SilvercatMoonpaw's page

Humans.

Classes that get their power from an intelligent source (i.e. divine or Witch).

Classes that have to follow an outside-defined code.

I hate rolling because it means I have to think about what the different ability scores mean.

I don't like ability scores in most systems: they're always too independent from each other. Doesn't work out in the "everything is connected" world of my mind. I'm just weird like that.

It may seem counter-intuitive to people that then I hate rolling where I have less to think about what the different scores and their contrasting values mean. But the thing is that the easiest method for someone who doesn't care is always going to be "make every score the same". In point-buy I can do that. Then I don't have to care about why the scores are different because they aren't (barring racial modifiers, but I can also use point-buy to smooth those out).

The latter just might be Human-Catfolk hybrids.

Hybrids UNITE!

3.5 Unearthed Arcana had three generic classes. I tried doing a conversion once, before I decided Pathfinder wasn't for me even in that form.

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1wgw?Pathfinder-Generic-Classes#0

Super Genius Games' Guide to Earth Magic introduces the "Stone" descriptor for physical damage Earth spells.

Green Ronin put out an Egyptian-analogue setting called Hamunaptra where they interpreted each of the PHB races as being created by one of the gods, but replaced half-orcs with sleek jackal-like gnolls called Anpur who were created by Anubis.

Um, after more reading:

What the Dragon subtype give it? There is no current listing for that in the SRD.

Silvercat: the nuumber of invocations originally aquired at lvl 1 was 1 invocation which then increased by 1 at lvl 3 and then every 3 levels after 3. This capped out at 8 invocations at lvl 20.

I have given them 1 invocation every even level.

And how is this an improvement at first level?

The addition of the hit die increase and the extra spell-like abilities does make it better.

I'm still confused why you started this class off with a nerf of its main feature rather than maybe keeping that as-was and adjusting the rest of the class around it.

the original (DFA) only got invocations, these were of course limited to around 12 invocations or so by lvl 20, they were static 24 hour duration powers. they didnt get traditional spells. like i have done here.

They got those Invocations starting at first level.

as far as more powers, they are as capable as a fighter in regard to abilities.

Comparable to clerics they are not: they have the same BAB and saves, but far fewer effects. Comparable to rogues they have one better save, but fewer skill points and less chance to use their first-level ability.

given that they have better saves than a fighter, and the skills are better than a fighter, sure its on par to other non fighter classes however the original DFA got 4+ int, and i saw that dragons got 6+ int.

I point out that Dragons get d12 HD, full BAB, and all good saves. I'm not suggesting you give it all of that, but I'm not really sure skill points are a Dragon's main advantage to be considered.

so my choices were based on game balance and class balance.

I don't really see where the balance is: what I'm seeing is that you are giving them less than they got before when they were an okay class. I can't see how an at-will breath attack and invocations from first level were over-preferrable to other class abilities.

the other abilities are pretty pimp as is.

Why do you think this? This is the part I keep trying to understand but keep failing.

but seeing as you feel its not enough, throw some suggestions out that you would add to it instead of simply implying it isnt enough

Go back to the original class. It's lack of versatility should keep it competitive with the cleric and rogue even if it does get at-will spell-like effects and an at-will area attack.

Except that the alchemist and witch get a high variety of choices of abilities alternate to their bombs/hexes (i.e. extracts and spells, respectively) and don't have to spend feats to get more. The dragon fire adept gets a very limited variety of non-breath-weapon options and must spend precious feats to get more.

More to the point they do not even get those option at first level. You are essentially giving a class less than a "3+[ability mod]" ability as their only 1st level ability other than a minor change in type.

If you want to keep the breath weapon as-is you need to give the adept more to do at first level and more options for what to do at higher levels.

I don't think they always stick to their alignments, but as long as the majority of their actions is within their alignments I don't think it should warrant an alignment change.

Yes, I agree. The question is do they really want to play these shining heroes? I don't know about your group, it's just a doubt that comes up in my mind when they don't seem to act quite so much like it.

The eternal "What shall we do with the prisoners" dilemma has cost me some grief over the years. I still haven't found a good solution so I usually just handwave these sorts of situations unless they are important to the story. I have found that a pc that tries to redeem everyone and everything can be more annoying than letting a prisoner get killed or executed.

