RAuer2's page

60 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That was it. I missed that Tactician gives the first level Cavalier a bonus teamwork feat. Thank you, and also thank you for the archetype. I found it creative and promptly began thinking of possibilities when I read it, both in games set in Golarion and other settings. Very nice :)


Isabelle Lee wrote:
My build got the full Sisterhood Style chain by level 6, though admittedly by going all-in (including a human bonus feat). ^_^

I was thinking about this concept today for a character and came across this thread. I can't quite figure out how to get the full Sisterhood Style chain by 6th if I go straight Cavalier with the Sister-In-Arms archetype, even using a human bonus feat. Am I missing something easy?

1 - Shield Focus
1 (Human) - Shield Wall
3 - Weapon Focus (longsword)
5 - Sisterhood Style
6 (Cavalier Bonus) - Sisterhood Rampart
7 - Sisterhood Dedication


This is excellent. +1 to Goddity; I see no problems with it.


The Deadly Agility feat might work for you, if third party material is allowed.


Thank you for replying, and so quickly. I know it is a mark against my gamer card, but I forgot all about the Con. I imagine that puts an extra workload on, well, everyone. When it comes down to it, one locked thread is a minor item and something that can wait a bit.

I'll be more patient in the future (and hopefully more aware of PaizoCon!). Thanks again for answering, five minutes is an awfully fast response time.


Greetings,

This thread was temporarily locked Wednesday morning. I am interested in the discussion but hesitate to start a new thread on the same topic (I think it would be rude for me to do that with the first thread locked as it is now).

So, I thought I'd just ask about the status of the locked thread. Will the thread be unlocked to continue the discussion?


Thank you. Ogre/Elephant cavalry coming up.


Thank you Aulrick, much appreciated.


Inquisitor Thrace wrote:

I played through Skull and Shackles, with a buccaneer (bard archtype), and sung sea shanties, (not that my voice is any good, but I gave it a go).

Mainly went with 15 Men on a Dead Man's Chest, and Shiver My Timbers.
Changed up the words every now and then.

Assassin's Creed: Pirates has some sea shanties as the soundtrack, which is available separate from the game. Might be a nice resource for a pirate bard, especially if the cost is low.


In the game I am running now there have been several bards.

The first is a PC bard who "inspires" by playing his mandolin that is a doom harp, so he basically unnerves and distracts the opponents with the doom harp's debuff.

The second was an NPC during the time I ran Red Hand of Doom, Ulwai Stormcaller. Female hobgoblin bard. I ran her as an opera singer whose voice had an astounding range, especially in the low end. It was epic. The party hated her in that "I want her to die but I don't want to try and do it myself" way.

The third was an NPC bard that joined the group for a bit, one of the Tiri-Kitor NPCs in Red Hand of Doom, a female human. She sang ballads and I described her voice as light and high-pitched like a pop singer.

Some of the posts in this thread are excellent, bravo to the creativity!


I am trying to think of an example that would show how it would be broken or abusive if an item creation feat were purchased by a creature (PC, NPC, monster, whatever) that lacks a spellcasting class feature but has a spell-like ability and a caster level.

I can't think of one.


AD&D game, I don't remember which module. Party is in a dungeon area, stuff and stuff happens, lots of fighting. Party is critically low on resources and hit points and decides to rest. They have a safe place already picked out and retreat to it, a garden-like area they had seen earlier but not explored.

The "gardener" is a Lawful Good young-ish silver dragon polymorphed into the form of a young human. One party member has an intelligent, and evil, sword (nine lives stealer) that sees the gardener as one hell of a nice looking soul. Of course, the party sees a young human and nothing more than a curious NPC.

