A spin off because I wanted to discuss something and wanted your input. I just missed you leaving another thread.
Do realize that this is just my opinion but I am curious about what you and others think of the possibility of such a development.
Dale I do think that is the intent. I also think that Paizo is slowly testing out much more modular system constuction systems for a future edition.
Eidolons become a long term playtest for modular monster construction.
Race creation becomes another avenue for monster(ous humanoid) construction and as you so eloquently put world / setting building.
I would not be surprised to see a playtest of class construction come down the pipe at some point. I mean someone did just that for 3.0 many moons ago.
Although from a modular/point buy orientation to the system to make everything come out of the same pool would be better in the long run:
This way you could actually make the game level-less(grant development points rather than XP). You could truly make "mooks", monsters with enough attack modifier to hit the party without doing massive damage due to stat inflation and have 1-2 HD. OR still use levels and just buy the progression scheme for the class at start. Leave the "Core" classes/ races as quick start examples/ trainers.
Nothing says the player can make the classes the GM may well be like here are the classes races available in this game. Or he may allow for more sandbox style game.
Unlike some I would prefer a CLEAR and VIABLE version of this playtest system to flourish. That way more individual tables might have more empowerment to decide what is TOO MUCH for them (I know some like Dale have taken those reins already at the table but some don't as they feel or are pressured by thier local gaming community if its been published by Paizo/ 3PP X it has to be allowed). I do also realize that actually such a methodology to the game would probably drastically change how these forums work there would be the clarification of the interactions of X feat and Y racial option. But in a real way that the polar positions taken on this forum already demonstrate each table and each GM would be playing its own game: some more simulationist, some more story-game, some more skill focused (increase the costs of BAB and spells/magic to "encourage" skill usage because its cheaper, as one method)
so the Exploit Lore feat states
"one per day when you sucessfully identify all abilites and weaknesses of a creature" gain a bonus to hit and damage.
BAB +11 as a prereq
My question: So for an inqusitor this requires level 15 to get this ability
A CR 12 adult Green Dragon has around 12-13 abilites and a subtype vulnerability.
So even if the base knowledge check is a 10 you need a 70-80 on a knowledge roll to get the bonus to hit and damage and you can only use it once per day, and only against one monster if facing multiples of the same type?
It would seem that knowing about all special defences (DR, SR, reistances/immunities) and vulnerabilites might make this a more usable feat
I mean its a no brainer against a human (DC=a joke) to get + whatever. but I am not sure how it is supposed to function against beastiary critters.
So I am playing an elf ranger 1 / inquisitor 1 (travel domain) getting ready to hit 3rd level (ranger 2) and was looking at the two handed weapon fighting style, as I already have power attack and a curve blade. I am in a party with a oracle of nature who is also a melee combatant/healer, an alchemist, a caster oriented druid and a rogue who is shooting for duelist eventually.
I am thinking I should take Shield of Swings, for my combat style feat. I really don't see taking cleave when i can skip it and get great cleave at ranger 6. The rogue is taking gang up so I don't think pushing assault is really all that useful as I'd rather keep an opponent flanked so the rogue can light him up with SA than be able to maneuver him around the battlefield.
I have post up about a High Fantasy Low Magic Item game, but I wanted to pull out one question I am hoping to outsource some Math crunching to the boards.
PLEASE NOTE: DC pumps from feats or class abilities will still be applied.
If no PC can have above a +5 to the DC from a casting attribute it seems that lowering the saves would be necssiary to avoid more of a reduction in sucess of casters than I intended(the thread has the other casting modifications I am making) but what should the "magic number" be: +5, +6, +7?
This would be a setup for a lower magic item but high fantasy and a high possibility of caster classes’ game I am pondering. Feedback is welcome and appreciated. To be explicit: I am trying to make a game of lowered gear dependence, along the lines of A Game Of Thrones later books. I have greedily takewn some ideas form various posters on these boards specifically: TOZ, Evil Lincoln and Bob Loblaw if I missed your name the fault is mine and not an intentional slight.
MAGIC ITEM CREATION:
Fail by 1-4: Item reduced effectiveness, examples include but are not limited to: lowered duration, lowered effect (healing or damage), requires users blood (1-4 HP OR 1hp/CL to create) to activate (primarily for weapons / armor or other permanent items), etc. The caster may opt to scrap the project after hearing about the restrictions following the normal failure rules.
