|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Looks pretty balanced. A little on the weak side, but that's mostly 'cause I don't like hatred and defensive training. I feel it is often too narrow. On the other hand, in a campaign centered around gnolls, that +4 ac is huge.
Id give them something else flavourful instead of defensive training. Maybe an ac bonus when adjacent to multiple foes. Or a spell like ability to shape metal if you want to reference Mirrodin. I think that's where ajani is originally from.
I've been looking at the various bears in the bestiary, and it looks like they are uniformly inferior to equal CR cats. compare the Grizzly bear (A cr 5 bear) to a Tiger a CR 4 cat. The cat has better ability scores, more attacks, pounce, and more strength. To add insult to injury, the cat has more hit dice, so the bear does not even really win out with his higher Con.
I smell a cat-spiracy. Paizo, isn't it time to throw off your cuddly overlords?
Lord Twig wrote:
Not a house rule, but an extrapolation of existing rules. My thinking goes like this:
1) Alignment is central to who you are.
Higher level creatures also have more abilities. Compare the stat block of a goblin to that of a Balor...
The PC's skill ranks go up at about 1 rank per CR, but the number of abilities goes up as well. So is I rolled at DC+5, and you told me:
I'd be pretty upset.
Btw, guess that monster.
The poison DC is a little high for CR 4, as it also staggers.
The medium spider has too much strength and con, and the large one too little.
Usually, going from medium to large gives you +8 str, +4 con and -2 dex.
Check out the monster building guide: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation
Keep in mind, high level creatures have higher DCs because of increased CR. They also have more abilities. If you only dole out information in tiny bits, like "it has spell resistance" then higher level characters actually get worse at identifying creatures...
I usually figure that if you beat the DC by 15, you should no everything. So I divide the monster's abilities into 3-4 groups (defense, offense, special abilities, More special abilities) and let the PCs choose a group.
In the case of multiple knowledge checks, I use the highest roll, and let each player beyond the first that makes the base check to get one more question.
As far as I understand PF cosmology, Good and Evil are not value judgments. Good is not "cosmically right" because the Evil gods/forces are just as strong. They have a divine plan just like the forces of Good. Good and Evil are just teams, like Red and Blue.
Evil people are not lost sheep in need of guidance. They are, (some of them) rational people who have chosen to play for team Evil. Just like strong good souls can escape oblivion and retain their memories when they become Archons, mighty evil souls can become Devils if their weight of evil is strong enough.
From a cosmic balance point of view, Helm-ing a villain is a good act, while helm-ing a hero is an Evil act. However, I feel that doing so is morally wrong.
The helm is a sort of nuclear option in the war of good and evil. Most sentients are terrified of being utterly destroyed and replaced with and Anti-you. This interferes with the natural flow of souls into the afterlife. Just like even most evil outsiders don't like Daemons for destroying souls, I feel most forces of Good and Evil would be opposed to the use of helms in this way. This is because everyone knows that if one side starts using them, so will the other side. And then no one wins.
This could lead to an interesting campaign where the resident paladin may be forced to team up with a devil to stop some mortal from Helm-ing other mortals.
In summary: join team Evil. We have dental.
@jiggy. That encounter works, but its sort-of meta-gamey. What realistic creature will spend 90% of his wealth on 1 vial of poison and the rest on three bullets...
Though now that I think about it, you need a point-man to threaten the PCs. So how about a mid range necromancer with a bunch of leveled skeleton champions wielding the crossbows?
I really hate the troop rules. If I am a dragon and those Crossbowmen need a 20 + 20 to hit me, then 10 of them suddenly doing 10d10 damage just because they are shooting together is stupid.
Real swarms contain thousands of creatures and do d6 damage. Not 1000d4. If you gather together 400 crossbowmen, then they can do d10 damage to the dragon.
If you ready an action, your initiative resets to just before the event that triggered the action. No double shots for you.
The answer to stronger PCs is just more crossbows. Throw in some difficult terrain and put the marksmen at 100 ft. It will take your PCs some time to cross that terrain.
16 Warrior 1 crossbowmen /w heavy crossbows. Feat is rapid-reload, and 14 dex. at 30 ft per round, in difficult terrain, it will take the PCs 4 rounds to get to the marksmen. Put the marksmen in a 100ft radius half-circle with the PCs in the middle. Thats 64 shots before they even get into melee.
If your bowmen start either hidden or in darkness, then they get to shoot at flat-footed AC for a little bit. Thats plenty of time to pick off a spell-caster or scout.
All this is about CR 7 or 8, so its a perfect mid-range encounter for a party of level 5 or 6 characters.
Last session our DM sent a party of goblins to ambush us at night with short-bows. They could see in the dark, and could use trees to hit and run. It was scary! Remember, if you have cover, you don't provoke for leaving a threated square.
Do obscurons reflect from objects? They probably should. If an obsucron strikes an atom at rest, then that atom's electrons will need to jump back up to rest??? Go go Arcane Physics!
So If you are outside the area, the obscurons that are coming out of the area will hit your eyes and make the area look inky-black.
Also dark-rainbows are totally metal.
After an initial read, the warpriest looks super starved for swift actions. From class abilities alone, he can use swift actions to:
1) Enhance his weapon
There is no way to do all that in one combat.
More-so, there is a ton of overlap. You can use spells to increase, attack, weapon damage and healing...
I feel that it would be better to have a single (large?) pool of points that would fule all of these abilities.
Also, enhance weapon and armor should probobly be actavaitable all at once. Maybe at a higher level?
Channel looks out of place. Fervor is just too valuable to spend on healing. You could cast 2 swift action spells for that price...
Edit: I am loving the swift spell ability. Its super cool!
