you'll ever use it.
I think the thing you have to keep in mind is that though there may be an audience for psionics, it's always going to be a limited one. As long as you recognize that, and proceed from that basic assumption, you'll do fine. Some things to consider: When writing the Pathfinder adventures, use a wizard or sorcerer stat block as the primary stat block for your characters. However, include a sidebar that gives players options for using psionics in game. Heck, you could even post psionic versions of the stat blocks online for players to use. Or reverse it, and post the non-psionic versions online. I would also take a look at Eberron, and see how they incorporated psionics into that campaign setting, because I think what they did there made psionics feel like a part of the campaign setting, without making players feel like they were forced to use it.
Using 'they' in this case is not grammatically correct, because the subject is not plural. Actually, 'they' was once used as a gender neutral, singular pronoun, and it was considered to be grammatically correct. In fact, the assumption that 'they' is grammatically incorrect was only made within the last two hundred years. Also, there are plenty of people today (including yourself, I would imagine) who use 'they' as a singular, gender neutral pronoun in their everyday language. Of course, there are plenty of people (including myself) who end sentences with prepositions in their everyday language, yet I blanch whenever I see it in print, so maybe that's not the greatest argument. :) Anyway, I rather like how they use the iconics to determine the gender of the pronouns, and the ad hoc use of pronouns in places where it isn't necessarily clear. It's not a perfect system, but it's clever, and it works.
Yeah the Beholders Antimagic eye should have brought down the Force Screens in a hot second. Well, this is how I interpret it. In the description for antimagic field it says specifically, "Certain spells, such as wall of force... remain unaffected by antimagic field." Since this item is based on the spell wall of force, it seems to me that the cube should hedge out an antimagic field. I don't know if that's a correct interpretation, but given how poorly worded this item's description is, it seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.
The current Epic Level rules are a mess. I don't entirely agree. I think the epic rules are more like psionics prior to 3.5. They need some serious work, but they shouldn't be entirely scrapped. The way to make the game more mythic in scope is not to make it more bloated with math. Agreed. However, I would say that's true for high level gaming in general. What are you looking for conceptually? As a player, I like epic level games because they give me an opportunity to explore ideas and concepts about my character that I might not be able to explore otherwise. For example, in one of our campaigns, our home village was destroyed by rakshasa. Before we reached epic levels, there wasn't much we could do about it, because we were devoting all of our energies to defeating a dark god. With that god out of the way, we could finally turn our attention to the rakshasa. As a DM, I like epic level games because they give me an opportunity to explore storylines that were never fully developed. For example, in the Age of Worms campaign, it's never made clear who wrote the metal tablets that Kyuss found in the Ameido Jungles. There are some hints that it was the spellweavers, but why? What made this otherwise neutral race turn to evil? In my campaign, the spellweavers were corrupted by a demilich, named Hadovas. Hadovas has no interest in giving rise to a new god. Rather, he knows that with the coming of the Age of Worms will come the return of the Old Ones, the gods he worships. Epic levels allow me to explore that storyline. What are you looking for mechanically? I like the flavor of epic spells, but I think there need to be some adjustments to the rules for creating them. As of right now, the costs are prohibitively high, and the results are often worse than what can be achieved with a 9th level spell. If you're skeptical, what can we do that might get you to give this one a try? I think the biggest thing that keeps people from running epic level campaigns is the lack of adventure modules for them. I think an adventure path that uses epic level encounters would go a long way to removing any skepticism people might have about epic levels. I also think it would be fantastic if such an adventure path picked up from where an existing adventure path leaves off, so that players can continue to play the characters they already know and love. Any deal breakers? If you don't do something to make hagumemnons easy for DMs to run, I will hide snakes in your car.
I don't think this is correct. The effect is described as a "wall 10 feet on a side around her person", which implies a 10' wall on all sides, including top and bottom. The next line reads "This cubic screen" which confirms the effect is an actual 10' cube of force. The way I read Abe's post is that everything after the quotes are suggestions about how to nerf the effects of the magic item, rather than interpretations of how the item is supposed to work in game.
This cube of force? Yeah. That cube of force.
You know what else might work? What if dealing damage to the field drains off the charges used to bring it up? So for example, if the player uses 2 charges to bring up the field that keeps out all nonliving matter, 2 attacks dealing at least 30 points of damage brings it back down again. That still gives the player quite a bit of protection, but not so much that it's broken.
To the OP - I heartily disagree with destroying consumables automatically - would slaughter those crazy wand wielders out there (much as I disdain them). This despite *loving* the 1st edition Dispel Magic that destroyed potions :) I think if you're using the Pathfinder version of the spell, where the items are only disjoined for a specific duration, then it's not so bad. If you're talking 3.5 rules, though, I agree it does sucketh the mucheth.