Fail by 5-9 Normal failure rules.
Fail by 10+ cursed items.
Power attack and combat expertise are no longer feats. Remove them from feat prerequisite lines. These are now “combat options” that anyone can attempt. Using the rules listed for each feat.
The feats Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike will no longer be fighter only. However fighter may take these feats at Fighter 7 and Fighter 11 without meeting the BAB requirements.
Maximum DC modifier for attribute score is +5. Recalculate all monster DC's with this in mind. Generally lowers DC's of the high CR monsters abilities and spell like effects but means that bonus spells for exceptionally high stats are still intact.
QUESTION: Do monster saving throws also need to be lowered? My gut says yes but I haven’t crunched the numbers yet.
MAGIC WEAPONS: the actual plus to hit and damage is based off of character level
Properties such as keen, bane and the like increase the effective “Plus” for costs as normal. Multiply the cost for magic weapons by 1.5 for both creation and pricing purposes after determining effective “Plus”.
QUESTION: Should this apply to Magic Armor as well?
PASSIVE AC BONUS:
Of course as the caster progresses the checks for lower end spells become so easy that there is no need to cast them at an increased time frame except to boost DC's to make sure the effect sticks. But more advanced magic’s still run the risk.
ANOTHER OPTION: would be to modify spell casting by requiring a check based off of amount of movement a caster takes in a round. A “5ft Step” would not require a check. Moving 1/3, 2/3, full base movement would create a spell craft check based on the vigorous, violent, and extremely violent motion Spellcasting checks currently in the game. IF YOU FAIL THIS CHECK THE SPELL (OR SLOT) IS NOT EXPENDED.
To address casters with a current movement speed of 20.
I am thinking more and more about the base check for each movement category adding "2*spell level" rather than the current "+ spell level.” This is what the chart looks like for a wizard/cleric trying to cast for the highest level he can cast and each motion break(if I skip a level it’s because the DC remains static.) spontaneous casters will adjust the chart up to the next even number (4, 6, 8, etc.)
In the vein of fostering discussion I would like to ask that folks try and decribe what thier philosophy of gaming is, it helps us understand what makes 'FUN' for us and how to get the most out of our time
Understand that these statements are my opinions, not TRUTH, nor unchangeable positions but they do, at this moment, shape my FUN and what I hope to get out of the game time.
1 Getting together with friends is supposed to be fun.
2 We share a common interest in RPG’s so why not indulge in that while we are hanging out.
3 RPG’s are in essence a means of telling stories.
4 Unlike many stories RPG’s are collaborative/gestalt/team based stories
5 The GM is like unto the nervous system, the players are like unto the tissues, fluids, and bones of the body. Without a nervous system they are spare parts but without them the nervous system is not a whole being either.
6 Each player and the GM all have stories they want to tell as part of the greater whole of the story entire.
7 Remember no matter if the character is only around for one minute in game as far as they are concerned the story is about them, the PC’s, the king, the demon, etc. are the secondary characters. IE just like real life: it’s your life, you are the center of the story the rest of us are secondary, some more important than others no doubt. It’s a great acting tip and really useful for both PC’s and NPC’s.
8 To believe that the only person with a story to tell is the GM is a retrograde position like unto the Monty Haul dungeon crawling of my high school years. I have left that play-style far behind. I feel that it does not increase the richness or depth of the world as a living vibrant thing. I cannot force anyone to agree with any of these opinions but if I could this would be the one.
9 It is my obligation to help each and every person involved in the game to tell their story. This may mean sitting and not being disruptive when a player/GM is furthering his part of the story. Note: This does not mean I have to pay absolute attention to what is occurring much as there are parts of stories that are more significant to one member of the audience than another. At other times this means I will be involved from something as small as non-verbal communication or a one word sentence, up to a massive amount of dialog between myself and the person who’s part of the story we are at that moment developing.
10 It is the GM’s obligation to work the stories of the players into the world, if at all possible.
11 It is the responsibility of the GM to notify the player if that player’s class, race, concept, and/or component of background do not fit within the stories being told. NO is an important word however, “X doesn’t quite fit, perhaps Y would get closer to what you are looking for while still working in this context (SETTING)” is always the superior response.