Mental conversation between player and blade:

Blade: "That one has an amazing aura. I must have it."
Player: "What? That's not an enemy, no, no way."
Blade: "Oh? You're what, almost dead right now? Gimme."
Blade: *Handily wins ego check vs severely wounded player and takes control* [AD&D game rules, not Pathfinder]

Player: "I... uh..." *looks at rest of group, all nearly dead from prior encounters, and gets their attention* "... Rodney walks up to the NPC and attacks..." *looks at me, GM* "... but internally he fights it as hard as he can, screaming in his head "NNNOOOOOOO" the whole time!"
Rest of Group: "Wait, what?"
Me: "Roll the attack."
Player: *rolls a 1* "Fumble!"
Me: "Roll percents" *consults old fumble chart from a Best of Dragon*
Player: *Rolls 00*
Me: "... Decapitation"
Whole Group: *stares quietly*
Me: "... Well... Rodney draws his sword, screams out something gurgly that sounds like NNNNOOOOOOOO!! and swings at the gardener, twisting bizzarely and short-arming the swing, bringing the blade right into his own neck. He is down, blood is everywhere, and the sword clatters to the stone floor."
Player: *pumps fist* "Yes!!! Screw you sword!! YES!"

It was awesome. The character ended up raised shortly afterward, so the party easily figured out that the sword took control of the character. They left that sword sitting right there on the floor and never looked back.


I had this thing written out about not being mean for the sake of being mean, not making things personal, and stuff like that. I can't finish it and I'm not sure why, so I deleted it.

I would guess that this thread is here to "have a conversation" about the revisions/errata, but there seem to be more questions than there are answers. At least, it seems that way to me. This is disappointing. Perhaps the issue is my expectations, meaning perhaps they are too high and I should lower them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn said wrote:
...while the Master of Many Styles was altered a bit to make it more rewarding to those that stuck with it, as opposed to just dipping into the class for quick benefits.

Greetings Jason,

I'm in the same boat as LilyHaze, Rynjin, and some other posters in that I am having trouble finding the upside in the new MoMS. I am open to the idea that I am just not seeing the benefits yet. As ErichAD suggested, perhaps it would help to see a sample build so we can understand the intent of the new MoMS. Is this possible?

As others have pointed out and I agree with, a significant impediment is that the new Master of Many Styles needs to meet the prerequisites of any and every feat that he would like to spend a wildcard feat on. This means that the new MoMS expends just as much resources and effort to buy a style feat, or reach the end of a style feat chain, as a regular monk.

If the point of the MoMS is to, well, master many styles, this leads to reduced flexibility in how a new MoMS spends feats and skill points and allocates stats when compared to the old MoMS, also as other posters have pointed out.

LilyHaze mentioned at the end of their analysis that the new MoMS seems more like an Apprentice of Many Styles than a Master, which I took to mean "good at opening a style feat chain but not progressing further into it". At the moment, and hopefully without being offensive, that seems accurate.

Are we missing the advantage, the specialty, of this revised archetype? If we are, please help us out. May we have an example of how the wildcard feat rewards the new MoMS, of how this feature is intended to be useful and flexible?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask your GM how he wants to handle it. Without the GM saying otherwise, the safe assumption is that you should track them, if nothing else so that you are prepared to do so when the game starts and don't need to handle it at the last minute.

As a player, if you have to count arrows, stock up. You cannot know when you will be able to resupply.

The first time I played an archer the GM asked me to track arrows (during character creation, this was not a surprise after we started). I was fine with that and thought "Oh, I'll just buy a second quiver of 20 arrows. That's 40 arrows total, more than enough." We were away from resupply for a while and before the end of the first set of adventures I was fighting with a borrowed sword. Don't let that happen to you.

When we hit town, I immediately went to three quivers of 20 arrows each and not long afterward to four quivers. It was soon not enough. Our adventures frequently kept us away from easy resupply and as soon as you start raising your number of attacks you will consume arrows at a frightening rate.

When our party could afford mounts, I asked the GM about commissioning a carpenter to make a barrel that held 200 arrows and kept that on my horse. It wasn't useful in combat, but between combats I could restocked and over a series of adventures it helped a lot.

As soon as I could afford it, I paid for a pack animal and another arrow barrel. I was the only party member with a pack animal over the course of the game. It was a horse, but I named him Pepe and called him my little mule. The GM never specifically messed with Pepe (or the other mounts).

