You might want to look at the "Guide" archetype then...
no favored enemy and the bond is with a type of terrain to get extra boni.
The Terrain Bond is "always on".
I like the new classes, they allow various things:
- DMs can rule to do no-arcane-caster or no-divine-caster campaigns without rewriting existing core classes. (Because Mages or Worshippers are hunted down in that country.)
- Players get more options to individualize: I like the change of pace from flashy bard to infiltrating inquisitor, or from University-School-Wizard to Hedge-Magician-Witches. Sure you can rewrite the background, but feats and skills don't make enough of a difference to actually FEEL the difference between two wizards or two rogues or two bards. especially when your group gets hung up on class names and force you back to stereotype playing:
no sneaky bard
I could go on like this... what I like about the new classes is: CHOICE, something NEW and DIFFERENT.
It's wrong to assume the new classes are copied from MMOs, imho.
I guess there are two ways:
Your group talks to the GM and you try to find a common ground together.
Or you help your friends to build characters that are less affected by fumbles (more magic-users with save-or-loose spells, unarmed fighting styles and summoned creature).
The non-problem with monsters and fumbles is not only because mooks are expendable, but also because unarmed/unarmored monsters don't risk loosing their weapon or damaging their armor or whatnot.
But then that's why even my mages systematically wear spiked gloves or cesti (plural of cestus?), you are *always* armed and "threatening" that way. :-)
str bonus to hit the target (or dex with finesse): yes
str bonus to damage the target: no
In that case a monk would only flurry touch attacks... that's not how it works.
You don't get you str bonus as damage to touch attacks, only to hit. You only need to get a finger on your adversary, not an entire fist that's punching.
Punching a guy in fullplate or touching that guy in fullplate with a shocking grasp is not the same.
If you want the str bonus to apply to damage you need to target the full AC, not touch AC.
I also fail to understand why stealth is so difficult... rule number one should be common sense, right?
So if a spell of inivibility allows you to sneak around in broad daylight with it's +20 stealth... that would mean you need at least 20 stealth to pull it of?
To be honest, I doubt any lowlevel character will be able to easily get 30+ stealth to reliably sneak by a guard in broad daylight. At higher levels sneaky characters should easily be able to afford rings of invisibility. Problem solved.
Less rules (facing and such) is more gaming time... right? Just putting the lighting conditions on a paper map is quite a bit of prepping time unless you use a screen with mapping tools that calculate the lighting for you (which also takes time). Those mapping tools usually have no way of pinpointing facing. You'd also have to redo the entire flanking system, which wouldn't make sense any more.
If you introduce facing rules, you'd have to account for "forward" vision and peripheral vision, which don't work the same way at all:
if you do martial arts you actually learn to rely on your peripheral vision to block/evade attacks
bottomline: facing rules are a headache to introduce, if you want to do it properly
(Dark corners are the reason why I usually pick "Dancing Lights" over "Light"... you get to lighten 4 dark corners at a whim.)
Also: As a DM, I hate it when the party splits up. Just don't, or be ready to face the consequences! :-p
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Well, with their movement of 15ft. you better not be in a hurry.
If your DM doesn't allow you to combine Arcane Mark with Spellstriking/Spellcombating:
You have two ways to get access to "Brand" (cantrip/orison):
- Hexcrafter Magus Archetype, because "Brand" is a [curse] (and you get loads of other cool spells, imho)
- "Two-world Magic" trait: select "Brand" as your crossclass extra spell
Since I'm having the same problem with my Magus in that same Campaign, I came up with the idea to do a stitched spellbook, inspired by this:
Cloth and thread are usually not concerned with waterproofness, and to me a paperbook is as sensitive to fire as cloth would be.
Right now I'm considering developing a Spell that would function as a stitching machine to avoid putting loads of ranks in craft(sowing) 8-)
Since Warp Wood is 2nd level and Erase is 1st level and Arcane Mark is a cantrip, I'd say 1st level is where I'd set the spell-level for such a spell to develop? My DM insists on stitching book taking loads longer then writing them... unless I learn this as a crafting skill. :-(
Has anyone by chance already developed such a spell? How would you write it?
Is there anything the rules that would forbid the use of stitching for a spellbook?
