I have the Anniversary Edition in Hardcover and the old ones as pdf. In the AE, it is stated that she has a fight with Tsuto in 4705 and goes adventuring directly afterwards. THEN returns one year later to attend her mothers funeral.
But of that would have been in 4702 as the AE says, they would have taken 4 years to bury her poor mother. Those numbers alone don't add up
Sorry for the thread necro, but I am about to create a prequel adventure for complete newby players and am trying to figure out the pre-timeline. I found one discrepancy though, the runewell was said to be activated in 4705 thus triggering the murder of Ameiko Kaijitsu by her husband in the very same night. Also, it is said that Ameiko returns after a year adventuring to attend her mothers funeral, which would be 4706 (probably NOT happening a full year after her death) In addition, the late unpleasantness is said to be in 4702 Those numbers don't add up. Given that Ameiko is born in 4689, it would turn her 16/17 for her adventuring year in 4705/06 and 13/14 if set in 4702, a tad too young I'd say.
Well. Though this was not supposed to become just another "What-is-wrong-with-the-wizard" thread, I guess I asked for it. I know that the thing really broken with the wizard (or all full-casters) is the quadratic power increase, the poor distribution of spells and a bunch of spells per se. But that's something I won't be able to fix without creating a whole new game so I have to deal with what I can fix or improve or whatever. Actually, I like the concept of giving full-casters access to the next spell level every 4th (instead of every 2nd) level. This would mean unlocking 6th spell level at level 20.
Actually, I think Pathfinder works best with 8th level as capstone level (see E6). ------------------- Now that is been said: Please do me a favor and take all this what's wrong with the wizard discussion elsewhere and limit yourself to CIVIL and CONSTRUCTIVE comments on the changes I am planning to make. Thanks.
Hello once again everyone and a happy new year from germany! Now, back to business: I want to straighten the edges of the wizard class where I see them but I really would like your input on this. My version is not nearly finished but I will post a link nontheless since post-editing is still not allowed here. Anyways, I think I start with listing my basic changes I am planning and hope you guys will brainstorm with me: - Skill points: 4 + Int.
- Class skills: Craft, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Profession, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device.
- Bonus feats: 1 feat every 4th level (instead of 5th).
- Spellcasting: +1 Spell per spell level.
- Arcane Bond:
Familiars will receive a bigger nerf to be honest. I want to nerf the action economy trick with an improved familiar and UMD. It's simply too good and even more unbalancing than the wizard himself.
I would like to add one or two additional bond options but actually can't think of any ATM. Maybe making bonded weapons (athame) into a seperate bonded item type. - Arcane School:
The Universalist gains neither bonuses nor penalties, as usual. I will also look at all the school powers and try to bring them all at eye level if possible. I guess I will need your help especially on this part. Well, I guess that's it. Maybe add some more Arcane Discoveries when I can think of some, we will see. Thanks for reading and hopefully for many constructive posts. Cheers. -------------------------- Link to the Improved Wizard
@xorial:
----- BTW: I changed my warforged take again. Warforged barbarians now still become fatigued after raging (this is the exception to the fatigue immunity and added balance-wise), they became "Slow and Steady" like dwarves, and the ability adjustments changed to "Mixed Weakness": +2 STR, +2 INT, -2 DEX, -4 CHA.
@xorial:
About Warforged:
@ all:
Thanks to you all and have a nice holiday.
@ +5 Toaster:
@ Azaelas Fayth:
I can't stress this enough: The wiki is FREE 4 ALL and I hope that many of you will start posting their PF-2-EBRN stuff there.
After half a year of no feedback or new content I just bring this thing back to mind. I hope that this time some of you who are still interested in Eberron & Pathfinder will find the time to actually add their content to the wiki. It looks a little pathetic with only my stuff there. Not what I had in mind...
Actually, translating "Unpleasant to be around" into a CHA penalty was and sadly still is a design flaw of 3rd Edition. A CHA penalty should only be given for "lack of personality", which - I admit - is kinda hard to judge (but warforged come to mind). "Unpleasant to be around" should instead translate into a Diplomacy (and maybe also a bluff) penalty. Otherwise, being of an "unpleasant" race not only means: - has difficulties dealing with other people but also: - is bad at intimidating
And I can think of many races that might be "unpleasant" but would indeed by quite adapt at on or more of the other things.