Now, all that is game-specific of course. If your GM's adventures will not range too far from a source of arrow supply, then how many you carry might not matter much (or often). If your party is travelling the world exploring new lands, then be prepared or you'll wind up a swordsman with a bunch of archery feats.

Tracking arrows did not lower my fun with the character or game at all. The GM handled arrow recovery by telling me to track it presuming A) 50% of all misses can be recovered, B) if we don't hold the battlefield then I obviously don't get to recover arrows. In the end it wasn't a big deal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

That is the thing though, why would a party be fighting her for that to matter? Also, as an NPC, wouldn't it be simpler to give Eludecia wealth and equipment of a NPC not a PC?

Sure give her gear necessary and appropriate for her level and class, but apart from that I feel there doesn't need to be such importance placed on her equipment.

... I agree. Since this is your thread, I think that rather than try to convince Aelyrinth that CR does or does not work a certain way, I should really be answering your questions. After all, the CR thing is more a nit to pick than anything else, so let's focus on making a cool NPC.

So, back to one of your earlier posts. You said this:

JonathonWilder wrote:

...she will be Lawful Good by fluff if such an alignment is a tentative thing given the nature of succubus.

My thoughts is that she would have Sarenrae as her deity, since she is all about redemption and unlike that of the D&D pantheon could very likely given Eludecia a chance to prove herself.

In the morning I will look up the succubus and edit some of the above.

What feats, skills, and equipment would any of you suggest?

So she's LG, has made paladin, and been accepted by a god. Like you pointed out, not likely to be an enemy of the PCs. Alrighty.

First, I think Aratrok did a nice job with his suggested stat block back on page one and I think you can get some nice ideas from that (or just use it).

For my own thoughts... Outsider, pretty much ageless. I would suggest one skill point in each knowledge skill to reflect "life knowledge," so to speak. Doesn't have to be more than one point unless you want her to be a specialist/sage with one or more knowledge skills (which could be an angle for the party to interact with her).

I would suggest emphasizing charisma skills (to reflect her connection with and interest in mortals) but you might consider excluding intimidate (she's here to bring hope, not fear).

Give her a perform and/or some sort of craft related to art. She's got a rare, rare demonic soul (or whatever) and might find expressive outlets.

She uses two-handed weapons in the write-up (glaive, greatsword), so of course the usual feats to be an efficient melee. You'll have 10 feats (20 total hit dice should result in 10). Depending on the "power level" or niche you want her to fill, this is enough to play with some channel feats or mercy feats (like Aratrok's build), or toss in a skill focus if you would like a high specific skill to be something she is known for.

For equipment, eh. She's not set up to be an enemy so combat specific things are not such a big deal. Weapon, armor, a few widgets. Aratrok has a good list. Maybe things to reflect her faith, or perhaps a magic item she can use to help others (even in little ways! Ask the staff at the inn if you can cast pred for them, saves them some work!)

I would consider messing with the spell-like abilities. You are the GM and it would be easy to say that she's lost her summon (for example). I'd keep the energy drain because it is so defining for a succubus and also something she almost certainly can never do again (probably bad for a paladin to suck life energy). The profane gift could go also, or be changed to a divine gift and modified however you see fit.

I hope that helps!


Kobold Cleaver - Well done, good sir, well done indeed :)

Mathius - I think the larger point Ashiel is making is that CR does not move up or down depending on what a creature is fighting. Like Ashiel pointed out:

Ashiel wrote:
"One does not lower the CR for undead because a cleric casts disrupting weapon, nor do you lower raise the CR of the party because they're throwing holy smites at evil creatures."

Back to CR: Ashiel, myself, and perhaps others have mentioned that CR is not about monsters fighting monsters. It is about comparing the monsters to see how challenging they would be to a party. Are they about the same challenge to a party? Then the CR is about the same. Which monster would stomp which monster isn't really CR.