If you have less attributes you'll have to re-balance the point buy system.
I must admit I like the current system with 6 attributes, which each represent different aspects of a person:
I actually remember an old system from AD&D2 supplement "Skills and Powers" that separated the 6 attributes into 2 each:
The problem is see with full Skillmonkeys that can't do much in combat is:
I like Pathfinder's approach, where everybody has some nifty niche of skills he's good at and can contribute outside of combats.
The charismatic guy might be sweet-talking the noble after the bookworm told him about how to handle the nobles of that specific country. And the sneaky guy uses that time to sleight-of-hand that important letter from the noble's purse. The fighter-guy who refused to have decent mental stats, is talking dice/card-games with the noble's bodyguard to divide that guy's attention, too.
It's up to the DM to give players the opportunity to do skill-related stuff together. But it's up to the players to actually work together as a team when tackling those "skill"-encounters.
I as a DM avoid situations where the rogue goes off to do stuff alone while everybody else gets to sit around and twiddle their thumbs or scream "I aid" without a ROLEplaying explanation.
There are plenty of skill checks that are opposed. People tend to think "skillcheck=perception"...?
There is Bluff vs. Sense Motive, Intimidation (Dazzling Display...), Diplomacy, ...
Knowlegde checks vs weird Monsters, to identify special abilities/immunities, these get harder at higher levels.
Escape Artist vs Grappling.
Healing vs Diseases/Poisons (which can be handcrafted to resist you usual healing magic)
Survival becomes an entirely new challenge once you hit other planes... good old hunting for food isn't possible on half the planes out there, especially the more hostile ones (fire plane and negative plane as obvious examples).
Skills highly depend on what the DM makes of them. Basic combat is easy to do, skilled combat requires more thought/planning from the DM, skill-challenges (yes similar to 4th ed., but they did it wrong, imho: roll=/=role) are fully dependent on the DMs imagination. It's his story after all, you are the heroes of it, but he's providing the villains and world+fluff background. He has got to give you the opportunities to use those skills against increasingly tough opponents.
Skills are more about social and intellectual challenges. If you turn skills into combat-abilities you make them mandatory for all classes, thus killing classes like the good old fighter or barbarian that don't have many skill points. Magic-users can compensate through spells, roguish/ranger classes have the skill points. But I don't think you should boost the rogue by making the fighter/barbarian suck.
To a DM, I can give this advice:
As a sad example: one fellow player started giving out "Guidance" all day long as soon as we were about to face a situation that might need a skill-check... have that spellcasting turn against him. And make sure player's don't abuse metagaming "I aid for +2", have them explain WHAT they do to provide that +2 or deny the bonus.
Brain-labyrinth...what I mean is:
If you have 4 hands and use Spellcombat to channel chilled touch, you could not channel 2 touches with one weapon and two more touches with other weapons:
as in: any _one_ weapon... not _all_ weapons :-)
Or another example: You cast chill touch... can you then channel 1 touch through your main-hand weapon and do the normal touch with your spell-armed hand? Imho: no.
I don't know about RAW... but to me RAI is:
Natural attacks are made with natural weapons and should qualify similarly to spiked gauntlets and "glove"-weapons for feats and class abilities, like they already do for weapon finesse...
Actually when you read the monk's flurry and spell combat, you'll read that both are full-round/full-attack (and thus mutually exclusive). They both also state that they work "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" or "much like two-weapon fighting".
Now a monk doesn't get extra attacks for extra limbs on top of flurry, but he does get the extra attack from haste, right?
A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
However Spellstrike says:
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack
That would imply that you could actually wield more then 1 weapon if you have extra limbs capable of wielding weapons.
To me Spellstrike+SpellCombat would mean: 1 hand is doing the casting and does no attack.
I must admit I don't see how getting an extra attack from haste would make a magus overpowered. Just don't forget to apply the -2 for Spell Combat to all attacks.
Otherwise how do you rule a magus, who has extra limbs/arms... let's say it's a 4-armed race who normally can wield 4 weapons and do multi-weapon-attacks with them? (Or classes that give you extra limbs to wield weapons)
I'd say: He has to dedicate one arm/hand to casting and does the attacks of all other arms as he would normally do, but with an additional -2 to all attacks (and I'd cumulate this with the -2 for multi-attacking).