Where is the big difference between stopping at 6th and adding a lot of special feats to get to 8th or simple go to 8th? What I can think of: - BAB: difference between [+3(+2), +4, +6] or [+3, +6, +8] isn't that big a deal and it allows the full BABs for a half decent second attack. - Skill ranks: Max 8 instead of 6. Also no big deal. Feats like Skill Focus and the like are only improved with rank 10 so no threat there.
- Hit Points: I can see the reservation here, but there is an easy way to handle this: Don't roll them. Simply give every character (and monster!) 50% of the maximum per hit die.
- Saves: Only Good saves are improved and only by +1 so NO problem here. - Barbarian Powers: 8th level powers are available. I don't know them all but I see them as the barbarians capstone abilities. With "improved DR" his DR could be bumped to DR 4/- with 3 feats. Might this be a problem? - 4th level spells. Simply don't allow them as I mentioned before. Give the spell slots for metamagic and rituals and only include specific important spells as feats. Done.
I guess I'll go with -1, -3, -5 then. I like linear or at least logical progressions too. ;) I probably have to clarify that, though considered a 2-H weapon to determine it's damage stats, the heavy shield is still counted as a one-handed weapon, it simply does more damage. So no power attack bonus, no 1.5 STR bonus, and you can use it for TWF/SF. I am thinking about changing the GWR wording from light, one-handed, two-handed into Light, Medium, Heavy - adding a line that heavy melee weapons are almost always two-handed except maybe lances and shields. Maybe I'll add a whole new paragraph for shields... We'll see... But thanks again for your continous input. ---------------- One question, though: What would you prefer for heavy shield bash: - an unchanged -2 attack penalty - an attack penalty equal to the shields ACP
Yeah. Funny. After posting V1.3 I reread your comments and thought about going to +1,+2,+3 too. But what about ACP? I'd say -1,-2,-4 ? or maybe even -1, -3, -5. I will probably add a Shield Bash penalty to the heavy shield. I am thinking of a simple "Always take the heavy shield's ACP to all shield bash attacks". This way, the medium shield is the best "Shield bash shield", maybe except when you can affort a mithril heavy shield (still a -1/-2 to attack though) Yeah, I'll probably gonna do that. ----------------------------------- So what about shield ACP? a) -1, -2, -4 b) -1, -3, -5 c) something else
:P I don't see it as a bastard child. It's simply evolution. As <EnterNameHere> already said: Backwards-Compatibility was certainly an issue for the first PF edition, to get as many 3.5 players as possible. But now, with a well established fan-base, I see no reason why NOT to change "core" things to make the game better. It's simple. Look at what's bugging people the most AND. CHANGE. IT.
Version 1.4 (big thanks to 'findel and Ciaran !): HELMETS
SHIELDS
------------------------------ QUESTIONS / THOUGHTS:
- I am inclined to change/simplify the ARMOR SPIKES. Anyone any experience with those?
BTW: This spell is really strange. 1d6 points of POSITIVE energy, but it can ONLY DAMAGE undead, not heal... Yeah I know, it's because infinite OoC healing, yada yada yada, but seriously? The same with Channel Energy: You can release a burst of positive energy but it only heals OR damages. ?!?!
Sorry for that.
True. But maybe we just dump the multiplier increase and leave it at x2? I dabbled a bit with range/mult. What I found were the smoothest scalings: Cap: 16-20/x4 BAB +0 - 20/x2 ( 1 dot)
Cap: 17-20/x4: BAB +0 - 20/x2 ( 1 dot)
I looked into E6 with Pathfinder recently and came to the opinion that it would work smoothest if your use 8th level as cap instead of 6th (so P8).
Simply cap at 8th and make NO extra feats for higher level abilities! The characters are a bit stronger than at 6th obviously (two more levels of Hit Dice, at bit higher skills/BAB etc. but nothing really OP) But the spellcasters have some more slots to play with and the BABs are better spread (4-6-8 instead of 3-4-6) One thing though: - Spellcasters DO get 4th level slots BUT DON'T get 4th level spells! - Some more or less important utility spells should be accessable by feats (restoration, stone to flesh) but still as nerfed versions with long casting time. - Other than that, the 4th level slots are for metamagic fun (and rituals) only. ... Maybe nerfing the Hit Points too might be worth thinking about...
