|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'd use a focus object to store your soul which results in slower aging and possibly needing less food/drink and rest. But the object should be a huge investment (like trap the soul ?) and if it ever gets destroyed with the spell active should have disastrous impact and has a cumulative chance of failure as the years pass.
Additionally I'd add that it is harder (or impossible) to raise the character since the god of death or another entity lays claim to the character's soul. It is a bit like lichdom for those not quite willing to go that far.. yet.
As a GM:
I had a couple CN crazed earth elementals with barbarian levels for the party to fight, +4 str/con, +2dex/cha, +0 int, -2 wis and +1 str or con for class level advancement.
I didn't give them equipment in this case, think I lowered CR by 1 for that but I am not sure.
A NG, medium (advanced) water elemental with 9 cleric levels I used as a local river spirit worshipped by a tribe living on it's banks. It usually takes a a female human-like shape and protects the village and the river from threats.nAn NPC that helped out the PCs as a source of information and magical aid.
I gave it some possessions but I believe it usually only had a staff of healing and some hidden items and wealth it could use to bargain or aid those she deems worthy. CR wasnt important much, probably CR 10 or 11.
I gave some invisible stalkers 3 rogue levels to make them more deadly, I must have added 2 or 3 CR depending on how nasty I estimated them to be, but no equipment again.
An advanced medium earth elemental in the shape of a dwarf, functioning as the avatar of an obscure dwarven nature deity. Cleric 20 I believe, it had the usual gear for the CR/lvl, imprisoned spirit set free by the NPCs to restore a power balance in the area and help them weaken their enemy.
Those are the ones I can recall at least..
I am willing to try 5th edition, the system has some good selling points for me:
- it runs smoother and is less complicated, but still captures the feeling of playing D&D, speeding up combat significantly despite taking more rounds.
- the pcs are less superhero-like and low cr creatures have a better spread in which they can be used in the game.
- stacking effects have been diminished greatly by the advantage/disadvantage system and greatly diminished buffing potential.
- spellcasters are not as overpowering as in 3.x/pathfinder/AD&D edition but are nice to play since spells are not lost from memory after they are cast and have an innate augmentation system built in many spells.
- They have an archetype-like system built into every class which has the potential for much variety.
- More emphasis on roleplaying, though combat is still the core of the system it's actually getting some attention and has a role in character development.
- Multi-classing spellcasters offers some interesting options, it seems quite an elegant solution.
- preparation time for GM went don significantly with less complex characters and monsters.
- Move and full attack, or move attack and move attack is an option
Less appealing :
- Multi-class is a bit more complicated than most parts of the system and needs to be read properly first once or twice.
- I feel the system is still a bit wonky in some parts or no thoughts through well enough, I dont expect to not houserule anything though.
- It needs some adjusting, it feels simple and a bit more dumbed down in some regards at first glance. Until you realize that having rules for everything doesnt add to realism or play experience and is actually quite liberating. (AC rules, skill system)
- I don't feel the involvement with the game as much as I do at paizo, the developers feel much more approachable. Though they do try their 'sagely advice' to solve game issues D&DN falls short on that for the moment.
the poison based spells are great, buff spells of any kind are also a nice option. Magic weapon, haste etc..
Also ritual spells are good for a wizard to add to his spellbook since you can cast them anytime with just your spellbook and without using slots as a ritual of course). I have a list for you here:
A l a r m
G e n t l e R e p o s e
F e ig n D e a t h
C o n t a c t O t h e r P l a n e
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points.
The robots do not count as objects though so energy damage is not halved though the total of the attack is still affected by hardness.
Adamantine weapons still work fine of course since they ignore hardness (up to 20), I think the robots are vulnerable to critical hits too meaning that they get a load of damage when they get critted.
Have them take a level in a different class that does not progress their spellslots before advancing their casting levels beyond level 2/4/6/8/9/10/11/12.
I thought to do this in combination with houserules that advance caster levels of multiclass casters for spell variables.
You would probably see some more use of prestige classes that do not advance caster levels for some levels and generally more versatile casters.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Maybe, but in practice that isn't always the case. It's a charged subject for many, one way or another, and even though people might not want to judge lesbianism they might feel a bit uncomfortable with it. All I am saying that these people are not 'wrong' for feeling differently than you do. As much as I accept gay people I accept that people are not always entirely comfortable with it. I do not see a need for sexuality to have more than a passing role in Pathfinder one way or another.