Ashiel put it nicely here:

Ashiel wrote:
It's not about Succubus Paladin vs Dragon to determine CR, it's about succubus Paladin compared to Dragon. Are they both roughly as challenging to fight? Honestly I look at her and think "Hell yeah, I'd like to take a whack at that!"

Then there's me:

RAuer2 wrote:
Challenge rating indicates the risk a monster/trap/encounter poses to an adventuring group.

When I look at A) succubus plus B) 12 paladin levels, I see something about as challenging as CR 15. When we start talking about optimizing a creature with specific magic items, jacking up AC, or Aelyrinth's suggestions of diplomacizing wishes from hapless efreet and commanding multiple orders of knights, adventurers, and allies across the world? Those are modifications done to CR after figuring out what that CR is.


Aelryinth wrote:

And not to mention she could easily be rocking a 50+ AC while she does so. And we haven't even gotten into her diplomacizing Wishes out of hapless efreet for inherent bonuses.

While telepathically commanding multiple orders of knights, adventurers and allies across the entire world.

A-Yup.

==Aelryinth

Seems extreme!


Eltacolibre - I think that CR is not how monsters compare to each other but how much danger/risk they pose to a PC group. The idea is to compare how a succubus paladin and a dragon would challenge a player group (since that is what CR does), and my earlier post wasn't clear about comparing the monsters to players and not to each other, sorry about that.

Aelryinth - Challenge rating indicates the risk a monster/trap/encounter poses to an adventuring group. When advancing monsters with class levels, step 6 in that process is Compare to Existing Monsters. Advancing monsters is all about judgement calls.

If dragons are at the top of each CR "tier," then they are basically the CR gatekeepers. I think this makes them a good candidate for helping to find a monster's CR. It makes sense that if an encounter wants to be CR 16 then it needs to pose more danger/risk to the PCs than a dragon sitting at the peak of CR 15. If an encounter can't be more risky/dangerous than the CR 15 dragon, then how can it be CR 16?

To bring it back to the succubus paladin 12, look at the numbers for that CR 15 very old black dragon. I get it that all that charisma on a paladin looks impressive, but to me the succubus paladin is about as much challenge to a party as that CR 15 dragon is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If one of the points of contention is how the CR shakes out when adding paladin levels to a monster, then I think a good measuring stick would be other monsters that are at the CRs in question. A dragon seems like a reasonable measuring stick because adjusting the age category of the dragon will scale CR up/down and still use the "same" monster.

If the succubus paladin 12 is CR 15, then we can compare it to a CR 15 very old black dragon.

If the succubus paladin 12 is CR 19, then we can compare it to a CR 19 great wyrm black dragon.

We would want to look at things like hit points, AC, saves, damage output from an attack routine, spells, specials (breath weapon, channel and such), reach, to-hit bonuses on the attacks, and so on.

Between the very old black dragon and the great wyrm black dragon, I think the succubus looks much closer to the CR 15 very old black dragon.

That is not an exhaustive test of the succubus' CR, but it seems to be a valid one. Additional comparisons with other monsters can be added to this, but this comparison does seem like a reasonable start. What do you all think?


I am running a campaign now that went through RHoD. In hindsight, I wish I had turned it into its own adventure path.

Do your players come here, meaning I probably shouldn't write a bunch of RHoD story spoilers in a reply, or can I just spill suggestions right into the thread?


@Omnitricks - Like others have said, it functions in game terms as a shield with a +2 to AC. Since it is a force effect, it can help in certain situations where a normal shield couldn't (like Dave Justus pointed out).

In the game I run, I allow the item to be enchanted like a physical shield. That seems to make the item more "worthy" of a ring slot to players.


I'd think that Shadowbard would still work. It has access to your performances and I don't see any text in Shadowbard that would make the "always a standard action" of the new Weird Words a barrier. It should work, unless I am missing an angle?


I think Shar Tahl has it right. I do not think the item is unclear at all.


Matt, I think you are looking at a part of the item's description and not all of it. The entire description can help set the context for how the item works.

