Green Dragon

DracoDruid's page

Organized Play Member. 1,061 posts (1,062 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,061 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I just took a look at Ameiko's History in Jade Regent.

There, it is cleared up:

She DOES run away twice as Latrecis has written.

After the Argument with Tsuto in 4701 she runs away to Magnimar (probably to some relatives or such) but returns some months later in 4702 to attend her mothers funeral.

Then, she continues living with her father in the mansion but can't bear it for long and goes adventuring for a year in 4705.

Her group get wiped out almost entirely in 4706 which makes her return to Sandpoint the same year and buys the Rusty Dragon with her earnings.

Thanks for pointing me to the Jade Regent path for the clarification!


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.
(Which would be a result of the late unpleasantness)

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.
But this would go beyond scope too...

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.
All my classes receive a minimum of 4 skill points per level. I know the wizard will got plenty through his high INT, but it's something I simply do.

- Class skills: Craft, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Profession, Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device.
I dropped Appraise since the only obvious reason was to "detect" magic items, but detect magic does the trick much butter, so I dropped it and added Intimidate and UMD to the list. I think every class should have at least one social skill and Intimidate fits quite well: "Fear me and my arcane powers or I will turn you into a toad! (and please don't realize that I am a 1st level wizard)".
I also think that a wizard should be quite adapt at handling magic items, so UMD was really missing here. Sure CHA won't be great for the wizard but class skill bonus might ease up on this.

- Bonus feats: 1 feat every 4th level (instead of 5th).
One more feat and a bit smoother progression. I simply prefer it.

- Spellcasting: +1 Spell per spell level.
This is part of one major change, because a specialist no longer receives an additional spell slot. It was the one reason no one would play a universalist and this is my way of fixing this. Specialists will get other benefits and other penalties.

- Arcane Bond:
I want to change the way familiars and Arcane Objects work. For now, I will simply drop the Concentration penalty for losing the Arcane Object. But I am thinking of adding a small Concentration bonus or penalty when having or not having the Arcane Object.

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 want the familiar to be actually useful for scouting, delivering spells from a distance and helping when learning or crafting.

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:
Now as I said, specialists no longer receive the additional spell slot. Instead, they receive +4 on ALL skill checks (usually spellcraft) and +1 spellcaster level when dealing with spells from their school, and start with one additional specialty spell at 1st level.
The opposition schools receive the mirrored penalty: -4 skill checks, -1 spellcaster level, and they count as two spells when chosen as new spells at 1st level or on level up.
(They no longer need two slots to be casts)

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:
The part about warforged wasn't aimed at your post, it was meant to be a general recommendation from me to any of you.
Sorry for the confusing layout.

-----

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.
I think it fits pretty well.


@xorial:
Yeah I know the site you linked. Sadly he stopped somewhere half the way.
In addition, I don't like some of the adaptions he made, but that's okay.
The wiki is exactly for this. Bundle ALL the different takes on conversion and let every group/GM choose what they prefer.

About Warforged:
I STRONGLY advice to treat them as HUMANOIDS with a special subtype (i.e. Awakened Contruct) that states they can also be affected by spells and effects that target constructs.
Treating them as Constructs with a special subtype that makes them half-humanoids is more complicated and makes comparing them to ALL the other races much more complicated.
Take a look at my Warforged take on the wiki, I explained it there.

@ all:
I am quite happy that this finally gets some going.
Please start posting your stuff on the wiki or leave constructive comments to the existing stuff.

Thanks to you all and have a nice holiday.


@ +5 Toaster:
Hmm. Good point. My first version of the Warforged actually had no CON like other other constructs so that would have been a discouragement for barbarians and could have balanced the "fatigue immunity" (I guess that's what you meant).
Maybe I have to add some line to this very special case. Thanks for pointing it out.

@ Azaelas Fayth:
Well I -try- to make MY stuff PF balanced. But that's a tough thing to do without feedback.
If you did some conversion stuff, please feel free to put it on the wiki (link in the first post) or send it to me and I will see to it. As you like.

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
- is bad at lying
- is bad with animals
- has weaker innate magic (aka sorcerer)

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.