Also I'd say only one weapon get's to channel the spell as you can't hold the charge in two hands, or hold two charges at the same time.
he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack
He get's to choose the weapon, but once chosen, the choice is final.
The rule from "holding the charge" means you don't even need Spellstrike to do Spell Combat with natural weapons: unless you are actively holding a charge, anything you touch gets a "discharge" from the touch spell.
Ok, I hope that my line of thoughs wasn't too messy, sometimes it's a labyrinth. :-)
This, to me, means you can use the feat "Dimensional Agility" combined with the "Spell Dance swift action DimDoor" to do a SpellCombatAttack on your enemy you just teleported to.
Round 2 - swift-DimDoor to the enemy's back and Intensified Shocking touch him with a full attack
I'm not saying it's less creative that one time. But it gets boring as hell when you get to play a halfling thief for the 20th time, because your DM wants to do a halfling campaign and the group in general disallows anything but the core rule book... which means, while you can flavor your character, you'll end up playing the same character that you've played 5 times already.To make a non-gaming analogy:
wouldn't you be sick of roast-beef at every lunch even if it can with a different sauce and different veggies every time? I would. And I would also be sick of a menu if I have to eat that same menu every monday and that other menu every wednesday. I like new things, I like different flavors and exotic types of food I've never seen or heard of before.
Maybe some people love to go eating at that same fast-food restaurant every day... I'd have to be starving to keep eating the same food over and over and over.
If at the beginning of the campaign the GM makes the themes, races and classes clear the player can then choose to play under those constraints or not. Nobody is making you play in a game. A creative player is creative when he can play anything or when his choices are "must be human and must be a martial class".
I'd probably say: "No thanks, I'm not into bashy-bashy... I'd end up ruining your fun by either optimizing the s~&~ out of a dwarf barbarian (that group dislikes damage-optimized-1hitting-machines) or I'd be playing on my smartphone and not paying attention... because I'd be bored... You'd want neither so you go ahead and play without me."I must admit that whenever DMs try to push me into Warrior-roles, these characters end up as lawful-stupid-me-bash, no matter how high their int/wis/cha is on the sheet. I know they can be great when others play them, and I can play them myself for a short time as NPCs... but I can never grow attached to them as I do when I get to play some sneaky/caster/weirdo: I think I have run pretty much any multiclass combination of sneaky and caster (arcane/divine/psionic) that's remotely possible.
Edit: To be clear, it's not that I cannot play a human warrior... I can, but I'll never get attached to it. I'll play him like an NPC and thus won't really care about that character.
Finally, my Kingmaker sessions are 3-4 hours each. Every minute spent catering to one weird PC is a minute not doing something else. Focus is important as is everyone (GM included) being willing to serve the story. I don't allow homebrew races, and most ARG races for that reason.
I'm not sure why you feel you have to pay special attention to that "weird" guy?
When I DM I usually try to take one thing out of each character's backstory and tie a little gimick around it... usually the choice of traits is a nice target, or something that hits my eye about the character's parents, siblings, former teacher, bullying classmate, ... it keeps my players more. Especially when they put a big red attention plot-hook in their story I try to go with that, but always give it my little twist, I never let them write what's gonna happen for me. :-)
I don't know how often such a combination comes up, but it can come up. If that's the case, allowing custom stuff or not won't change the problem... at that point you are treating the symptoms instead of treating the problem itself.
I say: go creative, that's what Pen&Paper games are about :-) Just make sure everybody is having fun.
DMs coming up with homebrew stuff, for me, are creative DMs willing to give new ideas and weird approaches a try. That doesn't mean they won't find a way to fix it if that DM realized it doesn't work out.
The biggest thing is, the DM has to be very clear about how your average commoner reacts to those new creatures, or to that guild grabbing power.
Also make sure that players who want to play that cool "uber" race, understand _all_ the implications.
If a player insisted to play a Drow (D&D Forgotten Realms Drizzt version), I'd tell him clearly before the game starts, to expect harrassment in pretty much all fights... his evil siblings are probably helping whatever evil the group is going for and that Drizzt-ish guy can expect to be target number one from enemy perspective... he'll be biting dust often.