In your OP, the quote is:

Matt McLane wrote:


So the Phylactery of Positive Channeling says:

This item allows channelers of positive energy to increase .....

I can see how you would read that as, roughly, "anyone that uses positive energy for anything." However, the item's full descriptive text is this:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


This item allows channelers of positive energy to increase the amount of damage dealt to undead creatures by +2d6. This also increases the amount of damage healed by living creatures.

Now you have two sentences that combine together to provide context for what the item does. The Channel class ability looks like the logical choice to me, based on the wording of both sentences taken together. To me, it reads like it is affecting one ability, and Channel can harm undead and heal the living.

However, if I carry your interpretation out a little further it suggests that the item adds +2d6 to anything a person who channels positive energy can do. Which means that a channeler of positive energy using unarmed strike would receive the Phylactery's additional damage as well.

I don't think that was at all the intent of the item. That means there has to be a restriction somewhere on what the item affects. Restricting the item to the Channel class ability looks, to me, like the right choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fomsie wrote:

The PrC requirements have not changed at all, the only thing that changed is the ability of certain races/classes to circumvent those requirements.

A race/class combo that used to be able to fast track can now enter at exactly the same time as anyone else, at the rate written in each PrC entry. The classes haven't changed and neither have their entry requirements.

I prefer to think of it as meeting the requirements rather than circumventing or fast tracking. You (and David Higaki) are right that the classes have not changed and neither have the entry requirements.

What has changed are the ways that a character can legally be built to meet the entry requirements.

To me, this seems like it might be two sides of the same coin. On one side, the requirements for the prestige class change. On the other side, the ways a character can legally be built to meet the requirements have changed.

On both sides, how characters can be built to enter prestige classes has changed.

Don't we come to the same end result?


If you are concerned about balance/ease of abuse, another option might be to increase the "recharge time." Instead of 1/day, what if it was 1/week or 1/month?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
If there was commercial pressure to include scantily clad women on covers in 2007, that same pressure does not necessarily exist in 2014. In other words, given the way our business has changed in the last 7 years, I no longer think this excuse holds water, and you shouldn't either.

Well, I agree, I don't think the excuse holds water... in fact, I am not sure it ever held water. I mean, of course I get it, Paizo is a publishing company, and like any company you must reap a profit for your efforts. Sexualizing women and articulating it through some of the most disturbing (heterosexual, white) male power fantasies makes money, as can be evinced by glancing at other forms of popular media. There might even be some sort of relationship between how misogynistic an image is, and how quickly said images fly off the shelves. Though in retrospect, talking about the justification with weasel words ("If there was commercial pressure...") makes it seem like maybe it isn't the case that the market forces forced Paizo to exploit images of women. If not this, then what?

*snipped here*

The weasel words part seems pretty harsh to me. I didn't read anything sinister into "If there was commercial pressure...", and actually the rest of Erik's statement seemed open to present analysis and future change.

I'm just guessing, but maybe the excuse you are asking about is that this is simply the art style that has brought success in the past? It could be as simple as not seeing a need to change a successful strategy until you have a reason to question whether the fundamental reasons that style was successful in the past are still valid reasons today (and also tomorrow).

I'm not trying to offend you Annabel and I hope my text doesn't come across that way.


The item says "...transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing."

I agree that a 200 gp magic item should have a reasonable limit. However, I am not sure that restricting the definition of "clothing" to what appears on the Clothing chart leads to reasonable results.

As an example:

The "swarmsuit" listed on the Adventuring Gear chart has a cost of 20 gold.
The "royal outfit" listed on the Clothing chart has a cost of 200 gold.
Both items descriptions specify that each item is made of "clothes" or "clothing."

For me, as a player or GM, it does not seem reasonable that a magic item that can transform "into any non-magical set of clothing" can become a 200 gp item made of "clothes" and cannot become a 20 gp item made of "clothing."


N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
That's the definition of touch attacks, in which you claim it's inherent that missing full AC involves still physically touching the target. I don't see it.
Then you don't see it. It's moot. To my knowledge the game doesn't care so the discussion is academic and has no bearing on game play.