12 Yes this means a GM has to be able to think laterally and on his feet. As do players or really any human being wh wishes to do more than just exist in the world.
13 It is important to understand that the axiom “a compromise is a resolution that no one is happy with, but all involved get something” is a guideline that I use quite heavily in the collaborative storytelling process.
14 Sun-Tzu stated no plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. And no highly linear story by the GM will survive being introduced to the players. They can, and will, derail it so be prepared for that. As an example the players don’t confront the evil priest who is planning some big bad ritual (hell they may not even find the clues to know about the priest).
15 DON’T be pissed that they didn’t fight the fight you had laid out, and let the game stumble or collapse. Remember characters do not always do what you want them to do. (I suggest you read the section of Stephen King’s book about the craft of writing/ storytelling, On Writing, concerning the fact he had planned to kill off the teacher in Salem’s Lot but the character, in his words “demanded” to survive).
16 DO make it worse by now having them deal with the summoned demon who has killed the royal family as well as the evil priest. Sometimes it will spur slacking players ( and I have been one before) into action, it also emphasises the living nature of the world things do not go on hold while the players decide which inn to go to.
17 A great quote from John Wick (who wrote L5R and 7th seas RPG’s), "Do not worry over much about the plan, focus on the contingencies."
18 After playing RPG’s for 30 years I would like to have these things I have laid out. In my opinion, it allows for the greatest chance to explore the stories of the individuals that create the larger whole. It also means that I will, on occasion, follow the rails that are set before me without deviation or set back and let the story the GM wants to tell play out for many sessions until I see the place where my character fits into that story, or the story runs into an area where it overlaps with my characters perceived sphere of interest. In which case my feeling of how the character should behave may derail a rigidly linear plot. I would hope that as mature people a compromise can be found. Even if that means talking to me before an event occurs in game so that it avoids completely shutting down a session or even worse for all involved an entire game. I have in the past adapted a character to a situation that has seemed to go against the way the character “feels” it should react in order to achieve a particular story point for both other players and GM’s. Sometimes it’s better to let the cat out of the bag to one player rather than have them gunk up the entire works in game. Sometimes it is awesome for the GM to have a Mole on the other side of the screen to ensure that a particular plot point occurs.
19)In the context of a written story (book, movie, show, play, etc) there are two great archetypes that can be interesting:
B) The "I'm a loner Dotty, a rebel" (Wolverine, Deadpool, Pee-Wee, Tom Bombadil)
In a game setting these characters can derail the game by demanding an inordinate amount of time be dedicated to them. As soon as a Data-type character asks "why?" Plot, character interactions, even basic dungeoneering can come to a screeching halt.
As soon as a Wolverine-type decides that hes gotta go do what he does best, alone; the chances of it taking up scads of time and creating the screeching halt factor rises exponentially. Note: everyone wants to be Wolverine, but remmeber no one wants to be Wolverine's friends cause you dont get to do much. Also in this instance what is good for the goose is good for the gander: these do not make good long term NPC's to introduce, a single instance sure but not for the long haul.
Not to put a member of these boards on the spot
but who would rather use this
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules/archives/theGunslingerHomebrewClassBasedOnTheDarkTowerSeries& amp;page=1#24
As the base for a firearms class rather than the playtest?
aside from the obvious copyright concerns obviously.
Bob Loblaw wrote:
While I like the idea of limiting movement and casting time via a concentration check (I posted my own take on it in Evil Lincoln's post that spawned this) as it is an extension of extant rules rather than a whole new process there are a few issues I want to "suss out."
1) If this is a standard concentration check will casters lose the spell?
2) I am not sure that this is a balancing factor enough to the high level play complaints of the "ten minute work day." There is (by Bob's admission a quickly thrown together idea)no hinderance to out of combat round castings for the scry buff port die in this.
Also the DC's for Bob's suggestions so people can refrenece if away from access:
Concentration Check DCs
How could we tighten these ideas up a bit more (or clarify them a bit more.)
Does the damage from the Vicious weapon property become non-lethal in this instance(to both targets) . As there is no Merciful in play is all the damage inherently non-lethal? What about from flaming, corrosive, and the like as well? Or, would these properties inflict lethal damage (allowing a whip to inflict some damage to an armored opponent)?