|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
An example of how more options can decrease diversity:
Say I add a feat that says: your ranged hits automatically threaten criticals. Ranged characters are already strong, but at this point there is no reason to play any melee damage dealer. Diversity is lost.
On the other hand it is not the case that there is one optimal build. Since your goal is 'defeat the monsters' not 'max dpr' you can for example, buff allies or debuff enemies or controll the battlefield, or be really good against undead, etc...
Lets step back a moment. Do you really need strong-jaw specifically, or are you just trying to beef-up your ac a bit? Whats wrong with a flaming aomf? It boosts damage and saves headaches... items that directly boost attack damage should be priced as +s anyway, so if you absolutely needed strong jaw, id price as a +2 or +3 weapon enchantment.
In my mind, crafting is not supposed to give you half price anything. Its about customization. You find a +1 human bane sword, you sell it for half price and make a +1 undead bane sword. Net gain is 0.
Without the feat, you sell the sword for half price, and then wait for the dm to increase loot drops to bring you up to appropriate wealth :p Maybe you find a +2 sword later, but the correct bane was useful right *now* so the feat is not wasted.
I've been thinking about this on and off for a while. Bows are sort of the TWF option of the ranged world. They attack lots and get value from flat damage adds.
What if we made the crossbow the two-handed weapon of the ranged world? So forget about multiple attacks. A crossbow expert gets 1.5x deadly-aim bonus, and 1.5x stat modifier to damage rolls. Rapid-reload does not affect crossbows. Finally, have the multiplier scale with your bab, so it replaces iterative attacks.
Since strength does not make sense for crossbow damage use wisdom bonus for the bonus damage, to represent greater aim.
Since you are not making iterative attacks, you can't fairly have the same maximum damage as the bowman, so I am thinking that high-level crossbow feats should let you apply status effects of some kind.
I would need to run the numbers os it works out corretly, but this sort of what I am thinking of:
My favorite denizen of magical ruins is the living spell from 3.5. Basically it was a spell given life by a magic accident. It was represented by an ooze that casts the spell on anything it hits or engulfs. My favorite was a living darkness that affects every object it touches with that spell. Scary if the PCs don't have the darkvision.
It also got my pcs to say "I shoot the darkness" in full seriousness :D
Another idea: living grease and some tiny flying animated objects. The grease will make it hard to navigate as it greases the floor, and makes pcs drop weapons while the flying objects will harass them. Incidentally, being affected by the g r ease will make it really easy to escape from its engulf attack, so the encounter should not be super deadly but amusing.
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.