D&D/Pathfinder and their assumed settings do not give very good society for ensuring those sorts of things is part of the problem.

I think my "forces of Good give you a magic item for this situation" sounds pretty easy: point it at the prisoner, they are zapped elsewhere, let them be someone-else's problem.

I like the idea of reputation based rewards as this is a more alignment neutral approach to the problem and doesn't take control out of my players hands, although I'm not sure how to incorporate such a system without clogging down the game with needless minutiae and bookkeeping.

It doesn't have to be a mechanical sub-system. Just let word get around. In the sort of society the core flavor assumes it may not matter much, though. But if they're "not so heroic" you'll definitely have some Good Hero paragons be a little suspicious of the PCs and bad guys will start going to great, perhaps even annoying, lengths not to get captured.

Or when they strike down a helpless foe even one begging for its life with the argument that this is an evil creature which needs to be put down no matter what (which they back up by using in game effects like detect evil and knowledge checks).

Now I don't want this to turn into another alignment/morality thread, I mainly want advice on how one can evoke a more heroic feel in ones Pathfinder games without forcing my players to act a certain way.

You sure? It doesn't sound like they really care to play shining good heroes.

On ganging-up it's something you have to do against characters more powerful than you, that's just good tactics. For less powerful types either they should surrender or flee once out-numbered or use the same gang-up tactics. In the latter case this should encourage the players to eliminate them using faster one-on-one tactics before they can bring numbers to bear.

For killing surrendering characters:
1) Give them a way to "deal with" those characters that's as easy to use as killing in the game.
--Ex: There might be a "devil banishment" incantation that anyone can use to send a helpless fiend back to their home plane.
--Ex: Maybe the forces of Good supply them with some sort of imprisoning magic item.
2) Encourage them to narrate killing an irredeemable opponent as showing mercy but the opponent them betraying them in that instant and they kill in self-defense.
3) Don't use so many opponents where they're right on them not being redeemable. Make it so that their detect spells and knowledge checks can tell them when a surrendering enemy is being sincere about not causing any more harm.
4) Give them lots of reputation-based awards for being "heroic". Really play up how much more people like them when they act like that. (Heck, you could use a system like Reputation or Honor.)

Robespierre wrote:

I'm going to play a bard necromancer assassin that's lawful good.

Use perform pantomime for bardic performance so you don't blow your stealth.

Yes the mime killer who creates skeletons from the goblins' corpses to build the children a new orphanage and then makes the children laugh with his imaginary wall shtick.

Except everyone knows mimes are evil. XD

anybody else want to convert to Lamashtu?

She had me at "monster creation".

Is killing Nazis evil?

As far as I'm concerned if they aren't doing anything worth killing them over then they aren't really Nazis.

Races of Consequence

Hybridizes all the PHB races -- except the obvious ones -- and gives each of them a wonderfully unique flavor. Downside is the stats are generally boring mash-ups that anyone could figure out.

While I don't always agree with universal evil or good races. I am a proponent of alignment tendencies because they cut through ethical debates and let people roll the dice and play the game,

Can't you just have villains that are unambiguously evil without making them tend to be members of a certain race?

In regards to the question of Assassin PrC: it is a requirement to kill someone for no other reason than to become one. I'd say if they weren't Evil that would turn them.

I think the problem is not with the requirements but with the name. If this PrC had a less generic name and flavor would anyone be asking these specific sorts of questions?

What do people feel were the mechanical flaws of Incarnum?

Just curious, am I the only one who makes the different "races" of human like races just that; races of of humans. I had a hard time justifying why they were just like humans with hats and could breed with humans otherwise.

You really need to search for more published and homebrew settings: that's the most common choice after "standard Tolkein-esque".

I don't think dwarves were known for technology and innovation (or any other race) back in the 80s-90s, with the unique exception of Shadowrun. At the time, between Dragonlance's tinker gnomes, and supplements like Earthshaker!, the gnome took the role of the inventor.

It could be "gnomes" just didn't get highly picked-up by other stuff, so I won't argue the point.