The ability is different though and doesn't rule out what I said in any way.
Also I rather derive rulings from general rules rather than an archetype that has been used and designed by a more limited number of people. Changing grips seems more appropriate as a free action, like going from a one-handed to a two-handed grip or vice versa. Archetypes have a history of awkward design by RAW.
Just because people accept their parents are having sex doesn't mean they wan to be confronted with it directly. I suspect most people that do not wish LGBT content in Paizo books are much the same, it doesn't make them wrong or haters.
I am fine with a middleground and leave sexuality mostly in the bacckground but easy to adjust to a table's likes or dislikes, but some hints at a character's proposed sexuality are completely fine with me, it is a modest and fitting statement and as far as I'd go as a company's default religion.
I don't see any need to fix the paladin, the code system might be modified a bit by creating specific 'order archetypes', the vulnerability to falling is quite exaggerated in a campaign where players have a little common sense and the GM isn't punishing players unnecessarily it is a RP-tool rather than a hindrance.
I had one 'fallen' paladin in all my campaigns for the last 20 years or so and that was a result of a paladin claiming an artifact (rod of seven parts). As a GM I gave him powers aligned with Law rather than Good and restored his other paladin powers after a while.
Occasionally I did take away the highest level of spells a priest or paladin could cast though, sent bad omens and signs that were inconvenient to the character. On the other hand I usually go out of my way to reward good RP by immersing the characters into the story, tailor make magical items for the character and have them encounter helpful NPCs more often.
Current generations of players have trouble with playing lawful stupid, it is supposed to be troublesome if you do not enjoy the challenges please do not play the class, if you do no have a GM that can handle paladin players well.. do not play the class. It is imo not a problem with the class but specific players or GMs.
I do not get why the list contains acrobatics and perception, those are skills that seem quite suitable to a fighter. (especially perception since even commoners get that).
I don't like to restrict fighters to military types, neither do I feel they should be more skilled than other fighters, simply give them 4 skill points and have them sort out the rest with traits.
You might like to add the option of removing heavy armor proficiency for a bonus feat from a limited (skill based) list.
..And common sense says if every 5th lvl wizard could do that there wouldnt be quite so many high level characters in the world. Just no, this cheese does more to damage your argument.
Main problem I have is the nova potential of psionics, having to burn more PP isn't a great balancing system.
Also psionics is much more accesible than magic, it can be combined with armor and increasing CL can make your low level powers near as powerful as high lvl spells, your number of PP will stay behind but that makes the nova issue even bigger.
Psionics are not more powerful than spells but they are harder to neutralize, no spellbook, no components but for the rare material component.
I am not a psionic hater I actually do like it but these are some subtle balance issues that bother me. Not to say these are necessarily bigger issues than those of 'traditional' magic, just kinda used to houseruling those.
K177Y C47 wrote:
You don't agree, so I suck at system mastery ?
Seriously damage reduction will usually just keep a monster alive a round longer, power attack does deal with DR for a fair bit.
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
I agree, make her 36HD with a constitution of 36, which gives her an average of 666.
I'd probably give her 8 clones with 66 hitpoints each though, just to screw with my players.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted
Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:
10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).
* Basically not a whole lot but they default to no action or a standard action respectively, and the magic interaction thing can be important as well and if you create your own abilities it might help to tie it to a certain ability, i.e. magical abilities default to charisma not intelligence.
A stonelord paladin, an invulnerable barbarian, a sohei monk with a dire boar mount (leadership feat), a skald bard, a crusader cleric, a grenadier alchemist.
The grenadier might take the trapfinding trait and become the groups trap specialist.
My personal preference is to downplay arcane magic with dwarves
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Same as always. 1/2 HD + Cha mod.
The usual is spell level + charisma mod for (SLA), You are confusing it with (Su).
I'd rather make the level of accessibility later since you progress faster than a sorcerer this way and cast the spells without components of any kind, meaning you can cast in armor, in silence, without components etc.
0-lvl spells - level 1st, cha 10
then again I would not make any feat chain like this that consumes all your standard feats
Why do people take this subject so serious ?
Art represents that which people find beautiful, a shapely or well muscled body is very much a part of that. Most men enjoy tasteful art with a hint of sexuality, and in my experience most women do as well though arguably to a lesser extent based on what I read.