Don't try to focus on the scarce food/water part. PF is not really set up to deal with such mundane problems in an interesting way past level 3.
Mythic characters can have mythic problems: Rampaging creatures of legend. Weird undead plagues etc.
I think the key theme of post-apocalyptic stories is rebuilding. Maybe once they gain their first mythic rank, they start accumulating the fragments of broken civilizations. At first, they have a small group they have to protect and provide for. Eventually it will grow to a thriving city and then a nation. An oasis among the wreckage.
Providing food and water for 4 Spec. Ops. guys in the forest: easy.
If you want their kingdom to live through the ages, and you want to use King-maker rules, I suggest you increase the timescale.
Erik von Oseff wrote:
that's not quite it. The sorcerer can change the spell in the ring. So by buying a spellbook, and a ring the sorcerer gains access to *all* utility spells of a given level for a partly level squared x 1500gp.
How are you dealing with misfires? With cartrages you misfire on a 1-4. With 6 attacks per round, that gives you a misfire chance of 73% per full attack. (And this is assuming that your DM is nice and lets you stop shooting in the middle of a double shot). You probobly want to trade one of those pluses for a luck enchantment. That way at least you will be able to burn grit to not blow your gun up.
The skill tax is 1 point per level. Is that really worth 6 feats? Would you make the trade in the other direction?
Though I don't want to seem like I am against the idea. I love the idea of a fighter archetype that trades some bonus feats form maneuvers. I just feel that there is a missvaluation of the maneuver feats going on, cause I would also like to be able to play a maneuvering paladin and have more than 1 feat pre level 15 :p
About the initiator feats: Now that I think about it, I feel that the way maneuvers are balanced is that you can't combine them with full attacks. In this way, a regular class (say a paladin) does not benifite excessivly from the initiator feats because he can't make full use of his smite if he gives up his full attack.
So, I think it would probobly be ok to reduce the feat chain to maybe 4 feats at 3 bab, 6 bab, 11 bab and 16 bab.
The only thing to look out for is to limit the number of boosts that these feats give access to, since most martials have no use for their swift action and that would just be free power.
This way, the fighter archetype could trade in say 6 or 8 feats for a broader range of diciplines, more stances, or the ability to learn (more?) boosts.
Also, you could then make a ranger combat style for these feats :)
About the fighter archetype: I think that if it looks fair to give the fighter the maneuver feats at a 2 to 1 rate, then the maneuver feats are overcosted. As I see it, those feats are already aimed at fighters, since most other classes cant afford to invest 6 feats in a feat chain.
So either the feats are too weak, or the archetype is too strong. My problem with the style feats (which I love) is the same. The pre-reqs are so made to expensive to limit access to the feats, but masters of many style monks and unarmed fighters get access to the styles super early, since the intent of the feats was allways that you could do cool things with them and build a character around that. The end result was, everyone who wants to use styles has to dip one of those classes.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
Your body fights diseases and poisons differently. A disease is a micro-organizm that attempts to trick your body into ignoring it. If you your body was bad at fighting off things it had never seen, we would all be dead the next time the common cold mutated (thats every year :)) The human body is really really good at adapting to new pathogens.
A poison is a molecule that physically destroys some subsystem of your body. Your liver fights this by filtering every foreign element from your blood stream and then putting back the things you need. Its a "deny all" system that is not tricked by foreign bodies. You could drink anti-freeze (please don't) and your body will *try* to filter it.
A Fort. save represents how strong your immune system / liver is, and how well it adapts to new dangers.
Re: no crits
If twilight blades disrupt matter, would it not be worse to have your heart atoms disrupted than your arm attoms disrupted? Hence, crit.
The maneuver is not actually ranged as far as I can tell. Its a flat 20ft thats charge distance.
Also, you would presumably not have this as your primary attack mode since there are not that many maneuvers that let you throw your shield.
I think a style feat that just lets you actually *use* these maneuvers is a bad idea. It eats your style since you can only have one to give you a short range attack once per combat.
captain america never needed to pick up his shield. I mean that's at least 1 aoo. And your foe might grab your +5 shield of kick ass.
really, if you think a free bounce is too strong, just raise the level.
I am not a fan of a style feat. It basically makes the throwing maneuvers useless without a feat and feels like a patch. An analogy is if there was a rule that said "wizards lose all spell casting when they deal damage with magic." And then they make a feat that lets you not lose all magic. It becomes a tax for that type of character.
I think you should either raise the level of the throwing maneuvers if you think they are too strong, or force the initiator to spend another kind of action. Maybe its a swift action to catch the shield or something. That means you can't boost the same round. Or maybe you have to move to where it would fall.
I would really like it if it said something like: "... If the initiator hits his target with the thrown shield, the initiator's movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from his target. If the initiator ends his turn where the shield lands, he can catch it as a free action. "
This way you can throw the shield and close the distance "behind it" to avoid AoOs from large creatures.
(I shudder to think of what would happen to capt. America if he met a monk with snatch arrows...)
Some thoughts on the shield throwing maneuvers from iron turtle. I feel these maneuvers are really cool, but they encourage weird behavior.
Clearly, they are to be used in place of a melee attack, like when You don't want to get close to target since with a range of 20 ft you could just charge the target. However, doing so disarms you of a good chunk of your AC and makes you incapable of using the entire Iron Turtle discipline. (unless you crit with a 20/x3 weapon)
So those maneuvers encourage you to carry a bunch of shields and to throw your mundane shields, which in turn makes crits less exciting.
You could let the warder catch his shield if he ends his turn adjacent to the target. Gives it a nice captain America vibe. Maybe make it so he does not provoke for moving from that enemy if he hits, but can catch the shield regardless (it functions like a boomerang if he misses.)