I'd like to make sure I have this right.

Jiggy quoted the definitions of melee and range touch attacks and your response is to dismiss those definitions entirely in favor of your own definition, which can be summed up as "logic says that it would work a different way."

Is that description correct?


Marik Whiterose wrote:
Link to the character sheets

Those are some nice character sheets. Thanks to those who posted links (this one and the others as well). One of my players was asking about sheets last session and I will point him to this!


Daedalaman's information is right and all I really have to add is helping with what I think might have tripped you up about the tower shield chart entry.

gutter princess wrote:
...It says that it is 4^3??

The "3" there is a superscript. It basically says "hey, there is additional information about this down below." When I look on d20pfsrd.com, these notes are below the "Extras" table, right below the "Shields" table. The note for "3" reads: "A tower shield can instead grant you cover. See the description."


A Foolish Moon wrote:

*snip*

UPDATE:
Okay, here's the conversion: Pathfinder Conversion Booklet

You'll need the original adventure to use the conversion. It shouldn't be too hard to find.

Nicely done, thank you for sharing your work!


tzizimine wrote:

Greetings, everyone.... *stuff* ....

Enjoy.

Just wanted to add my feedback that this conversion is well-presented and thorough. Nicely done, and thank you.


Devilkiller wrote:
...For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought it would be overpowered if Thunder Call could be used more than once per round...

I think it might be fixed at 1/round, at least if the following from D20PFSRD hasn't been changed in an FAQ or errata. It is the first paragraph under "Bardic Performance", bold is mine.

PFSRD wrote:
A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired. He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier. At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day. Each round, the bard can produce any one of the types of bardic performance that he has mastered, as indicated by his level.

Unless an archetype ability specifically calls out multiple uses in a round, wouldn't this set a limit of 1/round on all performances regardless of the type of action used to create the performance?


Scavion wrote:

Yes friend. Adding character levels grants more Hit Dice which is what the SLAs are concerned with for all purposes if there is not a Caster Level specified for their abilities.

A Succubus specifically has a CL of 12 for her Spell-like abilities. So giving her more hit dice will never increase the caster level of those abilities.

Much appreciated, wanted to see if what looked reasonable to me also seemed reasonable to someone else.


Arutema wrote:

Some races have spell-like abilities with a caster level equal to their character level.

If I'm reading the recent ruling on SLAs correctly, that means that a creature with an arcane spell as a SLA qualifies for the Arcane Strike feat and calculates the extra damage from it based on their character level. Is this correct?

Bold is mine. I am not sure that this is always correct. For some creatures, probably NPC monsters more than PCs, their stat block includes a caster level. When I looked in the universal monster ability entry, it explained that caster level = creature's hit dice if no caster level is specified. I didn't see anything in the description about caster level improving by adding character levels. I think means that adding the feat to monsters can produce oddities, at least in some cases.

For example, a succubus has caster level 12 with its SLAs. If I'm the GM and I made a super-succubus that adds, say, 5 levels of fighter, then the caster level of those SLAs is still 12 (fighter levels add nothing to it). So Arcane Strike doesn't improve even though overall level and hit dice have gone up.

Let's say that super-succubus was changed to lose the 5 fighter levels and add 15 sorcerer levels instead. Now the monster has two caster levels: 15th for sorcerer spells and 12th for the SLAs, so Arcane Strike would improve based on the 15th level for sorcerer casting (basically, use the higher of the two caster levels the creature has).

Do I have that right?


James Risner wrote:
RAuer2 wrote:
I believe that a reasonable discussion about Neume's playtest reports (and any other playtest reports that can be included) is the next step.
Rakshaka posted one just above here also.

I missed it, happened while I was typing. More playtest experience the better, so this is excellent.


James Risner wrote:
Sure, I'll stop comparing it to TS despite the fact that it is hard to do. TS is something that according to devs needs errata, and it doesn't do anywhere remotely as much as the original sound striker did. How about we just compare it to the proposed version. Trying to stay close to it in terms of power.

