Wonder if Rogues could be nicely buffed if there was a rogue talent (or master talent) that allowed them to ignore 2 weapon fighting penalties with light weapons.
Something that you couldn't dip into rogue to abuse but something that could buff their combat strength dual weilding making it a strong combination for rogues to help them in the potential dpr department.
Yes. There is a lot of functionality that is not really being demonstrated well as it was just a first pass at building a page and only really set up for our immediate needs. Plus we have been a little slack about uploading/creating content for the world. It isn't really set up to be multi tenanted and the code it is built on needs to be redone.
It is hard to explain since the back end is not visible but essentially you are correct. Additionally, as well as geographich breakdown, cultures, organisations and religions and the like can be linked to places, buildings, people etc.
So ultimately you should be able to click on an organisation and then see all publicly visible characters linked to it. There is of course the ability to put in DM notes only visible to DM logins. Also full character sheets are visible to DM's and to the individual player that a character is associated with.
Similar to PC's NPC are linked to games so it becomes easy to track where NPC's have been used and what story is associated with them.
Unfortunately you can't see the back end where you enter in all the information and link all the features together.
Not sure why you are just getting a default page. Just checked the site you should be connecting to the front end correctly.
I have been talking with a friend of mine about building a web deployed game & campaign management tool for running Pathfinder and are considering whether we should build something that is multi-tenanted.
Basically, we are looking at building a website where you can intelligently create campaigns, including campaign places, characters, continents, countries etc and then link them into games.
So for example you can create a world with countries, cultures, religions, characters, locations all intelligently linked on each other. That is to say you could create a religion and then link all characters associated with that religion, what countries and locations are associated with that religion etc. You could do the same for countries and cultures.
Characters, locations could be linked to games so that each week you could put out a report about what and who was involved in last game.
In addition to this we are looking to develop, based on open source content a proper character builder where you can drag and drop options and it intelligently updates a character sheet with all relevant modifiers.
We have a proof of concept site that we have been toying around with while and using as an interim until we can build a better engine. It can be found at http://pineapple.nakedit.com.au. This is only a basic concept site.
My question to the community is, if we were to build a multi tennanted site with world creation, character building and game management is it something the community would be interested in being able to use to run their campaigns? If so, what kind of functionality would you like to see available through the site?
TLDR: Looking at building a web deployed campaign, world and game management tool and are interesting in whether it is something the community would use and what kind of functionality would you like to see available through the site?
Did everyone just ignore this post? Because it seems quite pertinent.
I am all for 2 rogue only talents (cannot be picked up by archetypes that get talents).
I could come up with others that would make it so a rogue, when using the right skills or clever positioning gains better bonuses or debuffs.
This person speaks truth! I feel that RPGs are becoming all about dungeon hacks with a few social roles so we can pretend we aren't just munchkining. Sure combat can be fun but a 80% combat game with a bit of story fluff and af few social skill roles does not a good game make (imo). Then again I am a homebrew kind of person and write my own campaigns and worlds, some of which have run longer than some editions or supported game worlds.
Point is, BAB, AC and all that is not realistic anymore than throwing a magic missile is. People worry too much about optimising for combat. Wizards no longer fear losing their spellbooks (makes me wonder what the point of having them is) and rogues are fast being considered obsolete.
In terms of the Rogue vs Fighter BAB. I think rogues should be almost equal given the combat focus of the game. Fighters get more HP, better proficiencies and weapon/armour training. Arguably feats/talents could be considered a trade off for each other. IMO talents just seem like feat replacements on a special list. I think that if a rogue is flanking or otherwise is not face to face with an opponent they should be equal with a fighter. Maybe some rogue talents that increase a rogues to hit when flanking or a few other more combat talents to put them on par with fighters when played cleverly. The fighter has more feats, more combat feats, is better mechanically than a rogue or has more combat options. This is what should be making them better 'fighters' than rogues, not that they have a higher BAB and more attacks.
I hope that WoTC are working on 5e. I am one of those people that quit DnD because of the atrocity that was 4e.In my opinion, took everything characterful about role playing and railroaded you onto a game that may as well as have been an advanced boardgame a bit like old WarhammerQuest. Of course that is my opinion and to be fair I am all about characterful options, a lot of choice, sweeping interesting mechanical differences between classes and cool concepts that have nothing to do with how many modifiers you can add to dice.
4e despite all the modular expansions felt bland. Sure they had some novel ideas. A few things sounded good, particularly after the burnout that 3.5 was leading to.
5e can only be good for gaming whether I end up liking it or not. Innovation is always good, questioning old design models and norms is good. Not every change is good but things should always be questioned or looked at for a better way of doing them.
For the record I love what Paizo have done with the rule set. I love the more character in classes, the greater flavour. I am getting archetype burn out and wish they would just let us have class point build systems.