Wechselbalg
[spoken: v-axle-bulk - v as in vixen]
(German: Wechsel = Change, balg = old word for skin )

----------------------
OR

Faceless
Copycats
Mirrormen


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.
(Unless you use the +2 skill rank feat - which I wouldn't.)

- 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.
d6 = 3 hp, d8 = 4 hp, d10 = 5 hp, d12 = 6 hp.
This way, the characters do improve but are staying closer to the "normal people". Maybe even lower it by 1 point across the board.

- 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
- Removed helmet-2-armor limitation
- added a sentence to clarify AC bonus only against critical confirmation

SHIELDS
- Merged Buckler and light shield (AC +1)
- Medium shield hand can be used to carry items but not weapons (AC +2)
- Heavy shield unchanged (AC +4, for simple calculation)
- added table line for full-metal shields (were already in the text)

------------------------------

QUESTIONS / THOUGHTS:
- Did you guys realize, that I removed the -2 attack penalty from the heavy/tower shield?
Should I lower the AC bonus to +3 because of that?

- I am inclined to change/simplify the ARMOR SPIKES. Anyone any experience with those?
How about a simple automatic damage when grappling or something?
Maybe some penalty to acrobatics?


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. ?!?!
It's an energy burst g&# d!*nit, who cares what intend you had?

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)
BAB +5 - 19-20/x2 ( 2 dot)
BAB +8 - 19-20/x3 ( 4 dot)
BAB +11 - 18-20/x3 ( 6 dot)
BAB +14 - 17-20/x3 ( 8 dot)
BAB +17 - 17-20/x4 (12 dot)
BAB +20 - 16-20/x4 (15 dot)

Cap: 17-20/x4:

BAB +0 - 20/x2 ( 1 dot)
BAB +4 - 19-20/x2 ( 2 dot)
BAB +8 - 19-20/x3 ( 4 dot)
BAB +12 - 18-20/x3 ( 6 dot)
BAB +16 - 18-20/x4 ( 9 dot)
BAB +20 - 17-20/x4 (12 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).
You no longer have to think about extra feats to give those nice 7th or 8th level abilities you know you want to include, but...

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...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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 always had this idea in my head to move the critical hit chances away from weapons and into the hands of the combatant, as this makes much more sense in my eyes.

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
BAB +5 - 19-20/x2
BAB +10 - 18-20/x3
BAB +15 - 17-20/x3
BAB +20 - 16-20/x4 (maxed out)

- Improved Critical [Revised]
Prerequisites: Critical Focus, BAB +11.
Benefit: Increase your BAB by 4 to determine your critical statistics.
(maybe drop the requirement to pick a weapon)

- 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.
But my experiences on those levels are pretty limited so I need you to make a better call.

--------------------------------

Why?
Because I never liked nor understood the idea that some weapons are "more dangerous" than other weapons or whatever you wanna call a higher crit stat,
but a combatants martial skill (BAB) was no factor for this (sure, confirmation rolls are sort of doing this, but I never really liked those either).
Bottomline, the critical mechanic feels (to me) as a strange haphazard combination of different ideas and mechanics.

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.
So any weapon that hasn't 18-20 is considered a bad choice if you could take one instead.
This reduces the ridiculously large weapon list to only a small number of "acceptable" weapons, resulting in most melee characters wielding one out of 4 weapons (rapier, scimitar, falchion, and elven curve blade)

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.
If going for an effective melee character, criting more often with lower multiplier is better than criting less often with a higher one.

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.
I previously thought it's a locial idea: Bigger weapon: more damage, less easy to handle. And since there is no speed factor or something like it anymore, I went for the drawing rules.
But since a one-handed weapon is only marginally lower in damage, AND also receives the +50% power attack bonus when wielded in two hands, who would take a two-handed weapon?
So, thanks for pointing it out, it will be changed in the next version, though I will keep the swift action for light weapons.

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.
But those are at least still there, sort of.

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"
(now with STR based two-weapon fighting)

--------------------

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.
I'll leave the GWR as they are now, but will give this some more thoughts at time.


Shameless bump.

I really could use some more input from you guys!

Pretty please with sugar on top! :)


Well that is a very nice idea!