There is a lot of art I like, some isn't quite my taste but I accept that other people do enjoy different things. Some women are uppity, some men are perverts and most are just being men and women. I do trust Paizo to strike a balance, which in my opinion they have done very well so far. For my part I accept that Paizo has a wide audience and not all people are the same, a bit more censorship won't hurt me much, but I enjoy seeing the occasional lightly erotic depiction where it is appropriate or as semi-comical relieve.
If art stops invoking a reaction, maybe then everyone is happy ?
More specifically it doesn't seem lawful good or lawful neutral, it could very well be lawful evil.
I can think of several reasons why the player would not enjoy this scheme as much as the OP without being a jerk. Players generally do not play a paladin to be party to the 'evil pastry cartel', frankly that isn't my expectation of the game either. I can also imagine this scheme consuming a fair bit of a time at the gaming table, which is likely as exciting as watching paint dry for other players.
I think human bodies are pleasant to the eye but the art has to make some sense, I am not bothered by bare chested men or scantily clad women. A seductive sorceress is fine a fighter in chain mail bikini is not, unless maybe it is a gladiator slave pit fight.
I do not think there is a problem with depicting a character's sexuality, only when it makes the characters appear shallow and non-sensical do I have an issue.
I'd say a rogue talent.
If point-blank shot is fine, point-blank slam must be as well.
If rapid shot is fine, rapid slam must be as well.
If many shot is fine, many slams must be too.
...and so on, ranged combat works differently than melee in many ways, due to feats or general rules that the comparison isn't really that easy.
Anyway I am all for a nerf of the feat, though I don't think it is the right nerf. I'd love to see a parry riposte feat chain so you do not need to take duelist levels just to be able to parry.
I don't think it really matters there are just four Horseman, they have died many times in the past but they have always been replaced easily. To me it seems the Horsemen can be killed but their power can't so easily be stripped, it simply transfers to another who takes the mantle.
if you are looking at it like that, invading the realm and expending a lot of effort killing a horseman just isn't paying off,
Orich Starkhart wrote:
Useless might be a bit much but if you have a kukri with dexterity 20 with the appropriate feats 1d4+1 or 1d4+5(18-20) makes a huge difference, while 1d4+5 is acceptable for a low level martial character, 1d4+1 is not good enough to contribute much. average 3.5 or 7.5, meaning you are about half as effective in most circumstanes.
Orich Starkhart wrote:
Not necessarily, there are multiple ways to feint, move or swift actions even but without any other feats it would be a standard action.
Orich Starkhart wrote:
Yes, they do have weapon finesse and could use it with a light weapon, but a character usually wants to wield his signature weapon from the start. If you want to play a dex-based fighter with a longsword for example you would need weapon finesse, weapon focus and Sword Dancer, meaning characters without bonus feats would have to wait till level 5, before they can even hit reliably with a longsword since strength will not have high priority, sure you could use a kukri for the first 5 levels but that would suck a bit.
Thanks for the feedback Orich, I should not have typed 5' step. I meant to say move at least 5 foot, so it can be combined with a 5' step or a normal move action. You would not be able to get the bonus when not able to move though, such as difficult terrain or being immobilized by a net for example and sometimes it is impractical if in a slim alley and you can only move back or your movement take you otherwise in a direction you do not want to go.
The intention is to replace dervish dance by these two feats, adding weapon focus seems a bit much, they ought to get started on their fighting style fairly soon instead of giving them multiple levels of suck beause they can't use dexterity to hit yet and then suddenly get a +5 bonus to hit. This way they can take the feat at 2nd lvl as a fighter, 3rd lvl otherwise.
I do not feel the need to make sword dancer more demanding than weapon finesse, the benefit of a bigger weapon isn't that great, typically you might do +1 damage or so at average. An agile fighter with a second weapon should be fine, artemis or drizzt from FR campaign should be able to be approximated as deadly and skilled warriors not relying on brute strength or a magical weapon too heavily.
I am not going to focus more on deadly finesse, it is in itself already focused on light weapons, I find it somewhat silly to be deadly with a kukri but useless with dagger.
It is still inferior to a strength build, though it does have synergy with TWF, investing a number of feats to compensate for your physical 'weakness' compared to hulking barbarians and giants is something that should be reflected in the rules properly imo.
EDIT: sorry for the lazy editing, I was in a bit of a rush.
All fine and well, aside from what you think of the rogue's power. I don't see how SA 1/round makes it any more realistic. The only thing you do is put a cool down on the power for 6 seconds, then 6 seconds later the situation is exactly the same but for some reason the rogue can use SA now...