I would love to see more innovation from Paizo. The alternate rules systems (power words, armour as DR etc) feel half hearted or half done. I understand why, its a niche field and some players feel slighted if they are included in books expanding core options.
I would love for Paizo to work on a leveless system using some of their mechanics. Perhaps fleshout and expand the alternate rules systems in UM and UC and put it in a book. Kind of like a Pathfinder Unearthed Arcana but better.
I think other than a few refinements, a few more options Pathfinder is feeling rather full and is now suffering from class archetype and spell & feat bloat. I would like it if bloat was cut down into core customisable concepts.
I liked the idea behind powerwords because it was a way to do this. I like where they are headed with the race design rules in Advanced Races.
Back on topic: 5e is again challenging things. Challenging, reviewing and designing are all good for growth of systems. Remember 3.5 had to be abandoned by WoTC for Pathfinder to emerge and it is in my opinion strictly superior to 3.5.
Ok. Never does the feat say you need to cast a spell, only cast Dimension Door.
All arguments based on whether a spell like ability counts as casted or not in terms of whether it is a spell or not are irrelevant. Half the posts in this thread are therefore off topic.
Cast Dimension Door is the requirement, this is quite clear. It does not say 'cast dimension door spell' or 'cast dimension door as a spell' or know the dimension door spell, all of which would exclude spell like abilities.
Anything that counts as 'casting' dimension door, be it spell like, supernatural or extraordinary qualifies except 'casting from items' as they are strictly excluded in the rules from qualifying for feats etc.
Black Lotus wrote:
Sorc's would really benefit being redone similar to oracles. I really like the direction they took with them. I would even accept a bloodline drawback to have additional options.
It is something I intend on doing for my games when I get more time to do it properly. Could reduce the number of bloodlines and wildblooded options and make a simpler clearer progression. Obviously they wouldn't get as many bloodline powers as oracle's get revelations because in theory Arcane spells > divine spells (though these days that it highly debatable).
But then again I am one of those people that messes with rules and creates options extensively and work pretty much exclusively on homebrew campaigns and worlds. I just about never use published advantures and only draw upon rules from campaign settings.
Dorje Sylas wrote:
Well said. I heartily agree.
I disagree. Martial Arts styles were attached to schools much like many weapon styles were. To say that one is better represented by archetypes and another by feat chains is silly. Could just as easily say that a monk can only have 1 style unless he has the master of many styles archetype.
Weapon styles are just as valid in feats, particularly if you look at various Japanese sword schools that taught different sword techniques are styles. These would hardly be archetypes. Same with different fencing schools and combat schools in the near East.
We disagree. I find that 4e ruined character development except along combat lines. Every class plays the same. Sure this is great when you are playing Talisman (and to be frank I think Talisman had more diversity between classes) but to me, it is not a Role playing game but a board game along the lines of Space Crusade.
Is is archaic? Not in the least. You prefer simple rules, I prefer rules that allow for a lot of flavour and character choices other than I pick an attack that allows me to shift 1 square target dex over and attack that allow me to shift my opponent 1 square and targets their will defence.
Archiac would imply that there were no new rules or content coming out which is not what is happening. Could Pathfinder be benefiting by redoing the core rule book from scratch with better layout and design without changing the rules (other than clarifications or normal updates) YES.
Could they produce more alternate rule systems for their game? Yes but I would hope they were better than the ones presented in UM and UC which feel like second rate options or grossly under-developed or tested.
I love rules, I love rules that support ROLE-playing options in an equal and balanced way (I am staring at some of the underbalanced archetypes here).
I have been playing 22 years now, AD&D 2nd ed seems archaic to me though it was the system I started on. It was clunky but and restrictive. 4e for me is smooth but too restrictive and only really allows 1 dimensional play. Maybe PF and 3.x seem clunky to you because you have only been playing a short while and 4e fixed things that you personally found clunky or confusing.
I purposely said divine powers and not spells. In this system priests would have faith 'powers' rather than full blown spell casting. Channel energy and its associated effects, lay on hands. Rousing speaches or sermons that whip followers into a frenzy (buffs). Rituals that can bring the dead back to life, smites, lay on hands, bonds with animals or wildshaping. Not spells as they have now.
I always saw Polgara as mostly closely related to a Druid. She heals, has a strong connection to natural magic, she occasionally shapechanges.
Might need to tweak druid a bit since atm its optimised build seems to be wildshaping but with new characters you don't have to let that get in the way.
Change spontaneous summons for cures. If she wants to be a spontaneous caster then give her oracle spells known but have her pick from the druid list.
Alternatively, go cleric with Animal + another domain.
Polgara (to memory) rarely uses 'flashy' magic that I would associate with a blaster. Divine has a few control spells which would work.