Not comparing it to Thunderstriker is easy. Let's all just stop mentioning The Archetype That Must Not Be Named.

About the Bard and a damage role, unless a developer posts in the thread and states that Bards are not permitted to have a damage-dealing type role, then I don't see a problem with theories about how Bards can accomplish that and how an archetype can be made to allow that.

For Bard, the Dervish archetypes essentially make them stronger melee damage dealers. I don't think the premise of Sound Striker is different, basically "more combat power", but the author of Sound Striker was trying to use bardic performance as the source instead of melee bonuses.

As for where to go from here, I think that would be a playtest of the PDT proposed change to Weird Words. As far as I know, Neume's posts in this thread are the only playtests of the PDT proposed change (my apologies to anyone else who posted a playtest report that I missed). I believe that a reasonable discussion about Neume's playtest reports (and any other playtest reports that can be included) is the next step.

So... I guess I would suggest asking input from Mr. Reynolds, specifically his analysis of Neume's playtesting of the PDT proposed Weird Words ability.


Neume wrote:
RAuer2 wrote:
Nueme - *...stuff...

Neume - Thank you for providing more specifics. Also, I can't believe that I had your name right in front of me and couldn't spell it right. My bad.


James Risner wrote:
RAuer2 wrote:
looking at playtest reports, like Neume's, to see what the feedback from that is.

His may not be the best reports, as it is coming from a high level Bard who has been using the ability in the original form with the unintended boost of allowing multiple strikes to the same target. So to be fair, it is lowering damage from 140 to 200 to down to 24 damage.

There is going to be understandable unhappiness from GM and players both in that situation.

I might have missed it earlier in the thread, but I could not find a reference that Nueme made about his Bard's archetype, whether Sound Striker or a different archetype or even having no archetype, before his recent playtests.

Before disregarding his playtest feedback, let's check with Nueme to see what his Bard was before the playtests began.

Nueme -

I think it would help to know more about your Bard before and after the playtest began.

A) What archetypes, if any, did your Bard have before the playtest?

B) If your Bard was already a Sound Striker, was your group using the "single target is ok" interpretation of the original Weird Words ability?

C) Other than adding the Sound Striker archetype if the Bard did not already have it, what other changes were made to the Bard before the playtests began?

A common element in both the first and second playtest posts you have made is that is the party (and the GM) requested more Inspire Courage. I think it would be helpful to understand what expectations the rest of the players have for the Bard based on prior gaming sessions.

D) In general terms, can you briefly tell us what your Bard's role was before these playtests? (For example, something like "Inspire Courage and archery" or "Inspire Courage and spells" or "Inspire Courage and a reach weapon")

Does anyone have additional questions we could ask Nueme about his playtests to help us interpret the feedback he is receiving and passing along?


@Neume - Thank you again for the playtest feedback. I appreciate your efforts and I hope the PDT does as well (and is doing their own playtesting).

James Risner wrote:


RAuer2 wrote:
*stuff*

Nice points! Thanks... *More stuff*...

Not all, but much of what you wrote seemed to just restate what I typed. I think perhaps I am not the right person to assist in sorting out altering the ability to include an effect. At this point, perhaps the best course of action is simply looking at playtest reports, like Neume's, to see what the feedback from that is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Tels wrote:
No, I don't think the Thundercaller is "WAY too good" I think the Sound Striker needs to be equal to the Thundercaller as a 'bardic performance damage dealing archetype'.
Ok, I didn't ask what you thought of Thundercaller. I asked if you were aware you are asking for something you have all but been told you won't get. Apparently you are aware.

I am also aware that I am expressing disappointment with the official PDT suggestion for the ability. So, I'm also asking for something different, or as you put it, for "something you have all but been told you won't get." The proposed ability isn't finalized. If it was, PDT would announce that and probably close the thread. I don't regret expressing disappointment or offering feedback and I don't think it is futile or rude to do so as long as everyone, including me, is polite about it.