Personally I guess it's just that when you have dwarves and halflings gnomes seem kind of superfluous just because they look too much like one or the other. I could see using gnomes if you got rid of either or made gnomes look much more different (the Pathfinder highly colored gnomes isn't enough for me).

Anyway sorry for the threadjack.

@InVinoVeritas: I'm not talking about the differences in your setting alone. I talking about how the traits you mention for gnomes are or are not traits that dwarves first pioneered in the metaspace of RPGs and fiction.

One can make any race any way they want to, my original point was that I didn't feel like gnomes were anything more than a stand-in for something some other race was generally known for before they came along.

SilvercatMoonpaw: You can drop the daily slots entirely if you like. The system has a built-in consequence for failing, so there will still be something to keep the character somewhat grounded without such a restriction.

However, this would work best in a game where you totally replace the magic system with spellweaving rather than use the latter as a new form that exists side-by-side the core magic systems.

Which is exactly what I would do. Does this include magic items? Do you consider that high-level casters will be more or less powerful than the default system (estimated to the best of your ability)?

....is your wish simply that they be written to be Pathfinder RPG compliant (as opposed to D&D3.5), or is it that you feel those books held some promise but were flawed in some serious way and you would like Paizo to re-write them as a "better" product?

Either. Honestly I just like the books and don't think they need to change even if flawed (however I should mention I never actually got to try any of them), but if someone is offering I might as well see what I can get out of it.

I don't know, I'd always used gnomes as my worlds' steampunk vector. Back in 2e I had gnomes that used guns and the like.

How do you make them seem different from if they were dwarves doing the same thing? I'm not saying I can't fully see it (or saying you shouldn't do it that way), but it's an issue of whether that's "unique to" gnomes or whether it feels like something they're taking from the tropes of dwarves.

If you wanted a system that only used either of the two after a certain point as a way to balance out those results, you'd still need some sort of benchmark by witch to implement that, such as the detrimental side-effects coming into play if you cast X amount of spellweaves in an hour, for example, rather than a day.

Which is exactly what I don't want: I don't want to track descending uses, I want to track increasing problems. I was hoping this system allowed for getting away from tacking magic like it's some super-science ammo.

Are there any variants for doing away with the slots-per-day and using something like an increasing DC or dealing non-lethal damage to the caster?

I'm seeing a lot of folks in this thread with no love for gnomes. :(

Before Pathfinder they didn't really have a unique identity. After Pathfinder their unique identity is rather alien.

It's far more interesting than the normal pretty boy elves. (I'm aware this is stereotypical and I don't care.)

That's okay: at least in my case I like pretty-boy elves because I encounter so many more of the other kind that they have become the stereotype for me.

In no particular order (okay, the order is alphabetical as I read them off the D&D Art Gallery Archive list):
Draconomicon (3.5, I'm guessing)
Dragon Magic
Frostburn
Magic of Incarnum
Races of the Wild
Sandstorm
Stormwrack

I'm sure there are some non-WotC books, but I don't have a convenient list of them.

[Crosses Lord Fyre off the list; adds SilvercatMoonpaw]

Sleep tight, Brambleman!

Hey, I like goblins! They're a lot more interesting than most of the core races. Who doesn't want to be a tiny sociopathic pyromaniac with a huge mouth full of teeth? I mean they're born adventurers: "When in doubt set something on fire."

I just can't get into the kind of campaign where every trip to the tavern looks like an explosion in Jim Henson's creature shop. I've never been able to build a world that makes narrative sense with a bajillion sentient races all rubbing elbows relatively peacefully.

I'm lucky: I can't get my worlds to make narrative sense at all. So I can freely drop in whatever muppet I want and know there's no way for it to feel out of place.

There isn't anything wrong with either. I think writing about elves just to write about humans is a waste of ink. If that's what is being played, I'll still play and have fun.

I think coming up with alien psychology is a waste of brainpower, but I respect all humans' right to do their brainpower wasting however they want. I just can't take anything that seriously.

-------

For my answer it depends on how I'm feeling when I create the setting. Also on how the race looks: I'm shallow, revoke my species membership card.