Every advantage comes at a price, make sure everybody _knows_ the price, and don't allow them to complain once they realize that they will have to pay the price in full, no discounts.
And while that Drizzt-guy gets spotlight-harrassed in combats, I'll make sure that commoners giving the party intel will be wary of that black-skinned guy, thus the'll gladly talk to the other party-members... but in private, so Drizzt-guy can't hear them. That way the others get sure spotlight in towns.
Usually just explaining this, will either be planned for by all players and expected. Or the player with crazy ideas will tone it down and go for cool/weird without grabbing the spotlight.
On the other hand I don't like it when races are enforced (ie. you have to be all humans, or have to be all monsters). As a DM I like my players to go as creative, as I strive to be with my DMing.
Maybe it's a thing about how long you've been roleplaying and what games... playing the same things over and over gets boring, so after a while you want to try something new and different... after that you want to revive some old cool character you loved "back then" and really want to give it another go... Or you get tired of starting as low-level yet again but no DM feels like running an old group that's high level? So you start as highlevel monsters and realize it's just like being lowlevel just with more hitpoint and more damage (might as well play D&D4 at that point, not my cup of tea).
would you mind telling what that custom race is, that so irks your ex-DM-now-player?
Just wanted to say that Monster races can be a plain in the back for players, too:
my old D&D3.5 group had a half-dragon-group (DM made the Half-Dragon template mandatory)... right now that campaign is on indefinate hold for lack of general fun.
now another person (we switch DMing, so everybody get to do some) felt like doing a were-tiger campaign: we are all half-elves with the were-tiger template... I asked to leave that campaign after 5 sessions because I simply don't like it at all.
with both monster-games, one of the biggest problems is:
well that's not totally correct, my weretiger druid (3 levels, yay :-/), was brutal in half-form (large) with a self-made large quaterstaff enchanted with Shillelagh. Still melee though. We were actually squabbling over who gets to stand in the front row as everybody wants to be in the front row: those who are not get to twiddle their thumbs
Oh and as a side-mention: in both campaigns we found out about our "heritage" during the 2-3 session, sucks to be the spellcaster, when you find out.
If you want to compare equal spell progressions, you have to take paladin and ranger...
Even with the duration difference, the wording found in other spells would suggest them to replace, not to stack...
Being able to change weapon damage types or materials usually means a straight +3 or +5 equivalent... getting the enhancement on top of that makes Greater Magic Weapon close to useless...
Imho, to make it work as "both" you'd have change the sentence:
Imho "except that" means "except instead":
greater magic weapon is a third level spell... for a second level spell (Versatile Weapon) to duplicate a third level spell and do even more sounds overpowered.
Greater Magic Weapon wrote:
Versatile Weapon wrote:
The wording of magic weapon vs greater magic weapon is also a replacement...
The "Calling" weapon property looks like a better replacement then "Returning" for people who'd want the latter... you recall the weapon as a swift action:
Don't have to book with me, but I vaguely remember there was an item that lets you do a dimension door and you lightning bolt everything in the path. The DC was low, but so was the price IIRC.
Look at it this way:
it doesn't say that when you go from sorcerer 6 to sorcerer 7, you gain 1 level 1, 1 level 2 and 1 level 3 spell...
it says a sorcerer counting as level 7 for spellcasting has x level y spells... at no time does it say how many spells you gain for level up... only what your total amount of spells IS. And Prestige Classes that increase your spellcasting clearly say they stack with your base class
You are the one substracting the amount of spells a level 7 sorcerer has for a level 6 sorcerer to come up with a progression that isn't there... sure the increases are regular/linear, but nowhere in the rules do they come up with "when you go up in sorcerer you get +x spells".
When I think of Glitterdust or Fairy Fire, I think of something like this:
I know this is not realistic but then how can you tell what looking straight at an invisible lightsource would be like?
If you liked arcane and rogues until now...
It would still give you sneakiness and skills and spells and fighting...
does arcane types you played include bards? you might want to try those too? some bard archetypes are less heavy on the music if you are scared by that (some groups do like to tease their players to sing when starting bard songs or stuff like that... I managed to get that under control very quickly though >:-D )
Each domain grants a number of domain powers, dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells. A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in her domain spell slot. Domain spells cannot be used to cast spells spontaneously.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Wholeheartedly agree with those first 4. (Never had #5 in my groups)
my 5) Clerics in all editions, except AD&D2, are basically copy&paste no matter what deity you have... sure in 3rd and up you have domains and feats to fluff it a bit. But the impact for wizards choosing their school is waaaay bigger then clerics choosing their god.
