|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thank you for the perspective.
I did notice that there were a few places in published (3.5) adventures where CRs were lowered because a monster was inadequately equipped or deliberately made weaker than the standard version in order to hit a desired CR.
I was hoping that by decreasing monster hit points by 50%, that I could at least drop the CR by 1 (if not 2).
And, this wouldn't be a wounded hit point total. It would be the creature's new fully healed total.
James Jacobs wrote:
I like the sound of this.
Any advice on converting AE classes to PFRPG?
I'm especially concerned about the 21st to 25th levels, since PFRPG only goes to 20th. Would these classes just lose them? Or, are the PFRPG core classes strong enough to stand side-by-side with 25 level classes?
Also, could the class features from the AE 21st to 25th level be moved down to 16th through 20th without making the classes too strong next to PFRPG classes?
The cool thing about these "Demon Lord" rules is that (with a little work) they could be malleable. You could use the same rules to create and stat out Infernal Archdukes or Daemonic Harbingers (Who would be LE and NE, of course) or just use them to represent whatever the main "fiendish" entities are in your unique setting.
I'm actually hoping for traits for the Archdukes and Daemonic Harbringers, too. Also, traits for the upper opposition would be nice, too.
Magus...holy crap is it a good deal for him, especially since at level 5+ he can just give any weapon Keen anyway. Not just shocking grasp; frigid touch is possibly even nastier.
I've never played or seen a magus in play.
I didn't realize that the magus' attack benefitted twice from getting a confirmed critical. I would have thought only the weapon could've scored a critical and the spell damage wouldn't be multiplied.
Just read a review of 13th Age on Enworld.org.
The playtester explained that that game uses an escalation die. A great big d6 that sits on the table and is used by the GM to count up after the first round (maxing out at +6). In 13th Age, the PC's get to add that number to their to hit rolls (and other things).
What if Pathfinder had an escalation die for critical threat ranges? It would make combat more dangerous as the fights wore on. By the 7th round of combat and beyond, the chances of getting a critical threat would be 30% higher.
Does SKR's reasoning still hold true for the PFRPG?
Would it be a reasonable houserule to allow keen and improved critical to stack?
And, does anyone know why PF didn't adopt the philosophy that keen and improved critical should stack?
I'd classify cure light wounds as an attack only if it is used to harm an opponent. So, if you cast cure light wounds on an ally, it's not an attack. But, if you cast it on a skeleton, it's a melee attack spell.
Thanks for the input about grapple and the disruptive feat. If I were to implement this feat as written, it would trump disruptive and wouldn't just add a +4 bonus to the check for casting defensively.
That said, I now think the proposed feat is not good, as written. It's too good (because of it's negating grapple and the disruptive feat, entirely).
I agree the feat isn't needed. I do, however like your proposal that it allows the caster to take 10 on concentration checks.
Not sure what direction I'll take on this, if any.
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I like the idea of having it be a feat, instead of a general rule change, Captain Xenon.
Here is what I'm thinking:
Not sure which subforum this belongs in, but since I'm primarily concerned about the full PF RPG rules, I'll ask it here.
I thought I understood this, but then we went on trip and didn't want to take the full Pathfinder RPG and miniatures... So, I bought a copy of the Beginner Box to give it a try.
So, my question is this...
In the Beginner Box,
So, my question (if I understood the BB rules correctly) is...
In the full PFRPG rules, I'd always thought that the casting of a melee attack spell provoked an AoO when within a threatened area.
● Is that actually the case?
I fully agree with that, James.
Most of the characters I GM and play are under 10th level.
I only have a handful from AD&D of the 80's that actually reached higher level. And, it's only very few of those that would be epic level if converted to Pathfinder. Those few would be along the lines of the beings from the mythologies presented in the AD&D Legends & Lore.
So, for my purposes, not having official epic rules for Pathfinder works fine.
If I can understand how the demon lords are built, that should be enough for me. The package of Demon Lord Traits in the blog post answers most of this, I think. Just waiting to see how numerical advancement is handled for these beings.
Will there be guidance for statting up homebrewed demon lords? (I'm assuming the answer is yes.)
James Jacobs wrote:
Thank you for the reply, James.
While I'm sad to read that expanded epic rules are that unlikely, it does give me comfort that if I house-rule how it works based on what's given in the CRB (& Mythic), it won't be overruled any time soon.
Basically, I would have a class level cap (so no 21st level fighters), but no character level cap (so a 15th level fighter, 10th level cleric would be possible). BAB would probably be capped at a max of +20 and base saves at a max of +12.
Can't wait to get a look at one of the demon lord stat blocks!
James Jacobs wrote:
Thank you, James.
I'm still hoping for Epic level support for Pathfinder, in the future, but I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Mythic rules asap. And, practically salivating over these demon lords' stat blocks!
I believe that's been the level limit for a while. There are suggestions on how to allow people to go past level 20, but that's just for GMs who want that.
Thank you. I was thinking that 21+ level characters were really considered house-rules territory, even though such levels are briefly mentioned in the CRB. The term "max level" pretty much confirmed it.
James Jacobs wrote:
Demon lords are intended to be tough. Things that a max level, max tier party will probably TPK against unless...
By "max level, max tier party"... Am I correct in understanding we're talking about 20th level characters with 10 mythic tiers, each?
In other words, max level equals 20th level?
I'm running The Shackled City. The player's characters have been converted to Pathfinder RPG rules, but I'm running the campaign and the monsters as is.
For me, no conversion is really necessary other than converting a skill check or something similar, here and there. However, it would be possible to do lots of conversion if I were to truly convert all the statistics of the various monsters to 100% Pathfinder. But, I only do that when I have time and if I really think it's necessary.
Wouldn't constitution-less undead die at negative charisma score?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Truer words may never have been written about this game!
Thank you, wraithstrike.
Sorry, Gorbacz. Never tried typing the name of the world from memory, before this thread. Golarion.
Gummibears... Mmmmmm... ED-209.
That elite array looks odd, to me, Porphyrogenitus. Never heard of the 1337 Pwnzorz.
And, yes, that muddies the waters, Quandary. So does the idea of higher or lower point buy for ability scores for heroes or villains.
"Ability Scores: The creature's ability scores are listed here. Unless otherwise indicated, a creature's ability scores represent the baseline of its racial modifiers applied to scores of 10 or 11. Creatures with NPC class levels have stats in the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), while creatures with character class levels have the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8); in both cases, the creature's ability score modifiers are listed at the end of its description."
By percentage of the population in Golorian, how common are creatures with the following ability score arrays?
base array: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10
NPC array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8
PC array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
I was just looking over the character sheet for the Valeros and noticed the section that says "What you can do on your turn."
I noticed that you can do one standard action (attack, move, or use a magic item), one move action (move...), and one free action.
So, if a character can move as a standard action... Can a character attack as a move action? If not, why not?