These are how my considerations go with respect to D&D-type standard choices:
Humans: Human are not an automatic choice: their racist supremacy has gone on for too long. If we're talking an anime-looking game then they can stay, otherwise they will probably get tossed.
Dwarves: For some reason I like Dwarves. Something I find the stereotype at the same time amusing and respectable. Blame Discworld maybe.
Elves: Elves have a similar deal to humans: they can stay if they're good-looking. So D&D 3E elves are okay, Pathfinder elves get nasty things done to them.
Halflings: Same deal as elves.
Catfolk: Anime or Pathfinder Bestiary 3.
Centaurs: They're cool.
Minotaurs: Interestingly this came about because I played a minotaur character as an NPC in a freeform game who I eventually made into a god who was head keeper/bartender of what amounted to the Bar At The Center Of Everything. So I've come to associate minotaurs with being the wise-people of anywhere. Whether they're a character race depends on whether I want them to be some kind of far-off mystics instead.
Furries: I'm not going to mince words: humans in fursuits. This includes all sorts of weird hybrids.

I think this sounds like loads of fun.

Honestly I don't understand why inherently evil humanoids have to be presented as having an actual life-cycle or anything like that if they are just there to be killed without a thought. One idea I had was to make it so that goblins and such are really just mortal shells formed by evil spirits for the purpose of having a "good time" (i.e. tormenting mortals). They have no non-combatant-types because they're only purpose in this world is combat. A personal addition would be when you kill them their bodies dissolve (into money ;) ) and the spirit floats out visibly ranting all the way so you can tell you aren't really "killing" them.

So now not only do you have guilt-free killing but the monsters' purpose in the world (to be an enemy to the PCs) lines up with their game purpose (to be an enemy to the PCs).

There was a variant in the 3.5 Player's Handbook II for barbarians that tied their rage to how much damage they'd taken rather than uses-per-anything. You could take that, maybe beef it up.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=3

Definitely Environmental.

101 Races.

Hm, interesting discussion (the bits I read, anyway).

So, important question:

Those of you who think the Paladin's code helps balance the class, let's say I wanted to create a new class by stripping out the code and rebalancing the whole thing. How would I go about doing that?

And please do not suggest any already-existing official base or prestige classes (homebrew non-code "paladins" are fine). For the purpose of this question I want the exact paladin abilities and not some reskin or simulation.

I only bring this issue up because it's important to understand why a human-dominated world makes sense from both a design and a psychological point of view.

I still don't get it: so what? So the non-humans are just humans in funny suits. I'm certainly not disputing that (can't speak for anyone else), but it doesn't change my viewpoint. For me if they don't look like humans that's enough. From experience I don't believe one needs to look outside humans for alien psychology, so I never care if it's linked to the body or not.

There was a setting once called "Welcome to HAEL" where the orcs and gnolls had won the supposed "ancient conflict" that in other settings lead to them being sword-fodder barbarians. The orcs had a pseudo-British colonial tone about them. Humans and halflings were pure barbarians (though the orcs were okay with half-orcs).

I agree that more settings could stand to stop automatically giving humans the greatest slice and start putting some effort into equalizing racial makeup.

Ah. Sorry. Carry on.

Well, that gives earth ponies a small advantage. But I like the idea. Maybe just give Earth Ponies a +2 to Constitution?

Earth Ponies having a small advantage might not be a terrible thing. But if you want to keep them consistent with the other two I'd go with +2 Strength, or a choice of +2 Strength or +2 Constitution. I think the variety in ability choice is okay compared to flight or magic.

Now please get to Magic Stamina Points because this is one of the sorts of magic systems I've been waiting to use for a long time.

Unicorns haven't struck me as weak (examples on the show regularly seem to do the same feats of strength as average ponies). Or pegasi that frail (flight endurance and bumping in to things).

My thought would be to go off the rails just a little: rather than +2, +2, -2 we just give them +2 Int to Unicorns and +2 Dex to Pegasi. (Of course I don't know Pathfinder balancing: does that work out?) Unicorns would still be intelligent, Pegasi would still be agile, and Earth Ponies would still be varied.

I'm not so sure on the racial ability modifiers: they seem more geared toward fitting to Pathfinder than canon. I know Earth Ponies are supposed to be stronger than the others, but I really didn't notice any real evident difference in any other category between the three. Ponies seem quite diverse.