Rod of Negation. The one problem I see with the rod of negation is this: If you give it to your monsters, guess what the players are going to wind up with 3 rounds later? Antimagic field. Yeah, that works great... unless they have the field that keeps out all magic up. Oh, and guess what they used against my beholders. ;) Dimensional lock to keep them from hopping around. Again, works great... unless they have they have the field that keeps out all magic up.
The one problem with all of these solutions is that even if they work, and even if the thief gets away with the item without getting pounded into burger meat, all it takes is 62,000 gp, and guess what I'm dealing with again. EDIT: Oh ho, you're Epic?!? That's even worse for the party. They throw up the cube, all the enemies go ethereal and wait for the timer to run out, then attack. By epic levels, a cube of force should be an announcement of "hey, we're all gathered in one place, please drop a timestop and then set up all kinds of nastiness to fry us at once." I think tactics like this are about the most useful idea mentioned so far. Let some wily spellcaster pop in and out to waste the item's charges, and then release the proverbial hounds.
The biggest limitation is that is costs 6 charges per minute as well as limits movement. Therefore, an intelligent foe (especially one who beats on it for a round or two and can't get through or that understands how the item works - spellcraft check would be in order) can simply leave. They can come back a minute later, and attack, forcing the party to re-activate the cube, and repeat this until it runs out of charges, or wait until the party isn't grouped together. That's actually not a half bad idea. I may try that at some point.
Sorry to threadjack a bit, but I'm really glad to see you on Paizo, DoveArrow! I'm Yami from WotC, I enjoyed reading your posts on Astrid's Parlor. :) Hey Yami! It's good to see you too. Yeah, I got the 4E books for Christmas, and after going through them, it made me want to check out Pathfinder. That's probably not the reaction that Wizards was going for, but oh well. Anyway, I've always liked the idea of Pathfinder, so I thought I'd come over here and check things out. I have to say, I'm still not sure where I fit in over here. I missed most of the playtesting, and my group is still playing 3.5. As a result, I feel a bit like an outsider looking in. Nevertheless, it's kind've nice to once again discuss D&D online with people that are actually playing the same game I am. Oh, and I'm glad my players are waaaay too low level to purchase a Cube of Force. Yeah, high level games are pretty crazy. I'm running my first epic campaign, and I have to say, it's a challenge. Nevertheless, it's going pretty well, except for that DAMNED CUBE OF FORCE! GRAAAHHHH!!! Okay, I'm better. :)
A player in my group has this item, and I have to say, it's a real headache to deal with. Here are some of my problems with it. -While the item restricts players' movement, it doesn't really matter. My players get together inside the 10-foot cube, one of them casts dimension door, and they all move across the battle field to where they want to go before unloading. -The item is way too useful. All it takes is one standard action and suddenly, the players are all but invincible against my monsters' most potent attacks. -There's almost nothing I can do to shut it down. Granted, 30 points of damage takes off one charge, and spells, like disintegrate take off 6. However, when the item has 36 charges, and it only takes 6 charges to activate the item's most powerful ability, even if I have a sorcerer casting disintegrate every round, and two golems doing 30 points of damage each round, that's still 4 rounds where my monsters are completely ineffective. Meanwhile, my players are either busy spelling up inside the cube, or busy killing my monsters off, so I can't spend the entire combat beating on the cube until it comes down, even if I wanted to. -The item is way too cheap for what it does. For 62,000 gp the player can be immune to damage from all magical attacks, all nonlinving matter, all living matter, or just plain everything. Compare that to a robe of eyes, which costs 120,000 gp, and grants the user darkvision 120 ft, a +10 bonus to Perception checks, some rogue abilities, and has the downside that a player can't avert their eyes from gaze attacks. So I'm asking people, how do you deal with it? To me, this item seems to be artifact level, and yet it's something that any reasonably high level PC can afford quite easily. Meanwhile, I've tried throwing everything I can think of at this thing, from beholders, to undead, to purple worms, to giant spellcasters, and nothing even phases it. Help!
This isn't a request to revisit the power level of the spell. I have no problem with the power level of this spell, either in 3.5 or in Pathfinder. What I have a problem with is how this spell works mechanically. Personally, I think the mechanics of this spell are too complicated. I used this spell once in 3.5, and it took about twenty to thirty minutes to resolve its effects as players rolled for every item, and struggled to understand the rules for magic item saving throws. Granted, I haven't had any experience using this spell in Pathfinder, but mechanically, the spell isn't that much different, so I don't really think that matters. Here are some ideas that I think should be discussed. -The rules for magic item saving throws need to be revisited and made simpler. As is, it's a real pain when players with low Will saves have to look up the caster level of every single magic item on their character sheet in order to determine whether their personal saving throws are higher than their magic items. -The spell should disjoin all spells, consumable items, and unattended magic items automatically. Permanent magic items must make their saves individually or be disjoined. -The spell should disjoin all spells automatically. All magic items must make a d% roll equal to the spell's caster level or be disjoined. -The spell disjoins all spells and unattended magic items automatically. Attended items must make a Will save equal to their owner's or be disjoined. Now I'm sure there are other ideas about how this spell could work, many of which are better than the ones presented here. I'm also sure there are people who think there's nothing wrong with the way the spell works now, and that's fine. However, I think the rules for this spell should at least be reexamined, even if the final decision is to leave things the way they are.