Personally I'd not take Exra Performance. It's only useful for the first level, mayyyybe second, but that's it. Unless your DM likes big hack&slash dungeons?
Also, Arcane Duelists have to bond with their weapon at level 5.
Here a non-power idea:
trait: river rat (+1 dmg to daggers)
focus your arcane bond on a dagger
Abandoned Arts wrote:
Furthermore, an unoptimized rogue is still going to be able to do things that an optimized fighter can't do.
An unoptimized rogue who's heavy on charisma (charlatan archetype) and who wanted to do archery, will have lots of trouble in combat when in the hands of a new player...Getting sneak attacks with archery is tricky to begin with... on top of that you get -8 to all attacks because you need precise shot & impr. precise shot... most new players aren't even aware such penalties exist.
Take those penalties away (houserule) and you turn the party spellcaster into a death machine with ranged touch attacks.
As such I think it's veeery iportant that the people who know such "traps", help the new players build characters that are good at what that new player had in mind.
Restricting material won't help to keep "optimizers" at similar levels compared to new people.
The biggest problem is when new player thought it's gonna be like "x", but isn't and then either the DM throws them houseruled bones (pissing of others because of favoritism on the way) or the player gets annoyed/discouraged because his character "sucks".
My experience so far has proven that veteran players suggesting stuff to new players is the best way to go.
Simple example I had recently: Player wanting to play a rogue archer... if I hadn't told him about Precise Shot, about the ways to coordinate with our wizard to get sneak attacks (have enemies loose dex), he'd probably be very discouraged by now.
Sometimes new players really want some cool idea that simply does not work well in the rules... a GM with a group of new people might say:
In my old group I do play such a DM created NPC... result being that I barely RP because I can't identify myself with that character, the background I was given is veeery brief (3 phrases) and I simply don't know what that character's POV/feelings/opinions are. Since our DM made all characters it's understandable she didn't write out 2 pages of background for 6 characters.
Create Water is amazing.
If you have the money:
also: travel by night and sleep during sun peak (10am till 6pm) under a desert-tent (sand- and sunproof).
"rope trick" is a neat way to sleep in a hazard-free zone, starting at level 3 (4 for sorcerers)
camels, as said before
I guess a specially made bridle is less of a problem for a horse to sleep with.
By "specially made" I mean one that's similar to those put on horses to ty them to posts while getting cleaned up or saddled.
However saddles actually compress the horse's rib cage. Imagine sleeping in a corset... Or (if you are not a woman) ask your wife/GF/... if she could sleep well with a push-up bra.
Even with training you won't sleep as well... you might not get penalties (endurance), but after a while you will be in a constant bad mood.
Maybe downgrade true sight to see invis I've never actually played with access to true sight in PF.
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extra-dimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
sooo... you'd ignore all illusions, all transmutations and can see all incorporeal and ethereal creatures, and ignore darkness
permanently... um, not gonna happen in my games
and if you like some ideas I had for the flavor tricks, you can use them as rogue talents... but bards/etc would get access too
don't forget the feat: Extra Rogue Talent
gnomersy: No permanent true sight... permanent true sight is a very bad idea, especially as a (su) that's not dispellable.
Ok, here's my suggestion:
All rogues loose "trapsense" (I guess we all agree it's close to worthless).
All rogues gain Ki, like the Ninja.
Rogues in general will have to choose between 5 flavors:
this will settle what their key modifier will be.
I might add more at some point, but that's a start
Full BAB won't help the rogue.
More skillpoints is a bad idea, imho: I want that whole "skill-monkey" concept gone! It's just making the rogue the center of attention out of fights and everybody else just gets bored while the skill-guy does his dice rolls. That's roll-playing, not role-playing.
What I would like to see for the rogue is some kind of skill-tricks that rogues can use in combat. Basically some cross-breed between Ninja Tricks and maneuvers from the Swordsage (Tome of Battle).
something along those lines...