Neume - Thank you for playtesting. While one experience is not enough to make rock solid conclusions, the results were interesting. I am interested in seeing how your second playtest goes.

James Risner wrote:

I think getting to the Scorching Ray from the PDT redesign might be hard to do in a balanced way.

I also think delivering a status instead of damage would help this ability be better, but few are interested in talking about that and would rather talk about how to get to "deal enough damage to be impressive" instead.

I would like to talk about this.

I think you are right that getting Weird Scorching Word-Ray as an official change, and one that seems balanced, would be hard to do. So, what do you think about this?

1) Problem: Weird Words competes with Inspire Courage and the Sound Striker has both. Idea: Disconnect them. The new Weird Words still replaces suggestion but is no longer considered a bardic performance. Even if this version of Weird Words remains a standard action, this still means it can be used in the same round as Inspire Courage. Now a Bard can contribute to the party *and* contribute with Weird Words.

2) Problem: Damage is an issue that makes is difficult to find consensus. Idea: Add a save vs a debuff. What if the enemy had to save vs the effect of the metamagic feat Concussive Spell? That would be -2 on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks. This would blend with the idea of the Bard as a "party helper" by debuffing enemies (while being able to also use Inspire Courage due to A, above).

3) But what would the damage be? Keep the PDT proposal of 1d8+Cha that increases by another 1d8 at 10th, 14th, and 18th. No save for the damage; the target would save only to avoid the debuff effect from Concussive Spell. Make it sonic energy to fit with the theme of adding the effect of Concussive Spell.

4) What is the save? Make it 10+1/2 Bard level+Charisma, so it scales up like the saves for bardic performance abilities.

5) What about that duration for the debuff? Concussive Spell states that duration equals spell level, but we don't have a spell level. Idea: If the target fails a save, the debuff lasts for a number of rounds equal to the number of d8's taken. Fail a save vs a 2d8 Weird Word? Debuffed for 2 rounds. The debuff does not stack with itself but the duration would be extended by additional applications.

6) Is it still a ray? Yes.

7) What is the range? Close (25 feet plus 5 feet for every two full caster levels).

8) How many Weird Words do I get? One at 6th, up to two at 10th, up to three at 14th, and a max of four at 18th. This matches the progression from number 3.

9) Can I hit one target with multiple Weird Words? No. We give that idea up in exchange for two things: 1) the ability to Weird Words and Inspire Courage at the same time and 2) the debuff effect from Concussive Spell. Also note there is no save for the damage, only to avoid the debuff (per number 3 and also the PDT proposal uses no save for the damage as well).

10) Does it count as type of Bardic Performance at all? No. Not for anything. This is what allows us to use Inspire Courage in the same round we use Weird Words.

11) Does it still uses performance rounds as fuel? It doesn't have to. Option 1) Yes it does use rounds of bardic performance. One round of performance for each Weird Word used. Yes, this would mean burning through performance rounds if we want to Inspire Courage and use Weird Words together. Option 2) No it does not use round of bardic performance. It is a supernatural ability with a number of uses per day tied to the Bard's level. I don't know what would be balanced here, so I'll suggest 1 use per two full Bard levels as a starting idea (so, 3/day at 6th, 4/day at 8th, and so on). Each use would create your maximum number of Weird Words, whatever your maximum is. Of those two options, I like option 1 I think it would encourage me as the Bard to make decisions about how to spend my resources wisely.

12) What about DR? Number 3 suggests making the damage sonic, so no more DR. If the monster is resistant to Sonic, well, use another tool to attack it.

13) What about SR? Weird Words would remain a supernatural ability and would not be subject to SR (like the original and the PDT proposal).

What do you think? Does this seem reasonable while also integrating a debuff rather than focusing on single target damage?


Tels, it really does seem like Scorching Ray is used by a number of people as a base to examine what Weird Words could become. What I posted mostly came from an idea that Cheapy posted in a different thread and I admit I forgot about your suggestion from earlier in this thread.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>