Oh man! Where to start? - Drop ability scores, just use modifiers - Split WISDOM into AWARENESS and WILLPOWER - Split DEXTERITY into DEXTERITY (hand-eye) and AGILITY (overall body) - make attack rolls and AC depent on several abilities (STR+DEX /2, or something similar) - make BAB a skill - base AC of BAB - base crits on attack roll vs. AC - armor as DR - armor does not reduce speed/max.DEX/ACP but encumbrance does - medium/heavy load reduces your DEX (and therefore your AC) - more realistic encumbrance thresholds - Make feats actually mean something! (Feat: A specialized action the character can perform, not a simple bonus on a roll) - Maybe a feat per level or a mechanic to acquire feats out of the line (pay EXP or something) - drop spell slots use mana/fatigue/whatever - Merge all spell lists - Rebalance all schools (Healing -> Necromancy, Protective spells (mage armor, any wall, ...) -> Abjuration, Creation -> Transmutation, ...) - More size categories, maybe even a size score instead ... Haters gonna hate.
They probably thought they don't need it since they have Channel Energy, but playing Carrion Crown ATM and seeing both the sorcerer AND the inquisitor having it (and being glad about it - hello to all incorporeal undead), it's surely odd that the cleric doesn't. I would definitely houserule it. But then again, I would do A LOT to the spell lists...
Thanks Oceanshieldwolf. It's always nice to get a little pat on the shoulder from time to time. :) ------------------------------------- On an unrelated note:
I know this would change quite a bit and many people won't like it, because it might nerf their early crit builds but I'll post it anyway und would like you guys (and gals) to tell me what you think: Critials based on Proficiency: - All weapons no longer possess critical stats, just damage, range, special qualities. - All combatants gain a critical threat range and multiplier based on their BAB: BAB +0 - 20/x2
- Improved Critical [Revised]
- KEEN does the same as Improved Critical and is not stackable with it as always. And that's about it. -------------------------------- I realize that this nerfs early high crit build and one might argue that 16-20/x4 is totally OP, but keeping in mind that we are talking about level 16 at the earliest and comparing to spellcasters at this level, I am not so sure that this really is such a big deal.
-------------------------------- Why?
In addition, reading through all the boards, it seems pretty obvious that high crit range weapons are considered clearly superior to low crit range weapons.
It's power gaming (not a bad thing per se) and boring to only see those 4 weapons all the time, but they DO have a point.
I think I lost my point somewhere and I definitely am out of time, so I'll stop here and hope some of you will continue (constructively please).
Wow! They keep coming back! :) @ Ciaran: Shields, that's because old shields sucked big time. They now actually do some good, though Laurefindel might have a point about the buckler/light shield. Helmets: You probably missed, that helmets only give an AC bonus against Critical hits. They don't give a "normal" armor bonus. @ Laurefindel: Okay, if I would merge the light shield and the buckler, how about AC bonuses? +1, +2, +3 | +2, +3, +4 | +1, +2, +4 ... ??? ------------------------------- Quick Questions: - Is the text about helmet-2-armor limitation comprehensible? - The Perception penalty for helmets was -1, -3, -5 but I thought that too much. ------------------------------- As always: Thank you for all your comments.
Wow! Feedback! °__° @ rainzax: Well, thanks, I guess. You are welcome to use what you like, though a little credit is always welcomed. ;) @ Ciaran Barnes: I guess you are right. I actually wanted to change as little ingame mechanic as possible and obviously, I forgot about that at this point.
Keep the feedback coming!
Wow! Feedback! °__° Hi Laurefindel, and thanks for that. I think dropping the buckler would produce a roughly equal outcry than the changes I made for Chain Shirt, Breastplate and Fullplate.
The buckler DOES have a special mechanic and purpose and I simply thought it's worth keeping. I don't like all those mithril buckler mages, but that's another topic. ;)
This probably doesn't interest anyone anymore, but... *shrugs* ... -------------------- Version 1.3: - Changed the naming of armor from "Regular, Reinforced, Fortified" to "Flexible, Regular, Reinforced" - Slightly improved the ACP of medium and heavy armor - Changed/improved the tower shield (now called heavy shield) - Added several description texts for armor, helmets and shields - Added revised versions for feats of the "Shield Proficiency tree"
-------------------- Your constructive comments are - as always - very much appreciated.