As for Zebras seeing how Zecora has what looks like a cutie mark (something which only ponies seem to have) I suspect they may not be some different species or type at all. At the very least I agree with Kobold, though using the stats for Earth Ponies would probably model what we've seen.

And can someone point me in the direction of the 3.5 book that had something on this?

I can do you one better:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm

Land Where the Moon Fell
(I've kind of had the idea of suggesting "realms" with my posts rather than full worlds so that conceivably they could be dropped into a setting (maybe even as untrue mythology) or strung together to make a bigger one.)

(This was originally an epic creation myth, but those always overwhelm me and I really prefer shorter stuff anyway.)

There used to be a moon in the sky. The startlingly beautiful God People lived on it while they shaped the world below. But as they shaped pieces they discarded made their own way together, forming the first Mongrelmen. What was intended to be the God Peoples’ final creation, the Titans, cause a shadow race to form: the Goblins. When the God People learned of the existence of the Mongrelmen and Goblins they wanted to destroy these flaws in their design, but the Titans could only cause massive destruction and had no instinct for predation. So the God People created the Shifters from beasts to root out and destroy the flaws in the design.

Everything went wrong from there: instinct allowed the Shifters to think for themselves, and they slowly chose freedom over servitude. The shadow link between the Titans and the Goblins caused the massive beings to seek out their “little siblings” time and time again to understand the connection. When the God People forbade this even the Titans rebelled, pooling their massive power to reach up and pull the moon crashing down into the world and causing the God People to loose their power and become the Aasimar. But even as the Titans did this the God People cursed them to never know their former power in stature, though enough of a spark remains that the Spriggan can occasionally call upon it.

Today:
Aasimar: A lot live in the eerie pristine fragments of the moon, known as moonlands, and still think they’re better than anyone else and would like to rule. Some journey to other lands in search of ways of restoring the moon to the sky (and by extension their power), while others leave the moon and their race’s past behind. Usually only the Mongrelmen can get along with them: everyone else bears racial grudges.
Mongrelmen: Composed of myriad different creature parts Mongrelmen are the most diverse and common race. They are the realm’s traders and diplomats. Each Mongrelman is really a cooperative colony of fragments.
Goblins: Watch out for these guys: they’re sneaky and cunning and like to investigate everything......even if it shouldn’t be investigated. They do most of the mucky-yet-intellectually-demanding jobs from engineer to political advisor. Goblins generally hate open conflict, but they’ve turned intrigue into a sport.
Shifters: Made for hunting Shifters still do a lot of that, whatever sense of “hunting” you might use: from bounty hunters and police to scientists and scholars. They are often considered the smartest race if a little clueless at times.
Spriggans: Big, bold hams in little bodies (most of the time) they’re mostly only good for muscles and yelling.

Random races where there's no guarantee of humans? My kind of exercise!

1d100=70, 1d100=83, 1d100=13, 1d100=9, 1d100=73

70. Spriggan
83. Shifter
13. Aasimar (humanoids with celestial ancestry)
9. Goblin
73. Mongrelman

That's.....quite an odd collection. Give me a few hours.

Perseverance & Ponies?

I wish you hadn't called it Prisons & Ponies. Feels over-ominous. (Plus I personally think one of the nice things about Pathfinder is that the title no longer creates misinterpretations that the game revolves around two things.)

For the Bard you should look into Super Genius Games's Archetype product line. Serious, you only need to look at the previews: Bard spellcasting is one of the options they give for taking out to add in the various options from the book. Might be helpful to you.

Okay.

Still the dragonfire adept is getting fewer class features than the alchemist. I'm not sure it's comparable if you limit the breath weapon.

I guess that Evan wanted to keep in line with other PF classes with similar effects (i.e. Alchemist).

Can't find anything in the description of the Bomb class feature that limits uses per day.

Breath Weapon (su): Class level + Con mod per day....

Why this? Does this really need to be limited?

I saw a system that was skills based/"create your spell" somewhere, and I think I have a copy. I'll look and see if I can find it on my computer... >goes off to rummage in the dusty files at the back of the hard drive<.

There's Elements of Magic, by ENWorld Publishing. There are two versions: one still uses spell points, the other I think is skill-based (never actually read that one).