While I agree with that you should notice that dexterity is not just about damage, it is a very solid attribute in it's own right.
I think this is balanced by the fact that:
The choices of weapon, weapon style and damage output is not as good as a strength build.
The investment of feats, you do not invest these feats to be better at dealing damage, in effect you invest the feats to have the usual benefits of dexterity (initiative, reflex saves, skills, armor class potential).
The feats you invest limit your choice in other areas.
Also, it is not really that important to have the attributes be equal, strength will remian important for a few classes and builds but more classes will now go for a dex build, this makes the strength builds a bit more special too. I think it will reward rogues, monks and fighters more than most others for various reasons and they can use a small boost.
Thank you for your feedback.
I give weapon finesse for free, of course the weapon still has to qualify for it but it also works for natural weapons in this case, but it is a bit of a side matter.
hmm.. I could add strength 13 to Sword Dancer I guess, it wouldn't be inappropriate. Wielding a longsword with finesse is fine, though they still need to have str 13 to use power attack so most would have strength 13 anyway otherwise str 13 is hardly worthwhile since they wouldnt be able to get piranha strike for a longsword.
I am not so much opposed to allowing the damage bonus for power attack stand, but dealing +50% damage from your dexterity bonus would be strange for two-handing a finesse weapon.
slightly modified then:
peequisites: dex 13, weapon finesse
When you are wielding a weapon that benefits from weapon finesse in one hand and nothing in the other, or a single weapon in both hands, you can choose to deal your dexterity modifier as a bonus to damage rather than your strength bonus, strength penalties still apply.
If you are wielding multiple weapons instead you can deal half your dexterity modifier as bonus to damage.
You do not add +50% to your dex bonus for wielding a weapon two-handed, though you could use your strength bonus on damage instead if desired.
EDIT: Any thought on the Sword Dancer feat ? I am thinking the bonus should be scaled down a bit somehow.
1) Pick one weapon to finesse *
* Fighters in my campaign get to use any feat they pick with a weapon group instead of a single weapon, but I felt like it was too generous, especially towards other classes.
** The feint bonus seemed a bit high, +2 bonus should be enough for a side benefit that will be in play most of the time.
No, they don't get to exchange it. I just want dexterity based characters to function ok-ish from level 1. they are by no means the most impressive combatants in my camapign, barbarians and paladins and other Heroes of Anti-dexterity still claim that position.
Though the feats above will replace dervish dancer (I think), so that becomes a little more feat intensive again evening it out but giving somewhat broader benefits.
Well it does keep strength penalties in, which disallows dumping stats and makes the character doubly vulnerable to ability penalties, damage or drain.
The feat is already covered in part by dervish dance but I thought it should also be available to light weapons.
Why is it a problem that dexterity is a bit better than strength ?
It is the same for all characters and the strongest martial characters in the game aren't typically dexterity based. (paladin, barbarian)
Thanks for the feedback. I give weapon finesse for free to any creature really so it will be more accessible in my campaign I think, I don't think it will affect balance since dervish dancer is already a feat.
peequisites: dex 13, weapon finesse
When you are wielding a weapon that benefits from weapon finesse in one hand and nothing in the other you can choose to deal your dexterity modifier as a bonus to damage rather than your strength bonus, strength penalties still apply.
If you are wielding multiple weapons instead you can deal half your dexterity modifier as bonus to damage.
Prerequisite: Weapon Finesse, dex 13, perform dance 2
You can use weapon finesse with one-handed weapons from the light blades, heavy blades, monk and spears weapon groups as well as light weapons. Also you can use perform dance instead of the bluff skill to feint and you get a +4 bonus on that skill to feint if you moved that round.
* Are these acceptable feats ?
The spell is fine, better for NPCs sine PCs tend to have magical gear making the enhancement bonus obsolete. You do however keep your normal shape and gear to use.
It tends to be better on monstrous druids since wildshape isnt so beneficial for them. Last I used it in a campaign it was cast by a taiga giant, generally a better option than other wildshapes in this case.
At comparable levels, which would be more useful in combat: the dragonriders single mount or the broodmasters eidolon(s)?
If you can, I'd really look into the book of drakes. The dragontamer is practically inspired by Daenerys. There is a lady on the cover with three small drakes. Can't say I have playtested it but the book seems to be good quality. It also allows you to summon drakes and other dragon related abilities.