So how about:

1st level: one Favored Enemy at +2
5th, 10th, 15th, 20th level: +2 to one existing Favored Enemy OR one new Favored Enemy at +2.
(Instead of both like the Ranger)

------------------------------------

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:
I am a bit surprised that Favored Enemy up to +4 is considered weak compared to the domains and inquisitions.
Looking through the two "guides" in the Advice section, most domains and inquisitions come out average or worse with only a few as good choices.
BUT considering that a domain/inquisition must match the character's deity AND (even more important to me) the character concept, the bottomline is quite disappointing.

Of course, those guides are not the ultimate wisdom, but I always take them as a good rule of thumb or guideline.
And as stated in my first post, PHARASMA has a quite poor choice of domains/inquisitions, which gets even more limited with my character concept.

That being said, I would be okay if this inquisition turns out "an okay choice".

--------------------------------------------------

Third:
I looked into "Instant Enemy" and "Hunter's Howl" and wouldn't add them to the Inquisitor's spell list. The idea behind the inquisition is to focus on one type of enemy and both spells allow to "switch enemies".
That's not the idea.
I would rather add a spell like "Detect Aberration" but ONLY for the chosen enemy. Maybe as a free known spell.

--------------------------------------------------

Fourth:
If +4 at 6th level is to weak, what would be okay?
+2 at 1st and another +2 every 5th/6th level?

--------------------------------------------------

Fifth:
Can anyone tell me how Favored Enemies from different sources interact?


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:
.
.
.
FOE-HUNTER INQUISITION
You are trained to hunt the hated foes of your faith.
Favored Enemy: At 1st level, you receive one favored enemy equal to a ranger at 1st level.
At 6th level, the bonuses against your favored enemy increase to +4.
You do not gain additional favored enemies.
.
.
.
What do you think? (Except poor wording)

Too much? Too few?

Still needs a clarification about how it interferes with the ranger ability.


I have no problem with the number of inns or what not (might even be one or two more).

It's simply that the MAP (and nothing else) seems a tiny bit to small (aka to few houses).
Simple as that.


Or if you use hero points, you could simply use CHA as a modifier to the maximum number of hero points a character can possess (was done in another game I can't remember, I think True20)


It's not overpowered but rather totally awesome.
I'd allow it, RAW or RAI or WTF! :)


Since I heard "Dwarven Stalward Defender" somewhere I had this image in my head of a dwarf in adamantine full plate and two tower shields...


@ Evil Lincoln:
Thanks again for these rules, I will test them as soon as my campaign finally starts.

But, could you also update the formatted PDF you like to in the googleDOC?

BTW: The "Non-lethal Damage" headline is ill-placed atm.

Thank you all very much.


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?


Maybe we did it wrong, but I half a HO Inquisitor with SCENT too and it came in pretty handy to "sniff-out" that damn invisible ghost.
(DM judged that ghosts actually do have a scent - ozon)


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.
IF 1000 people were actually to life IN the town and not in the hinterlands too.

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.
(Would have wished that for "Intimidating Prowess")


Dotting this for all eternity...
Thanks to all you goblin bards out there!


Hey everyone.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Map from Sandpoint is WAY too small for a 1000 souls community?

1000 souls INCLUDING the Hinterlands/Farmlands might be okay (not sure) but otherwise...

Anyone care to elaborate?


And I believe PF Power Attack is too good, too.
Any feat that is a "must" is simply too good or should rather be a standard rule IMO.

But BTT:

Thinks I don't like in 3E and still don't like in PF:

- Everything and everyone aimed at combat
- Spell slots
- Too many (useless) feats & spells
- BAB & Saves dictated by HD
- HD

... Hmm.. come to think of it, d20 obviously is not my type of game...
... But I still haven't found one I actually like better...


That is simply showing that giving the fighter more feats is a lame class ability to begin with...


Actually, I like the idea of splitting WISDOM(!) into INTUITION/AWARENESS and WILLPOWER/RESOLVE.
(But that's probably not gonna happen (except in my d20-system))

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)


Seems to me that there isn't much left from the original bard.

So why not simply make it a whole new class?

While I can see the need for it, I don't think full BAB is that fitting, though...


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!

1 to 50 of 1,061 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>