Version 1.6: - Martial/Exotic proficiencies now "one-for-all" (no need to specify a weapon type, you can use all weapons with one/two feats) - minor clarifications --------------------- THOUGHTS: I am still pondering about the idea with weapon stats dependent on user proficiency (simple/martial/exotic) instead of the weapon itself.
Well that is a very nice idea! So how about: 1st level: one Favored Enemy at +2
------------------------------------ What do you think about the the "Detect Foe" spell idea? I thought about maybe "spell-like ability: once per day per inquisitor level"
First of, thanks for the replies (I hope there will be more to come). -------------------------------------------------- Second:
Of course, those guides are not the ultimate wisdom, but I always take them as a good rule of thumb or guideline.
That being said, I would be okay if this inquisition turns out "an okay choice". -------------------------------------------------- Third:
-------------------------------------------------- Fourth:
-------------------------------------------------- Fifth:
Hey everyone. I am momentarily playing a pharasman Inquisitor and am very disappointed of the domains and inquisitions allowed to Pharasma. I am playing an Undead-Hunter and would love a domain/inquisition that emphasizes that. So I had the following idea for an inquisition:
Too much? Too few? Still needs a clarification about how it interferes with the ranger ability.
Just read another thread about Vital Strike, and I came to wonder: Why not make Vital Strike "activate" on a Move action? First I thought about using a Swift Action, but this might be to powerful regarding high level full attacks. I would definitely remove the option to Vital Strike on the move, but it would finally clarify the whole s*~* about it. A move action is still kinda big to sacrifice so maybe the three VS feats should probably merged into one single feat. EDIT: OR, as an alternative way: You activate it as a swift action, but the additional damage only adds to your FIRST attack this round. How about that?
If think it's a good FAQ question. I have no hard rule evidence, but my guts tell me, Force is NOT elemental. So a force effect would NOT ignore hardness but would deal FULL damage to an object. Thinking about it, is there really that big a difference between force and sonic? Or rather, isn't sonic a special use of force?
Or you simply use two stats + feat/special bonuses and NO level based advancement. However, this might make low-level saves rather powerful and later levels rather difficult... But I sort-of agree with you. At least most (or even all) REF-saves made because you where attacked in some way (trap, fireball, etc) could or should be dealt by a simply attack/AC roll. Grabbing the edge of the cliff as a last resort, however, is a good example for a true REF-save.
Would have never guessed that JJ would actually post here. But reading through the post I must have accidentally stepped on someone's toes BIG TIME. If I offended you or the Paizo staff in any way I apologize. Map making was and still is one the biggest challenges for me too, so I know it's no easy task. But I never really said you were doing a bad job. It's just that me and my friends looked at the map and the population count and had "the undistinct feeling" that the map was too small for that population size.
And I wanted to know if we are large alone with this feeling or if others have the same impression. I don't know, maybe it is because my friends and I all grew up in a 2 Million people city and not in a small town, so our perspective might be blurred by that.
I think a feat that only CHANGES your stat is a bit underpowered, except maybe when it changes to another type of stat (Will save to physical stat or Fort/Ref to mental stat) I don't know but I kinda like the "either instead or in addition - your choice" variant.
And I believe PF Power Attack is too good, too.
But BTT: Thinks I don't like in 3E and still don't like in PF: - Everything and everyone aimed at combat
... Hmm.. come to think of it, d20 obviously is not my type of game...
Actually, I like the idea of splitting WISDOM(!) into INTUITION/AWARENESS and WILLPOWER/RESOLVE.
But back to your point, I think Illusions would also work with INT, instead of WIS. Bottom line, there should be one Save for each Ability (D&D Next style - and another thing from my d20-system)
I actually believe that this one of the few things 4.0 might have done right. Allowing you to choose between two stats for each of your saves. Sure, there is room for exploit, but isn't there always? On the other hand, WIS doesn't have that many skills as CHA, so taking away WILL from WIS would leave this stat with quite few schticks...
Trinite wrote: lots of smart stuff... Trinite, I must thank your for your sharp and clear statement. With your fine specimen of a post you convinced me to drop the idea with no hard feelings at all.I consider this thread closed but feel free to hang around and enjoy the coffee and cake... Thank you all very much and have a nice weekend!
|