I agree and disagree with this. But the MAD concept is invented by munchkins. People whinge that a fighter is bad at social situations because they have min/max'd him to do one thing. He would be a very boring person to talk to in real life.
Monks are fine, there are other bonuses that are important, people forget monks have high saves and funky abilities to make up for perceived MAD problems. Min/maxing is the problem not MAD. I would rather the game rules supported generalisation better and not the perceived need to specialise to the extreme. If I was only good at one thing I would have poor career choices available to me, would like be very limited in conversation (as my interests or what I could converse about would likely be limited).
Want to fix MAD? Stop min/maxing, you don't need the best DPR to have fun or be useful. People need to get back to playing. Min/maxing can be fun but I rarely find I enjoy playing a game where I do amazing damage in some circumstances but have a boring character to play. I only have myself to blame if I play a socially inadequate character. The game should be more than combat and skill checks.
I would rather the game was about rule of cool, or interesting choices then about min/maxing damage/skills. Some min/maxing is fun but lately I feel more and more it is becoming the game and the game (and rules being written) are hurting from it.
We all like being useful, but being useful doesn't always mean being the best, and if it does at your table... maybe its time to find a better more creative DM. Rolling dice and numbers should only ever be half the game.
Btw, I give XP based on contribution to the game and roleplay, not based on how many things you killed or what damage you did (or helped do).
Make rules for determining attacks of opportunity and threatened spaces without a battle matt. The battle matt makes me feel like I'm playing chess, not roleplaying.
I do this already... by desribing where people are. Sometimes we pull out a white board or draw on a bit of paper when a player is having trouble picturing things. There are no 'squares' or spaces. Player asks how far away something is, I give the a gestimate (since less face it no one has a built in range finder). You know when someone is in your face or behind you. I give detail be describing not placing things on a battlemat. If you need rules for ranges, get players to make intel checks or wis checks or w/e if it is crucial (more in the case of placing spells correctly or in range).
I agree though, spaces are a terrible terrible thing. I hate things that move the game towards chess or computer games.
It would be nice if there was a reiteration of core classes and then build class abilities on top of that.
Kind of like the example above:
Warriors: +1Bab/Level d10 HD - Combat Abilities
There would be standard progressions for concepts that are current classes (paladin/ranger etc) but free form cherry picking from each tree of abilities could be present. Some of them may require pre requisites or that you take a level in another class... want to be a magus mixing magic and sword play... sure you need to have a level or two of both mage and warrior. Of course this means some concepts could not be taken into right away. Or there could be a generic ability 'mage school training' option that could be taken allowing them to become a magus (or priest training for paladins).
Skill points would in my opinion be flat across the classes. All get the same allocated number with perhaps a different number of trained skills.
Class abilities would reference other class abilities as prerequisites. Generic abilities or abilities such as sneak attack could become a warrior ability or a general ability with stealth or Heal skill (to represent biology training) ranks as a pre req (or engineering or religion for constructs/undead).
It would need a lot of work, a lot of balancing to prevent munchkinsim and except for veteran gamers could be a hard character system to play... of course for new players there would be standard builds, or for those (like a post I read) that want to create Polgara the sorceress, there is a way to do so.
Of course such a system may not be as accessible but you could just have a few core classes and ways to build everything else on top of it.
I agree. The difference is between people who make everyone else's fun as important as their own and those who don't.
But this to me is part of the function of DMing. Limiting power choices or making players present RP reasons as to how or why they got access to certain training, organisational goals etc would be a good start. If you really want to house rule it, say that Prestige classes are 1 per character, meaning you can multiclass core and base classes but can only ever have 1 prestige class. It kind of makes sense because to me prestige classes represent more focused training or somekind of exclusive membership.
I would like to see more support for achetypes aimed either at multiclass characters so they can be equivalent to their single class counterparts, or so that some concepts such as Spellslinger can work for muliple core/base classes.
I feel the in Pathfinder most PrC's are undeveloped or not addressed. Sure some are fine but some, such as Arcane Trickster need improvement. For the record I hate munchkinism, but I also hate feeling like I am shooting myself in the foot for making choices based on character concept for roleplay.
I would really like to see more racial prestige classes or archetyes. At the moment a race is just a series of stats and whatever roleplay a player puts into them. While races are better than they used to be they feel bland without more in game support. Atm they are important at creation only and for 1 or 2 feats. I am hoping the next book fixes this.
For future editions I would like if races got more abilities at higher levels. The fabled grace/balance/magic of elves or the Luck of Halflings, or toughness and stubborness of dwarves etc. Sure there are some feat support for these things but I would rather it was built into the race.
Back to core discussion:
I love the idea of archetypes but agree that many of them are poorly executed. I love fluff and the ability to customise characters to play something a bit different or focused on a concept.