I do admit that the lack of a core rulebook is one of the major things keeping my group from switching to Pathfinder. I also know that my own initial excitement over Pathfinder has waned a little because they haven't yet released a book. However, keep in mind that 4E was in development for three years before it got published. Pathfinder has only been under development for about half that time. I know we're all frothing at the mouth for Pathfinder, but I'm pretty sure our patience will ultimately be worth it.
Down side to action points as I understand them is that they just add to your total roll don't modify the actual number rolled on a d20. That means a 1 is still a fail, so you can still die from effects that require fort saves. Well, it really depends on how you're using action points. If you're using them the way they're presented in d20 Modern or Eberron, then yes, you are correct. If you're using them the way they're presented in Unearthed Arcana, then they can be used for other things, like emulating feats. For some additional uses for action points, see this page. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm In any event, I think death points could be added on as an additional use for action points. I also think they can be used as a separate game mechanic in and of themselves.
Death spells now merely deal lots of damage (usually 10 points per level) - that can still kill you, but the 20th-level fighter will not die from an 9th-level cleric's slay living. True, but if a fighter only has 100 hit points left, and he gets hit by a slay living spell cast by a 15th level caster, he's still going to die. Death points would just give the fighter some additional options to try and avoid death.
Not a bad idea. But rather than a complete different mechanic, I would think it could be combined with Action Points. So you could use your action points to 'save from death'. They are both Heroic concepts. It would also teach people to ration their action points. I would like to see it written up as an optional set of rules but I don't see it going mainstream. I'm not using action points in my campaign just yet, because I want to reserve them for later. However, I think that's an excellent point. Action points can already be used to stabilize a character who is unconscious. It might be a nice little addition to use additional action points to perform some of the functions of death points. Also, as you point out, it would make players think twice about blowing through them the way they do now.
I don't think the problem with fighters is that they're underpowered. I think the problem is that the flaws of a poorly built fighter are more glaring than any other class. I think this has something to do with the fact that fighters primarily rely on a good combination of feats and equipment to make their characters cool, whereas most other classes have built-in special abilities that are all but user-proof. Put the wrong combination of feats and equipment together for a fighter and you have a pretty sucky fighter. Put the wrong combination of feats and equipment together for any other class, and you may not have the greatest character build in the world, but at least your character isn't useless. I think another reason the flaws of a poorly built fighter are so glaring is because they're forced to stand up on the front lines and take damage the whole time with no way to deflect it or gain any hit points back. Other classes all have a way to heal themselves, gain additional hit points, deflect damage through spells, or position themselves so that they aren't forced to take damage each round. A well built fighter might be able to accomplish some of these feats, or they might be so well built they can take the abuse without worrying about it. However, a poorly built fighter is going down every single time. Personally, I've seen fighters break the game with nothing more than the core rules. I've also seen fighters that are good for nothing more than getting their brains spread on a mind flayer's toast. If there's any problem with fighters, I really think it's the user, and not the class. That said, maybe it would be a good idea to make the fighter class a little more user proof for new players who don't quite have a handle on the rules.
Death points are a simple game mechanic that I've been using in an epic game that I'm running for 3.5. That said, I think the basic principles could easily be adapted for a game at 15th-20th level. The basic premise of death points is to take some of the edge off of save-or-die effects, and to keep players from going from full hit points to dead in one round. I'm not sure if death points are still relevant in Pathfinder (I'm not that familiar with the ruleset, since I don't know anyone who is playing it just yet). However, I like what I've seen for Pathfinder so far, and I thought I'd throw them out there for people to look at, anyway. Take a look. Death Points Player characters receive a total of 3 death points at each level, which they can use to avoid death as a result of hit point loss and/or a spell or effect that results in instant death. These points do not carry over, so if a character fails to use all of their death points before they level, any remaining death points are lost. Note: Nonplayer characters do not normally receive death points, though they may choose to take the Cheat Death feat to gain access to them (see below). Death points can be used in one of three ways. Characters can expend 1 death point to avoid death and instead fall unconscious and stabilized at -1 hit points. By expending 2 death points, a character can choose to take half their remaining hit points in damage in order to avoid death. Finally, by expending 3 death points, a character can choose to negate any damage or effect that would normally result in death. Players can only use death points if their characters are conscious before the effect takes place. So for example, a character could use death points to avoid dying as a result of a slay living spell, but could not use death points to avoid dying as a result of a coup de grace, or death knell spell. CHEAT DEATH [EPIC]* Your intimate experience with death has made you more capable of avoiding it.