Sadly there are a lot of archetypes that just don't cut the mustard even in situations they should excel at. Core class abilities should never be traded for weak bonuses.
I also feel we are getting into the territory of so many archetypes that they don't feel special or different anymore so players are judging them harshly. For the record I hate munchkinism, I don't let min maxers play in games I run. I also tend to run gritty role play story based games for the most part. I love character and story development and plot.
I am not looking at archetypes from a need to min max but options should be effective or balanced with core class. I feel many archetypes trade universally good abilities for ones that are situationally slightly more powerful that the core mechanic would have been by only apply a tenth of the time. Its a bad design concept. Don't need to play every archetype to know about bad design concepts.
I would rather have more multiclass focused archetypes or prestige classes for players who want to blend classes a bit. I feel that a bit more love for prestige classes for multiclass characters (not the 3.5 version where prestige class was pretty much required). The ones that currently support multiclassing are often still weaker options (looking at you arcane trickster).
Anyway, more attention could be paid to getting archetypes right and having less of them, or having a freer range of swap out options. I like the way revelations and mysteries work for oracles for example and rage powers for barbarian. I can never get enough of them for the concept I want to play. Archetypes should be more like this.
More anecdotal experience for the HG argument. I have been running a game recently and one of my players has been testing an HG. In fact she had the best creation rolls of the group (something like a +9 stat bonus total across 6 stats).
In terms of regaining grit she has had poor luck. Party members even tried to help her out by holding actions so she could get killing blows on critters that were on low health. This ended badly as eventually the extra damage the party took or loss of actions to support one character's need to get killing blows led to a PC death and almost a TPK. Needless to say it wasn't an effective way to play.
Later she tried to focus on smiting low health enemies opportunistically without group support (so normal party play style) sadly this has not been working out well either, normally because her attacks would be better spent shooting at strategic enemies, not the mook that the rogue would finish of on their next attack. She has also run into problems with finishing off low health enemies to maintain grit that won't give her the double damage bonus as opposed to big bads so that she could regain grit.
Basically, it has been a very unsatisfying experience for her and the party as a whole even when party members were changing playstyles to try to support low grit mechanic.
OP he can play as he likes. I prefer roleplayers over rollplayers (the latter may as well be playing video games.
Since he is a 'role' player than maybe you could also 'role' play and have your characters talk 'in character' to his character informing him that he needs to pull his weight in combat or you will fire him as a group or he won't get to share in loot from combat.
Handle 'role' players by 'role playing.' If you only play to optimise you miss the greatest advantage of pnp over mmorpg's. There should be a balance and his character should be able to justify his place in the party to the other characters (if not their players).
I think this was answered in another thread on UC or the Falconer and indicated that option 1 is correct. At level 4 the Feather Companion is effectively the same as the druid ability and the ranger level = druid level.
I was unaware you could do a called shot to a bow string as part of a sunder. As far as I am aware attempting to sunder targets an item held or worn. The bowstring is a small part of a bow, there are no rules for called shots for 'parts' of weapons. Hence the sunder must be against the main part of the weapon (the bow).
If you want to house rule it otherwise I suggest increasing the AC of the bowstring massively as it is protect by the bow and usually the arms of the weilder. I was suggest increasing the bowstring's AC by 8. It is only a move action to restring a bow anyway or free is you have quick draw as bows are not kept strung so the assumption is you string the bow as you draw it. Of course you have to have spare bowstrings.
Matt Stich wrote:
I meant in games where you are not able to be in full battle dress all the time or need a variety of skills other than DPR. Monks have a wide skill choice and can easily replace a rogue in the non social skills, have decent damage or the ability to help diable guards or other persons without injuring them. Has a much lesser need to be in armour, access to spell books etc.
Basically a monk can do a lot of things well even if it doesn't win the DPR olympics. In campaigns that are more about story and less about smacking the tar out of monsters they are awesome while still doing respectable damage for those moments.
People focus waaaaay too much on DPR and I think it is a result of the MMO min max generation more than anything. Monks have Kung Fu! KUNG FU DAMMIT! They have a lot of built in defenses, good saves, good utility, good maneouvres and respectable damage. People focus too much on DPR, blasting or save or die.
I am curious about archetypes too, interested particularly in barbarian ones as I am playing one in an upcoming level 10+ game a friend is running.
Any ideas on the Scarred Rager, Armoured Hulk, Titan Mauler or Wild Rager (shape changing??).
Also curious about Dervish Dancer, World Walker and Unbreakable. Anyway care to offer an ideas/hints on what these are? I would have really like if the preview had a few one line descriptions about some of the archetypes rather than class specific stuff. Monks are cool and all and in a role play rather than roll play game are already borderline OP.