*New feat.
Not quite. I recall seeing in one of the 'Ask the Sage' articles that undead and constructs are not affected by antimagic fields, at least for the purposes of de-animation. Lipto is correct. However, we don't need to turn to an "Ask The Sage" article for that one. It's right in the spell description. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm
I'm not as familiar with the Cauldron campaign as I am with Age of Worms, but I'll try to help you out. The Wind Dukes play a relatively minor role in the Age of Worms campaign, so it's not absolutely necessary to know anything about them. That said, if you have access to the Rod of Seven Parts adventure series, you may want to take a look at it, because elements of that series of modules get referenced throughout the Age of Worms campaign, and it might be nice to add a little more depth to the campaign's backstory. In the Age of Worms campaign, the PCs learn that the Ebon Triad is actually a front created by Kyuss to advance the Age of Worms prophecy without fear of discovery. The cult members are unaware of this, of course, and go about trying to bring together their three gods oblivious to the Worm God's plans. Other than the Age of Worms prophecy, it might be nice to reference the Rod of Seven Parts somehow, because it comes up in the campaign a few times. Like the Wind Dukes, though, it plays a relatively minor role in the campaign. Celeste is a friend of Manzorian, the archmage. The PCs meet up with her briefly at the Inn of the Seeing Eye, in Magepoint. I think she also did something in Free City to direct the PCs to Manzorian, but I can't remember for sure. Ekaym Smallcask I'm not as familiar with, but I think he sponsors the PCs in the Champions game.
I think you're overlooking the obvious. Kill the familiar. Yeah M'akar is a spellcaster, but it doesn't mean he can't pummel the thing with his natural attacks. Once the familiar's dead, pick the thing up and throw it at the PC spellcaster. Not only is it wickedly cruel, but now the familiar's owner is in the area of her/his own antimagic field. :)
Funny you should mention it. I'm actually writing an epic continuation to the campaign for my group and it's set in Forgotten Realms. It picks up two years after the original campaign. The new ruler of Alhaster is plagued by nightmares of a dead world, ruled over by the Worm God, Kyuss. In the dreams, the character also hears the words 'Shalara' and 'Help' whispered over and over again. If the PCs start investigating this situation, they soon discover that Shalara is the name of an obscure goddess from an alternate Material plane, known as Zana. In order to travel to the plane, the PCs must use a metal rod keyed to the plane. Unable to create the rod themselves, the PCs must first contact a friend of Manzorian's, a shadow adept, named Shildhran, who lives in the city of Shade. Along the way, the PCs discover that Shildhran has traveled to the ancient ruins of Rasilith (in our campaign, Rasilith is the birthplace of Kyuss). There, they find that Shildhran has been enslaved by the phaerimm who live in the ruins beneath the city. They also learn that the phaerimm have been battling with Kyuss's wormspawn for some time. If the PCs agree to help the phaerimm defeat the wormspawn, the phaerimm are more than willing to release Shildhran in exchange. If the PCs refuse to help the phaerimm, they will have to fight their way through two enemies, and risk losing the one man they came to retrieve. Eventually, the PCs defeat Kyuss's minions and retrieve Shildhran. In the process, they also discover that the wormspawn have been reconstructing Kyuss's monolith in the catacombs beneath the city. Finally, the PCs discover that they have a new enemy, a demilich, named Hadovas. What this new enemy's role is in the Age of Worms prophecy remains to be seen. However, it appears that he was the one directing Kyuss's minions to rebuild the Worm God's monolith. I've written a 60 some odd page adventure for this, with a second one that's almost complete. I'm hoping that once WoTC has its new fan site policy in place, I'll be able to post these somewhere. Until then, I guess you'll have to rely on my word picture.
If I could change anything, it would be the Adventure Hook for that opening adventure. The PCs are looking for treasure so that they can leave the town of Diamond Lake and head for Free City. Fair enough. However, when our group got to Alaster's house and found that the bodies of his parents had been taken back to the town we were all trying to get away from, our party started debating about whether we should just sell the lanterns we found in the Whispering Cairn and cut our losses. Personally, I liked what one of my other DMs did. A wizard friend sent the party an invitation to come visit him at his home outside of Diamond Lake. When we got there, we found he had been assassinated by members of the Ebon Triad. After defeating the assassins, we found notes from him talking about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa and the Whispering Cairn. Thinking that we might discover the motive of his assassins if we went there, we decided to investigate the lead.
The one I always wonder about is whips. They have 15ft reach, and can be used against adjacent foes. So my question is does a large creature wielding a large whip get to hit creatures up to 25ft away?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
